Snap General Election called

[Banquo]

Their leadership group is mostly at best Eurosceptic, and often openly hostile towards the EU. And said leadership group have gone out of their way on repeat basis to ignore Conference, just as Jeremy said he wouldn't to help win an election

all of McDonnell, Thornberry, Abbott, Starmer, Long-Bailey and possibly Rayner have said they'd campaign to remain at points in time. Corbyn is the standout from what I remember- who from the shadow cabinet is a leaver?

You are right that there were shenanigans at Party Conference when the current policy was nodded through despite an impression that the majority at conference wanted policy to be campaign for remain....but my conjecture is that was 'expediency'.

Some of those I don't really see as having much influence, some of them (and without naming names the Shadow Chancellor) I suspect are bullshitting for Britain

Both Livingstone and Abbott are on record as campaigning to Remain. I was surprised when McDonnell said what he said, but its not just the once. I suppose you are sort of right that the PLP hasn't as much influence as it possibly should, but the PLP is likely 90% remain, and as I said conference was said to be wanting a pro-Remain ticket, but got out-foxed by the wily foxes.

[Which Tyler]

[Son of Mathonwy]

A binary referendum is polarised. There’s only two options, you can’t compromise. What it is, is a fudge between the vast majority of the party and a minor cabal around Corbyn. If the manifesto said that the official party line will be to campaign for the deal but allow MPs, activists, members etc to campaign as they wished I’d give a begrudging nod of the head and defend it as a solid and honest policy. However, they haven’t, they’ve just fudged. The same as May did during, well, her entire govt and rightly got criticised for.

Glad to see you’ve moved from ‘all the people’ to ‘majority of 2016 voters’, as they are vastly different things.

The whole Brexit process has been an embarrassment to the country. From a shallow referendum campaign playing to people’s fears, to ERG types losing their minds that no deal won’t be countenanced, to the ultra Remainers finding any which way to deny they lost by anything other than nefarious means, to prats in high vis vests thinking it’s ok to insult and scare the likes of Anna Soubry, to a counter totalling the amount of dead old people required to swing the population in to remain, to Johnson proroging Parliament, to Bercow going against the (very strong) advice of his clerks, though to some Remainers saying all leave voters are thick and racist. I suppose Labour going in to an election with their senior MPs saying they will campaign against any deal they agree to put/recommend to Parliament and the party policy as whole, including the leader, not to know whether they’ll campaign for or against a treaty they will negotiate is just the next (il)logical step on a steep downward path. If Dominic Cummings had come up with such a plan everyone would (further) lose their minds. Classic Dom.

The glass of red didn’t help.

A binary referendum is polarised, yes. But it's entirely possible - as was the case for the Tories in 2016 - for a party not to campaign for either result. And whether or not that is optimal for getting votes on 12th Dec, it is a position which is more inclusive of the general public than either of the referendum choices. And it's also possible to negotiate the best possible deal and still think it's worse than the remain option, and so campaign against your deal. It's counterintuitive, but not illogical.

Forgive the imprecise language: "the majority of the people" would be a reasonable choice of words.

It's certainly an embarrassment. We can agree on that.

[Digby]

Neither of these are on a par with his promise to lie down in front of the bulldozers at Heathrow before running out of the country, and that isn't close to him being due to make a decision on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe's diplomatic status and then quitting office so he could run for leader and make a similar deal to May's, forcing Nazanin and her family to have to wait still further whilst a new Foreign Secretary was briefed, the useless gutless wanker that he is

[cashead]

I know Rachel Riley cops a fair bit of undeserved abuse (or, ,ore likely, deserved abuse that goes way beyond what's deserved) - but she fully deserves abuse for this stunt: https://www.indy100.com/article/rachel- ... sm-9211821.

Deserves to be sacked for this one - objecting to her workplace hosting a political debate and including Corbyn. Had she kept it personal, then she'd simply deserve abuse (preferably from Jimmy Carr); as it is, she brought her work into it, and objects to their political neutrality; and that is surely sackable.

Well, she's trying to now claim that it was OK to photoshop this picture:



because Corbyn's bunch were, like, the Tesco-value version of anti-apartheid activism or some such bullshit. "No no, he wasn't the right kind of anti-racist."

Aside from that, I can't imagine what she was thinking. "Yes, I, as a white person, shall wear this t-shirt that erases an anti-apartheid statement in order to score some political points. This is a good and cool idea, and there is no possibility there should be any blowback whatsoever."

[Digby]

It doesn't in any sense erase any message about apartheid, the whole point of the editing is to build on that and to offer up the contrast/hypocrisy. So more than erase any message it reminds about the message, if it didn't there'd be no point to the alteration she made

[Stom]

It doesn't in any sense erase any message about apartheid, the whole point of the editing is to build on that and to offer up the contrast/hypocrisy. So more than erase any message it reminds about the message, if it didn't there'd be no point to the alteration she made

What hypocrisy/contrast?

[Digby]

It doesn't in any sense erase any message about apartheid, the whole point of the editing is to build on that and to offer up the contrast/hypocrisy. So more than erase any message it reminds about the message, if it didn't there'd be no point to the alteration she made

What hypocrisy/contrast?

Don't know if you've heard, he's faced the odd charge these last few years around being racist, owing to his either being a racist or at best showing sympathy with racists if politically they support the one true cause. Indeed a number of long standing Labour Party members have left the party in disgust with his actions and/or inactions.

[Stom]

It doesn't in any sense erase any message about apartheid, the whole point of the editing is to build on that and to offer up the contrast/hypocrisy. So more than erase any message it reminds about the message, if it didn't there'd be no point to the alteration she made

What hypocrisy/contrast?

Don't know if you've heard, he's faced the odd charge these last few years around being racist, owing to his either being a racist or at best showing sympathy with racists if politically they support the one true cause. Indeed a number of long standing Labour Party members have left the party in disgust with his actions and/or inactions.

Corbyn has always supported minorities over majorities, he is a big advocate of Palestinian rights and therefore a big anti-Zionist. He has allowed his strong views to obscure actual racism and his imprecise language and inability to see the political problems in rejecting the Anti-Semitic chatter have led to these racism accusations.

He comes across as a far from perfect human being. He is stubborn and doesn’t come across particularly bright. But compare him to actual racists like those in and around the Tory party or even those in Labour, and he is a saint.

[Which Tyler]

Don't know if you've heard, he's faced the odd charge these last few years around being racist, owing to his either being a racist or at best showing sympathy with racists if politically they support the one true cause. Indeed a number of long standing Labour Party members have left the party in disgust with his actions and/or inactions.

As far as I can tell, those criticisms are around:
A] Him being against apartheid in Israel and supporting Palestinian rights (so, the opposite of racist)
B] Him being an ineffectual leader who hasn't stamped downnhard enough on anti-Semitism by others in his party (so not personally racist, and conveniently ignoring the anti-Semitism, islamoohobia and racism in other parties).

Hypocrisy would be photoshopping a picture of Corbyn protesting against apartheid ~35 years ago, in order to claim that his more recent statements against apartheid make him racist.

[Digby]

A] Him being against apartheid in Israel and supporting Palestinian rights (so, the opposite of racist)

This is basically the Stephen Miller argument, that because he's a Jew he cannot be racist and/or a white nationalist, it's also the argument of Israel, that because Jews have been treated poorly in history they cannot be deemed racist now. And yet if one allows even the semblance of nuance such arguments are for shit

[Which Tyler]

A] Him being against apartheid in Israel and supporting Palestinian rights (so, the opposite of racist)

This is basically the Stephen Miller argument, that because he's a Jew he cannot be racist and/or a white nationalist, it's also the argument of Israel, that because Jews have been treated poorly in history they cannot be deemed racist now. And yet if one allows even the semblance of nuance such arguments are for shit

OK - so you're saying that him supporting the oppressed minority makes him racist?
Or is it that Israelis are the oppressed minority in Israel?
Maybe that you think I'm claiming that, because Corbyn is black, he can't be racist?
Help me out here...

I know you think that it's bad purely because Corbyn did it - but you're also asking for more nuance to be seen - so...

[Sandydragon]

Corbyn supporting the Palestinians isn’t an issue. Supporting terrorist groups is. He has a habit of doing that. There are moderate Palestinian leaders he could choose to spend time with. Instead he chooses terrorists.

That’s before we talk about him playing nicely with an activist who has just abused a Jewish Labour MP. Now why is that anti-Semitic label so hard to shift?

[Sandydragon]

What hypocrisy/contrast?

Don't know if you've heard, he's faced the odd charge these last few years around being racist, owing to his either being a racist or at best showing sympathy with racists if politically they support the one true cause. Indeed a number of long standing Labour Party members have left the party in disgust with his actions and/or inactions.

Corbyn has always supported minorities over majorities, he is a big advocate of Palestinian rights and therefore a big anti-Zionist. He has allowed his strong views to obscure actual racism and his imprecise language and inability to see the political problems in rejecting the Anti-Semitic chatter have led to these racism accusations.

He comes across as a far from perfect human being. He is stubborn and doesn’t come across particularly bright. But compare him to actual racists like those in and around the Tory party or even those in Labour, and he is a saint.

And obscure terrorism.

Potentially Corbyn sees more Muslim votes than Jewish ones so just doesn’t care. Is Milne as unintelligent as Corbyn since he seems to pull many of the strings?

I agree that many on the right of the Tory party probably hold similar views. But since they generally don’t make those views public and then double down on them, it leaves Corbyn as a very legitimate target for anyone who despises racism.

[Digby]

A] Him being against apartheid in Israel and supporting Palestinian rights (so, the opposite of racist)

This is basically the Stephen Miller argument, that because he's a Jew he cannot be racist and/or a white nationalist, it's also the argument of Israel, that because Jews have been treated poorly in history they cannot be deemed racist now. And yet if one allows even the semblance of nuance such arguments are for shit

OK - so you're saying that him supporting the oppressed minority makes him racist?
Or is it that Israelis are the oppressed minority in Israel?
Maybe that you think I'm claiming that, because Corbyn is black, he can't be racist?
Help me out here...

I know you think that it's bad purely because Corbyn did it - but you're also asking for more nuance to be seen - so...

I'm saying racism makes him racist, and that he isn't racist in all instances and indeed in some instances actively protests/acts against racism isn't sufficient defence for those instances where he is racist (or at least allows himself to be grouped with and receive the support of racists)

[Stom]

Don't know if you've heard, he's faced the odd charge these last few years around being racist, owing to his either being a racist or at best showing sympathy with racists if politically they support the one true cause. Indeed a number of long standing Labour Party members have left the party in disgust with his actions and/or inactions.

Corbyn has always supported minorities over majorities, he is a big advocate of Palestinian rights and therefore a big anti-Zionist. He has allowed his strong views to obscure actual racism and his imprecise language and inability to see the political problems in rejecting the Anti-Semitic chatter have led to these racism accusations.

He comes across as a far from perfect human being. He is stubborn and doesn’t come across particularly bright. But compare him to actual racists like those in and around the Tory party or even those in Labour, and he is a saint.

And obscure terrorism.

Potentially Corbyn sees more Muslim votes than Jewish ones so just doesn’t care. Is Milne as unintelligent as Corbyn since he seems to pull many of the strings?

I agree that many on the right of the Tory party probably hold similar views. But since they generally don’t make those views public and then double down on them, it leaves Corbyn as a very legitimate target for anyone who despises racism.

You mean like the leader of the Tory party and the Prime Minister?

[Stom]

This is basically the Stephen Miller argument, that because he's a Jew he cannot be racist and/or a white nationalist, it's also the argument of Israel, that because Jews have been treated poorly in history they cannot be deemed racist now. And yet if one allows even the semblance of nuance such arguments are for shit

OK - so you're saying that him supporting the oppressed minority makes him racist?
Or is it that Israelis are the oppressed minority in Israel?
Maybe that you think I'm claiming that, because Corbyn is black, he can't be racist?
Help me out here...

I know you think that it's bad purely because Corbyn did it - but you're also asking for more nuance to be seen - so...

I'm saying racism makes him racist, and that he isn't racist in all instances and indeed in some instances actively protests/acts against racism isn't sufficient defence for those instances where he is racist (or at least allows himself to be grouped with and receive the support of racists)

What racism?

Honestly, I would love to hear some actual things, because all I've seen have been his poor leadership on anti-semitism, which is born out of his dislike of a state that is currently (and has been for many years) racist.

[Which Tyler]

What racism?

Honestly, I would love to hear some actual things, because all I've seen have been his poor leadership on anti-semitism, which is born out of his dislike of a state that is currently (and has been for many years) racist.

I suspect its going to be another, like the bullying, where he "just knows", to the point where all evidence to the contrary can be ignored, and no evidence of the accusation need be provided.

[Digby]

What racism?

Honestly, I would love to hear some actual things, because all I've seen have been his poor leadership on anti-semitism, which is born out of his dislike of a state that is currently (and has been for many years) racist.

I suspect its going to be another, like the bullying, where he "just knows", to the point where all evidence to the contrary can be ignored, and no evidence of the accusation need be provided.

Actually this one I'd lean more towards anyone claiming it's not a thing is being just weirdly obtuse.

[Stom]

What racism?

Honestly, I would love to hear some actual things, because all I've seen have been his poor leadership on anti-semitism, which is born out of his dislike of a state that is currently (and has been for many years) racist.

I suspect its going to be another, like the bullying, where he "just knows", to the point where all evidence to the contrary can be ignored, and no evidence of the accusation need be provided.

Actually this one I'd lean more towards anyone claiming it's not a thing is being just weirdly obtuse.

Why?

[Son of Mathonwy]

This thread has taken a strange turn. Nearly a page spent on Corbyn's alleged racism (when no one can offer a single instance of a racist statement from him) and nothing on Johnson, a proven racist (I'm sure we're all familiar with the quotes). Is Boris simply too easy a target?

No one is arguing that Corbyn is the perfect leader, but given the limited choice available to us......

[Digby]

I'm perfectly happy to accept criticism of Johnson for having used racist language, and for receiving the support of racists. But again I'm not wondering whether I can hold my nose and vote Tory, I have no consideration whatsoever for voting in such fashion. I am wondering about voting Labour, and the prime concern there is the leadership group at the top of Labour and the role within the party of such groups as Militant and Momentum

[Stom]

I'm perfectly happy to accept criticism of Johnson for having used racist language, and for receiving the support of racists. But again I'm not wondering whether I can hold my nose and vote Tory, I have no consideration whatsoever for voting in such fashion. I am wondering about voting Labour, and the prime concern there is the leadership group at the top of Labour and the role within the party of such groups as Militant and Momentum

What right do you have to label someone a racist because of a personal dislike?

[cashead]

It doesn't in any sense erase any message about apartheid, the whole point of the editing is to build on that and to offer up the contrast/hypocrisy. So more than erase any message it reminds about the message, if it didn't there'd be no point to the alteration she made

The allegations of Corbyn being an anti-semite are at best bad faith bullshit, attempting to smear him because of poor management of an issue, and the attempt at comparing apartheid to whatever it is that Corbyn is responsible for (reminder that you've been asked a couple of times on this page, and you've failed to actually answer the question) comes off like a fairly long bow.

And really? Trying to co-opt an actual black struggle to score political points based on a bad faith argument? Yeah nah, no thanks, bro.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I'm perfectly happy to accept criticism of Johnson for having used racist language, and for receiving the support of racists. But again I'm not wondering whether I can hold my nose and vote Tory, I have no consideration whatsoever for voting in such fashion. I am wondering about voting Labour, and the prime concern there is the leadership group at the top of Labour and the role within the party of such groups as Militant and Momentum

Where you live no one is likely to unseat the Tories. And Labour and LibDems may well be evenly split (assuming the LibDems do better than last time - which is what the opinion polls say). So I wouldn't lose too much sleep over your decision. What does Remain United say for your area?