• 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.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Luckett_X

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,431
Leeds, UK
The 'poor Corbyn' takes that continue to filter out are bizarre with the context that Corbyn was warned what Keir's stance would be ahead of time, and was even warned about the potential fallout of losing his whip back in July. Yet, in typical Jezza fashion, he has to say his stubborn piece, consequences be damned. This isn't a media hitjob on him, this isn't manouevering: he did this shit to himself. And he was doing this shit ALL THE TIME, just not with issues and situations as blatantly black and white as anti-semetism. It is why he was always described as unelectable and was a huge turn off to the electorate (citing him alone as the issue on the doorstep), as shown by now big gains in the polls and public opinion on whether it was right to chuck him.

For those thinking negatively of a return of a New Labour style government (but perhaps hopefully without an illegal random war tacked onto it to shitsmear its legacy forever) I just think thats immature and lacking perspective. The 'left wing revolution' is a Too Online minority, and it pays to remember that in the context of getting ANY leftwing policies into power and through. New Labour genuinely improved this country immensely, and if thats 'not good enough', you're not being honest with your own position of wanting to unseat the Tories.

This has also marked perhaps the very first time the Corbyn cult has been put in the absolute 'in the wrong' position, so to see people be 'done' with the Labour party over this as their issue, underlines just what a level of personality cult it had all become.
 

kradical

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,570
Says a lot about the failings of the Corbyn era that a five point lead in the polls against the most malicious and incompetent government in living memory is exciting. Don't think it signifies much, ultimately, but glad Starmer has repaired some of the damage.

Labour was well ahead in the polls for much of Corbyn's time in charge. The fact that Labour are ahead by five points in one poll, mostly due to the campaigning of a footballer rather than anything Starmer's done, with this disaster of a government is not the indictment of Corbyn you think it is.
 

Principate

Member
Oct 31, 2017
11,191
It's not "letting perfect be the enemy of good," it's "thinking good might be better than mediocre." Nobody's asking for Starmer to go full-on socialist,, but at least handing a single olive branch to anyone outside a few inches away from the centre might be nice. I mean you talk about principles as if Starmer has any that aren't the bare minimum of "not wanting children to starve" (but only if a footballer makes it popular to feel that way).

I keep referring to it but David Cameron didn't write off those who voted for the Brexit Party as "unprincipled." He didn't dismiss them as "doing nothing," and, well, his party is now enjoying 4 years of utter political dominance because of that decision. Yet on the left we seem happy to do the opposite for anyone who might vote in any way that isn't 'tactical'. If you have any principles beyond "get the Tories out" then, according to you, you lack principles altogether. It's frustrating as hell because the only thing that strategy will ever do is give us a centre-left party for a few years only for an extreme right-wing party to get in afterwards and fuck everything up.



Blair did do those things, yes. But look at his legacy now; it's all gone because, at the end of the day, he didn't actually put into place the long-lasting things that are necessary for actual progress. He just gave us a few good years (and those abroad a generation of very, very, very bad ones) and then he was gone.

Meanwhile, like it or not, right-wing has had multiple savours, and they've had multiple white-horses. They are getting Brexit, they've got an overwhelmingly conservative Supreme Court in America, and they have irreversibly shifted the political landscape towards their own views for a generation to come. Why can't the left get a single one of those things even once? Why is that we're doomed to an eternity of having to vote for parties that, at best, just provide a brief respite before the right-wing inevitably gets in again?
Mediocre is still substantially better than downright awful. If your not voting labour (or whatever relevant anti-tory party) in a first past the post system your not getting good nor mediocre. That's the whole point, until we get proportional representation no-one should be any under illusion about what would happen. The worst thing is that there's nothing stopping for voting for someone else once a none fascist adjacent part is in power. It's not an either situation at all.
 

RellikSK

Member
Nov 1, 2017
2,470
I think questions need to be asked about anyone standing with him after his recent comments, yes.

She doesn't have to agree with everything he has done to think it is wrong to suspend him(I think it's the right move btw)
Getting rid of the 1st black female MP, who recieves the most online abuse out of any MP, would do more harm than good. It would actually lose Labour support among sections of the black community permentately.
 

C J P

Member
Jul 28, 2020
1,304
London
Blair did do those things, yes. But look at his legacy now; it's all gone because, at the end of the day, he didn't actually put into place the long-lasting things that are necessary for actual progress. He just gave us a few good years (and those abroad a generation of very, very, very bad ones) and then he was gone.

Deeply unserious stuff. Unless the Tories rolled back the national minimum wage when I wasn't looking.
 

Zastava

Member
Feb 19, 2018
2,108
London
Meanwhile, like it or not, right-wing has had multiple savours, and they've had multiple white-horses. They are getting Brexit, they've got an overwhelmingly conservative Supreme Court in America, and they have irreversibly shifted the political landscape towards their own views for a generation to come. Why can't the left get a single one of those things even once? Why is that we're doomed to an eternity of having to vote for parties that, at best, just provide a brief respite before the right-wing inevitably gets in again?
They have all these things because they're motivated by different things than the left, and are much better at voting together even when they disagree. What's that old saw from Bill Clinton? "Democrats want to fall in love; Republicans just fall in line." Witness 99% of the Republican party getting behind Trump even though they think he's a fucking idiot, because he won.

Well I don't care about falling in love. I've held my nose to a degree with every vote I've ever taken whether it was for the Green Party, Labour or even Jo Swinson's Liberal Democrats, the latter of which I held my nose so hard I nearly died from hypoxia.

I want to win.

Oh so taking anti-semitism seriously is a "character" now? I'd advise people to read this: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...-party-finds-unlawful-acts-discrimination-and
Oh bore off.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,281
Majority agree it was the right move. The thing that Labour has to be careful of is seeming like a divided party. Happened to Neil Kinnock, he was applauded for standing up to the militants but then 2 years later the attack line was that the party is divided and not fit to govern right now. Good thing is that they have plenty of time till the next election and hopefully it has blown over.

The press have spent the last 5 years demonising the left. I think even if its eventually seen as divided, it will be seen as a good thing, keeping the pesky left quiet.
 

C J P

Member
Jul 28, 2020
1,304
London
You could argue that's the effect of 0-hours contracts.

Would be straight weird to attribute the rise of zero hour contracts post-2008 to the National Minimum Wage instead of the global financial crisis. If those employers who put people on zero hour contracts after the crash didn't have to pay them a certain amount by law, they would have paid them even less.
 

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,328
For those thinking negatively of a return of a New Labour style government (but perhaps hopefully without an illegal random war tacked onto it to shitsmear its legacy forever) I just think thats immature and lacking perspective. The 'left wing revolution' is an Always Online minority, and it pays to remember that in the context of getting ANY leftwing policies into power and through. New Labour genuinely improved this country immensely, and if thats 'not good enough', you're not being honest with your own position of wanting to unseat the Tories.

How it immature and lacking perspective to look at things beyond a single term in office? Yes, a New Labour government would improve things somewhat for a few years. You know what happens after? A right-wing government gets in and tears that all down. Nothing actually progresses and it's more likely-than-not that we end up worse off than we did at the start. It happened in the 80s, it happened in 2010, it happened in America and it'll happen again.

People who wanted us out of Europe didn't just sit on their arses voting for the Tories every five years, and when they did do something the Tories didn't write them off as a fringe cult that's not to be listened to.

Mediocre is still substantially better than downright awful. If your not voting labour (or whatever relevant anti-tory party) in a first past the post system your not getting good nor mediocre. That's the whole point, until we get proportional representation no-one should be any under illusion about what would happen. The worst thing is that there's nothing stopping for voting for someone else once a none fascist adjacent part is in power. It's not an either situation at all.

People voted for the Brexit Party in a first past the post system and they... got Brexit. They got their example of perfect, yet on the left it's medicore or literally nothing else because the only thing that ever matters is "getting the Tories out." If that's the only principle you believe in then, fine, you might just get that. But right now we need to believe in something more because time is running the fuck out.

Deeply unserious stuff. Unless the Tories rolled back the national minimum wage when I wasn't looking.

Nah, they just fucked the economy to the extent that millions are starving, all whilst making damn sure not to increase the minimum wage to something that's actually livable in modern times. Oh, and they encouraged both the gig economy and zero hour contracts to make the minimum wage meaningless for many people anyway. Then, to top it all off, they're taking us out of the only real institution stopping us from reverting our labour laws back to the Victorian age.

So, yeah. The minimum wage might still exist but that means very little to the starving children and destitute adults that fill this country right now. It's why things tend to matter longer than a single political term, because the world is ever-changing and what works for one day will likely not work for all the days after.

They have all these things because they're motivated by different things than the left, and are much better at voting together even when they disagree. What's that old saw from Bill Clinton? "Democrats want to fall in love; Republicans just fall in line." Witness 99% of the Republican party getting behind Trump even though they think he's a fucking idiot, because he won.

Well I don't care about falling in love. I've held my nose to a degree with every vote I've ever taken whether it was for the Green Party, Labour or even Jo Swinson's Liberal Democrats, the latter of which I held my nose so hard I nearly died from hypoxia.

I want to win.

But what I'm saying here is that the reason Republicans 'just fall in line' is because they know that, if the Republicans do get in, they won't just ignore any and all alternative views that aren't the most mediocre, milquetoast implementations of right-wing policies. Trump has such a cult around him because he 1) promised to do horrible extremist things and 2) actually did those horrible extremist things, even if they were sometimes completely ineffective. He's an idiot but he's an idiot who got the Republicans majority power in the highest court of the land for generations to come.

Similarly, Brexit happened because David Cameron actually took the one instance where his voters didn't "just fall in line," seriously. It would have been so much better for this country if he had done things the Labour way and written off those who voted against the notion of simply "getting Labour out," as unprincipled cultists or something like that.

And, yes, I want to win as well. But I'm sick of treating politics like the World Cup where 'winning' only really matters for the 4 years before you lose again. I've seen first hand what that thinking gets us and it's, well, what we have now. Call me immature but as part of Generation Z I want to see progress now, not in the fantasy scenario where Labour is somehow safe enough politically to consider implementing any policies beyond the mediocre.
 

gerg

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,355
People voted for the Brexit Party in a first past the post system and they... got Brexit. They got their example of perfect, yet on the left it's medicore or literally nothing else because the only thing that ever matters is "getting the Tories out." If that's the only principle you believe in then, fine, you might just get that. But right now we need to believe in something more because time is running the fuck out.

I think this is a reductive take on the issue of Brexit. If everyone who leaned Conservative (or to the Brexit Party) were happy with simply leaving the EU the Conservatives wouldn't have gone through two Prime Ministers and two general elections simply to get Brexit done. By the time Brexit happens it won't be "perfect" to many people within or without the Conservative party.
 
Last edited:

klonere

Banned
Nov 1, 2017
3,439
User Banned (1 Week): Inflammatory commentary regarding warfare, ignoring who bears the brunt of it’s effects
I'm not really sure there is a cogent argument against the thesis that a Labor government being better than a Tory one at any point in modern history or in any upcoming potential election. If the cost of winning is some policy compromise and involvement in something like the Iraq War again, so be it.
 

alexiswrite

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,418
And it's up to Labour to make sure they do vote for them in the next election. Meeting voter disenfranchisement by blaming the voters never works because it's a Catch 22.

You vote for a more centrist Labour and they get in = Labour doesn't enact any true left-wing policies.
You vote for a party that is more in line with your actual values and Labour gets in = Labour doesn't enact any true left-wing policies
You vote for a party that is more in line with your actual values and Labour doesn't get in = Labour doesn't enact any true left-wing policies when they do get in again

Either way your voice isn't being heard so you can't really blame people for threatening to do the only thing that non-right wing voters can actually do when it comes to influencing our political process.



I was replying to both of you at the same time, so I apologise if the post wasn't really tailored to you. However replying with "I'm shaking my head," and a list of all the things that Blair did to support the poor, even when that wasn't the point of my mention of him (I mentioned him to show that even a Labour government doesn't stop minorities being actively hurt), did make it seem like you were implying I don't care about poor people.

But even then, it's just so weird that voting is apparently this amazing thing but as soon as you even threaten the notion of not voting for "the opposition to whatever right-wing demagogues are in at the moment," you're made out to be the bad guy. Like I said, the right-wing doesn't do this so why does their opposition consistently do it over and over again? If you're so disappointed in Starmer then why aren't you calling him out for essentially just becoming the "hold your nose and vote for us," party yet again?



And you know what the right-wing Labour people did? They actively sabotaged the party in multiple ways, as was laid out in a very long and detailed report. They didn't just sit on their arses and act like hostages who were too afraid of acting out lest the 'other party' got in, and with Starmer they've got exactly what they wanted all along. Now I'm not implying that the left-wing of Labour should do the same, but we should at least feel free enough to ask that a progressive Labour doesn't die with Corbyn's political career.

As for the political landscape changing in 4 years, if Starmer just carries on as he's doing now then that just won't happen. We got our current right-wing hellhole because people like Farage and Trump actually did shit to push their awful fucking agendas through. We didn't get here because the political landscape just magically changed without any input from those who actually have the power to influence to it.

The left-wing of Labour is right now pre-occupied with the idea of trying to prove to everyone that the antisemitism problem in labour wasn't that bad. Like, what?! A progressive labour needs a left-wing of labour that is not obsessed with feuds. Like the antisemitism report is filled with labour admitting that they failed Jewish people, Corbyn's leadership office itself interfered with a complaint about Corbyn and people are still acting like nothing was wrong, or that it was mostly just a smear campaign. Nadia Whittome, a left-wing Labour MP, wrote a pretty long piece on Twitter talking about how Antisemitism is bad and what's she's done to fight about it in her area, and all the Twitter responses are asking her if she's going to resign the whip in solidarity with Corbyn. So, eventually today she was basically forced to comment on his situation. How is this helpful to building a progressive Labour? Who is this for? If a progressive Labour dies it's because of shit like this, more than anything else.
 

C J P

Member
Jul 28, 2020
1,304
London
Nah, they just fucked the economy to the extent that millions are starving, all whilst making damn sure not to increase the minimum wage to something that's actually livable in modern times. Oh, and they encouraged both the gig economy and zero hour contracts to make the minimum wage meaningless for many people anyway. Then, to top it all off, they're taking us out of the only real institution stopping us from reverting our labour laws back to the Victorian age.

So, yeah. The minimum wage might still exist but that means very little to the starving children and destitute adults that fill this country right now. It's why things tend to matter longer than a single political term, because the world is ever-changing and what works for one day will likely not work for all the days after.

You're having the argument you want to have, rather than the one that's in front of you. Literally nobody is saying that things only matter for a single political term. The second biggest tragedy of Labour's time in office is the fact that it was followed by 13+ years of uninterrupted Tory rule.

But the Tories simply did not undo all the good the Blair government did. The policies governments enact during a single political term often matter far beyond that term; look at the Attlee ministry, which even the Tories pay lip service to these days.

And it's just not true to say that the minimum wage is meaningless because of zero hour contracts. Without it, those contracts would be even worse. And it actually means quite a lot to a great many of the starving children and destitute adults in this country, because without it, they'd have even less money and food.
 

Principate

Member
Oct 31, 2017
11,191
How it immature and lacking perspective to look at things beyond a single term in office? Yes, a New Labour government would improve things somewhat for a few years. You know what happens after? A right-wing government gets in and tears that all down. Nothing actually progresses and it's more likely-than-not that we end up worse off than we did at the start. It happened in the 80s, it happened in 2010, it happened in America and it'll happen again.

People who wanted us out of Europe didn't just sit on their arses voting for the Tories every five years, and when they did do something the Tories didn't write them off as a fringe cult that's not to be listened to.



People voted for the Brexit Party in a first past the post system and they... got Brexit. They got their example of perfect, yet on the left it's medicore or literally nothing else because the only thing that ever matters is "getting the Tories out." If that's the only principle you believe in then, fine, you might just get that. But right now we need to believe in something more because time is running the fuck out.



Nah, they just fucked the economy to the extent that millions are starving, all whilst making damn sure not to increase the minimum wage to something that's actually livable in modern times. Oh, and they encouraged both the gig economy and zero hour contracts to make the minimum wage meaningless for many people anyway. Then, to top it all off, they're taking us out of the only real institution stopping us from reverting our labour laws back to the Victorian age.

So, yeah. The minimum wage might still exist but that means very little to the starving children and destitute adults that fill this country right now. It's why things tend to matter longer than a single political term, because the world is ever-changing and what works for one day will likely not work for all the days after.



But what I'm saying here is that the reason Republicans 'just fall in line' is because they know that, if the Republicans do get in, they won't just ignore any and all alternative views that aren't the most mediocre, milquetoast implementations of right-wing policies. Trump has such a cult around him because he 1) promised to do horrible extremist things and 2) actually did those horrible extremist things, even if they were sometimes completely ineffective. He's an idiot but he's an idiot who got the Republicans majority power in the highest court of the land for generations to come.

Similarly, Brexit happened because David Cameron actually took the one instance where his voters didn't "just fall in line," seriously. It would have been so much better for this country if he had done things the Labour way and written off those who voted against the notion of simply "getting Labour out," as unprincipled cultists or something like that.

And, yes, I want to win as well. But I'm sick of treating politics like the World Cup where 'winning' only really matters for the 4 years before you lose again. I've seen first hand what that thinking gets us and it's, well, what we have now. Call me immature but as part of Generation Z I want to see progress now, not in the fantasy scenario where Labour is somehow safe enough politically to consider implementing any policies beyond the mediocre.
They didn't vote for the brexit party in large numbers during the actual election. If they did and brexit party had run in all constituencies they wouldn't have gotten brexit. So I'm not seeing your arguenment here.
 

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,328
I think this is a reductive take on the issue of Brexit. If everyone who leaned Conservative were happy with simply leaving the EU the Conservatives wouldn't have gone through two Prime Ministers and two general elections simply to get Brexit done. By the time Brexit happens it won't be "perfect" to many people within the Conservative party.

Yet we're still getting Brexit and, more importantly, the conservatives will still enjoy 4 more years of complete dominance in our political system. The Tories might have stumbled on the way but they never let the fact they stumbled get in the way of enacting their equivalents to 'progressive' policies. And if the virus hadn't happened then, well, they'd have been able to do so much more.

The left-wing of Labour is right now pre-occupied with the idea of trying to prove to everyone that the antisemitism problem in labour wasn't that bad. Like, what?! A progressive labour needs a left-wing of labour that is not obsessed with feuds. Like the antisemitism report is filled with labour admitting that they failed Jewish people, Corbyn's leadership office itself interfered with a complaint about Corbyn and people are still acting like nothing was wrong, or that it was mostly just a smear campaign. Nadia Whittome, a left-wing Labour MP, wrote a pretty long piece on Twitter talking about how Antisemitism is bad and what's she's done to fight about it in her area, and all the Twitter responses are asking her if she's going to resign the whip in solidarity with Corbyn. So, eventually today she was basically forced to comment on his situation. How is this helpful to building a progressive Labour? Who is this for? If a progressive Labour dies it's because of shit like this, more than anything else.

Just yesterday there were people in the main thread on the report saying that we shouldn't attach values and policies solely to the people who support them.

Which is true

Yet now you're tying the very notion of a progressive Labour party to Corbyn and a bunch of idiots on Twitter as if they're one and the same. You're basically proving the point that Corbyn leaving means the death of a progressive Labour, when instead you should be disproving it by showing how Corbyn should not be the sole benefactor of those values.

You're having the argument you want to have, rather than the one that's in front of you. Literally nobody is saying that things only matter for a single political term. The second biggest tragedy of Labour's time in office is the fact that it was followed by 13+ years of uninterrupted Tory rule.

But the Tories simply did not undo all the good the Blair government did. The policies governments enact during a single political term often matter far beyond that term; look at the Attlee ministry, which even the Tories pay lip service to these days.

And it's just not true to say that the minimum wage is meaningless because of zero hour contracts. Without it, those contracts would be even worse. And it actually means quite a lot to a great many of the starving children and destitute adults in this country, because without it, they'd have even less money and food.

Nobody is saying that things only matter for a single political term, yet any semblance of long-term progressivist thinking is shut down as not being important compared to getting a single paltry term away from the Tories. OK.

And sorry, the fact that things "might be worse," doesn't provide any solace to the fact that things are incredibly fucking bad right now. All you're showing to me is that Labour did not put the drastic systems in place that would actually provide a better future for this country, and that just shows the value of actual progression instead of milquetoast status quo mediocrity.

They didn't vote for the brexit party in large numbers during the actual election. If they did and brexit party had run in all constituencies they wouldn't have gotten brexit. So I'm not seeing your arguenment here.

What actual election? Because they did in 2015 and, well, look where we are now. The reason the Brexit party doesn't matter anymore is because they served their purpose (and boy did they serve their purpose well); it's not because the Conservatives got scared of a single political divide and decided to stop Brexit altogether. As I said it would have been lovely if the Tories had treated the Brexit party in the same way Labour is going to treat its left-wing members.
 

Principate

Member
Oct 31, 2017
11,191
Yet we're still getting Brexit and, more importantly, the conservatives will still enjoy 4 more years of complete dominance in our political system. The Tories might have stumbled on the way but they never let the fact they stumbled get in the way of enacting their equivalents to 'progressive' policies. And if the virus hadn't happened then, well, they'd have been able to do so much more.



Just yesterday there were people in the main thread on the report saying that we shouldn't attach values and policies solely to the people who support them.

Which is true

Yet now you're tying the very notion of a progressive Labour party to Corbyn and a bunch of idiots on Twitter as if they're one and the same. You're basically proving the point that Corbyn leaving means the death of a progressive Labour, when instead you should be disproving it by showing how Corbyn should not be the sole benefactor of those values.



Nobody is saying that things only matter for a single political term, yet any semblance of long-term progressivist thinking is shut down as not being important compared to getting a single paltry term away from the Tories. OK.

And sorry, the fact that things "might be worse," doesn't provide any solace to the fact that things are incredibly fucking bad right now. All you're showing to me is that Labour did not put the drastic systems in place that would actually provide a better future for this country, and that just shows the value of actual progression instead of milquetoast status quo mediocrity.



What actual election? Because they did in 2015 and, well, look where we are now. The reason the Brexit party doesn't matter anymore is because they served their purpose (and boy did they serve their purpose well); it's not because the Conservatives got scared of a single political divide and decided to stop Brexit altogether. As I said it would have been lovely if the Tories had treated the Brexit party in the same way Labour is going to treat its left-wing members.
They voted for UKIP and were influencing the right wing party in power. Your argument either makes no sense or your agreeing with me. The tories are not going to listen to labour splinter group they'll use them as a boogy man and be thankful they exist. Labour in power might which is what I mentioned in a literally a few posts up up.

Now how would you get this party in power that would actually listen to such a splinter group? By voting labour in the next election.
 

RellikSK

Member
Nov 1, 2017
2,470
I'm out of the loop as I don't live in the UK, could someone explain to me what Corbyn said about jews? Or what exactly is being discussed? Thanks.

The report was more about the Labour Partys failure to deal with antisemetism, when under his leadership. Corbyn himself had made antisemetic remarks and associated himself with people that are anti-semetic in his past. Do I think he hates Jews? No, but he definetly had a blindspot to it and didn't act on the situation fast enough allowing the problem to get out of control.
 

gerg

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,355
Yet we're still getting Brexit and, more importantly, the conservatives will still enjoy 4 more years of complete dominance in our political system. The Tories might have stumbled on the way but they never let the fact they stumbled get in the way of enacting their equivalents to 'progressive' policies. And if the virus hadn't happened then, well, they'd have been able to do so much more.

It feels like you're shifting the goalposts here. You said that people who voted for the Brexit Party (by which I presume you mean either the Conservatives or UKIP if you're referring specifically to the last election, because the BP were no significant part of it) got their "perfect". When I said that this is unlikely to be true given how varied people's opinions on what Brexit should be were, you are now saying "well, they're still getting Brexit".

But this is the point we're making about Labour, and the importance of voting for it. Labour might not raise the minimum wage as fast as you would like, but it would still raise it. To decry that as "not getting what you want" seems to be some purposefully obtuse semantics.
 
Last edited:

Goodlifr

Member
Nov 6, 2017
1,888
I'm out of the loop as I don't live in the UK, could someone explain to me what Corbyn said about jews? Or what exactly is being discussed? Thanks.

Corbyn, along with a lot of left wingers, don't think much of Israel.

Occasionally, within the Labour party, this spills into anti-Semitism. Has done forever. (It never should)

As soon as Corbyn got into power, he was attacked for his "anti-Semitic" views and some of the people he shared a platform with in the past.

He got told he needed to do more to stamp out anti-Semitism in the Labour party.

He dragged his feet "it's no worse that it's always been" but then set up a commission to deal with this.

The report calls out some specific issues where Corbyn and his team fucked up.
It also calls out that the new commission etc has improved things.

Corbyn has come out to say the issue has been overblown by the media, but of course anti-Semitism is wrong etc etc.

Corbyn has now been suspended.
 

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,328
They voted for UKIP and were influencing right wing the party in power. Your argument either makes no sense or your agreeing with me. The tories are not going to listen to labour splinter group they'll use them as a boogy man. Labour in power might which is what I mentioned in a literally a few posts up up.

Now how would you get this party in power that would actually listen to such a splinter group? By voting labour in the next election.

The conservatives promised an EU referendum before they had been voted in again; they didn't wait until afterwards as you seem to want Labour to do with their progressive policies. Frankly the reason why I've kept mentioning Brexit is that it shows how the right-wing of this country doesn't respond to threats by ignoring them, they respond by actually recognising that those policies might be popular when it comes to making people vote for them.

Though I do have to thank you because, well, if "we might potentially get progressive policies in 2029 if Labour gets in in 2024" kind of makes my anxiety over whether things might actually get any better a little easier to bear. After all, if that's the best-case scenario then what's the point of hope? Why expect anything if your only political power is holding your nose, voting for a party that doesn't care for you, and hoping that things turn out slightly better than medicore in over half a decade's time?

It feels like you're shifting the goalposts here. You said that people who voted for the Brexit Party (by which I presume you mean either the Conservatives or UKIP, because the BP were no significant part of the last election) got their "perfect". When I said that this is unlikely to be true given how varied people's opinions on what Brexit should be were, you are now saying "well, they're still getting Brexit".

But this is the point we're making about Labour, and the importance of voting for it. Labour might not raise the minimum wage as fast as you would like, but it would still raise it. To decry that as "not getting what you want" seems to be some purposefully obtuse semantics.

But Brexit is still getting done no matter how people feel about the granularity of it. It's something that will effect this country for decades to come no matter who's in power. To compare that to a slightly higher minimum wage, whose effects can easily be diminished if a Tory party gets in for even a single term, is missing the point entirely. Progressive policies need to be ones that can create meaningful, permanent change beyond a single political term because what we've seen this past decade is that anything less will just be worked around by the right-wing the instant they get into power.
 

alexiswrite

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,418
Yet we're still getting Brexit and, more importantly, the conservatives will still enjoy 4 more years of complete dominance in our political system. The Tories might have stumbled on the way but they never let the fact they stumbled get in the way of enacting their equivalents to 'progressive' policies. And if the virus hadn't happened then, well, they'd have been able to do so much more.



Just yesterday there were people in the main thread on the report saying that we shouldn't attach values and policies solely to the people who support them.

Which is true

Yet now you're tying the very notion of a progressive Labour party to Corbyn and a bunch of idiots on Twitter as if they're one and the same. You're basically proving the point that Corbyn leaving means the death of a progressive Labour, when instead you should be disproving it by showing how Corbyn should not be the sole benefactor of those values.



Nobody is saying that things only matter for a single political term, yet any semblance of long-term progressivist thinking is shut down as not being important compared to getting a single paltry term away from the Tories. OK.

And sorry, the fact that things "might be worse," doesn't provide any solace to the fact that things are incredibly fucking bad right now. All you're showing to me is that Labour did not put the drastic systems in place that would actually provide a better future for this country, and that just shows the value of actual progression instead of milquetoast status quo mediocrity.



What actual election? Because they did in 2015 and, well, look where we are now. The reason the Brexit party doesn't matter anymore is because they served their purpose (and boy did they serve their purpose well); it's not because the Conservatives got scared of a single political divide and decided to stop Brexit altogether. As I said it would have been lovely if the Tories had treated the Brexit party in the same way Labour is going to treat its left-wing members.

You misread my argument. A progressive labour doesn't equal the left-wing of the labour party, but I think it's pretty clear that without a strong left wing of the party, that the likelihood of a progressive labour isn't very high. Corbyn (and other idiots on twitter who basically do the same thing in this case) are the thing that is closest to hurting a progressive labour, because they are obsessed with trying to prove that Corbyn did nothing wrong and that this whole thing is just a big overreaction, and now all of leftwing labour are dragged into basically making the same argument. Great work!
 

Principate

Member
Oct 31, 2017
11,191
The conservatives promised an EU referendum before they had been voted in again; they didn't wait until afterwards as you seem to want Labour to do with their progressive policies. Frankly the reason why I've kept mentioning Brexit is that it shows how the right-wing of this country doesn't respond to threats by ignoring them, they respond by actually recognising that those policies might be popular when it comes to making people vote for them.

Though I do have to thank you because, well, if "we might potentially get progressive policies in 2029 if Labour gets in in 2024" kind of makes my anxiety over whether things might actually get any better a little easier to bear. After all, if that's the best-case scenario then what's the point of hope? Why expect anything if your only political power is holding your nose, voting for a party that doesn't care for you, and hoping that things turn out slightly better than medicore in over half a decade's time?



But Brexit is still getting done no matter how people feel about the granularity of it. It's something that will effect this country for decades to come no matter who's in power. To compare that to a slightly higher minimum wage, whose effects can easily be diminished if a Tory party gets in for even a single term, is missing the point entirely. Progressive policies need to be ones that can create meaningful, permanent change beyond a single political term because what we've seen this past decade is that anything less will just be worked around by the right-wing the instant they get into power.
The conservatives were always going to be the leading party or close to a leading party and the issue gave them a few extra seats. They were also like I said already in power at that time. Labour are currently behind on an 80 seat majority and are trying win conservative held seats. It's the exact opposite situation.
 

klonere

Banned
Nov 1, 2017
3,439
"Zionist don't understand English irony."
He also made the comment "hand of Israel" about some Egyptian attack, when there was little proof of Israel being part of it. Also WreathGate.
All definetly lazy language, and dabbling into anti-semetism.

Calling Hamas "friends" which is a disgusting comment no matter who is making it.
 

gerg

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,355
But Brexit is still getting done no matter how people feel about the granularity of it. It's something that will effect this country for decades to come no matter who's in power. To compare that to a slightly higher minimum wage, whose effects can easily be diminished if a Tory party gets in for even a single term, is missing the point entirely. Progressive policies need to be ones that can create meaningful, permanent change beyond a single political term because what we've seen this past decade is that anything less will just be worked around by the right-wing the instant they get into power.

I don't see how Starmer's Labour won't necessarily introduce progressive policies of the nature you describe, just because they're not as far left as Corbyn. I also feel that the comparison to Brexit is a bit of a red herring given that that is likely the biggest political decision that will be made for the next 20 or 30 years by any political party. I think most politics is done gradually.
 

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,328
You misread my argument. A progressive labour doesn't equal the left-wing of the labour party, but I think it's pretty clear that without a strong left wing of the party, that the likelihood of a progressive labour isn't very high. Corbyn (and other idiots on twitter who basically do the same thing in this case) are the thing that is closest to hurting a progressive labour, because they are obsessed with trying to prove that Corbyn did nothing wrong and that this whole thing is just a big overreaction, and now all of leftwing labour are dragged into basically making the same argument. Great work!

The conservatives were always going to be the leading party or close to a leading party and the issue gave them a few extra seats. They were also like I said already in power at that time. Labour are currently behind on an 80 seat majority and are trying win conservative held seats. It's the exact opposite situation.

Alright. See you in 2029, then. Though if the precondition for Labour even taking progressivism seriously is that they're "always going to be the leading party," and have a "strong progressive sector," then I guess I'll see you in... never. Those things are never going to happen. Labour will always be in a position where getting/keeping the Tories out is more important than disrupting the status quo, and if Corbyn and a bunch of idiots on Twitter are enough to make progressive policies Political poison then a further decade of right-wing dominance ain't going to help that at all either.

I've lost all hope of a brighter future now so, well, thanks for that.

D4wGpXJXkAUfWZy.jpg
 

C J P

Member
Jul 28, 2020
1,304
London

Zastava

Member
Feb 19, 2018
2,108
London
I've lost all hope of a brighter future now so, well, thanks for that.

D4wGpXJXkAUfWZy.jpg

All your posts today have had this doom and gloom tint to it, acting as if this Corbyn suspension is the death of the left and all hope of a better future. I don't think this is warranted but regardless maybe take a break from politics man? Self-care is important and if it's bringing you down this much then a month or three focussing on your own life might help. It did for me after the last election - I couldn't read/watch the news, twitter, any current affairs thing of any kind or even have a conversation about it with my sympathetic friends without getting seriously depressed and/or angry until I took a break for a few months.
 

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,328
I don't see how Starmer's Labour won't necessarily introduce progressive policies of the nature you describe, just because they're not as far left as Corbyn. I also feel that the comparison to Brexit is a bit of a red herring given that that is likely the biggest political decision that will be made for the next 20 or 30 years by any political party. I think most politics is done gradually.

Starmer only acted on the Tory's refusal to feed children during a pandemic because a popular footballer had done most of the campaigning for him. That's the biggest political own goal the Tories have ever given themselves and he still needed someone else to act before he did anything about it. Yet I'm supposed to believe that he'll just enact progressive policies out of the goodness of his own heart. Well, I don't.

As for politics being done gradually; that's true... until it isn't. Brexit wouldn't have ever happened without the vote that triggered it. In America the Republicans have shown that not caring about decorum and the 'gradual nature of politics' can net you a Christian fundamentalist in the Supreme Court. From what I've seen politics is something that can be moulded and shifted to support any radical idea, even if said radical idea is collectively shooting ourselves in the foot for literally no reason.

All your posts today have had this doom and gloom tint to it, acting as if this Corbyn suspension is the death of the left and all hope of a better future. I don't think this is warranted but regardless maybe take a break from politics man? Self-care is important and if it's bringing you down this much then a month or three focussing on your own life might help. It did for me after the last election - I couldn't read/watch the news, twitter, any current affairs thing of any kind or even have a conversation about it with my sympathetic friends without getting seriously depressed and/or angry until I took a break for a few months.

No, Corbyn's suspension is not the death of the left and all hope of a better future. In a just world it would make things a whole lot easier as it would have removed the stain of his political career from progressive policies, but we don't live in that world so it will just make it harder (but not kill it outright). However the response I've had from here, one of the most progressive places on the internet, when I said how maybe Labour should pursue progressive policies has left me with little hope. If "maybe in 2029, if the stars have aligned, we'll consider it," is the best Era of all places can offer me then what fucking hope do we have for enacting the policies that would help remedy the very real threats of climate change, poverty, increasing right-wing bigotry, religious zealotry, etc?

And I should take a break, yeah, but that won't change my beliefs. What I think a lot of you have to understand is that I've grown up in a world that has consistently shown me an ineffective left-wing and a right-wing so effective that their actions today will be felt for decades to come. All under the dark cloud that is climate change which has essentially put a ticking time bomb on the whole thing. I can't rely on the theory of "gradual political progress," that so many of those older than me still dogmatically believe in because, well, we simply don't have that time on our hands anymore.
 

IpKaiFung

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,415
Wales
Don't have a break from politics, have a break from electoralism. I have been a lot happier getting involved with local aid schemes lately, don't think your power to change things is limited to putting an X in a box every 4/5 years.
 

gerg

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,355
Starmer only acted on the Tory's refusal to feed children during a pandemic because a popular footballer had done most of the campaigning for him. That's the biggest political own goal the Tories have ever given themselves and he still needed someone else to act before he did anything about it. Yet I'm supposed to believe that he'll just enact progressive policies out of the goodness of his own heart. Well, I don't.

I guess we disagree there, then. I don't share your disappointment with him. At the same time, I may not have the most thorough understanding of that situation.

As for politics being done gradually; that's true... until it isn't.

OK. And what percentage of politics would you is and isn't done gradually?

Brexit wouldn't have ever happened without the vote that triggered it.

A vote that was potentially stirring in the Conservative party ever since the UK joined the EU many decades ago.

In America the Republicans have shown that not caring about decorum and the 'gradual nature of politics' can net you a Christian fundamentalist in the Supreme Court. From what I've seen politics is something that can be moulded and shifted to support any radical idea, even if said radical idea is collectively shooting ourselves in the foot for literally no reason.

I really don't think it's worth discussing American politics in this thread, given how different the political situations are between the UK and the US.

Potentially like you, I've not had an adult life under a Labour party - my first vote was in 2010! But the effectiveness of the Tories during this period to maintain power stirs in me a desire to have a Labour party that effective at maintaining power, not a Labour party that will come in on whatever revolutionary instincts it has and then lose power at the next election. (It also stirs in me a desire for much wider federalism in the UK, and a dismantling of the FPTP party system.)
 
Last edited:

Zastava

Member
Feb 19, 2018
2,108
London
No, Corbyn's suspension is not the death of the left and all hope of a better future. In a just world it would make things a whole lot easier as it would have removed the stain of his political career. However the response I've had from here, one of the most progressive places on the internet, when I said how maybe Labour should pursue progressive policies has left me with little hope. If "maybe in 2029, if the stars have aligned, we'll consider it," is the best Era of all places can offer me then what fucking hope do we have for enacting the policies that would help remedy the very real threats of climate change, poverty, increasing right-wing bigotry, religious zealotry, etc?

And I should take a break, yeah, but that won't change my beliefs. What I think a lot of you have to understand is that I've grown up in a world that has consistently shown me an ineffective left-wing and a right-wing so effective that their actions today will be felt for decades to come. All under the dark cloud that is climate change which has essentially put a ticking time bomb on the whole thing. I can't rely on the theory of "gradual political progress," that so many of those older than me still dogmatically believe in because, well, we simply don't have that time on our hands anymore.
Nobody here has said this or anything like it. You're wilfully misinterpreting people because you're feeling defeated and it's not helpful, to you or anyone else.
 

alexiswrite

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,418
Alright. See you in 2029, then. Though if the precondition for Labour even taking progressivism seriously is that they're "always going to be the leading party," and have a "strong progressive sector," then I guess I'll see you in... never. Those things are never going to happen. Labour will always be in a position where getting/keeping the Tories out is more important than disrupting the status quo, and if Corbyn and a bunch of idiots on Twitter are enough to make progressive policies Political poison then a further decade of right-wing dominance ain't going to help that at all either.

I've lost all hope of a brighter future now so, well, thanks for that.

D4wGpXJXkAUfWZy.jpg

There are other ways to look at things aside from interpreting political events and people's arguments in the most doom-laden, worst-case scenario, bad faith way. I hope you take a break and find some way to do that.
 

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,328
Nobody here has said this or anything like it. You're wilfully misinterpreting people because you're feeling defeated and it's not helpful, to you or anyone else.
There are other ways to look at things aside from interpreting political events and people's arguments in the most doom-laden, worst-case scenario, bad faith way. I hope you take a break and find some way to do that.

So what's the correct way to view those posts, then? In my view they have consistently and repeatedly said that the only true way to progressive policies is a stable labour leadership and a strong progressive labour group. Give some reasons instead of implying that it's all in my head and I'm too dumb, immature, and depressed to see how wrong I am.

You can't just tell anyone who doesn't agree with you to "take a mental break," and think that'll just shut them up.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,281
I'm out of the loop as I don't live in the UK, could someone explain to me what Corbyn said about jews? Or what exactly is being discussed? Thanks.

Other things have been mentioned but a timeline of events of what Corbyn did do to try and combat antisemetism in the Labour party is here.



Don't have a break from politics, have a break from electoralism. I have been a lot happier getting involved with local aid schemes lately, don't think your power to change things is limited to putting an X in a box every 4/5 years.

This is what I needed to hear.
 

alexiswrite

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,418
So what's the correct way to view those posts, then? In my view they have consistently and repeatedly said that the only true way to progressive policies is a stable labour leadership and a strong progressive labour group. Give some reasons instead of implying that it's all in my head and I'm too dumb, immature, and depressed to see how wrong I am.

You can't just tell anyone who doesn't agree with you to "take a mental break," and think that'll just shut them up.

All your arguments are based on seeing the worst in everything though. Like I'll make a pretty benign statement like, "I don't think coming together to defend Corbyn over downplaying antisemitism is good for the labour left and so the idea of a progressive Labour. And labour stops being progressive then stuff like this will be a contributor.", and somehow seems to turn into me saying that Corbyn has doomed a progressive Labour. like what?!
 

Zastava

Member
Feb 19, 2018
2,108
London
So what's the correct way to view those posts, then? In my view they have consistently and repeatedly said that the only true way to progressive policies is a stable labour leadership and a strong progressive labour group. Give some reasons instead of implying that it's all in my head and I'm too dumb, immature, and depressed to see how wrong I am.

You can't just tell anyone who doesn't agree with you to "take a mental break," and think that'll just shut them up.
I mean a fantastic example of you misinterpreting my and others posts is right here! When have I or anyone else said or implied you were too dumb? Or too immature?

Or, that you apparently think I suggested you take a break to shut you up instead of genuine concern for your wellbeing. I stopped arguing with you hours ago because I could see it wasn't going anywhere. I'm not trying to win the argument. I only stepped back in because you literally said "I've lost all hope of a brighter future now" and posted a guess i'll die meme, which definitely seems pretty depressed to me!
 

Principate

Member
Oct 31, 2017
11,191
Starmer only acted on the Tory's refusal to feed children during a pandemic because a popular footballer had done most of the campaigning for him. That's the biggest political own goal the Tories have ever given themselves and he still needed someone else to act before he did anything about it. Yet I'm supposed to believe that he'll just enact progressive policies out of the goodness of his own heart. Well, I don't.

As for politics being done gradually; that's true... until it isn't. Brexit wouldn't have ever happened without the vote that triggered it. In America the Republicans have shown that not caring about decorum and the 'gradual nature of politics' can net you a Christian fundamentalist in the Supreme Court. From what I've seen politics is something that can be moulded and shifted to support any radical idea, even if said radical idea is collectively shooting ourselves in the foot for literally no reason.



No, Corbyn's suspension is not the death of the left and all hope of a better future. In a just world it would make things a whole lot easier as it would have removed the stain of his political career from progressive policies, but we don't live in that world so it will just make it harder (but not kill it outright). However the response I've had from here, one of the most progressive places on the internet, when I said how maybe Labour should pursue progressive policies has left me with little hope. If "maybe in 2029, if the stars have aligned, we'll consider it," is the best Era of all places can offer me then what fucking hope do we have for enacting the policies that would help remedy the very real threats of climate change, poverty, increasing right-wing bigotry, religious zealotry, etc?

And I should take a break, yeah, but that won't change my beliefs. What I think a lot of you have to understand is that I've grown up in a world that has consistently shown me an ineffective left-wing and a right-wing so effective that their actions today will be felt for decades to come. All under the dark cloud that is climate change which has essentially put a ticking time bomb on the whole thing. I can't rely on the theory of "gradual political progress," that so many of those older than me still dogmatically believe in because, well, we simply don't have that time on our hands anymore.

This is completely wrong Labour had talked about free school meals and pushed it long before Marcus Rashford stepped in. They were ignored which is why you didn't hear about it much. It was Rashford's PR campaign that caused the government to U-turn but Labour had been pushing for it from the start.