[Politics] Labour Files - 3 part Documentary

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'm pro-Palestine and deeply sceptical of Israel. Despite that, I won't be watching this. And it was Corbyn's failure to do anything about this narrative, alongside other dreadful 'leadership' decisions, that led to the failure of a Labour government.

Well said.

The hard left will never accept this, and most of the hard left are not labour supporters anyway. SWP, innit?

 

[Swansman]

You make too many assumptions. I pasted that text because the man has made a vile attack on Remembrance day. That certainly undermines his integrity and attests to an agenda. I personally do not attend Remembrance services as I'm an ashiest, and I rarely buy a poppy. But I respect those for whom Remembrance resonates. This prick just sneers at it and accuses it of racism. The fact that doesn't bother you is concerning.

You really don't get it. Either because you can't or because you dont want to. A journalist does not become a worse journalist because he sneers at something, just like a train driver doesn't become a worse train driver just because he happens to have a shite personality. Your subjective view is that the poppy isn't a white supremacist symbol. His take is that it is. Yours and his personal views being different has no impact on his profession.

 

[Weststander]

Indeed.

I am immediately suspicious when I hear all the 'secret documents' stuff. Lots of it redacted with black lines, as if it has been stolen from the secret services. Why would the Labour party keep all these incriminating documents, and redact bits of them with black lines? No close ups of anything anyone can check. And surely journalistic errors - if The Labour Party has been running the conspiracy, how did it manage to do that during the Corbyn era? There was a reference in there that indicated the conspiracy started long before Corbyn came to become leader. And this was masterminded by Starmer? These claims, and the narrative they supposedly inform, are not credible.

Perhaps Hugh Trevor-Roper will be along soon to declare the documents genuine.

And it has triggered the confirmation bias of all the usual suspects on here. Who knew? They haven't read the secret documents, yet they believe in the conspiracy. All I did was express skepticism, and they come flying in, boots first! Grow up, lads, please.

Sometimes things boil down to instinct, in an internet world of numpties trying to create a fog of “Yes, but how do you know that though?”. I’m 99.99% certain that Starmer is honest, isn’t racist IN ANY FORM and follows LP rules, similarly other anti Momentum figures such as Alan Johnson, Margaret Hodge, Ed Milliband and Gordon Brown.

I thought the same too about timing. How, pre 2019GE, did Starmer and his co-conspirators manage all that, when Momentum and Corbynistas had full control of the party?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You really don't get it. Either because you can't or because you dont want to. A journalist does not become a worse journalist because he sneers at something, just like a train driver doesn't become a worse train driver just because he happens to have a shite personality. Your subjective view is that the poppy isn't a white supremacist symbol. His take is that it is. Yours and his personal views being different has no impact on his profession.

I really do get it.

Someone who thinks that a poppy is a symbol of white supremacy is revealing a great deal about his judgement, and a journalist is expected to exercise good judgement (unlike an essayist or polemicist). In this case it demonstrates not simply a lack of impartiality, but a twisted and nasty perspective. It is as absurd as it would be if he claimed that the swastika, flown on a flag in Germany in the 1940s, was a symbol of tolerance and brotherly love. He's revealed himself to be a ****wit.

 

[Comrade Sam]

As I said, a concerted effort by right of the Labour Party, the media, Israeli lobbyists, the Tories and those threatened by a curbing of the powers of those who have (and still do) their wealthy faces in the trough.

 

[Swansman]

Well said.

The hard left will never accept this, and most of the hard left are not labour supporters anyway. SWP, innit?

The "hard left" in the UK, which would be seen as just "left" in less right-wing oriented countries indeed does not seem to have anywhere to go.

Much like in the US, there's a far-right wing party and a right-wing party.

Currently you have a government where people are pretty much openly in bed with hedgefund (big business) owners that wants every Brit besides the rich to crash and burn. There seems to be quite a wide agreement that this is the case.

Yet you find it impossible that big business would collaborate to get rid of elements who want the opposite - to take power and resources from the rich and spread it to the rest of the population.

It really suggests a fascinating amount of brainwashing to be sternly against left-wing politics (= redistribution of some of the power and wealth of the upper classes to those struggling to get by) even when things like the current events are happening right in front of your eyes.

Exactly what would it take for you to believe that the working class and the middle class should have a fairer share from the cookie jar?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

As I said, a concerted effort by right of the Labour Party, the media, Israeli lobbyists, the Tories and those threatened by a curbing of the powers of those who have (and still do) their wealthy faces in the trough.

With the BBC, SKY and ITV all conspiring to support Starmer and his conspiracy.

Presumably in an attempt to hold back the incredibly popular Corbyn contingent who would very certainly sweep to power if they regained control of the labour party.

Which means that the BBC, ITV and SKY all want Starmer to stay as leader of Labour. Because, er, they think Starmer will lose the next election and the tories will stay in power. Which is what they want.

Does any of this make any sense yet?

 

[Swansman]

I really do get it.

Someone who thinks that a poppy is a symbol of white supremacy is revealing a great deal about his judgement, and a journalist is expected to exercise good judgement (unlike an essayist or polemicist). In this case it demonstrates not simply a lack of impartiality, but a twisted and nasty perspective. It is as absurd as it would be if he claimed that the swastika, flown on a flag in Germany in the 1940s, was a symbol of tolerance and brotherly love. He's revealed himself to be a ****wit.

Its not about "his judgement", its about his subjective view being different to your subjective view.

I'm guessing that his take is that a symbol for the British military, which has in the past controlled the African and Asian colonies - in many cases resulting in a lot of death - while robbing the countries of their resources, is indeed a result of the white man feeling superior to the people in the countries where people of other colours where enslaved, murdered and robbed. Now you may not agree, but it is certainly not a far-out take, and says little of his judgement other than exposing a feeling of empathy and solidarity with the people suffering from British rule in the past, and today.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The "hard left" in the UK, which would be seen as just "left" in less right-wing oriented countries indeed does not seem to have anywhere to go.

Much like in the US, there's a far-right wing party and a right-wing party.

Currently you have a government where people are pretty much openly in bed with hedgefund (big business) owners that wants every Brit besides the rich to crash and burn. There seems to be quite a wide agreement that this is the case.

Yet you find it impossible that big business would collaborate to get rid of elements who want the opposite - to take power and resources from the rich and spread it to the rest of the population.

It really suggests a fascinating amount of brainwashing to be sternly against left-wing politics (= redistribution of some of the power and wealth of the upper classes to those struggling to get by) even when things like the current events are happening right in front of your eyes.

Exactly what would it take for you to believe that the working class and the middle class should have a fairer share from the cookie jar?

By big business you mean who? Starmer?

You realize that this story is designed to damage labour, the party to the left of the conservatives. It is not designed to benefit Corbyn, or the left of the labour party!

If this story hits the UK mainstream media, it will help Truss recover her position and damage labour's chances of winning the next GE.

So who is this 'big business' in this conspiracy?

You have been had, and you have swallowed the bait without thinking.

Edit: and I should add that I am a labour supporter who wants the people to have more from the cookie jar. Labour is the only party in the UK that wants the same......so I am quite lost by your analysis of my shortcomings.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Its not about "his judgement", its about his subjective view being different to your subjective view.

I'm guessing that his take is that a symbol for the British military, which has in the past controlled the African and Asian colonies - in many cases resulting in a lot of death - while robbing the countries of their resources, is indeed a result of the white man feeling superior to the people in the countries where people of other colours where enslaved, murdered and robbed. Now you may not agree, but it is certainly not a far-out take, and says little of his judgement other than exposing a feeling of empathy and solidarity with the people suffering from British rule in the past, and today.

Yes. Yes, you are

 

[borat]

With the BBC, SKY and ITV all conspiring to support Starmer and his conspiracy.

Presumably in an attempt to hold back the incredibly popular Corbyn contingent who would very certainly sweep to power if they regained control of the labour party.

Which means that the BBC, ITV and SKY all want Starmer to stay as leader of Labour. Because, er, they think Starmer will lose the next election and the tories will stay in power. Which is what they want.

Does any of this make any sense yet?

Starmer is a safe choice for the establishment. He is actively moving the party a more big business funded model. He doesn't rock the boat when it comes to Israel and Saudi Arabia - two countries with appalling human rights and oppressive governments. He won't query US hegemony. He won't disrupt the energy companies or banking industries to any significant degree.

Let's not forget the man also lacks integrity and has large a problem with the truth. He has reneged/watered down on all his pledges that got him elected.

In summary big business or militiary industrial complex or the media would be happy with either Tory or current Labour as they maintain the status quo. Corbyn challenged this hence the ferocious onslaught against him.

 

[Swansman]

By big business you mean who? Starmer?

You realize that this story is designed to damage labour, the party to the left of the conservatives. It is not designed to benefit Corbyn, or the left of the labour party!

If this story hits the UK mainstream media, it will help Truss recover her position and damage labour's chances of winning the next GE.

So who is this 'big business' in this conspiracy?

You have been had, and you have swallowed the bait without thinking.

Edit: and I should add that I am a labour supporter who wants the people to have more from the cookie jar. Labour is the only party in the UK that wants the same......so I am quite lost by your analysis of my shortcomings.

This is the design of the story: hundreds of thousands of emails are leaked and they show that the right-wing of the party wanted to get rid of the left-wing. If the actions of Labour damages Labour, then maybe Labour deserves to be damaged, no? Or do you suggest that media etc. should do a blackout on issues because it would be inconvenient if they were revealed?

There's very little that indicates, from previous reigns, that the Labour party have any interest in (other than perhaps short-term) increasing equality.

While wealth distribution may have largely been the same looking at it from a strictly monetary perspective, assets are (or should be) included in the concept of wealth. What is publicly owned is also the assets of England, and hence the English people, particularly those who can not afford the private, market-steered options. If a party, like Labour did, does a lot of privatisation, it means your assets decrease. While this might punish everyone, it will strike harder on the poor, who can't afford a eg a private doctor and will have to go to the NHS, which got partially privatised (almost always meaning more expensive and with money, in the form of profit, going to private companies) under Labour rule.

A party which is pro-privatisation can never be a left-wing party, it can also never be a pro-equality party.

 

[Comrade Sam]

Truss is trying her damnedest to make Starmer seem like a viable left wing alternative to her plans to bankrupt the nation to fund the rich. But I have little faith in the current Labour Party to improve the lives of the majority of the population. I don't think Sky and the BBC etc are that bothered, that's why they can look impartial again. The left in the Labour Party have been condemned for another generation and the Corbyn project was a brief, if exciting opportunity to make genuine progressive change in this country. It now falls to the do it yourself Socialism of the collective action of the unions to defend our pay and public services. The gap between rich and poor in this country only narrows when the trade unions are on the offensive.
I can see how some of you make so many posts on NSC. Personally I'm done with this thread.

 

[Swansman]

Starmer is a safe choice for the establishment. He is actively moving the party a more big business funded model. He doesn't rock the boat when it comes to Israel and Saudi Arabia - two countries with appalling human rights and oppressive governments. He won't query US hegemony. He won't disrupt the energy companies or banking industries to any significant degree.

Let's not forget the man also lacks integrity and has large a problem with the truth. He has reneged/watered down on all his pledges that got him elected.

In summary big business or militiary industrial complex or the media would be happy with either Tory or current Labour as they maintain the status quo. Corbyn challenged this hence the ferocious onslaught against him.

Exactly.

The common man seems to either think at every politician who really wants a stronger welfare, who really wants big corporations to have less power and influence and who really feel their should be no more selling of public assents to greedy foreign or domestic capitalists all fail either because of either coincidence or because they're "crazy". Bernie Sanders in the US, Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, Håkan Juholt in Sweden, Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso, Dag Hammarskjöld in the UN, Patrice Lumumba in Congo...

Isn't it VERY odd that EVERY time a politician suggests that the resources and assets of a country should belong to the state & the people rather than to the big corporations, they end up ousted / dead / chased away by media? The right-wing and the so-called centre, which is also right-wing, don't find it one bit suspicous, as they buy into the messages from the media departments (papers, tv etc) of big corporations/banks that those who are against the influence of big corporations/banks are either seriously flawed or just accidently happened to die in some unfortunate accident.

I always find it flabbergasting that people are completely unable to put this tiny little puzzle together to get the real picture.

 

[Swansman]

Yes. Yes, you are

Ok, so what is his take then? Why does he think the poppy is a white supremacy symbol? I thought my theory about the British military directly or indirectly killing millions of Africans and Asian was a pretty good theory, but apparently you think he had additional arguments? Keen to hear those.

 

[Baldseagull]

The crux of the subject is antisemitism against Jewish people in the UK. Why does Israel keep being thrown into the mix by some people?

Who's saying it cannot be questioned? Corbyn, Al Jazeera and you are freely talking about.

There was an issue with Corbyn's Labour adopting the IHRA ‘working definition’ of antisemitism, that Israel would have liked to be the definition. The problem was that the definition made some criticism of Israel antisemitic, I think Labours position was fair and reasonable at the time, they made amendments to the IHRA definition and agreed to adopt that form, which resulted in more criticism, unfairly. Corbyn has also been outspoken with criticism of Israeli actions in the past, all this would have made Israel keen to see someone else as UK PM, and I am sure they would have been active in making sure British Jews felt that Corbyn was not a good choice. I have no doubt that Israel and pro Israeli British Jews were helping to push the issue.

However, Corbyn was weak in dealing with the problem that did exist in Labour, and allowed a lot of the shit to stick to him, and anyone who wasn't paying close attention could easily have thought Corbyn was antisemitic himself, especially with his approval of a mural that I believe he was naive about.

I would be surprised if Israel made no efforts to smear Corbyn.

 

[Weststander]

There was an issue with Corbyn's Labour adopting the IHRA ‘working definition’ of antisemitism, that Israel would have liked to be the definition. The problem was that the definition made some criticism of Israel antisemitic, I think Labours position was fair and reasonable at the time, they made amendments to the IHRA definition and agreed to adopt that form, which resulted in more criticism, unfairly. Corbyn has also been outspoken with criticism of Israeli actions in the past, all this would have made Israel keen to see someone else as UK PM, and I am sure they would have been active in making sure British Jews felt that Corbyn was not a good choice. I have no doubt that Israel and pro Israeli British Jews were helping to push the issue.

However, Corbyn was weak in dealing with the problem that did exist in Labour, and allowed a lot of the shit to stick to him, and anyone who wasn't paying close attention could easily have thought Corbyn was antisemitic himself, especially with his approval of a mural that I believe he was naive about.

I would be surprised if Israel made no efforts to smear Corbyn.

Last point, almost certainly. Israel, China and Russia all masters of that.

 

[Live by the sea]

*Edit - Below was meant to reply to Harry Wilson's Tackles post.

A journalist for Novara media (a small outlet) highlighted it - one of the few outlets to mention it. The fact its not out there on every major outlet should be shocking but shows the British press is a monolith that has a clear agenda.

Democracy is/was subverted before our eyes and it doesnt seem worth a mention (as yet)

Novara media hehe Aaron bastani and Ash Sarkar are two of the so called journalists! Rampant communists with a hatred for the British royal family , America & Israel in general, amongst other extreme views . Not too many people are going to take their views seriously . Hardly mainstream , unless you think communism is a mainstream view in the UK .

 

[Live by the sea]

As I said, a concerted effort by right of the Labour Party, the media, Israeli lobbyists, the Tories and those threatened by a curbing of the powers of those who have (and still do) their wealthy faces in the trough.

It had nothing to do with that , it’s not in anyones interest to have extremists in power , be it the left or right . Labour now have a sensible leader who in all probability will win the next election . That’s good for working class people , Corbyn was not good for working class people . All this rubbish about a witch hunt is nonsense , perpetuated by people who are anti establishment and those types of people are dangerous .

 

[Swansman]

Novara media hehe Aaron bastani and Ash Sarkar are two of the so called journalists! Rampant communists with a hatred for the British royal family , America & Israel in general, amongst other extreme views . Not too many people are going to take their views seriously . Hardly mainstream , unless you think communism is a mainstream view in the UK .

You're definitely right that communism - England owning England - is not the mainstream view in the UK.
The neo-liberal idea of selling the entire country, making China, US, Russia and Saudi Arabia the owners of England, seems to be the most common view.