Absolute car crash LBC interview with Corbyn defender

painful to listen to

so fooking clueless 

probably posts here

 

it was LBC news but the gist was "Corbyn is right, there are a couple of bad apples but all that anti semitism stuff was a distraction and political ploy and labour would have won that last election if not for dirty tricks"

blah blah blah

"I don't want Starmer as PM blah blah politics of Blair"

"yeah but Blair won all 3 elections he fought?"

"Starmer doesn't have charisma, won't be leader by next election etc etc"

I mean, I don't want to say the labour party would benefit from a loony purge but I'm also not not saying that

I have some sympathy with the left that want to see a far more radical agenda that Corbyn represented, all this covid stuff shows that if government wants to find money to transform society it can.

But there is no fooking point in being in perpetual opposition. No point in having policies the electorate wont go for and no point in having a leader most people don't like or trust.

Guy Crouchback30 Oct 20 12:32

Does Corbyn have any defenders left here?

Sorry didn’t you want him to be PM? Apparently it still makes you very angry that people voted for the only possible alternative and we should all be ashamed of ourselves.

Corbyn never had a radical agenda, it was all just the same shit Johnson wanted but with a bit of "oh and we need more trade unions instead of aristocrats" glossed on 

that's the most mind fooking thing about it, pure conservative ideology from him, probably coming out of embracing conservative islam in the 90s to replace communism, but even so, not a hint of liberalism, contrast Blair who rolled out the HRA and Devolution and took a punt on lords reform and access to justice

incompetence can be good if you want government to stay out of the way

not so great with a brexit or pandemic situation

johnson could have been amazing, 5 new laws about cycle lanes and nothing else for 5 years would have been perfect

I didn't vote for either of them BECAUSE they were both racists.

Nobody who voted for Corbyn can say they are anything other than an apologist for racism. 

It was obvious before he was elected leader he was an antisemite (he was during the Blair and Brown years - Christ Livingston was allowed to stand as Mayor too) and it wasn't in any possible doubt at the 2019 election.  Anyone who voted for him was OK with a racist as PM as long as they did some other stuff they liked.  Same as the Tories who voted for Johnson.  Don't try to claim any alleged moral superiority over those Tories on rascism.

"Nobody who voted for Corbyn can say they are anything other than an apologist for racism". 

What total bullshit.  All credibility on this discussion lost. 

Nobody who voted for Corbyn can say they are anything other than an apologist for racism
 

by this logic nobody who voted Labour or Tory in the last election can be anything other than an apologist for racism, which is a fairly large % of the country 

difference is the other guy is busy fooking the country over in entirely predictable ways because he is incapable of doing the job.

 

If corbyn was in power and passing anti-Semitic legislation I would admit to a huge error of judgment in voting for him

Goose interesting you are centre left - weren't you pro Brexit?  (sorry if I have misremembered) if so you might be the only centre left person I have ever met or come across who was.

by this logic nobody who voted Labour or Tory in the last election can be anything other than an apologist for racism, which is a fairly large % of the country 

Yes. Corbyn was obviously a racist.  Johnson was obviously a racist.

It’s not hard.  Just because lots of people did it doesn’t make it less true, it just demonstrates that lots of people, including people like Guy, will vote for a clear and obvious racist if they agree with other stuff they say 

The idea that Johnson is racist is for the birds. 

He just churned out so many columns that every leftie can quite something, usually written a decade or two ago, that could be construed as inappropriate. Usually, he was satirically channelling the person he was writing about - as in Blair’s condescending pleasure at seeing the picaninnies with their watermelon smiles. 

Ill-advised, but hardly racist. 
 

 

Also they did it while ignoring and minimising the racism.

It’s not like they said “they’re both racists but on balance I’ll go for the one who hates Jews but will tax billionaires more”.  

They said he was OK really and he should be actually the Prime actual Minister