UK Politics
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
Jessica Elgot, on BlueSky:
-There have long been significant divisions between senior figures close to Corbyn over how such a movement on the left should operate - some keen to begin as a new party and others less so. Sources adamant tonight Corbyn not agreed to any joint leadership of a new party.
A MSM journalist opposing progressives by citing "anonymous sources" is not really evidence yet.
If Corbyn does launch a new party, a huge MSM smear campaign like the last time is to be expected.
I always call out this conspiracist stuff when the right do it, so I'll do exactly the same when it come from the left.
As @flamingos-cant@feddit.uk put it, 'either those reports are true or Corbyn went radio silent on the announcement of his new party and let there be room for this speculation.' In fact, both sides are true: the party has been 'launched' without a coherent structure, leadership or even a name (if I'm wrong about this, just... tell me the name), and Corbyn has chosen to say nothing about it. These are facts. There's no smear involved.
Corbyn is not silent though
I'm not blaming you but the "journalists" in this one. We must not forget the tremendous "antisemite" smear campaign they launched against Corbyn because he opposed Israel.
Right wing tabloid TheDailyMail is already going in full force to generate "speculations of leftist infighting"
We see the BBC staff literally saying that their news favours Israel. TheGuardian is slightly better but has proven for an entire year after October 7 that they will join a media blitz for Israel. And they too smeared Corbyn. Guardian writers like Owen Jones who smeared Corbyn in the past now admit that they were wrong to do so and that Corbyn was right.
Surely you're not going to say that the organized media smear campaign against Corbyn was a "conspiracy".
This is not inconsistent with anything I said yesterday or, indeed, this morning.
There was not an organised media smear campaign against Corbyn. 'The media' is not in any sense a group of people who said 'Let's all agree to tell lies about Corbyn', which is what an organised smear campaign would have to look like. The media has always been persistently unfair, to the level of insanity, about everyone to the left of the Conservatives, but there's nothing organised about it, it's just powerful people representing their own interests.
So is this a lie?
Not about Corbyn!
Corbyn opposed Israel
Corbyn got smeared as an antisemite for opposing Israel
BBC staff now literally says they're forced to do pro-Israel PR
Is there a common theme here?
No. You've taken one thing - the BBC pressurises their journalists to cover Israel positively, which I agree is true - and assumed it means a second thing - that (1) the BBC (2) smeared Corbyn (3) as an antisemite (numbers here because these are three separate claims that you haven't justified, within the broader claim you also haven't justified). You've then additionally taken that bundle of unproven claims as evidence of another different claim: that 'the media' as a whole, i.e., not just the BBC, 'smeared Corbyn' because he 'opposed Israel'.
With respect, this is exactly what I meant about conspiracist thinking: you're taking loosely related ideas (some of them true, some of them not) and bundled them together to claim a vaguely defined malevolent entity ('the media') is out to get someone. This is conspiracist thinking! That's what that is!
So you do not believe the claim that the BBC is spreading pro Israel propaganda? I'm saying the media has always been doing this. They're simply going full mask off these days. And it's proving their political motivation on smearing Corbyn in the past.
Not every conspiracy is false. And this one is fully undeniable. It's like you're so convinced that it can't be true that you won't believe it no matter how much evidence is presented. BBC is doing literal Goebbels tier propaganda for a literal genocide for Israel and I'm somehow supposed to believe that this is all a conspiracy
I don't think you read or understood my comment if this is your response.
I did read them. If I did not understand your arguments correctly do feel free to correct me on what you meant.
The issue is not that you don't understand the arguments but that you don't appear to understand the sentences! Respectfully, I think you can probably understand why I'm not interested in reading my comments back to you, which is what the discussion would entail at this point.
https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/jeremy-corbyn-new-party-zarah-sultana-video-b2782497.html