Corbyn gets attacked again

[Traitorfish]

Gotta admit, it's pretty funny how quickly this thread went from "British politics" to "Luiz yelling about Chavez, again".

It's like ol' Dommy and his Lincoln-fixation. Good times, good times.

 

[innonimatu]

So why did the immaculate holy man Corbyn effusively praise this South American Idi Amin in more than one occasion? Why did he reserve to that semi-illiterate caudillo the same treatment that a teenage girl would dispense to a boy band?

I ask again: what kind of man is buddies with dictators, Holocaust deniers et caterva?

Don't you get it that all the lies thrown by the UK's media (about 70% of it belong to three people) against Corbyn have failed to stick? Don't you get it that coming here and repeating false smears won't win you any argument?

 

[luiz]

So I'm making up Corbyn's relation to Chavez and to Holocaust deniers?

At any rate, we will only see what the general British public thinks about him after a general election, if his own party doesn't get rid of him first.

Right now we know he is popular among kids on the Internet and bums with too much time on their hands in general. That's not saying much.

Again, he had 200 something thousand votes. That doesn't give me "leader of the masses" credentials. Let's wait and see how far this douche will go.

 

[Kyriakos]

^For comparison:

those who voted for Corbyn: >200K people

you: 1 person

 

[Traitorfish]

At any rate, we will only see what the general British public thinks about him after a general election, if his own party doesn't get rid of him first.

Right now we know he is popular among kids on the Internet and bums with too much time on their hands in general. That's not saying much.

Again, he had 200 something thousand votes. That doesn't give me "leader of the masses" credentials. Let's wait and see how far this douche will go.

And again, I'll ask: who is it you understand to be involved in the selection process for parliamentary candidates? If the party membership is "kids and bums", then who exactly decided that these MPs should stand in the first place?

 

[Lexicus]

this South American Idi Amin

The funny thing is, you seem like you really believe that.

 

[_random_]

Gotta admit, it's pretty funny how quickly this thread went from "British politics" to "Luiz yelling about Chavez, again".

It's like ol' Dommy and his Lincoln-fixation. Good times, good times.

You know, I'm normally down to defend the legacy of Chavez, but I feel like it might be a Lost Cause in this case.

 

[Traitorfish]

The funny thing is, you seem like you really believe that.

The really funny thing is, Amin began as the Western strongman in Uganda, exactly the kind of sensible, right-wing military man Luiz generally seems to favour in an unstable political climate. It's only after a few years had passed and his erratic approach to foreign policy that he lost Western patronage and he drifted towards the USSR.

That's where the right are cleverer than the left: they keep their tinpot despots at arms length, ready to abandon and condemn if need be. None of the romantic entanglements that idealistic socialists get themselves into.

You know, I'm normally down to defend the legacy of Chavez, but I feel like it might be a Lost Cause in this case.

Ah, but does Chavez play the part of Lee or Davies? Important question.

 

[Lexicus]

You know, I'm normally down to defend the legacy of Chavez, but I feel like it might be a Lost Cause in this case.

You can win me over! I don't know too much about it in any case, but I'd like to hear your defense if you're down.

 

[luiz]

^For comparison:

those who voted for Corbyn: >200K people

you: 1 person

Ah, so you never criticize any leader that got more than one vote. Like say Angela Merkel, who you always analyze in a very dispassionate and objective manner.

And again, I'll ask: who is it you understand to be involved in the selection process for parliamentary candidates? If the party membership is "kids and bums", then who exactly decided that these MPs should stand in the first place?

Something tells me the whole party membership does not collectively selects each MP that will run... I assume there is some kinds of panel or board.

The funny thing is, you seem like you really believe that.

I used Kyriako's own term, if you read the quotation on the very post you quoted.

 

[luiz]

You know, I'm normally down to defend the legacy of Chavez, but I feel like it might be a Lost Cause in this case.

If you're down to defend a man who produced a murder rate greater than Iraq's, shortage of all sorts of basic goods including food, rolling blackouts everyday, a brain drain of a massive scale, political killings as a matter of routine, and a recession far worse than the Great Depression, then you are a Lost Cause. Go try something else, because you failed as a human.

 

[Traitorfish]

Something tells me the whole party membership does not collectively selects each MP that will run... I assume there is some kinds of panel or board.

Nope. Constituency party votes on it. There's a panel which presents approved candidates, but the constituency party is under no obligation to vote for any of them, and non-approved candidates can be put forward in the election with approval from the national executive.

 

[luiz]

Nope. Constituency party votes on it.

Oh well. So they were selected by the same people as Corbyn, but have the added legitimacy of popular vote. Who better to oust him?

 

[Traitorfish]

Oh well. So they were selected by the same people as Corbyn, but have the added legitimacy of popular vote. Who better to oust him?

The membership, in accordance with established procedure. One assumes.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Those 200K good for nothing youths and bums?

Anyway, i personally am not seeing how Corbyn is unsavoury. Let alone compared to the actual crap the other parties have..

 

[luiz]

The membership, in accordance with established procedure. One assumes.

Well I admit I know nothing of Labor party internal rules. I assume they will try to get rid of him within the rules and the law, so if that happens it's all good. If they can't get rid of him I guess we will sit back and watch as the Labor party fights into oblivion while the Tories rule until 2030, give or take.

I just don't see a healthy of way of a man to stay ahead of a party where 75% of the elected MPs are in open rebellion. They could do as Manfred say and collectively resign. But who would that benefit other than the Tories?

 

[Traitorfish]

The Labour Party, I'd say, in the long term. Blairism has been an electoral disaster for the Party, and the only solution these people have offered is "vaguely racist mugs".

Maybe Corbyn isn't the way forward, but at least it's not heading directly backwards.

 

[Lexicus]

The Labour Party, I'd say, in the long term. Blairism has been an electoral disaster for the Party, and the only solution these people have offered is "be vaguely racist".

Maybe Corbyn isn't the way forward, but at least it's not heading directly backwards.

That's kinda been my impression too. Like I don't really understand how people can actually claim Blairism yields even pragmatic benefits because it doesn't seem to be a successful electoral strategy for Labour (to say nothing of its complete moral bankruptcy).

In other news, are there any Corbyn/Harry Potter fans who were extremely disappointed in JK Rowling for apparently joining forces with the Blairites recently?

 

[Traitorfish]

That's kinda been my impression too. Like I don't really understand how people can actually claim Blairism yields even pragmatic benefits because it doesn't seem to be a successful electoral strategy for Labour (to say nothing of its complete moral bankruptcy).

That's the bizarre thing. A landslide in 1997, sure, but Gerry Adams could have swung that one if he'd been wearing a red rosette, and declining support year-on-year, culminating in two successive defeats and the collapse of the Scottish party. Some in the party still tell themselves that it's only because Brown and Milliband stood one iota to the left of Blair, but there are people out there who argue that the Soviet Union's only failing was that Gorbachev sat an iota to the right of Brezhnev; true believer will always give you the same sermon, even the ones who like to characterise themselves as level-headed pragmatists.

The Blairites talk about Corbyn's right to lead the party- but what right do they have? What do these serial-failures known about winning elections? At least Corbyn if goes down in flames, he might have the self-respect to acknowledge it happened.

 

[_random_]

You can win me over! I don't know too much about it in any case, but I'd like to hear your defense if you're down.

The Guardian put out an infographic that helpfully summarizes how Venezuela changed under Chavez:

Spoiler :

There, were, undoubtedly, some changes for the worse, but on the whole it's pretty apparent that life improved dramatically for many Venezulans. I do think he overrelied on oil exports, which left the economy vulnerable to fluctuations of the oil market, but I applaud the ambition of any man who succeeds in reducing poverty so substantially. Also, the creation of Communal Councils was an encouraging experiment in socialist policy that may lay the foundation for the expansion of participatory democracy. And speaking of democracy, Chavez was no dictator. He won strong majorities every time he was elected as president, with high voter turnout. And by all accounts, elections in Venezuela were run cleanly and fairly.

I'm not gonna claim Chavez was an uncomplicated figure, but from everything I've read about him it's hard not to have a net positive assessment.