UK Politics: This Country is Going to the Moggs

[A Horse Named Stranger]

14 hours ago, Werthead said:

And that in turn sounds awfully close to we should believe everything the mostly right-wing-owned media in Britain says about Corbyn despite it's blatant anti-Corbyn bias we have seen on a daily basis since the 2015 leadership election.

 

I am mainly nailing Corbyn and Labour on Brexit, an issue where their approach is as sensible or logical coherent as the Tories, and by no means any better. And Corbyn and McDonnel as leavers and Labour leaders get quite a bit of stick. That's hardly things the right wing press goes after Corbyn for. Anyway, with regards to

14 hours ago, Werthead said:

 Does Labour have an anti-Semitism problem? Yes, and it is a serious issue the party needs to get to grips with. Has Corbyn responded to this issue on an adequate basis? Demonstrably not. Does the party (and, well, the planet) have a problem where certain people conflate the very serious issue of anti-Semitism in all cases with the much more cogent and intelligent criticism of the increasingly apartheid attitude of the state of Israel? Yes, most certainly, and this is increasingly annoying to argue with, especially when other British political parties have anti-Semitism and Islamaphobic issues which get brushed under the carpet because the party saying them isn't arguing for a fairer system which may inconvenience rich people and the media.

 

I am trying very hard not to go anywhere the issue of Israel with a long pole - call it politically cowardice on my part. However, as you said, criticising Israel is kinda tricky, and words actually matter. As you can get support from very unpleasent people there. And the problem is, that it some extent voids legit criticism of the state of Israel, and its increasingly apartheid traits. And if I am not mistaken, wasn't Corbyn also supporting an artist with very openly anti.semitic paintings? I think he said he did so on free speech grounds. Neither Telegraph, nor Sun, nor Mail forced him to do that. And for Labour that has the potential to really harm them electorally. Same thing with his bungled handling of the Skripal poisoning. Nobody forced him to go almost full Russia Today back then. And wasn't Abbot going out of her way on television to praise chairman... Mao not that long ago? It's somewhat absurd.

As has been repeatedly said on here, the current goverment is probably the worst and most witless one since before WWII. And with the ongoing scandals (like Windrush), the exploits of BoJo the Bozo and the ongoing Brexit omnishambles, Corbyn should be dominating all the polls. Fact of the matter is, he isn't. He polls favourably against May (which is a very low bar indeed), and correct me if I am wrong, he polls roughly level with Boris fuckign Johnson and JRM for crying out loud. 

[mormont]

15 hours ago, Werthead said:

And that in turn sounds awfully close to we should believe everything the mostly right-wing-owned media in Britain says about Corbyn despite it's blatant anti-Corbyn bias we have seen on a daily basis since the 2015 leadership election.

The irritation I experience when I hear this narrative from Corbyn and his supporters is substantial. You'll see ardent Corbynites, up to and including Seumas Milne, whose job it actually is to tackle this problem, simply grumbling about it to people who already support Corbyn. It's like, yes, you have correctly identified a problem. Now what the hell are you actually doing about it? 

The party has had some success with alternative methods of getting the message out via social media and events, but these are mainly effective during actual campaigns. In the meantime, Corbyn and his coterie seem to prefer complaining to each other about the perfidy of the right-wing media cabal to actually trying to find ways to get their message across. 

[Derfel Cadarn]

I sometimes wonder how things would have went if Milliband had stayed Labour leader.  Aall he had to do was sit tight and let the Tories implode, and get voted in by default.  

Instead Labour have a divisive leader bogged down with his owb issues instead of putting the Toroes to the sword.

[mormont]

Yeah, but it's not as if the Labour party were fully united behind Milliband either.

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

I sometimes wonder how things would have went if Milliband had stayed Labour leader.  Aall he had to do was sit tight and let the Tories implode, and get voted in by default.

I think generally a lot like this.

[Derfel Cadarn]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45170622

 

"I was there but I wasnt involved"

 

oh, Jeremy ...

[Maltaran]

1 hour ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45170622

 

"I was there but I wasnt involved"

 

oh, Jeremy ...

Reminds me of Bill Clinton and how he didn’t inhale

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45170622

 

"I was there but I wasnt involved"

 

oh, Jeremy ...

I think Corbyn is just very unlucky.  We know that he's a man who seeks peaceful resolutions to conflicts, because he tells us he is.  Yet. wherever he goes he seems to attend the same meetings as people who praise the IRA, or commemorate the murder of Israeli athletes, or deny that the holocaust ever happened, or insist that the Israelis are the real Nazis.

[Spockydog]

This wreath laying story is a big steaming pile of bullshit. The Munich terrorists are buried in Libya. Corbyn was pictured attending a peace conference in Tunisia, where a wreath was laid to honour the 74 victims of an Israeli airstrike, an airstrike which Margaret Thatcher herself stood up in the House of Commons to condemn (as did the UN Security Council).

The most frustrating thing about this is Corbyn's poor handling of the story. Instead of instantly clarifying the above, we had the 'I was there, but wasn't involved' guff. Very poor.

The second most frustrating thing is it was all started by Benjamin Netanyahu, one of the worst human beings alive today.

[mormont]

Netanyahu is a vile person, no question. That has no bearing on whether what he says actually happened. 

The Munich terrorists are not buried at that cemetery: that is also true. However, there is a memorial to them there, and a wreath was laid at that memorial in a ceremony that Corbyn attended (which, yes, also commemorated the victims of the airstrike to which you refer). So whether the Munich terrorists are actually physically buried there is also irrelevant to the story.

There are defences of Corbyn to be made here, but those two points are not among them. (Nor, to be fair to Corbyn, is he making them.)

[Spockydog]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

Netanyahu is a vile person, no question. That has no bearing on whether what he says actually happened. 

The Munich terrorists are not buried at that cemetery: that is also true. However, there is a memorial to them there, and a wreath was laid at that memorial in a ceremony that Corbyn attended (which, yes, also commemorated the victims of the airstrike to which you refer). So whether the Munich terrorists are actually physically buried there is also irrelevant to the story.

 

No, it's not irrelevant to the story. The headline for the past four days has been that Jeremy Corbyn laid a wreath on the graves of the Munich terrorists. That is clearly not true, and a lot more damaging to Corbyn than the actual fucking truth. I mean, for three days I was disgusted with the man. Then I went online and found the truth.

As to whether he was present at a ceremony commemorating the terrorists, well, I've seen no evidence of that. And just because you say it happened doesn't make it true.

 

[Spockydog]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

Netanyahu is a vile person, no question. That has no bearing on whether what he says actually happened. 

Well, it does in my book. Quite apart from the fact that what Bennie says happened didn't actually happen, Corbyn, an undoubted pacifist, being accused of sympathising with terrorists by an actual fucking terrorist is pretty nauseating.

[mormont]

59 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

No, it's not irrelevant to the story. The headline for the past four days has been that Jeremy Corbyn laid a wreath on the graves of the Munich terrorists. That is clearly not true, and a lot more damaging to Corbyn than the actual fucking truth.

Not significantly, no. 

Incidentally, I'm not saying Corbyn was present at the ceremony. He is. 

Quote

The Mail had reported that the Labour leader was photographed near memorials to members of the militant Black September group behind the 1972 attack.  Asked who this wreath had been for, if they were not terrorists, Mr Corbyn replied simply that a wreath "was indeed laid".  But he added: "I was present when it was laid. I don't think I was actually involved in it.

And that Corbyn considers himself a pacifist does not mean that he cannot show sympathy for terrorists. If we're interested in the truth, the truth is that Corbyn has repeatedly done so over his career. It's the same as saying that he can't be anti-Semitic: just because he does not believe something he does is bad, doesn't mean that it cannot be criticised. 

[Spockydog]

"Was photographed near memorials" is not exactly laying wreaths on the graves of terrorists, which has basically been the story of the week.

And my comment about Corbyn being a pacifist was more to do with Netenyahu's terrorism than anything else. How that diabolical cunt has the front to publicly criticize anyone, for anything, is beyond me.

[mormont]

13 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

"Was photographed near memorials" is not exactly laying wreaths on the graves of terrorists, which has basically been the story of the week.

"Was photographed near memorials" is also not exactly, or even roughly, a fair description of what happened. 

[Spockydog]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

"Was photographed near memorials" is also not exactly, or even roughly, a fair description of what happened. 

But that's what it says in the piece you quoted. Other than that, you have Corbyn saying that a wreath was laid, but he had nothing to do with it. Presumably, the Tory and LibDem who were on the trip with Corbyn were also present...

[mormont]

29 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

But that's what it says in the piece you quoted

I'm afraid not. What it says is that Corbyn attended an event at which more than one wreath was laid: one for the victims of the bombing of the PLO headquarters, one for people involved in planning the Munich massacre. He also claims that he was 'present' but not 'involved' in the latter. This reads to me as simply spin.

Your characterisation of it as Corbyn being 'photographed near memorials' elides the fact that he was near them for a reason: you're making it sound like he just happened by. Corbyn's own characterisation is attempting to make out that these were two unrelated events that just happened to take place at the same time. Neither is a fair picture of what happened.

Corbyn needs to spend less energy on angrily trying to split hairs in order to justify his past actions, and more on recognising that he showed at the very least poor judgement, and apologising for that. 

[Spockydog]

27 minutes ago, mormont said:

Your characterisation of it as Corbyn being 'photographed near memorials' elides the fact that he was near them for a reason:

Yes, the commemoration of 74 people murdered by the Israeili state. 

 

[Spockydog]

And, Mormont, you constantly coming across as the Font of All Knowledge is ridiculous. You literally have no idea of the circumstances/logistics surrounding this visit, so please stop pretending that you do.

 

[mormont]

7 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Yes, the commemoration of 74 people murdered by the Israeili state. 

Yes.

I'm sorry, was that supposed to exonerate him in some way?

3 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

And, Mormont, you constantly coming across as the Font of All Knowledge is ridiculous. You literally have no idea of the circumstances/logistics surrounding this visit, so please stop pretending that you do.

Sorry, but I can't stop what I haven't started. I know what you know, which is what's in the media reports, and that's all I've ever claimed to know. But what's in the media reports, indeed what Corbyn himself says happened, clearly shows poor judgement on Corbyn's part and a reluctance to admit to that poor judgement.