Being complicit in torture is many things, bland and boring it certainly isn't. If anything, boring would be a vast improvement.
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.
I don't think we have to worry about this new party
The countdown lady is the best these lot have
The countdown lady is the best these lot have
The countdown lady is the best these lot have
Tbf she will probably hold up better than Dianne abbot when people question her numbers
Well...yeah, but if Labour lose again then that's another half-decade they've got to wait until they get another shot at winning an election. When going into an election they need to be doing all they can to maximise their chances of actually winning. Going into one with a leader who can't mount consistent polls leads and who is deeply, deeply unpopular is literally doing the exact opposite of that.
For what it's worth, I do think there's an annoying tendency for people to cling onto every single poll that comes out as representative of whatever grand narrative they themselves support. And there should be a recognition that even electable leaders will go through phases where they aren't well-liked for whatever reason. But that's different to when an opposition leader consistently fails to mount substantial polling leads, which is generally, like, a basic prerequisite for any opposition party who wants to come into power. And similarly, any opposition leader coming into power is generally going to want to have fairly strong popularity ratings. Corbyn...doesn't. And to point that out isn't being overly-dependent on polling, it's just stating basic facts which highlight he isn't doing well and that his current approach isn't working. If you're heading into an election, you generally want to do all you can to minimise your chances of defeat.
He did well in 2017 to claw back from almost certain defeat, but that was then. There's no guarantee he'd be able to do so again. I reckon Brexit's soured a lot of people on him to an extent that'll be hard to recover. He's generally a strong campaigner but there's a possibility he's largely maxed out his potential voting base and that he's not been able to successfully expand it at all. And for as much as they remain in disarray the Tories will struggle to run a campaign as bad as the last one. And some of Corbyn's lines of attack may struggle to be successful because he's literally been supporting the process which they've cocked up more than anything else in the last couple of years.
And on that last point - I wouldn't even class myself as a nationalist!
Just generally prefer the SNP's base level of competence which Scottish Labour have typically lacked, and believe we're too better off as an independent country. It's sort of hard to explain if you're not in Scotland how shite Labour have been - and continue to be - up here.
Theres also the very real possibility he could be dead before he got chance to fight another election.
He has 2 more years minimum before the next, which pegs him at 71, if he loses that he wouldnt get another shot till he was 76.
Lets be honest, its bizzarre enough him still being at the head of a major party at 69, hes got no chance if he loses the next election.
Christ, bit morbid.
I reckon he'll be fine. The US is littered with Presidential candidates much older than him and he seems to be in reasonably good health, all things considered.
If he loses another election then he'll be out. Anyone advocating for him to keep on after that point will have lost all footing.
Not sure this has been posted?
I am really at a loss as to why anyone Thinks Corbyn can win an election or that he should even be leading the Labour Party into one .
All he is doing is giving us 5 more years of the tories . The man is an idiot he has got nothing to offer .
All he is doing is giving us 5 more years of the tories . The man is an idiot he has got nothing to offer .
His ex wife has written a book which by complete accident makes him sound amazing. Apparently he used to piss off her and her mates when they on holiday by referring to anything he hated as "capitalist".
They've gone all in with the "his dick is too big" attack
My favourite one although it's not related to Corbyn was had Bernie won the primary the republicans were ready to attack him for stealing electricity when he lived in a apartment in his mid 20s. I'm sure it would have totally alienated him from his millennials voter base.
So what I’m getting from the last few posts is he’s a dull, old, unpopular man. Just the sort of person you want leading your party during an election.
Lost him Shamans vote I guess.
Tom Bower, is that you?
Interesting. Why would that be.
I had the opposite view. I thought he was extremely clever and was a clear thinker.
Completely different to his far less intelligent brother.
Looks like Oscar is being vindicated, despite all the shit that was flying in his direction.
His only hope is that the conservatives do as bad a job as they did last time... and frankly id be shocked if they have not learnt their lesson and they will keep may out of the way and let the dog whistle politics of populism and anti immigration do its thing.
In ordinary times the Tory war machine would have destroyed Corbyn and McDonnell, but they were too distracted by Brexit and their own internal battles. It's quite possible they will be next time as well though, with the added possibility that the economy might have nosedived due to Brexit. Corbyn could get lucky yet.
Well played.
That's brilliant.
Can it be true? Is today really the day?
FFS!
FFS!
What is this then, Jeremy? How does he keep making unforced errors like this to give further ammunition to his haters? A simple google search could tell him that the people killed were soldiers from different parts of India and it's not violence that killed these people but a terrorist attack. What does he mean he stands with the people of Kashmir, it's a part of India ffs..
Utter buffoonery.
I know nothing about Kashmir or India...why is this so bad? How is it different to, say, something happening in California and a politician saying they stand with the people of California? Or an attack in Paris seeing world leaders send their condolences to the people of Paris?
So 7 members have left including Chuka and I'm sure more will follow .
Hard to see where Labour goes from here . Corbyn will go down as a guy who blew the easiest chance ever of becoming Prime Minister because of his knack of offering nothing when pressed and then when he did say something offered just nonsense
Hard to see where Labour goes from here . Corbyn will go down as a guy who blew the easiest chance ever of becoming Prime Minister because of his knack of offering nothing when pressed and then when he did say something offered just nonsense
He didn't say they were from Kashmir, just that the incident took place there.
A terrorist attack is violence
Regarding the third bolded bit
If you know nothing, then Google it.
So is it you can’t give an explanation to someone who asks a genuine question or you just don’t want to?
He’s probably alluding to the territorial disputes and that Corbyn by saying he stands with the people of Kashmir he’s somehow saying it’s not part of India. He’s taking offence at things that weren’t there.
To be fair, it is quite a good example of Corbyn's tendency to stick his foot in it. It's not as though he tweets about every act of terrorism, anywhere in the world. So it is depressingly typical that when he does stick his head above the parapet he ends up pissing a bunch of people off. I know nothing about the sensitivies here but someone with Corbyn's aspirations certainly should. And it's better to say nothing at all than wade into an obviously contentious issue like this with an ambiguously worded tweet, surely?
Does violence equate to terrorist attack?
Kashmir is a disuputed territory. It is in part occupied by Pakistan, India and China.
From the year 1000-1300 Kashmir was part of a Hindu kingdom.
From 1300-1820 It was part of various Muslim kingdoms.
From 1820-1846 It became part of the Sikh Empire.
When the British invaded India - they attacked the Sikh empire and took Kashmir, awarding it thier laptop who fought alongside them, and created the Dogra dynasty in 1846.
At this point Kashmir was a majority Muslim state and the people of Kashmir continued to resist the Dogra rule for the next 100 years. 100 years down the line the British left and during their "partition" gave the princely states of British India (one of which was Kashmir) the option to join either Pakistan, India or stay independent. The oppresive hindu ruler of Kashmir at the time decided to stay independent, but then later sided with India (against the wishes of the muslim majority population of his state).
This led to huge anti state riots followed by invasion by tribal fighters from Pakistan, which led to the indian army getting involved, and then the Pakistanis. This then led to 3 full scale wars, 2 localised ones, and a militant uprising from 198something to 2003 followed by another one in 2016.
Hundreds of thousands of Kashmiri's have been killed, Kashmir has become the most militarised zone in the world, it has 700,000 Indian armed personnel, it has mass graves, forced disappearances, systematic rape, stone throwing crowds, a policy of beatings and blinding and generally no peace.
There is a UN resolution calling for a referendum to allow the people of the region to decide their fate, which goes ignored by all involved.
Last year nearly 500 people were killed in Kashmir by Indian army, this year started off the same way, but a few days ago a suicide bomber attacked an Indian army convoy and killed 44 soldiers.
He often sticks his foot in it but I think he worded it ambiguously precisely to avoid offending anyone. Just stating his sympathies with the people of Kashmir. I don’t think he could have made the tweet any more benign. You’re right off course that he doesn’t tweet about every terrorist act and he could have avoided it completely, I’m not on twitter so I don’t know how often he tweets with regards to specific terrorist attacks, I was just commenting on the tweet in isolation.
A car is a form of transport. A form of transport isn’t always a car. Edit: I think I misunderstood what you were saying. But imo yes it does, when covering terrorist attacks it’ll often be referred to as violence.
Last edited:
Kashmir is another British success story.
Went back through his tweets since the beginning of this month. It's the only tweet regarding terrorism. Quick google reveals at least one other terrorist massacre this month. Then you have the language he used. Specifically avoiding any use of the word "terrorism" and how he stands with the "people of Kashmir" (in a region that a number of countries claim sovereignty over) when the people who died were all Indian citizens. As you can see in the various threads on redcafe this is a seriously contentious issue, which triggers strong emotions in people of Indian or Pakistani descent (i.e. a decent chunk of the UK electorate)
Bearing in mind the Labour party is currently already in the process of tearing itself apart; his decision to tweet about this incident, in the way that he did, is another great example of his uncanny knack for creating divisiveness when unity is needed, now more than ever. What you want from an opposition Labour leader is someone who can heal divisions and bring all the party members together to rally round and oust the Tories. Time and time again, Corbyn fails the basics of this job description.
I think you are trivialising the incident by saying it's just violence. The same thing that Corbyn did in that tweet of his.
Thank you for that information!
Of course I have my bias, i am a Kashmiri who has family who currently reside in the Pakistani side, after fleeing the violence of partition on what is now the Indian side.
Indians will claim that Kashmir is no longer disputed because the then leader of Kashmir asceded the territory to India and that's just how life goes. They'll also claim that the militant uprisings are supported and sponsored by Pakistan (somewhat true though Pakistan officially denies it). They'll also claim that Pakistan agreed during one of the wars/treaties between the countries to settle the matter between the two countries - therefore the UN has no role to play anymore (of course nobody asked anyone Kashmiri about that).
When you consider how Brexit is going, you can see why Partition happened as it did.