Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[cantsin]

He's basically right, but nobody from Labour HQ is going to come out and admit the party's been invaded by loons.

Lansmans' pretty much ' from Labour HQ' , and he's telling it like it is : too many conpira loons , based almost exclusively on soc media, without ( as Chilango points out elsewhere ) any class analysis, many of them overly focused on Palestine, and as David Graeber describes it, full of the type of arrogant white western lefty anti imperialism that says the enemies' enemy is a friend, and the 100 s of 1000 s dead / 4 m migrant Syrians are collateral damage / White Helmets a jihadist sham etc .


This lot are v hard to budge on soc media, and a core of them have gone v anti Momentum... None of this is helped by the constant, nakedly cynical weaponisation of AS by the usual suspects, + supporters, which just feeds perfectly into crank narrative.

 

[mojo pixy]

Lansmans' pretty much ' from Labour HQ' / ...

As much as JL might like it to be, Momentum isn't Labour HQ (yet)

 

[hash tag]

I see he has just done a turn over second vote
Mrs Tags word to me by text.....bastard.

 

[butchersapron]

I see he has just done a turn over second vote
Mrs Tags word to me by text.....bastard.

Pair of fucking cretins.

 

[Wilf]

He's basically right, but nobody from Labour HQ is going to come out and admit the party's been invaded by loons.

He's right about CTers and antisemitism, but it also feels like a replaying of some of the stop the war coalition battles. Then it was SWP members giving conservative Muslims a pass, whether it be about antisemitism or things like segregated meetings. It's a kind of political and personal immaturity, an unwillingness to address something to keep people on side regardless of the shite you know they hold with. And of course Corbyn comes from that whole milieu. That doesn't mean he's anti-Semitic, it's that he's got poor reflexes. I'm not even sure this can be reduced to 'poor judgement', it's more the habits of a lifetime. Liking the 'mural' might have been a genuine mistake, but it feels to me like the sort of thing many 'lefts' would have been doing in the 80s and 90s had facebook been around then.

 

[BobDavis]

It does reinforce the notion that politics needs at all times to be about the art of the possible.

 

[Pickman's model]

It does reinforce the notion that politics needs at all times to be about the art of the possible.

No it doesn't

 

[BobDavis]

Please discuss as to why not.

 

[Pickman's model]

Please discuss as to why not.

Let's see you state your case first

 

[BobDavis]

As in post 25055. You appear to disagree but have not as yet given any reason for your disagreement.

 

[Pickman's model]

As in post 25055. You appear to disagree but have not as yet given any reason for your disagreement.

Because your claim is obvious nonsense. Politics must be about the art of the possible? Why not think about all the things people have fought for that to start with seemed impossible. The end of slavery. The end of child labour. Votes for women. Universal suffrage. The chartists' demands. Indian independence. Etc etc etc

 

[Pickman's model]

It does reinforce the notion that politics needs at all times to be about the art of the possible.

There's no argument here just a claim. Why no argument?

 

[Pickman's model]

Oh dear

 

[chilango]

If only Thatcher etc had stuck to the "possible".

 

[BobDavis]

Because your claim is obvious nonsense. Politics must be about the art of the possible? Why not think about all the things people have fought for that to start with seemed impossible. The end of slavery. The end of child labour. Votes for women. Universal suffrage. The chartists' demands. Indian independence. Etc etc etc

Indeed & in the UK no party or coalition of parties can achieve much without an overall majority in parliament. Corbyn presumably sees his current course of action as the best way to win a majority at next GE.

 

[Pickman's model]

Indeed

I am glad you concede the point

 

[BobDavis]

The bit I was conceding was this

Why not think about all the things people have fought for that to start with seemed impossible. The end of slavery. The end of child labour. Votes for women. Universal suffrage. The chartists' demands. Indian independence. Etc etc etc

& so I am thinking that the seemingly impossible things to fight for now could be stronger employment law & affordable social housing as a start. I doubt any of that will happen outside of a majority left leaning Labour government so Corbyn’s current course of action is all about the art of the possible ie the return of a majority Labour government at next GE.

 

[butchersapron]

Damn, why didn't other politicians ever think of that sort of thing?

 

[Pickman's model]

The bit I was conceding was this& so I am thinking that the seemingly impossible things to fight for now could be stronger employment law & affordable social housing as a start. I doubt any of that will happen outside of a majority left leaning Labour government so Corbyn’s current course of action is all about the art of the possible ie the return of a majority Labour government at next GE.

yes, the point, you were conceding the point.

 

[BobDavis]

yes, the point, you were conceding the point.

I’m glad you finally concede my point.

 

[Pickman's model]

I’m glad you finally concede my point.

if you think that's what's going on when the post so clearly says something else then there's nothing for it but to send you to remedial english posthaste

 

[cantsin]

I see he has just done a turn over second vote
Mrs Tags word to me by text.....bastard.

No U Turn involved, it's Party policy as passed at Conf2018 .... lots of of us not mad keen, to say the least, but there's only so long the majority of Party members could be ignored on this I guess

 

[Teaboy]

Its a shot to nothing anyway as he knows there is little chance of it passing the Commons. Like the vote of no confidence I guess.

 

[sleaterkinney]

It's an easy hit considering his past statements on them but he still walked right into it, Labour are questioning the decision to ban Hezbollah.

 

[Shechemite]

It's an easy hit considering his past statements on them but he still walked right into it, Labour are questioning the decision to ban Hezbollah.

Yeah and now some bastards are going to *weaponise* this

 

[bemused]

To be fair this line in the Labour statement does ring true:

The Home Secretary must therefore now demonstrate that this decision was taken in an objective and impartial way, and driven by clear and new evidence, not by his leadership ambitions.

 

[killer b]

Labour's statement on this seems reasonable doesn't it? Is any of this not true?

The Home Office has previously ruled that there was not sufficient evidence that the political wing of Hezbollah fell foul of proscription criteria, a position confirmed by ministers in the House of Commons last year. Ministers have not yet provided any clear evidence to suggest this has changed.

It has also rightly been the view of the Foreign Office for many years that proscribing the political wing of Hezbollah, which is part of the democratically elected Lebanese government, would make it difficult to maintain normal diplomatic relations with Lebanon, or to work with the government on humanitarian issues, including those facing Syrian refugees, in parts of the country controlled by Hezbollah.

Decisions on the proscription of organisations as terror groups are supposed to be made on the advice of civil servants based on clear evidence that those organisations fall foul of the proscription criteria set out in legislation. The Home Secretary must therefore now demonstrate that this decision was taken in an objective and impartial way, and driven by clear and new evidence, not by his leadership ambitions.

We support the government in its decision to proscribe the groups Jamaat Nusrat al Islam Wall Muslimin and Ansaroul Islam.

 

[killer b]

They can't decide policy on the middle east by 'can the tabloids twist this to make us look bad on terrorism/antisemitism/whatever'.

 

[Shechemite]

Was the reluctance to proscribe the ‘political wing’ of HB based on its perceived separateness from its ‘military wing’? IE was the military wing proscribed based on evidence and the political wing not proscribed as its seen as different to the militia?

 

[killer b]

I dunno. Labour say it was because it's part of the Lebanese government and proscribing it would make it difficult to maintain dialogue with the Lebanese government, and that no new evidence has been produced to support this change in policy. I'm no expert, but that seems a reasonable objection.