Editor’s Note: Ex-Labour Party MPs Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana have announced that a new left-wing party will soon be founded in Britain. Corbyn, who was previously the leader of the Labour Party, said, “For too long, people have been denied a real political choice – not anymore.
Now then, I voted for Corbyn for leader twice. But his statement after the report in to antisemitism came out was of his own doing. He was asked to remove a single sentence - about it being overblown by fake reports, even though was exclusively regarding substantiated instances - and refused to.
We really need to stop with this faux persecution narrative. Policywise he was great, but at literally everything else he failed, and often by his own actions.
This is exactly my point. The antisemitism angle was pushed so ferociously by the media, that it caused people such as yourself to act against your own interests.
Tell me, do you still think ousting Corbyn was the right move? Are we in a better position now under Kiers labour?
Continuing to vote for someone who lost two elections - regardless of how “fair” the other side fought is much more against my interests.
I think any leader losing two elections is grounds of them to step down.
Were there unsubstantiated claims? Yes, absolutely.
But the report was not about those, it was about the ones that were proven to have happened. Replying to that report by bringing up unproven cases is very #notallmen energy.
Better than under the Tories? Absolutely. I’m a trustee of a local foodbank, since July this is our first 12 month period ever where usage has reduced. That is directly related to increases in UC, the minimum wage, and DWP being moved to be helping people access benefits instead of finding any excuse to sanction them.
Is it better than what Corbyn campaigned on in 2017 or 2019? No, it’s not.
But actual improvements are better for those people who would otherwise be literally starving, compared to hypothetical alt futures.
Do you truly believe kier beat the Tories on his own merit, rather than the Tories self imploding? Even after winning, he had around 1m less on the popular vote than Corbyns loss in 2019… Why? Because voter apathy and a general disdain for the tories handed labour the last election, rather than them winning on their own merit.
The only reason I and many other people voted for Kiers labour was exactly as you said, 14 year of tory regime has decimated the countries welfare, and intentionally so… But the countries complicit nature In the bombing of children in Gaza continues, if it wasn’t for good ol’ Jeremy there wouldn’t even be an inquiry as labour have rejected the bill to hold an independently run tribunal to investigate the governments complicit nature in the Gaza genocide and that is just too big of a pain point for me. I refuse to have the blood of innocent children on my hands, even if it means life at home gets easier.
This is ultimately how democracy works right. Labour pretending to be the left wing option of the UK has left many voters disenfranchised… Now, labour can own up to being the centrist party they’ve become, and those who want the lesser of two evils can continue to vote for them… The rest of us who want to see real societal change, can try a new approach.
labour is not a left wing party, the sooner people accept that, the better
There will always be tension between where ideology, and hopes of a better world, meet with what is currently achievable.
What is achievable depends on load of factors; what technology exists, how wealth is concentrated, how divided people are, etc etc.
It’s the 1500+ days between elections that we must work to shift these factors closer towards where we want to be, so people support policies rather than reject them.
I’d love to be in a situation where overnight everyone realised it’s the ultra rich that are the problem, and band together to peacefully redistribute based on nerd. But that isn’t where we are.
This is just pure virtue signaling. The idea that by purposefully throwing away your vote is somehow morally better than voting once every 5 years for the lesser of two evils is asinine in the extreme.
So an independent investigation into our current involvement in Gaza isn’t currently achievable for what reason? What part of a better world are we missing, where a supposedly democratic nation, can’t carry out an independent check on it’s public offices?
Pot. Kettle.
Call it whatever you like, but what’s asinine is to keep voting for the same party, and expecting different results.
I am continuing to talk about Labour’s manifestos, their electoral results in 2017, 2019, and 2024, and how it’s a frustrating reality that a) you can’t change anything if you aren’t in power, and b) getting in to power requires adjusting the offering based on what is currently possible.
I know you know this, but actually doing something that has an impact is not virtue signalling. We fed over 8k people last year, and that’s much more helpful to the working class than failing to get elected.
If purity is the reason you do nothing, instead of something, then you’re part of the problem.
Nobody is suggesting feeding people is virtue signalling, stop with the strawman already. I’m suggesting that pointing to your work at a food bank and then banging on about “being morally better” and “virtue signalling” in the very next breath is laughable.
Please re-read my comments, you’ll see what I’ve written is not what you’re claiming it is.
I’m always happy to talk about routes of how we get to a better place, but if you’re just wanting to argue then I’ll pass.
I don’t think he should have been ousted but at the same time he gave them material to smear him with.
What concerns me about him is he thinks that having principles is enough, he thinks that if he truly believes in something that’s the end of it and no more thinking about the matter is required. Righteously or wrongly, if you want to make an impact in the political world you have to play the political game, and part of that means limiting your exposure to smear campaigns.
The material he gave them was campaigning against Zionist activities in Gaza way back in the noughties; before all the genocidal stuff happening now, and his defence was anti-zionism ≠ anti-Semitism… which I think in today’s light is a very obvious statement, but back in 2019; the average person wasn’t aware of what was happening in Gaza, and so the papers ran with the antisemitism angle.
I get what you’re saying about playing the game; he could have been dishonest and claimed that the parties issues with Israel’s warmongering was actually antisemitism, apologised and given an empty promise about change, to which no-one would bat an eye (a politician lying is a politician breathing etc…), but that’s the exact problem with politics… Corbyn was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise toxic environment; unapologetically honest, and cantankerous when it comes to people pussy footing around an issue, and this is exactly why the media dogged him so heavily… they couldn’t buy him, and he was gunning for their owners hoarded wealth. If it wasn’t the anti-Semitism angle, they would have found something else to try and beat him with.
Even now, he’s attempting to force the UK to address the ongoing British involvement in the Gaza genocide; ofcourse the Tory lites rejected any investigation, which in itself is reminiscent of Blair’s labour and Iraq.
It’s not just that it’s everything that he does.
At some point he was asked if he would fire nuclear weapons in the event that we were attacked with nuclear weapons. It was a stupid question, and one that’s easy to answer, just say yes. You don’t need to think about it, you don’t need to analyse the hypothetical situation, just say yes you would, and move on.
But he turned it into this whole thing about whether the ends justify the means. Obviously he has a point, but that news conference wasn’t the time or place to have that discussion. The time to have that discussion is after you’re already in power, otherwise it’s pointless and refusing to give a straight yes or no answer just hands the media another weapon to hit you with. As they can say you’re indecisive.
Yeah agreed, that was a question clearly posed to rile up the moderates in the party, knowing how he would respond with his hardline anti-war stance.
Whether or not I agree with the statement, I judge his character higher for that response; unapologetically honest, to a fault even, and stood by his beliefs. That is definitely evidence of him being a poor politician; had he less integrity, he may never have been ousted… But equally, with less integrity; he’d probably end up just another Blair clone like Starmer.
It’s no different with the Ukraine Russia situation. Corbyn is calling for de-escalation rather than war with Russia; which will inevitably be spun into Corbyn being Pro-Putin in the media rather than anti-WW3. Sure he could keep his mouth shut, and play the game, but why should he? The country is tired of politics. “Nothing ever changes”, “they’re all the same” are common complaints citizens have… So maybe we should stop voting for people based on their capacity to be dishonest, and instead look at the people who seem to have some integrity.