Oh Jeremy Corbyn

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Standard attack lines really. Would hold more weight if the Tories had shown any interest whatsoever about dealing with their own Islamophobia and AS issues TBH.

Corbyn handled AS poorly, and the issue with him was it was too rife too close to him, but the idea that Labour is the worst party and has some unique poison it must rid itself of first is pure naked politics. By all measures Labour is one of the least racist memberships around.

This is just the right trying to keep their punching bag relevant a bit longer. Like you’ll see the Democrats try and attach whoever is next to Trump.

I agree with that, but at the same time when you have Starmer making more of the issue of Corbyn by denying the whip ahead of pointing out the issues those attacking Labour have, which are arguably far broader and larger, it's making it easy for them.

Admittedly it's a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't issue, because if he goes for the Tories record it's just shouts of "Ignoring anti-semitism in his own party", or 'brushed under the carpet/whitewash' if he lets Corbyn back in without a fuss. I reckon Starmer could take the position he has with Corbyn IF he was also attacking the Tories more vehemently on their track record and the Islamophobia enquiry that still hasn't happened, but at the moment if feels like he's making his own party look more guilty while letting the Tories off.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The fact Starmer has no charisma is the least of my concerns - as long as I'm never stuck in a lift with him.

It should be a concern because it plays a massive part in getting elected in the modern day. Most people don't know many of the policies of the parties unless they're highlighted (such as Brexit). Tory manifesto last time was the most vague one I've ever read - it may as well have just said GET BREXIT DONE and left it at that. Essentially that was all that mattered in the end.

It's now largely a popularity contest and that's what won it. Johnson had little to say and hid from interviews, but people voted for him because he has charisma, not competence.

Let's say he and Starmer were both putting on a party. Johnson's cranked the music up, got the lightshow going, pizzas and beers and is standing in the garden with a cone on his head shouting "PARTYYYY! GET IN HERE - YOU'LL HAVE A GREAT TIME!". But that party is full of his mates who will be looking to drink everyone else's beer and steal their wallets while they're passed out drunk. It's the type of party you know the cops are gonna be called to in the early hours.

Starmer on the other hand has some easy-listening on in the background and is politely asking people walking by if they'd like to come to his party. He's got good food and a nice selection of drinks and It'd probably be a very pleasant evening but it all sounds rather dull and he's not selling it at all.

Fact is most ordinary people are more likely going to notice and be attracted to the noisy party even though they know it's probably going to be a shitshow by the end.

Point is it doesn't matter how good a party you'd put on for people or how good a host you are, it means nothing if you can't attract people to come.

So it is with the election - it doesn't matter if your policies are great if you don't get elected to have the power to enact them. That's the problem with Labour and the left in general - good policies but shit at getting elected to put them into practice and charisma of the leader to sell those policies plays a big part in it. As others have said, Starmer isn't a general that would make people want to take up arms and follow him into battle, even though his cause seems worthy. Johnson on the other hand has convinced loads of people to charge directly at the machine guns while he hangs around at the back out of danger even though it's pretty much suicidal.

 

[shmmeee]

I agree with that, but at the same time when you have Starmer making more of the issue of Corbyn by denying the whip ahead of pointing out the issues those attacking Labour have, which are arguably far broader and larger, it's making it easy for them.

Admittedly it's a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't issue, because if he goes for the Tories record it's just shouts of "Ignoring anti-semitism in his own party", or 'brushed under the carpet/whitewash' if he lets Corbyn back in without a fuss. I reckon Starmer could take the position he has with Corbyn IF he was also attacking the Tories more vehemently on their track record and the Islamophobia enquiry that still hasn't happened, but at the moment if feels like he's making his own party look more guilty while letting the Tories off.

The thing is Starmer attacking them doesn’t work. The call came from inside the house with Labour. Javid and Warsi did the same for the Tory Islamophobia and Johnson was forced to promise a review (which I believe they then tried to turn into a “is Islamophobia real?” Review but I lost track). It’s really for Warsi (who gets no platform in the media like Labour whistleblowers did) or Javid to try and bring that back.

 

[It’sabatch87]

You seem to have shared something from the Sun.

Is that not allowed? I read the Miirror,Guardian and Mail etc also to get all angles of discussion.
There’s policies I like from both sides.

 

[Skybluefaz]

Is that not allowed? I read the Miirror,Guardian and Mail etc also to get all angles of discussion.
There’s policies I like from both sides.

It was tongue in cheek, post what you want.

I avoid it though because it's full of shit and cunts like Rod Liddle.

 

[Liquid Gold]

Starmer's job is to win enough on the right /centre of politics without loosing too much out on the left. It's going to be a tough job, to my mind he's doing a great job of losing all the left support he can.

My seat, Bristol West, will be very interesting next time around, was Tory from inception until Blair turned up, switched to Lib Dem for a decade from 2005, then back to Labour in 15, was Lib Dem target number 2 or something in 17 but ended with a huge Lab majority. I think it's going to be back in play now and could switch to Green.

Bristol West (UK Parliament constituency) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

How terrible and totally unique to American left wing politics.

Edit: in seriousness this comes from the activist/electoral split again and has always missed the right because their party can happily ignore its fringes. Farage and the rest take just as many pops at the Tories for the same reasons as the left do at Labour/Democrats, they are just easier to ignore.

The more I think about it the more I think the left needs to have a non-parliamentary unaffiliated network of activist groups it can devote its energy to that can do the dirty work of shifting the Overton window and fighting in the gutter online and the political party needs to be hived off and allowed to triangulate and call on (left wing) think tanks for policy.

Play to people’s strengths. Not sure the left would like it though. I do think they’d find themselves more effective.

My view is you can go as left wing populist as you like on the economy as it will usually involve things like higher minimum wages, higher taxes for the rich etc which are broadly supported. Then dilute the ‘woke’ stuff from the social side. I can’t stand most of that shite

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

My view is you can go as left wing populist as you like on the economy as it will usually involve things like higher minimum wages, higher taxes for the rich etc which are broadly supported. Then dilute the ‘woke’ stuff from the social side. I can’t stand most of that shite

That's a stance I'd broadly agree with BUT..

you know full well the taxes for the rich would just be attacked as a 'tax on hardworking people' and would affect those on middle incomes most, even if it was completely untrue. Then on the other side the woke brigade would just kick up a fuss about exclusion and not supporting basic rights.

 

[shmmeee]

My view is you can go as left wing populist as you like on the economy as it will usually involve things like higher minimum wages, higher taxes for the rich etc which are broadly supported. Then dilute the ‘woke’ stuff from the social side. I can’t stand most of that shite

I think you’d be mostly right. It’s the Boris vote, the Brexit vote, the “look after our own” vote, the Trump vote, the Hang The Pedos And Fund The NHS vote.

It’s also the union vote traditionally.

Thing is most of the party membership these days are middle class socially liberal activists (hi!), who get squeamish around the kind of policies required (anti immigration, law and order, defence spending, patriotism). Jesus look furore around the “Controls on Immigration” mug when Miliband was in charge.

There’s also a basic trust issue if Labour started pulling these policies out after years of wokeness and with Johnson offering the full fat version opposite.

Ironically Corbyn put that into overdrive when on many things (trade and immigration pushing down wages) he was the closest Labour have had in decades.

I don’t think we’ve seen a model for left wing communitarian party that doesn’t go full UKIP. I wonder why. I think there’s a schism coming on the left as more and more people are getting sick of wokeness. Not sure what that will look like but it’ll be interesting.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I think you’d be mostly right. It’s the Boris vote, the Brexit vote, the “look after our own” vote, the Trump vote, the Hang The Pedos And Fund The NHS vote.

It’s also the union vote traditionally.

Thing is most of the party membership these days are middle class socially liberal activists (hi!), who get squeamish around the kind of policies required (anti immigration, law and order, defence spending, patriotism). Jesus look furore around the “Controls on Immigration” mug when Miliband was in charge.

There’s also a basic trust issue if Labour started pulling these policies out after years of wokeness and with Johnson offering the full fat version opposite.

Ironically Corbyn put that into overdrive when on many things (trade and immigration pushing down wages) he was the closest Labour have had in decades.

I don’t think we’ve seen a model for left wing communitarian party that doesn’t go full UKIP. I wonder why. I think there’s a schism coming on the left as more and more people are getting sick of wokeness. Not sure what that will look like but it’ll be interesting.

I basically want to see

Higher minimum wage
Hands off the NHS
Higher taxes for the rich
More money for schools
Wankers in prison but only the violent ones

I think most could unite behind that and it fits with what most people actually want. I also think marijuana should be legal but would obviously contradict the crime message.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

That's a stance I'd broadly agree with BUT..

you know full well the taxes for the rich would just be attacked as a 'tax on hardworking people' and would affect those on middle incomes most, even if it was completely untrue. Then on the other side the woke brigade would just kick up a fuss about exclusion and not supporting basic rights.

Brand it as a 1% tax. A higher minimum wage should also assuage the predictable shithousing from the right.

 

[shmmeee]

I basically want to see

Higher minimum wage
Hands off the NHS
Higher taxes for the rich
More money for schools
Wankers in prison but only the violent ones

I think most could unite behind that and it fits with what most people actually want. I also think marijuana should be legal but would obviously contradict the crime message.

I think you legalise marijuana on a “common sense” platform and get away with it actually. Especially if you ring fence the funds for health/policing/education.

The messaging in 2019 really pissed me off. Instead of a strong clear message on police and NHS (where we actually had better policies) we spent forever attacking the Tories on their numbers and dodgy leaked reports and all it did was ensure that everyone knew the Tory policy (40 new hospitals, 20,000 police, 50k nurses IIRC) and no one knew what Labour stood for in comparison. So if you cared about police and health (like every fucking person in the country) you went Tory. Unforgivable for me.

 

[clint van damme]

I think you legalise marijuana on a “common sense” platform and get away with it actually. Especially if you ring fence the funds for health/policing/education.

The messaging in 2019 really pissed me off. Instead of a strong clear message on police and NHS (where we actually had better policies) we spent forever attacking the Tories on their numbers and dodgy leaked reports and all it did was ensure that everyone knew the Tory policy (40 new hospitals, 20,000 police, 50k nurses IIRC) and no one knew what Labour stood for in comparison. So if you cared about police and health (like every fucking person in the country) you went Tory. Unforgivable for me.

Totally agree about the fuck up with the messaging last election


You still got to be a right gullible c**t to trust the Tories on the NHS and police given what they did in the previous 9 years.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I think you legalise marijuana on a “common sense” platform and get away with it actually. Especially if you ring fence the funds for health/policing/education.

The messaging in 2019 really pissed me off. Instead of a strong clear message on police and NHS (where we actually had better policies) we spent forever attacking the Tories on their numbers and dodgy leaked reports and all it did was ensure that everyone knew the Tory policy (40 new hospitals, 20,000 police, 50k nurses IIRC) and no one knew what Labour stood for in comparison. So if you cared about police and health (like every fucking person in the country) you went Tory. Unforgivable for me.

It was about the worst campaign possible under the circumstances. I could barely bring myself to vote for them and good job I did as it was only held by under 1,000 votes.

 

[It’sabatch87]

It was tongue in cheek, post what you want.

I avoid it though because it's full of shit and cunts like Rod Liddle.

I think it would back Starmer in four years if he could reunite the party tbh.
It did with Blair.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Jesus Christ I thought this was a joke, is it Boris' attempt at curbing the SNP?

 

[shmmeee]

I think it would back Starmer in four years if he could reunite the party tbh.
It did with Blair.

It’ll back whoever looks like winning. Murdoch is the daddy weathervane.

I don’t think Labour will look like winning in four years though. As a Labour member I’m far more scared of new Boris than Cummings puppet Boris.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

It’ll back whoever looks like winning. Murdoch is the daddy weathervane.

I don’t think Labour will look like winning in four years though. As a Labour member I’m far more scared of new Boris than Cummings puppet Boris.

If new Boris did all the things I agreed with I'd be delighted and would vote Tory for sure.





Won't hold my breath.

 

[shmmeee]

If new Boris did all the things I agreed with I'd be delighted and would vote Tory for sure.





Won't hold my breath.

Yeah I’ll wait for the detail. But frankly right now if he promises real action on climate change and doesn’t hammer public services too much even I might be tempted. And I think he’s fucking useless and am a life long anti-Tory.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I think you’d be mostly right. It’s the Boris vote, the Brexit vote, the “look after our own” vote, the Trump vote, the Hang The Pedos And Fund The NHS vote.

It’s also the union vote traditionally.

Thing is most of the party membership these days are middle class socially liberal activists (hi!), who get squeamish around the kind of policies required (anti immigration, law and order, defence spending, patriotism). Jesus look furore around the “Controls on Immigration” mug when Miliband was in charge.

There’s also a basic trust issue if Labour started pulling these policies out after years of wokeness and with Johnson offering the full fat version opposite.

Ironically Corbyn put that into overdrive when on many things (trade and immigration pushing down wages) he was the closest Labour have had in decades.

I don’t think we’ve seen a model for left wing communitarian party that doesn’t go full UKIP. I wonder why. I think there’s a schism coming on the left as more and more people are getting sick of wokeness. Not sure what that will look like but it’ll be interesting.

I mean you could try the whole "if we stop intervening in places trying to show we're still Bertie Big-Bollocks on the world stage and creating power vacuums (spending huge amounts on wars in the process) we stop people getting displaced and needing asylum or becoming immigrants and we reduce immigration and having spent less on wars we've more to spend preventing it or to spend on the NHS".

Or:

"if we try and give people get basic provisions and opportunities in their own country, they won't want or need to come somewhere totally alien to their way of life with different language and beliefs and we get lower immigration."

Something tells me a lot of people wouldn't get it though.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Brand it as a 1% tax. A higher minimum wage should also assuage the predictable shithousing from the right.

They'd still attack it as a stealth tax on hard working middle class types and they'd lap it up cos someone in a posh accent said it.

 

[Ian1779]

I can’t be the only one that doesn’t really understand ‘wokeness’ can I? And if it is what I think it is then it’s not really an exclusivity of the left?

Looking at today’s story about the censoring of the Fairytale of New York - I can’t see how the word in question is being used in the context as suggested, so I don’t feel like there is an issue here. Does that make me woke/unwoke? Am I a bad person for thinking that? I certainly would not want anyone to think I was tolerant of homophobic terms - I just don’t think this particular line in a song is.

Am I a worse person because I feel no outrage on not banning it, because I have infinitely more for other things (child poverty as an example)

I can’t keep up.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

They'd still attack it as a stealth tax on hard working middle class types and they'd lap it up cos someone in a posh accent said it.

If they attack us we have to attack back harder.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I can’t be the only one that doesn’t really understand ‘wokeness’ can I? And if it is what I think it is then it’s not really an exclusivity of the left?

Looking at today’s story about the censoring of the Fairytale of New York - I can’t see how the word in question is being used in the context as suggested, so I don’t feel like there is an issue here. Does that make me woke/unwoke? Am I a bad person for thinking that? I certainly would not want anyone to think I was tolerant of homophobic terms - I just don’t think this particular line in a song is.

Am I a worse person because I feel no outrage on not banning it, because I have infinitely more for other things (child poverty as an example)

I can’t keep up.

It makes little sense to me. As the entire song is about a man and a woman struggling it's hardly like the woman is using it to refer to the guy's sexuality. If anything it's about being weak and useless.

I think 'woke' is eating itself looking to be offended by everything and is losing public sympathy and support. Before long I think it's a term that will be dropped because people will just be using it as an acronym for 'whining over 'kin everything'

 

[shmmeee]

I can’t be the only one that doesn’t really understand ‘wokeness’ can I? And if it is what I think it is then it’s not really an exclusivity of the left?

Looking at today’s story about the censoring of the Fairytale of New York - I can’t see how the word in question is being used in the context as suggested, so I don’t feel like there is an issue here. Does that make me woke/unwoke? Am I a bad person for thinking that? I certainly would not want anyone to think I was tolerant of homophobic terms - I just don’t think this particular line in a song is.

Am I a worse person because I feel no outrage on not banning it, because I have infinitely more for other things (child poverty as an example)

I can’t keep up.

It’s the speed that’s the thing. I get that some people don’t like hearing it, but equally as someone who loves singing it at Christmas the homophobic element has never entered my mind.

Though equally we’ve been sanitising media on mainstream channels for years, just watching stuff from the 90s is very different to today and is that any different from us looking down on Till Death Do Us Part?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

It’s the speed that’s the thing. I get that some people don’t like hearing it, but equally as someone who loves singing it at Christmas the homophobic element has never entered my mind.

Though equally we’ve been sanitising media on mainstream channels for years, just watching stuff from the 90s is very different to today and is that any different from us looking down on Till Death Do Us Part?

View attachment 17561

But how is it meant in a homophobic manner when the whole song is playing out a heterosexual relationship at Xmas? If that is changing for it being a homophobic slur are we going to have to rename the foodstuff?

Meanwhile Tarantino's films which have a massive overuse of the N word (IMO) are fine because it's a part of the story and that IS meant in the racist and derogatory sense when used by white characters.

Besides, it's just trying to airbrush history. Either play the song as it was or just stop playing it if it offends. No-ones suggesting they dub the script of stuff like Rising Damp so it can be shown. You just don't put it on the TV.

 

[Nick]

Kids today are soft little Gimps.

 

[Ian1779]

But how is it meant in a homophobic manner when the whole song is playing out a heterosexual relationship at Xmas? If that is changing for it being a homophobic slur are we going to have to rename the foodstuff?

Meanwhile Tarantino's films which have a massive overuse of the N word (IMO) are fine because it's a part of the story and that IS meant in the racist and derogatory sense when used by white characters.

Besides, it's just trying to airbrush history. Either play the song as it was or just stop playing it if it offends. No-ones suggesting they dub the script of stuff like Rising Damp so it can be shown. You just don't put it on the TV.

You look at things like Little Britain and the ‘only gay in the village’ sketches. Did those sketches set back the gay right movement or did they bring them into focus for wider discussion - does him being homosexual add context to it all?

David Baddiel is a prominent campaigner against antisemitism and promotes education on it - but did blackface on TV In the 90’s causing huge personal mental trauma to the person he was mocking - so is he a racist for his past misdemeanours and does it make his future work ‘hollow’?

Apologies if these are poor examples but 2 that I’ve thought about before and I don’t know what the ‘answer’ is if there even is one.

 

[shmmeee]

But how is it meant in a homophobic manner when the whole song is playing out a heterosexual relationship at Xmas? If that is changing for it being a homophobic slur are we going to have to rename the foodstuff?

Meanwhile Tarantino's films which have a massive overuse of the N word (IMO) are fine because it's a part of the story and that IS meant in the racist and derogatory sense when used by white characters.

Besides, it's just trying to airbrush history. Either play the song as it was or just stop playing it if it offends. No-ones suggesting they dub the script of stuff like Rising Damp so it can be shown. You just don't put it on the TV.

It’s not saying it’s homophobic, it’s saying some gay people don’t like having to hear what they consider a slur. I don’t agree personally I think intent matters, but maybe that’s a change cos I’m getting old and it’s the same as how we censor drug and sex references in songs these days more than we used to.

Ultimately it’s one radio station playing a radio edit. No one is stopping everyone else playing/buying/streaming it.

 

[RedSalmon]

Never liked it anyway and would be delighted beyond words if I never heard it again.

 

[Nick]

Sacha Baren Cohen did a good interview about it with things like the gay characters and Ali G etc.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

just watching stuff from the 90s is very different to today and is that any different from us looking down on Till Death Do Us Part?

I was watching the Brittas Empire(!) the other day, and even that, some of the things he says are a bit close to the bone, and the gay couple are a bit nudge nudge, wink wink.

Really brought home how the mainstream has changed without me realising it!

 

[Skybluefaz]

BBC News - Bullying inquiry head quits as PM backs Patel

Priti Patel: Bullying inquiry head quits as PM backs home secretary

The home secretary apologises for any upset - but says she was "not being supported" by her department.

www.bbc.co.uk

All this for me just makes Starmer look a stronger a leader following the Jezza incident

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

BBC News - Bullying inquiry head quits as PM backs Patel

Priti Patel: Bullying inquiry head quits as PM backs home secretary

The home secretary apologises for any upset - but says she was "not being supported" by her department.

www.bbc.co.uk

All this for me just makes Starmer look a stronger a leader following the Jezza incident

Maybe but it's also something that is likely to come back again and again and again.

Patel will feign remorse, say she wasn't intending to bully anyone and it'll be pretty much forgotten. Just like that islamophobia probe that's never happened.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I was watching the Brittas Empire(!) the other day, and even that, some of the things he says are a bit close to the bone, and the gay couple are a bit nudge nudge, wink wink.

Really brought home how the mainstream has changed without me realising it!

Yeah - I seem to remember that gay couple seemed pretty inclusive and forward thinking at the time compared to most tv.