[Politics] Labour has suspended former leader Jeremy Corbyn

[Cheshire Cat]

I agree that he is doing some things very well from a pure politics /electoral perspective - some of that strategy is being led by good friend of Jeffrey Esptein, Peter Mandelson.

What I don't like is the fact that he has

Untrustworthy - Reneged on his leadership election pledges
Anti-democratic - he is preventing left wing candidates from running in local elections. Even the Tory party arent doing that.
Weaponised anti-semitism for political purposes even so far as to declare himself a Zionist.
Undermined Corbyn before and during the election
Has/is purged the party of left wing members (including 60 Jews)
Pledges unwavering support to Israel - an apartheid state that is killing and subjugating Palestinians. Israel last week bombed civilian buildings in Syria just after the terrible earthquake.
Is silent on Saudi Arabia who are committing war crimes in Yemen. Yemen has 23 million people in need of humanitarian assistance but our weapon sales are more important
Along with Wes Streeting ( who received funds from US healthcare provider) has talked about increasing privatisation of the increase ''to help out'' the NHS.
Working people - Has shown little to no solidarity during the strikes.

If he gets into power (likely) I dont have your confidence that he will do anything substantial. He will want to stay in power so why once in will he risk upset big corps, foreign states, media owners, the wealthy etc.

What's relevant about Epstein here - apart from a rather obvious and needless attempt to smear Mandelson by association for some reason.

Peter Mandelson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

UK politician Peter Mandelson allegedly called Jeffrey Epstein in jail for a favor

One of Britain’s most powerful politicians wasn’t afraid to phone Jeffery Epstein looking for a favor — even while the pedophile was behind bars for sex crimes, according to a new docum…

nypost.com

 

[Hugo Rune]

I guess you never want to see another Labour Govt, even if it means compromise?

You guessed incorrectly. Depends on the policies, intentions and leadership at the time. Also what the compromises are.

I don’t believe you. This is why people like people profoundly unfit for office like Johnson and his cabal get into power unfortunately. People can’t accept the centre ground.

 

[borat]

What's relevant about Epstein here - apart from a rather obvious and needless attempt to smear Mandelson by association for some reason.

Peter Mandelson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

UK politician Peter Mandelson allegedly called Jeffrey Epstein in jail for a favor

One of Britain’s most powerful politicians wasn’t afraid to phone Jeffery Epstein looking for a favor — even while the pedophile was behind bars for sex crimes, according to a new docum…

nypost.com

I was critiquing Starmer who thought it ethical to use Mandelson a good friend of Epstein as unofficial advisor. Think thats fair enough when discussing political strategy. Mandelson is by all accounts very good at strategy hence Epstein calling him from jail.

This is the same Mandelson who said openly before the election ''I am working everyday to bring down Jeremy Corbyn''

 

[clapham_gull]

I find the pro Corbyn die hards fascinating. Just a toss of a coin away from the bellends in the Tory party who want Johnson back as PM.

Both completely oblivious to the almost daily election polls we get now.

At what point did the cult of personality infect both major parties ?

Corbyn clearly a very nice man but a silly old sod at the end of the day. Spent his entire career campaigning against the EU but stuffed it all in the pocket of his donkey jacket when faced with a huge influx of young and overwhelmingly pro Brexit members.

Them leaders will say anything about the EU to keep the membership happy and keep themselves in power.

Ask Boris....

 

[Weststander]

I don’t believe you. This is why people like people profoundly unfit for office like Johnson and his cabal get into power unfortunately. People can’t accept the centre ground.

 

[Swansman]

I don’t believe you. This is why people like people profoundly unfit for office like Johnson and his cabal get into power unfortunately. People can’t accept the centre ground.

There is no such thing as centre politics. Tell the average bloke in the 1960s what what "centrist politics" looks like 2023 and people would see it as a right-wing dystopia.
What people can't and won't accept is left wing politics, because they have been conditioned not to like or accept it by those (= billionaires and bloodsucking transnational corporations) who would lose out on a left-wing oriented society.

 

[A1X]

At what point did the cult of personality infect both major parties ?

I put it down to 2010. Brown, a competent but dull politician, pitted against the lightweight but charismatic Cameron. That started the idea that politics was won by personality, not arguments (there had been a bit of this in 1997 but ultimately at that point Labour has the charisma and the ideas to back it up).

 

[Weststander]

I put it down to 2010. Brown, a competent but dull politician, pitted against the lightweight but charismatic Cameron. That started the idea that politics was won by personality, not arguments (there had been a bit of this in 1997 but ultimately at that point Labour has the charisma and the ideas to back it up).

1997 for me.

And I did vote Labour.

 

[LamieRobertson]

1997 for me.

And I did vote Labour.

Was that the time u played noughts and crosses on the ballot paper

ps thought u were resting your eyes lol

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

I put it down to 2010. Brown, a competent but dull politician, pitted against the lightweight but charismatic Cameron. That started the idea that politics was won by personality, not arguments (there had been a bit of this in 1997 but ultimately at that point Labour has the charisma and the ideas to back it up).

Competent? That’s stretching it…..
Re 1997, agree completely

 

[Weststander]

Was that the time u played noughts and crosses on the ballot paper

ps thought u were resting your eyes lol

I really did.

I thought John Major was a shite PM on every level, after 18 years of Tory rule in total, it was time for a change.

Plus Blair promised the complete ban of blood sports with dogs, that meant a lot to me. He partly lied, later watering it down so that rural cnts could still illicitly carry it on.

 

[Swansman]

Strange coincidence that people who want to redistribute wealth so that we all have similar amounts rather than a few people having everything and a lot of people having nothing always get labelled as antisemites/Putin lovers/other taboo far-fetched shit, whereas anyone wanting to keep this self-destructive neo-liberal oligarchy run world alive always are seen as tolerable.

But why wouldn't the media companies do this? Their owners are filthy rich and would lose a lot of wealth and power with a true leftist running the show. And people buy into it every single time in every single country. "Oh I have to vote for the corrupt bloke who will make the rich richer and the poor poorer, because media are telling me that the guy who wants a fairer world once had a friend whose dog once barked at a jew or transsexual or war veteran back in 1994. Too bad but what can you do."

Its so easy getting people to vote for whoever the oligarchs, banks and big companies wants as the leader.

 

[LamieRobertson]

I really did.

I thought John Major was a shite PM on every level, after 18 years of Tory rule in total, it was time for a change.

Plus Blair promised the complete ban of blood sports with dogs, that meant a lot to me. He partly lied, later watering it down so that rural cnts could still illicitly carry it on.

I’d have voted for John Smith

 

[Weststander]

Strange coincidence that people who want to redistribute wealth so that we all have similar amounts rather than a few people having everything and a lot of people having nothing always get labelled as antisemites/Putin lovers/other taboo far-fetched shit, whereas anyone wanting to keep this self-destructive neo-liberal oligarchy run world alive always are seen as tolerable.

But why wouldn't the media companies do this? Their owners are filthy rich and would lose a lot of wealth and power with a true leftist running the show. And people buy into it every single time in every single country. "Oh I have to vote for the corrupt bloke who will make the rich richer and the poor poorer, because media are telling me that the guy who wants a fairer world once had a friend whose dog once barked at a jew or transsexual or war veteran back in 1994. Too bad but what can you do."

Its so easy getting people to vote for whoever the oligarchs, banks and big companies wants as the leader.

Back for 2 days and you can’t help yourself with your hero Putin.

There’ll be many left wing Labour supporters here who despise Putin and the genocide he’s carrying out in waging illegal war.

Please don’t conflate issues.

Remember, you’re a Putin fanboy. You don’t give one shit about Ukrainians being raped and murdered, because NATO are evil in your eyes. Where’s your heart for Ukrainians? Over the last year you’ve shown none.

 

[Swansman]

Back for 2 days and you can’t help yourself with your hero Putin.

There’ll be many left wing Labour supporters here who despise Putin and the genocide he’s carrying out in waging illegal war.

Please don’t conflate issues.

Remember, you’re a Putin fanboy. You don’t give one shit about Ukrainians being raped and murdered, because NATO are evil in your eyes. Where’s your heart for Ukrainians? Over the last year you’ve shown none.

He's not my hero. I don't like him. And of course people doesn't like genocides except when it happens to black or Arab people.

I only mentioned him to give examples of the methods the establishment use to defame leftist candidates in order to get the corrupt right wing candidates into power. Boris Johnson most likely had one hand in Donald Trumps pants and the other in Vladimir Putins. No problem since people knew he'd be running errands for rich businessmen. If a leftist candidate with leftist ideas would have been in a similar situation (being all cozy with some hideous world leaders), they would have been character murdered by the media and never stood a chance.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Back for 2 days and you can’t help yourself with your hero Putin.

There’ll be many left wing Labour supporters here who despise Putin and the genocide he’s carrying out in waging illegal war.

Please don’t conflate issues.

Remember, you’re a Putin fanboy. You don’t give one shit about Ukrainians being raped and murdered, because NATO are evil in your eyes. Where’s your heart for Ukrainians? Over the last year you’ve shown none.

Nailed

 

[Weststander]

He's not my hero. I only mentioned him to give examples of the methods the establishment use to defame leftist candidates in order to get the corrupt right wing candidates into power. Boris Johnson most likely had one hand in Donald Trumps pants and the other in Vladimir Putins. No problem since people knew he'd be running errands for rich businessmen. If a leftist candidate with leftist ideas would have been in a similar situation (being all cozy with some hideous world leaders), they would have been character murdered by the media and never stood a chance.

You’ve made your feelings on Putin known many times over the last 12 months. If people were sad about the murders going on in real time just 1,300 miles away, you’d say what about the US and Allende. As if people here didn’t despise both scenarios. Never any heart felt comments for the victims of the genocide and rape in Ukraine, never condemning the fascism and war waging of Putin.

 

[Swansman]

You’ve made your feelings on Putin known many times over the last 12 months. If people were sad about the murders going on in real time just 1,300 miles away, you’d say what about the US and Allende. As if people here didn’t despise both scenarios. Never any heart felt comments for the victims of the genocide and rape in Ukraine, never condemning the fascism and war waging of Putin.

Why would I? All the right-wingers and a couple of alleged left-wingers have no problem with Israel carrying out a genocide in Palestine (any time Israel drops a bomb on a hospital there, at least half of NSC passionately celebrates) or with England/US murdering and raping people all over the world. Most of you defend it fiercely. So why am I expected to have a problem with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? It is whataboutism from both sides. You defend when England and business partners such as the US/Israel kill people in Yemen/Palestina and other countries, you never make any heartfelt comments about that, do you? Why is Ukraine a problem but Palestina and Yemen isn't?

Regarding my stance on Putin, it is complicated because I don't see the world as some kind of Star Wars movie where The Forces of Good fight the The Forces of Evil. It is a lot more complex than that.

I don't overlook the facts based on what I'm told to think and feel.
The fact is that the US has spent billions on pro-Western propaganda in Ukraine. This is tolerated.
The fact is also that Russia has spent billions on pro-Russian propaganda in the West. This not tolerated.
The fact is that the US has educated Ukrainian Nazi groups and spent a lot of money on propaganda channels for Nazis in Ukraine. This is tolerated.
The fact is that Russia has funded various movements in the West and spent a lot of money to create propaganda for them. This is not tolerated.
The fact is that the US/NATO has installed military bases in Russias neighbouring countries. This is tolerated.
The fact is that Russia hasn't done that, but there is no way it would be tolerated if they put military bases in Ireland or Canada or something.

Why is one of these behaviours tolerated while the other isn't? Why is the war in Yemen legal while the one in Ukraine isn't? Why is the genocide in Palestina accepted while the one not really happening (but could have been the case if the Russians had the power to do it) in Ukraine not accepted?

The answers to all of the above is that we are westerners listening to western narratives. Except a few of us where propaganda doesn't work, meaning we are equally able to be critical of Western behaviour as Russian behaviour.

I don't think the invasion is the right thing to do. I don't think any war is ever justified. War is bullshit. There are no war heroes or winners in a war, just losers going out to fight some shit corporate ideology. So naturally I don't think Putin is a good man, I don't think the war should happen. But just like I can somewhat understand some Western wars, I can also understand some Russian wars.

If the US spent billions on spreading far-right propaganda in Norway while training Nazi soldiers and building military bases there, I'd reluctantly want us to go and try to solve the problem, so why wouldn't I reluctantly understand the official Russian motifs for doing the same thing?

Obviously none of the official motivations are true. Blackroc, the oil and arms business, the US president and whatever bloke you guys have in charge this week couldn't give less of a shit about the freedom of some Ukrainian farmer, and Russia really doesn't give a shit if Ukraine is turning into a nazi country or a zoroastrian one or whatever. Russia wants the natural resources of Ukraine, so does the west. It does make Vladimir Putin shit but it also makes our cozy Western community equally shit.

 

[LamieRobertson]

. Guess the flag.

 

[Weststander]

Why would I? All the right-wingers and a couple of alleged left-wingers have no problem with Israel carrying out a genocide in Palestina or with England/US murdering and raping people all over the world. Most of you defend it fiercely. So why am I expected to have a problem with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? It is whataboutism from both sides. You defend when England and business partners such as the US/Israel kill people in Yemen/Palestina and other countries, you never make any heartfelt comments about that, do you? Why is Ukraine a problem but Palestina and Yemen isn't?

Regarding my stance on Putin, it is complicated because I don't see the world as some kind of Star Wars movie where The Forces of Good fight the The Forces of Evil. It is a lot more complex than that.

I don't overlook the facts based on what I'm told to think and feel.
The fact is that the US has spent billions on pro-Western propaganda in Ukraine. This is tolerated.
The fact is also that Russia has spent billions on pro-Russian propaganda in the West. This not tolerated.
The fact is that the US has educated Ukrainian Nazi groups and spent a lot of money on propaganda channels for Nazis in Ukraine. This is tolerated.
The fact is that Russia has funded various movements in the West and spent a lot of money to create propaganda for them. This is not tolerated.
The fact is that the US/NATO has installed military bases in Russias neighbouring countries. This is tolerated.
The fact is that Russia hasn't done that, but there is no way it would be tolerated if they put military bases in Ireland or Canada or something.

Why is one of these behaviours tolerated while the other isn't? Why is the war in Yemen legal while the one in Ukraine isn't? Why is the genocide in Palestina accepted while the one not really happening (but could have been the case if the Russians had the power to do it) in Ukraine not accepted?

The answers to all of the above is that we are westerners listening to western narratives. Except a few of us where propaganda doesn't work, meaning we are equally able to be critical of Western behaviour as Russian behaviour.

I don't think the invasion is the right thing to do. I don't think any war is ever justified. War is bullshit. There are no war heroes or winners in a war, just losers going out to fight some shit corporate ideology. So naturally I don't think Putin is a good man, I don't think the war should happen. But just like I can somewhat understand some Western wars, I can also understand some Russian wars.

If the US spent billions on spreading far-right propaganda in Norway while training Nazi soldiers and building military bases there, I'd reluctantly want us to go and try to solve the problem, so why wouldn't I reluctantly understand the official Russian motifs for doing the same thing?

Obviously none of the official motivations are true. Blackroc, the oil and arms business, the US president and whatever bloke you guys have in charge this week couldn't give less of a shit about the freedom of some Ukrainian farmer, and Russia really doesn't give a shit if Ukraine is turning into a nazi country or a zoroastrian one or whatever. Russia wants the natural resources of Ukraine, so does the west. It does make Vladimir Putin shit but it also makes our cozy Western community equally shit.

Why wouldn’t you? Because you lack a heart. Innocent Ukrainian lives are nothing to you, just stats that balance out your internet based contrarian view on geo politics.

You talk as if decent people here and elsewhere don’t condemn all murders, whether it be Palestinians, Syrians killed by barrel bombs or gassing, or Ukrainians who just wanted to be happy. I’ve personally met Ukrainian refugees, their pain and suffering is upsetting.

You’ve spent your adult life at the Swedish taxpayers expense immersing yourself in a black and white world of anything western or mainstream is evil.

In real time Putin and China with Uhghars are carrying out mass genocide. Innocents lined up next to the pits, then a gun put to their head. Women and infants raped on an industrial scale. And all you can produce is whataboutery.

You’re lucky you live in a nation where contrarian views are part and parcel of democracy and free speech. In China and Russia, any open dissent and you’d have disappeared.

Glad that you confirmed my recollection of some disgusting posts on the Ukraine thread. People were dying and you posted your cold bullshit.