Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Because the The Big Lie has of course no sinister connotations at all.

What a stellar line up. Was Chris WIlliamson not available?

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:29 am Corbyn - or rather, Corbyn’s fans - are remarkably religion-like in this aspect. Happy to give credit for literally anything good, happy to apportion blame elsewhere for anything bad, and most infuriatingly happy to do the exact reverse for anyone they don’t like.

For example, here’s Kier Starmer arguing against the legality of the Iraq war:
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... licy.iraq1

And here’s Kier Starmer with a nuanced take on the situation in Syria:
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... war-flawed

That is the difference. He’s thought about it. Corbyn just went along with his usual mantra. Yet only one of them is (wrongly) portrayed as some sort of peace-loving sage - and it’s the one who’ll happily ignore military action if the perpetrators are groups he thinks are probably alright really.

I remember the Smith vs Corbyn leadership, one after the other of fan base got up and shared with us something Corbyn believed which Smith didn’t, not only was 95% of it bollocks, on occasions it was Smith who believed that not Corbyn.

I walked out and never stepped back in a CLP meeting, those in that hall I had never seen on a stall or at a meeting.

I know a load of names I didn’t recognise took over the CLP but largely the names I recognised had been elected from 2018 onwards.

At some point in all this the CLP has struggled to email me information, coincidence? Though they did go for Nandy in the selection meeting.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2023 6:05 pm

Because the The Big Lie has of course no sinister connotations at all.

Oh no! How will Kier Starmer or his supporters ever work out what the big lie might possibly be about?

Edit: also, I note Starmer himself isn’t barred. He should pitch up!

I wonder what “drinks and action” is. Ooooo-errr.

Cup of tea (no milk) then signing a pledge to show their bums to Starmer, followed by a film of some true believers showing their bums to Starmer.

“Action” will be all agreeing how awful Starmer is, then a heated 3-hour argument over whether Corbyn would have nationalised gas or electricity first and why if you said one not the other you’re revealing yourself to be a traitor and should fuck off and join the Tories. Then tea will be served.

Absurd.
Proof, above all, that these people are political incompetents. Also, they don't understand that the purpose of a documentary is to educate.
If you already believe the stab in the back myth you have no need to see this film.
The people who do need to see your 'evidence' are those who've swallowed Starmer's 'lies' and need informing of his 'treachery' - the very people you are denying access to.
This is as pointless as a rally in a field singing Oh Jeremy Corbyn to each other when there's canvassing to be done.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 2:53 am No one is saying that don't pretend those were O'Grady's politics just don't make his death all about Corbyn.

That was a somewhat pricklier return to the forum than I intended, for which blame too little sleep and too much wine. And apologies.

I'll stand by some of it though. It's somewhat outside the remit of this specific thread, but I was pub chatting about O'Grady with a friend (who's far better versed in drag culture than I am to be fair) and we both mentioned how culturally weird the nineties could be. Alongside the laddism and the awful misogyny about young female celebrities, you had a drag queen just...there...on breakfast television. And a transgender woman character, regarded mainly sympathetically on a mainstream soap opera. You'd get absolutely bodied if you tried to get away with that now. Especially the latter.

Don't get me wrong. In many respects, things are a lot better. It just feels like we've taken the odd, regrettable, media-assisted step backwards.

Philip Marlow wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 12:24 pm

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 2:53 am No one is saying that don't pretend those were O'Grady's politics just don't make his death all about Corbyn.

That was a somewhat pricklier return to the forum than I intended, for which blame too little sleep and too much wine. And apologies.

I'll stand by some of it though. It's somewhat outside the remit of this specific thread, but I was pub chatting about O'Grady with a friend (who's far better versed in drag culture than I am to be fair) and we both mentioned how culturally weird the nineties could be. Alongside the laddism and the awful misogyny about young female celebrities, you had a drag queen just...there...on breakfast television. And a transgender woman character, regarded mainly sympathetically on a mainstream soap opera. You'd get absolutely bodied if you tried to get away with that now. Especially the latter.

Don't get me wrong. In many respects, things are a lot better. It just feels like we've taken the odd, regrettable, media-assisted step backwards.

Good points, and ones I've never considered before. Maybe, in the same way that the other side are forever harking back to a golden age that never existed, so we might sometimes think the past was a lot worse than it really was.

The 90s was very much "everyone's in one big gang and it's cool", while today is more "lots of different gangs and they're all cool". Minorities back then got a good ride, as long as they remembered who owned the car.

Philip Marlow wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 12:24 pm

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 2:53 am No one is saying that don't pretend those were O'Grady's politics just don't make his death all about Corbyn.

I was pub chatting about O'Grady with a friend (who's far better versed in drag culture than I am to be fair) and we both mentioned how culturally weird the nineties could be. Alongside the laddism and the awful misogyny about young female celebrities, you had a drag queen just...there...on breakfast television. And a transgender woman character, regarded mainly sympathetically on a mainstream soap opera. You'd get absolutely bodied if you tried to get away with that now. Especially the latter.

Don't get me wrong. In many respects, things are a lot better. It just feels like we've taken the odd, regrettable, media-assisted step backwards.

I recall Sunday papers in the early 80s as a kid reading about transexual cases (disco diva Amanda Lear springs to mind) that were factual and free of prejudice and prurience. It was a few years before Kelvin McKenzie’s hate fuelled homophobia of the AIDS era.

Not TUSC then? Why the Greens would want to be offloaded with Corbyn I don’t know.

He can stand for the Big Manky Arse Party for all I care.

Yet more Galaxy-Brain thinking from Bastani, there. Not least because the Greens would almost certainly outright reject a proposed Corbyn nomination, unless they like the idea of all their candidates being endlessly grilled about anti-Semitism at the next GE.

Genuinely think it was a miracle Labour managed even 200+ MPs at GE2019 with guys like this steering the ship.

The Greens were quite clear in their condemnation of Labour anti-Semitism. I can't see them letting him join.

Anyway the Greens aren't left-wing enough for the Jezzerati and they've not been on the right side of history enough times.

But Aaron, why would the infinitely popular Jeremy need to latch onto the second-placed greens to boost his vote numbers I wonder? Surely they should be pursuing him, if anything?

It’s almost like you don’t have confidence he can win on his own merit…

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 1:05 pm The 90s was very much "everyone's in one big gang and it's cool", while today is more "lots of different gangs and they're all cool". Minorities back then got a good ride, as long as they remembered who owned the car.

Ha! That's a very good way of putting it. Yonks ago I read a very interesting two part substack piece on the homophobia of Private Eye, which noted that the coverage of essentially frivolous 'pooves' in the sixties became something a lot nastier once the gay rights movement really got going (AIDS and Ingrams becoming editor didn't help much either). These backlashes do seem to be an inevitable consequence of minority groups getting 'above themselves'.

There's a blog I follow called Frantic Planet, which had a series of posts called The Accursed Nineties. The author's theory was that if one word defined pop culture of the later 90s, it was laddism, and while there were efforts to promote shows with women hosts, target audiences, and so on (the Girlie Show for example*), they had to emulate "the lads". Same as with gay men - there was a trend of "he's a gay, but he knows a lot about football so that's alright!".

*And on that score, women in the public eye had to be both attractive, and seen as "goers". In fact I remember one episode of TFI Friday where Chris Evans (the cunt, not Captain America) slobbered over a lady in the "bar area", and on learning she was Polish, said "Well, there are some good things to be said for being in the EU!".