New party latest.

RavsFan said:
Baddies? Again words being put in peoples mouths that have never been used, trying to demean comments of others using hyperbole for swaying of others support, pathetic. No other view is considered acceptable it seems as far as you and some others are concerned. You used the word clique, look closely at the thread and it is clear you are arguably part of one that collectively come together to decry the reality of life in Britain. Pointing out what is happening should not be confused with support of it either, but people like you do it all the time.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole?? Baddies might not be a direct quote, but the sentiment is familiar to anyone who has been a Corbyn supporter for most of the last decade. In fact it's a rather mild, understated way to describe the reality.
Dangerous? Cultish? Threat to national security? Useful idiots? Antisemites? Hard left extremists?
I’ll take the cartoonish Baddie over that anytime, and to deny that Corbynites were treated as “the baddies” in mainstream discourse is either selective memory or wilful ignorance.

RavsFan said:
If I was Corbyn, I would have been open with the public on Brexit rather than ambiguous and weak, taken a stance one way or another, not tried to make promises that were clearly gimmicky unfunded bribes e.g. free broadband, been more pragmatic about defence, not allow myself to be associated with certain groups seen as anti western. Where would we (the country) or even Ukraine be given Putins invasion of Ukraine under such a pacifist approach like his. He wanted to write cheques that couldn’t be cashed, his lack of communication skills in dealing with difficult questioning and body language was poor. Trust was not there he allowed himself to be seen as divisive. He will now see a swing to the right, assisted in part by Starmer’s current weaknesses, I will concede.
Click to expand...

You've answered the wrong question. The question asked was, how does a leader discover deliberate internal sabotage, covert rerouting of funds, secret campaign offices, and systematic undermining from senior staff?
That’s not about free broadband or how Corbyn looked on TV, but about whether a party leader can realistically function when their own machinery is working against them. You haven’t answered that, and I suspect it’s because you can’t, or don’t want to admit that the sabotage was real and consequential because you seem more comfortable criticising the people trying to change things than those actively preventing that change. You're free to disagree with left policies, but at least be honest about what really happened, and how it was used it to shut the door on democratic socialism.
 
RavsFan said:
Baddies? Again words being put in peoples mouths that have never been used, trying to demean comments of others using hyperbole for swaying of others support, pathetic. No other view is considered acceptable it seems as far as you and some others are concerned. You used the word clique, look closely at the thread and it is clear you are arguably part of one that collectively come together to decry the reality of life in Britain. Pointing out what is happening should not be confused with support of it either, but people like you do it all the time.

If I was Corbyn, I would have been open with the public on Brexit rather than ambiguous and weak, taken a stance one way or another, not tried to make promises that were clearly gimmicky unfunded bribes e.g. free broadband, been more pragmatic about defence, not allow myself to be associated with certain groups seen as anti western. Where would we (the country) or even Ukraine be given Putins invasion of Ukraine under such a pacifist approach like his. He wanted to write cheques that couldn’t be cashed, his lack of communication skills in dealing with difficult questioning and body language was poor. Trust was not there he allowed himself to be seen as divisive. He will now see a swing to the right, assisted in part by Starmer’s current weaknesses, I will concede.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn't realise there were rules about which rhetorical devices were allowed and which weren't. Presumably sarcasm is okay as that was your go to? Hyperbole is out; check. Can you confirm either way on metaphor, simile, metonymy & allusion and I'll make a note somewhere as I can't find the sticky.

I have no problem with opposing views - but it's on the person holding them to put forward a cogent, coherent and consistent defence of those views when questioned (assuming they want to enter into debate). Pointing out what has happened without taking into consideration the contributing factors is what the left tend to decry. Your world-view comes across, to me at least, as being very much absolutist pre-determinism, in so far as a thing that has happened has happened and there's nothing that could have prevented it from happening. Corbyn lost. Case closed. The fact that people who were being paid - by me and others on here - to gain a victory, actually worked to bring it all crashing down, doesn't appear to factor into your thinking.

How was Corbyn ambiguous and weak on Brexit? He took a stance and explained it. You can't make such a definitive statement and not back it up.

Why are you so timid and unassuming? I've said it now so it must be true..?

As BBG has already said, the manifestos were fully costed - the only addition, in 2019, being the WASPI payments which was probably bad optics but the right thing to do, in my opinion (it's been discussed to death elsewhere on here).

Corbyn didn't 'allow' himself to be seen as divisive in the same way that Gordon Brown didn't 'allow' himself to be seen as a failure with regards recovering from the financial crash of 2008. There's nothing either of them could do about how they were presented by the media.
 
Chemicalworker said:
Don’t you know that they are the problem in everything
Similar to Reform telling us brown skinned immigrants are the problem, the left tell us it all the Jews failt
They try to hide it by substituting Jew for Zionist but we know what they mean
t
Click to expand...
You are acting in bad faith here, or a bit thick. One of the Corbynites many points about how badly he was treated was the anti-Semitic accusations. That entirely flows from the mixing of "Zionist" with "Jewish", which youse have done here without a flicker of embarrassment. On the whole, Corbyn is not my cup of tea politically, but he demonstrably was badly treated by members of his own party from the moment he was "democratically" elected as leader (in a similar way to the way we ended up with Liz Truss as PM "democratically" - not always the best idea to leave these things to the members when the leaders colleagues are the Parliamentary party, not the members). Given our system of representative Parliamentary democracy, Corbyn and Truss are just two of the most egregious examples of a directly elected leader not being suited to leading the Parliamentary party, notwithstanding a more personal judgement on how you might think they were then treated by said party. As a football analogy, I personally was disgusted with the way a good portion of our first team squad fell out with Ravanelli, as a mad keen fan I wanted them to just get on with their job and feed him the ball in front of goal. However, I just paid my money and turned up, I didn't have to work with him...
 
Boro12 said:
.
Click to expand...

I don't think many would consider the video you've linked to be "the left". Isn't it one of these trad-fem youtube shows where the hosts just berate younger women? There won't be anyone on there making the case for redistributive economics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
theboydom said:
not always the best idea to leave these things to the members when the leaders colleagues are the Parliamentary party, not the members)
Click to expand...

Tbf consider the alternative. Does anyone really think MPs have their fingers remotely on the pulse either with what the public want or any actual solutions to the country's issues? Who would the Labour MPs have chosen as their leader in the 2015 and 2016 contests? Yvette Cooper? Owen Smith? Hard to believe they'd have fared any better in the general elections that followed.

To borrow from your analogy (and play havoc with timelines a bit) its like saying we should have tried Jimmy 5 Bellies up front since Gascoigne liked him so much, and he'd be a better judge than the fans.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top