Webchat with Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party, Tuesday 30 May at midday

[BojanaMumsnet]

Hello,

We’re pleased to announce a webchat with the leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn on Tuesday 30 May at midday.

Jeremy has been MP for Islington North since 1983, and has been Labour leader since 2015, having been re-elected when Owen Smith stood against him in 2016. Labour’s manifesto for the election on June 8 proposes ‘a Brexit deal that puts our economy and living standards first’, tax rises for the top 5% of earners, the renationalisation of the railways, free school meals for all primary pupils, the abolition of university tuition fees, and a £250 billion investment fund for infrastructure and the economy.

Please do join the chat on Tuesday at midday, or if you can’t make it, leave a question here in advance. Please do share the webchat on social - the more, the merrier!

As always, please remember our webchat guidelines - one question each, follow-ups if there’s time and please keep it civil .

(As we approach the General Election we will endeavour to offer you a balanced diet of webchats with politicians from different parties. More announcements coming soon.)

Thanks
MNHQ

May gets roasted just as much as Corbyn when she fucks up.

I don't disagree with this. Yes, when May fucks up she gets roasted. But do the press misrepresent her and her party in the way they do Labour and Corbyn?

I agree with politicians and political parties being held to accountability by the press but I think it helps no-one when they are misrepresented by the press.

I'm really shocked by the misrepresentation as Corbyn as a terrorist sympathizer. I understand people calling him naive or idealistic because he believes in listening to all sides of a conflict as a route to peace, but to smear him as a terrorist sympathizer is pretty ignorant. Paxman asked him about the "our friends from Hamas" thing and Corbyn politely but Impatiently said "it was inclusive language in a situation of trying to bring people together". Paxman didn't pursue the point because he knows it's scraping the barrel. What was Corbyn supposed to have called them? Cunts? Yeah that would have done wonders for diplomacy and peace. He could then have gone on and insulted the Israeli government and peace would have been achieved in time for lunch. Not.

I'm really shocked by the misrepresentation as Corbyn as a terrorist sympathizer.

The thing is, is that he was.

That's not misrepresentation, it's a fact.
The only misrepresentation is JC's team trying to rewrite history.

because he believes in listening to all sides of a conflict

He says he 'talks' to all sides so who does he talk to from the other 'side' then.

Beach do you genuinely not understand that Hamas have been doing what happened in Manchester last week for the last 20 years? Blowing up cafes, buses, a queue of teenagers waiting to get into a club - and justifying it by saying even the babies would have grown up to be soldiers on day. You know, kind of like those people going to the concert were "Crusaders" ?

If you're fine with our PM refering to people like this as "friends", knock yourself out and vote for him. Personally, I see it as part of his so-called anti-imperialist credentials and could never vote for someone who tries to justify terror against anyone by "being inclusive" and calling them my friends. We're talking about international politics, not facebook, ffs. You don't have to be friends with someone to make peace cf Rabin and Arafat, Bashir and Garang, de Klerk and Mandela etc

Charmageddon - it's very easy to say "but he was". Call me old fashioned but I think calling someone a terrorist sympathizer is very serious. Although I'm unsure (despite having term bandied about) what is really being meant by it. From what I've seen on here, Mo Molam would come under the heading as would practically any diplomat.

The world is not simple and neither are conflicts and wars. Very few things are black and white. You might think Corbyn is a terrorist sympathizer because he is willing to talk to Hamas but do you think anyone who talks to the Israeli government is a war mongerer? There will never be peace in that area of the world if people who attempt reconciliation and understanding are dammed and insulted. Corbyn says over and over again that he is against violence and military intervention and that he does not think they are solutions to situations of deep, bitter, complex and historical conflict. Sounds pretty sensible to me and it was that way of thinking which brought peace to the Troubles.

But it would seem in these days of spin and sound bites that everything has to be reduced to the lowest common denominator of Goodies and Baddies and that makes Corbyn a Baddie cos he speaks to the Baddies and thinks bombing them and nicking their land isn't a very good way to bring about peace.

Have only just had the chance to come back and read the webchat and have to say - what total fucking waste of time - he answered a few arse-kissing questions and talked about biscuits (hilarious ).

TwattyMcTwatface, I know who Hamas are. I'm a pacifist and I hate the sort of violence they perpetrate. I hate the violence the Israeli government perpetrates on Palestinians too. Peace will never be achieved if we are only willing to talk to Israel and consider Israel as legitimate and Palestine as illegitimate. It is possible to understand why violence comes about whilst vehemently disagreeing with that violence.

Heartily agree.

The world is not simple and neither are conflicts and wars. Very few things are black and white. You might think Corbyn is a terrorist sympathizer because he is willing to talk to Hamas but do you think anyone who talks to the Israeli government is a war mongerer?

Beach, my problem with Jeremy & hence the 'terrorist sympathiser' rather than 'peacemaker' tag is because he has systematically (and entirely on the record) been so very black & white about things over the decades.

He has absolutely separated people into 'goodies & baddies' - he has not, ever, been a 'broker for peace'.
What he has done is repeatedly shared platforms with & shown solidarity with, mass murderers.
He has repeatedly expressed support for terrorist organisations who have, without discrimination, tortured & killed innocent people - including children.

Had he been equally seeking resolution with both 'sides' (or even seeking resolution at all) I would have a different opinion of him - but he hasn't and I don't.

I have to agree with charm and I have been a very vigorous critic of Israel.

I almost feel like starting a thread on how my feelings have changed on the Israel situation but I fear I would be ripped to shreds.

Charmageddon if you really believe what you are parroting above, I suggest you report this dangerous individual to the authorities they will laugh at you or maybe, yunno, post some substantial evidence. Otherwise what you are doing is just spreading ignorant and malicious rumours and engaging in personal attack.

All this "Corbyn supports terrorist movements" comes across as not a little xenophobic / Little Britain to be honest.

Charmageddon if you really believe what you are parroting above, I suggest you report this dangerous individual to the authorities they will laugh at you or maybe, yunno, post some substantial evidence. Otherwise what you are doing is just spreading ignorant and malicious rumours and engaging in personal attack.

What on earth?

Are you actually for real??!!

Everything I have said about Jeremy Corbyn is freely available on public record.

Google is your friend....

All this "Corbyn supports terrorist movements" comes across as not a little xenophobic / Little Britain to be honest.

You firstly are assuming everyone is from Britain. Secondly you don't know what this groups that he calls 'friends' have done to posters and other criticisers.

All this "Corbyn supports terrorist movements" comes across as not a little xenophobic / Little Britain to be honest.

As for this little drop of sunshine - are you suggesting that I am in any way xenophobic or 'Little Britain'?!

I do hope not, cos 'yunno' - that would be an unsubstantiated personal attack & a lie.

Perhaps check out your own double standards, even if you are wilfully ignoring Jeremy Corbyn's.

I already linked to an article on this report from the London School of Economics but it was sneered at because the article was in The Independent.

www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report.pdf

It makes for interesting reading and I think that the evidence of the influence of the press is all over MN and all over this election.

Foreword

As media and communication scholars we have been troubled by the problematic way in which the British media has systematically attacked Jeremy Corbyn ever since he came to national prominence in the summer of 2015. At the same time, we also acknowledge that the media needs to fulfill an important watchdog role in a democracy. Indeed, we expect and value our media to be critical and to ask difficult and probing questions of those in positions of power.

Jeremy Corbyn is an unconventional party leader in a British context, more leftwing than previous leaders of the Labour Party, contesting the neoliberal common sense and promoting an anti-austerity and anti-war agenda. The question we pose here is to what extent this warranted the acerbic and overtly aggressive media reaction he has consistently received over the last year? Is it acceptable for the media to delegitimise to such an extent a legitimate democratic actor who is the leader of the main opposition party in British politics?

This study, undertaken by the LSE’s Media and Communications Department, set out to empirically analyse the nature of the media representation of Jeremy Corbyn in 8 British newspapers from 1 September – 1 November 2015. First, it distinguishes between critical reporting and what we call antagonistic reporting. Second, it aims to demonstrate and assess the ways in which the British press systematically delegitimised Jeremy Corbyn as a political leader.

The results of this study show that Jeremy Corbyn was represented unfairly by the British press through a process of vilification that went well beyond the normal limits of fair debate and disagreement in a democracy. Corbyn was often denied his own voice in the reporting on him and sources that were anti-Corbyn tended to outweigh those that support him and his positions. He was also systematically treated with scorn and ridicule in both the broadsheet and tabloid press in a way that no other political leader is or has been. Even more problematic, the British press has repeatedly associated Corbyn with terrorism and positioned him as a friend of the enemies of the UK. The result has been a failure to give the newspaper reading public a fair opportunity to form their own judgements about the leader of the country’s main opposition.

The overall conclusion from this is that in this case UK journalism played an attackdog, rather than a watchdog, role. This is unhealthy from a democratic point of view and poses serious ethical questions as to the role of the media in a democracy, especially when it concerns the legitimate contestation of the Government of the day.

When a democracy cannot rely on its press to provide its citizens with information about political parties that meets the basic standards of fairness, then we can expect a political process that is equally unbalanced. Recent events may have provided broader evidence of this disturbing trend.

So what is your influence for generalising people as 'xenophobic/Little Britain' purely for having a competing opinion to your own?

Perhaps this:

It makes for interesting reading and I think that the evidence of the influence of the press is all over MN and all over this election.

is a good representation of the influence of JC's 'team' rewriting his history?

Anyone with ongoing interest in the Labour manifesto and Corbyn's leadership can tune in to the Leaders' Debate tonight, as he'll be there.

Much fuller discussion than a webchat.

It appears that TM still intends to send Amber Rudd.

Is "terrorist sympathizer" is not the right term, what is?

(Genuine question - and please don't try the "peacemaker" schtick - there's no evidence at all that JC has had a positive influence in the NI peace process, including the fact that he voted against the Good Friday Agreement....)

I'm not accusing you of being xenophobic. I apologise if that was how my post came across. I should have explained my thought process better.

I'm saying that I find the painting of a British politician, as a supporter of terrorism, because he attempts dialogue with people and organisations which are seen as "enemies of Britain", has an element of xenophobia to it. Or to clarify, I think the press in trying to smear Corbyn in this way is exploiting fear of attacks on our way of life and encouraging a xenophobic discomfort with a legitimate and genuine British politician who is a supporter of peace and pacifism.

"Corbyn is a peaceful pacifist" is a crap headline if you want to smear or misrepresent him or make the public question his legitimacy as potential opposition to the Tories. "Corbyn supports the IRA and Hamas violence" is much better. And if you say it enough it will become something "everyone just knows" or "is all over Google".

He did support the IRA's armed struggle though.

He was never trying to find a peaceful solution - he explicitly stated that he wanted the IRA to 'win' - he didn't in any way seek to find a peaceful solution.

This is a matter of public record.

Btw, no hard feelings about the xenophobic thing, I see what you meant now

OlennasWimple, I think you are thinking of the Anglo-Irish Treaty which was a precursor to the Good Friday Agreement. Do you know why he didn't agree with the Anglo-Irish Treaty?

Because he thought it would lead to more violence. Which it did. Even Thatcher went on to admit that it had been a mistake.

You can read about it here if you like. It is another thing that isn't black and white with Good on one side and Bad on the other. Because deep historical conflict is complicated.

hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1985/nov/27/anglo-irish-agreement

The inconvenient truth for Jeremy Corbyn is that we, of course, know why he hung up on Stephen Nolan and we know why it took John McDonnell 13 years to offer such a risible, caveated apology.
^It is because they wanted the IRA to win.
Their pious homilies to the peace process will not wash with anyone. Their commitment to a united Ireland was total. The relationships they invested in for decades were with terrorists organisations not democratic nationalist parties. It has proved a hard habit to break for them as Nick Cohenn^ and others have demonstrated.
Corbyn and McDonnell had nothing to do with the peace process. Not a single person involved in the negotiations that led to the Belfast agreement has come forward to support McDonnell’s assertion that he played an active role. No historic accounts of the process include them. Corbyn and McDonnell were partisans. They were irrelevant bystanders. McDonnell’s abject attempt to suggest that he was acting as a peacemaker remains almost as insulting as the remarks that prompted the forced apology^

Cut & pasted extract from longer article in Capx, 2015 (link):

capx.co/the-inconvenient-truth-about-corbyn-and-the-ira/

Thanks Charmageddon, I can see how it read!

Those looking at Corbyn’s candidacy with Northern Ireland in mind should remember two things: First, Corbyn’s record is that of an advocate for Sinn Fein and their policy, not that of a peacemaker as some of his supporters claim. Second, it was by being in government, not hosting luncheons with bombers in opposition, that Labour could make a peace in Northern Ireland.

Taken from this longer article from 2015:

labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/07/the-idea-that-jeremy-corbyn-laid-the-foundations-for-peace-in-northern-ireland-is-total-fantasy/