The last two weeks have been terrible headlines after terrible headlines.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
The last two weeks have been terrible headlines after terrible headlines.
Indeed. Accused of 'Kafkaesque obfuscation' regarding the definition of antisemitism. How hard can it be? A cynic would be of the opinion that they just want to swerve an issue that will continue raise its ugly head.
Last edited:
One of the big problems has been the decision that you can be leader of the opposition and not bother with the media, not really have anything resembling a public relations strategy, only speak to an audience predetermined to be sympathetic and outside that communicate nearly exclusively through the 'no difficult questions asked' medium of social media. You can't and it isn't just the antisemitism issue that the mediaphobia has cost them, over 3 years they've consistently failed to push home any message successfully.
Oppositions vs very unpopular, disastrous, divided, mid-term governments should be setting the news/political agenda or at the very least be a major voice in the narrative of every political story. Corbyn's Labour party has been almost completely irrelevant to everything aside from stories specifically about him. You don't have to like the media to acknowledge their importance and how necessary it is for any party looking to win elections to fully engage. In the lead up to the last election was the only real time there was a Corbyn blitz in terms of the media, before and since he's been virtually a recluse.
For a Labour party with a cohesive, aggressive and coordinated media strategy and a leader willing to engage and be all over the media like flies around shit 24/7 in the two year period before hand, would have walked that last election. As it is even with the assist of the worst govt campaign ever in the history of campaigning, they still lost.
Oppositions vs very unpopular, disastrous, divided, mid-term governments should be setting the news/political agenda or at the very least be a major voice in the narrative of every political story. Corbyn's Labour party has been almost completely irrelevant to everything aside from stories specifically about him. You don't have to like the media to acknowledge their importance and how necessary it is for any party looking to win elections to fully engage. In the lead up to the last election was the only real time there was a Corbyn blitz in terms of the media, before and since he's been virtually a recluse.
For a Labour party with a cohesive, aggressive and coordinated media strategy and a leader willing to engage and be all over the media like flies around shit 24/7 in the two year period before hand, would have walked that last election. As it is even with the assist of the worst govt campaign ever in the history of campaigning, they still lost.
Last edited:
The spending promise was for the first 2 years not 4. New labour promised in writing to govern from the centre / centre left so alll those people bemoaning that need to remember that was what they said they would do, and they got elected on the back of it. Ultimately Blairs job in the first term was to restore trust in Labour as a party of government which explains a lot of that caution. There’s not point in complaining about it, they won 3 elections because of it so who can say he was wrong? Labour only had a mandate for the things it promised to do, rather than the wish list you have for it.
One of the problems is that a lot of people are wilfully ignorant of that time period and the achievements of Blair's government. A telltale sign is the use of the word 'neoliberal', it's become somewhat of a giveaway that someone's formed their views based on what they've seen someone else write on Facebook. It's quite the buzzword now for those who are not necessarily of the hard left through conviction, but because they think it's fashionable. Despite what others may think I come from a traditional Labour supporting family. It only tends to be people who suddenly realised that Corbynism was a trend they wanted to be seen to be a part of that the word 'neoliberal' is started to come into use.
The denigrating of the achievements of the Blair/Brown governments really didn't take hold until the last two or three years. Many staunch, hardline socialists even though they had their disagreements with the last Labour government would always acknowledge, welcome and share in the achievements. It's this new "I've seen someone mention neoliberal online so I'll now use it constantly and pretend to know what it means" lot that we've seen infiltrate the party post 2015 that the trashing of the Labour party's record in government has become de rigueur.
This story about Corbyn laying a wreath at the graves of three Black September members must be a resigning matter, if true.
Whose memory was Corbyn honouring in October 2014?
Whose memory was Corbyn honouring in October 2014?
Er...it wasn't a reply to nick(sorry nick but I have you on ignore although nothing personal just to lazy to clear the list). I'll give it a read later.You happened to post a two-day old Tweet, nine minutes after someone else mentioned the subject that the Tweet was about, where the contents of the Tweet coincidentally seemed to challenge the point raised, but it was entirely coincidental?
Mind you not as coincidental as just happening to find yourself constantly surrounded by holocaust deniers, so you could be right.
Mind you not as coincidental as just happening to find yourself constantly surrounded by holocaust deniers, so you could be right.
Latest thing seems to be a push by supporters on social media to get Galloway reinstated.
Galloway certainly can talk a good talk.But as never been the same for me after watching him on celebrity big brother.
He'd make a great ambassador for Washington.
Galloway was actually kind enough to help me with my uni project a few years ago. Still I don't think it's moving the party towards looking more electable if he's brought back.
"Look at who Tweeted it..."
"Look at the source...."
Aside, the man is awfully unlucky. Poor guy.
from the link
Yeah so at the moment is just the daily mail being well the daily mail(As my last post shows).
Only 3 more weeks till that cnut Dacre fecks off, thankfully.
That's some incredibly selective reading.
It's impossible to tell where he is standing from the pictures. And again the source we are talking about just today tired said Corbyn was a anti semite because someone else said something stupid in 2014.
Last edited:
I don't think that the article puts the case beyond doubt, but I think it does (once again) raise questions about Corbyn's judgment which aren't satisfactorily answered by his twitter defence team and (if anything) contradict his old explanation which seems to very strongly suggest there is a case to answer.
If nothing else it's once again an example of Corbyn doing something which is only explainable using the excuse 'he was too stupid to realise how his actions would come across'.
What in 2014 ? Before he was even at 400-1 to win the labour leadership, Corbyn should of been thinking the daily mail will question where he's standing at a cemetery.
All we've got at the moment is Britain most far right paper making at best weak claims against a left wing politician and yet people are annoyed at politician for letting this happen.
Hold on. The author says the daily mails photos don’t make it clear enough for her. So she then does some work to establish what the photos show. And her conclusion is very clear - Corbyn laid wreaths at the graves of three black September terrorists.
What in 2014 ? Before he was even at 400-1 to win the labour leadership, Corbyn should of been thinking the daily mail will question where he's standing at a cemetery.
All we've got at the moment is Britain most far right paper making at best weak claims against a left wing politician and yet people are annoyed at politician for letting this happen.
His political status at the time is irrelevant. Nobody should be paying respect to three black September assassins. If he was, he must go.
But there's no evidence to suggest he was.
It is not impossible to tell that. The author at the link does a good job of showing where he must have been standing and therefore he will have know what he was doing.
This is a man who was quite happy to pay respects to the IRA so I don’t know why you think he wouldn’t have been just as happy to pay his respects to Black September. The man has form. Based on his past associations it is perfectly likely he knew exactly where he was and what he was doing.
The phrase “no evidence”is disingenuous. There is photographic evidence which places him at or near the grave and from which a case can be deduced, and there’s ambiguity in his own account of what he was doing at the time. As the link makes clear.
Last edited:
I didn’t post a link to the Mail, but to a critique of the Mails story which concluded it was probably accurate.
What in 2014 ? Before he was even at 400-1 to win the labour leadership, Corbyn should of been thinking the daily mail will question where he's standing at a cemetery.
All we've got at the moment is Britain most far right paper making at best weak claims against a left wing politician and yet people are annoyed at politician for letting this happen.
No, as in in the incident we were talking about.
You don't want to hear my views on the IRA(They are a great bunch of lads.). Also I knew there was a reason I had you on ignore.
What in 2014 ? Before he was even at 400-1 to win the labour leadership, Corbyn should of been thinking the daily mail will question where he's standing at a cemetery.
All we've got at the moment is Britain most far right paper making at best weak claims against a left wing politician and yet people are annoyed at politician for letting this happen.
If the story is true, what do you think should happen? Because I’d like to get a sense of your moral compass around this kind of thing.
Ah well you just answered it for me. Feel free to ignore me, I won’t be ignoring you.
No, I'm afraid not. Your quote is the jumping off point for the article Nickm linked, not its conclusion. If you read that article further it does seem to support the Mail story. I don't want it to be so but to me it's very clear that Corbyn is standing, holding a wreath and paying respects exactly where those particular graves are (1 below). Further photos and translations from Nickm's link corroborate's the Mail assertion that the plaque (2 below) is dedicated to people linked to Black September.
Here's a master picture:
2. The Plaque before the graves
3. The monument to the 47 dead.
4. (see below) - A pole off camera to the right.
Here are the same objects in Corbyn pictures:
And some close-ups of the monument and the plaque:
The translation of the bottom plaque apparently reads: "The three martyrs who were killed on january 14th, 1991" - admittedly the 14 looks a little odd, but is probably just worn away. Various sources indicate that 3 blokes linked to Black September were indeed killed on the 14th January 1991 (some sources say it was the 15th).
Nickm's link sources this page which names those to whom the plaque is dedicated as Abou Iyad, Abul Houl and Omar. Abou Iyad was accused by Israel and the US as having founded Black September, Omar was his aid and also claimed to be a founding member. Stuff on Abul Houl is scarce, but various sources list him as the PLO security chief at the time of his death. These are the three dudes who were killed on 14th (or 15th) January 1991.
What a sad ass response.
Your analysing poles on a football forum for feck sake.
Honestly people have lost their minds.
Last edited:
It’s perfectly ok to admit you lost an argument. No need to pretend insouciance.
I think we're analysing whether Jeremy Corbyn laid a wreath at the grave of terrorists in the Jeremy Corbyn thread.