Quantcast
Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader? - Page 941 - 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 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

This link's not working for me.

 

Does it contain anything to back up your claims, or is it as piss-poor as the others?

What do you think 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JohnnyH said:

All well and good, but the Sun is the most popular paper in Britain. That’s a massive part of the problem. If they don’t want you to be liked, you won’t be liked. 

I think we are in agreement. The usual suspects use baseless attacks to discredit Corbyn and hence reduce his chances of being elected. 

 

The only way of getting support from the Sun/Mail etc is to follow their lead and agenda. Therefore, by my logic any Labour leader who puts forward the policies of the current Labour party will be attacked and discredited with lies and smears, so they won't be liked. 

 

The question is what is the solution and for me it is an either or;

Ether

1 Back down and support the status quo, hence the papers might let people like you a little

 Or

2 Stand by your policies and try to show the papers up for the cunts that they are

 

 

That is why I struggle with your "just get a labour leader everyone can unite against", because the leader to a point is irrelevant, as the usual suspects will just attack and smear and lie, hence making it difficult for people to unite behind said leader, if the parties policies and seen as threatening to them. 

 

 

Let us not forget Red Ed whose father hated Britain because his son wanted to impose an energy price cap, a policy when put forward by May was seen as a masterstroke.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just a  bit bored by the fact that we're still doing all this. It's like what John Barnes says re: racism in general. That football isn't particularly followed by racists, but racism exists in society and will inevitably crop up in football too. It's the same with Labour's alleged antisemitism "problem." You'll find antisemitic people in society. So, inevitably, you'll get them in political parties too. Be that the small, minuscule fraction of Labour supporters, or those aligned to right wing parties who all seem to be on the Soros bogeyman bandwagon. That certain people are digging around only on one side of politics suggests that an agenda might be more important to them than actually fighting ALL antisemitism. 

 

Plus, I'm sure if you had a good rummage around in the social media of some of the people (or their sock-puppet accounts) pushing the Labour antisemitism allegations, you'll no doubt find some fairly shocking anti Arab/Palestinian racism and hatred. The two often seem to overlap. 

 

But, that we hear little about this, as well as the rampant Islamophobia displayed by some modern day far right uber zionists (zionism ain't what it used to be!) and the Tories is shocking racism in itself and, for me, makes the antisemitism allegations against Labour pale into relative insignificance. I mean, just imagine if Corbyn had promised on live TV to launch an inquiry into antisemitism in Labour and then shirked on his promise? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MegadriveMan said:

So who are they voting for then?

 

I presume it's the green party or maybe snp because you could easily spin the line about not voting for a party because of its leader about any of the other parties?


I’m Irish. Living in Ireland. I’m an interested bystander. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

Apparently he is going to slag off Murdoch in his speech today, no doubt that will help  unite the independent media.

He did that at the event I went to in Liverpool. Along the lines of that Labour will get no help from the press so the grassroots will have to go out and win an election themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got linked to a live stream of the speech on the ITV News FB page. The comments section, man. Utterly depressing. Hundred upon hundreds of people calling him dangerous, a liar, etc, and loads still blaming Labour for the global financial crash. It’s a sad state of affairs when so many people are easily led into believing any old shit. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Just got linked to a live stream of the speech on the ITV News FB page. The comments section, man. Utterly depressing. Hundred upon hundreds of people calling him dangerous, a liar, etc, and loads still blaming Labour for the global financial crash. It’s a sad state of affairs when so many people are easily led into believing any old shit. 

Bots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Out of interest, would you be happy for him to stay beyond this election if he doesn’t win. A mate of mine said he would, so wondered if it was a widespread thought. 

I don’t think so. I think if labour loses this election it is over. I don’t think they’ll find anyone with a shred of the integrity and with similar politics as Corbyn to take over, mind. I think the “mass movement” element will probably fall by the wayside, or find another vehicle to push for change. 
 

It’s very important that Labour wins this. A defeat could set us back years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scooby Dudek said:

Apparently he is going to slag off Murdoch in his speech today, no doubt that will help unite the independent media.

Quite right too.

 

Milliband tried to placate Murdoch and got properly fucked over. Better to come out swinging against the old cunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, moof said:

I don’t think so. I think if labour loses this election it is over. I don’t think they’ll find anyone with a shred of the integrity and with similar politics as Corbyn to take over, mind. I think the “mass movement” element will probably fall by the wayside, or find another vehicle to push for change. 
 

It’s very important that Labour wins this. A defeat could set us back years

Yeah, I’d read to think what will happen if he loses, which I suspect he will. The replacement could lead to another decade of Tories if they get it wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

You asked, I delivered. Not sure where the piss is.

You still haven't delivered SD? Any chance of proving you didn't lie? Quite a few unanswered questions came from others after this as well. Any chance of a response? Im happy for you not to bother though because I already believe it was nonsense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can do is provide links to Twitter accounts with screenshots of the things these individuals have written or shared. If people don't think spreading Rothschild conspiracy theories, or claiming that the House of Saud are Zionist puppets, or claiming that the Holocaust has been exaggerated, etc etc are antisemitic in the first instance, then they're not going to be convinced by the evidence provided.

Share this post


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

 

- Michael Morgan (JVL member)

- Apsana Begum (Labour candidate in Poplar & Limehouse)

- Matthew Collings (Labour candidate in SW Norfolk, now suspended)

- Gerry Beckett (Labour member in Liverpool Riverside)

 

You asked for 3, ok, I cheated by giving you 4, I could find more, but I have other things to do with my life than to do your research for you.

 

1 hour ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

All I can do is provide links to Twitter accounts with screenshots of the things these individuals have written or shared. If people don't think spreading Rothschild conspiracy theories, or claiming that the House of Saud are Zionist puppets, or claiming that the Holocaust has been exaggerated, etc etc are antisemitic in the first instance, then they're not going to be convinced by the evidence provided.

Michael Morgan - Anti-Zionist. Or more clearly, anti-Israeli slaughter of Palestinians. He is anti-semitic for opposing the slaughter of innocent Palestinians. I didn't see any holocaust denial in there. He does (and I disagree massively with him) say that holocaust facts are exaggerated. Its his opinion, he is not a denier as far as anything there shows? Is that anti-semitic? Or is he anti-Israels war machine. Like most decent human beings are? Source - The JVL Twitter Account (Jewish Voice Watch) 

 

Aspana Begum - Believes that Zionists control governments financially for them to support the murder of Palestinians. Thats not anti-semitic. Source - Gnasher Jew on Twitter 

 

Matthew Collings - Suspended for behaviour on social media. Can you point to the part where it states he was anti-semitic? Or any mention of anti-semitism? Source - Eastern Daily Press

 

Gerry Beckett - Again, not anti-semitic. Absolutely against the murdering of Palestinians and fake anti-semitic smears. Source - Twitter account of 12 Scouts (We Fight Anti-Semites) - A quick scan through their account shows more false allegations and smears than Gnasher and Rachel Riley which is really saying something. 

 

 

So yet again you are full of shit. Its another example of using Anti-Semitism as a natural response to hearing something that doesn't suit you. I genuinely think using Anti-Semitism as a got to reaction for disagreeing with someone is anti-Semitic in itself and destroys the work genuine people are doing to eradicate anti-semitism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, well, if you can't agree that statements like "Jews do not pray to Jesus, they killed him" and "their Holocaust industry depends on a gross exaggeration of the facts" and "Zionists are animals to be exterminated" are unambiguously antisemitic, then further dialogue on this topic seems futile. All I can suggest is that you educate yourself about what antisemitism is.

Share this post


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

Right, well, if you can't agree that statements like "Jews do not pray to Jesus, they killed him" and "their Holocaust industry depends on a gross exaggeration of the facts" and "Zionists are animals to be exterminated" are unambiguously antisemitic, then further dialogue on this topic seems futile. All I can suggest is that you educate yourself about what antisemitism is.

Out of the four, I winced at Michael Morgans if I'm honest. You can have that one. Jewish deicide was and is an abhorrent way to create hate towards Jews. I apologise as a human being on behalf of people who spout stuff like that. 

 

How about the other 3? Saying the conversation is futile seems very convenient SD. And typical.

 

I hated Mugabe and his murderous regime. That doesn't make me racist. 

 

I hate what Myra Hindley did to them poor children. That doesn't make me sexist. 

 

I hate the Israel war machine for murdering innocent people and having a hold over countries and media outlets who don't report or condemn Israel for it. I also hate people who throw "Thats anti-semitic" around like confetti. That doesn't make me anti-semitic. 

 

All 3 make me a human being who cares about others and the also, the truth.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Out of the four, I winced at Michael Morgans if I'm honest. You can have that one. Jewish deicide was and is an abhorrent way to create hate towards Jews. I apologise as a human being on behalf of people who spout stuff like that. 

 

How about the other 3? Saying the conversation is futile seems very convenient SD. And typical.

 

Okay, well I'm really mostly just repeating stuff in the links I already posted, but if you insist.

 

Apsana Begum claimed the House of Saud was controlled by "Zionist masters". She shared articles by antisemite and 9/11 truther Ken O'Keefe, and antisemite Ben White.

 

Matthew Collings has been suspended as a Labour parliamentary candidate for a variety of social media posts, such as insisting that the antisemitism issue in Labour has been fabricated and driven by Israeli money, as well as referring to former chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks as a "hate filled racist".

 

Gerry Beckett spreads Rothschilds conspiracy theories on Twitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of antisemites within labour. They need to be fucked off. I’m pretty sure the conversation was originally about whether Jeremy Corbyn personally hates jews. Which is a hatstand accusation and is so utterly ridiculous that anybody who claims as such can be completely discounted from any sensible debate. 
 

When is the investigation into racism allegations from other parties? Or is racism only noteworthy when it happens within Labour? Truly an insane set of circumstances 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the links posted have either clearly strayed into unacceptable antisemitic conduct or are right on the edge of doing so. Some people overstep the mark and get overly passionate in speaking out against apartheid, war crimes, child slaughter particularly when it appears to be carried out with impunity. 

 

However, can we clarify who decides whether or not a person (i.e. Ben White) that somebody has retweeted is "antisemitic"? 

 

I'm not making a categorical claim here and I welcome all information that provides clarity, but I have heard of Ben White before and, while not being overly knowledgeable of him, I have it in my head that he is a vocal critic of Israel and that he hasn't officially been found culpable of antisemitism, but rather accused of such a charge by similarly vocal online zionists? 

 

We're straying into very dangerous territory if we can strongly imply that somebody is antisemitic because they've retweeted or shared content from somebody else who is "antisemitic" when we don't actually scrutinise whether or not the author of the original, shared content is actually antisemitic, or the motivations and credibility of the person who made that initial allegation against them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quality passive/aggressive anti semitism here:

 

A high school principal in Florida has been fired after telling a student’s parent “not everyone believes the Holocaust happened”.

The Palm Beach county school board voted 5-2 to fire William Latson on the grounds of “ethical misconduct” and “failure to carry out job responsibilities”.

Latson, former principal of Spanish River high school in Boca Raton, was fired because he could not be contacted when “all hell broke loose” after his statement went public, sparking national outrage. Latson was on a previously scheduled vacation in Jamaica when the media learned of his comments in July, reported the South Florida Sun Sentinel.

The controversy stemmed from an email exchange with a parent in 2018. A parent sent Latson an email asking how students are taught about the Holocaust, and asking if Holocaust education will be made a priority.

“Not everyone believes the Holocaust happened,” Latson wrote, according to email records obtained by the Palm Beach Post. “And you have your thoughts, but we are a public school and not all of our parents have the same beliefs.”

He wrote: “I can’t say the Holocaust is a factual, historical event because I am not in a position to do so as a district employee.”

Share this post


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

I think the links posted have either clearly strayed into unacceptable antisemitic conduct or are right on the edge of doing so. Some people overstep the mark and get overly passionate in speaking out against apartheid, war crimes, child slaughter particularly when it appears to be carried out with impunity. 

 

However, can we clarify who decides whether or not a person (i.e. Ben White) that somebody has retweeted is "antisemitic"? 

 

I'm not making a categorical claim here and I welcome all information that provides clarity, but I have heard of Ben White before and, while not being overly knowledgeable of him, I have it in my head that he is a vocal critic of Israel and that he hasn't officially been found culpable of antisemitism, but rather accused of such a charge by similarly vocal online zionists? 

 

We're straying into very dangerous territory if we can strongly imply that somebody is antisemitic because they've retweeted or shared content from somebody else who is "antisemitic" when we don't actually scrutinise whether or not the author of the original, shared content is actually antisemitic, or the motivations and credibility of the person who made that initial allegation against them. 

Just imagine if you’d be so charitable about white supremacy? I don’t think so. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, viRdjil said:

If you listen to the right, Jeremy Corbyn is:

1. A rabid anti-semite

2. An enemy of the hindus

3. An enemy of the muslims

4. A Russian spy

5. An ISIS supporter

6. IRA

7. The Warrington bombing mastermind


The make him out to be the worst super-villain, it’s very funny.

Boomski... another belter. “A bigger threat than Adolf Hitler”.

 

 

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

×