Quantcast
Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader? - Page 655 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Sugar Ape

Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?  

211 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?



Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

This could read easily as telling lies.

 

Not really. Something can be 100% true, but if it can't be substantiated, you still run the risk of being sued for libel.

 

I look forward to hearing Oona speak at length about it when Galloway is no more, as she has pledged to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hank Moody said:

Yes, but that's not interesting to me. I know how they get their polling votes. Getting 14% of the votes for 11 MPs out of 650 would be... impressive. 

 

Indeed. Well, they may form a political party and field candidates in most constituencies by the time elections are held. The number is interesting because it's reflective of how many people may react positively to a group splitting from a major party, at least at first. The numbers usually don't hold for very long in absence of a coherent political program, but it's certainly and interesting indicator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strontium Dog said:

I look forward to hearing Oona speak at length about it when Galloway is no more, as she has pledged to do.

 

Aye. It will all come out in the wash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

You are utterly clueless.

 

Galloway is what he is. If it doesn't bother you, fine, but don't deny it.

So... not going to answer even one of the six straight questions about your daft post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

That they were going to lose anyway. It's not like any of these clowns were in the mix for a top job in politics. 

 

Doesn't Umuna get nine grand an hour for consultancy work for Heinz baked beans or some shit?

 

So the Independent Group are pro-beans on a full English. They will never get my vote. Deviants.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

 

This could read easily as telling lies.

 

I'm sure there weren't niceties on either side, as there never are during elections. People love to hate Galloway and anyone running against him will be caught up in his hurricane-like orations, leading to a greater need to defeat him - by whatever means. 

 

 

He's a brash, loud mouthed, sensationalist bully (although I do advocate his stance on Palestinian rights). But, that doesn't make him what is being insinuated. 

 

Just like an allegation doesn't make a "fact on the ground." 

 

If the evidence is out there, it's weird that he again successfully sued in the infamous "Georgie Galloway" case. 

 

I'm just dealing in facts here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sugar Ape said:

 

I know you can’t force May to have one. If more Tories defect though then I think it’s a very real possibility that she will call one. It’ll force her hand, she can’t get anything through parliament as it is. Losing the fragile majority she’s got with the DUP may mean she’s got little option but to call it.

 

It’ll also be interesting to see what the polling does now some Tories have moved over. Will they take any of the Tory vote share with them?

It’s going to be interesting to see isn’t it.  The Labour vote seem to be fully on to that type of politics these days.  You can’t be all things to all people.  After Blair and the 2010 Lib Dem’s leading with left wing policies in their manifesto only to enable the tories you would think that type of politics wouldn’t stand a chance again.  The thing that this party have got in common is that they are all economically right wing.  The votes labour would lose due to Corbyn being a socialist and putting forward a socialist manifesto he would lose to the tories anyway.

 

From this you would expect their votes to come from the Lib Dem’s and the tories but it remains to be seen.  I expect they will target the labour vote though and go for that tactic of promising things like reduced tuition fees.  Essentially their minimum objective is to stop a socialist govt which shows up what a disgrace it was that these cunts were actually representing the Labour Party.

 

The problem for them is that it isn’t 2010 and they aren’t going to get that swing of young people they got from New Labours decade of right wing views and policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

Not really. Something can be 100% true, but if it can't be substantiated, you still run the risk of being sued for libel.

 

I look forward to hearing Oona speak at length about it when Galloway is no more, as she has pledged to do.

And I’m sure you’ll look at the claims, that are made after his death so that he can defend himself against them, critically and fairly rather than take the word of someone who waited until the person couldn’t defend themselves and believe every word of it because you want to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

You are utterly clueless.

 

Galloway is what he is. If it doesn't bother you, fine, but don't deny it.

I didn’t mention anything about anyone other than you. You’re a troll, do one.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extract from a 2018 Jonathan Cook article, interesting take on what's currently happening :

 

Has Jeremy Corbyn stumbled onto a battlefield, little prepared for the historic burden he shoulders?

 

. . .

Different languages

Two camps, two entirely different languages and narratives.

 

These camps may be divided, but it would be seriously misguided to imagine they are equal.

 

One has the full power and weight of those corporate structures behind it. The politicians speak its language, as do the media. Its ideas and its voice dominate everywhere that is considered official, objective, balanced, neutral, respectable, legitimate.

 

The other camp has one small space to make its presence felt – social media. That is a space rapidly shrinking, as the politicians, media and the corporations that own social media (as they do everything else) start to realise they have let the genie out of the bottle. This camp is derided as conspiratorial, dangerous, fake news.

 

This is the current battlefield. It is a battle the first camp looks like it is winning but actually has already lost.

 

That is not necessarily because the second camp is winning the argument. It is because physical realities are catching up with the first camp, smashing its illusions, even as it clings to them like a life-raft.

 

The two most significant disrupters of the first camp’s narrative are climate breakdown and economic meltdown. The planet has finite resources, which means endless growth and wealth accumulation cannot be sustained indefinitely. Much as in a Ponzi scheme, there comes a point when the hollow centre is exposed and the system comes crashing down. We have had intimations enough that we are nearing that point.

 

It hardly needs repeating, except to climate deniers, that we have had even more indications that the Earth’s climate is already turning against humankind.

Out of the darkness

Our political language is rupturing because we are now completely divided. There is no middle ground, no social compact, no consensus. The second camp understands that the current system is broken and that we need radical change, while the first camp holds desperately to the hope that the system will continue to be workable with modifications and minor reforms.

 

It is on to this battlefield that Corbyn has stumbled, little prepared for the heavy historic burden he shoulders.

 

We are arriving at a moment called a paradigm shift. That is when the cracks in a system become so obvious they can no longer be credibly denied. Those vested in the old system scream and shout, they buy themselves a little time with increasingly repressive measures, but the house is moments away from falling. The critical questions are who gets hurt when the structure tumbles, and who decides how it will be rebuilt.

 

The new paradigm is coming anyway. If we don’t choose it ourselves, the planet will for us. It could be an improvement, it could be a deterioration, it could be extinction, depending on how prepared we are for it and how violently those invested in the old system resist the loss of their power. If enough of us understand the need for discarding the broken system, the greater the hope that we can build something better from the ruins.

 

We are now at the point where the corporate elite can see the cracks are widening but they remain in denial. They are entering the tantrum phase, screaming and shouting at their enemies, and readying to implement ever-more repressive measures to maintain their power.

 

They have rightly identified social media as the key concern. This is where we – the 99 per cent – have begun waking each other up. This is where we are sharing and learning, emerging out of the darkness clumsily and shaken. We are making mistakes, but learning. We are heading up blind alleys, but learning. We are making poor choices, but learning. We are making unhelpful alliances, but learning.

 

No one, least of all the corporate elite, knows precisely where this process might lead, what capacities we have for political, social and spiritual growth.

 

And what the elite don’t own or control, they fear.

Putting the genie back

The elite have two weapons they can use to try to force the second camp back into the bottle. They can vilify it, driving it back into the margins of public life, where it was until the advent of social media; or they can lock down the new channels of mass communication their insatiable drive to monetise everything briefly opened up.

 

Both strategies have risks, which is why they are being pursued tentatively for the time being. But the second option is by far the riskier of the two. Shutting down social media too obviously could generate blowback, awakening more of the first camp to the illusions the second camp have been trying to alert them to.

 

Corbyn’s significance – and danger – is that he brings much of the language and concerns of the second camp into the mainstream. He offers a fast-track for the second camp to reach the first camp, and accelerate the awakening process. That, in turn, would improve the chances of the paradigm shift being organic and transitional rather than disruptive and violent.

 

That is why he has become a lightning rod for the wider machinations of the ruling elite. They want him destroyed, like blowing up a bridge to stop an advancing army.

 

It is a sign both of their desperation and their weakness that they have had to resort to the nuclear option, smearing him as an anti-semite. Other, lesser smears were tried first: that he was not presidential enough to lead Britain; that he was anti-establishment; that he was unpatriotic; that he might be a traitor. None worked. If anything, they made him more popular.

 

And so a much more incendiary charge was primed, however at odds it was with Corbyn’s decades spent as an anti-racism activist.

 

The corporate elite weaponised anti-semitism not because they care about the safety of Jews, or because they really believe that Corbyn is an anti-semite. They chose it because it is the most destructive weapon – short of sex-crime smears and assassination – they have in their armoury.

 

The truth is the ruling elite are exploiting British Jews and fuelling their fears as part of a much larger power game in which all of us – the 99 per cent – are expendable. They will keep stoking this campaign to stigmatise Corbyn, even if a political backlash actually does lead to an increase in real, rather than phoney, anti-semitism.

 

The corporate elites have no plan to go quietly. Unless we can build our ranks quickly and make our case confidently, their antics will ensure the paradigm shift is violent rather than healing. An earthquake, not a storm.

 

https://prruk.org/jeremy-corbyn-stumbles-onto-a-battlefield-little-prepared-for-the-historic-burden-he-shoulders/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

I am outraged that George Galloway went hundreds of miles out of his way to avoid a pregnant Jewish woman. Disgusting. 

"It took a lot of effort on George's part," a close friend told the Sun on condition of anonymity, "but he found it liberating. It's like his motto in German, arbeit macht frei."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Watson asking for the decision on Hatton to be revisited. 

Well, spank my ass and call me Charlie! Who would have guessed that The Artist Formerly Known as Fat Cunt isn't a Degsy fan?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Brownie said:

I didn’t mention anything about anyone other than you. You’re a troll, do one.

 

You're a moron. I'm here in good faith to discuss British politics in a civil manner. If anyone should fuck off, it's you.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Watson asking for the decision on Hatton to be revisited. 

 

Please no. Hatton is worth several seats to us in the upcoming council elections on his own. Absolute box office poison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

You're a moron. I'm here in good faith to discuss British politics in a civil manner. If anyone should fuck off, it's you.

Get fucked.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a feeling of late that political discourse in this country is on its arse and is somewhat dictated by social media. We're all guilty of it, in differing degrees.

 

Somebody will tweet something, it'll be retweeted and agreement given to it without any real critical thinking being given to what the original message says. 

 

That's jumped out even more with Derek Hatton. I'm not arsed if he is or isn't admitted back into the Labour Party as a lowly card carrying member. I'd have issues if it looked like he was going to gain a position of influence in the party. 

 

But, all we're getting on it appears to be somebody says Hatton shouldn't be admitted, they must be right, let's blindly share their opinion. 

 

Nobody scrutinises anymore. He did some dodgy things about 40 years ago. Why aren't most of his detractors putting forward a case of WHY he shouldn't be admitted into the party, provided his membership complies with the relevant party rules?

 

It's just a really dull argument, totally lacking in substance. Oooh, Tom Watson/some random columnist doesn't think that Hatton should be in the party! And what? Who cares?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Luciana Berger out, while Derek Hatton is in rhetoric is equally as mundane. 

 

And what? She fucked off of her own accord. Derek Hatton isn't coming as an MP. 

 

It's all a load of soundbitey, nonsensical bollocks. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

I've had a feeling of late that political discourse in this country is on its arse and is somewhat dictated by social media. We're all guilty of it, in differing degrees.

 

Somebody will tweet something, it'll be retweeted and agreement given to it without any real critical thinking being given to what the original message says. 

 

That's jumped out even more with Derek Hatton. I'm not arsed if he is or isn't admitted back into the Labour Party as a lowly card carrying member. I'd have issues if it looked like he was going to gain a position of influence in the party. 

 

But, all we're getting on it appears to be somebody says Hatton shouldn't be admitted, they must be right, let's blindly share their opinion. 

 

Nobody scrutinises anymore. He did some dodgy things about 40 years ago. Why aren't most of his detractors putting forward a case of WHY he shouldn't be admitted into the party, provided his membership complies with the relevant party rules?

 

It's just a really dull argument, totally lacking in substance. Oooh, Tom Watson/some random columnist doesn't think that Hatton should be in the party! And what? Who cares?

Well, one of their rules is that your aims must comply with the aims of the Labour Party. That's why he was kicked out in the first place. But the thing is, his views do comply with the views of the party nowadays.

 

2u62ei.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

You're a moron. I'm here in good faith to discuss British politics in a civil manner. If anyone should fuck off, it's you.

 

37 minutes ago, Brownie said:

Get fucked.

 

UoOR2V7.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Boss said:

Well, one of their rules is that your aims must comply with the aims of the Labour Party. That's why he was kicked out in the first place. But the thing is, his views do comply with the views of the party nowadays.

 

2u62ei.gif

 

Do they? Have you sat down with Degsy and asked him about this? Has he changed his outlook on things since living out in Cyprus? 

 

I bet bet you don’t really know at this stage do you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×