DannyL

Wild Horses
Of course. I do think though that this means that any valid criticisms are dismissed in a way that's not healthy. It's kinda emblematic of the post-truth culture we're in.
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
Funnily enough, it's something which places Trump and Corbyn supporters side by side in that they both feel their guy is forever being smeared by the media and that they can no longer trust anything critical of him. Obviously I think the criticism of Trump is far more justified, but I can see why his supporters feel as hostile toward the press as they do.
 

subvert47

I don't fight, I run away
I like the Orwell quote, "some things are true even if they are in The Daily Telegraph"
Yes indeed, but when those true things are surrounded by endless garbage, how would you know which are which? Simpler just to ignore the whole lot.
 

subvert47

I don't fight, I run away
Yeah but the idea that the New Statesman carries some institutional anti Lab bias is crazy. It's a bloody house journal for the Left.
It's a house journal for the "New Labour" type left. Consequently it does have institutional anti-Labour bias because their perspective is no longer the dominant one in the Labour party. Similarly with the Guardian. Although they both run supportive pieces from regular columnists, their general editorial slant is effectively anti-Labour.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Whatever you think of him as a person, party leader etc, the fact is that, as was true in 2015, Corbyn's proposed domestic policies are still very threatening to a very large number of people who just want a return to supposedly 'safe' 2000s centrism i.e. social liberalism and right-wing economics (eg the disastrous PFI continuation, which is now a major reason for the struggles of the NHS, because it was one of the worst deals imaginable). That dynamic goes way beyond Corbyn, and it's frustrating that everything is couched in terms of a single personality. If he resigned tomorrow, that struggle/tension would still be the central theme within Labour.

Figuring out what's actually happening is pretty damn difficult when the stakes are perceived as so high by so many. And 'what's actually happening' depends upon what one's own political ideals are, and whether the LP is moving towards them or away from them (assuming one has any investment in that party)
 
Last edited:

version

Who loves ya, baby?
I still haven't worked out exactly what it was, but the combination of the '08 crash and Obama being elected seemed to flip a switch on the Western right and convince them that they absolutely could not afford to ever lose an election again and that from here on out it's all a zero-sum game and the gloves are off.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
And also their lowest common denominator messages resonated massively in a West reeling from financial disaster and a new precarity. Will continue to do so.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Tom Watson:
"It’s a straight sectarian attack on a broad-church party and it’s moving us into a different kind of institution where pluralism isn’t tolerated, where factional observance has to be adhered to completely and it kind of completely goes against the sort of traditions that the Labour party has had for 100 years.”

Massive rolling of eyes...clearly the major movement within Labour over recent years has been to try to stamp out any residue of 'traditional' socialism/opposition to right-wing economics, until they found out that the membership was changing and didn't agree. It smacks of arrogance and selective truth, even when I agree with the principle that Labour has to have a broad base in order to win an election.
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
Yeah, he seems to have forgotten the period where it seemed like there was a Blairite coup against Corbyn every other week.
 

subvert47

I don't fight, I run away
On what basis do you make this judgement?

Sounds a lot like the classic "People think..." to mean "I think...".
From all the Labour meetings, forums, groups, etc, I'm part of. There's never anyone who thinks Tom is doing a good job. The ubiquitous story among the membership - which also applies to me - runs as : "I voted for Tom as deputy leader in 2015, and now I want the chance to vote him out again." But it's really difficult under current party rules to trigger a deputy leadership election unless Tom puts himself up for it, which he is definitely not going to do because he'd get absolutely trounced.
 
Last edited:

DannyL

Wild Horses
That dynamic goes way beyond Corbyn, and it's frustrating that everything is couched in terms of a single personality. If he resigned tomorrow, that struggle/tension would still be the central theme within Labour.
I'm not sure about this. Personally I like a lot of the domestic policy, what I know of it (and obvs not going to hear about it now, 'cos the news will be dominated by internal ructions - nice one, Momentum). For me, its foreign policy stuff (and Brexit obvs but let's not go there). For a lot of "the establishment" I think it would be security concerns also (probably best illustrated by his response to the Skirpal posioning). If he were to resign and take his top advisors with him, I'd feel happy about voting Labour again.

I think this is from today's times (a friend just posted it online):

'In another coded attack on Milne, who shares Corbyn’s belief that the West is to blame for the world’s ills, Fisher complained that a recent tweet drafted for Corbyn after the Russian bombing of hospitals in Idlib chose instead to condemn US bombings in Syria. “I kid you not,” he wrote.

Fisher is just the latest senior Labour figure to tire of Milne and Murphy, the key axis at the heart of LOTO — the leader of the opposition’s office. John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, and Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, have both called for Corbyn to remove the pair.

Milne is accused of regularly intervening to overrule decisions taken by other aides or the shadow cabinet to maintain Corbyn’s ambiguity towards Brexit and to impose a highly aggressive general election strategy that one insider characterised as “shit or bust”.

One leader’s office source said: “Seumas is the problem. Andrew is unable to cope with it any more. Others are unable to cope with it any more.”



How terrible would it be if if Labour were to take a moral position on the world's biggest ongoing tragedy? Far too much to ask.
 
Last edited:

DannyL

Wild Horses
Corbyn has opened up Labour to a load of cranks IMO. Conspiracy theories run rife. Momentum (to their credit actually) produced a video telling the members tone it down with the bloody Rothschild stuff (I was on JC4PM when a moderator told people something similar - the reaction was .... illuminating). I mean, why the fuck is Williamson still in the party? Never mind the anti-semitism he tweeted his support for a leading Assadist and 9/11 truther. These people are fucking nuts and they are there 'cos of JC.

That's what concerns me about Labour anyway, I could give a fuck about their redistributive vision. All this stuff makes me glad he won't be PM (assuming that outcome doesn't happen) which goes against my economic self-interest.
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
(that last bit obvs only if I believe that Labour will actually have the competence to implement it's programme and won't be engaged in years of infighting with whoever is unlucky enough to be in coalition with them. Colour me sceptical).
 

subvert47

I don't fight, I run away
I'm not sure about this. Personally I like a lot of the domestic policy, what I know of it (and obvs not going to hear about it now, 'cos the news will be dominated by
...endless bullshit. For example:

I think this is from today's times
I note the words "from today's times" there. And all the anonymous sources. In other words, it's basically propaganda ffs. Seamus Milne isn't some machiavellian mastermind running Corbyn. He's just some guy trying to do his job.

But as for Labour policies, if you really want to know about that, click here:

https://twitter.com/ScouseGirlMedia/status/1166249078340108288

And as for:

How terrible would it be if if Labour were to take a moral position on the world's biggest ongoing tragedy? Far too much to ask.
Labour has already committed to a massive green overhaul to combat climate change. But if you meant Brexit... given that the referendum was virtually 50/50, what's more moral than trying to reach common ground between two increasingly polarized positions? Anything else is amoral half-the-country can fuck off politics.

Corbyn has opened up Labour to a load of cranks IMO.
Yes, the 500,000 of us desiring a fundamental once in a generation change in UK economics and politics are all just cranks. But okay it's a fair enough opinion, seeing as you're getting your perspective from the Times.
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
Labour has already committed to a massive green overhaul to combat climate change. But if you meant Brexit


No, neither. I meant Syria. As in "it would be nice if the Labour Party could condemn the indiscriminate bombing of civilians by Russia". I'm not surprised it's a blind spot for you, as it is for Labour leadership and most Corbyn supporters.

This is the statement once again - I'll repost it as you're in the habit of dismissing any inconvenient news: In another coded attack on Milne, who shares Corbyn’s belief that the West is to blame for the world’s ills, Fisher complained that a recent tweet drafted for Corbyn after the Russian bombing of hospitals in Idlib chose instead to condemn US bombings in Syria. “I kid you not,” he wrote.

Now, if this was untrue and made up as you're alleging Labour could sue right? At the very least, they'd be shouting from the rooftops that this is a lie. But what happened Corbyn's interview today - it'a all happy families apparently, a mere "workplace dispute". Siding with an autocratic regime committing genocide and choosing not to condemn a campaign of mass murder that has left 10s of thousands dead is a "workplace dispute". Good on Fisher for walking, what a shame he's not able to call the shots on this one. If you knew anything about the subject, you'd know that this is exactly the position that has been attributed to Milne over and over again over the years.

I don't think that all Labour supporters are cranks at all. Most I'd imagine are well intentioned people - but I do think a fucking lot of cranks, conspiracy theorists, genocide deniers, and the worst sort of wanker Leftists rode in on his coat-tails, and unfortunately they are are still there at the very top.
 
Top