Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

[sun_tzu]

No other form of racism would have had the microscope on it like anti-semitism has so I don’t know how you can even begin to compare. You’ve got the likes of Margaret Hodge clogging up the complaints process by submitting hundreds of spurious complaints about people who aren’t even Labour members.

I cannot think of another form of racism that has so many people literally looking for it with a fine tooth comb in a single political party... and I mean even a mild hint of something they could twist as being anti-semitic. Among half a million members you will absolutely find anti-semites unfortunately, along with many others expressing anti-Israel sentiments with particularly clumsy language because they just aren’t very bright.

I’ve actually heard far more anti-semitic comment in the FIFA gaming community than I have seen on the likes of Twitter. People talking about “Jew goals” and the like. I’ve never heard anyone prominent condemn this. Ever. Kids literally using the word “Jew” for something they feel was underhanded.

So... Do you call out and indeed report the people you hear using by your own definition antisemitic language in your FIFA community

I must say the tone of your post suggests you don't

I wonder if it was being called a n1gger goal or a pak1 goal etc if that would be more less or equally offencive to you and you would treat it differently...

 

[Sweet Square]

No....

Last time the open minded, what's-in-it-for-me Centrist voter who is in no way a Tory, repeat not a Tory, said to themselves ' Corbyn's policies sound pretty good to me....I'll vote Labour '.

I'm not sure they will next time

Possibly but that will have more to do with labour stance on Brexit and not the economic ideas of the party.

The people who think labour are going to crash the economy because of basic social democratic reforms, didn't vote Labour last election and will never vote Labour while the left is in control of the party. Because well......these people are tories.

 

[ZupZup]

So... Do you call out and indeed report the people you hear using by your own definition antisemitic language in your FIFA community

I must say the tone of your post suggests you don't

I wonder if it was being called a n1gger goal or a pak1 goal etc if that would be more less or equally offencive to you and you would treat it differently...

I haven’t played FIFA online in years. No, I haven’t reported it in the past.

If I heard someone use racist language whilst gaming online I really don’t know whether I would report it or not now to be honest. I’m fairly resigned to online being a bit of a cesspit for behaviour in general which is pretty damning I guess.

Have you ever heard of anyone being punished for using that sort of language gaming? I’ve reported stuff on Facebook and Twitter before and literally no response and posts have stayed up.

 

[2cents]

Possibly but that will have more to do with labour stance on Brexit and not the economic ideas of the party.

The people who think labour are going to crash the economy because of basic social democratic reforms, didn't vote Labour last election and will never vote Labour while the left is in control of the party. Because well......these people are tories.

Do you think a Corbyn-led Labour government would be just a standard social democratic regime that no reasonable moderates should worry about (seems to be the implication of your posts above)? Or is Corbyn Britain's only chance for real, radical workers-led change/revolution?

 

[JohnnyKills]

Corbyn - More funding for the NHS

Centrist voter(Who is in no way a TORY, repeat not a TORY) - Shut up you stupid commie, stop promising unicorns that will turn us into Venezuela with Chinese characteristics.

You've turned Tory into a pejorative word and are using it to insult anyone who disagrees with you. Why do you think people will take you seriously?

 

[JohnnyKills]

To be fair it wasn’t really a honeymoon period. He was low in the polls, getting hit from all sides by the media and his own party, and was seen as a joke basically. That election performance at that time was very impressive, although you could argue that at least some of the reasons for him being in that position to start with were his own fault.

Brexit has fecked him now though. No chance he repeats that performance with a large part of his own party demoralized and pissed off at him.

It was impressive, although you could argue it was based on quack economic promises (Labour would say all the promises in their manifesto were properly costed, but the objectivity of the people doing the costing was questionable).

Corbyn can definitely win if he comes out and unequivocally backs a second referendum. If he sticks with the wishy-washy policy he's got now, I can see him actually losing votes to the Lib Dems and the Brexit Party.

 

[berbatrick]

Do you think a Corbyn-led Labour government would be just a standard social democratic regime that no reasonable moderates should worry about (seems to be the implication of your posts above)? Or is Corbyn Britain's only chance for real, radical workers-led change/revolution?

It can be both - the latter cannot happen without the former, for example.

 

[JohnnyKills]

It can be both - the latter cannot happen without the former, for example.

Social democracy is the sort of regime you see in Sweden and France (Hollande era). Firmly capitalist with highish levels of taxation and a well-funded welfare state.

Don't see how you can compare that with revolutionary socialism.

 

[2cents]

It can be both - the latter cannot happen without the former, for example.

OK so maybe it's the latter which has the moderates worried, not the former.

 

[Red Dreams]

Social democracy is the sort of regime you see in Sweden and France (Hollande era). Firmly capitalist with highish levels of taxation and a well-funded welfare state.

Don't see how you can compare that with revolutionary socialism.

you are splitting hairs.

Corbyn is not for Communism. He is for regaining the Welfare State. Britain was never communist.

 

[Full bodied red]

Possibly but that will have more to do with labour stance on Brexit and not the economic ideas of the party.

The people who think labour are going to crash the economy because of basic social democratic reforms, didn't vote Labour last election and will never vote Labour while the left is in control of the party. Because well......these people are tories.

Not necessarily Tories....I think ( no proof, of course, just I think ) the majority are the what's-in-it-for-me brigade.

Like the millions of non-Tories who voted for Thatcher because every couple of months for years, they made a quick couple of hundred quid buying and immediately selling shares in the privatisations which she instigated and which have done so much to leave the UK's economy and infrastructure in the hands of foreign governments and Hedge Funds or bought their council houses for next-to-nothing and for which she should be dug up and then publically executed on the Town Hall steps before being put back where she came from.

I think Corbyn will have to come up with even more expensive, vote winning promises to get these people to vote for Labour again - the pro-Brexit lot would vote for Johnson or Farage ( if the GE was to be before the UK is out of the EU, which is quite possible the way it's going ) because of the antics of Starmer, Cooper, Benn, etc, and those for who anti-Brexit is more important than who's in charge after the GE will vote LibDem because of the obfuscation and antics of Corbyn.

The fear of McDonnell, the clumsiness of Abbott and the hypocrisy of Thornberry probably wouldn't even be a factor.

 

[711]

Social democracy is the sort of regime you see in Sweden and France (Hollande era). Firmly capitalist with highish levels of taxation and a well-funded welfare state.

Don't see how you can compare that with revolutionary socialism.

I'd vote for that, and quite a few tories like me would I think. I didn't used to be a tory but I am now, apparently, even though I haven't and won't vote for them.

I'd like to see well-funded green policies added to the well-funded welfare state, which would make a successful economy able to sustain such taxes even more important of course.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

You've turned Tory into a pejorative word and are using it to insult anyone who disagrees with you. Why do you think people will take you seriously?

I think the post you've quoted is making the point that there's a constituency of people out there who see themselves (and want to be seen) as centre-left progressives who would never vote Tory, but who in reality have a lot more sympathy for centre-right/right wing economic policy than they do anything vaguely left of centre. In order to stave off cognitive dissonance they therefore end up convincing themselves that PFI and austerity were common sense centrist ideas and that raising taxes slightly for people earning over 80k or nationalising a few bits of basic infrastructure is quasi-Communist.

 

[berbatrick]

OK so maybe it's the latter which has the moderates worried, not the former.

Sure, but the risk of a better world is associated with most iterations of social democracy, including Olof Palme.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/11/social-democracy-sweden-meidner-plan-socialism

edit -to clarify, with people like mcdonnell and corby, it is more likely they will take this turn. but their main manifesto promises were related to college and the nhs, which is surely what they would focus on.

 

[2cents]

Sure, but the risk of a better world is associated with most iterations of social democracy, including Olof Palme.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/11/social-democracy-sweden-meidner-plan-socialism

edit -to clarify, with people like mcdonnell and corby, it is more likely they will take this turn. but their main manifesto promises were related to college and the nhs, which is surely what they would focus on.

My point was just that it seems like mocking people for worrying about Corbyn on the basis of his plans for "basic social democratic reforms" is a bit of a straw man. Perhaps there are moderate leftists out there who are running scared at the thought of more money for the NHS or nationalization of the trains, but it's far more likely they're concerned about Corbyn's history, how he's surrounded himself with people like Murray and Milne, and how some of his most prominent supporters in the media keep going on about how great communism will be. These moderates/centrists or whatever you want to call them probably don't associate far-left politics with the "risk of a better world", but rather with economic dysfunction and political repression. Maybe they're wrong, but I don't think they're unreasonable.

 

[berbatrick]

My point was just that it seems like mocking people for worrying about Corbyn on the basis of his plans for "basic social democratic reforms" is a bit of a straw man. Perhaps there are moderate leftists out there who are running scared at the thought of more money for the NHS or nationalization of the trains, but it's far more likely they're concerned about Corbyn's history, how he's surrounded himself with people like Murray and Milne, and how some of his most prominent supporters in the media keep going on about how great communism will be. These moderates/centrists or whatever you want to call them probably don't associate far-left politics with the "risk of a better world", but rather with economic dysfunction and political repression. Maybe they're wrong, but I don't think they're unreasonable.

If people are ok with nationalisation but are scared of him going further, I really don't know what to say. For me nationalisation is the most radical action they are proposing (and yes, I'm aware that govt trains are both popular now and have a long precedent in England). Because unlike with tuition fees or just increasing NHS spending, it actually removes a section of the economy from pvt hands. The other radical part of the manifesto was to allow workers at plants that are about to be shut down, the option to take control of the plant and use it for producing ___. That, afaik, is as far as they go in terms of steps beyond standard welfare state stuff.

 

[nickm]

I think the post you've quoted is making the point that there's a constituency of people out there who see themselves (and want to be seen) as centre-left progressives who would never vote Tory, but who in reality have a lot more sympathy for centre-right/right wing economic policy than they do anything vaguely left of centre. In order to stave off cognitive dissonance they therefore end up convincing themselves that PFI and austerity were common sense centrist ideas and that raising taxes slightly for people earning over 80k or nationalising a few bits of basic infrastructure is quasi-Communist.

Or maybe in order to get stuff done in politics you have to build broad coalitions and that means you need policies with broad appeal.

Blair’s understanding of this is what enabled him to be the most devastatingly successful election winning labour leader ever. Corbyn’s failure to understand this - indeed his apparent reluctance to learn lessons from labours relatively patchy electoral history, is why he won’t be.

 

[nickm]

My point was just that it seems like mocking people for worrying about Corbyn on the basis of his plans for "basic social democratic reforms" is a bit of a straw man. Perhaps there are moderate leftists out there who are running scared at the thought of more money for the NHS or nationalization of the trains, but it's far more likely they're concerned about Corbyn's history, how he's surrounded himself with people like Murray and Milne, and how some of his most prominent supporters in the media keep going on about how great communism will be. These moderates/centrists or whatever you want to call them probably don't associate far-left politics with the "risk of a better world", but rather with economic dysfunction and political repression. Maybe they're wrong, but I don't think they're unreasonable.

Indeed if a tory leader surrounded themselves with ex fascists and extreme right economists people would jump to all sorts of conclusions about their intentions. Corbyn, who has done similar, apparently gets a pass.

 

[Sweet Square]

Do you think a Corbyn-led Labour government would be just a standard social democratic regime that no reasonable moderates should worry about (seems to be the implication of your posts above)? Or is Corbyn Britain's only chance for real, radical workers-led change/revolution?

What they offered in 2017 was light reforms, there was nothing that should of scared any moderated centre liberal voter. The manifesto 2017 was about updating Britain into the 21st century.

The next manifesto might be a little bit different. The pushing forward of ideas similar to the Meidner Plan and the 4 day work week I image do test what a moderated views as well......moderated. But while testing it's not revolutionary, the percentage of shares start off I think at 10%, there's good data showing a 4 day work week would actually be more productive, some unions in Germany have recently won the right to a 28 work hour week and the guy who basically saved liberalism - Keynes thought we'd all end working 15 hour work weeks by now.

Yes big changes but not revolutionary and considering the future we are facing - Climate change, rising far right, rising inequity etc. It isn't so much socialism or barbarism but potentially radical social democracy or barbarism(Isn't as catchy sadly). If someone is struggling to move to the left then I'm not sure how liberal or moderate they really are.(Btw we are in this situation because of the failures of liberalism which have resulted in the only people offering reforms being marxists)

To me the potential for real worker power will be the reaction to a Labour government

• A coalition government with Lib Dem/SNP/Green then I think we will get basic reforms such living wage, better union rights, pv voting and at the most extreme - top down nationalisation. With the Labour government under constant media attack and a somewhat stubborn civil services. None of this is a enough to solve the crisis we are in.

• Labour majority(I know unlikely but it's worth saying anyway)then I think we will see a civil service trying its best to stop any reforms, constant attacks from the media, revolts from people inside the on the Labour right and outside inference from the US. All of this won't lead to any sort of revolution but I could see it pushing the Corbyn project to further to the left which could lead to mass strikes, protest movements etc.

You've turned Tory into a pejorative word and are using it to insult anyone who disagrees with you. Why do you think people will take you seriously?

What is Toryism but organised spivvery? … No amount of cajolery can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party … So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.

Mr Bevan seem to do alright in life.

Like the millions of non-Tories who voted for Thatcher because every couple of months for years, they made a quick couple of hundred quid buying and immediately selling shares in the privatisations which she instigated and which have done so much to leave the UK's economy and infrastructure in the hands of foreign governments and Hedge Funds or bought their council houses for next-to-nothing and for which she should be dug up and then publically executed on the Town Hall steps before being put back where she came from.

To be more serious it's about peoples class interest. Thatcher with the backing of British capital was able to appeal to a broad range of the public and to her credit made people into long term tory voters. I always say this but people really should watch The Long Good Friday & The Cook The Thief His Wife And Her Lover.

I think Corbyn will have to come up with even more expensive, vote winning promises to get these people to vote for Labour again - the pro-Brexit lot would vote for Johnson or Farage ( if the GE was to be before the UK is out of the EU, which is quite possible the way it's going ) because of the antics of Starmer, Cooper, Benn, etc, and those for who anti-Brexit is more important than who's in charge after the GE will vote LibDem because of the obfuscation and antics of Corbyn.

The fear of McDonnell, the clumsiness of Abbott and the hypocrisy of Thornberry probably wouldn't even be a factor.

Yeah I would agree this could happen. Although its impossible to know at the moment, I'm not even sure after the tory leadership race that the brexit party will be around.

 

[2cents]

If people are ok with nationalisation but are scared of him going further, I really don't know what to say. For me nationalisation is the most radical action they are proposing (and yes, I'm aware that govt trains are both popular now and have a long precedent in England). Because unlike with tuition fees or just increasing NHS spending, it actually removes a section of the economy from pvt hands. The other radical part of the manifesto was to allow workers at plants that are about to be shut down, the option to take control of the plant and use it for producing ___. That, afaik, is as far as they go in terms of steps beyond standard welfare state stuff.

Again here though there seems to me to be this disconnect, where on the one hand I’m hearing that Corbyn’s manifesto really isn’t all that radical, while on the other hand he’s being presented as Britain’s only hope for radical, revolutionary change. Which is what prompted my original question (Edit - now answered above by @Sweet Square).

 

[Cheesy]

Or maybe in order to get stuff done in politics you have to build broad coalitions and that means you need policies with broad appeal.

Blair’s understanding of this is what enabled him to be the most devastatingly successful election winning labour leader ever. Corbyn’s failure to understand this - indeed his apparent reluctance to learn lessons from labours relatively patchy electoral history, is why he won’t be.

This often gets overstated a bit and is a bit more complex than some people like to make out. Blair was undoubtedly and incredibly successful and adept leader but Labour were leading in the polls before he became leader - under John Smith they'd often been mounting 10-20 point leads on a consistent basis. Blair could've probably been much further to the left than he was and would've still won the election against a tired and demoralised Tory party that just didn't have anything left to offer after 18 years in power.

And also in spite of his success, I'd argue Blair's approach had some detrimental effects in the longer term by alienating a lot of the core party base. While he was able to pick up a lot of more middle-class voters who typically wouldn't have voted for the party, those same voters weren't particularly loyal at all and weren't likely to stick by the party when things gone sour - in the meantime Labour started to alienate a lot of members etc to an extent that was unnecessary.

Blair's often touted as someone who compromised a lot but I'm not sure how true this is - in fact if anything it arguably undersells his conviction as a leader and politician. Instead of being a leftist compromiser I'd argue Blair was a proper neoliberal, someone who inherently believed in strong state services but who was also very sceptical of nationalisation and pro-privatisation at the same time, someone who was keen for the financial sector to be deregulated and for the private sector to be brought into public institutions when necessary. If that's what you believe, then sure, go for it - but it doesn't make you someone big on compromise - I'd argue it just makes you someone who's centre/centre-right.

 

[berbatrick]

My point was just that it seems like mocking people for worrying about Corbyn on the basis of his plans for "basic social democratic reforms" is a bit of a straw man. Perhaps there are moderate leftists out there who are running scared at the thought of more money for the NHS or nationalization of the trains, but it's far more likely they're concerned about Corbyn's history, how he's surrounded himself with people like Murray and Milne, and how some of his most prominent supporters in the media keep going on about how great communism will be. These moderates/centrists or whatever you want to call them probably don't associate far-left politics with the "risk of a better world", but rather with economic dysfunction and political repression. Maybe they're wrong, but I don't think they're unreasonable.

Also I went on Milne's wiki page and this seems to be his controversial article: https://www.theguardian.com/Columnists/Column/0,,1710891,00.html
Is this it, or am I missing something further?
And sorry, I don't know who murray is.

 

[Cheesy]

Also I went on Milne's wiki page and this seems to be his controversial article: https://www.theguardian.com/Columnists/Column/0,,1710891,00.html
Is this it, or am I missing something further?
And sorry, I don't know who murray is.

If I remember correctly he's gotten a fair bit of stick over the years for being a bit of a Putin apologist.

 

[2cents]

Also I went on Milne's wiki page and this seems to be his controversial article: https://www.theguardian.com/Columnists/Column/0,,1710891,00.html
Is this it, or am I missing something further?
And sorry, I don't know who murray is.

Andrew Murray, member of the Communist Part of Britain for 40 years until joining Labour in 2016 and now serving as a senior adviser to Corbyn.

 

[Sweet Square]

Andrew Murray, member of the Communist Part of Britain for 40 years until joining Labour in 2016 and now serving as a senior adviser to Corbyn.

Yeah Murray is well to the left of basically anyone but in fairness he has a long history in the labour movement, won trade union elections and was also chief of staff for Unite.

 

[Full bodied red]

Murray's the sort of neo-communist Labourite who, deservedly, attracts ridicule and contempt in equal amounts.

So Corbyn then makes him a Senior Advisor and finds a job for his daughter in his private office.

And then Corbyn's supporters wonder why the rest of us won't take Corbyn seriously and think he's a bit of a nutter.

 

[Sweet Square]

What the is a Neo communist ?

edit - found it

 

[JohnnyKills]

Murray's the sort of neo-communist Labourite who, deservedly, attracts ridicule and contempt in equal amounts.

So Corbyn then makes him a Senior Advisor and finds a job for his daughter in his private office.

And then Corbyn's supporters wonder why the rest of us won't take Corbyn seriously and think he's a bit of a nutter.

Fair point.

There's definitely merit in what Corbyn says. A lot of European countries are further to the left than we are in terms of their top tax rates and welfare spending. There's no reason we can't go down that route (although personally I think the problems with the NHS are as much to do with mismanagement as lack of resources). It's also fair to talk about improving the transport system, which is a joke.

But the problem is this gets lost in the nuttery and the obsession with certain causes. As you say, he's not giving people a chance to take him seriously by doing stuff like this.

 

[berbatrick]

Andrew Murray, member of the Communist Part of Britain for 40 years until joining Labour in 2016 and now serving as a senior adviser to Corbyn.

not a fan of the CPGB* so i looked it up, and apparently i missed hat you said. i had never heard other CPB before. i don't know much about it but their international alliance in India is the CPI(M). if the CPB is anyway similar to the CPI/CPI(M), it is not particularly radical, especially in their actions as opposed to their rhetoric.

*still the home of the tankies

 

[nickm]

This often gets overstated a bit and is a bit more complex than some people like to make out. Blair was undoubtedly and incredibly successful and adept leader but Labour were leading in the polls before he became leader - under John Smith they'd often been mounting 10-20 point leads on a consistent basis. Blair could've probably been much further to the left than he was and would've still won the election against a tired and demoralised Tory party that just didn't have anything left to offer after 18 years in power.

And also in spite of his success, I'd argue Blair's approach had some detrimental effects in the longer term by alienating a lot of the core party base. While he was able to pick up a lot of more middle-class voters who typically wouldn't have voted for the party, those same voters weren't particularly loyal at all and weren't likely to stick by the party when things gone sour - in the meantime Labour started to alienate a lot of members etc to an extent that was unnecessary.

Blair's often touted as someone who compromised a lot but I'm not sure how true this is - in fact if anything it arguably undersells his conviction as a leader and politician. Instead of being a leftist compromiser I'd argue Blair was a proper neoliberal, someone who inherently believed in strong state services but who was also very sceptical of nationalisation and pro-privatisation at the same time, someone who was keen for the financial sector to be deregulated and for the private sector to be brought into public institutions when necessary. If that's what you believe, then sure, go for it - but it doesn't make you someone big on compromise - I'd argue it just makes you someone who's centre/centre-right.

John Smith would have won but not as as overwhelmingly as Blair, and I suspect he'd have struggled to contain the Tories as well as Blair - you have to remember, Blair didn't just beat the Tories, he shattered them, sucked away all their oxygen and gave them no space at all to recover. Blair was also determined to leave nothing to chance when it came to winning - he'd seen what had happened to Kinnock after Sheffield, and I think that cautiousness, plus the determination not to throw it away like Kinnock did, is what led to the deal with Murdoch, the promise to stick to Tory spending limits initially etc. Smith wouldn't have done that, he'd have had a higher chance of throwing it, and he would have allowed the Tories to recover much quicker.

I didn't say Blair compromised (although he was flexible), I said he built coalitions and policies with broad appeal. You can't imagine Corbyn ever using the phrase Big Tent.

 

[Sweet Square]

I think the post you've quoted is making the point that there's a constituency of people out there who see themselves (and want to be seen) as centre-left progressives who would never vote Tory, but who in reality have a lot more sympathy for centre-right/right wing economic policy than they do anything vaguely left of centre. In order to stave off cognitive dissonance they therefore end up convincing themselves that PFI and austerity were common sense centrist ideas and that raising taxes slightly for people earning over 80k or nationalising a few bits of basic infrastructure is quasi-Communist.

pretty much this.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Or maybe in order to get stuff done in politics you have to build broad coalitions and that means you need policies with broad appeal.

Blair’s understanding of this is what enabled him to be the most devastatingly successful election winning labour leader ever. Corbyn’s failure to understand this - indeed his apparent reluctance to learn lessons from labours relatively patchy electoral history, is why he won’t be.

But then, the lack of true ambition in a lot of Blair's policies is the reason the bulk of the good stuff his government did was easily dismantled in a single term by the coalition government.

If all there was to winning elections was selecting broad appeal policies, the Lib Dems would win every election. Labour's win in 1997 was on the cards before Blair became leader (although not it's scale admittedly), he had the opportunity to change the country to the same extent that Atlee and Thatcher did, he just didn't want to.

 

[Synco]

Being against the Isreali state currently, which is valid obviously does not equate to anti-semitism.
Surely Jews can understand that.

Currently it is acting like the Nazis.

Remarkable how your claim crumbles with just the next post. I'm afraid your confidence that "surely Jews can understand" what you're writing isn't warranted, at least when we're talking about the overwhelming majority. Which makes them pro Nazi, right?

 

[Red Dreams]

Remarkable how your claim crumbles with just the next post. I'm afraid your confidence that "surely Jews can understand" what you're writing isn't warranted, at least when we're talking about the overwhelming majority. Which makes them pro Nazi, right?

You don't get it do you?

The Right wing Government of Israel have forgotten their own history.
Just look at how they are treating the Palestinians?

Israel has a right to exist as a state. The Palestinians deserve to have their state too.

No matter who represents the Palestinians, the Israeli government has to sit down with them to get to a solution. Unfortunately there is no honest broker in the WH.

 

[Nuts]

So... Do you call out and indeed report the people you hear using by your own definition antisemitic language in your FIFA community

I must say the tone of your post suggests you don't

I wonder if it was being called a n1gger goal or a pak1 goal etc if that would be more less or equally offencive to you and you would treat it differently...

Did you just call him a racist?

Looks like you did. Outrageous insinuation.

 

[Nuts]

You've turned Tory into a pejorative word and are using it to insult anyone who disagrees with you. Why do you think people will take you seriously?

Like me, he probably finds people thick enough to one day need the NHS while still voting for politicians who’ll underfund and privatise it utterly repellent.

 

[Nuts]

Fair point.

There's definitely merit in what Corbyn says. A lot of European countries are further to the left than we are in terms of their top tax rates and welfare spending. There's no reason we can't go down that route (although personally I think the problems with the NHS are as much to do with mismanagement as lack of resources). It's also fair to talk about improving the transport system, which is a joke.

But the problem is this gets lost in the nuttery and the obsession with certain causes. As you say, he's not giving people a chance to take him seriously by doing stuff like this.

Except Peterborough disproves this.

Where’s the ‘nuttery and obession’?

Give specifics, rather than hollow cliches.

 

[Sassy Colin]

I haven’t played FIFA online in years. No, I haven’t reported it in the past.

If I heard someone use racist language whilst gaming online I really don’t know whether I would report it or not now to be honest. I’m fairly resigned to online being a bit of a cesspit for behaviour in general which is pretty damning I guess.

Have you ever heard of anyone being punished for using that sort of language gaming? I’ve reported stuff on Facebook and Twitter before and literally no response and posts have stayed up.

I reported a post on here that used the Holocaust to make a cheap joke and was told that I had no sense of humour.

It was a few years ago now though and the mod team is much better now than it was back then.

 

[JohnnyKills]

Like me, he probably finds people thick enough to one day need the NHS while still voting for politicians who’ll underfund and privatise it utterly repellent.

Having a bad day are we?

 

[Synco]

You don't get it do you?

The Right wing Government of Israel have forgotten their own history.
Just look at how they are treating the Palestinians?

Israel has a right to exist as a state. The Palestinians deserve to have their state too.

No matter who represents the Palestinians, the Israeli government has to sit down with them to get to a solution. Unfortunately there is no honest broker in the WH.

Sorry, I'm not going to argue with you over this. I just wanted to point out what I did.