Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?


Sugar Ape
 Share

Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?  

218 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?



Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Numero said:

What am I diverting from? I’m saying I don’t know which of comments to believe, whether he does have the power to do it unilaterally or if he doesn’t. He has said both about the Labour leader. I’m not an expert so I haven’t been able to come to a conclusion. I have no idea. Far from diverting from it, I want to explore it and be accurate about it and I said, multiple times, if Starmer has done something wrong he should face the consequences. How is that diversionary? 

 

You might not care if he’s a hypocrite, I doubt you even care if he’s right or wrong, you’re a tribalist who isn’t interested in truth, you’re interested in making your tribe look good. You’ve already decided there’s truth in it. I do care though. I care what’s right or wrong and what is applicable to Starmer and this case. I’ve no idea what he was or was not supposed to do or if he did it. Because you don’t care about him being a shit ‘journalist’ (he’s a blogger, as he states in his own blog) or a hypocrite, you’re happy to soak up whatever he says because, suffering once more from confirmatory bias, it says something you want to hear. I’d like to hear the full version before coming to a conclusion. It’s what us non-tribalists do. 

The very first thing I said was that I don't gave a copy of the mp handbook so have no idea if the rules quoted are correct , but that it is presented as facts and am interested in it being for once something that can be proven either way. Along with my oft quoted belief that Corbyn was a very weak leader,  I'm not sure how that makes me a tribalist.

 

You, however , with your dreary 10000 word essays which no matter how many twists and turns always end up Starmer's forensic arse are turning into a parody account.

 

I think its probably for best that we ignore each other going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

With Chris Williamson they ruled that Labour had acted unlawfully so maybe there's a case to be had, I've no idea how it'd work though. From October last year :

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/10/chris-williamson-loses-legal-bid-over-labour-party-antisemitism-suspension

Reading that article in full is a bit of a head fuck. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sir roger said:

The very first thing I said was that I don't gave a copy of the mp handbook so have no idea if the rules quoted are correct , but that it is presented as facts and am interested in it being for once something that can be proven either way. Along with my oft quoted belief that Corbyn was a very weak leader,  I'm not sure how that makes me a tribalist.

 

You, however , with your dreary 10000 word essays which no matter how many twists and turns always end up Starmer's forensic arse are turning into a parody account.

 

I think its probably for best that we ignore each other going forward.

You are more than free to ignore me. What you’ve said there is made up. I’ve called for Starmer to be thrown out of the party and for him to be disciplined over the last couple of days. Of course, the stipulation is that he has actually done something wrong. If that’s me up I his arse, you’d shit your pants if I started actually being biased. Sorry my ‘I want proof’ stance has pissed you off so much. I wish you’d answered the actual question. 
 

You know where the ignore button is. Use it quickly, you’re in danger of reading something that corrupts your chosen view. Best stick to Skwakbox and Rachel Swindon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

It's because the terms are now used so fluidly.

 

20 years ago for instance, left wing would have meant you were into public ownership, opposed to free market economics, pro union, pro public sector, pro strong welfare state. Opinions on things like foreign policy, gay marriage, transgender rights etc wouldn't have factored into that definition at all, IMO.

 

Now being on a BLM protest gets you labelled left wing, or having strong opinion on Palestine etc. 

 

I'd consider myself left wing because I believe in nationalisation of certain industries, a strong welfare state, and believe the private sector should be firmly muzzled. Many people would consider me a 'centrist' though because I don't particularly expend any thought on Yemen.

 

Left wing is now kind of a mish mash term that can be applied to anyone whose views don't jive with Nigel Farage.

 

 

I hear you mate but for me that’s just a case of people using the term incorrectly as opposed to there being a fundamental problem with the labelling itself, if that makes any sense.

 

I consider myself to be on the left generally but there are certain things where I’m probably in the middle.

 

One thing I would say is that a lot of people on the left talk a lot about Socialism without actually understanding what it is.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

Numero is very argumentative on a lot of threads recently for a non-tribalist . 

You’re really can be very snide. You love to slink in for a dig without actually saying anything of your own. It’s not the first time either. Why not just show exactly where I’ve been tribal, if that’s what you think. It should be easy to quote my tribal posts and pull me for that hypocrisy. Bang, done.  That’d be me fucked. Of course, it’s much easier to make a sly comment than just give an example when an example doesn’t exist. 
 

I do often argue against logical fallacy and factual inaccuracies; I have to cop to that. I’ll address the person directly though, instead of sly comments. I’ll admit if I don’t know something, as I have done on this thread, but I’ll argue back when my lack of willingness to believe a money-begging blogger or tweeter looking to post whatever it takes - even when they are the complete opposites of each other - to take advantage of people for financial gain gets called tribalism. It’s not tribalism, it’s good sense. It’s actually impartiality, which is disgusting to a tribalist. 
 

I’m now being criticised for making long posts, as if detail is the enemy. As if context is the enemy. It’s ridiculous, but I guess that’s what you get from those who are used to getting their information 140 characters at a time or from a blog post here or there. It’s not an echo chamber on here, so put me on ignore or accept it.

 

This ‘lots of threads’. How many is that? Ten? Twenty? Thirty? Two? It’s the Starmer and Corbyn threads, isn’t it? If it’s not just those two threads, what else am I being tribal about? It’s because I’m not towing the party line of the majority of Corbynites on here so I’m now somehow a tribalist because I’m not in a tribe. Good stuff. I actually posted some things about Starmer’s career that are factual, rather than made up insinuations, so I’m a tribalist. Good stuff. 
 

Whatever you do, reply with a sneering, dismissive post and not something with some substance. Don’t go changing the habit of a lifetime on my account. May I suggest ‘haha, get a life’ or ‘haha go outside’ or ‘haha you live in a basement’. Anything but good old fashioned substance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Section_31 said:

It's because the terms are now used so fluidly.

 

20 years ago for instance, left wing would have meant you were into public ownership, opposed to free market economics, pro union, pro public sector, pro strong welfare state. Opinions on things like foreign policy, gay marriage, transgender rights etc wouldn't have factored into that definition at all, IMO.

 

Now being on a BLM protest gets you labelled left wing, or having strong opinion on Palestine etc. 

 

I'd consider myself left wing because I believe in nationalisation of certain industries, a strong welfare state, and believe the private sector should be firmly muzzled. Many people would consider me a 'centrist' though because I don't particularly expend any thought on Yemen.

 

Left wing is now kind of a mish mash term that can be applied to anyone whose views don't jive with Nigel Farage.

 

 

I think the terms are fine but people simply have left and right wing economic and social views. 

 

A lot of "traditional" labour support have left wing economic views but centre right social views. It's why lots of people didn't take to Corbyn because he clearly has left wing views for both.  The Liberal Democrats are the opposite. The current Tory party has right wing economic and social views. David Cameron had right wing economic views but didn't give a fuck about social views, etc, etc.

 

The BBC's defence against criticism is always "Well, we're attacked by the left and the right so we must spot on". Whilst the truth is that their political and economic output is largely centre left/left social stuff that annoys the fuck out of loads of people (not playing songs with certain lyrics, gender stuff, etc) and propping up the right wing economics of the government of the last decade. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jairzinho said:

I think the terms are fine but people simply have left and right wing economic and social views. 

 

A lot of "traditional" labour support have left wing economic views but centre right social views. It's why lots of people didn't take to Corbyn because he clearly has left wing views for both.  The Liberal Democrats are the opposite. The current Tory party has right wing economic and social views. David Cameron had right wing economic views but didn't give a fuck about social views, etc, etc.

 

The BBC's defence against criticism is always "Well, we're attacked by the left and the right so we must spot on". Whilst the truth is that their political and economic output is largely centre left/left social stuff that annoys the fuck out of loads of people (not playing songs with certain lyrics, gender stuff, etc) and propping up the right wing economics of the government of the last decade. 

Yep. Or pretty much yep. I'm depressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

 

So Corbyn had showed a massive improvement and was shouldered aside by that Tory lawyer fuck. If it'd stayed on the same trajectory, he would have been polling better than Starmer by now.

 

Edit: Just noticed, who's this Davey fella?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corbyn isn't the leader any more

 

 I would be wondering how it is possible for the main opposition leader to lose 5% of his popularity ( and 10% since June ) in a period where the most inefficient government we have ever seen has been complicit in the deaths of over 50000 citizens. Even fucking Ed Davey has increased his popularity over the past 4 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mudface said:

So Corbyn had showed a massive improvement and was shouldered aside by that Tory lawyer fuck. If it'd stayed on the same trajectory, he would have been polling better than Starmer by now.

 

Edit: Just noticed, who's this Davey fella?

See above

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...