Topics about the Labour Party
:sunglasses: 72.7 % ❤ 1.7 % :thumbsup: 8.3 % 😯 1.7 % :grinning: 9.9 % 🧥 0.8 % 🙏 0.8 % 😟 0.8 % :cry: 0.8 % :shit: 2.5 %
Too much tribalism is bad for you. ... -tribalism
It started with the notion that the leader will be undermined by the media and vested interests because of his radical agenda. This is ultimately a core notion within far-left thought. It is a project to overthrow capitalism, so capitalism will obviously work against it to prevent that. It follows that the media and various powerful economic lobbies will conspire to eradicate anyone who poses a threat to it.

So from the very beginning, Corbynism viewed the media as a hostile enemy encampment. And in many cases, of course, that's true. The Telegraph is not going to write positive reviews of a far-left leader, or even a centre-left one. But actually Britain's broadcasting environment was quite conducive to their message. With control over the opposition party, the impartiality requirements kicked in, and they were duly given their time to speak. Even the really rather wacky Corbyn outriders - the sort who in any normal period would have been relegated to the outer reaches of the blogosphere - were securing positions in prominent TV slots.

But of course coverage means scrutiny. That's sort of the key to the entire notion of holding power to account. And yet the basic conspiratorial view of capitalist media relations meant this scrutiny could not be treated as part of a test of validity or an assessment of suitability for power. It was instead a conspiracy. This prevented Corbynism's adherents from hearing criticism or evaluating it. And they therefore fell into a deadly psychological trap. They built a wall around the leader whereby any scrutiny of him, any critical questioning, was by definition a cynical attempt to undermine him. That which was supportive was genuine. That which was not was discredited. There could, under this model, be no credible interrogation of the leader.
Timbo liked this
Interesting piece by Andrew Rawnsley in The Guardian: ... dApp_Other
Jeremy Corbyn’s favourite role is that of the victim. He took Labour to such a calamitous defeat that its parliamentary representation is crushed to its lowest level since 1935, but he sees himself not as the perpetrator of that disaster but its casualty. He presided over an antisemitism scandal unprecedented in the party’s history, but that also cannot be his fault. He is suspended from the party after refusing to accept the damning findings of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s investigation into that scandal and someone else is again to blame.
Antisemitism was never a big problem in the Labour party under any previous leader and only became a hugely divisive and damaging issue under him. The EHRC report puts it starkly: “Our analysis points to a culture within the party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it.” The independent investigators clearly do not believe Mr Corbyn’s assertions that he was “always determined to eliminate all forms of racism and root out the cancer of antisemitism”. The report says: “It is not hard to conclude that antisemitism within the Labour party could have been tackled more effectively if the leadership had chosen to do so.”
Mr Corbyn’s vanity simply will not allow him to accept responsibility. Many things have been said about his character over the years, but one thing has not been said enough: he is a narcissist. He cannot deal with criticism because it challenges his self-conceited estimation of his own purity. He can never be the transgressor, he must always be the sufferer. So his response to the EHRC report was to weakly express “regret” that Labour took too long to address the issue while trying to shift culpability on to “an obstructive party bureaucracy” and adding the self-exculpating, responsibility-denying, victimhood-claiming assertion that the antisemitism on his watch had been “dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media”. Despite a statutory investigation finding otherwise, he stuck to his dog-eared denialist script that the antisemitism scandal was an exaggeration fabricated by his enemies.
Those who can’t see this now have the story of betrayal that they have been yearning for. Poor old St Jeremy, they cry, victim of the brutal Keir Starmer, martyred for the satisfaction of the anti-Corbyn media. Spare your tears. The victim of this hideous chapter in Labour’s history is not Jeremy Corbyn. The victims are those who were scared and scarred by the vile antisemitism that occurred when he was in charge. The victims are all those who needed an electable challenger to the Tories, not the toxic and sectarian party that Labour became under Mr Corbyn. The victims are the many millions of people who depend on having a Labour party capable of commanding the confidence of the public so that it can effectively represent those it exists to champion. Jeremy Corbyn is no martyr. He is a victim only of his own arrogantly self-pitying, self-denying delusions.
oboogie, Oblomov, Timbo and 2 others liked this
By oboogie
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
Corbots on social media are busy proving their worthiness by boasting how much they've given to JBC Defence to fight his suspension.
I haven't the heart to tell 'em.

"When I set up Jeremy's Legal Fund back in July, it was to help Jeremy to fight legal cases brought against him for defamation. The Fund took off beyond my wildest imaginings and that is how JBC Defence Ltd. came about.
I understand that recent donations have in all likelihood, been made specifically because of Jeremy's suspension. There are legal restrictions that we cannot put aside however. The first being that Jeremy's Legal Fund was set up to help defray legal costs for defamation cases, and that is locked within our Articles of Association.
Many of you have also asked that we act without delay to commit the Funds resources for Jeremy's support following his suspension. We legally cannot do this as the fundraiser was not set up for this purpose.
Go Fund Me also has a legal obligation to ensure that the purposes for which the funds were raised are adhered to.
I regret that for the above reasons, JBC Defence Ltd cannot deviate from the original purposes of Jeremy's Legal Fund as set out in the Articles of Incorporation that I shared with you in my last update." ... q2J_uPDYH4
Timbo liked this

I've clicked on the audio, and this is a complete bollocks and maybe libellous.

Starmer says "we" made a difficult decision yesterday, obviously meaning the Labour Party. He's just said that it was the general secretary. "I will not hesitate to make difficult decisions" was very obviously a general point.
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Mon Nov 02, 2020 10:27 pm
I don't know if Jez's suspension is unlawful. Maybe it is. I suppose it keeps a few people out of mischief.
No-one has a right to belong to the Labour Party. It is a privilege which can be taken away. I can't remember the case, but it is a precedent in law.
Meanwhile Starmer is busy kicking the stuffing out of Johnson and making sure Sunak enjoys some time under the spotlight as well.

People tend to notice who is giving a shit about them, as opposed to who is obsessing about themselves. The more Corbyn drags this on, the more stark the divide between his leadership and Starmer’s. I’m not sure you could make a better argument for new, effective, non-navel gazing leadership if you tried.

And in that sense - enhancing someone’s character (and making your supporters look increasingly desperate and stupid) by trying and failing to burnish your own - this is absolutely classic Corbyn.
oboogie, Boiler liked this
crabcakes_windermere wrote:
Tue Nov 03, 2020 12:14 am
Meanwhile Starmer is busy kicking the stuffing out of Johnson and making sure Sunak enjoys some time under the spotlight as well.
Even if Johnson isn't a dead man walking, turning the fire on Sunak makes Bozo look more like one. The lockdown vote on Wednesday will see Keir putting the country first instead of playing politics by bailing out the beleaguered PM from his own backbenchers. Obviously Sunak as a minister won't be rebelling but put him in the frame anyway as the voice of the nutters in cabinet.
youngian wrote:
Mon Nov 02, 2020 11:39 pm
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Mon Nov 02, 2020 10:27 pm
I don't know if Jez's suspension is unlawful. Maybe it is.
Starmer Vs a Corbynite plank on legal technicalities. Go on live dangerously and take a punt.
The "Starmer say so" argument is bollocks. But Jez will argue what he said was true.
  • 1
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 114
The Trump Presidency

Some interesting legal thoughts are emerging on th[…]

"Boris" Johnson

How odd that Johnson says it's a matter for Bide[…]

Round the Blogs

And in the comments I haven’t read the jud[…]

Jeremy "Fucking off" Corbyn.

Anyone else read that as ARSE first time round? […]