|
Post by cyberhat on Sept 19, 2024 21:46:41 GMT
"Bernard Marx Avatar Sept 19, 2024 16:39:35 GMT 1 Bernard Marx said: ClockworkOcean Avatar Sept 19, 2024 16:02:29 GMT 1 ClockworkOcean said: Video Placeholder Interesting that Novara ostensibly admit to being duped at the end of this video... Still, I guess this confirms for definite that those most complicit in ousting Corbyn are now sitting right at the top of the Labour Party Apparatus."
I don't understand how the people on the left who got it fundamentally wrong on the faked up anti-semitism crisis, when it really really mattered that you got it right, still get to be the voice of the left?
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Sept 20, 2024 11:23:28 GMT
I don't understand how the people on the left who got it fundamentally wrong on the faked up anti-semitism crisis, when it really really mattered that you got it right, still get to be the voice of the left?
It's because the "left" are completely fragmented, and currently defined first and foremost by affluent university figures and pure moral indignation. Its nominal faction (exemplified by Novara, Owen Jones, and the Greens to a lesser extent) offer little in terms of what could constitute a working-class movement or base, but they're safer bets for university leftists because they're socially liberal, and ultimately desperate for media recognition. Ironically, their absolute adherence to social liberalism ensured that they were ready to throw key left figures to the wolves, on the spurious grounds that their anti-imperialist critiques of Israeli government policy and mutual relationship with Western political parties were somehow "problematic". A word I consider to be one of the most odious, obnoxious and damaging within contemporary lexicon. The same principle applies to the allegations against Julian Assange, many of which were blithely accepted by the "left" university intelligentsia. The NUS no-platformed George Galloway in 2012 due to his defence of Assange, whilst Sheffield's Student Union tried no-platforming Assange himself in 2016. Such a precedent meant that figures like Jackie Walker, Ken Livingstone, Marc Wandsworth, Tony Greenstein and Chris Williamson could easily be rendered "non-persons" within the Labour Party's "left contingent" should they be deemed "problematic". Cultural figures such as Ken Loach and Roger Waters followed suit, with Oxford JCRs- many of whom would regard themselves as progressive- attempting to blacklist the former on "antisemitism" grounds whilst sneering at the latter's defence of him. This issue ties into a broader problem much of the left has to contend with now. When you predicate your politics purely on moral outrage- rather than a systematic and thorough analysis of contemporary and historical events- it not only becomes easily weaponised by bad faith figures, but also risks alienating the working-class. Even the Pro-Palestine protests somewhat fall victim to this, insofar as the protests primarily express indignation at current events rather than also demonstrating how the Gaza Genocide is but one piece of a larger jigsaw puzzle. One which- alongside America's Proxy War with Russia- is dangerously close to culminating in a bloody war with Iran, which could result in Nuclear Annihilation and the destruction of all life on Earth in a devastating Third World War. Socialism is not a middle-class hobby but a working-class necessity- rooted in a politics designed to materially benefit all, regardless of their irrefutable social and cultural differences- and delineating these relationships to a wider audience would make class consciousness on the left far more likely, potentially denting Reform's support among the working-class. Corbyn's failure to articulate them played a role in his subsequent failure; as much of a soft-spot as I have for him, his political orientation is more predicated around moral indignation than a concerted and fully-worked through socialist programme (which could have spoken more explicitly to the pressing need of an alternative movement rather than simply the desire for it), hence why he intuitively embarrassed himself and prostrated before the Blairites. I'm not convinced Novara and their ilk take much interest in such a process whatsoever. Instead, they embody a hand-wringing form of leftism predicated around "acceptability" and ingratiation. This wouldn't be as much of a problem if the nominal "left"'s core base didn't consist of people with similar interests. An earlier post of mine on the General Election thread summarises my frustrations:
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Sept 23, 2024 16:41:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Sept 25, 2024 10:22:34 GMT
Starmer said people dealing with long-term sickness “need to be back in the workplace where they can."
I love that Kier Starmer is challenging all the high flyers in today's society like people in wheelchairs and pensioners suffering in the cold. He's truly a man of the people.
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Sept 25, 2024 11:21:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Sept 25, 2024 11:59:23 GMT
Honestly looking at things like this and Palestine, and Ukraine and the corruption, stupidity of our leaders and the brain dead simps who support them like James O'Brien it does just make you want to give up.
|
|
|
Post by ClockworkOcean on Oct 11, 2024 13:53:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Oct 11, 2024 16:16:42 GMT
The latest YouGov poll designates Starmer as being more unpopular than Nigel Farage, while his average approval rating currently sits at 26%. 2% below Sunak’s score at the equivalent time in his leadership (formerly the lowest for a PM during their first 100 days).
Does anyone reckon Starmer will be out before time?
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Nov 19, 2024 10:58:59 GMT
An obvious point just occurred to me. Why spend any money at all- let alone £20,000- when you can habitually study in a small library for free? "My Dad was a toolmaker". Yes, evidently.
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Nov 19, 2024 11:03:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Nov 19, 2024 21:15:54 GMT
They don't deserve to be called the Labour Party.
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Nov 19, 2024 23:27:39 GMT
They don't deserve to be called the Labour Party. This comment below a Facebook post by the excellent “Labour Heartlands” (in which Starmer is rendered analogous to Orwell’s Big Brother) says it best:
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Nov 20, 2024 0:17:58 GMT
Not sure about WORSE than the Cons, but definitely on a par.
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Nov 20, 2024 8:34:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Nov 20, 2024 10:28:28 GMT
I have no sympathy for the likes of Jeremy Clarkson (who are simply kicking off to exploit the situation), but I’m still certain this is a land grab rather than an altruistic attack on the super rich. Starmer’s Labour are professional liars and never positively discriminate on class lines (at least not when it comes to the poor), as the WFA policy (bereft of a proper risk assessment) demonstrates. Most analyses defending this recent policy don’t account for the fact that most farmers are asset-rich but financially poor. There’s an insidious contract between the farmer in question and the corporate conglomerates who actually profit from the land. Big landowners- those who clandestinely profit- do so as corporations and not families. Their profit is bound up in a series of trusts, and as such, are not noticeably impacted by this tax. Conversely, poorer farmers rely on inheritance as their lifeline because they get virtually nothing elsewhere. When they end up inevitably selling their land as a result of this policy- so as to stay financially afloat- the only twats rich enough to purchase the land in question will be even richer conglomerates (see Bill Gates). This is crony late-stage-capitalism disguised as socialism, hence why the nominally “liberal” mainstream media have happily championed this policy whilst rubbishing any of Corbyn’s proposed reforms. Alas, this isn’t being discussed enough, because so many on the self-proclaimed left intuitively despise farmers. It’s a sad state of affairs.
|
|