Topic: Jeremy Corbyn : RAWK Decides!

[rob1966]

This! We don't vote for leaders, we don't even vote for parties, we vote for MPs. This needs to be seared into peoples brains before they go out and vote at the next general election. Brexit is dividing parties, the colour of the rosette isn't enough anymore. Look at what your MP has said and most importantly actually done when faced with the biggest issue of our time. If that meant voting for someone like Anna Soubry or Sarah Wollaston...would you?

I need to have a really good look at what Kate Green has done recently. She does come across as a decent MP, but I did read a snippet of something where she mentioned a Norway type deal as a favourable option.

You highlight something there that really does show that the way UK politics works is broken. I've been very impressed with Soubry over Brexit, she fully understands the issues Toyota will have, but knowing a vote for her could put the likes of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, JRM and Gove in government would stop me voting for her, even if she was the best MP for our area.

[filopastry]

I'll admit that I actually benefit from the movement in the 40% threshold, but it seems a stupid policy at a time when so many public services are under so much strain in their budgets, even after the nonsensical touting of the end of austerity by the Tories.

The problem that many aren't ready to face yet is that with the impact of an aging population and Brexit still to come we are going to have start paying more taxes just to stand still on public services, never mind actually improving them from the current dismal squeezed level.

We are going to see ever more pressure on spending from pensions, social care and the NHS, and a smaller proportion of the population of working age to fund them.

Both parties are being disingenuous around funding this, the Tories as always will view headline tax rises as anathema to them so will continue to squeeze funding for services, while tweaking stealth taxes to raise a bit more. Labour will make out that it can fund all of these requirements along with a further lengthy wishlist, and the top 5% will be able to pay for it on their own.

As I've said many times before if you want Scandinavian level services be ready to pay Scandinavian level taxes,  and they aren't just high for the top 5% of earners, they are just high.

[killer-heels]

I'll admit that I actually benefit from the movement in the 40% threshold, but it seems a stupid policy at a time when so many public services are under so much strain in their budgets, even after the nonsensical touting of the end of austerity by the Tories.

The problem that many aren't ready to face yet is that with the impact of an aging population and Brexit still to come we are going to have start paying more taxes just to stand still on public services, never mind actually improving them from the current dismal squeezed level.

We are going to see ever more pressure on spending from pensions, social care and the NHS, and a smaller proportion of the population of working age to fund them.

Both parties are being disingenuous around funding this, the Tories as always will view headline tax rises as anathema to them so will continue to squeeze funding for services, while tweaking stealth taxes to raise a bit more. Labour will make out that it can fund all of these requirements along with a further lengthy wishlist, and the top 5% will be able to pay for it on their own.

As I've said many times before if you want Scandinavian level services be ready to pay Scandinavian level taxes,  and they aren't just high for the top 5% of earners

When there is a greater need to invest in public services and giving bungs to business to stay in this country, its bizarre that the Tories is hiving the public tax cuts.

[Alan_X]

you got a link to the labour manifesto?

Yes thanks. Have you?

[WhereAngelsPlay]

you got a link to the labour manifesto?

Actions speak louder than anything they try to peddle.

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell told the BBC on Tuesday: "We will support the tax cuts at the moment on the basis that it will inject some demand into the economy." He said a Labour government would focus instead on a "fairer taxation system" asking the richest 5% to pay more and rolling back cuts to corporation tax cuts.

But a number of Labour MPs have said the party should oppose the income tax changes, because they argue they disproportionately benefit the better-off.

In Thursday's debate, 20 Labour MPs voted against the tax changes, in defiance of the party leadership: Karen Buck, Yvette Cooper, Neil Coyle, Stella Creasy, Mike Gapes, Roger Godsiff, Kate Green, Margaret Hodge, Helen Jones, Liz Kendal, David Lammy, Pat McFadden, Alison McGovern, Ian Murray, Lisa Nandy, Jess Phillips, Lucy Powell, Emma Reynolds, Gareth Snell and Martin Whitfield.

Former cabinet minister Ms Cooper criticised the government, saying: "They're going ahead with over £1bn in real cuts to tax credits and benefits this coming year for the poorest families.

"At the same time they are choosing to spend about the same amount of money on tax cuts for higher rate taxpayers, including those on more than £100,000 a year.

"A lone parent with a four-year-old working part-time could end up being nearly £3,000 worse off whereas the high earners end up being over £1,000 better off."

SNP work and pensions spokesman Neil Gray accused the chancellor of having brought in a tax cut which "disproportionately benefits higher earners the most" instead of stopping the benefit freeze.

For the government, Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liz Truss said it was a shame Mr McDonnell's party did not agree with him and joked to the shadow chancellor there was "space for you on our frontbench".

So yeah,abstaining from the vote is a vote in favour.


Fuck them Chavez loving c*nts.

[Trendisnotdestiny]

This is an interesting conversation. 

As a yank, my poor recollection and understanding of British politicians means that I learn more than I persuade.  There seems to be a lot of triangulation going on between Tories, Labour, and the fractures in between.  Who does this serve?  And how does discrediting one affect the other two?   I do not have the answer to this as many of you have lived the experience and can articulate it much better than I.

However, I do remember an Adam Curtis series called the Trap, which stays prominent in my thinking, about the parallels between US and UK political tactics on the left.  Here is a list of a few of his documentaries at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis

Century of Self is of the highest quality of his work
Bitter Lake a nice primer on the middle east hidden relations
The Mayfair Set - excesses of Thatcher's reign
The Power of Nightmares - excellent series in of itself (middle east, terrorism, expanding century of self)
Oh Dearism - have not seen this yet, next on my list but it has to do with creating apathy amongst the body politic
Hypernormalization - the era of Trump and where we are headed

Nice bit of work above for Curtis and anyone with the time and energy to consume his work.  Its all free on the net.  For how long?  I do not know. 

But this brings me to my point, the parallels between Bill Clinton and Tony Blair are so striking, in terms of marketing, alignment with the middle right, and the key blows to the state apparatus at crucial times (Clinton - Gramm Leach Bliley Act repealing Glass Steagal, Prison Reform, killing the social safety net programs historically supported by the left, healthcare debacle, and privatization of higher education).

Where does Corbyn fit in all of this?  Well, I am curious as to what Adam Curtis might say.

I am sure many here can analyze and have analyzed this for Blair (in my short reading of the thread).  The parallels are stunning.  Same argument.  Far left and center left fractured up against an increasingly far right agenda over thirty years, while many of the center left power structures have just outright failed people --- but at a rate far less than the opposition parties' policies. 

Check it out and see if any of this resonates, or if I am an over zealous yank who needs to butt out of the conversation

The Trap - 3 part Series

Part 1 -
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/y97Ywl7RtUw&amp;list=PLsGiHTmHVDNlAc15kb23Q9Oz386MNXYIn" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/y97Ywl7RtUw&amp;list=PLsGiHTmHVDNlAc15kb23Q9Oz386MNXYIn</a>

Part 2
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/8d1ibtOVImg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/8d1ibtOVImg</a>

Part 3
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/nSVlPlnB8wI" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/nSVlPlnB8wI</a>

[oldfordie]

This! We don't vote for leaders, we don't even vote for parties, we vote for MPs. This needs to be seared into peoples brains before they go out and vote at the next general election. Brexit is dividing parties, the colour of the rosette isn't enough anymore. Look at what your MP has said and most importantly actually done when faced with the biggest issue of our time. If that meant voting for someone like Anna Soubry or Sarah Wollaston...would you?

I need to have a really good look at what Kate Green has done recently. She does come across as a decent MP, but I did read a snippet of something where she mentioned a Norway type deal as a favourable option.

You highlight something there that really does show that the way UK politics works is broken. I've been very impressed with Soubry over Brexit, she fully understands the issues Toyota will have, but knowing a vote for her could put the likes of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, JRM and Gove in government would stop me voting for her, even if she was the best MP for our area.

They went too far this time and it has to stop, a message has to be sent.
Johnsons still taking the piss, Redwood&co are telling the same lies repeatedly even though they've been corrected many times. they have no respect for the public, they believe the majority are fools who will fall for any old shite.
Ive mentioned it a few times but a few of these MPs will find people knocking on their constituents doors at the next election pointing out their lies and asking them to vote for anyone but them
They will not be campaigning for Labour or Conservative, they will be campaigning to make our MPs accountable. I doubt if Johnson keeps his seat at the next GE.

[classycarra]

But this brings me to my point, the parallels between Bill Clinton and Tony Blair are so striking, in terms of marketing, alignment with the middle right, and the key blows to the state apparatus at crucial times (Clinton - Gramm Leach Bliley Act repealing Glass Steagal, Prison Reform, killing the social safety net programs historically supported by the left, healthcare debacle, and privatization of higher education).


[snip]

Check it out and see if any of this resonates, or if I am an over zealous yank who needs to butt out of the conversation

By no means do you need to butt out of the conversation, but I'm struggling to see a single parallel between any of those actions by Clinton that you list with what Blair did in the UK. Perhaps a tenuous and not very nuanced argument for the last point on education could be made, but otherwise I'd say there's basically no parallel over here with what you've listed (so far)

[Trendisnotdestiny]

By no means do you need to butt out of the conversation, but I'm struggling to see a single parallel between any of those actions by Clinton that you list with what Blair did in the UK. Perhaps a tenuous and not very nuanced argument for the last point on education could be made, but otherwise I'd say there's basically no parallel over here with what you've listed (so far)

First, you might check out the video for a more thorough understanding (campaign, branding, and language subtlety) between the Clinton/Blair links.  That's why I posted it.

Second, political figure heads in different countries have unique circumstances and obstacles.  He may or may not be a British version of Clinton --- especially if you look at some of the comments in here defending him.  Its not a monolithic comparison, but one that acknowledges politicians borrow from each other in different milieus, often to the complete ignorance of the audiences that are listening.

Third, there are a few off the top of my head and I am sure if I committed a bit more research, I would find more.

War
Neoliberal Economics - Financialization (London became a hub for unregulated capitalism - race to the bottom)
Privatisation of Higher Education

Clinton takes some victory laps all the time when he discusses his economic policies but he in many ways betrayed the American left for personal gain, forever changing the party.  Of course, he thinks this is wonderful and needed.  Many on the left do not see it this way.  Thus, the fracture. 

I will butt out for a bit --- as this thread is about Corbyn, but I do think Adam Curtis can help further this discussion a bit.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Well done Yvette Cooper, Jess Phillips, Stella Creasy, Margaret Hodge and the rest of those Labour MPs who voted against the Tory budget. Shame on Corbyn and the rest for supporting tax cuts for the rich. Out of what? Fear? Conviction? Cowardice?

Talk about Tory-Lite.

quite like the irony of 2015 welfare cuts in reverse with regards abstaining/voting against

[classycarra]

Third, there are a few off the top of my head and I am sure if I committed a bit more research, I would find more.

War
Neoliberal Economics - Financialization (London became a hub for unregulated capitalism - race to the bottom)
Privatisation of Higher Education

Can you make an argument for Blair doing any (or all) of these things in a way that parallels Clinton? It's not very convincing, as it stands.

[Trendisnotdestiny]

Can you make an argument for Blair doing any (or all) of these things in a way that parallels Clinton? It's not very convincing, as it stands.

No, not in 10 minutes sunshine.   But if you check out Adam Curtis' work posted above as I now mention for the third time, the association I am making will be very clear.

But, I am not picking up the vibe you are very much interested in challenging your own views on the matter as you have your own experiences --- so let's leave it as you win. 

It feels like you are looking for an argument, while I am looking for a discussion - one that does not demand I perform large tasks of time without reciprocity. 

[classycarra]

No, not in 10 minutes sunshine.   But if you check out Adam Curtis' work posted above as I now mention for the third time, the association I am making will be very clear.

But, I am not picking up the vibe you are very much interested in challenging your own views on the matter as you have your own experiences --- so let's leave it as you win. 

It feels like you are looking for an argument, while I am looking for a discussion - one that does not demand I perform large tasks of time without reciprocity. 

For the record, I think I've seen all of those Adam Curtis things you mentioned. It's probably a semantics thing, but I was looking for a discussion too. For all your text in your two messages, there wasn't really anything to support your suggested parallels other than quick top line mentions of "private education" "healthcare" etc. It's common for people claiming a pattern to explain why they think there's a pattern.

Think you've got it the wrong way round. I'm very keen to have my own views challenged. That's why I asked you to try to explain your claim. Wasn't asking for it in ten minutes, but happy to leave it there if you'd like

[Alan_X]

This is not about Blair or Clinton other than how it relates to the current Labour Party.

[filopastry]

Neoliberal Economics - Financialization (London became a hub for unregulated capitalism - race to the bottom)
Privatisation of Higher Education

If by neoliberalism you mean a mixed market economy I would say that criticism applies to much of the western world to greater or lesser degrees, economically we are more to the right of that spectrum than some other EU nations but I wouldn't say obscenely so in the Blair/Brown years, and basically that has reflected where the UK electorate lived at least up until the Global financial crisis.

Maybe the fallout of the GFC has changed things, we will no doubt see in coming electoral cycles (personally I think it has more been a move towards populism in the UK than a move towards socialism, but Labour might still be able to make that work for them)

Finanicalisation isn't anything new for the UK, unfortunately one of the few large business sectors we actually do well at, it generated a lot of taxation (its absence was certainly noted post GFC) destruction of the large scale industrial base was done with in the UK long before 1997.

I don't see a race to the bottom at all during the Blair/Brown years, we actually started seeing regulations like the minimum wage being brought, people forget how strongly Tories opposed that.

We did see the start of higher education becoming more expensive but that was alongside a massive expansion in the number of people attending, and we also saw increased investment in Education and in public services generally.

It is always a bit frustrating seeing some of the bashing that government gets from the left, some of it is justified (Iraq, PFI, etc.) but generally it was a hugely positive force in improving public services and the safety net for more vulnerable UK citizens compared to the mess they inherrited in 1997 and the mess the Tories are creating by reversing a lot of what they did.

Labour are basically a populist party now, in the same way the UKIPised Tories are becoming, it is just one will bash "the rich" as being responsible for all your problems, the other "EU/immigration", Labour's populism may be slightly less unpleasant, but in all honesty we need a somewhat more coherent plan for the country than either of those models.

[Trendisnotdestiny]

This is not about Blair or Clinton other than how it relates to the current Labour Party.

Agree... I'll stick to Corbyn reading on the thread from here on out!

The point I was trying to make is that the left fractured in both countries -- not simultaneously.  And in the second video of the Trap - The Lonely Robot, about two minutes into the episode Curtis links the rise of Clinton and Blair mid 90's as having some disturbing similarities.  (Specifically, the exact replication of Clinton's strategy - became Blair's 37:36 minute of the second video)

Some have called this kind of positioning The Third Way - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

The Third Way is a position akin to centrism that tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of some centre-right economic and some centre-left social policies.[1][2] The Third Way was created as a re-evaluation of political policies within various centre-left progressive movements in response to doubt regarding the economic viability of the state and the overuse of economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism but at that time contrasted with the rise of popularity for economic liberalism and the New Right.[3] The Third Way is promoted by social liberal movements.[4]

Major Third Way social democratic proponent Tony Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was different from traditional conceptions of socialism and said: "My kind of socialism is a set of values based around notions of social justice...Socialism as a rigid form of economic determinism has ended, and rightly".[5] Blair referred to it as "social-ism" that involves politics that recognized individuals as socially interdependent and advocated social justice, social cohesion, equal worth of each citizen and equal opportunity.[6] Third Way social democratic theorist Anthony Giddens has said that the Third Way rejects the traditional conception of socialism and instead accepts the conception of socialism as conceived of by Anthony Crosland as an ethical doctrine that views social democratic governments as having achieved a viable ethical socialism by removing the unjust elements of capitalism by providing social welfare and other policies and that contemporary socialism has outgrown the Marxist claim for the need of the abolition of capitalism.[7] In 2009, Blair publicly declared support for a "new capitalism".[8]




Translation

In 2013, American lawyer and former bank regulator William K. Black wrote that "Third Way is this group that pretends sometimes to be center-left but is actually completely a creation of Wall Street—it's run by Wall Street for Wall Street with this false flag operation as if it were a center-left group. It's nothing of the sort"

That is all folks.

Corbyn comparisons inevitably get mired in this

Trend out.

[Red-Soldier]

Corbyn, Mcdonnell etc.....For the many, not the few.  Until it comes to policies and budgets of course 

[Stockholm Syndrome]

To be quite frankly I don't think anyone in politics inspires much faith for me. Either weak willed, incompetent, Tories, or Tory-lite centerist labour.

I'll come Labour and Corbyn as the lesser evil, but not much else to go on

[Trada]

There was no way Labour could vote against the tax cuts because they would have been also voting against tax cuts for lower paid earners because both were linked.

And they can put the higher rate back up when they come to power.

Strange Blairites who enabled the Tories to take money away from the poorest people now suddenly find a heart  like fuck have they.

For them its all about trying to split the party when most people understand why Labour had to vote for it.

[Antoine Lavoisier]

Is there no "Dangerous" option in this poll?

[Yorkykopite]

For them its all about trying to split the party when most people understand why Labour had to vote for it.

“Split the party” by attacking tax cuts for the rich?

God help us.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

There was no way Labour could vote against the tax cuts because they would have been also voting against tax cuts for lower paid earners because both were linked.

And they can put the higher rate back up when they come to power.

Strange Blairites who enabled the Tories to take money away from the poorest people now suddenly find a heart  like fuck have they.

For them its all about trying to split the party when most people understand why Labour had to vote for it.

Like fuck they did but I am not surprised that people like yourself will try and excuse them.

Former cabinet minister Ms Cooper criticised the government, saying: "They're going ahead with over £1bn in real cuts to tax credits and benefits this coming year for the poorest families.

"At the same time they are choosing to spend about the same amount of money on tax cuts for higher rate taxpayers, including those on more than £100,000 a year.

"A lone parent with a four-year-old working part-time could end up being nearly £3,000 worse off whereas the high earners end up being over £1,000 better off."

SNP work and pensions spokesman Neil Gray accused the chancellor of having brought in a tax cut which "disproportionately benefits higher earners the most" instead of stopping the benefit freeze.

For the government, Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liz Truss said it was a shame Mr McDonnell's party did not agree with him and joked to the shadow chancellor there was "space for you on our frontbench".

[TepidT2O]

There was no way Labour could vote against the tax cuts because they would have been also voting against tax cuts for lower paid earners because both were linked.

And they can put the higher rate back up when they come to power.

Strange Blairites who enabled the Tories to take money away from the poorest people now suddenly find a heart  like fuck have they.

For them its all about trying to split the party when most people understand why Labour had to vote for it.

And yet you went babnanas over people who abstained in 2015

Who knew?

[Trada]

And yet you went babnanas over people who abstained in 2015

Who knew?

The only shock in the tax vote was that Chuka and Kinnock don't vote against tax cuts for poorer earners.

Im glad they abstained now its part of the reason Jeremy became leader and why the Tories are now trying to hold onto Labours coat tails and doing Tory lite versions of their policies.

[Yorkykopite]

There is literally nothing Corbyn could do that would alienate his most devoted supporters. They could justify anything. That is the nature of hero-worship and the ‘Leader-Principle’. It’s voluntarily given too. We don’t live in a dictatorship where you’re forced to love the leader. But this makes the condition even more abject. Corbyn, I believe, could put the unemployed on the Poor Law and give their money to tax exiles instead and he’d still have his happy band of followers, ready to explain the decision and justify it.

You see it with Trump followers in the States too. There’s no disgrace that those people couldn’t stomach. Even more weird, there’s no amount of backsliding they wouldn’t tolerate. The ‘Mexican Wall’ coul remain on an architect’s page, the coal mines of Appalachia closed down forever, the steel mills of Pittsburgh turned into scrap and Trump would still be loved. That’s because it’s the leader and his virtue that counts. He’s the one who has to be protected, at all costs. Same with Corb. Everything bends towards protecting his good name. It’s a kind of identity politics by transference, as the Freudian cranks might say.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

The only shock in the tax vote was that Chuka and Kinnock don't vote against tax cuts for poorer earners.

Im glad they abstained now its part of the reason Jeremy became leader and why the Tories are now trying to hold onto Labours coat tails and doing Tory lite versions of their policies.

Deluded to the extreme.

[Antoine Lavoisier]

So, this is what happens in an age where technology is so readily accessible. In place of the utopian dream of freedom of information and freedom to access that information, unfiltered by Murdoch et al. were we would all see the light for ourselves and those oligarch bastards would fizzle away under the glare of freedoms new dawn. How cute.

We have alternative facts and people, like flies to their particular favourite flavour of shit, congregating around anything that makes them feel good -
"All facts are facts, but our facts are more facts than others" - each group becoming more and more insular and paranoid of the other.

I suppose this was all very much predictable really, when you think about it, so I'm going to pour myself a whiskey, sit down and envisage how this all plays out.  Shouldn't be too difficult (I'll make sure we win the league along the way before the world ends).

[TepidT2O]

The only shock in the tax vote was that Chuka and Kinnock don't vote against tax cuts for poorer earners.

Sweet Jesus

Right.  I get that politically there is a case that voting through this budget might be good with the public. I get that right?

But it’s the utter mind blowing hipocrasy. You cannot berate people for abstaining in 2015 and then support Corbyn voting through these tax cuts for the rich through.

It’s just wrong.

And here’s who benefits from the budget that Corbyn waived through



And you have the fucking temerity to label people as red Tories on here.

You know Dave, I’ve got an awful lot of time for you, because you believe in a better world and you are consistent in your beliefs.

But this is fantasy.

Look at the graph. This is stuffing the poorer in society to feather the rich.

[Zeb]

An explanation for why the Leader of the Opposition attacked a policy his Shadow Chancellor refused to say he'd change.

The underlying cause of Labour’s woes is a sharp deterioration over the past six months in the relationship between Corbyn and McDonnell, the closest of friends and allies during the left’s long wilderness years. Coming so close to winning last year has proved a fork in the road for them.

McDonnell has taken the pragmatic route, believing there can be no distractions from the pursuit of power. So he announced this week that Labour would not reverse Hammond’s decision to raise the threshold for the 40p tax rate to £50,000, to avoid alienating middle-income earners, while insisting that people on £80,000 would pay more tax under Labour. Earlier this year, McDonnell was more inclined than Corbyn to blame Russia for the Salisbury nerve agent attack, and deeply worried about Team Corbyn’s handling of the antisemitism controversy.

In contrast, the Labour leader has stuck to the ideological route and sees no reason to trim his long-held views. Indeed, he attacked the Tories this week for “ideological tax cuts” (a bit odd when Labour did not oppose them). Instinctively, Corbyn is more energised by foreign affairs than the detail of Labour’s domestic policy. He was upset by McDonnell’s criticism over antisemitism. At one point, I’m told, Corbyn refused to talk to him for a week.

McDonnell’s freedom to speak out is tolerated by Team Corbyn but sends a misleading signal. On policy matters, the once-supreme shadow chancellor has been reined in by Corbyn’s all-powerful top aides – Karie Murphy, his dictatorial chief of staff; Andrew Fisher, the policy director; and, to a lesser extent, Seumas Milne, the strategy and communications director. For example, they have stopped McDonnell from repeating his recent pledge to scrap universal credit. The official line is to “pause and fix” it.

Indie

Well.

[TepidT2O]

A kinder more honest form of politics. 

Unpleasnt McDonnell is prepared to lie to get power, incompetent Corbyn is prepared to ignore racism ...

Hmm

And here’s the deal..

They were supposed to be different.

[TepidT2O]

And they say Corbyn hasn’t  flamed the fire of antisemitism.

This is scarcely believable. Stockton Labour meeting votes down motion condemning Pittsburg synagogue massacre.

https://www.facebook.com/comradecooke/posts/10157776770608219

[WhereAngelsPlay]

And they say Corbyn hasn’t  flamed the fire of antisemitism.

This is scarcely believable. Stockton Labour meeting votes down motion condemning Pittsburg synagogue massacre.

https://www.facebook.com/comradecooke/posts/10157776770608219

Comrade this and Comrade that.


Fucking children the lot of them.

[Jake]

He's mostly good, just fucking shit on brexit.

If he stood up against it he'd be great and I'd actively campaign for the fella.

[BoRed]

And they say Corbyn hasn’t  flamed the fire of antisemitism.

This is scarcely believable. Stockton Labour meeting votes down motion condemning Pittsburg synagogue massacre.

https://www.facebook.com/comradecooke/posts/10157776770608219

Interesting.

I would add that the conflict over this issue does not follow the left-versus-right stereotypes presented in the media. Barbara Campbell and myself are easily the most leftwing members active in our branch (I was a member of Left Unity prior to joining Labour in 2016 and we're both People's Assembly activists) and we supported the motion. It was the longer-established, Corbyn-sceptic members who opposed the motion. The same pattern was followed a fortnight earlier when the CLP executive voted by eight votes to six against allowing me to organise political education on this topic. The pro-Corbyn left members mostly supported the proposal and the more 'centrist' establishment, mainly councillors, voted against.

[TepidT2O]

Interesting.

It matters not.  It’s wrong.

[Not that Gareth]

Do they really call eachother comrade?

I can't say i read the whole post in detail but it would appear the mental gymnastics has them not knowing left from right. There can really be no excuse for not condemning the attack.

Edit: since this is a Corbyn thread i will say that i think he is a weak leader and a bit to far to the left for me. I am not particularly political so can't claim to know all the ins and outs but ive just never warmed to him. May and the tories are there for the taking, Labour need to find a leader.

[Gerry Attrick]

And they say Corbyn hasn’t  flamed the fire of antisemitism.

This is scarcely believable. Stockton Labour meeting votes down motion condemning Pittsburg synagogue massacre.

https://www.facebook.com/comradecooke/posts/10157776770608219

Comrade is used about a dozen times in that post. Makes me ashamed for them.

[Alan_X]

You have to feel sorry for Jezza. The poor old chap has no option - he just has to facilitate Brexit and tax cuts for the rich. He’s doing it for us.

All I can say is: thank you Jeremy, thank you for your sacrifice. You and your crew suffer along on your £100k a year as leader of the opposition. But yours is a new kind of politics. Not opposing in the old Blairite neo-liberal way, just shafting the rest of us for the sake of some Bennite version of Brexit.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Do they really call eachother comrade?

id hope not, it just makes them sound ridiculous

[Gerry Attrick]

id hope not, it just makes them sound ridiculous

"Hello Comrade, how are you?"
"Very well thankyou, Comrade"
"Excellent, Comrade. Shall we go for a pint?"
"Spiffing idea, Comrade"