General / Off-Topic UK only, labour leadership

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

Who would you like to see ? there is no contest yet but it's still interesting, i'm a lefty, i like socialism when it comes to benefits, the NHS, taxing the rich etc, but. i will never vote for a labour party led by Corbyn, who wants to negotiate with terrorists, calls Hamas and Hezzbollah his friends, opposes trident and opposes the military, i won't vote for a pacifist. Note: i voted Labour in 2015 because Ed Miliband was a non pacifist and he was a democratic socialist. On this poll i voted for Benn, allthough he has stated that he won't run for leader.

 

[Porina]

I'm still surprised Corbyn got the job in the first place. It was as if they wanted to loose. Never heard of the next three. Ed was a joke, but compared to the jokers in blue, I have to wonder if things would have been better had he got in after all. Hell no to bringing back TB.

I could not let myself vote for red or blue last time around as both had totally lost the plot. My dream scenario was a hung parliament so they couldn't do any real damage. Even the coalition wasn't too bad as at least the LD prevented the Cons from doing their worst.

 

[Arry]

They had the chance to wipe out the Tories and blew it, because they are greedy. The Labour party ministers I mean. All greedy for power. Thought they would take a chance to grab the chalice. Yes; many were convinced that an election was on the cards and they could not win with Corbyn in charge., but they should have stuck together and took on the Tories. That vote result was down to austerity as much as anything and the Labour party, along with SNPs, could have used it as a stick, to beat the Tories to death.

I voted (above) for the old fellow to stay, not because I want to loose our Tridents, because right now, I don't. I voted, because he is not a Blue Labour or a New Labour. He is a man of the people, for the people. Never voted for Labour in my life, but if he keeps his job, I think I will next chance I get.

 

[FuzzySpider]

A comment on a Guardian article summed it up perfectly for me:

....it seems if you made the decision to see Corbyn as a wonderful principled hero then you also chose to ignore his vanity and great pride. There is great talk about how humble he is - he is always telling people how humble he is. I have a warning - beware people telling you they are humble. Humble people just are - they don't feel the need to tell you.
The whole thing for the last year has become sickening - Corbyn telling us he isn't about personality while he has made it all about his personality. Corbyn telling us his politics are kind and gentle as if no other politician is kind and gentle - yet he seems quite comfortable with his supporters trolling, abusing, threatening his MPs, yet his duty is always to those abusers and not to those MPs.


Corbyn telling us he cares for the poor and dispossessed yet is totally comfortable with his unelectibility as long as his precious principles are intact. Corbyn. who finds great pleasure in going to events where he is surrounded by adulation. There has been no evidence of him getting in amongst voters who don't love him.


Corbyn who was furious that the media dared call Labour antisemitic - how dare they - they were nasty - instead of realising there might be jolly good reason and it was his job to stand up and condemn it - not sound like he was outraged anyone would ever suggest it. In Ben Ferguson's film he was frothing with anger that he should be asked about Ken's comments. How absolutely dare he? In fact he was becoming as subliminally nasty as Freedland. In fact everybody who criticised him was/is nasty - as the members know. Corbyn is always right as are the members. The PLP - all wrong - need deselecting.


The Labour party? Needs reshaping in the Corbyn mould - Corbyn's Momentum. It was chilling seeing a meeting with the logo Momentum on a huge screen where Corbyn delivered his videoed message like the great heroic leader. I don't understand the need to go and campaign under that logo when you represent Labour as its leader - it's not right. There is only one Labour logo - either he is Labour or he is Momentum - he can't be both.

 

[Surfinjo]

A comment on a Guardian article summed it up perfectly for me:

....it seems if you made the decision to see Corbyn as a wonderful principled hero then you also chose to ignore his vanity and great pride. There is great talk about how humble he is - he is always telling people how humble he is. I have a warning - beware people telling you they are humble. Humble people just are - they don't feel the need to tell you.
The whole thing for the last year has become sickening - Corbyn telling us he isn't about personality while he has made it all about his personality. Corbyn telling us his politics are kind and gentle as if no other politician is kind and gentle - yet he seems quite comfortable with his supporters trolling, abusing, threatening his MPs, yet his duty is always to those abusers and not to those MPs.


Corbyn telling us he cares for the poor and dispossessed yet is totally comfortable with his unelectibility as long as his precious principles are intact. Corbyn. who finds great pleasure in going to events where he is surrounded by adulation. There has been no evidence of him getting in amongst voters who don't love him.


Corbyn who was furious that the media dared call Labour antisemitic - how dare they - they were nasty - instead of realising there might be jolly good reason and it was his job to stand up and condemn it - not sound like he was outraged anyone would ever suggest it. In Ben Ferguson's film he was frothing with anger that he should be asked about Ken's comments. How absolutely dare he? In fact he was becoming as subliminally nasty as Freedland. In fact everybody who criticised him was/is nasty - as the members know. Corbyn is always right as are the members. The PLP - all wrong - need deselecting.


The Labour party? Needs reshaping in the Corbyn mould - Corbyn's Momentum. It was chilling seeing a meeting with the logo Momentum on a huge screen where Corbyn delivered his videoed message like the great heroic leader. I don't understand the need to go and campaign under that logo when you represent Labour as its leader - it's not right. There is only one Labour logo - either he is Labour or he is Momentum - he can't be both.

Frankly, that was unfounded and opportunistic as evidenced by the way several Israeli politicians instantly jumped onto the band wagon, ranting their usual paranoid nonsense. The only substantive evidence was opposition to Israeli government practices and frankly that is a joke.

But Corbyn's election was an indication of the very deep divisions that exist in the Party. The rank and file are demanding a more radical platform and have done so for many years. Yet the leadership seemed dominated by Islington as shown by the leadership battle between the two Milband brothers.

At the risk of name calling, two privileged white boys who think poverty is having a lazy maid.

I also lost faith in Corbyn when he showed that his attempts to argue on facts rather than sensational rhetoric were not as principals as he wanted us to believe.

 

[SuBSynk]

Who would you like to see ? there is no contest yet but it's still interesting, i'm a lefty, i like socialism when it comes to benefits, the NHS, taxing the rich etc, but. i will never vote for a labour party led by Corbyn, who wants to negotiate with terrorists, calls Hamas and Hezzbollah his friends, opposes trident and opposes the military, i won't vote for a pacifist. Note: i voted Labour in 2015 because Ed Miliband was a non pacifist and he was a democratic socialist. On this poll i voted for Benn, allthough he has stated that he won't run for leader.

You call yourself a socialist then go on to say you would support Hilary Benn?! He doesn't deserve the name, pathetic excuse for a labour MP.

Unless you missed it the Northern Island peace process was only achieved by talk not force, negotiating with "terrorists" is the only way to end ongoing situations or face decades of uncertainty. The UK have been supporting the colonial project & apartheid, settler state "Israel" for decades now ie negotiating with terrorists clearly is ok as long as they fall in line with western policy.

 

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

You call yourself a socialist then go on to say you would support Hilary Benn?! He doesn't deserve the name, pathetic excuse for a labour MP.

Unless you missed it the Northern Island peace process was only achieved by talk not force, negotiating with "terrorists" is the only way to end ongoing situations or face decades of uncertainty. The UK have been supporting the colonial project & apartheid, settler state "Israel" for decades now ie negotiating with terrorists clearly is ok as long as they fall in line with western policy.

Well the difference between negotiating with political groups and terrorist groups is quite large, and we negotiated with Sinn Fein in much the same way Israel do with the PA, the PA and Sinn Fein are the political wings of just causes, the same can't be said of Hamas, or the IRA, those groups are purely interested in religious domination and hatred, anyone who thinks that the UK PM should negotiate directly with them is out of their mind.

 

[Surfinjo]

[video=youtube;WG_8YjUZhRQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG_8YjUZhRQ[/video]

 

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

She's not my first choice, but better than Corbyn for sure. Then again i'm not as Anti Blair or as pacifist as many labour supporters seem to be.

 

[Trinity Star]

Keep Jeremy Corbyn, an insurance that labour will never get in power

 

[FuzzySpider]

Well the difference between negotiating with political groups and terrorist groups is quite large, and we negotiated with Sinn Fein in much the same way Israel do with the PA, the PA and Sinn Fein are the political wings of just causes, the same can't be said of Hamas, or the IRA, those groups are purely interested in religious domination and hatred, anyone who thinks that the UK PM should negotiate directly with them is out of their mind.

Here is a map of Israel, and how the demographic makeup has changed over the years:

Spoiler

Now that isn't a defense or a taking sides of anything, but to label that conflict as religious is to grossly ignore reality. It is, ironically enough, to let ones beliefs about religion define ones point of view about the world, rather like a creationist would with evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG_8YjUZhRQ

That doesn't really help me at all.

The war was bad, the war was wrong, I'd love to see certain people facing the inside of a cell for it. But having a go at Angela Eagle over it in this way is gratuitous. Theresa May also voted for the Iraq war, yet she has not been questioned on it at all. And whatever the rights and wrongs, neither of these women is actually responsible for the crimes committed in our name.

Her stance on the current crisis we're facing, which needs real leadership now, is what interests me the most.

 

[Arry]

Well the difference between negotiating with political groups and terrorist groups is quite large, and we negotiated with Sinn Fein in much the same way Israel do with the PA, the PA and Sinn Fein are the political wings of just causes, the same can't be said of Hamas, or the IRA, those groups are purely interested in religious domination and hatred, anyone who thinks that the UK PM should negotiate directly with them is out of their mind.

Only the passing of time; has made Sinn Fein the political wing of a 'just cause' and many Unionists would still claim, that Sinn Fein, is a part of a terrorist group. Adams and McGuinness were both a part of the IRA in the days of the 'troubles'. However; time and common sense, have moved on and now they are both respected politicians.

Nelson Mandela was imprisoned as a terrorist remember and some older white south Africans will still view him as such.

I don't think you can really say that you 'have to negotiate', with terrorists. However: You should always try to negotiate, with your enemy and giving them the label of terrorist. Just makes it more palatable; to your allies, when you execute them, without trial or due process.

At the same time: The label of terrorist, is often these days; being worn as a badge of some kind of honour by some groups. Daesh (isis) seems to revel in the the fact, that they are, terrorists.

I also believe, that even Corbyn, understands, that groups like Daesh are not open to negotiation and therefore there is little point, in trying to negotiate.

 

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

Fuzzy, that map of Israel/Palestine is everything to do with religion, Jews forced out through the centuries by Christians and Muslims because they were Jewish, Jews scattered around Europe were persecuted by fascists in the 1920s, 30s and 40s because they were Jewish, after world war two it was the Muslims who rejected the UN plan and decided they didn't want ANY Jews around (even though the Jews were there with the Arabs for centuries) so Israeli Jews took more land, war crimes by both communities were down to religion, it's the religious Jewish home party and Likud that are stopping the two state solution now, and playing into the hands of the terrorist group Hamas who have ZERO intention of living with Jews, i feel sorry for the vast majority of Israeli Jews who are secular, and face the risk of annihilation because of their religion/race, to blame for this threat are the expansionist American funded Jewish settlers in the west bank, and the religious hatred brought on my.....oh yes, just about every Muslim leader ever, not to mention the fact that "secular Saddam" and "secular Assad" are among the leaders who have urged the destruction of an entire country and population based on what ? Politics ? Money ? Oil ? no, it's religion and if you can't see that there is something wrong.

 

[Surfinjo]

Keep Jeremy Corbyn, an insurance that labour will never get in power

That doesn't really help me at all.

The war was bad, the war was wrong, I'd love to see certain people facing the inside of a cell for it. But having a go at Angela Eagle over it in this way is gratuitous. Theresa May also voted for the Iraq war, yet she has not been questioned on it at all. And whatever the rights and wrongs, neither of these women is actually responsible for the crimes committed in our name.

Her stance on the current crisis we're facing, which needs real leadership now, is what interests me the most.

The clip of Eagle is interesting for her evasion as much as anything else.

But far more interesting is that she acknowleges that Blair lied to the country the common and to her. But then says he's suffered enough. (The interviewer actually says it but she doesn't refute). She then claims we would be better learning the lessons.

Learning the lessons is a given.

But Blair must be prosecuted and Eagle isn't fit to do it.

She has effective confirmed what many said and Alex Salmond gave voice to: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...him_calling_for_Blair___s_head_after_Chilcot/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...report-latest-news-alex-salmond-a7116926.html

 

[FuzzySpider]

But Blair must be prosecuted and Eagle isn't fit to do it.

Surely NO prime minister should be allowed to persue a prosecution against Blair.

A decision to hold someone to criminal account should be left to the judicial branch of our government. Allowing politicians, who are always looking for a way to boost their popularity, to engage in prosecutions or otherwise interfere with the judicial process is inherently dangerous. The potential for corruption is immense. Look at what happened with the Bulger killers - an 8 year sentence was increased to 15 years at the behest of the then Home Secretary Michael Howard. Maybe the sentence was short? But think about the reason - if Howard did that for his own political gain then the sentence served after the 8 years was over would effectively make the prisoners political prisoners.

 

[Surfinjo]

Surely NO prime minister should be allowed to persue a prosecution against Blair.

A decision to hold someone to criminal account should be left to the judicial branch of our government. Allowing politicians, who are always looking for a way to boost their popularity, to engage in prosecutions or otherwise interfere with the judicial process is inherently dangerous. The potential for corruption is immense. Look at what happened with the Bulger killers - an 8 year sentence was increased to 15 years at the behest of the then Home Secretary Michael Howard. Maybe the sentence was short? But think about the reason - if Howard did that for his own political gain then the sentence served after the 8 years was over would effectively make the prisoners political prisoners.

Quite.

But the reality is nothing can be done against Blair without the support of the government.

That, sadly, includes referral to the War Crimes Court.

Now with Corbyn backing it, there is a possibility the next Tory PM will support it. I'm pretty sure Cameron would have. I may be wrong of course. But I did get that impression.

 

[Arry]

Quite.

But the reality is nothing can be done against Blair without the support of the government.

That, sadly, includes referral to the War Crimes Court.

Now with Corbyn backing it, there is a possibility the next Tory PM will support it. I'm pretty sure Cameron would have. I may be wrong of course. But I did get that impression.

Dave, voted yes to war?

 

[Adept]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG_8YjUZhRQ

So no accountability for Teflon Tony from her. Got it.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Fuzzy, that map of Israel/Palestine is everything to do with religion, Jews forced out through the centuries by Christians and Muslims because they were Jewish, Jews scattered around Europe were persecuted by fascists in the 1920s, 30s and 40s because they were Jewish, after world war two it was the Muslims who rejected the UN plan and decided they didn't want ANY Jews around (even though the Jews were there with the Arabs for centuries) so Israeli Jews took more land, war crimes by both communities were down to religion, it's the religious Jewish home party and Likud that are stopping the two state solution now, and playing into the hands of the terrorist group Hamas who have ZERO intention of living with Jews, i feel sorry for the vast majority of Israeli Jews who are secular, and face the risk of annihilation because of their religion/race, to blame for this threat are the expansionist American funded Jewish settlers in the west bank, and the religious hatred brought on my.....oh yes, just about every Muslim leader ever, not to mention the fact that "secular Saddam" and "secular Assad" are among the leaders who have urged the destruction of an entire country and population based on what ? Politics ? Money ? Oil ? no, it's religion and if you can't see that there is something wrong.

Quite a long speech. Does this mean that the state of Israel gets a free pass on building settlements on occupied land and annexing more and more of it as time passes? Are the actions of the state of Israel beyond reproach due to the historical persecution of the Jewish minorities in various states?

 

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

Actually i'm not in favour of settlement building in the west bank, in fact i think it threatens the very existence of Israel, also it's blatant land theft. I was hoping Herzog or Livni would be PM by now, but Israelis fell for right wing fear mongering and are stuck with a right wing government.

 

[Lianachan]

Labour leadership is totally irrelevant up here. The party has wiped itself more or less entirely out.