Jump to content

Wilky

Member
  • Posts

    168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wilky

  1. I had intended that to be my last post but I cannot let that slide. All those quotes are direct responses where I was giving as good as I got. Effectively on your last point about people being pissed off, i dont recall throwing a hissy fit for being called a Tory. Anyway enough from me. This really is the last post. It’s just not worth it.
  2. Example? Think I may have referred to you as a Corbynista once in response to being told I 'effectively vote Tory'. I admitted that was deliberately antagonistic I suppose. Not sure it warrants abuse mind. If sweeping judgement against those of what I consider a far left position is any different to those on here, myself included who make sweeping judgement about Tories is any different is slightly hypocritical. Its hard not to group individuals in that respect. Either way I'm done. Will leave you all to it.
  3. The first paragraph is fair enough, the second just churlish. For a start I'm not the one who has been abusive, I've put forward a point of view that this complex situation between Israel and Palestine is hi-jacked by those on the real hard left that Corbyn has cosied up to in the past. Corbyn unfortunately because of his past relationships with these groups does not make him the best person to be able to crack down on it. Especially when, as shown yesterday, it looks like those close to the leader have had an input in dealing with those members who have allegedly made antisemitic comments. Anyway, we are never going to agree on this without an unhealthy argument seemingly so I'm done.
  4. I'm failing to see any criticism of Hamas either which is my point. Its simply ranting about the ills of Israel. I'm not sure where this argument gets us other than it adds weight to my theory that the lefts obsession with this conflict allows extreme elements to perpetuate antisemitic nonsense. Most countries in the world want a two state solution but ranting about the atrocities it has committed whilst ignoring undoubted Palestianian killings against Israelis either from suicide bombings or rocket launches into areas where Israelis are (even if those areas are 'occupied'). I mean if you need any further proof of the obsession with Israel being to blame for everything, apparently according to KingKerouac they were to blame for 911. A clear example of this obsession with Israel being allowed to perpetuate conspiracy theories against a Jewish state.
  5. What do you want like? A list of conflicts that go back decades? Because they do exist. Whether it be civil wars in Africa or continuing conflicts like Turkey and the Kurds? Do I have to find something that is exactly the same because I'm not sure what it will prove but what I find indisputable is the lefts obsession with the Israeli Palistian conflict. You, in my mind anyway, confirm the problem with this conflict in that those of a position that is beyond left of centre see Israel as the only agressor. There is literally no balance other than Israel is evil. I mean literally Hamas used to advocate killing Jews, it was in their charter. We can go round in circles and I frankly can't be bothered going over the history but the conflict is far from one sided. Does that mean Israel is not guilty of war crimes or even the main agressor. Well no it doesn't but they have a democratically elected government that has evolved and reacted over the years to existential threats from its neighbours. If you take the view that all this is bull then fine but I do not think it fair or balanced. The UN, as I have stated has not helped itself. As you will be aware over three quarters of country specific General Assembly resolutions and all human rights council resolutions are about the middle east with most of these decisions criticising Israel for its oppression of Palestinians. All this whilst accepting countries with questionably records in Human Rights to the UNHRC. It has willfully ignored other countries human rights issues which has lead to criticism of its reports. I've no doubt Israel has cases to answer but the UN's structure in allowing its reports to be less than impartially means we cannot rely on their reports sadly.
  6. No, by normal I mean less politically engaged. They will just see the nutters on Labours fringe bringing the party into disrepute.
  7. Agree with this completely. I don't think Corbyn is racist, I just think he is thick as ****. And for all the reasons you state. The rise in anti-semitism in Labour recently is a side show but it has happened on his watch because those close to him have a weird obsession with Israel and have this one sided view that everything in that part of the world is their fault and backed by the US and other capitalist powers which the fringes of the far left despise. The issue of Israel/Palestine does not fit into a nice neat good guy vs bad guy argument so I can only conceptualise that certain factions that are now very noisy in the Labour movement use that particular conflict, whilst not giving same prominence to other injustices in the world, to rile against large capitalist nations because it does not fit their politics. As I've said before on this thread. Most normal people (rightly or wrongly) in the UK just don't care about that particular conflict and will only see the bad apples in the labour movement weaponising it with antisemitic nonsense. Regardless of whether you think Corbyn is antisemitic (I don't think he is) for the reasons Kimbo has highlighted his past, his friends and his previous links makes it more difficult for him to neutralise the situation.
  8. I think the bit about Milne's views is the key point. It is a worry that Corbyn surrounds himself by Milne and likes of Andrew Murray. My point though is that they are as much likely (if not more) to work with Corbyn that PM Boris imho
  9. Have they absolutely ruled out working with Labour? In the event of an election where Labour get more votes than the Tories but not a majority I cannot imagine they would coalition up with the Tories. I would imagine they would supply and confidence with the biggest party to ensure their policies are put front and centre.
  10. Not a lot to go on? How much do you want like? His politics is more central, he has more conviction and more experience. Seriously, what else do you want? You must be furious that McDonnell and Watson are opening up channels to centrist Labour MPs then. Seeing as the membership has rejected them out right. But the premise that it is so fantastic that Labour's vote share was up by more than any since Attlee really doesn't tell the whole story does it? Which is my point. Labours vote share went from 30.4% to 40% (so 9.6% increase). The Tories themselves 36.8% in 2015 to 42.4%, a rise of 5.6% but was still a disaster for Teresa May because crucially she lost 2% of MPs wheras Labour increased by 4.6%. UKIP went from 12.6% share in 2015 to 1.8% in 2017. It is not surprising there was a surge in both parties votes overall but to claim it is absolute confirmation of a rejection of centrist ideals is entirely subjective. I've yet to see that. Even leader of Momentum Jon Lansman has come out today and said Labour has a widespread problem, highlighting the spread in conspiracy theories, particularly around Israeli monies. It seems the only people who are claiming this is a red herring is Jezza himself and those followers of his who claim he can do no wrong. The idea of voting to oppose one party doesn't exactly scream conviction politics. At the last election I didn't vote out of protest and the fact I'm in Wansbeck so there was no point. As we have seen with the rise of UKIP, even if you lend your vote elsewhere you can change the political discourse by getting the main parties to take on board your concerns. That is where we are with TIG and I welcome that.
  11. Fair point and I am being antagonistic but equally the insinuation that you are Tory if you are not fully on board with the socialist utopian vision is equally as irritating. The Tories under Cameron positioned themselves in the centre and came to power which has enabled them to put policies in place that lean right. Similarly how Labour under Blair positioned themselves in the centre to become electable with left leaning policies such as minimum wage, SureStart and other legislation. The 'rise of the right' is I would argue more recent thing with the pandering to UKIP and the referendum giving the right of the Tory party to become a party within a party that is pretty much dictating policy.
  12. It was more the events that followed is where our paths divulge, how Corbyn came to be elected is fairly obvious. I'm just making the point that the membership is not the electorate. I mean its not that difficult really. Ed was always seen as more of a lefty, or perhaps was portrayed as such before the 2015 election as he then tried to overly appeal to the centre ground but lacked conviction. I think David is a far better option, the fact he had held higher posts in government that his brother is probably indicative of that and he would have done far better against Cameron. Again fairly obvious. The Tories in 2015 and Labour during Blair won elections by contesting (or pandering as you call it) the centre ground. Labour had appeared to have given that up but thankfully the noises coming out of John McDonnell and Tom Watson suggest they are now going to shift. That is a reaction to the TIG, so as I said either way they have changed Labours path which is good for me, not so much for you by the sounds of it. Again though its a meaningless stat, as the Tory vote was more than Thatcher in her landslide of 83. Does that mean the country overwhelmingly supports homelessness and underfunding the NHS? Really? Do as we say or you will be deselected? Aye very uniting. Of course you do, Jezza can do no wrong. It is not a red herring as John McDonnell and Tom Watson have repeatedly stated in the past week that the Labour party need to do better as too many of its members are all over social media linking Israel to all the worlds ills and then hiding behind the fact that they are not criticising Jews but Israel. Ironically using conflating tactics. Luckily senior members in Labour are now dealing with it whilst St Jezza is crying about MSM stitch up. Its total Trumpian tactics to discredit this as a red herring. I'm not a vote Labour at all costs type of person. As I've said I've voted Lib Dems as well in previous years and I withheld my vote in 2017. I'm now waiting to see what happens between TIG and Labour. If you didn't like Labour when it was successful you could have voted for a socialist party. And you use the same slur that all Corbynistas throw in that if you don't vote for us you effectively vote Tory, looking for someone else to blame if Corbyn doesn't manage to come to power.
  13. I mean they are different but they are never going to be exactly the same. The Tony Benn challenge was never in a position to have any effective resignations and even those on the left of the party started distancing themselves from it because it was so poor. Interestingly, Benn once defeated in the 88 challenge stated "I do not want anyone to think that tomorrow is the end. It is the beginning." Benn had threatened that the challenge would be on a yearly basis and would not go away. Ultimately it did but the idea that the challenge back then to the Labour leadership was somehow more chivalrous is just wrong. If the tables were turned Corbyn would act no differently as he would have been fighting for what he believed in. Which is fair enough.
  14. Corbyn was involved in Tony Benn's leadership challenge, surely that isn't in dispute? And on the timing, you have contradicted yourself. The last quote from September 1992 Corbyn openly criticises John Smith as offering no real opposition with the possibility of a leader challenge. Of course John Smith had only become leader 2 months earlier.
  15. Jeremy Corbyn as quoted in the Guardian 14th Jan 1988 "The Campaign Group of Labour MPs is considering putting up a candidate against Mr Neil Kinnock for the party leadership. It is taking sounding among constituency parties and trade unions and will announce its findings next month". Jon Lansman who helped Corbyn come to power via Momentum quoted in the Guardian on 4th April 1988 "By having an election we will force a debate about the direction of the party in which it will be much more difficult for Kinnock to make everything an issue of loyalty to him. By the end of the campaign we will have legitimised dissent" Pree Association 21 September 1992 "Labour leader John Smith faces a new challenge from within his party... Mr Corbyn accused the leadership of offering "no real opposition". Funny how all that sounds familiar. We have very different interpretations of the same events. Corbyn came to power, no doubt due to a swing in attitudes to far left ideas as a rejection of Tory austerity through increased membership and Ed Milliband changing the rules against the parliamentary college system. Members of political parties are generally always more extreme in their ideas. Labour lost the 2015 election when the wrong brother took over in 2010, Ed was hardly an inspiring choice. I still don't see it as a rejection of centrist policies given Cameron spent considerable effort to appear to the centre ground to make the Tories electable in the first place. Also you state that Corbyn got more votes than any Labour leader since Attlee? Can you source that? As far as I can see it was over 600,000 short of Blair in 1997. Also not accounting for population growth. The fact is this idea that the Corbyn wing of Labour has tried to accommodate or hear out the centre of the party is not correct. After they challenged his power (and as I have mentioned above no different to Corbyn in the 80s) both sides have doubled down on their positions and ultimately both sides are to blame. Sure the centrists have used opportunities to have a go at Corbyn and vice versa through threats of deselection. Thankfully the events of the last week appear to have had an effect, not only Tom Watson but John McDonnell did a good piece in the London Evening Standard stating the party had been poor on Antisemitism (described a a red herring above.....) and McDonnell has stated he wants "a great listening exercise" and "to talk to as many people as possible". He further stated "I've been saying to Jeremy with the Parliamentary Labour Party now we've really got to talk to everybody. Just sit down, think through" and he confirmed that includes the dreaded 'Blairites'. This is why I say the events of the last week have already been successful because for people like me who are wondering where to put our votes come the next election we will have a choice between a Labour party that shifts a bit more toward the centre and is a bit more inclusive or this new group. We await to see which best suits our values.
  16. Let me qualify that. Obviously in their ideal world they will sweep to victory at the next election. But the reality is they will simply pull both the Tories and Labour back towards the centre ground for the many of the electorate who feel disenfranchised from both parties. Tom Watson clearly disagrees with you as he is actively trying to persuade the magic grandpa to reshuffle the shadow cabinet or he will act as a sounding board to those who disagree with the direction of the current Labour Party. The idea that people like me, who do not subscribe to the idea of socialist unicorns who has repeatedly called Tory (despite never voting as such) and called neoliberal (whatever the **** that is) and that centrism has been rejected when it was never tested at the last election which was still lost by Labour. Your premise in my view is contradictory in that they will stick to what they believe is best and **** everyone else. Is that not what Corbyn has done throughout his parliamentary career? So the centrist politicians you dismiss as having a we know best outlook any different to Corbyn and his allies in the 80s? These politicians who dared to democratically challenge him are clearly different to those heroes who challenged Kinnock in 1988. It is complete and utter hypocrisy to chastise those who have openly questioned Corbyn when Corbyn himself was involved in doing the exact same thing 30 years ago. It is just another example from the cult of Corbyn that dissenters will be banished to the gulag. I also struggle with the idea that Centrism and so called Neoliberalism (which is seemingly lets not allow any private enterprise) is and has been rejected as you suggest with the juxtaposition that these splitters will keep the Tories in power. If the radical left are so convinced by their chosen path then it shouldn't make a difference and the will sweep to power regardless? Because lets face it the best they can hope for is a narrow victory against a totally incompetent Tory party.
  17. Exactly this. The idea that the media have been fawning over them is not correct. The fact that likes of Marr etc dedicated most of their shows to the biggest split in both political parties for 40 years (and more) is hardly unsurprising. I agree its hilarious to see likes of Owen Jones and Bastani whinging every day but its the likes of them who have brought about this. I think TIG will be successful either way now but If TIG are to be successful as a political party in its own right it cannot be seen as a Chuka vanity project, if he is made leader that would be a serious mistake. For them to be successful they need Labour to implode and push more of the big hitters away and that is the reason why TIG will be successful either way, because it gives those with a more sensible voice in the Labour party a bigger voice that will be ignored at the cost of a Labour government. Same to the Tories, you would hope they will roll back on the extremes and unfairness that austerity has caused and push it back into the centre. If the ERG take control of them in a post May world and Labour continue to push left they could become huge - but for both parties to do that is a big IF.
  18. This argument can go round and round in circles and Jezza's previous thoughts on it have been dug up. At the end of the day lets face it we will have a general election in the next 12 - 18 months. Allegedly May is stepping down in the summer and I'd be surprised if there is some sort of pathway of a Brexit solution by then the Tories will want an election to put forward their vision under a new leader. The constituents of these areas will not have to wait long to either confirm or oppose the actions of their MPs. And that is where I don't see the contradiction of a peoples vote to confirm the deal as agreed by HMG with the EU, which is what TIG want. Without a peoples vote the public will not have a mechanism to democratically oppose directly. Whereas general elections come around regularly.
  19. well there was certainly threats of deselection prior to the challenge to his leadership. Just look at the reaction to MPs who voted in favour of action in Syria, like Hilary Benn. A quick Google search shows that in November 2015 literature was distributed at a Momentum meeting in Lambert calling for the de-selection of Chuku Umunna for example. Those threats against many other MPs obviously escalated following challenges to Corbyn and I'm not claiming innocence of those MPs using political schadenfreude at any opportunity to further their political agenda but fault lies on both sides. Sure there were dissenting voices upon Corbyn's initial election to Labour leader, just not sure the targetting of MPs and voters who did not sing from the dear leader's hymn sheet was productive. Because ultimately it has lead to them looking for an excuse to break away. Unless you are stating it is all there fault for dissenting against Corbyn in the first place, which is a bit hypocritical given his similar actions against previous Labour leaders and other senior politicians.
  20. well as centrists have consistently been told to '**** off and join the Tories' its not the greatest surprise that those in the centre have er, well ****ed off. Don't know why the Corbyn congregation are so upset. What will be interesting is Labour's next manifesto, will it go even further left because I'm certain there was an element of the brakes on the last one. Maybe they will prove me wrong and hold out an olive branch to those glancing over at the proposed new party as a possible place to put our votes.
  21. It is completely relevant comment because you cannot claim complete and utter failure of privatisation has been an absolute failure without the hypothetical consideration of the alternative. We don't have black outs like the 70s for example. You are correct in that the bit in bold does show failures in those other industries, like I said where industries such as energy water which are more or less monopolies they have been far from a roaring success but I'd argue not an abject failure either. Your comment on public/private is also correct because on those industries it is getting the balance betwen public sector waste and private sector greed at the top.
  22. It is a relevant comment as to whether the practice was wholly a disaster. Privatisations of British Airways, Telecom and others were successful because they introduced competitive pressures and budget constraints, forcing costs to be scrutinised, more productive etc. But in other sectors such as energy and rail it is more difficult because they are natural monopolies. As mentioned above the Dutch/Germans/French models with either full state ownership or partial state ownership and investment has yielded better services at better costs to the consumer.
  23. Agreed - that was better ran than anything that preceded and has come subsequently.
  24. Not exclusively. Its hard to say what a 21st Century British Rail/Telecom/Gas would be if they retained their nationalised status. Would it be cheaper to the consumer? That's what people are really bothered about. Where the Tories failed massively was fairly to reinvest the monies in selling off the family silver on the infrastructure in those industries. Classic case was Thatcher's sell of of social housing, where the hell did that money go? The main reason for the housing crisis today in my view.
  25. Then why not just have a communist state where the state runs everything? The public sector in my experience tend to require more staff to do the same job and usually costs more but that's just my view. Private profit is not always evil.
×
×
  • Create New...