He didn't have to allow a vote. He did. These are facts. The horrible problem for Corbyn's critics, and you illustrate it here, is that he is one of those rare things - a politician with principles. You may or may not like them, but insulting me doesn't change that.
Labour party problems.
- Thread starter andicole0
- Start date
He didn't have to allow a vote. He did. These are facts. The horrible problem for Corbyn's critics, and you illustrate it here, is that he is one of those rare things - a politician with principles. You may or may not like them, but insulting me doesn't change that.
Popular with who? The 60% that voted for him?
Popular with the party members and popular with the wider electorate are not in any way the same thing.
I can think of almost no situation in which the addition of Diane Abbot to the scenario makes things better.
Except possibly being chased by bears.
He is achieving both relative to previous Labour Party performance.
He didn't have to allow it, but it wasn't his principles that made him allow it, it was the prospect that a significant amount of his shadow cabinet and party would have voted against him regardless and he would have been weakened.
I am not sure if you didn't inform yourself about what happens, or if you are wilfully ignoring it. One I can help you with, but if it is the latter, I doubt I can reason you out of it as the position is unreasonable in the face of the facts in the first place.
Current polls put him 5 points behind the Tories on a similar score to the last general election, and that was before the antisemitism row blew up.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk
Ed was 10 points ahead at this point in his tenure...
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Exactly, and the Tories have little to worry about while Labour carries on as it is.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,091
I have never voted for Labour, and the last two general elections I voted Lib-dem (yes, even the last one)
But Corbyn is a complete breath of fresh air as far as I'm concerned and I would vote Labour with him at the helm.
However, it's pretty clear to me that this frenzy has been whipped up by the media and he is not being helped by people in his own party that want him out.
Remember that the Naz Shah thing was first reported by Guido Fawkes, who is a right-wing conservative blogger.
Why does who reported what the labour mp posted on Facebook make a difference?
They may have reported but it doesn't change the fact she aired the set of views she did.
Ken Livingstone hasn't said anything anti-semitic. What he has foolishly done is come out defending Naz Shah and then made the silly mistake of talking about the taboos of Zionism, Hitler and the Holocaust. Then, instead of just shutting up until it all blows over, he's attempted to defend himself to people who aren't interested in listening.
Sometimes it's safer to just shut up.
Last edited:
Sums it up in my book.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2015
- Posts
- 399
Ken Livingstone is 100% A Hole.
No, Ken is specifically referencing an antisemitic Marxist historian, Lenni Brenner, who is widely denounced by mainstream historians for his antisemitism.
But let's not turn this thread into another "I'm not antisemitic but..." thread like the one about the suspension of the MP. Let's keep the thinly veiled racist apologism over in that thread and discuss the labour party in this one.
If it's a known historical fact and Ken Livingstone didn't actually provide a citation or anything, how do you know he's referencing a specific anti-Semitic historian. And indeed, what is wrong with Livingstone saying a known historical fact? I mean it might not be welcomed by Zionists that Hitler actually agreed with them at one point, but it's not a problem just because you're Jewish. I mean there was that very influential Zionist who said he'd rather Jews went to Israel and half of them died than they all moved into another country (Britain) and all of them lived. Zionism itself is somewhat anti-Semitic in that it singles out Jewish people and tries to separate them from the nations they live in.
I don't think this has happened. It's you who is conflating Zionism with Jewish which is most of the problem.
One attempt to educate before I just categorise you instead.
Ken Livingstone muddies history to support claims on Hitler and Zionism
http://gu.com/p/4tnva?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
And there is the I'm not racist but equivalent. Zionism is part of the Jewish identity to such an extent that they are very hard to separate, and most attempts to do so are a diversionary tactic to pretend the view just expressed is not antisemitic.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Perhaps, but he is entitled to his opinion.
I do not like the way the Israeli government treats and pens in the Palestinias. Does that make me an anti-Semite ?
Criticism of Israeli policies or practices, not antisemitic.
Criticism of Israel's right to exist, or holding them to different standards to other countries usually is however.
Talking about 'our friends in hamas and hezbolla' is probably a bad road too.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Is this a Zionism or a Labour thread? I'm getting confused between the two that are open atm.
Anyway, I'm more concerned by Labour's media strategy, or rather the lack of it: Jezza is fleeing from reporters, Ken hid in a toilet for some reason, unguided Dianne Abbot missile. Who's their PR guy/girl? This is disastrously bad, especially with the locals and London election imminent.
Anyway, I'm more concerned by Labour's media strategy, or rather the lack of it: Jezza is fleeing from reporters, Ken hid in a toilet for some reason, unguided Dianne Abbot missile. Who's their PR guy/girl? This is disastrously bad, especially with the locals and London election imminent.