His victory ends a tradition of Islington North voting for Labour since a 1937 byelection.
Which is good, because voting for stealthy Tories disguised as Labour would’ve been bad.
Not surprising. He was sadly too divisive to be a widely-popular Labour leader, but afaik he’s well-liked by his actual constituents, and this backs that up.
If someone being consistent with Labour’s values is too divisive to lead Labour, there can’t be Labour at all. I disagree with some of his stances, but what this man suffered wasn’t internal opposition, it was political assassination.
As an American looking in, Corbyn has always been the face of UK’s Labour Party.
Why was he ousted? The article says something about an antisemitism statement, but surely that’s not the whole of it.
They basically did something similar to what happened to Bernie with the DNC. they did a full court press antisemitism campaign against him, but like many of the charges of antisemitism in the US right now, it was largely based on criticism of Israeli policy AFAIK.
Edit: to clarify—they ousted him because labor was looking ascendant, and the more centrist and corporatist elements of labor could not stomach the idea of actually having a PM that wanted to do left wing things that aligned with the theoretical purpose of the labor party, so they took him out by getting enough articles published in the famously above-board uk media to force him from leadership.
Just to illustrate the nature of that campaign, at one point and in order to accuse Corbyn of being anti-semitic, they said that he had sat on a panel in a conference where one of the members of the same panel compared the actions of Israel to those of the Nazis, “hence” (by association) Corbyn was an anti-semite.
The thing is, said member of the panel who compared the actions of Israel to those of the Nazis was a Jewish Holocaust Survivor.
If such words made Corbyn an anti-semite by association then, having said such words, said panel member would even more so have to be an anti-semite.
In other words, the anti-Corbyn campaign was so rabid ragingly extremist and sleazy that they were accused a Jewish Holocaus Survivor of being an anti-semite in order to try to taint Corbyn by association.
PS: And, by the way, this very newspaper - The Guardian - was an active participant in that campaign and published this slander, amongst others.
Yup, this pretty much sums it up.
To add, the vast majority of the antisemitism complaints involved other Labour ministers liking and posting anti-Israel Tweets that were consider too extreme. These ranged from ones that “crossed the line” of criticism against Israeli policy and the Israel lobby in the UK (some of which you can read in the report on pages 27-30) to ones that allegedly blamed Jewish members of the Labour party for making false complaints, or even tried to dimish the Holocaust (although I can’t find the exact details of those).
Either way, none of the complaints involved Corbyn himself but his reputation was tarnished and it made him an easy target for his opponents.
By “antisemitism” they mean not licking Israeli arse while they keep murdering Palestinians.
He was ousted because capitalists are shit scared of socialists getting anywhere near the levers of power.
In 2017, under Corbyn, Labour got over 40% of the vote compared to about 34% yesterday. Even in 2019 under Corybyn, Labour got like 32%. The narrative in Britain might be that Corbyn was too divisive and Starmer is a unifier but the real issue is that the right wing was split this time in ways it wasn’t under Boris Johnson.
I mean, say what you want about Corbyn — lord knows the garbage UK media will — but his Labour Party did very well once and about average the next time. The main issue is that using a “first past the post” system in a country with more than 2 parties is silly and undemocratic.
FPTP is undemocratic, full stop. Doesn’t matter how many parties.
He was sadly too divisive to be a widely-popular Labour leader
Bullshit. He was elected leader because people wanted to go back to the party’s left wing roots.
The Blairite Neoliberal wing of the party didn’t like that, so they ousted him with a smear campaign calling him “divisive” (read: agrees more with the broader population than with the neoliberal establishment and their rich owner donors) and “antisemitic” (read: isn’t in the pocket of the fascist apartheid regime, has empathy for their Palestinian victims)
How was he divisive?
Corbyn grew the Labour party to the top. Then israel coup’d the Labour party and forced him out. Now israel controls the Labour and by extension the UK.
Democracy btw.
Jeremy has managed to get far for someone so ahead of his time.
This will please Rachel Riley no end. I expect her messages of support and congratulations any moment now.
Any moment…
Good for him. I’ve never seen Jeremy Corbyn be anything other than decent and honest, and frank about his policies and why they are needed, even as he was treated terribly by the media. Hopefully he can be an effective voice in Parliament during this Labour government.
I’m not from the UK but when I last watched something with Corbyn he was shilling for Russia, how is that not an absolute deal-breaker?
Edit: I was completely right and got downvoted for it. He wanted to stop arms to Ukraine. He sucks and can go and die in a volcano. No left-wing politicians in Poland are like this when it comes to Russia, why are western lefties so brain-dead and conciliatory to this horrible regime? Telling Ukraine to roll over and give up its land. Fuck you tankie POS.
Certain parts of the media/political establishment certainly tried to paint him that way, but really he was only guilty of not being hawkish enough on Russia.
He was always in favor of a ceasefire and a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict instead of perpetuating an endless war.
perpetuating endless war
Meaning Ukraine should stop resisting its efforts to throw out the Russian invaders of their country. Literally parrotting Russian propaganda on the war.
See my comment here as a response.
So… Touting the Russian narrative.
Anyone who’s been following the Ukraine conflict from the start knows this is a Russian talking-point.
And who says the war will be endless? That’s another Russian talking-point intending to sow defeatism.
What will Corbyn say and do when Ukraine commits to a ceasefire, loses 17% of its landmass, allows Russia to regroup its forces, and strikes again?
The Russia/Ukraine conflict is a lot more complex than people in the West generally think.
You won’t hear this often in mainstream media but NATO expansionism and the involvement of neo-nazi, far right paramilitary groups in the Maidan revolution in Ukraine, along with US State Department involvement, were legitimate grievances for Russia. (There’s a great interview with a Ukrainian sociologist here that I think explains things in a fairly even handed way).
Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine, no question, but in the beginning there was a potential diplomatic resolution on the table if the US and NATO were willing to back off Ukraine. Support for joining NATO was always mixed in Ukraine anyway - Before the war, less than half of Ukrainians wanted it.
And who says the war will be endless? That’s another Russian talking-point intending to sow defeatism.
Russia’s resources are vast and they are supported by China. Ukraine is backed by the deep pockets of NATO. Over half a million troops on both sides have been killed (edit: or wounded). A recent UN report said:
Russia’s full-scale armed attack on Ukraine, which is about to enter its third year with no end in sight, continues to cause serious and widespread human rights violations, destroying lives and livelihoods
and stated that over 30,000 civilians have already died. A diplomatic solution three years ago could have possibly prevented all that.
Those are only a problem for Russia’s ambitions to conquer Ukraine. I.e. a problem for Putin’s ambitions, not Russians. NATO won’t even step into Ukraine to save an ally let alone invade a nuclear power like Russia.
Putin could’ve maintained good relations with gas importers, spent all this massive military funding on economic and infrastructure investments, and everyone but Putin would be happier for it.
You won’t hear this often in mainstream media but NATO expansionism
Dont sovereign countries have the right to join alliances? Would you support the US invading Mexico if Mexico joins a chinese led alliance? Would you support a cuban invasion during the Cold War for similar reasons?
the involvement of neo-nazi far right paramilitary groups in the Maidan revolution in Ukraine were legitimate grievances for Russia.
Putin is also supported by neo-nazis. The premiere russian military organization in Ukraine was named Wagner. What is your argument here? Shitty people follow shitty ideologies. You fight with the people you have, not with the people you want to have. This is problematic but it isnt as if Ukraine was left with many alternatives.
Ukraine is not that different to Russia in the end. Both have insane corruption issues and both have neonazis. Neither is an excuse to invade anyone or to not help the victims of an invasion.
Russia’s resources are vast and they are supported by China. Ukraine is backed by the deep pockets of NATO.
Russia has the gdp of Italy. Russia is big in terms of geographical area but not really in terms of economy. If you think Russia has vast resources, wait till you find out about the resources the West has. It’s all about political will.
And China doesnt really support Russia, at least not in terms of military help, at least not for the moment. China supports Russia as much as Turkey supports it, ie it facilitates trade and takes advantage of Russia’s lack of alternatives when it comes to trading.
Over half a million troops on both sides have been killed
Casualties are not dead. It is dead+injured.
A diplomatic solution three years ago could have possibly prevented all that.
What diplomatic solution would have prevented Russia from invading? Should have the West pre-emptively sanctioned and cut off Russia from the world economy in order to prevent the invasion? Should the West have said “ok, we wont let Ukraine join NATO and EU”? Should countries not have the right to choose what they do?
Even during the early stages of invasion, Macron legitimately thought he could stop it, he still wanted to keep the bridge with Russia alive. Go back and read some articles. Now Macron is one of the most anti-Russia politicians in the world? Why? Because he eventually realized that there was no alternative and that Putin was bullshitting him the whole time.
In Russia’s mind there are 2 types of countries, sovereign countries where rules do not apply to (the US, China, Russia) and minor countries that are just following what their “master” country tells them. It is inconceivable to the russian mind that 2 countries could freely associate with each other. Hence the whole “NATO expansion” narrative. As if NATO tanks marched in and forced those countries to join it.
The exact opposite happened actually. Eastern Europe was so afraid even after the USSR collapse, that some of them blackmailed NATO to let them join. Poland literally threatened to get their own nukes if they werent allowed to join NATO.
Ask yourself, why would all eastern european countries want to join NATO? Your answer is the Ukraine invasion. They wanted to join because they didnt want to be like Ukraine is now.
Sorry, but Russia has no legimitate grievances on anything that takes place inside of Ukraine.
Ditto on the NATO expansion and all that “argumentation” line you’re parroting: Russia and Ukraine are different soverign nations and none of them has any right to force the other to do anything, which does mean that it’s not up to Russia and never was the way Ukraine runs their government including which alliances they join, same as, for example, it was never up to the United States how Iraq was run (and why the American invasion of Iraq was just as immoral as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the “Saddam was a murderous dictator” is a totally bollocks excuse).
Up and until the point one of those nations actually harms the other, none of the has any right to do anything to the other and as it so happens, it was Russia that harmed Ukraine by invading it, so the only nation there with any legitimate grievances is Ukraine.
In fact since the Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea, Ukraine and Ukraine alone is the one nation of the two with legitimate grivances against the other.
Your whole “argument” is predicated on the notion that Russia as the large neighbouring nation has a say in the affairs of its smaller neighbouring nation Ukraine, which is just a nakedly imperialist view of the relations between states straight out of XIX century political thinking.
Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine, no question, but in the beginning there was a potential diplomatic resolution on the table if the US and NATO were willing to back off Ukraine.
In the beginning, Russia pledged never to invade Ukraine in exchange for all of the nuclear weapons.
He’s arguing that the West should have been tougher on Putin sooner and the UK should have admitted more Ukrainian refugees. I don’t see any clear sign of Russian influence here.
So invade your country, grab a few parts, then we have a ceasefire and a diplomatic solution where i keep the land that i already got. And then i repeat it. Is this a “pro-peace” stand? Or is it a “pro-conquering” stance, that enables this behaviour?
Would he have the same opinion about nazi Germany invading and conquering other countries? Maybe a peace for our time kind of deal?
See my comment here as a response.
That reply is pure Russia propaganda drivel.
It’s hit every made up Russian talking point “Oh it’s NATO expanding, we had to attack someone else because how dare they want to think about defending from us. Oh and they were all totally Nazis, now excuse us as we wipe out the Ukrainians as a peoples”
-
I explicitly said the Russian invasion was not justified
-
Propaganda is often a kernel of truth wrapped in a lie. That’s true of US & EU propaganda as well.
No.
The best propaganda is that which is true.
That doesn’t mean all propaganda is true.
And you can “say” what you want, your actions show an attempt to justify it.
-
