Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Numero Veinticinco]

15 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

cba listening.  Does he say anything new?

New... maybe not. I haven't read too much of the criticism from the likes of James O'Brien on this, so I'm not sure what has already been said. However, in my view he makes both some interesting and powerful points and some mistakes. He asks, in response to Labour releasing a statement that says Corbyn rejects the antisemitic parts of the book, why Corbyn didn't mention that rejection in the foreword. I think that's a fair question. He talks about how Corbyn won't talk about this in public at the behest of Milne. Fair. He asks why his cultish supporters don't ask these questions or hold him to account. Also, I think fair. 

 

What is less fair, in my view, is that he conflates talking about an entire book and saying it is 'brilliant' with agreeing with every line in a book written a hundred years ago. Of course, that standard would be ridiculous for anybody else reviewing a book. If you said the bible was a beautiful book of stories, it doesn't mean you support the stoning of people. He strongly insinuates that Milne is a 'baddy' because he has been seen on a stage with Putin. That's ridiculous. 

 

In my view, Corbyn was backing the critique of imperialism. I'm not even sure he read the fucking book, to be honest. I think Corbyn is far more likely to be guilty of incompetence than he is racial hatred. If his detractors want to bring him down, I would start there, because if they think they're doing anything other than preaching to the converted with this 'said something written in 1902 that doesn't sound that bad to ordinary people was brilliant', they're mistaken. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

No surprises from O'Brien, then.

 

As for Corbyn's "cultish" supporters, the only responses I've seen are the kind of arguments you make in your second paragraph.  Either you too have been brainwashed and are now ONE OF US, ONE OF US, or (possibly, just possibly) it's not a cult after all - just a load of people who think that we can do better than austerity, racism and environmental destruction and who can see through the lies of those who want to stop us.

 

(Incidentally, can you really see any circumstance in which a back-bench MP, with no particular ambition for high office, would write a foreword to an old book - unknown to anyone except policy nerds - without reading it? Really? That suggestion is even dafter than the accusations of anti-Semitism.)

[Jenson]

The staged and staggered timings of all these "revelations" betrays the true agenda. When was this foreword written? 2011, and it's only been "discovered" this week??

[Babb'sBurstNad]

Do not attribute to malice that which can be more easily explained by stupidity.

 

I don't believe he's antisemitic, but - like the mural - the worrying thing is he's not very good at spotting it. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 minutes ago, Jenson said:

The staged and staggered timings of all these "revelations" betrays the true agenda. When was this foreword written? 2011, and it's only been "discovered" this week??

Some phrases missing from the various criticisms of Corbyn. 

 

"I've read Hobson's book..."

"When I read Corbyn's foreword..."

"Like most commentators, I've always condemned the anti-Semitism in this book.."

"I spoke to Jeremy in 2011, to say I was disappointed in his foreword..."

 

It's just another bullshit round of noise-making because there's an election today. I was actually unsure of who to vote for in my ward, but these desperate pricks have convinced me to vote Labour. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

20 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

No surprises from O'Brien, then.

 

As for Corbyn's "cultish" supporters, the only responses I've seen are the kind of arguments you make in your second paragraph.  Either you too have been brainwashed and are now ONE OF US, ONE OF US, or (possibly, just possibly) it's not a cult after all - just a load of people who think that we can do better than austerity, racism and environmental destruction and who can see through the lies of those who want to stop us.

 

(Incidentally, can you really see any circumstance in which a back-bench MP, with no particular ambition for high office, would write a foreword to an old book - unknown to anyone except policy nerds - without reading it? Really? That suggestion is even dafter than the accusations of anti-Semitism.)

Yes. I can. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

11 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Some phrases missing from the various criticisms of Corbyn. 

 

"I've read Hobson's book..."

"When I read Corbyn's foreword..."

"Like most commentators, I've always condemned the anti-Semitism in this book.."

"I spoke to Jeremy in 2011, to say I was disappointed in his foreword..."

 

It's just another bullshit round of noise-making because there's an election today. I was actually unsure of who to vote for in my ward, but these desperate pricks have convinced me to vote Labour. 

Have you read the book? 

[RobbieOR]

Look at O'Brien's tweet yesterday about not voting labour. That's why he's a cunt. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

8 minutes ago, RobbieOR said:

Look at O'Brien's tweet yesterday about not voting labour. That's why he's a cunt. 

I didn't see it, what did it say? If it was just about not voting Labour then... I'm not sure why that makes somebody a cunt? 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

12 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Have you read the book? 

Of course not. Nobody except hard-core, full-time policy nerds has read it.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, AngryofTuebrook said:

Of course not. 

Well, it works both ways doesn't it. I'd say that if you're going to defend him by saying it's all noise, then criticise those who are throwing shit for not having read it, then you should be held to that same standard. I skimmed it, but I'm not reading the entire thing because I'm not interested in it. However, the bits I've seen are worthy of mention in a 2011 foreword. That's a fair criticism of Corbyn, in my view. However, it's unfair to hold him to every word of a book just because he wrote the foreword. It certainly doesn't make him a raving antisemite. 

[Rico1304]

1 hour ago, RobbieOR said:

Well there is a fairly good chance people won't be still using foodbanks if he does instead of fighting a battle that is never going to be won.

Jesus Christ.  That’s unbelievable.  

[Strontium]

17 minutes ago, RobbieOR said:

Look at O'Brien's tweet yesterday about not voting labour. That's why he's a cunt. 

 

He's a Remainer, not sure why you would expect him to vote for a Brexit party.

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

He's a Remainer, not sure why you would expect him to vote for a Brexit party.

Probably because that party is the only party that offers any chance - ANY chance - of remaining. Probably. 

[Strontium]

Needless to say, I don't agree. Especially if the rumours are to be believed, and Labour and the Tories are close to agreeing a joint Brexit policy.

[RobbieOR]

13 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

He's a Remainer, not sure why you would expect him to vote for a Brexit party.

 

That isn't why. He said he couldn't look a Jewish person in the eye voting for Labour. By defecting away from Labour he's still shitting on people on the poverty line, nurses, midwifes, immigrants who have been failed by the current Tory government. 

[Captain Turdseye]

He works for the same radio station that employs Nigel Farage, the bad meff. 

[Strontium]

17 minutes ago, RobbieOR said:

 

That isn't why. He said he couldn't look a Jewish person in the eye voting for Labour. By defecting away from Labour he's still shitting on people on the poverty line, nurses, midwifes, immigrants who have been failed by the current Tory government. 

 

His exact words were: "...right now, if I voted for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, I wouldn't be able to look a Jew, an EU citizen, anyone set to be hurt by Brexit or myself in the eye again."

 

It's patently clear that his biggest issue is Labour's duplicity over Brexit, and invoking scares about poverty and the NHS is not going to wash with people like him (or me).

[AngryOfTuebrook]

41 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Well, it works both ways doesn't it. I'd say that if you're going to defend him by saying it's all noise, then criticise those who are throwing shit for not having read it, then you should be held to that same standard. I skimmed it, but I'm not reading the entire thing because I'm not interested in it. However, the bits I've seen are worthy of mention in a 2011 foreword. That's a fair criticism of Corbyn, in my view. However, it's unfair to hold him to every word of a book just because he wrote the foreword. It certainly doesn't make him a raving antisemite. 

I'm criticising those who say "This is an anti-Semitic book" without having read it - despite the fact that (prior to this week) the critical consensus (even among people who would go on to be Corbyn critics) seems to be that it's a progressive book. 

 

I don't need to read it to do that.  I'm making no claims about the book one way or another.  I'm looking for those who now - and only now! - claim that it's anti-Semitic to provide better evidence than a few bad sentences on page 64.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

29 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

Needless to say, I don't agree. Especially if the rumours are to be believed, and Labour and the Tories are close to agreeing a joint Brexit policy.

Quite.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

I'm criticising those who say "This is an anti-Semitic book" without having read it - despite the fact that (prior to this week) the critical consensus (even among people who would go on to be Corbyn critics) seems to be that it's a progressive book. 

 

I don't need to read it to do that.  I'm making no claims about the book one way or another.  I'm looking for those who now - and only now! - claim that it's anti-Semitic to provide better evidence than a few bad sentences on page 64.

Well, you claimed it was bullshit round of noise making . To do that... well, you already know. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

11 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

His exact words were: "...right now, if I voted for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, I wouldn't be able to look a Jew, an EU citizen, anyone set to be hurt by Brexit or myself in the eye again."

 

It's patently clear that his biggest issue is Labour's duplicity over Brexit, and invoking scares about poverty and the NHS is not going to wash with people like him (or me).

Scare stories about poverty and the NHS????

 

Pull your fucking head out of your arse, for one minute.  There's a real world out there and your Tory chums are running it into the fucking ground.

 

People are dying as a direct result of the economic choices of this bastard Government and only a Labour Government can stop that.

[Strontium]

1 minute ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Quite.

 

It's Labour themselves who have suggested that a deal is close.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Well, you claimed it was bullshit round of noise making . To do that... well, you already know. 

To do that... I need to recognise a pattern of bullshit noise-making, every time it looks like Labour might be gaining some ground.

 

If it looks and smells like bullshit and it's delivered by a bull walking away saying "I'd leave it 10 minutes if I were you" then you don't need to be a genius to recognise what it is.

 

When people come out with rehashed versions of the same tired nonsense, a reasonable response is to require them to provide evidence.  I've no need to waste my time trying to disprove their rubbish.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and time and again the liars have failed to provide it.  This time looks no different.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, AngryofTuebrook said:

To do that... I need to recognise a pattern of bullshit noise-making, every time it looks like Labour might be gaining some ground.

 

If it looks and smells like bullshit and it's delivered by a bull walking away saying "I'd leave it 10 minutes if I were you" then you don't need to be a genius to recognise what it is.

 

When people come out with rehashed versions of the same tired nonsense, a reasonable response is to require them to provide evidence.  I've no need to waste my time trying to disprove their rubbish.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and time and again the liars have failed to provide it.  This time looks no different.

You’re being obtuse.