Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Rico1304]

Surely it’s an argument they don’t need to get involved in. Just say, he did a great job during the war (keeps the Daily Mail happy) but had some questionable views that were common at the time.   

[Boss]

40 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Bengal Famine?

 

It was regretful. There was a war going on, that offered a very real existential threat. The Japanese invading Burma pushed many Indians back to India. The fall of Rangoon caused the supply of rice to be cut off from Burma, and the Indians didn't have enough provisions to handle it. Bengal was flooded with thousands of people and was unable to cope. The British army thought the Japanese would invade India as well, through Bengal, so they cut off food supplies and transport fearing the worst. The governor of Bengal ordered the surplus of rice to be destroyed expecting an attack, but only a small amount was seized and the rich traders hoarded the rice to themselves, either because they knew it was scarce or because they wanted to profit off the increasing prices.

 

Britain prioritised areas important to the war effort, like Calcutta, and rural areas suffered much more in the famine. Bengal were rising up against Britain at the time and causing a lot of civil unrest. The Japanese launched air raids on Calcutta which weakened the Allies. Bengal's provisional rice crops were mostly destroyed by a fungus that spoiled the rice paddies and a cyclone killed loads of people including farmers and crops in Bengal around the same time.

 

The point is, it was a perfect storm of all sorts of things going off at once. It was preventable, to some degree, but people would've died anyway. It's not like Churchill was the one hoarding the rice himself or anything. He had other things to attend too. But that doesn't excuse what happened. It was a black spot on the empire.

[magicrat]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

 

That's pretty much the point. Even by the standards of the time, which were more explicitly racist than our times, some people were worse than others; and Churchill was pretty fucking bad.

Oh that's true but as Barry said above nothing will trump his leadership during the war. To narrow that down I would say his relationship with Roosevelt was the key starting with the lend lease arrangement to keep us supplied with munitions and to get the Americans into the action as soon as it possible . Had it not been for the last war Churchill would have probably gone down in history as a failure highlighted by the disastrous Gallipoli campaign of WW1. 

[Hades]

21 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

It was regretful. There was a war going on, that offered a very real existential threat. The Japanese invading Burma pushed many Indians back to India. The fall of Rangoon caused the supply of rice to be cut off from Burma, and the Indians didn't have enough provisions to handle it. Bengal was flooded with thousands of people and was unable to cope. The British army thought the Japanese would invade India as well, through Bengal, so they cut off food supplies and transport fearing the worst. The governor of Bengal ordered the surplus of rice to be destroyed expecting an attack, but only a small amount was seized and the rich traders hoarded the rice to themselves, either because they knew it was scarce or because they wanted to profit off the increasing prices.

 

Britain prioritised areas important to the war effort, like Calcutta, and rural areas suffered much more in the famine. Bengal were rising up against Britain at the time and causing a lot of civil unrest. The Japanese launched air raids on Calcutta which weakened the Allies. Bengal's provisional rice crops were mostly destroyed by a fungus that spoiled the rice paddies and a cyclone killed loads of people including farmers and crops in Bengal around the same time.

 

The point is, it was a perfect storm of all sorts of things going off at once. It was preventable, to some degree, but people would've died anyway. It's not like Churchill was the one hoarding the rice himself or anything. He had other things to attend too. But that doesn't excuse what happened. It was a black spot on the empire.

Agree overall with one small exception.  The entire empire was a black spot.

[Captain Howdy]

1 hour ago, Barry Wom said:

What annoys me about this Churchill thing, is it's all so unnecessary. Why bring it out for debate? It's a ridiculous thing to be highlighting. It's inevitable massive parts of the nation will just think he's a twat regardless of the rights or wrongs of the discussion as they'll never see anything trumping leading the nation during WWII. We so desperately need to rid ourselves of this Tory government and the only chance we have is of labour taking more Tory votes than they did last time and this just isn't the way to do it. I think since the last general election, the labour front bench has mostly been completely shite and this is just another example of it. We have the worst prime minister of all time. The Tories in complete disarray and labour titting about trying to look a bit controversial . It's fucking stupid and getting to the point where it's clear these fellas have no idea what it will take to form a government, they've spent so many years to sitting on the sidelines sniping , they have nothing else to offer. 

Yep, Corbyn and McDonell....never happening

[Jairzinho]

A regretful famine.

[Strontium]

This is hilarious. Creator Supreme will definitely approve.

 

[Rico1304]

7 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

This is hilarious. Creator Supreme will definitely approve.

 

Always on the right side of history. 

[Pureblood]

dats proof Corbin wants astroids to kill us dead

[moof]

Agree with every word of that motion 

[Boss]

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

Surely it’s an argument they don’t need to get involved in. Just say, he did a great job during the war (keeps the Daily Mail happy) but had some questionable views that were common at the time.   

McDonnell was asked to give a one-word answer " Hero or villain". It was a stupidly worded question, to which he tried to give a more nuanced answer.

 

This noise will pass and it won't change anybody's mind about Labour; but it might make people think more deeply about Churchill's legacy  and that's got to be a good thing.

[Rico1304]

20 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

McDonnell was asked to give a one-word answer " Hero or villain". It was a stupidly worded question, to which he tried to give a more nuanced answer.

 

This noise will pass and it won't change anybody's mind about Labour; but it might make people think more deeply about Churchill's legacy  and that's got to be a good thing.

Fair enough, hadn’t seen the interview.  As the admiral once said ‘it’s a trap!’

 

I doubt it will, his legacy is we don’t have to speak German.

[Barrington Womble]

44 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

McDonnell was asked to give a one-word answer " Hero or villain". It was a stupidly worded question, to which he tried to give a more nuanced answer.

 

This noise will pass and it won't change anybody's mind about Labour; but it might make people think more deeply about Churchill's legacy  and that's got to be a good thing.

I completely disagree that this doesn't impact people's thinking about labour. It won't change big numbers, but there will be many who might have thought labour where worth a go. Labour needs to be bringing people towards it, not driving them away. As for worrying about Churchill's legacy, we've got a future to worry about and this is such an unwinnable discussion, it's fucking mental to raise it. 

[moof]

2 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

I completely disagree that this doesn't impact people's thinking about labour. It won't change big numbers, but there will be many who might have thought labour where worth a go. Labour needs to be bringing people towards it, not driving them away. As for worrying about Churchill's legacy, we've got a future to worry about and this is such an unwinnable discussion, it's fucking mental to raise it. 

He didn’t raise it. This kind of stuff sounds remarkably similar to, for example, the argument that labour needs to adopt a more racist immigration policy in order win more votes. 

 

Why the fuck shouldn’t people be able to recognise history without playing to base patriotic fervour? 

[Denny Crane]

Hmm if people think Tory voters will be turned off by a brief discussion about Churchill. It's just as well no Labour MPs have been pushing the STOP BREXIT you did BREXIT because you are racist and a bit dim and inferring you were duped by the Russians etc. 71% of Conservative voters voted for Brexit in 2016 and a sizeable share of the rest respect the referendum result and don't want it overturned. Or another way,  100% voted for a party that ran on No Deal is better than a bad deal in their manifesto in 2017.

 

I get the basic maths it's easier to convert a Conservative voter than get two new Labour ones. However Labour last won an election using that method in 2005 a lot has changed since then. If you were 40 in 1997 by the next time the General Election said person will be well into their 60s. So that floating voter of yesteryear is likely to want Brexit be wary of immigration and be uncomfortable with all sorts of social attitudes and positions Labour support. Another point as the Lib Dems found out if you go into alliance or in Labours case accept Thatchers economic principles they eventually go for the real copy not the imitation. 

 

[Pureblood]

3 hours ago, Strontium Dog said:

This is hilarious. Creator Supreme will definitely approve.

 

I would've thought a vegetarian would be bang up for that. 

[Rico1304]

Atlee was a pallbearer at his funeral and gave a pretty decent eulogy.  

[Strontium]

I think ending humanity would be a little bit of an over-reaction to animal cruelty.

[Pureblood]

29 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

I think ending humanity would be a little bit of an over-reaction to animal cruelty.

I don't think that part was written tongue in cheek at all.  

[Barrington Womble]

13 hours ago, moof said:

He didn’t raise it. This kind of stuff sounds remarkably similar to, for example, the argument that labour needs to adopt a more racist immigration policy in order win more votes. 

 

Why the fuck shouldn’t people be able to recognise history without playing to base patriotic fervour? 

He's in an interview he's choosing to do. Don't tell me he doesn't know what questions are coming and if he doesn't he fucking well should.  

[Barrington Womble]

13 hours ago, Denny Crane said:

Hmm if people think Tory voters will be turned off by a brief discussion about Churchill. It's just as well no Labour MPs have been pushing the STOP BREXIT you did BREXIT because you are racist and a bit dim and inferring you were duped by the Russians etc. 71% of Conservative voters voted for Brexit in 2016 and a sizeable share of the rest respect the referendum result and don't want it overturned. Or another way,  100% voted for a party that ran on No Deal is better than a bad deal in their manifesto in 2017.

 

I get the basic maths it's easier to convert a Conservative voter than get two new Labour ones. However Labour last won an election using that method in 2005 a lot has changed since then. If you were 40 in 1997 by the next time the General Election said person will be well into their 60s. So that floating voter of yesteryear is likely to want Brexit be wary of immigration and be uncomfortable with all sorts of social attitudes and positions Labour support. Another point as the Lib Dems found out if you go into alliance or in Labours case accept Thatchers economic principles they eventually go for the real copy not the imitation. 

 

Here's the thing with some people who vote conservative. They're not necessarily conservative supporters. They're just swing voters who back normally who they see as the best of a bad choice. Those numbers can be reasonably large and are the difference, especially in swing seats, between winning and losing elections. This isn't a question of winning over some right wing Tory supporters, it's just catching the drifters of which there's countless more than the real Tory supporters. The labour front bench is doing fuck all to win them over in my opinion and it's why they're behind in as many polls as they're in front despite being up against probably the weakest government of all time. Nobody trusts them and calling Churchill a villain is frankly pathetic for anyone who has aspirations to rid us of this Tory government. 

[Stickman]

If you asked a lot of people who lived around that time and grew up with him in those years like my Nan and Grandad did they would given you the same answer that "they fucking hated him" due to the fact he treated the working classes like something he'd stepped in and would've carried on doing that if he'd won the 45 election. Being a racist would've been way way down the list at that time.

But I guess when you're up against the most evil bastard the world has ever seen having a bastard in charge can only be a good thing can't it?

 

But as has been mentioned having his shitty past and views brought back up can only be a good thing or before you know it Liverpool will have a statue up of that great leader and saviour of Britain Margaret Thatcher too

 

 

[Denny Crane]

1 hour ago, Barry Wom said:

Here's the thing with some people who vote conservative. They're not necessarily conservative supporters. They're just swing voters who back normally who they see as the best of a bad choice. Those numbers can be reasonably large and are the difference, especially in swing seats, between winning and losing elections. This isn't a question of winning over some right wing Tory supporters, it's just catching the drifters of which there's countless more than the real Tory supporters. The labour front bench is doing fuck all to win them over in my opinion and it's why they're behind in as many polls as they're in front despite being up against probably the weakest government of all time. Nobody trusts them and calling Churchill a villain is frankly pathetic for anyone who has aspirations to rid us of this Tory government. 

 

The number of Conservative swing voters is a lot smaller than it was due to age, demographic changes, wealth distribution and Brexit since 1997. I would say the Conservative support is being held up by being the party of Brexit. The most realistic chances of getting these swing voters you suggest is converting Conservative voters who are more remain leaning and comfortable with paying more tax and improving public services and have few issues with immigration and a Britain culturally in 2019. I'd say that is a very small part of the Tory vote. 

 

If they voted Conservative and are remain leaning knowing the leader constantly spouted No Deal is better than a bad deal and actually put that in their manifesto I doubt a brief comment about Churchill is likely to be the decisive factor in their decision making.

 

But I think Labour have lost more votes by insulting the electorate over Brexit see my previous post times 100000 than any comment on Churchill but I don't see the outage regarding that so much. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Decent summary of why the "Labour is anti-Semitic" bollocks is bollocks. 

 

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/blog/antisemitism-no-justification-for-singling-out-labour/?fbclid=IwAR0nVOOpr0ecJBLC7YOb5s6DsTztBbdwnOovicGKAgV1CNPXqbqJ3_9C4TU