..Corbyn

[condor]

Why is Corbyn being such a wimp: tax the rich properly!

[The Intransigent Faction]

Better yet, expropriate!
While taxes can go to things like health care and essential services, they ultimately serve to sustain the bourgeois state.

[The Idler]

Why wait for Corbyn.
If we get together and there is enough of us we can force the matter ourselves.

[Црвена]

There's already a thread on Corbyn: http://www.revleft.com/vb/jeremy-corbyn-unified-t193670/index.html?t=193670

And yeah, what Brad said. Taxing the rich to death is not good for the capitalist economic "machine" and won't benefit anyone in the long run. The best thing to do would be to smash the whole dysfunctional machine.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Indeed, it's better to expropriate property than wait for capitalists to make profits/acquire property and then tax it.

[Црвена]

Indeed, it's better to expropriate property than wait for capitalists to make profits/acquire property and then tax it.

...And then use this tax money to fund bombing the Middle East and cleaning up after capitalism. Yeah, it is better.

[The Feral Underclass]

If this video report is indicative of working class communities across Britain, then you Corbynistas have a real problem...The white working class in Britain continue to be terrified of Johnny Foreigner. Yawn.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/dec/02/oldham-byelection-corbymania-collides-reality-video

[Lord Testicles]

If this video report is indicative of working class communities across Britain, then you Corbynistas have a real problem...The white working class in Britain continue to be terrified of Johnny Foreigner. Yawn.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/dec/02/oldham-byelection-corbymania-collides-reality-video

Turns out that the guardians video report isn't even indicative of working class communities in Oldham. Labour has just won with nearly an 11,000 majority.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yep. Interesting though, only 40% of the electorate turned out, which is a 20% decrease on Meacher's turnout. This meant that Mahon lost 6,000 votes. UKIP also lost about 2,000 votes.

Mahon is also a pro-business moderate, so I'm not really sure how much of a victory it really is for Corbyn, although it's not stopping him from claiming it as a large one. I'd be interested to know who he voted for in the Labour leadership election.

[Lord Testicles]

Yep. Interesting though, only 40% of the electorate turned out, which is a 20% decrease on Meacher's turnout. This meant that Mahon lost 6,000 votes. UKIP also lost about 2,000 votes.

Mahon is also a pro-business moderate, so I'm not really sure how much of a victory it really is for Corbyn, although it's not stopping him from claiming it as a large one. I'd be interested to know who he voted for in the Labour leadership election.

I'm just enjoying listening to Nigel Farage piss and moan about this election result, it almost makes me want to vote Labour.

[The Feral Underclass]

Listening to Nigel Farage piss and moan about this election result is delicious.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01630/farage-bloody_1630994i.jpg

[Lord Testicles]

My favourite:


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01630/getting-into-plane_1630927i.jpg
http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article219526.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/nigel-farage-pic-ins-news-image-3-533993180.jpg

[The Feral Underclass]

My favourite:


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01630/getting-into-plane_1630927i.jpg
http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article219526.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/nigel-farage-pic-ins-news-image-3-533993180.jpg

That is truly beautiful.

[logfish111]

Farage made an absolute fool of himself during this by-election (not that this is a surprise), first exclaiming that it represented a referendum on Corbyn's leadership (that backfired), then conducting the usual negative and divisive campaigning we get from UKIP, only for it not to work. Now complaining about electoral fraud because he lost so dramatically, this is delightful to watch.

[Rudolf]

Yep. Interesting though, only 40% of the electorate turned out, which is a 20% decrease on Meacher's turnout. This meant that Mahon lost 6,000 votes. UKIP also lost about 2,000 votes.



That's a weird thing to say considering by elections nearly always have a lower turnout (last time this wasn't the case was ~45 years ago) and this one was in december and apparantly raining. In comparison the last by election labour won (Heywood & Middleton, oct 2014) the turn out was 58% of that which turned out at the GE. Nearly fucking half! A decrease turnout of 20% is pretty damn good.




I'd be interested to know who he voted for in the Labour leadership election.

Apparently it was Liz Kendall lol.

[The Feral Underclass]

That's a weird thing to say considering by elections nearly always have a lower turnout (last time this wasn't the case was ~45 years ago) and this one was in december and apparantly raining. In comparison the last by election labour won (Heywood & Middleton, oct 2014) the turn out was 58% of that which turned out at the GE. Nearly fucking half! A decrease turnout of 20% is pretty damn good.

Weird?


Apparently it was Liz Kendall lol.

Well that says it all.

[Rudolf]

Weird?



Well that says it sall.


The word escaped me...

And yes, it does say it all. Although i got that from the guardian so it may be wrong as the rag's a hell of alot like the daily mail these days.

[The Feral Underclass]

The word escaped me...

And yes, it does say it all. Although i got that from the guardian so it may be wrong as the rag's a hell of alot like the daily mail these days.

Katherine Viner is dragging the paper to the right.

[Rudolf]

Katherine Viner is dragging the paper to the right.


Don't know who that is but ok. Pissed me right off in the past months with their serial defense of TERFs.

[The Feral Underclass]

She took over from Alan Rushbridger as editor-in-chief in June. The paper is also avowedly anti-Corbyn.

[Rudolf]

Aren't all papers except the morning star though? Im pleased Corbyn's leader as it's funny seeing all these self-styled progressives freak the fuck out over someone with anti-austerity and anti-war rhetoric. Not as funn6y as McDonnell red-baiting the tories though.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The Guardian supported the Liberal Democrats in 2010. I'm not sure that it could claim much of a left-wing editorial line from then on, though of course it does give some space to genuine left-wing commentators like Gary Younge, Owen Jones and so on. But then it also hosts opinion columns from David Cameron occasionally, so really it should be considered as a centrist paper; it's only considered a left-wing paper because the rest of the British print media is so avowedly pro-big business.

Re: Jim McMahon, it appears that he is a 'moderate' as he voted for Liz Kendall in the leadership election. It is interesting, however, to note that he and Momentum seemed to be very complimentary of each other throughout the campaign, with Momentum hosting a dinner for McMahon where he was very warm in his praise for Momentum's campaigning efforts (I believe John McDonnell also attended).

It appears that, so far, the media are wrong. The public actually like the idea of an honest, principled, pro-social justice and anti-war politician. Who'd have thought.

I also think the coverage of Hilary Benn's speech says it all about most media commentators. Seeing Guardian commentators fawning over this middle aged, wealthy white man making a speech that combined great oratory with a total lack of substance shows that the 'moderate' left is:

a) totally lacking in principles and be willing to be swayed by some inane piece of rhetoric;
b) completely focused on their own popularity;
c) in awe of the rule of wealthy white men who have spent their careers perfecting media set-piece opportunities instead of working hard for the people they are meant to represent, or working hard for just causes and against oppression.

[Comrade Jacob]

lol @ "Tax the rich". You a social-democrat or summot?

[reviscom1]

The Guardian supported the Liberal Democrats in 2010. I'm not sure that it could claim much of a left-wing editorial line from then on

I agree with most of your comment, but don't necessarily see support of the Liberal Democrats in 2010 as evidence of abandonment of left wing principles.

Realistically (as far as The Guardian was concerned) the alternative was to support Labour, and Labour was so right wing and discredited at the time that many on the left thought that the Lib Dems were a more left wing party.

They had opposed the Iraq War, ID cards, detention without trial and university tuition fees (according to the information available back then), all of which had been initiated by Labour.

Remember, the Lib Dems were not in Coalition with the Tories at the time so did not have that right wing taint.

Even after going into the Coalition it should be remembered that, well, they were in Coalition and therefore had to compromise with their Coalition partners. And I think they did rein back the Tories on some issues (as we have seen since the Tories won an outright majority in 2015)

There was some debate in 2010 as to whom The Guardian would and should plump for, and many of its left wing readers urged them to back the Lib Dems, seeing Labour as a tired, corrupt old establishment party that had been in government for too long.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I agree with most of your comment, but don't necessarily see support of the Liberal Democrats in 2010 as evidence of abandonment of left wing principles.

Realistically (as far as The Guardian was concerned) the alternative was to support Labour, and Labour was so right wing and discredited at the time that many on the left thought that the Lib Dems were a more left wing party.

They had opposed the Iraq War, ID cards, detention without trial and university tuition fees (according to the information available back then), all of which had been initiated by Labour.

Remember, the Lib Dems were not in Coalition with the Tories at the time so did not have that right wing taint.

Even after going into the Coalition it should be remembered that, well, they were in Coalition and therefore had to compromise with their Coalition partners. And I think they did rein back the Tories on some issues (as we have seen since the Tories won an outright majority in 2015)

There was some debate in 2010 as to whom The Guardian would and should plump for, and many of its left wing readers urged them to back the Lib Dems, seeing Labour as a tired, corrupt old establishment party that had been in government for too long.

Fair points, however i'd also point out that although the lib dems used to be every edgy student's favourite third party, this doesn't make them actually left-wing and in fact they are a classically 'centrist' party. I always got the impression with the liberals that - although their politics has for a long-time been the hallmark of 'chasing the radical centre' through classic liberalism masquerading as populism - their real strength came from their position as a third party, allowing certain people who consider themselves 'left' to feel as though they are doing something different by not plumping for one of the main two parties.