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.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.
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.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.
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.And yes, we could have replaced him with someone else, but then the whole process would have started again on whoever took over.
Yes yes, I know. People who love Corbyn never tire of telling us infidels how incredibly popular he is (among people who support him).But then a lot of us actually support Corbyn, so...
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.(...) Corbynites (...) love Corbyn (...) infidels (...) the great leader (...)
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.
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. 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.
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." The allegations regarding the basis for the supposed controversy were rapidly debunked. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.
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."
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.
Of course. I'm just pointing out that the same campaign has commenced in the US, if anyone wants to get in early.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.
https://news.sky.com/story/labour-a...l-not-be-sent-to-equality-commission-11972071An 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".