Fair, but I'd still say it's true that Wilson would be much closer to Corbyn (generally speaking) than he would be to Blair. Although could be said that if he'd grown up in a different era with different political norms he'd have ended up in the centre-ground of the party.
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.
Fair, but I'd still say it's true that Wilson would be much closer to Corbyn (generally speaking) than he would be to Blair. Although could be said that if he'd grown up in a different era with different political norms he'd have ended up in the centre-ground of the party.
I'm just saying that there exists an element of those on the left who'd be happy if you just shut them in a room all day and let them tell you how awful Blair was. Anything contemporary like the homelessness crisis this government has facilitated, isn't really of interest
Pro or anti Blair, the only winners of Labour supporters being so introspective on the issue are the Tories. As awful as Iraq was, "But Iraq..." has let them off the hook with so much post 2010.
Pro or anti Blair, the only winners of Labour supporters being so introspective on the issue are the Tories. As awful as Iraq was, "But Iraq..." has let them off the hook with so much post 2010.
I mean it only takes a quick google to find
Corbyn: Labour would buy 8,000 properties for homeless people
https://www.theguardian.com/society...ur-would-buy-8000-properties-for-the-homeless
False equivilence. UKIP genuinely had racism throughout it's party. Point to Labour MPs who are anti-semitic and let me save you some time, you won't be able to find any. The nearest being Naz Shah, who's anti Israeli comments came during Israel carrying out a genocide.
Actually analyse any anti-semetism within the Labour movement and at most you'll find anti-Israeli war crime sentiment, some over the top but much of it very much reasonable.
And even then, why is OTT criticism of genocide worse than genocide itself?
I think you're talking about a really small bunch of people. Such a small group it really doesn't bear considering.
I'm all for a genuine discussion of New Labour's record in government because I think there were plenty of genuinely impressive social achievements during their tenure and the GFA is probably Blair's crowning success, but you can't fundamentally ignore Iraq because it doesn't suit your narrative when it was one of the defining political events of the new millenniums first decade. Any discussion of New Labour which omits Iraq is being a bit dishonest, I reckon.
Can someone tell the entire British press and the Labour right please?
And it (again) applies to all political parties, because all parties have elements of their support who're incredibly rabid in their views and who refuse to accept opposing ones...hence why they're so heavily committed to an individual political party. From a Scottish POV a lot of the Labour contingent up here have spent the past decade being every bit as irrational and delusional as the worst of Corbyn's lot are accused of being.
To be fair, criticism of Iraq is fairly rife these days, to the point where condoning the war is generally the controversial, edgy opinion. And most people I know more towards the centre of the party - and prominent figures within the party - generally agree that it's fair game to point out how flawed the whole process was.
But Libya shows that they've not change at all.
It's certainly keeping Nick Cohen's leccy on.
It's interesting that Israel keeps getting brought up on this, because neither of the cases that sparked the latest row had anything to do with Israel or Zionism whatsoever. They were just straightforward jew-hate that got brushed aside.
Wilson was a weird one as well because he had one fairly moderate (for the time) government, and another pretty leftwing one. Would be interesting to get his take on recent history, for sure.
Yeah, post-war Labour in general is very interesting to look at. A huge mix of voices from all over the spectrum. I'd argue most are somewhat close to Corbyn on most economic issues, but a lot of the less left-wing ones (for that time) had a certain traditionalism and fondness for old imperial values that'd likely anger a lot of Corbyn fans. Attlee included.
From that standpoint I really like Bevan: https://speakola.com/political/aneurin-nye-bevan-trafalgar-square-1956
Aye, Bevan was one of the most solidly left-wing ones of the post-war lot.
How can you be following in someone's footsteps when you're going another direction?
Great speech, thanks for sharing that.
Just saw "Jewdas" and "Guido Fawkes" trending, and figured they must've taken a break from their usual immigration bashing to be offensive in new and exciting ways. Was correct.
The "no, not those jews" paragraph was my favourite part. It's like watching a minstrel explain why racism is bad.
This is the thing that gets me. People are always insisting that there's a distinction between criticism of Israel and antisemitism, and they're right. But whenever the discussion turns to antisemitism those same people only ever want to talk about Israel. Those who claim to want to avoid conflation are actually the ones who conflate all the time.
-We need to talk about antisemitism.
"Yes, different from opposing Israeli policy"
-Agreed. What do you think can be done to tackle antisemitism?
"Well...*3 hour rant on Zionism* "
His meeting with the group Jewdas (is that their actual name or a pun?...or both?) really wasn't well advised. When you're trying to convince people that you're taking the issue seriously it's really shitty PR to go and meet a group who don't think there is a problem to be taken seriously in the first place. Again it's one of those things where any advisor drawing a salary is negligent in his duties not to spot the potential problem there.
London has less 7% of the UK population, but 50% of its homeless population (150k)
Thats more than the entire homeless population of france.
The irony of this post is that despite Blair being to the left of the current Torries the gap between rich and poor grew under him, the erosion of the NHS by privatising elements started under him, equally low social house building and dregulated financial sector from the Thatcher years and in fact most of Thatcher's policies Blair simply followed through. To suggest Blairite policies would tackle the homelessness crisis is naive when you consider his policies helped create it.
Oh have a day off. Name me once in that post you quoted where I suggested Blairite policies would tackle homelessness. I didn't. I said there's an obsession with Tony Blair and the fact so many on the left want to do nothing but talk about Tony Blair at the expense of looking at the problems the current government is failing to address. This is underlined by the fact I raised an issue this current government is failing to address and the response is:
"But Tony Blair...."
Blair left office more than a decade ago. The most important thing to so many on the left shouldn't be to make sure everyone knows how much they disapprove of Tony Blair, yet increasingly it seems so many on the left literally couldn't give a massive shit about anything else. He is obviously going to be referred to from time to time because historically he's an important figure in modern politics. But its rather sad to see such a large number of people of the left who I think have allowed him (or namely their opposition to him) to completely and utterly define their politics to the point where unless they're talking about him or Iraq, they really don't have much else to say. It's that middle-aged guy on Question Time who puts his hand up during the debate on genetically modified crops and somehow manages to fit in the words '...illegal war in Iraq.' into his question. Move on.
Last edited:
Well to be honest I thought you wanted to talk about Tony Blair. The number of times you bring him up.
You mention him and it's only natural to respond with how much damage he left in his wake. For the people of the UK, for his party and other parts of the world.
You're an adviser to a leader who has faced criticism for perceived antisemitism in his party and who has released statement(s) trying to show that he's serious about antisemitism within the party. You're surely ultra sensitive to anything around this issue now and careful about what's said and done. You notice he has an engagement with a group who publicly don't think there's a problem with antisemitism within the party and the whole thing is a right-wing smear.
Is it too much to expect people advising the leader of the the official opposition to maybe flag that, or is thinking this a 'smear' also?
Is it too much to expect people advising the leader of the the official opposition to maybe flag that, or is thinking this a 'smear' also?
You're talking about the meeting with Jewdas? But you don't want him to listen and talk to just any Jewish people, it has to be the right Jewish people to suit you and the media? Oh okay.
I've seen that we have a wider problem with antisemitism in the Labour Party then first thought. Largely unconscious, unspoken and un-described. Of course it is going to take at least a few days to find it then.
How do you know that they didn't flag it up? They might well have and still come to the conclusion that the engagement is worth while?
Yeah I'm talking about the whole 'maybe meeting with people who don't think there's an antisemitism problem in the party isn't a good look at a time when our message is how seriously we're taking antisemitism within the party' thing.
The reaction to this is something that should be obvious to anyone not in a vegetative state. And yet, here we are. Again.
Even criticising the advice the leader gets that ends up heaping more criticism on him is a criticism too far for some people. They're there to manage his image, to put him in a good light. To get him good publicity. Anyone who wants to pretend that's what they're succeeding in doing is either a liar or completely deluded.
The reaction to this is something that should be obvious to anyone not in a vegetative state. And yet, here we are. Again.
Even criticising the advice the leader gets that ends up heaping more criticism on him is a criticism too far for some people. They're there to manage his image, to put him in a good light. To get him good publicity. Anyone who wants to pretend that's what they're succeeding in doing is either a liar or completely deluded.
Again, clearly referring to a remark someone has said but not quoting or replying to them.
As stated, it has to be the right group to suit you. As before with the Skripol poisoning and other situations Corbyn takes opinion from all sides of the debate, doesn't just listen to one side but of course he must make you and the media happy.
Then they're absolute idiots. Which I'm not dismissing by the way.
At times I just feel sorry for him because these are things that any paid adviser should see a mile away and avoid, particularly after the week he's just had. Constantly he's being kicked in the balls by people who are supposed to be there to help him because they're either too reckless to care how much damage this does to him, or too incompetent to know.
He really does have enough to contend with and doesn't need people who can look at the inevitable shitstorm this would cause but still think "Um...that's fine"
I don't know, I've only seen you and the telegraph bang on about it to be honest. And we all know he could be curing aids and the telegraph would still rip him to pieces for hurting the pharma industry... I don't think a lot of people will see his meeting with them as an endorsement for everything any member of them have ever said... There won't be many convinced that celebrating a Jewish holiday with Jews is somehow a worrying sign of his antisemitism.
I am glad he doesn't have a paid adviser telling him not to do the right thing. What is so wrong with him attending a Seder with Jewish constituents of his after he was invited? If the reason for not going would be that it gives a right-wing media an excuse to make a tenuous attack on him... well, quite frankly... feck them.
It does more damage to the people making these attacks because most intelligent people are able to see them for what they are. They can continue to chip away at their own credibility.
Corbyn needs to meet with Jews.
No, not those ones!
Corbyn needs to explain the content of comments on Facebook pages he goes on.
Here's a Guido Fawkes article, just don't look at the comment section.
No, not those ones!
Corbyn needs to explain the content of comments on Facebook pages he goes on.
Here's a Guido Fawkes article, just don't look at the comment section.
You're inaccurately portraying left wing politicians and commentators as having an obsession with Blair. They simply don't, I don't hear that and you seem to be the only one bringing it up this thread. Are some of the public going to mention the prime minster of Britian for a decade, who shaped the country and the world, yes, and many will mention Blair and Thatcher for those reasons.
Do the left have a voice on left wing issues such? Only in a tiny proportion of the media because the narative has become skewed to the right wing agenda.
While there maybe a handful of genuine anti-semitic comments from nobodies within the party there is a smear campaign from the enemies of the left and right wing Zionists who won't accept any criticism of Israel. Zionists, Tories and Blairites alike have jumped on it as a huge issue for obvious reasons.
It ultimate boils down to whether you believe any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic or not because we've had an Israeli on this thread state any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic.
Yes.I wonder if his flight will come via Diego Garcia, for old times' sake.
I actually consider that to be anti-semitic/racist in itself. Why shouldn't a Jewish man or woman have sympathy with the plight of the Palestinians? Apparently that's the type of Jew who shouldn't be worthy of a public opinion and Labour shouldn't bring into consultations? Apparently all Jews should have the same opinion and if they don't 'they aren't real Jews'.
I'm sure they'll be organising a march against themselves before the day is out.