Comrade Corbyn to the fore - whither (or wither) the Labour Party?

To be fair to McDonnell, something he is often not willing to do for others, he was set up by the interviewer who asked him for one-word responses and then fired names at him, one of which was Churchill. As a dyed in the wool communist McDonnell was only going to answer one way - and the interviewer knew that. This is more about getting publicity for the web-blog that set up the interview.
And he thought for a moment before he made his point and reply.

It seems quite a lot of people believe Stephen Lawrences mum is on a par with Churchill because she's made a place for herself in the world off the back of the brutal murder of her son. Now personally I think she's an attention seeker who doesn't deserve any attention or sympathy any more. Churchill on the other hand will always have my admiration and respect.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
And he thought for a moment before he made his point and reply.

It seems quite a lot of people believe Stephen Lawrences mum is on a par with Churchill because she's made a place for herself in the world off the back of the brutal murder of her son. Now personally I think she's an attention seeker who doesn't deserve any attention or sympathy any more. Churchill on the other hand will always have my admiration and respect.
I don't see anything to disagree with there but on the point of McDonnell - of course he thought about it, just as he thought about the previous question . How would you do with questions requiring one word answers (OK, he used two) would you take time to think? I am not agreeing with him just pointing out the obvious bias in the questioning.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
To be fair to McDonnell, something he is often not willing to do for others, he was set up by the interviewer who asked him for one-word responses and then fired names at him, one of which was Churchill. As a dyed in the wool communist McDonnell was only going to answer one way - and the interviewer knew that. This is more about getting publicity for the web-blog that set up the interview.
There are ways and ways of answering. He could have responded, for instance, 'statesman'. That would have answered the question, been correct, and let him off giving a value judgement.

That he was unable to be so politic remains a measure of the man.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Oh no, only "Direct Action".

Look at the language used. "Crimes".

How about massively increasing the national debt?

How about reducing social mobility?

How about politicising and reducing the effectiveness of just about every part of the public sector?

...and the "Working Class" does not need social security hand-outs. Or, if it does need a bump, it would need it even less if we hadn't seen mass inward migration encouraged and even incentivised, and a set of incompetent economic circumstances which saw house-buying put beyond the means of many.
 
Chris Williamson when asked by Andrew Neil his view of Chuchill said "villan". "it was people like my mum and dad that won the war, not Churchill".

He disagrees with Deputy Leader Tom Watson's claim that Luciana Berger has been bullied.

He also claims that Labour is an example of how to deal with anti-semitism...

Chris Williamson vs Nosferatu
1550148277608.png
 
Last edited:
And of course Lenin’s or Stalin’s response to any kind of dissent from the workers is a totally different situation and bears no resemblance in any way to what the criminal Churchill did.
Which it doesn’t. Their crimes were far worse.
(Sorry for stooping to their level and using whataboutery)
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
There are ways and ways of answering. He could have responded, for instance, 'statesman'. That would have answered the question, been correct, and let him off giving a value judgement.

That he was unable to be so politic remains a measure of the man.
This is typical Arrse, a politician was asked a question and for once he actually answered the question, but that is not good enough! FFS you don't have to agree with him.

McDonnell was asked "In one word, Churchill: Hero or Villain" he answered!

I don't agree with him, and he probably used the wrong Labour anti WSC scenario, but he did answer the bloody question.
 

Blogg

LE
Look at the language used. "Crimes".

How about massively increasing the national debt?

How about reducing social mobility?

How about politicising and reducing the effectiveness of just about every part of the public sector?

...and the "Working Class" does not need social security hand-outs. Or, if it does need a bump, it would need it even less if we hadn't seen mass inward migration encouraged and even incentivised, and a set of incompetent economic circumstances which saw house-buying put beyond the means of many.
Yet McDonald & Corbyn are "the future". Well, let's see about that....

"Corbyn is 69. John McDonnell is 67. Although they are pushing forward Rebecca Long-Bailey as the heir apparent, the two politicians touring the constituencies and building support are Emily Thornberry, whose loyalty to the far left is widely seen as insincere, and Angela Rayner, who is showing faint signs of developing a mind of her own.

In other words, the far left has a succession problem; a problem that flowed from its decision to imitate the communist dictatorships and build a personality cult around its leader.


Corbyn’s supporters pretended that he led the anti-apartheid movement, when in truth he was but a bit player. They said he fought for peace in Ireland, when in truth he supported Sinn Fein. They claimed that he talked to all sides in the Middle East, when in truth he talked to Hamas, Hezbollah, and the propaganda organs of the Iranian state."



The Corbyn crack-up | The Spectator
 

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
This is typical Arrse, a politician was asked a question and for once he actually answered the question, but that is not good enough! FFS you don't have to agree with him.

McDonnell was asked "In one word, Churchill: Hero or Villain" he answered!

I don't agree with him, and he probably used the wrong Labour anti WSC scenario, but he did answer the bloody question.
I agree, he was tricked into an exchange that had 'have you stopped beating your wife' written all over it.

However, the very fact that he thought it advisable to get into that exchange in the first place speaks volumes about his judgement. How well did he think it was going to go?
 

Robme

LE
Just on an aside, the bulding in Mosul used by DAESH to throw gay men to their deaths has been demolished.

Mosul demolishes iconic building used by IS for 'gay' killings

(seperate to the above link, it is the Natioanl Insurance Company building in Mosul).

I do remember Jones getting very righteous about the mass killing at the Pulse nightclub in Florida (where 50 people were murdered); and thinking that's very nice to be outraged; you will the ends to defeat terrorism, you will the means.

He's another person who's never had to take a hard decision in their life, or accept resppnsibility, or rise to the demands of duty.
I too remember that interview, where he walked out in the end. Totally threw a wobbly because there wasn’t enough all gays are fantastic or sum-such-nonsense. That the killing of gays was a crime worth throwing an atomic bomb at.
 
Last edited:

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
This is typical Arrse, a politician was asked a question and for once he actually answered the question, but that is not good enough! FFS you don't have to agree with him.

McDonnell was asked "In one word, Churchill: Hero or Villain" he answered!

I don't agree with him, and he probably used the wrong Labour anti WSC scenario, but he did answer the bloody question.
I concede that the forum he was in was somewhat limited/limiting but for contrast JRM often goes to great lengths to answer questions, deliberately (and to his continued detriment) avoiding soundbites. That lays him open to massive (mis)interpretation. The "we should be glad we have food banks" episode being a case in point - the fuller, truer response conceded that there are issues in society but praised the benevolence of many within that same society.

McDonnell was asked a question and, yes, he answered. He's now being judged on his response.

I was merely making the point that a more politic response was possible - one which could have still conveyed a, shall we say, lack of regard. That, though, is beyond a spiteful individual such as McDonnell. He had to get the dig in.

So, you're right: his answer wasn't good enough. It showed his inability to think in the round, to acknowledge the wider achievements of an individual, and to know when saying less is rather more. It showed his limitations as a politician (because if he were in power we would expect and indeed need him to be circumspect) and as an individual in general.

It also shows the rabidity of his cohort. Had he responded with a more politic term, he would have forever been condemned as an appeaser and a sell-out. There is a dangerous element of spiralling one-upmanship on the Left, however I don't have any sympathy for him. He has long been an instigator and a driving force (see the video above about Direct Action). If his intransigence proves harmful to him and his cause, then so be it.
 

Robme

LE
I don't think it's Corbyn's teat he's sucking.



He's not a journalist, he's a political campaigner whose mind is still in Oxford University Labour club. His work in the Guardian is openly ridiculed - and that's by Guardian readers. It's inadequately researched, full of contradictions and not up to the standard required by a popular national newspaper. His colleagues know this and are no doubt resentful about the fact that he is still working there at a time when the Grun is racking up spectacular losses and redundancies are looming.

If his obsession with his sexuality is as blatant at work as it is during his public appearances, they're no doubt getting sick of his out-and-proud routine too. Being openly, indeed volubly, gay might have made him "special" up north in the 1990s but I doubt anybody gives a feck in the Guardian offices today.
Ok I have asked this before without much luck, but ever the game poster. Why do homosexuals have to come out? Is it like that Jewish festival when the boy becomes the man? I have been happily heterosexual since I realised that tits and fury fannies were fun things to play with and have never felt the need to broadcast this in any shape or form.
 
Ok I have asked this before without much luck, but ever the game poster. Why do homosexuals have to come out? Is it like that Jewish festival when the boy becomes the man? I have been happily heterosexual since I realised that tits and fury fannies were fun things to play with and have never felt the need to broadcast this in any shape or form.
You just have.
 
I'm slightly concerned that Guido uses the word "Tollypandy". Three times.
I don't see why he's making such a fuss about a childrens TV puppet although I do think the stripey dungarees suspect!

1550152848993.png


edited to add, children under 40 may need to ask an adult who the above is!
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top