• Hey Guest,

    As you know, censorship around the world has been ramping up at an alarming pace. The UK and OFCOM has singled out this community and have been focusing its censorship efforts here. It takes a good amount of resources to maintain the infrastructure for our community and to resist this censorship. We would appreciate any and all donations.

    Bitcoin Address (BTC): 39deg9i6Zp1GdrwyKkqZU6rAbsEspvLBJt

    Ethereum (ETH): 0xd799aF8E2e5cEd14cdb344e6D6A9f18011B79BE9

    Monero (XMR): 49tuJbzxwVPUhhDjzz6H222Kh8baKe6rDEsXgE617DVSDD8UKNaXvKNU8dEVRTAFH9Av8gKkn4jDzVGF25snJgNfUfKKNC8

N

noname223

Archangel
Aug 18, 2020
5,426
I mean at least it was funny to look at Johnson. You could make a lot of jokes about his hair. It was kind of entertaining to follow British politics. The EU is now dreaming it cannot get worse than Johnson. I am not sure about that. I think Sunak is just as much of an opportunist as Johnson. I have the feeling Sunak is a wanna-be aristocrat. Allegedly he and his wife have more money than the Queen. I don't have any sympathy for him. And I ask myself if middle-class will get as fooled of him as with Johnson. Johnson was good a deceiving to be one of them. Because he does not talk as the usual politician. In contrast to that Sunak looks so arrogant.

But what do I know. British people have probably way more information than me. I only read some articles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sufferingalways, katagiri83, Chinchilla and 3 others
J

Julgran

Enlightened
Dec 15, 2021
1,427
I mean at least it was funny to look at Johnson. You could make a lot of jokes about his hair. It was kind of entertaining to follow British politics. The EU is now dreaming it cannot get worse than Johnson. I am not sure about that. I think Sunak is just as much of an opportunist as Johnson. I have the feeling Sunak is a wanna-be aristocrat. Allegedly he and his wife have more money than the Queen. I don't have any sympathy for him. And I ask myself if middle-class will get as fooled of him as with Johnson. Johnson was good a deceiving to be one of them. Because he does not talk as the usual politician. In contrast to that Sunak looks so arrogant.

But what do I know. British people have probably way more information than me. I only read some articles.

It was not Boris Johnson who had a bad hair day for several years - it was his hair that had a bad Boris Johnson day for several years :wink:

Regarding Rishi Sunak, aren't they all corrupt in some way...?
 
  • Like
  • Yay!
Reactions: CatLover, leeloosnow, sufferingalways and 5 others
omoidarui

omoidarui

Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ
Apr 30, 2019
994
Regarding Rishi Sunak, aren't they all corrupt in some way...?
tbh they have to be

when the norm of today is grown adults bickering on social media over hosepipe bans and 'partYgAte' in spite of the real issues unfolding in the world, it's miraculous that anyone puts themselves forward to "serve the British people" even if done so under the unconvincing precedence of trying to make a difference

or if they do want to make a difference then at least a small part of themselves still has to be in it for personal glory/money/another narcissistic motive that outweighs the fact any genuine effort on their part as well as their character are under constant ridicule from some of the most grateless people in the world on a daily basis

In contrast to that Sunak looks so arrogant.
I personally think he would be better than the other candidates, I just wish he voted more on some issues I feel passionately about because I don't think I can be too sure about that without those
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Julgran
F

Flying Away

A listening ear is better than suffering in silenc
Nov 20, 2021
393
Not sure he can be worse
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatLover
N

noname223

Archangel
Aug 18, 2020
5,426
This did not age well. Maybe he gets a chance when Liz Truss screws it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatLover
J

Julgran

Enlightened
Dec 15, 2021
1,427
This did not age well. Maybe he gets a chance when Liz Truss screws it up.

It doesn't matter much who's the captain of the ship if the ship is sinking, or if the ship is being threatened to be sunken by a hostile ship. I'm not jealous of Liz's position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: obafgkm
Angst Filled Fuck Up

Angst Filled Fuck Up

Visionary
Sep 9, 2018
2,985
I miss Boris. He always reminded me of Bernard Chumley off Little Britain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lifeisadream
callme

callme

I'm a loose cannon - I bang all the time.
Aug 15, 2021
1,235
Without a superficial charm it will be hard for Sunak, he'd lose approval much faster. As for Liz Truss, the only good thing she has and always will have done in sewvice to the pewple is annoucing the Queens death.



I miss Boris. He always reminded me of Bernard Chumley off Little Britain.

The show that is now a social documentary of real life examples. Not sure it was ever so popupar because of the grotesque these people realise they are, but because they enjoy they country and the way they are, namely shouting "die bitch" to germans shown on screen crying because they lost at the world cup. Oh, and I doubt Bernard Chumley has ever grated cheese on his head to win approval.

Boris could be back anyway. I wouldn't be surprised after the winter ends and we are in a new new normal public opinion shows Truss or if by then Sunak makes it, really doesn't matter, that Johnson is preferable to them, bar what he has done because nobody remembers. Hell nobody remembers how the very day of Brexit vote the top Google result was "what is the EU". But somehow Corbyn is still an antisemitist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatLover and Angst Filled Fuck Up
N

noname223

Archangel
Aug 18, 2020
5,426
This did not age well. Maybe he gets a chance when Liz Truss screws it up.
So I was at least right about the last part.
Seemingly the two favorites are currently Sunak or BoJo. But it also could be someone else. I wish there was a new election and Labour would win. I hope they use their chance at least in contrast to the German leftwing government.
 
Chinaski

Chinaski

Arthur Scargill appreciator
Sep 1, 2018
3,321
The UK Labour Party are currently led by a figure so entrenched in the British establishment he might as well be an MI5 agent and his government will be the most right-wing Labour government in history, a Labour election victory is earned on the basis that the incumbent government have atrophied and Starmer has spent over two years signalling to the commentariat and the media that he's enthusiastic to crush the actual left and act as the Conservative Party B Team. I can rejoice in the overdue collapse of the Tory government but do not embrace the idea of a Labour government on its current state.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: affinity and callme
O

October112021

Student
Oct 8, 2022
141
The UK Labour Party are currently led by a figure so entrenched in the British establishment he might as well be an MI5 agent and his government will be the most right-wing Labour government in history, a Labour election victory is earned on the basis that the incumbent government have atrophied and Starmer has spent over two years signalling to the commentariat and the media that he's enthusiastic to crush the actual left and act as the Conservative Party B Team. I can rejoice in the overdue collapse of the Tory government but do not embrace the idea of a Labour government on its current state.

Same, of course, with American Democrats. Obama was black, but his actual socioeconomic proposals were to the Right of Bill Clinton circa 1993-94 (before the Republican Revolution compelled Clinton to embrace moderation). Clinton was to the Right of Carter. Carter was to the Right, much further to the Right, of Lyndon Johnson.

They occasionally put up someone like Jeremy Corbyn, who is absolutely controlled opposition, to beat down and humiliate the Left.
 
Chinaski

Chinaski

Arthur Scargill appreciator
Sep 1, 2018
3,321
Same, of course, with American Democrats. Obama was black, but his actual socioeconomic proposals were to the Right of Bill Clinton circa 1993-94 (before the Republican Revolution compelled Clinton to embrace moderation). Clinton was to the Right of Carter. Carter was to the Right, much further to the Right, of Lyndon Johnson.

They occasionally put up someone like Jeremy Corbyn, who is absolutely controlled opposition, to beat down and humiliate the Left.
Tbf they didn't "put up" Jeremy Corbyn, he was elected leader on a rule change which the Labour right had implemented with tue intention of keeping the left out of power, it backfired, and Corbyn was hammered from the start. His party is a controlled opposition and has been for nearly a century - he, his few allies in parliament and his support base amongst the rank and file were anything but, and the Tory government were allowed to continue because the alternative, a government led by Jeremy Corbyn, terrified the fuck out of the ruling classes. Starmer is a plant, a patsy, a man who will be rewarded for crushing this brief threat from the left for generations with a single term of office which he wants for its own sake. Jeremy Corbyn is a man of immense courage and integrity who was certainly not "allowed" to be a legitimate political actor for a single second and whilst the movement was sadly not strong enough to ultimately form a government, the British ruling class had its biggest scare in centuries and l will never not be proud of all of us who played a part in it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatLover and katagiri83
O

October112021

Student
Oct 8, 2022
141
Corbyn wasn't a socialist. He was marginally to the Left of Bernie Sanders.

 
Chinaski

Chinaski

Arthur Scargill appreciator
Sep 1, 2018
3,321
Wow you've sent an embedded link which has completely explained UK party politics between 2015 and 2019 in a handy bite-sized chunk to me as if l wasn't literally there while it happened, thank you for this invaluable contribution
 
  • Yay!
Reactions: affinity
O

October112021

Student
Oct 8, 2022
141
Wow you've sent an embedded link which has completely explained UK party politics between 2015 and 2019 in a handy bite-sized chunk to me as if l wasn't literally there while it happened, thank you for this invaluable contribution

The point is that Corbyn was questionable as shit also. On Ireland for example Corbyn had a history of supporting the very same nationalist political forces that have turned that island into one giant bank. Here's the World Socialist Website's take on the matter.


Laour's new arrangement, negotiated with the Irish and US governments, Sinn Féin, the Ulster Unionist Party, Democratic Unionist Party and others, institutionalised the sectarian divisions which the Troubles had monstrously enflamed. Even now, over 100 "peace" walls carve up working-class areas of Belfast.

Corbyn, however, did not make one single reference to the Labour Party's current or historic attitude to Ireland. He evaded the subject by attempting to associate himself with the years of struggle by relatives and supporters of those killed on Bloody Sunday. A week after Bloody Sunday, Corbyn said, "We organised a march from Kilburn to Whitehall, carrying mock coffins to lay at the gates of Downing Street for the then prime minister to see."

Blair's government also set in place mechanisms for partial and carefully managed investigations of the numerous atrocities of the Trouble. The Saville Inquiry into Bloody Sunday reported in 2010, exonerating the victims from the decades of slander directed against them but attributing the shootings to individual solders "losing their self-control... forgetting their instructions and training".

Earlier this year, after a sustained right-wing campaign, the only criminal case emerging from Bloody Sunday, against anonymous "Soldier F", including two counts of murder, and five of attempted murder, was dropped. Soldier F admitted firing 13 rounds during Bloody Sunday and was, according to Saville, "at the heart of the shooting".

Jeremy Corbyn, Roy Mason and Merlyn Rees

Corbyn noted that had the British government's proposed amnesty for all Troubles civil and criminal cases been in place in 2010, it would have prohibited the Saville Inquiry and the partial exposure it allowed. The amnesty will also close numerous ongoing inquiries. "The idea," Corbyn intoned, "that we must move on, move on without examining the state's own accountability has quite rightly enraged a lot of people in the North as a whole."

Rather than explore this question more deeply, however, Corbyn himself, "moved on".

Had he been minded to, the former Labour leader could have mentioned recent developments in crucial "legacy" cases. These make clear the proposed amnesty amounts to a charter for the British government's torturers and assassins, many of whom were operating when Labour was in power.
Inquiry into Bloody Sunday reported in 2010, exonerating the victims from the decades of slander directed against them but attributing the shootings to individual solders "losing their self-control... forgetting their instructions and training".

Earlier this year, after a sustained right-wing campaign, the only criminal case emerging from Bloody Sunday, against anonymous "Soldier F", including two counts of murder, and five of attempted murder, was dropped. Soldier F admitted firing 13 rounds during Bloody Sunday and was, according to Saville, "at the heart of the shooting".

Jeremy Corbyn, Roy Mason and Merlyn Rees

Corbyn noted that had the British government's proposed amnesty for all Troubles civil and criminal cases been in place in 2010, it would have prohibited the Saville Inquiry and the partial exposure it allowed. The amnesty will also close numerous ongoing inquiries. "The idea," Corbyn intoned, "that we must move on, move on without examining the state's own accountability has quite rightly enraged a lot of people in the North as a whole."

Rather than explore this question more deeply, however, Corbyn himself, "moved on".

Had he been minded to, the former Labour leader could have mentioned recent developments in crucial "legacy" cases. These make clear the proposed amnesty amounts to a charter for the British government's torturers and assassins, many of whom were operating when Labour was in power.

  • In late 2021, survivors of the 1975 Miami Showband massacre, when three members of the popular band were blown up and shot by a loyalist gang, agreed to accept £1.5 million in damages from the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) in settlement of their legal case seeking to expose collusion by British forces in the attack. Stephen Travers, one of the survivors, said he had expected to win his legal case but the threat of all cases being closed by an amnesty forced their hand. The MoD reached a settlement "without legal liability".
  • The same month, the UK Supreme Court ruled that a 2014 decision by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, successor to the RUC, to drop investigation into the torture of the 14 "hooded men" was unlawful. The "hooded men" were among 342 people interned by the British government during Operation Demetrius—the 1971 internment without trial of hundreds suspected of membership of the IRA. The 14 were selected for special treatment. For seven days, the men were hooded, forced to stand in excruciating positions, bombarded with white noise, deprived of sleep, food and water. They were badly beaten, and one attempted suicide. While hooded, they were thrown from low-flying helicopters. No one was ever convicted of anything.

    The case was brought after Irish broadcaster RTÉ in 2014 unearthed a 1977 memo from then British Home Secretary, Labour's Merlyn Rees, to Prime Minister Callaghan stating that it was his "view that the decision to use methods of torture in Northern Ireland in 1971/72 was taken by ministers—in particular Lord Carrington, then secretary of state for defence." Rees continued, endorsing Carrington's actions and defending the torturers, "If at any time methods of torture are used in Northern Ireland contrary to the view of the government of the day, I would agree that individual policemen or soldiers should be prosecuted or disciplined; but in the particular circumstances of 1971/72, a political decision was taken [emphasis added]."

    Despite the 2014 decision being considered unlawful, the Supreme Court rejected claims by the men for a judicial review.
  • Earlier this month, Northern Ireland's Police Ombudsman Marie Anderson issued a long-delayed report investigating loyalist murders and attempted murders carried out by the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) and, the organisation's cover name when murdering people, the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF) between 1989 and 1993. In it, she raised "significant concerns" about the role of the RUC. Anderson investigated the activities of the North Antrim UDA/UFF. Anderson described herself as "numbed" at the extent of police collusion, including in one of the most notorious killings of the Troubles—eight people in the Rising Sun bar, Greysteel in 1993.

    Corbyn made no mention of these recent cases and avoided the Labour Party's current attitude to the amnesty. The party opposes it, but, in the words of former Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, Louise Haigh, "everyone accepts that prosecutions are going to be only likely in a handful of cases."

Jeremy Corbyn and a Border Poll

Corbyn instead meandered into a potted history of Ireland to introduce comments on the possibility of a new poll on the status of the north. He opined that a Border Poll, vague arrangements for which are included in the Good Friday Agreement should an ill-defined majority in Northern Ireland support it, would be a further expression of "justice" being achievable through pressure on the good offices of the British state.

The former Labour leader conceded that the agreement did not explain how to determine when a poll should be called or who would be able to vote. Speaking for his nationalist audience, Corbyn called on the British government "to explain how the poll can be triggered. And I call on them to begin that process, so we can have that understanding and that discussion." This, Corbyn enthused, would prove that 50 years after Bloody Sunday, "Irish people are finally able to reach toward self-determination and social justice."

Days after Corbyn's remarks, Northern Ireland First Minister Paul Givan, of the hard right Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), resigned. Under the Northern Ireland Executive's sectarian rules, this forced Sinn Féin Deputy First Minister Michelle O'Neil's simultaneous resignation and the collapse of the Northern Ireland Executive. Givan cited the DUP's opposition to the Northern Ireland Protocol established as part of Britain's departure from the European Union, which created.

Corbyn was probably controlled opposition like Sanders, not in the sense that he ad handlers telling him what to say exactly but I'm the sense that he is a bourgeois idealist who cannot threaten the system.
 
Last edited:
Chinaski

Chinaski

Arthur Scargill appreciator
Sep 1, 2018
3,321
The point is that Corbyn was questionable as shit also. On Ireland for example Corbyn had a history of supporting the very same nationalist political forces that have turned that island into one giant bank. Here's the World Socialist Website's take on the matter.

Actually no that isn't the point here, the actual point was your position being that corbyn was "allowed" to be a "controlled" opposition, which is not true. Attacking him from the left is tedious and misplaced but still fair enough l guess, that's up to you but idgaf if Mao_Liker_69 is disappointed that his manifesto didn't pledge to guillotine his bank manager, the fact remains that the 2017 and 2019 manifestos contained a raft of transformative and necessary policies and the establishment were absolutely terrified of this septugenarian, allotment-tending peacenik who had the courage to wear it. You might not like the man, but this is what happened.
 
O

October112021

Student
Oct 8, 2022
141
Actually no that isn't the point here, the actual point was your position being that corbyn was "allowed" to be a "controlled" opposition, which is not true. Attacking him from the left is tedious and misplaced but still fair enough l guess, that's up to you but idgaf if Mao_Liker_69 is disappointed that his manifesto didn't pledge to guillotine his bank manager, the fact remains that the 2017 and 2019 manifestos contained a raft of transformative and necessary policies and the establishment were absolutely terrified of this septugenarian, allotment-tending peacenik who had the courage to wear it. You might not like the man, but this is what happened.
The thing is, those transformations, done within the capitalist mode of production, will just strengthen capitalism - just like the New Deal in America strengthened capitalism. Finance capital is increasingly siding with the (bourgeois) Left (and it is this phenomenon that produces reactionary rightoids among the working class).

I firmly believe Corbyn was basically allowed in to whip the workers back into line. If by historical circumstance he had won, he would only have been allowed to implement those aspects of the social democratic agenda favorable to capitalism.
 
Last edited:
Chinaski

Chinaski

Arthur Scargill appreciator
Sep 1, 2018
3,321
The thing is, those transformations, done within the capitalist mode of production, will just strengthen capitalism - just like the New Deal in America strengthened capitalism. Finance capital is increasingly siding with the (bourgeois) Left (and it is this phenomenon that produces reactionary rightoids among the working class).
Finance capital does not side with democratic socialists, it sides with the liberal centre, you are confusing the two. Having said that, l now see the error in campaigning for the implementation of the 2017 Corbyn manifesto and should instead have gone to my working class community with the argument that their immediate needs regarding healthcare, welfare, housing, employment rights etc would be better off laid entirely to waste in order to accelerate the inevitable coming of luxury communism.
 
O

October112021

Student
Oct 8, 2022
141
Finance capital does not side with democratic socialists, it sides with the liberal centre, you are confusing the two. Having said that, l now see the error in campaigning for the implementation of the 2017 Corbyn manifesto and should instead have gone to my working class community with the argument that their immediate needs regarding healthcare, welfare, housing, employment rights etc would be better off laid entirely to waste in order to accelerate the inevitable coming of luxury communism.

Finance Capital does indeed sometimes side with socdems. It did so with Sanders:



It also did so with Franklin D. Roosevelt:


Roosevelt is not the only member of his family with extensive railroad holdings. His first cousin on his mother's side, Lyman Delano, is today Chairman of the board of directors of the Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co., the Louisville & Nashville, and has an interest in many others. Other relatives are J.J. Pelley, recently resigned president of the New York, New Haven & Hartford R.R., and a shareholder in others; and Mr. Curry of the Union Pacific. Roosevelt's three most intimate friends are likewise industrialists with huge railroad holdings. The aforementioned Vincent Astor, besides extensive interests in industry and ocean transportation, is a director of the Great Northern Ry. Co., and the Illinois Central. Wm. A. Harriman, heir of the old railroad king, is a director of both the Illinois Central and the Union Pacific. Wm. K. Vanderbilt holds directorates in the New York Central, the Michigan Central, and other railroads. Besides these relatives and close friends, all who supported Roosevelt's presidential campaign with substantial financial contributions, almost every other railroad mogul in the country likewise backed him: Robert Goelet, Arthur C. James, Edward S. Harkness, C.S. McCain, David Bruce, Howard Bruce, Wm. T. Kemper, and F.H. Rawson. The railroad group behind Roosevelt numbered almost everyone but, significantly enough, the representatives of the roads controlled by the J.P. Morgan financial interests.

The railroads had indeed taken the worst beating of any capitalist group during the period of the crisis, and certainly needed help. For example, in 1932, 150 selected railroads showed a deficit of $150,634,000 compared to earnings of $896,807,000 in 1929. The railroad equipment industry led by Wm. Woodin also marshalled behind Roosevelt.

Another section of industry that rallied behind Franklin D. was the mining, particularly the precious metals - gold and silver - group. Most prominent here were the Guggenheim and Bernard M. Baruch interests, exerting a virtual monopoly on silver through control of the American Smelting & Refining Co., which either extracts or refines for others almost one-half of the world's silver produced yearly. Included with these is also Wm. R. Hearst, newspaper publisher, large Mexican silver mine owner and shareholder in the Homestake Gold Mining Co. This group in advocating gold devaluation and greater use of silver for monetary purposes enlisted the large farmers' vote who demanded that farm product prices be raised through monetary legislation.

A political party that promised to raise farmer purchasing power (fallen in 1932 to almost one-half that of 1929) was bound to gain the support of industrial interests dependent on the farmers and so we find the McCormicks, owning the monopolistic International Harvester Co., and other farm implement and fertilizer manufacturers joining the Roosevelt band-wagon.

Minor industrial interests included the liquor concerns who wanted repeal of the Prohibition Amendment, and construction industry moguls such as C.R. Crane of Crane Co., Jesse H. Jones (R.F.C. head) and J.T. Jones of the Jones Lumber Co., etc.

Behind both political parties was also a grim struggle between two factions for control of the giant Chase National Bank. Backing the Republican Hoover were his 1928 mentors, the House of Morgan. Opposing J.P. Morgan was this other group of stockholders headed by John Rockefeller, Jr., and including Vincent Astor, the Vanderbilts and Guggenheims. The fight centered about the policy of J.P. Morgan, who controlled the bank, in forcing the Chase National to engage in practices outside its own legitimate field, such as lending money for speculative purposes, the floating of new stock and bond issues, and buying and selling on the stock market. Rockefeller, Jr., and his allies who are primarily industrialists, violently disapproved of this policy blaming it in great part for the stock market crash of '29. They not only wanted to gain control of the bank and return it to its normal commercial banking practice, which is to provide funds to industry and business for meeting current expenses, on good security, but they wanted control of the federal government in order to enact federal legislation against the Morgan policy which had become widespread under the influence and example of the Chase National. The Lehman Bros. (among which is Gov. H.H. Lehman of N.Y.) the country's second largest firm of investment bankers, and other investment houses such as Halsey Stuart, supported this attempt to legalize against their competitors.

Roosevelt was no sooner inaugurated than he commenced to remember the "forgotten men". First on the list, of course, were the Rockefellers. So on March 15, 1933, J.P. Morgan was summoned before the Senate Banking Investigation. His revelations and those of Albert H. Wiggin, the nominal head of the Chase National appointed by Morgan, were so damaging that Wiggin was forced to resign and the Rockefellers gained the balance of voting power, enabling them to elect their own man Winthrop W. Aldrich to the Chairmanship of the Board of the Chase National Bank. When Aldrich appeared before the Banking Investigation, he announced that the Chase National would divorce its Chase Securities Corp. He argued for a complete divorce of the securities business and commercial deposit banking. This suggestion was embodied in the Glass-Steagall Banking Act (June 16, 1933) ordering all commercial banks to be separated from their securities business within twelve months. Restrictions were also placed against loans for speculative purposes.

The devaluation of the gold dollar, followed later by the nationalization of silver, enriched immediately the gold and silver producers. This monetary policy plus crop curtailment as practiced by the A.A.A. has increased farm prices to some degree. The Administration, however, overlooked the obvious fact that higher food prices raise the cost of living for the worker, which is directly opposed to the interests of the industrialist who desires low production costs.
 
Last edited:
Chinaski

Chinaski

Arthur Scargill appreciator
Sep 1, 2018
3,321
Social Democrats and democratic socialists are two different things (clue - they did not side with corbyn)
 
Chinaski

Chinaski

Arthur Scargill appreciator
Sep 1, 2018
3,321
Corbyn is just a social democrat.
At this stage it doesn't really matter what label you wish to apply, you've been wrong on absolutely every take on his period as Labour leader in a way which suggests you've invested little analysis into it personally and are instead relying on half-baked critiques from online pseuds and cosplaying ancoms. The man had some courage to stand up and argue for the things he believed in and withstand the incessant hostility that came with it over a period of several years and the establishment were far more terrified of this scrawny old-timer than they ever will be by a YouTuber who would kick-start a revolution immediately if only he could get over his fear of eye-contact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: freedompass
sufferingalways

sufferingalways

Avoiding flashing images, epilepsy.
Apr 26, 2020
550
Tbf they didn't "put up" Jeremy Corbyn, he was elected leader on a rule change which the Labour right had implemented with tue intention of keeping the left out of power, it backfired, and Corbyn was hammered from the start. His party is a controlled opposition and has been for nearly a century - he, his few allies in parliament and his support base amongst the rank and file were anything but, and the Tory government were allowed to continue because the alternative, a government led by Jeremy Corbyn, terrified the fuck out of the ruling classes. Starmer is a plant, a patsy, a man who will be rewarded for crushing this brief threat from the left for generations with a single term of office which he wants for its own sake. Jeremy Corbyn is a man of immense courage and integrity who was certainly not "allowed" to be a legitimate political actor for a single second and whilst the movement was sadly not strong enough to ultimately form a government, the British ruling class had its biggest scare in centuries and l will never not be proud of all of us who played a part in it.


Hello what makes you say Starmer is a plant?


I'm interested in your train of thought.


Do you work in a political / media field?
 
O

October112021

Student
Oct 8, 2022
141
At this stage it doesn't really matter what label you wish to apply, you've been wrong on absolutely every take on his period as Labour leader in a way which suggests you've invested little analysis into it personally and are instead relying on half-baked critiques from online pseuds and cosplaying ancoms. The man had some courage to stand up and argue for the things he believed in and withstand the incessant hostility that came with it over a period of several years and the establishment were far more terrified of this scrawny old-timer than they ever will be by a YouTuber who would kick-start a revolution immediately if only he could get over his fear of eye-contact.

I notice you don't actually refute me (on Ireland, it Corbyn's relationship to British finance or anything else).

But yes, Keir Starmer is 100% right wing. Even a social democratic reformist outlet like Jacobin acknowledges it.

 
Last edited:
Chinaski

Chinaski

Arthur Scargill appreciator
Sep 1, 2018
3,321
I notice you don't actually refute me (on Ireland, it Corbyn's relationship to British finance or anything else).

But yes, Keir Starmer is 100% right wing. Even a social democratic reformist outlet like Jacobin acknowledges it.

Okay, in turn:

You say Corbyn was "allowed" to be a "managed" opposition in order to crush the left. This is false, look it up.

Then Corbyn is bad because something about lreland which you can't fully articulate but is backed up with a ridiculous article taking him to task for not criticising Harold Wilson despite his views on lreland being widely known and used against him by the right, totally unserious stuff from deeply unserious people.

Then Corbyn is bad because he's in the pocket of Big Finance, as evidenced with a screenshot of some numbers relating to a different politician in a different country.

Then Corbyn is bad because pledges such as "universal healthcare" and "eradicate homelessness" are actually saving capitalism, fine l guess but I'm not sure electoral pledges based on starving the poor into revolution would have been an easy sell, maybe leave a YouTube comment to one of the young thought leaders urging them to revolt because seventy year-old peacenik jam enthusiasts tend to be a bit past taking up arms.
Hello what makes you say Starmer is a plant?


I'm interested in your train of thought.


Do you work in a political / media field?
His actions and words, his personal and political history, his personal links, his society memberships, his previous job, his knighthood, his donors, his statements prior to joining the party which he did purely to be given an immediate candidacy, literally everything about this person screams manchurian candidate and there is no material difference between a Labour Party led by Keir Starmer and a Labour Party led by a bona fide MI5 agent.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

quietpill
Replies
11
Views
285
Offtopic
CogitoMori
C
lawlietsph
Replies
34
Views
908
Suicide Discussion
Electra
Electra
Cyber4ngel!
Replies
2
Views
385
Suicide Discussion
Cyber4ngel!
Cyber4ngel!