The General Corbyn Thread

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
Sciolus
Dorkwood
Posts: 1058
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by Sciolus » Fri May 20, 2022 6:55 pm

dyqik wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 2:19 pm
And to put it another way, the price of housing, which is the largest expense in any middle or lower income household (and often more than 50% of all expenses or income), is set by market conditions: i.e. how much others can afford to pay, and what income landlords need to feel prosperous.
Housing is a particularly difficult issue, because (uniquely, I think) it has these three characteristics:
- Severe constraints on supply;
- Everyone needs it;
- Many people want more of it.

The result is that rich people buy more of the finite stock --- larger houses, second homes, whatever. It appears there are hundreds of thousands of people in the UK with enough disposable income that they can spend half a million on a country pad. This pushes up prices for all, both by using up stock and increasing scarcity, and through sheer buying power at the top.

User avatar
Grumble
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3401
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by Grumble » Fri May 20, 2022 7:32 pm

Sciolus wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 6:55 pm
dyqik wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 2:19 pm
And to put it another way, the price of housing, which is the largest expense in any middle or lower income household (and often more than 50% of all expenses or income), is set by market conditions: i.e. how much others can afford to pay, and what income landlords need to feel prosperous.
Housing is a particularly difficult issue, because (uniquely, I think) it has these three characteristics:
- Severe constraints on supply;
- Everyone needs it;
- Many people want more of it.

The result is that rich people buy more of the finite stock --- larger houses, second homes, whatever. It appears there are hundreds of thousands of people in the UK with enough disposable income that they can spend half a million on a country pad. This pushes up prices for all, both by using up stock and increasing scarcity, and through sheer buying power at the top.
I genuinely think that if you own a house that is not anyone’s main residence (so excluding rented properties) you should be paying at least double council tax and double stamp duty. I’m not sure how to prevent housing stock being bought up by landlords without increasing rents.
A bit churlish

User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by dyqik » Fri May 20, 2022 11:47 pm

Grumble wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 7:32 pm
Sciolus wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 6:55 pm
dyqik wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 2:19 pm
And to put it another way, the price of housing, which is the largest expense in any middle or lower income household (and often more than 50% of all expenses or income), is set by market conditions: i.e. how much others can afford to pay, and what income landlords need to feel prosperous.
Housing is a particularly difficult issue, because (uniquely, I think) it has these three characteristics:
- Severe constraints on supply;
- Everyone needs it;
- Many people want more of it.

The result is that rich people buy more of the finite stock --- larger houses, second homes, whatever. It appears there are hundreds of thousands of people in the UK with enough disposable income that they can spend half a million on a country pad. This pushes up prices for all, both by using up stock and increasing scarcity, and through sheer buying power at the top.
I genuinely think that if you own a house that is not anyone’s main residence (so excluding rented properties) you should be paying at least double council tax and double stamp duty. I’m not sure how to prevent housing stock being bought up by landlords without increasing rents.
Much more generous protections for tenants than there currently is.

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1410
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by Millennie Al » Sat May 21, 2022 1:23 am

JQH wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 9:38 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 11:14 pm
Reducing inequality is not a legitimate priority ...
How do you feel about the legitimacy of reducing crime?
That too is not in itself a legitimate aim. How about guaranteeing to reduce crime to zero by abolishing all laws? Or, as is more realistic as it is frequently advocated, a policy of harsher sentences and sweeping police powers? Execution for stealing a shilling?

The purpose of having crimes is to try to allow us to do what we like, restricted by the need to balance what one person likes against what another likes. Once you lose sight of that and start having laws for their own sake you make things worse for everyone.

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1410
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by Millennie Al » Sat May 21, 2022 1:42 am

lpm wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 10:10 am
In a time of economic misery, priority to helping those in most need obviously requires reductions at the top.
That's not at all obvious without the assumption of zero sum economics.
It's not just zero-sum economics, at the moment it's shrinking cake economics.
Maybe there are policies which help the poorest but also start the cake growing again and this makes some people much richer.
Plus reducing inequalities, it has been persuasively been argued, boosts productivity and a country's economic performance.
Some people are easily persuaded.
The argument that "inequality is an essential side-effect of many things that help the poorest" is pretty extraordinary.
That's the nature of progress. Valuable innovations very frequently start expensive and only available to the rich before economies of scale and further innovation make them available to less and less wealthy people. For example, you can get a smartphone now for about £40. There was a time when it cost very much more, and before that there was a time where they had not yet been invented. As well as inequality across time, you can have inequality by place - things are introduced somewhere and take some time to spread. If there was some fixed ultimate level of wealth, you could eliminate inequality by bringing everyone up to that point, but there isn't. However much wealth gets created, there's always scope for more.

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1410
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by Millennie Al » Sat May 21, 2022 1:51 am

IvanV wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 12:09 pm
Millennie Al wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 11:14 pm
Re the Labour party manifesto:
Reducing inequality is not a legitimate priority. The priority should be helping those in most need.
It is a common way of thinking, and I used to think that way too, but I no longer do. Perhaps to oversimplify, what you are basically saying is that poverty is absolute poverty, and relative poverty doesn't really matter very much.
No. That's very much not what I said. "Those most in need" is relative. What I am saying is that when people obsess over the 1% - meaning the richest 1%, they are wrong to do so. Very wrong. If they want a 1% to obsess over, it should be the poorest 1%.
But relative poverty is genuine poverty. For example, the poor in Britain today have an income similar to the middle class in the 19th century, who then were thought of as "prosperous". But by today's standards, they are poor. Similarly, applying modern income criteria of what is poverty to 1960 incomes, and you find that 90% of the 1960 population was poor. Relative poverty is poverty, because if your income is insufficient to join in the normal activities of present-day society and its economy, you are substantially excluded from that economy and society.
Even supposing that's true, it has little to say about inequality in the sense that people currently use it (i.e. the difference between the poor and the very rich). You are saying that a society whereby 99% of people has almost identical wealth is very good even if 1% are billionaires because the normal activities of society would not involve billionaires.
I suspect the effect of the thought experiment you suggest might not be as nugatory as you think. That 0.1% have a very profound effect on society, which would be much changed if they were no longer rich. That is not to say that I am proposing it. Though it is not dissimilar to the kind of thing that happened as practice in various revolutions and was probably even a specific aim of the revolutionaries: there was a large loss of societal wealth in those revolutions, and the formerly wealthy were dispossessed. So wealth vanished, especially from the very rich, who often lost everything.
And after such revolutions, did this make the poor better off?

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1410
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by Millennie Al » Sat May 21, 2022 1:59 am

Sciolus wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 6:55 pm
Housing is a particularly difficult issue, because (uniquely, I think) it has these three characteristics:
- Severe constraints on supply;
- Everyone needs it;
- Many people want more of it.

The result is that rich people buy more of the finite stock --- larger houses, second homes, whatever. It appears there are hundreds of thousands of people in the UK with enough disposable income that they can spend half a million on a country pad. This pushes up prices for all, both by using up stock and increasing scarcity, and through sheer buying power at the top.
Ok. So take this very simplified society: people have three levels of wealth. Some have two houses, the vast majority have one, and some are homeless. Now apply a policy of reducing inequality which destroys all the second houses. This surely reduces inequality, so surely you would not claim it is an improvement? And what about the more extreme version of reducing inequality which destroys every house? Is that better or worse? What about a policy which builds more houses so that everyone now has one, but quite a few have three and some even have four. That has made inequality worse, but housed everyone. Is that really the worst policy?

User avatar
JQH
After Pie
Posts: 1861
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 pm
Location: Sar Flandan

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by JQH » Sat May 21, 2022 7:39 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 1:23 am
JQH wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 9:38 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 11:14 pm
Reducing inequality is not a legitimate priority ...
How do you feel about the legitimacy of reducing crime?
That too is not in itself a legitimate aim. How about guaranteeing to reduce crime to zero by abolishing all laws? Or, as is more realistic as it is frequently advocated, a policy of harsher sentences and sweeping police powers? Execution for stealing a shilling?

The purpose of having crimes is to try to allow us to do what we like, restricted by the need to balance what one person likes against what another likes. Once you lose sight of that and start having laws for their own sake you make things worse for everyone.
Is it not? Making life for citizens safer and more secure is not a legitimate aim? I'll ignore all your straw-man arguments and point out that societies with high levels of inequality tend to have higher crime rates.

See this for example
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.

Fintan O'Toole

User avatar
Sciolus
Dorkwood
Posts: 1058
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by Sciolus » Sat May 21, 2022 8:22 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 1:59 am
Sciolus wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 6:55 pm
Housing is a particularly difficult issue, because (uniquely, I think) it has these three characteristics:
- Severe constraints on supply;
- Everyone needs it;
- Many people want more of it.

The result is that rich people buy more of the finite stock --- larger houses, second homes, whatever. It appears there are hundreds of thousands of people in the UK with enough disposable income that they can spend half a million on a country pad. This pushes up prices for all, both by using up stock and increasing scarcity, and through sheer buying power at the top.
Ok. So take this very simplified society: people have three levels of wealth. Some have two houses, the vast majority have one, and some are homeless. Now apply a policy of reducing inequality which destroys all the second houses. This surely reduces inequality, so surely you would not claim it is an improvement? And what about the more extreme version of reducing inequality which destroys every house? Is that better or worse? What about a policy which builds more houses so that everyone now has one, but quite a few have three and some even have four. That has made inequality worse, but housed everyone. Is that really the worst policy?
You what? I gave you an example where inequality -- specifically wealth inequality, either cash or access to credit -- has direct adverse effects on poor people. It should be pretty obvious that if wealthy people and poor people are competing for a finite resource, poor people are going to do badly.

Suppose you have access to £100k to buy a house. Unfortunately you can't buy the house you would have bought ten years ago, because it's just been bought by someone with £150k. They bought it because the house they would have bought ten years ago has just been bought by someone with £200k. They bought it because the house they would have bought ten years ago has just been bought by someone with £300k. They bought it because ... the whole of London has been bought by zillionaire tax dodgers and kleptocrats. So you're f.cked.

Your "just build more" position doesn't change this because it's a structural thing. Apart from the practical issues which should be obvious to anyone paying attention, if you're going to build a new house, you still want to sell it to a rich person not a poor person. If the council forces you to build "affordable" or even "social" housing, you're still going to sell it to the wealthiest qualifying people because the price cap is relative not absolute. Your fantasy policy will fail because demand from the rich will always outstrip supply.

purplehaze
Fuzzable
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:27 pm

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by purplehaze » Sat May 21, 2022 10:15 am

Voted Labour in the last general election, despite Corbyn being the leader.

Care not a jot about the 'leader' and their so call charisma of any party but about the values that define my life. That value is Labour.

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1410
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by Millennie Al » Mon May 23, 2022 12:21 am

JQH wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 7:39 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 1:23 am
JQH wrote:
Fri May 20, 2022 9:38 am


How do you feel about the legitimacy of reducing crime?
That too is not in itself a legitimate aim. How about guaranteeing to reduce crime to zero by abolishing all laws? Or, as is more realistic as it is frequently advocated, a policy of harsher sentences and sweeping police powers? Execution for stealing a shilling?

The purpose of having crimes is to try to allow us to do what we like, restricted by the need to balance what one person likes against what another likes. Once you lose sight of that and start having laws for their own sake you make things worse for everyone.
Is it not? Making life for citizens safer and more secure is not a legitimate aim?
It is a legitimate aim. But that's not the same as reducing crime. One of the ways that a citizen's safety and security can be reduced is by law enforcement doing things like randomly stopping and searching people, confiscating assets on presumption of guilt, arresting on inadequate grounds, extracting information by torture etc. If the cost of preventing someone using a counterfeit $20 bill is that they get killed by the police, then we'd prefer that that law go unenforced in that case. Reduction of crime is a means and not an end.
I'll ignore all your straw-man arguments and point out that societies with high levels of inequality tend to have higher crime rates.

See this for example
That's describing a model. Models tell you a lot about the assumptions that go into them and very little about reality.

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1410
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by Millennie Al » Mon May 23, 2022 12:46 am

Sciolus wrote:
Sat May 21, 2022 8:22 am
You what? I gave you an example where inequality -- specifically wealth inequality, either cash or access to credit -- has direct adverse effects on poor people. It should be pretty obvious that if wealthy people and poor people are competing for a finite resource, poor people are going to do badly.
Yes, there are few poor people who own a world famous artwork or an exceptionally large diamond. But housing is not finite. 49,470 new homes were completed in January to March 2021.
Suppose you have access to £100k to buy a house. Unfortunately you can't buy the house you would have bought ten years ago, because it's just been bought by someone with £150k. They bought it because the house they would have bought ten years ago has just been bought by someone with £200k. They bought it because the house they would have bought ten years ago has just been bought by someone with £300k.
That argument makes no sense. If you have N people and N houses, they each get one regardless of the price: if you have N+1 people and N houses, someone is left without. You could have zero inequality where everyone has £100k and every house costs £100k and still have the same number of people owning a house and the same number without. It's all about how many there are.
They bought it because ... the whole of London has been bought by zillionaire tax dodgers and kleptocrats. So you're f.cked.
Which you seem to realise here, but then leap off into fantasy. Firstly, the whole of London has most certainly not been bought by zillionaires of any kind. Secondly, even if it were true, London is not the whole country and it is not mandatory to live there.
Your "just build more" position doesn't change this because it's a structural thing.
Housing is not exempt from the link between price, supply, and demand.
Apart from the practical issues which should be obvious to anyone paying attention, if you're going to build a new house, you still want to sell it to a rich person not a poor person. If the council forces you to build "affordable" or even "social" housing, you're still going to sell it to the wealthiest qualifying people because the price cap is relative not absolute. Your fantasy policy will fail because demand from the rich will always outstrip supply.
What are these rich people going to do with all the unused houses? And after a rich person has three houses that they don't use, why are they willing to pay as much for the fourth?

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 7178
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by shpalman » Thu May 26, 2022 11:25 am

lpm wrote:
Mon May 16, 2022 9:34 am
Here's a list of the 207 main alt-nets.

Small entrepreneurial companies winning private investment and employing thousands of people.

Jeremy Corbyn wanted to destroy all these companies with his mad free broadband policy. He's even more anti-business than Boris Johnson.

110 Technologies
1310 LTD
2Connect Data Services Ltd
5 Rings Telecom Ltd
Abthorpe Broadband Association Limited
Abzorb Data LTD
Acuiti Solutions Ltd
AdEPT Telecom PLC
Airband Community
AJ Technology T/A Kloud 9
Alnwick Computerware LTD
Amatis Network
Amvia
Aspire Technology Solutions Limited
Atlas Communications (NI) Ltd
B4RN
Beacon Broadband
Beacons Telecom
Beeline Broadband Limited
Bink Networks Ltd
Blizzard Telecom
Bogons Limited
BorderLink Broadband Limited
Boundless Networks
Box Broadband Ltd
Briant Communications Sussex Ltd
Briskona Ltd
Broadband for Rural Kent Ltd
Broadband for Surrey Hills Ltd
Broadband N.I. Ltd
Broadway Partners Ltd
BSAS Telecoms Ltd
Bush Broadband Limited
Business Telephony Limited
C.I.D Fire and Security Ltd T/A Jamtech Communications
Cablewise Communications & Systems Ltd
Cambrian Connect
Cambridge Fibre Networks Ltd.
Camping Connect Ltd
Caudata Ltd
Cerberus Networks
CityFibre Limited
Claritel Ltd
Commsworld Ltd
Computer & Network Consultants Ltd
ComWales Ltd
Connectus Business Solutions Ltd
Connexin Limited
Country Connect Ltd
County Broadband Ltd
Cranberry Communications Ltd
Crockham Hill CIC trading as AirFast
C-Ways Ltd
Daisy Communications
Dragon WiFi LTD
Duplia Ltd
DX Networks Ltd
Eastern Telephones Limited t/a Eastern Voice & Data
easyNetworks Ltd
EBC Group (UK) Ltd
Ecom Fibre (Electronic Communities Ltd)
EUROCOMS UK LTD
e-volve Solutions Ltd
Exa Networks
Exascale Limited
Excell Business Systems
Exponential-e Ltd
External Reality Limited
F&W Networks Ltd
Factco
Fibairo Holdings Ltd
Fibre Broadband Company, Ltd.
Fibre Options Ltd.
Fibrus Ltd
Fibrus Networks Ltd
Flexifi Ltd
Focus Group
FreeClix
Freedom Fibre
Full Fibre Limited
Gigabair
Gigabit Networks Ltd
Gigaclear Ltd
Gigaloch Limited
Giganet (M 12 Solutions Ltd)
Glemnet Ltd
Glide Business Ltd
Grayshott Gigabit Limited
Green Colo Ltd
Green Telecom Ltd
Halo Communications Ltd
Hampshire Broadband Ltd t/a Hampshire Community Broadband
Hoki Limited
Home Counties Fibre Ltd
Infrasys Ltd
Integrated Digital Services Ltd
Intercommunications Ltd
Interface Advantage Limited
Internet Central Limited
Internetty Ltd
io IT Services Ltd
IP Exchange
IP River Ltd
ISUMO Ltd
IT Answers UK
Itility Limited
ITS Technology Group Ltd
Jurassic Fibre Limited
KCOM Group PLC
Kencomp Internet Limited
Keswick Computer Services Ltd T/A KCS Solutions
Lancehawk Ltd
Legend Communications Limited
Lightspeed Broadband Ltd
Link IP Networks Limited
Lothian Broadband Networks Ltd
Lugo Limited
Luminet Solutions Ltd
Midland Telecommunication Management Ltd
Midshire Business Systems (Communications) Ltd.
Millbeck Communications Limited
Millennium Telecom Ltd
Netomnia Limited
New Star Networks
Newman Business Solutions Ltd
Nexus UC Ltd
Odyssey Systems Limited
Openreach
Optionbox Ltd
Orbital Net Limited
Origin Solutions Ltd
Peak Telecom UK Ltd
Pine Media
Poundbury Systems Ltd
Quantum Air Fibre
Quickline Communications
razorblue Ltd
Redshelf Ltd
RHM Telecommunications Ltd
Runfibre Ltd
Rymote
Save9 Limited
Secure Web Services Ltd
Sequential Networks
Shadowfax Technology Limited
Signa Technologies Ltd
Skyline Networks and Consultancy
Smartinfo ltd
Solway Communications Limited
Southern Communications Ltd
Spectrum Fibre Limited trading as Ogi
Spectrum Internet LTD
Speedy Net Buckinghamshire Limited T/A Rapid Rural
Spindlewood Limited
Start Communications Group Ltd
Stix Internet Ltd
Sukh test
Surrey Hills Internet Limited
Swish Fibre Limited
Symmetris Broadband Ltd
Synergy UK
Talk Straight Ltd
Talking Technology Ltd
TalkTalk Communications Limited
Technological Services Limited
Techsapiens Limited
Telcom
Teledesign Solutions Limited
Terahost
TEST ACCOUNT 03
Thames Network Limited
The communication Gateway Ltd
The Internet Business Ltd. (Trading as TIBUS)
Think Systems UK Ltd
Touch Telecommunications Limited
TRIO TELECOM
Trooli
TrueSpeed Communications Ltd
Trunk Networks Limited
TxRx Communications Ltd
UK IT Networks Limited
Unite Communications Limited
V4VoIP Ltd
Village Networks Ltd
Viridian Communications Ltd t/a Gigabeam
Vispa Limited
Vital Wifi Ltd
VOIP-UN Ltd
Voneus Ltd
Vostron Limited
VXFIBER
Wavenet Limited
WELINK COMMUNICATIONS (UK) LTD
Wessex Internet Ltd
Wide FM LTD t/a Juice Broadband
Wifinity
Wightfibre Ltd
Wildanet Ltd
Wildcard UK Limited (Wildcard Networks)
Wurzel Ltd
X.Communications Limited
xoomtalk
Yoozoom Telecom Ltd
York Data Services Limited
YouFibre
Zone Telecommunications Ltd
Zzoomm plc
Soaring inflation pushing smaller broadband suppliers to the brink could leave homes without connectivity worries the Daily Telegraph.
molto tricky

User avatar
EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 2080
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by EACLucifer » Tue Aug 02, 2022 10:21 am

The utter sh.t went on the antisemitic, Assadist, pro-Hezbollah and pro-Russian channel al-Mayadeen to do an interview where he argued the west shouldn't be sending arms to Ukraine, among other things. When your problem is a difference of opinion, sure, it's best to talk it over. When your problem is an invading imperialist and colonialist army that tortures, rapes and murders wherever it occupies and it has a massive artillery advantage is uses to both enable the occupation of more cities in which to torture rape and murder, and also just to directly shell those cities targetting hospitals and schools and residential areas, you need GMLRS.

I remember how much his pathetic, dishonest defenders would bristle when it was mentioned that he and his cronies varied from disgracefully soft on Assad and Putin to downright supporting them. Between this and Williamson's overt Putinism lately...

User avatar
headshot
Dorkwood
Posts: 1022
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:40 am

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by headshot » Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:43 pm

Is he a Putin asset, or just monumentally thick?

User avatar
EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 2080
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by EACLucifer » Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:52 pm

headshot wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:43 pm
Is he a Putin asset, or just monumentally thick?
Thick enough to be an asset even if he doesn't realise it. Too thick to understand that while it is good to criticise one's own government for doing wrong, other nations can also do wrong, and that fascist nations generally do a lot more wrong than democracies. He did paid work for Iran's vile regime for some years, though, stopping only when the relevant channel was taken off the air for failing to pay the fines they incurred for complicity in torture - them broadcasting interviews coerced from prisoners by torture did not cause Corbyn to cease working for their propaganda outfit.

The international far left has generally been abysmal on the issue of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, though, as they are too f.cking western-centric to understand that other nations are also capable of imperialism and racism, and a failure to understand the ways in which Russian and Ottoman imperialism shaped the world, and more recently how Russian and Arabic ethnonationalism do so, especially among Americans who think ethnicity=skin colour, is one of the major intellectual failings of the movement.

User avatar
headshot
Dorkwood
Posts: 1022
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:40 am

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by headshot » Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:07 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:52 pm
headshot wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:43 pm
Is he a Putin asset, or just monumentally thick?
Especially among Americans who think ethnicity=skin colour, is one of the major intellectual failings of the movement.
Yeah. I was talking to my dad this week about what’s happened in India around Hindu-nationalism.

User avatar
EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 2080
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: The General Corbyn Thread

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Aug 04, 2022 7:44 pm

Al Mayadeen, the channel on which he appeared, have also engaged in Holocaust denial. They are run by a friend of Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah. And while on them, aside from his idiotic commens on Ukraine, he also used antisemitic dogwhistles about "powerful forces", just as Abbott did in his defence. Meanwhile, Shameless Seumas is very interested in articles arguing that Ukraine should lose the war, and Chris Williamson - who was fervently defended by the Corbynite cult - is now claiming that Jews were settler colonists in (checks notes) Odesa.

Post Reply