Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez
I believe the equality of all regardless of colour, sexual orientation and sex over a fucking book which is a load of bollocks anyday, and a Western liberal upbringing has given me that right to say so. I find it repugnant in the 21st century we can not mention it for fear of offence, fuck that the pc brigade should hang their heads in shame.
Youre contradicting yourself a little there when you say you can’t mention it, given that you just mentioned it.
Yes, and that’s a worthy mission, but again, above, all the areas you’re covering above come from a western self blame narrative. Poverty. Lack of control of ther own future. I understand why people feel the need to do this - looking inward for reasons is a more comfortable thing to do, and probably the only grasp of sanity there is, but it is nonetheless an unhelpful route of travel. You sound like a school teacher trying to understand your unruly kids.
The ISIS claim of responsibility made no reference to this. They talked about prostitution and vice, disbelievers, insulting ther prophet, wars against Islam in France, and strikes against Muslims (oh the irony)
They didn’t target government offices, they targeted civilians - the very freedom the West stands for, which they are so repulsed by. They also didn’t do the job themselves - they brainwashed kids, into to a cult of death and destruction, and into killing themselves. They may hate the West and our ‘prostitues’ (by that, read free women) but this isn’t about the West. This is about power and control in the Middle East. No different from Nazi Germany really. Yet you’re searching for soft ways to try and understand their feelings. I think you need a reality check in all honesty, no disrespect intended.
The left (and by left, I include myself, even though my disgust for Corbyn is at its highest) need to engage with this issue, not just stand on the sidelines with an empty pacifist, hand winging approach. The reason the left is so important to this debate, is because the left has always had humanitarianism at its heart. At the moment the left (or at least some on the left) are deserting the massacred people of Syria, and others in the ME with a ‘its not our problem’ stance. It is our problem, and the left have always stood for ordinary people, working people, no matter what. We are failing on that right now. I’ve said before I don’t know the answers, and I’ve read a lot of theories on solutions. I still don’t know the answers. But at least engage with realities of the issue and the people deserving of our help, rather than what most of the commentary on this site has been about - looking inward and blaming the West.
Equally Lou, I think we can say the following things.
I think you’ve got real difficulty looking the problem in the eye. Fuck knows why. People, especially on this forum, have gone to lengths to ensure that their criticism of any government isn’t conflated with a hatred of the country itself, or its people. It is not only possible; it’s desirable (and some would argue essential) that one can hold one’s own government to account for things that it has done in your name.
Second, I think you owe it to yourself to work out where you sit on the political spectrum. For me, the left right split, historically at least, has been about ownership of the means of production. Given your unfailing support for those that would seek to put more stuff into private industry (or actually did), you’re failing on the traditional test at least.
The assertion that the left is all about being humanitarian speaks volumes about the attitude of New Labour and what they think they bring to the country, which is mainstream neo-liberal sensibilities, but apparently nicer. Yeah, right. I’m sure the Iraqis killed by Blair felt better about their demise because it was coming on the orders of a caring Labour Prime Minister.
Same sort of cunts, wearing different coloured ties. One of the most opportunistic generations of politicians ever, indifferent to anyone except the private firms that’ll employ them on six figure sums afterwards. This is who you’re standing up for.
The near-constant target of your ire, Jeremy Corbyn, has fought for humanitarian causes all of his life, both home and abroad. Rather than deserting the massacred people of Syria, he wants an international coalition backed by a UN resolution. I don’t think you’re going to have a handle on the situation until you can get past your inexplicable dislike for the man*.
*At its peak, Sotonians! Look out!
Things I’m consistent on, that don’t deserve questioning (or receive insinuations):
where I sit on the political spectrum = left. Always has been always will be. You’d find trouble trawling through any of my opinions on these two forums to come to any other conclusion that I’m a leftie. I do however, loathe the hypocrisies of the far left. A quick google on Socialist Workers Party will give all the evidence you need on why.
where I stand with Corbyn = voted for him as my MP, always thought a good egg, gained greater frustrations as his campaign for leadership developed particularly relevant to those he makes friends with, and finally turned to disgust based on his response and lack of response to International issues.
Nice try though, Pap.
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
Things I’m consistent on, that don’t deserve questioning (or receive insinuations):
And yet, only yesterday, my own consistency was portrayed as inflexibility.
- where I sit on the political spectrum = left. Always has been always will be. You’d find trouble trawling through any of my opinions on these two forums to come to any other conclusion that I’m a leftie. I do however, loathe the hypocrisies of the far left. A quick google on Socialist Workers Party will give all the evidence you need on why.
Well, I’ve not seen you make a case for left-wing policy, and with Corbyn coming to prominence, we’ve discussed more actual left wing policies in the last year because of that.
- where I stand with Corbyn = voted for him as my MP, always thought a good egg, gained greater frustrations as his campaign for leadership developed particularly relevant to those he makes friends with, and finally turned to disgust based on his response and lack of response to International issues.
So you’re simultaneously berating a man for both his response, and lack of response on the same group of issues? With the guilt by association factored in as well, really focusing on the right things there.
Perhaps he should have emulated your hero Blair, and coseyed up with the right-est wing-est buncha hawks ever to come out of Texas, putting us into decades worth of danger.
Or perhaps, like everyone else with a working memory of the last 50 years, he recognises that dialogue is the only way to resolve long-term emnity.
He’ll probably be using cases like South Africa and Northern Ireland to prove his point.
Nice try though, Pap
Thanks.
They didn’t mention it in many cases that have gone by the past to what I was referring.
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
Originally posted by @Fatso
I’m not suggesting that these people have been led down their path to bellendery by the actions of west. I think that different people have different reasons for turning to radical Islam and then taking the next steps into terrorism. I don’t think it’s a simple reason, although I’m not entirely sure what the reasons may be. I will go along with the idea that some are disgruntled by the west, by the dominance of the west, by the interference in their countries. But there must be more to it than that. I’m sure poverty and hopelessness play a role, though I could easily be talking out of my arse. A lack of control over their own future could lead people to become desperate and disillusioned. I don’t know. I’m sure there are wide variety of reasons why people become radicalised and that they’re not all “because of the west”. There may be a certain type of person who is more likely to fall into this way of life and I would imagine that they are poorly educated with low self esteem and haven’t really enjoyed any success in life. Again, I could be entirely wrong, I’m just trying to think of reasons - no proportioning blame. There is certainly a cultural problem amongst certain Muslim communities and I agree that sometimes their attitude to women can be awful. Some of the lowest achieving children in this country are of Bangladeshi descent - they are miles behind the high achieving Indians. Why is that? I don’t know the answer, but what I’m saying is that we, as intelligent people, should be able to try and understand human behaviour - and that isn’t the same as making excuses for it.
Yes, and that’s a worthy mission, but again, above, all the areas you’re covering above come from a western self blame narrative.
No, not at all. Did you read my post? I thought I explained it pretty clearly but you you seem to have missed the point I was making.
I did read your post. I appreciated the more nuanced argument you put forward, but still came to the same conclusion. Happy to reconsider if you feel there was something I’ve misunderstood.
Originally posted by @pap
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
Things I’m consistent on, that don’t deserve questioning (or receive insinuations):
And yet, only yesterday, my own consistency was portrayed as inflexibility.
Whoa. Pap mind games! Pap insinuates maybe I’m not really of a left persuasion (lol, nice). And something about privatisation (which I’ve never expressed an opinion on). I respond and say I’m consistently of a left persuasion and you’d have trouble reading any of my views to think otherwise. Pap then responds to say that’s inflexible??
Again, nice try, Pap.
Originally posted by @pap
Perhaps he should have emulated your hero Blair, and coseyed up with the right-est wing-est buncha hawks ever to come out of Texas, putting us into decades worth of danger.
Ah, more Pap mind games. Clever tactic.
Given I’ve never given a viewed point on Blair beyond - I find the “Bliar” bullshit annoying because it stops the real debate about, Blair - I think he fucked up in Iraq - and I think his Labour policies achieved considerable amounts. I don’t know how yo could come to the conclusion he’s my hero.
Stil, I guess you feel it will aid your debate given readers unfamiliar with my posting history won’t know this, and will assume he really is my hero.
Again, nice try. Impressive.
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
Ah, more Pap mind games. Clever tactic.
Given I’ve never given a viewed point on Blair beyond - I find the “Bliar” bullshit annoying because it stops the real debate about, Blair - I think he fucked up in Iraq - and I think his Labour policies achieved considerable amounts. I don’t know how yo could come to the conclusion he’s my hero.
Stil, I guess you feel it will aid your debate given readers unfamiliar with my posting history won’t know this, and will assume he really is my hero.
I think the “Bliar” bullshit is central to his legacy, particularly because it was continued in his laughable role as Middle East Peace Envoy. The guy is a great example of how our priorities are skewed. He also introduced legislation on a par with some of the authoritarian regimesof the 1930s. All to keep us safe.
I’m here to express my opinions, Lou - not come top in some epic contest of oneupmanship on a matter (political views) which I don’t even feel is a contest.
Now if we want to talk tactics, p’raps we can talk about the “all the debate is part of the Western self-blame narrative” strawman. Overall, I think the site has had some very insightful stuff posted over the last week, very little of the content generated here fitting your description.
You completely misrepresented my position on bombing on the France bombs Raqqa thread, and got close to calling me a liar on the basis of that invention. I don’t think that’s valid comment either.
According to an IPSOs poll, Corbyn has got better approval ratings than Cameron.
It isn’t a massive achievement; all of the leaders suffered a drop in approval ratings; Cameron fell further, is all.
It’s also unlikely he’ll be standing against Cameron…
Cameron won’t be standing again. He promised! And he doesn’t break promises, now does he #taxcredits
Originally posted by @hoofinruth
Cameron won’t be standing again. He promised! And he doesn’t break promises, now does he #taxcredits
I expect that Cherts is referring to the white-blond elephant in the Commons, Boris Johnson. Boris, who was occasionally amusing on HIGNFY. The bloke who bumbles. “White gold”, you can almost hear Tory supporters purr.
Please put him in charge of the Conservative Party. I think he’d be easier to take down than either Cameron or Corbyn. There have been plenty of stories about Boris’ inability to lead or form a consensus position, and there are hours of Mayor’s Question Time of him losing his rag, not being especially serious, and not looking like he’s doing a particularly good job of being a mayor. As much as he might charm the public on occasion, he’s not a long-term diplomat.
He has gotten away with it because outside the London bubble, people are not particularly arsed, just like no-one cared what meetings Corbyn or McDonnell attended before they were in the frame for their jobs. The amount of “Boris being a bit of a nob” far outweighs “Boris being an affable buffoon” (for a Tory). Finally, he’ll be a hostage to some of his ill-thought out hyperbole. Expect the “chickenfeed” comment (in respect to his 250K p.a. for writing a newspaper column) to be used again and again.
Vox Political making the case that it’s actually Labour “moderates” holding the party back right now.
…the results of the latest Ipsos-MORI poll of voting intentions, which showed that Jeremy Corbyn is easily the most popular UK political leader.
The same poll has Labour – as a party – trailing the Tories by seven per cent.
Think about that.
Corbyn is riding high, nine points above his nearest political rival – who isn’t even David Cameron!
But Labour is seven points behind the Conservative Party.
What can be turning Corbyn’s 12-point advantage over Cameron into a seven-point disadvantage? What is the 19-point drag factor?
Only one possibility comes to mind. The problem that has been hounding Corbyn ever since he took over as Labour leader.
His own party’s so-called ‘moderates’ are sabotaging Labour’s chances of winning over the electorate.
Seems like enough is enough.
As the campaign page for Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party, we have accepted the responsibility to adhere to Jeremy’s call for a new kind of politics, that engages in serious debate rather than personal attacks. We intend to stick to that, not simply out of loyalty to Jeremy, but because over the summer, it became patently obvious that this is what the overwhelming majority of the party members and supporters want. Debate is good, as is opinion, however strongly held. But it must be respectful, comradely - and never descend into abuse.
So we didn’t really want to engage in this. At all. But here’s the thing. For too long, the voice of party members has been silenced. That stopped the day Jeremy Corbyn was elected. As he said throughout the campaign, this was not about a man, it was about a movement. So we say this to express what we believe is the view of the vast majority of Labour Party members. We say this to give them a voice.
What we have seen from a small section of the Parliamentary Party and some New Labour “grandees” recently isn’t opinion and it’s not about debate. It is a constant sniping, undermining and, at times, bitter attack. It’s designed to create an atmosphere of chaos. We are here to tell you that we’re sick of it. Not only is it now boring, but it is entirely destructive instead of constructive.
Of course, it’s just a tiny minority of the Parliamentary party who have chosen to indulge in such attacks, but they are a loud minority. The reason that they are so loud is because they have the ear of the rightwing and tabloid press: those journalists and commentators who have no interest in the future of the Labour Party or the views of the membership. It’s easy to get a column inch or two in those rags. You are doing them a service. However, you are doing the membership of this party a massive disservice - the membership who voted not just for Jeremy himself, but the policies he stood for. It’s time to acknowledge that, and work for the common good. That means targeting the Tories, not our leader. That means targeting poverty and injustice, not the members of the party.
That’s why we respectfully ask you to stop the off-the-record briefing, the on-the-record attacks and the machinations behind the scenes. Do your job and represent us.
Thank you,
The #Jeremy4PM team
Originally posted by @pap
Seems like enough is enough.
As the campaign page for Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party, we have accepted the responsibility to adhere to Jeremy’s call for a new kind of politics, that engages in serious debate rather than personal attacks. We intend to stick to that, not simply out of loyalty to Jeremy, but because over the summer, it became patently obvious that this is what the overwhelming majority of the party members and supporters want. Debate is good, as is opinion, however strongly held. But it must be respectful, comradely - and never descend into abuse.
So we didn’t really want to engage in this. At all. But here’s the thing. For too long, the voice of party members has been silenced. That stopped the day Jeremy Corbyn was elected. As he said throughout the campaign, this was not about a man, it was about a movement. So we say this to express what we believe is the view of the vast majority of Labour Party members. We say this to give them a voice.
What we have seen from a small section of the Parliamentary Party and some New Labour “grandees” recently isn’t opinion and it’s not about debate. It is a constant sniping, undermining and, at times, bitter attack. It’s designed to create an atmosphere of chaos. We are here to tell you that we’re sick of it. Not only is it now boring, but it is entirely destructive instead of constructive.
Of course, it’s just a tiny minority of the Parliamentary party who have chosen to indulge in such attacks, but they are a loud minority. The reason that they are so loud is because they have the ear of the rightwing and tabloid press: those journalists and commentators who have no interest in the future of the Labour Party or the views of the membership. It’s easy to get a column inch or two in those rags. You are doing them a service. However, you are doing the membership of this party a massive disservice - the membership who voted not just for Jeremy himself, but the policies he stood for. It’s time to acknowledge that, and work for the common good. That means targeting the Tories, not our leader. That means targeting poverty and injustice, not the members of the party.
That’s why we respectfully ask you to stop the off-the-record briefing, the on-the-record attacks and the machinations behind the scenes. Do your job and represent us.
Thank you,
The #Jeremy4PM team
A couple of thoughts - whilst there are a “loud minority” making anoise in the media, I wonder how many PLP members share these views, however for the sake of party unity or respect for the result of the election, have decided to tow the line for the time being? I suspect that we will be hearing more from them in the future.
His problem is that as a habitual rebel against his own party’s whip over the years, by kicking off about disobidient MPs makes him look hypocritical.
Unfortunately for him, this is not going to go away. He is going to have to first get some unity on his front bench before he has got any chance of coralling the back benchers.
Originally posted by @CB-Saint
A couple of thoughts - whilst there are a “loud minority” making anoise in the media, I wonder how many PLP members share these views, however for the sake of party unity or respect for the result of the election, have decided to tow the line for the time being? I suspect that we will be hearing more from them in the future.
I’d imagine a fair few share those views but aren’t voicing them. However, it would be a mistake to assume that those PLP members share much in common with the majority of the party members. The party under Blair favoured right wing candidates, or those from lobbying organisations, often foisting them onto the safest (read: most left wing) seats in the country.
This article draws from Lewis Minkin’s book, The Blair Supremacy: A Study in the Politics of Labour’s Party Management.
His problem is that as a habitual rebel against his own party’s whip over the years, by kicking off about disobidient MPs makes him look hypocritical.
He may have been against the PLP, but he conveyed the view of many a Labour voter, even when the PLP at large had abandoned those principles.
Unfortunately for him, this is not going to go away. He is going to have to first get some unity on his front bench before he has got any chance of coralling the back benchers.
I’ll be interested to see what the local members think of these shenanigans. I know there is no official call to de-select on a mass basis, but I just can’t see how the likes of Danczsuk can continue. Ultimately, what matters more, the views of the party at large, or the largely anonymous sniping of a few malcontents?
Originally posted by @pap
Seems like enough is enough.
As the campaign page for Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party, we have accepted the responsibility to adhere to Jeremy’s call for a new kind of politics, that engages in serious debate rather than personal attacks. We intend to stick to that, not simply out of loyalty to Jeremy, but because over the summer, it became patently obvious that this is what the overwhelming majority of the party members and supporters want. Debate is good, as is opinion, however strongly held. But it must be respectful, comradely - and never descend into abuse.
So we didn’t really want to engage in this. At all. But here’s the thing. For too long, the voice of party members has been silenced. That stopped the day Jeremy Corbyn was elected. As he said throughout the campaign, this was not about a man, it was about a movement. So we say this to express what we believe is the view of the vast majority of Labour Party members. We say this to give them a voice.
What we have seen from a small section of the Parliamentary Party and some New Labour “grandees” recently isn’t opinion and it’s not about debate. It is a constant sniping, undermining and, at times, bitter attack. It’s designed to create an atmosphere of chaos. We are here to tell you that we’re sick of it. Not only is it now boring, but it is entirely destructive instead of constructive.
Of course, it’s just a tiny minority of the Parliamentary party who have chosen to indulge in such attacks, but they are a loud minority. The reason that they are so loud is because they have the ear of the rightwing and tabloid press: those journalists and commentators who have no interest in the future of the Labour Party or the views of the membership. It’s easy to get a column inch or two in those rags. You are doing them a service. However, you are doing the membership of this party a massive disservice - the membership who voted not just for Jeremy himself, but the policies he stood for. It’s time to acknowledge that, and work for the common good. That means targeting the Tories, not our leader. That means targeting poverty and injustice, not the members of the party.
That’s why we respectfully ask you to stop the off-the-record briefing, the on-the-record attacks and the machinations behind the scenes. Do your job and represent us.
Thank you,
The #Jeremy4PM team
My God, the party really is split down the middle.
Now, seriously, how long do you think he’s got? I’m thinking around 6 months. Surely the Labour Party are realising that with someone decent in charge they’ve got a real chance at the next election, considering the Tories are trying their hardest to piss everyone off.
My sweepstake date: 21st May 2016
