Politics

[Dr Gloom 21801]

6 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Milliband also managed to enable more Tory rule. Let's not pretend that everything was going swimmingly for Labour only for Corbyn to show up and wreck everything - he only got in at all because the centre left in the party was completely bereft of ideas and direction. Milliband's loss was what delivered the mandate for the referendum in the first place.

 

On the rest of it, I hope you're right. Starmer is indeed competent. He won't win of course, but he's competent. It's a shame about his u-turn on the EU but pragmatism is all, I suppose.

ed was the wrong miliband at the wrong time. 

[Rayvin 5164]

Just now, Tom said:

Did you read the bit where every time a certain Lord approached Corbyn he’d start making a beeping noise. 

And would say “sorry I forgot to turn off my nonce radar” 

Not very priministerial  

 

Christ. Him combined with Johnson, maybe it really is sixth form politics. It's working for one of them at least.

[Rayvin 5164]

1 minute ago, Dr Gloom said:

ed was the wrong miliband at the wrong time. 

 

I think he was destroyed by the same weaponised media "scrutiny" that Corbyn was. Why these leaders fail doesn't matter, all that matters is that they do fail.

[Tom 14011]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

Christ. Him combined with Johnson, maybe it really is sixth form politics. It's working for one of them at least.

I honestly don’t think Labour’s policies were all that extreme. We just live in a fucking evil country full of people set on self harm.

[PaddockLad 17067]

1 hour ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

criticising the israeli government is absolutely fair game as far as i'm concerned. just don't choose to die on a hill with the antisemites.

principles aren't dead. but the EHRC report is damning. don't pretend it's overblown when an independent body has found otherwise. accept it for what it is, try and draw a line in the sand and move on. that is the pragmatic thing to do. and yes, learn to be pragmatic. this unwillingness to bend on any issue isn't principled opposition. it is sixth form politics.   

 

 

That's pretty much you doing what I suggested in my first post Gloom. A fairly liberal character acknowledging criticism is fine but then immediately saying "but you'd better  not!"  That's shutting down debate using the current narrative, which removes the space for debate. Thanks for literally proving my point . 

[Dr Gloom 21801]

2 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

 

That's pretty much you doing what I suggested in my first post Gloom. A fairly liberal character acknowledging criticism is fine but then immediately saying "but you'd better  not!"  That's shutting down debate using the current narrative, which removes the space for debate. Thanks for literally proving my point . 

you're going to have to explain what you mean. who has shut down what debate? nobody is trying to shut down criticism of israel. 

the EHRC found labour under corbyn's watch to have committed unlawful acts. do you think his response was adequate? 

[Dr Gloom 21801]

24 minutes ago, Tom said:

I honestly don’t think Labour’s policies were all that extreme. We just live in a fucking evil country full of people set on self harm.

some of labour's policies under corbyn were brilliant, which makes his failure on all the other stuff all the more damning. 

[Toonpack 9170]

4 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

some of labour's policies under corbyn were brilliant, which makes his failure on all the other stuff all the more damning. 

Exactly this, he just came over as utterly useless, irrespective of press manipulation, he had all that time of the Tories shooting themselves in the foot and he just appeared unable to be incisive or to capitalise on what were a series of "tap ins" he was quite simply unelectable to many many people.

[PaddockLad 17067]

6 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

you're going to have to explain what you mean. who has shut down what debate? nobody is trying to shut down criticism of israel. 

the EHRC found labour under corbyn's watch to have committed unlawful acts. do you think his response was adequate? 

I think the result of the investigation is fair. It’s where it leaves legitimate criticism of Israel I’m talking about. I think that I explained how it’s going to play out with regards to your response fairly clearly .  No one even remotely left wing will be able to utter any criticism of Israel without the mass ranks of the Tory press screeching “ANTI SEMITE” and you suggested that the likes of me & Rayvin had better not utter a syllable of  bile or we’re going to be lumped in with Corbyn’s goons. That’s how I interpreted your response anyway, correct me if I’m wrong. 

[ewerk 30221]

It's only a few months since Starmer spoke out against Israel's plans to annex further Palestinian lands so the idea that you can't criticise Israeli actions is nonsense.

[Dr Gloom 21801]

19 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

I think the result of the investigation is fair. It’s where it leaves legitimate criticism of Israel I’m talking about. I think that I explained how it’s going to play out with regards to your response fairly clearly .  No one even remotely left wing will be able to utter any criticism of Israel without the mass ranks of the Tory press screeching “ANTI SEMITE” and you suggested that the likes of me & Rayvin had better not utter a syllable of  bile or we’re going to be lumped in with Corbyn’s goons. That’s how I interpreted your response anyway, correct me if I’m wrong. 

I welcome legitimate criticism of israeli government. netanyahu has set the peace process back decades - he's a disaster for the country and for the palestinian people. there is nothing antisemitic about saying that and i have no grounds to accuse you or rayvin of antisemitism. 

of course the tories - and their allies in the media - have weaponised it, but the lines blur when people start talking about it all being overblown, or try to play down what corbyn allowed to flourish under his watch, which, of course, is exactly what the clueless cunt did. the EHRC report has settled that debate - the law was broken. it's time to show some remorse, fix the problem and move on, which is what starmer is trying to do.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by Dr Gloom

[Rayvin 5164]

9 minutes ago, ewerk said:

It's only a few months since Starmer spoke out against Israel's plans to annex further Palestinian lands so the idea that you can't criticise Israeli actions is nonsense.

 

PL is of course talking about the situation post EHRC report, thus rendering this example rather irrelevant to his point...

[Dr Gloom 21801]

Just now, Rayvin said:

 

PL is of course talking about the situation post EHRC report, thus rendering this example rather irrelevant to his point...

you don't think starmer would condemn netanyahu now?

there is nothing antisemitic about criticising the state of israel's actions. the EHRC report didn't state otherwise. 

[ewerk 30221]

Exactly, the EHRC inquiry made no conclusions on legitimate criticism of Israel so you can stick your IRRELEVANT point up yer hoop.

[PaddockLad 17067]

Starmer remarks drew these comments from the UK deputies...

 

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/board-president-urges-starmer-to-reject-divisive-nandy-proposal-for-west-bank-goods-ban-1.501077

 

Including:

 

The tactic of BDS is divisive and seeks to strike at the very legitimacy of the State of Israel, the Middle East’s only democracy and the world’s only Jewish State.”

 

They’ve stopped short of an accusation but the implication is clear.  To be fair it’s fairly measured apart from that. 
 

Any more of that post ECHR and I think we know what’s coming 

 

 

[Rayvin 5164]

22 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

you don't think starmer would condemn netanyahu now?

there is nothing antisemitic about criticising the state of israel's actions. the EHRC report didn't state otherwise. 

 

I'm not saying it did. I don't think anyone is saying it did. What is being said, and I think quite fairly, is that clearly this isn't going to be something Labour should risk speaking freely about - and in conclusion on that, I think we should be pragmatic and accept that talking about or criticising Israel isn't a vote winner and should be shelved. Same as we will need to avoid talking critically about Brexit, talking positively about immigration and now, apparently, talking positively about LGBT people thanks to the BBC's new hot take on the situation.

 

All that matters is power, after all. The rest of this shit is just sixth form debating club politics.

Edited November 2, 2020 by Rayvin

[Dr Gloom 21801]

11 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I'm not saying it did. I don't think anyone is saying it did. What is being said, and I think quite fairly, is that clearly this isn't going to be something Labour should risk speaking freely about - and in conclusion on that, I think we should be pragmatic and accept that talking about or criticising Israel isn't a vote winner and should be shelved. Same as we will need to avoid talking critically about Brexit, talking positively about immigration and now, apparently, talking positively about LGBT people thanks to the BBC's new hot take on the situation.

 

All that matters is power, after all. The rest of this shit is just sixth form debating club politics.

talking about - or criticising israel - isn't why labour got into such a mess over antisemitism though, is it?

unfortunately we live in a country where you have to try to win the vote of the bigots and nationalist arseholes who care about things like immigration, patriotism, security and defence. 

you don't have to give them what they want but you have to at least attempt to speak to them or you will end up with labour's lowest number of seats for almost 100 years. 

 

[Rayvin 5164]

35 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

unfortunately we live in a country where you have to try to win the vote of the bigots and nationalist arseholes who care about things like immigration, patriotism, security and defence. 

you don't have to give them what they want but you have to at least attempt to speak to them or you will end up with labour's lowest number of seats for almost 100 years. 

 

 

That's pretty much what I said. We have to throw various groups and principles under the bus in the name of pragmatism. And anyone who doesn't want to do that is a child. That's been your argument throughout, no?

[PaddockLad 17067]

2 hours ago, Dr Gloom said:

I welcome legitimate criticism of israeli government. netanyahu has set the peace process back decades - he's a disaster for the country and for the palestinian people. there is nothing antisemitic about saying that and i have no grounds to accuse you or rayvin of antisemitism. 

of course the tories - and their allies in the media - have weaponised it, but the lines blur when people start talking about it all being overblown, or try to play down what corbyn allowed to flourish under his watch, which, of course, is exactly what the clueless cunt did. the EHRC report has settled that debate - the law was broken. it's time to show some remorse, fix the problem and move on, which is what starmer is trying to do.

 

 

 

I didn't think you would accuse us of AS . You suggested just taking about Israel & the Palestinians isn't a good idea  . And it's probably not. That's the trouble. 

[Monkeys Fist 42004]

I try to keep out of the Waffle thread, but I don’t really see the issue here. 
If you swap “antisemitism” with any other “ism”, not many people would be arguing for Corbyn’s stance here. 
 

Labour fucked up, Starmer accepted they did, Corbyn didn’t. 

That’s one of the multiple reasons he’s not the leader any more. 
 

The whole criticism of Israel issue is, I think, unrelated to what’s the actual issue here. 
 

The issue is that Corbyn was, as a party leader, weak as piss and wouldn’t make a decision, and, crucially, was blinded by his stance on Palestine, which allowed the antisemites to do their thing. 
 

 

[Dr Gloom 21801]

21 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

 

I didn't think you would accuse us of AS . You suggested just taking about Israel & the Palestinians isn't a good idea  . And it's probably not. That's the trouble. 

Did I? 

[Dr Gloom 21801]

1 hour ago, Rayvin said:

 

That's pretty much what I said. We have to throw various groups and principles under the bus in the name of pragmatism. And anyone who doesn't want to do that is a child. That's been your argument throughout, no?

It’s not about throwing your principles under the bus, which you may as well be doing anyway if you never give yourself a chance to govern. Just pay lip service to it. Play the game when you have to. Build a coalition of voters that will give you a chance. 

EDIT - but yeah, if i'm honest, corbyn and his cult can fuck off and never come back. i was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on antiisemitism - I even held my nose and voted labour last time - but the response to EHRC was the last straw for me. 

turning a blind eye to antisemitism in the labour party was one of several issue - for me it's a highly personal one - but corbyn's failures go way deeper. alan johnson nailed it on election night

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dme8AwpThAc

Edited November 2, 2020 by Dr Gloom

[PaddockLad 17067]

11 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

Did I? 

That’s what I took 

 

just don't choose to die on a hill with the antisemites.

 

to mean. If I’ve got you wrong apologies 

[Dr Gloom 21801]

35 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

That’s what I took 

 

just don't choose to die on a hill with the antisemites.

 

to mean. If I’ve got you wrong apologies 

yeah, that's not what i meant at all.

as labour leader, of course you can be critical of the israeli government - as i've said repeatedly, that is not antisemitic. 

whether you believe corbyn is an antisemite or not, and there is plenty to suggest he might be, he unquestionably turned the other way and allowed it to flourish, failed to adequately discipline or suspend party members who used antisemitic language or shared antisemitic tropes. the final act was to fall on his sword instead of accepting the EHRC's findings.

he still doesn't accept it despite all the evidence to the contrary. that is what i mean by dying on a hill with the antisemites. if he'd shown contrition at the findings of an independent body, he might still be in a job. 

Edited November 2, 2020 by Dr Gloom

[Dr Gloom 21801]

47 minutes ago, Monkeys Fist said:

I try to keep out of the Waffle thread, but I don’t really see the issue here. 
If you swap “antisemitism” with any other “ism”, not many people would be arguing for Corbyn’s stance here. 
 

Labour fucked up, Starmer accepted they did, Corbyn didn’t. 

That’s one of the multiple reasons he’s not the leader any more. 
 

The whole criticism of Israel issue is, I think, unrelated to what’s the actual issue here. 
 

The issue is that Corbyn was, as a party leader, weak as piss and wouldn’t make a decision, and, crucially, was blinded by his stance on Palestine, which allowed the antisemites to do their thing. 
 

 

spot on.

i don't think he ever really wanted to lead the party or govern the country, to be honest, which i what i'm getting at with the idea of a sixth form debating club. i think his goal was to push the party to the left, or possibly even lay the foundations for a breakaway socialist party. 

and here we are still talking about him today.