I don't think i will ever forgive any mp who supported the iraq war, everytime i see tony blair come out of is hole i think war criminal.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
BREXIT |OT2.0| A parade of endless victories for Boris Johnson
- Thread starter Uzzy
- Start date
- Status
with lammy i think it's more about acknowledging that he has changed quite a lot as a politician since 2003. he was parachuted into a safe seat in 2000, promoted quickly to junior minister as he was considered an exciting young minority politician with orthodox blairite views, didn't really rebel on anything.
the issue that changed him was the experience of the 2010 london riots and his book about them afterwards, since them he has diverged a lot from his original position, with lots of emphasis on austerity and privatisation of social housing and has used his position to campaign on these issues alongside the intersections of race in grenfell and windrush. when he had a free vote on syria in 2015 he voted against bombing. really not convinced 2019 david lammy, very independent backbencher, would make the same vote.
the issue that changed him was the experience of the 2010 london riots and his book about them afterwards, since them he has diverged a lot from his original position, with lots of emphasis on austerity and privatisation of social housing and has used his position to campaign on these issues alongside the intersections of race in grenfell and windrush. when he had a free vote on syria in 2015 he voted against bombing. really not convinced 2019 david lammy, very independent backbencher, would make the same vote.
David Lammy is alright. I wonder how many people forgot (or didn't know) he was one of the few MPs who actually sponsored Corbyn's original leadership.
It's always funny that as soon as Labour pull ahead it's suddenly time to change the leader for some people.
It's always funny that as soon as Labour pull ahead it's suddenly time to change the leader for some people.
I would argue there is a big difference in culpability for Iraq between the deceitful ringleaders like Blair and junior, first-term backbenchers like Lammy who voted with the party whip.
It's not great but let's not pretend he's a war criminal like Blair.
It's not great but let's not pretend he's a war criminal like Blair.
I don't really remember, but were the doubts about the 'Iraq dossier' prevelent pre-vote?
There's a difference between voting in knowledge of faleshoods or heavy suspicion of falsehoods, and voting cos, on balance, you think it justified. Well, for some people there is...! I just can't recall what was known before. I can well imagine there were many (in the population) opposed on principle, but that's different.
There's a difference between voting in knowledge of faleshoods or heavy suspicion of falsehoods, and voting cos, on balance, you think it justified. Well, for some people there is...! I just can't recall what was known before. I can well imagine there were many (in the population) opposed on principle, but that's different.
I agree with this, though I think he was a junior minister at the time rather than a backbencher. Clearly his culpability is many, many orders of magnitude less than some of the truly despicable people involved like Blair and Campbell, but he still voted for it and that's something that will stay hanging over his head forever. What's sickening though is seeing people say we need to move past Iraq and nobody's perfect as if the war was just some minor political scandal.
Yes. Everyone knew it was bullshit. The stop the war protest was the largest in history.
What I am asking is was there reasonable doubt about the dossier per se, as opposed to a more general anti-intervention sentiment that would, even if the dossier/argument been legitimately founded, still have opposed intervention. 'Everyone knew it was bullshit' can go either way there, tbh. I genuinely can't remember.
The decision to go to war was so dodgy that the Security Council rejected intervention at that point. Britain, Spain and the United States then forged a tripartite alliance to go to war without Security Council support.
Tbf Corbyn receives precisely the same treatment: 'He's on the right side of history 100% of the time and hates imperialism and fights prejudice 24/7 and is a proper socialist thank god'. I'd warrant a lot of people know fuck all about Labour's platform beyond the general sentiments.
Of course, thanks. I cannot believe I forgot that bit >.<
Of course, thanks. I cannot believe I forgot that bit >.<
Absolutely. The dossier having been 'sexed up' (ie filled full of lies to justify the war) was current in debate at the time. Furthermore, Blair was banging on about how Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that were going to hit western Europe in 45 minutes, which anyone with two neurons to rub together could tell was insane bullshit.
Corbyn's policies are significantly more popular than Corbyn himself.
I'm not convinced that's true for some on the left. Certainly is more broadly, iirc (give policies different names and remove party tags and, I think this is right, you find a lot of common ground across much of the population... I can't recall where I read that though...), but for some I fear Corbyn embodies it all too much, and I don't get it. He's not the messiah, tbqf.
all those things are actually political issues though. people are cringey about corbyn because of jam from his allotment and "he's got so much integrity unlike those bliar sellouts" , but the primary issues that define him are about opposition to blair era foreign policy, being more socialist on austerity and nicer to migrants after controls on immigration mug (in theory lol, not in practice). you can't really find a notable claim for jarvis or phillips that aren't about personality more than any ideas like they are selling a book instead of a vision for the country,, which are why they struggle to get traction. it's putting the brand before the product instead of vice versa.
the claims for lammy otoh are rooted in him being very very pro-europe, unlike corbyn, which is a serious distinction
So what's this news of alt-right bozos like Sargon and CountDankula joining UKIP as MEP candidates? What a clownshow, lol.
LOLZ MY SIDES
Jesus Christ, even it were satire it's so fucking bad it's beyond contempt. Let alone the utterly heinous reality of what it actually is.
Fuck these snakes.
Jesus Christ, even it were satire it's so fucking bad it's beyond contempt. Let alone the utterly heinous reality of what it actually is.
Fuck these snakes.
Thanks for the insult SMD but my point more was the Iraq war was official party policy and nearly all experienced politicians from Labour are going to have the Iraq stain against them.
Zastava says it best:
I'm not going to excuse people for the Iraq war and I absolutely do not condone the damage caused to Iraq, but to hold Lammy accountable for the actions of Blair and Brown is being harsh on him.
Imagine if a Muslim guy tweeted that kind of statement. Batten would be calling for his head without making excuses saying that it was a joke first.
I don't agree with all the aspects of actual classic liberalism, but I can respect it as any other political view and I actually believe there's a dearth of actual liberals that it's greatly hurting politics all over the Western world.
That said, I've learned to stay at howitzer distance from anybody claiming to be a ~~CLASSIC LIBERAL~~
That said, I've learned to stay at howitzer distance from anybody claiming to be a ~~CLASSIC LIBERAL~~
Would love to see such passion from yourself over the environment of hostility that exists in the Labour party for Jewish members, and also Jewish members that feel they can no longer vote for the party.
The way the flow of politics affects how these general philosophies are viewed leaves us with a very particular reading of their qualities and failings. I'm happy to call myself a liberal in many ways, even as I can quite see why contemporary liberalism in the UK is critiqued so heavily (not least because pluralism, which I believe in, is so poorly defended by the apparent gatekeepers of liberalism in the political arena, which is what so many non-liberals despise vis combatting bad-faith actors; also I try not to link UK politics to other contexts as we see US politics bleeding into UK culture, cos that shit is tiresome and reductive and jaundiced), even as I might disagree at times, or even often.
But yeah, anyone who goes for the CLASSICAL LIBERAL bit is gonna be... not my cup of tea.
/ramble
1. Labour's handling of the anti-semitism row, as weaponised and bad faith as a lot of the accusations are, has been poor.
2. To suggest that it is even remotely on the same scale as the fucking Iraq war and someone should be equally upset about it is gross and an insult to those who lost their lives.
3. If you search my posts you will see me calling someone out for using anti-semitic tropes in this very thread (or the previous one) within the past week or so.
I am always fascinated how these people have the understanding of a toddler when it comes to "freedom": Free to do something, but being utterly devastated when they have to face the consequences of their actions.
Sure, have your freedom of speech, but then don't be surprised when people react to you. Only a child is free from the real world consequences of their actions.
Of course, I don't believe for a second that these far-right asshats actually care about freedom. Give them the power they want and they'd set up a police state before you could spell "classical liberalism".
Sure, have your freedom of speech, but then don't be surprised when people react to you. Only a child is free from the real world consequences of their actions.
Of course, I don't believe for a second that these far-right asshats actually care about freedom. Give them the power they want and they'd set up a police state before you could spell "classical liberalism".
Wow! You found out that in one post he said the accusation anti semitism is used in bad faith and then found another one in which he said the same.
Yes? CHUK's use of anti-semitism as an attack is clearly politically motivated. The groundwork for the party was started way before the anti-semitism row started, but they claimed anti-semitism was a driving force because that was the one that would be the most politically damaging at the time of the split. That's not to say all the accusations are bad faith, but this one clearly is.
He's downplaying the issue as he's implying the centre ground and right wing are exploiting it unfairly.
Loads of Corbyn supporters always saying "but the iraq war! but the iraq war!" - probably because we're far away from it now and it's an easy target. However you talk about the very real issues that are happening now and it becomes "bad faith arguments" and then some small admission that there's a problem.
So yeah we can jump on David Lammy on how he voted it 2003 but we'll skirt around the other terrible shit that is happening in the party in 2019.
Loads of Corbyn supporters always saying "but the iraq war! but the iraq war!" - probably because we're far away from it now and it's an easy target. However you talk about the very real issues that are happening now and it becomes "bad faith arguments" and then some small admission that there's a problem.
So yeah we can jump on David Lammy on how he voted it 2003 but we'll skirt around the other terrible shit that is happening in the party in 2019.
Is there an anti semitic fringe in the Labour party? Yes.
Is the response not ideal? Yes.
Would the focus on the anti semitism crisis stop the moment a centrist was the Labour leader? Yes.
That's a load of shit.
You know, sometimes not everything is an unjustified attack on the left, sometimes the left fucks up.
I say this as a left winger that can go either way on the scale really, but you need to take the L sometimes when you deserve it and this is one of those cases.
Ok, putting the centrists aside for now, are you honestly saying you truly believe the right wing press and politicians are talking so much about antisemitism purely out of genuine concern for Jewish people? I'm flabbergasted anyone could in good faith say they don't think the Daily Mail, the Daily Express or the Sun are exploiting it unfairly.
I'll answer your question by saying that the fact these outlets even have the material to run these criticisms is a deeply shameful thing for the Labour party.
The Labour Party is supposed to be the place where acceptance and tolerance is accepted across the board. I don't care whether the Daily Mail is using it against Labour or not, the fact that this issue exists for them to weaponise it is shameful enough.
Quite frankly, who gives a shit? What's right is right
In the US, Al Franken was a creep who got run out of town on a rail by the Democratic Party for being a creep. And I'm glad they didn't stop to consider the sincerity of Daily Mail equivalents when throwing him out.
Fuck the right wing rags. Just do what's right.
1) it is entirely right that any anti-Semitism in the Labour party is too much and that the response has been weak but also that the scale and severity of the problem are massively exaggerated by bad faith liars who dislike Corbyn for his policies like most of the tinge group, Luciana Berger excepted.
2) this whole tangent is some of the most absurd whataboutism I've ever witnessed. "BUT WHY DONT YOU CARE ABOUT THE JEWS AS MUCH AS FHE IRAQ WAR EHHHH???"
As if the situations are remotely comparable or have anything to do with one another. It's fucking pathetic and you should feel bad for going down this road.
Hell, I really like Lammy and he's one of my top choices for leader, but come on. Absolute joke.
Bold and underlined 1: See, this caveat always comes out and it again attempts to play down the issue, it's not massively exaggerated. I understand it's difficult to comprehend that this issue exists in the Labour party in such an awful way but telling yourself it's part of a bigger conspiracy against Corbyn is unfortunately not helping and makes it look like you're not taking it seriously.
Bold and underlined 2: I mentioned it because as I said, many on "the left" (and I hate saying this because I identify myself as somebody on the left) get very passionate about the Iraq war and calling everybody a war criminal, but don't share that same outrage on other internal issues. The Iraq war is a great talking point to criticise New Labour and "The Blairites" but the Anti Semitism debate is a good point to criticise Corbyn, but we downplay that issue because we like Corbyn and he can do no wrong.
I do agree though this has gone off topic from Brexit though so lets wind this down, but my point is I find it very irritating to see so many people hold MP's to such a high account on 2003 voting records to the point that they invalidate anything that they do today, but seemingly don't give as much of a shit about very problematic issues happening right now. Probably because the Iraq war is good against the "bad guys" (New Labour) but Anti Semitism is against the "Good Guys" (Corbyn and Momentum).
I don't like Corbyn. I think he sucks, partly because of his negligent handling of the AS issue. I don't excuse him, but nor do I think it is downplaying it to say, entirely accurately, that the issue has been made out to be more severe than it is because it's proven to be electorally damaging.
This should be a national scandal but it isn't cos Britain is obsessed with Brexit.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...school-funding-children-parents-a8867581.html
How can one of the richest nations in the world make the choice to treat the most vulnerable of society so callously?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...school-funding-children-parents-a8867581.html
How can one of the richest nations in the world make the choice to treat the most vulnerable of society so callously?
While I agree in general that
- Who cares that an MP voted with the whip back in 2003
- Labour have an antisemitism problem that Corbyn has failed to meaningfully address
I do also agree that comparing the two things here are absurd. It's not like people in this thread hold up antisemitic MPs as examples of people to vote for and support like people are doing for those who supported the Iraq war. If there was reason to believe Corbyn himself was an antisemite and not just a bit of a naff leader I could see the comparison making sense but as is "Hasn't done enough to deal with an issue" and "Actively voted for an issue" are not comparable things.
I also don't think the weaponisation and exaggeration of the issue can really be discounted entirely, let's not forget that it was only a little over a year ago that Corbyn was being criticised for meeting with "the wrong Jews" for passover. On that same note though, has he announced what group(s) it any he is spending it with this year? Will be interesting to see if that gets the same traction a second year or if he gives in and just meets with one of the more mainstream groups.
Basically it's a lot more complicated than either side of the argument in these threads keeps trying to portray it as, which helps nobody.
- Who cares that an MP voted with the whip back in 2003
- Labour have an antisemitism problem that Corbyn has failed to meaningfully address
I do also agree that comparing the two things here are absurd. It's not like people in this thread hold up antisemitic MPs as examples of people to vote for and support like people are doing for those who supported the Iraq war. If there was reason to believe Corbyn himself was an antisemite and not just a bit of a naff leader I could see the comparison making sense but as is "Hasn't done enough to deal with an issue" and "Actively voted for an issue" are not comparable things.
I also don't think the weaponisation and exaggeration of the issue can really be discounted entirely, let's not forget that it was only a little over a year ago that Corbyn was being criticised for meeting with "the wrong Jews" for passover. On that same note though, has he announced what group(s) it any he is spending it with this year? Will be interesting to see if that gets the same traction a second year or if he gives in and just meets with one of the more mainstream groups.
Basically it's a lot more complicated than either side of the argument in these threads keeps trying to portray it as, which helps nobody.
Last edited:
Because that's Tory party policy and people keep voting for them because fuck you got mine (even when a lot of voters didn't actually get theirs)
Surely you have empirical evidence showing that Labour has a significantly worse anti-Semitism problem than other parties deserving of the special attention it's been given in the media?
Remember last year when the furore kicked off over them not adopting all the IHRA examples when at a time when the Tories hadn't adopted the IHRA definition either or even had the term anti semitism in their code of conduct?
Said a wrong thing, ignore post.
Anyway, I said I'd end this discussion earlier to avoid derail.
Anyway, I said I'd end this discussion earlier to avoid derail.
- Status