Mick Lynch - The New Statesman
- Thread starter RoaryTheLion
- Start date
Jonny Ingbar
Well-known member
Having read the piece I'm not sure I interpret his views as you do.
His views seem reasonable to me and I broadly think he's correct.
On the Ukraine issue, he doesn't blame the war on them, but rightly observes that it was, and largely still is, a state gripped by corruption - there was a round of arrests of government officials only recently there, for example.
I think the guy is a breath of fresh air, but very much like Corbyn, is easy to misinterpret his viewpoint because he is balanced and not driven by faux sovereignty.
His views seem reasonable to me and I broadly think he's correct.
On the Ukraine issue, he doesn't blame the war on them, but rightly observes that it was, and largely still is, a state gripped by corruption - there was a round of arrests of government officials only recently there, for example.
I think the guy is a breath of fresh air, but very much like Corbyn, is easy to misinterpret his viewpoint because he is balanced and not driven by faux sovereignty.
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
An interesting read.
I don’t agree with everything he says but I do like that he has conviction in his beliefs, is prepared to be honest about them, explain why he thinks the way he does and discuss them while staying true to his values. The honesty and transparency regarding what he’s all about, is refreshing.
Regarding the Uyghurs, I don’t think he’s being dismissive, more saying that this is going on in lots of places and we need to talk about and address it all, not just focus on one group. That’s my interpretation, anyway.
Likewise, regarding Ukraine I don’t think accepting that it’s a complex situation in a complex country that’s had a fair bit of dodgy stuff going on in recent history means that he’s saying it’s all Ukraine‘s fault, and he’s therefore some sort of Putin fan. I expect the Telegraph and Mail and co will try to hit that angle now though,
I think he’s an important voice at the moment, and speaks a lot of sense about a lot of things, such as this, which sums up privatisation of our ’services’ pretty well imo.
TeaCider
Well-known member
Made a rope for his own neck with ill advised quotes.
Asked about the invasion of Ukraine and China committing genocide in Xianjiang, so he decides to deflect and use whataboutism with the Iraq War and Saddam Hussein, a man who led the invasion of an innocent sovereign nation himself and committed genocide against the Kurds.
A shame that he's come out with it all, as it's helping nobody but the Tories.
Asked about the invasion of Ukraine and China committing genocide in Xianjiang, so he decides to deflect and use whataboutism with the Iraq War and Saddam Hussein, a man who led the invasion of an innocent sovereign nation himself and committed genocide against the Kurds.
A shame that he's come out with it all, as it's helping nobody but the Tories.
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
I think there are ways of interpreting his words. Worryingly, if you, who I consider to be one of the most sensible and respected posters on here, have interpreted them in that particular way, the right wing media are going to have a field day.
RoaryTheLion
Well-known member
He isn’t being balanced though is he? Surely that would be more along the lines of “what’s happening to the Uyghurs is a tragedy but let’s not forget Palestine” or “Ukrainian politicians opened the door for Putin to commit these atrocities” etc. Seems like you are giving him the benefit of the doubt. I’m absolutely a fan of his union work but I also believe everyone should be open to scrutiny. Perhaps he is being misrepresented but that would be seemingly unlikely due to the publication.
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
I think that’s pretty much the same way I interpreted his comments though?
As you say, I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt. Clarification needed. Guess we’ll see if it’s plastered all over the Mail in the morning.
Cardiffdaffs
Well-known member
Personally Lynch can have whatever view he wants. Don't have to agree with him. He's not a politician - what he does do well is represent his members.
dooderooni
Well-known member
All he's saying is we shouldn't be driven by false narratives (which was definitely the case in Iraq) or be selective about who we deem worthy of support and who we don't.
Regarding him being pro Brexit, I don't agree with him, however I think the way he's pushing the interests of his members would have meant that his vision of Brexit would have been very, very different from that being implemented by the ERG and their puppets.
Regarding him being pro Brexit, I don't agree with him, however I think the way he's pushing the interests of his members would have meant that his vision of Brexit would have been very, very different from that being implemented by the ERG and their puppets.
Jonny Ingbar
Well-known member
I think the quotes can only be properly understood when viewed within the full interview - the piece has selected the most interesting comments, which it the writers job to be fair to him or her.
Like Corbyn, he's someone who challenges the binary thinking of most media outlets and that can only be a good thing, because the truth behind many os these issues is complex and not easily digestible.
Of course Russia should be unreservedly condemned for invading Ukraine, and the RMT has done that, but like Corbyn has warned for years, the expansion of NATO - which was borne out of the Cold War - has largely led to the war.
Scrote
Well-known member
I read it in terms of he himself calling out the deflection away from issues closer to home (e.g. slavery in Leicester) by a media that is driving a narrative about China being the new bogeyman. He is calling out the belligerence of US interests and our media's seeming inability to dissect it with proper journalism. The Iraq war is a compelling recent example (as is the invasion of Afghanistan despite the Saudi's having far more to do with 9/11).
I understand his Lexit position too, as I was initially swayed by it (coming to similar conclusions even before Lexit was a thing). It was a combination of more information (both volume and truth) and the realisation that a leftist version of Brexit was never going to be on the table that led me to remain. The link between lower wages and immigration is pretty solid. The problem is that immigration improves the economy as a whole. It comes back to individuals vs states.
TeaCider
Well-known member
Is there state sponsored slavery and genocide going on in Leicester?
Scrote
Well-known member
Are there social problems we can deal with in the UK with whilst simultaneously calling out China?
And if it has to be one or the other then surely we should be dealing with the problem we can actually control?
It doesn't have to be state sponsored if the state is happy to turn a blind eye.
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
The Mail have, predictably, described it as
‘Rail baron Mick Lynch sparks fury by claiming Ukrainians ‘playing with Nazi imagery’ provoked Russia’s barbaric invasion.’
A ‘rail baron’…….?! FFS
Disgusting rag.
‘Rail baron Mick Lynch sparks fury by claiming Ukrainians ‘playing with Nazi imagery’ provoked Russia’s barbaric invasion.’
A ‘rail baron’…….?! FFS
Disgusting rag.
TeaCider
Well-known member
That not what he's quoted as saying though.
He's saying that he's not sure he believes the media in relation to what's happening in China and we shouldn't be questioning them if we don't question every regime.
Maybe the full transcript of the interview is less damning, but I'm not comfortable with the victim blaming of Ukraine or the whataboutism.
Ukraine wanting to join the EU is not an excuse to invade it.
We absolutely should be taking action against sweat shops in this country, and I hope we do regardless of which party is in power, but I don't think that he needs to imply that we can't criticise China's state sponsored actions because of scummy private individuals in this country.
I'm fairly sure there will be more context than is in the article, because they're strange deflections to make about two situations where one side is indisputably in the wrong.
Johnny Vincents Motorbike
Well-known member
Friday March 4th 2022.
RMT condemns the invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces
RMT condemns the invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces
Dear Colleagues
INVASION OF UKRAINE
A recent Special Meeting of the NEC agreed the following statement regarding the invasion of Ukraine.
“RMT condemns the invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces and calls for their immediate withdrawal. It is workers and their communities and families who suffer from military conflict and we will do all we can to support humanitarian assistance for displaced people from Ukraine and all those that need it.
We welcome refugees seeking to come to the UK.
As trade unionists we oppose war and support peace and cross border solidarity between workers and alongside the global trade union movement we call for a long-lasting negotiated solution through diplomacy and de-militarisation that guarantees security and peace for all in the region.”
Yours sincerely
Michael Lynch
General Secretary
INVASION OF UKRAINE
A recent Special Meeting of the NEC agreed the following statement regarding the invasion of Ukraine.
“RMT condemns the invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces and calls for their immediate withdrawal. It is workers and their communities and families who suffer from military conflict and we will do all we can to support humanitarian assistance for displaced people from Ukraine and all those that need it.
We welcome refugees seeking to come to the UK.
As trade unionists we oppose war and support peace and cross border solidarity between workers and alongside the global trade union movement we call for a long-lasting negotiated solution through diplomacy and de-militarisation that guarantees security and peace for all in the region.”
Yours sincerely
Michael Lynch
General Secretary
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
festa5
Well-known member
Some really disappointing quotes there, hopefully taken out of context given the source of the article.
But sounds borderline sympathetic to Putin's excuses for invading the Ukraine and dismissive of China's treatment of the Uyghurs. Not
I think they are.
As I say context is everything and as others have said or implied, journalists have a lot of power to take select quotes and position them in a way that the interviewee didn't quite intend. Particularly if someone has forthright views and isn't afraid to speak their mind.
The article as it stands, does not put him across well. I'm more than happy to give him the benefit of the doubt and I'm fairly confident his views would come across differently if you watched the full interview. Which I'd quite like to do,or at least hear him speak on the issues in his own words.
(and thanks for the compliment, feeling is mutual
).
But sounds borderline sympathetic to Putin's excuses for invading the Ukraine and dismissive of China's treatment of the Uyghurs. Not
I think they are.
As I say context is everything and as others have said or implied, journalists have a lot of power to take select quotes and position them in a way that the interviewee didn't quite intend. Particularly if someone has forthright views and isn't afraid to speak their mind.
The article as it stands, does not put him across well. I'm more than happy to give him the benefit of the doubt and I'm fairly confident his views would come across differently if you watched the full interview. Which I'd quite like to do,or at least hear him speak on the issues in his own words.
(and thanks for the compliment, feeling is mutual
).
Scrote
Well-known member
And he isn't being directly quoted in response to specific questions as this shows:
There's obviously a chunk of the reply missing.
If we aren't allowed to read between the lines based on our understanding of the politics of an individual then we are beholden to the media interpretation of everything and anything that ends up as 'news'.