luka

Active member
Staff member
There's too few Jews and as you say no one concerned about racism is going to vote Tory. It's not a decisive factor although obviously everything counts to one degree or another.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
If labour loses there will be reasons why they lost. Lots and lots of interelated reasons. Subvert is not going to be one of the most important of them. I'd say subvert will be a negligible factor in any labour loss today.
Obviously I don't mean it will all be subvert's fault, personally. I thought that went without saying. I meant the attitude subvert represents: that JC is the perfect candidate, almost messianic (a bit like Jesus!), and that the only reason anyone might think otherwise is because of a sinister conspiracy of Tories, Blairites, bankers, Zionists etc.

I think if Corbyn hadn't been surrounded and buoyed up by people who think this after the defeat in 2017, it's conceivable he might have made some progress towards addressing those weaknesses rather than just blaming then, Trump style, on negative press covfefe. Or, more drastically, it might have possible to replace him as leader with someone (ie. anyone) more palatable to the electorate.

Of course, as you say, this is all academic now.
 

subvert47

I don't fight, I run away
Just a small note to say that Ive known S47 for over 15 years, and of everyone Ive ever met online he has been consistently measured and correct in his opinions and behaviour and is perhaps the person I most respect on the internet.
well, thanks :D
 

subvert47

I don't fight, I run away
Obviously I don't mean it will all be subvert's fault, personally. I thought that went without saying. I meant the attitude subvert represents: that JC is the perfect candidate, almost messianic (a bit like Jesus!), and that the only reason anyone might think otherwise is because of a sinister conspiracy of Tories, Blairites, bankers, Zionists etc.

I think if Corbyn hadn't been surrounded and buoyed up by people who think this after the defeat in 2017, it's conceivable he might have made some progress towards addressing those weaknesses rather than just blaming then, Trump style, on negative press covfefe. Or, more drastically, it might have possible to replace him as leader with someone (ie. anyone) more palatable to the electorate.
We've already done this argument. Corbynistas are mostly a fantasy in the minds of anti-Corbyn zealots, who are far more obsessed with him than the rest of us, As for me, no, I don't think Corbyn is perfect. But yes, he is one of best politicians around.

As for Corbyn "addressing those weaknesses", that's meaningless. The whole point of the generated anti-Corbyn feeling is that it's random. Creating the impression that he just is awful, for no particular reason. Or for reasons that are the opposite of someone else's. For instance, he's stopping Brexit vs. he's really a Brexiteer. And there are plenty of compilations of headlines where Corbyn is criticized for this and then not this or that and then not that. It's all bollocks.

And yes, we could have replaced him with someone else, but then the whole process would have started again on whoever took over. I suppose it might have been a cunning plan to replace him for "ill health" or something with one week to go. That would have wrongfooted all the arseholes. But then a lot of us actually support Corbyn, so...
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
And yes, we could have replaced him with someone else, but then the whole process would have started again on whoever took over.
If this had happened after the defeat in 2017, which many Corbynites hailed as some great victory because it wasn't quite as bad a defeat as most people had expected, there would have been 2.5 years for this process. That's plenty of time. Boris Johnson led the Tories and he's been PM for all of five minutes.

But then a lot of us actually support Corbyn, so...
Yes yes, I know. People who love Corbyn never tire of telling us infidels how incredibly popular he is (among people who support him).

I feel like there's an awful lot of finger-pointing being directed at people like me - non-Corbynite Labour voters, Labour members - with the implication that if we'd just had the conviction to believe then it might just have worked. But I haven't spent four years telling people who used to vote Labour, or might conceivably vote Labour, that they should "fuck off and join the Tories/Lib Dems" for showing less than 100% dedication to the great leader. It's the Momentum activists who did that. And either it never occurred to them that people might do just that, or they didn't care.
 

subvert47

I don't fight, I run away
(...) Corbynites (...) love Corbyn (...) infidels (...) the great leader (...)
I supported Corbyn. You didn't. But you're still tiresomely using the language of cults. You still aren't getting the point that it was never actually about him at all. It was people against Corbyn who were obsessed with him. But as I said... We've already done this argument.

Props for your own work though.
 
Last edited:

Leo

Active member
Ready for round two lads?

Erm...the Washington Examiner is a Trump-loving right wing piece of shit rag, hopefully you just didn't realize that. don't trust things you read there.

from wikipedia:

Anti-immigration stories
In January 2019, the Washington Examiner published a story with the headline, "Border rancher: 'We've found prayer rugs out here. It's unreal'." Shortly thereafter, President Donald Trump cited the story as another justification for a border wall amid the 2018-2019 federal government shutdown. The story in question cited one anonymous rancher who offered no evidence of these Muslim prayer rugs, such as photos. The story provided no elaboration on how the rancher knew the rugs in question were Muslim prayer rugs. The author of the story formerly worked as press secretary for the anti-immigration group Federation for American Immigration Reform. Stories of Muslim prayer rugs at the border are urban myths that have frequently popped up since at least 2005, but with no evidence to substantiate the claims.[16][17][18][19][20][21] The Examiner never issued a clarification or retracted the story.

In April 2019, Quartz reported that White House advisor Stephen Miller had been purposely leaking information on border apprehensions and asylum seekers to the Washington Examiner so that the paper would publish stories with alarming statistics that sometimes criticized DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, which he could then show to Trump and undermine her position. Nielsen was fired in April 2019 for reportedly not being sufficiently hawkish on immigration.[22][23]

Climate change
After the Climategate controversy, the Washington Examiner published an op-ed which said of climate science, "Some decades hence, I suspect, people will look back and wonder why so many government, corporate and media elites were taken in by propaganda that was based on such shoddy and dishonest evidence."[24] The allegations regarding the basis for the supposed[25] controversy were rapidly debunked.[25] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[26]

In 2017, the Washington Examiner editorial board supported President Trump's unilateral withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords, which the Examiner editorial board described as "a big flashy set of empty promises... The Earth’s climate is changing, as it always has. And part of the reason it is changing is due to human activity. But those two facts are excuses neither for alarmism and reflexive, but ineffective action, nor for sacrificing sovereignty to give politicians a short-term buzz of fake virtue and green guerrillas another weapon with which to ambush democratic policymaking."[27][28]

On August 31, 2019, the Examiner published an editorial, titled "The great failure of the climate models", which claimed that overwhelmingly accepted climate models were not valid scientific tools. Scientists described the Washington Examiner op-ed as highly misleading, noting that there were numerous false assertions and cherry-picked data in the op-ed.[29]
 

Leo

Active member
also, at the risk of sounding like a cranky old bastard, I wish this thread had a different name. I know it was meant to be funny but still.
 

droid

Beast of Burden
Erm...the Washington Examiner is a Trump-loving right wing piece of shit rag, hopefully you just didn't realize that. don't trust things you read there.

from wikipedia:
Of course. I'm just pointing out that the same campaign has commenced in the US, if anyone wants to get in early.
 

Leo

Active member
A thousand obsessives chatting inside baseball in the bubble of the twitterverse is meaningless, invisible to average voters. Yes, you are right, droid, but it’s got a very very long way to go before having any impact or influence.
 
Last edited:

version

Who loves ya, baby?
An extensive internal investigation into the way Labour handled antisemitism complaints will not be submitted to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, after an intervention by party lawyers.

The 860-page report, seen by Sky News, concluded factional hostility towards Jeremy Corbyn amongst former senior officials contributed to "a litany of mistakes" that hindered the effective handling of the issue.

The investigation, which was completed in the last month of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, claims to have found "no evidence" of antisemitism complaints being treated differently to other forms of complaint, or of current or former staff being "motivated by antisemitic intent".
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-a...l-not-be-sent-to-equality-commission-11972071
 

droid

Beast of Burden
What a shock. I imagine there'll be months of outraged coverage about this blatant cover up of deep rooted systemic racism in the labour party.
 
Open question - Since when did uncritical, unwavering support for Corbyn become the only way of politicking?

A more ruthless leader than Corbyn would already have the heads of most of the fuckwit Tory front benches from the last decade. Instead we had one of the weakest opposition leaders in living memory. The 2017 election was his moment, all downhill from there. Procrastination about Brexit, unable to fully skewer the openly diabolical Tory scum at their weakest points, couldn’t assassinate May’s govt (facepalm), couldn’t assassinate Bojo & his underling’s hubris, so at some point you have to ask “what was the point Jez?”

I respect Corbyn for mediating with provisional republican groups throughout the 80’s when everyone else just saw balaclavas & chaos. He was superb at showing that the IRA’s top bods WERE willing to talk, but instead we had a Tory govt throwing oil on the fire.

He could’ve made a huge difference as a snr Labour minister, but that’s all by the by now.
 

droid

Beast of Burden
I see no point in raking the coals, but you can't talk about any of the above without acknowledging that being on the receiving end of constant sabotage from within his own party whilst facing the most sustained and vociferous domestic propaganda campaign in British history may have had some affect on his ability to function.
 
That’s my point - his chance came against May & he fucked it. Michael Foot & Kinnock got is as bad, if not worse, about the red peril from legions of the media than Corbyn had to deal with. It’s not as if slandering Labour leaders trustworthiness is anything new.

The broadband “policy” was the start of oblivion, but it came on top of playing games over Brexit during the previous 3 years. As a politician who openly voted leave, he sowed his own downfall as much as any internecine warfare or scaremongering did. Whether you agree with that is another matter.
 

droid

Beast of Burden
Foot and Kinnock never faced the same level of threat from within the party though.

Brexit was the wildcard. You can make a very good argument that it was the pressure from within the party to pivot to remain that did him in, but its also true that sticking with leave may have been just as damaging. Ultimately, Brexit and the toxicity of discourse around it was probably insurmountable.
 
Top