WashYourHands

Well-known member
Keir Starmer

6f2IrPwlHTRB2th7ha2IBQ-e3zqIWy63kKWYDKLwwG8.jpg


(not really)
 

subvert47

I don't fight, I run away
Not at all. Corbyn's policies were popular. Corbyn was not. Seems pretty reasonable to me that someone without whatever qualities it was that turned voters off Corbyn, but with most of the same policies, would probably be a pretty popular politician.

The quality that turned voters off Corbyn was a mass front page campaign by the right wing media to portray every little thing he did as evidence of ultimate evil, reinforced by MPs in his own party lining up to undermine him at every opportunity, boosted uncritically by the broadcast media, and endless critical opinion pieces by the "liberal" commentariat. And that was just the first two years. After that they got serious.

The quality that turned them off Corbyn was a mild form of democratic socialism, which would have applied to anyone on the left.
 

luka

Well-known member
also cos of the IRA bombing campaigns he masterminded. and becasue he was secretly Abu Hamza in a cunning disguise
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
The quality that turned voters off Corbyn was a mass front page campaign by the right wing media to portray every little thing he did as evidence of ultimate evil, reinforced by MPs in his own party lining up to undermine him at every opportunity, boosted uncritically by the broadcast media, and endless critical opinion pieces by the "liberal" commentariat. And that was just the first two years. After that they got serious.

The quality that turned them off Corbyn was a mild form of democratic socialism, which would have applied to anyone on the left.

There was a campaign against him that focused on stupid trivialities like his response to the national anthem but most MPs disliked him cos of his history which is a long list of support for anti-Western causes. You can't have that guy and his associates in charge of a major Western nation.
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
I won't list them, it's boring at this point but that's what I disliked about him. I liked loads of the domestic policy and the anti-austerity stuff. I liked him at first but the more I found out, the more I disliked him. Thats why Starmer hamfistedly dressed himself in the flag, to compensate.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
The quality that turned voters off Corbyn was a mass front page campaign by the right wing media to portray every little thing he did as evidence of ultimate evil, reinforced by MPs in his own party lining up to undermine him at every opportunity, boosted uncritically by the broadcast media, and endless critical opinion pieces by the "liberal" commentariat. And that was just the first two years. After that they got serious.

I would agree that the media crucified him, but he did on several occasions seem to hand them the timbers and nails and say "Go on, do your worst." I mean, if you don't want be accused of loving terrorists or hating Jews, you don't describe Hamas as your "friends".

This is ultra, ultra basic stuff, that you need to get right before you even think about policies and manifestos, and he often got it wrong.

The quality that turned them off Corbyn was a mild form of democratic socialism, which would have applied to anyone on the left.

That makes no sense at all. Why would people dislike Corbyn for being a social democrat, but like his social-democratic policies?

You've constructed a strawman of an Average Idiot Voter, who thinks "I really want a government that's going to fund schools and the NHS properly by adequately taxing big businesses and the very rich, but I can't vote Labour because Jeremy Corbyn is a mad communist who wants to fund schools and the NHS properly by adequately taxing big businesses and the very rich."

In any case, if you're right, then the British public is simply too right-wing ever to elect a party that's to the left of Labour in 1997, so why whinge about the media?
 

subvert47

I don't fight, I run away
That makes no sense at all. Why would people dislike Corbyn for being a social democrat, but like his social-democratic policies?
you literally didnt read what was written tea you illiterate!

Quite so. Democratic socialist not social democrat. But more pertinently: the "them" in italics referred of course to the "them" I'd just been talking about: the right wing press, labour right, broadcast media and commentariat. Not the general public. Ya drongo.
 

luka

Well-known member
at least danny has a sane coherent logical poistion. uk interests are identical with the interests with the empire and its continuing military and economic dominance. our security and prosperity depends on it and all moral qualms are secondary to that. thats not a mad position.
 

luka

Well-known member
tea is just a mess of disconnected mass media talking point generated at random. probably some kind of crude primitive bot
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
at least danny has a sane coherent logical poistion. uk interests are identical with the interests with the empire and its continuing military and economic dominance. our security and prosperity depends on it and all moral qualms are secondary to that. thats not a mad position.
It's the same with being anti-American, you can say the Empire is so fucked it deserves to die by any means necessary (see Luke's thread). I get that. It's just when people say Corbyn didn't do that, didn't say that, didn't mean it that i get pissed.
 

luka

Well-known member
what shocked supporters of trump, corbyn and sanders is how the entire system will mobilise to defeat a perceived threat
whereas in a normal election, while there might be a favoured candidate, really it doesnt matter much who wins
 

luka

Well-known member
most of us had never really seen what it looks like when the entire system unifies and goes into attack mode becasue the stakes had always been so low before.
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
most of us had never really seen what it looks like when the entire system unifies and goes into attack mode becasue the stakes had always been so low before.
I see you're still banging on about that article whose entire thrust you completely misconstrued, to the point of insisting it said almost the direct opposite of what it actually said.
 
Top