It’s like Brexit all over again with Corbyn declining to campaign against Brexit. Maybe he’s the problem?
This a non-story cooked up by Rupert Murdock’s propaganda team. Sure they’ve had some teething issues but this is a sensationalist bollocks.
Rupert Murdoch? What does he have to do with this story?
Since its founding, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation held 39.14% of Sky Group, and in June 2010 they attempted to buy out the rest of Sky, but the bid was withdrawn in July 2011 following the News International phone hacking scandal that also led to News Corporation splitting into News Corp and 21st Century Fox, the latter of which continued to hold News’ stake in Sky.[9] In December 2016, 21st Century Fox made a bid to acquire the remaining shares of Sky, pending government approval. After The Walt Disney Company announced that they were to acquire Fox, Comcast initially engaged in a bidding war, but dropped out to acquire Sky instead, outbidding Fox with an offer for £17.28 per share; Fox sold their stake in October 2018, followed by the remaining shareholders a month later. Following this, Comcast’s film studios and US television businesses and other media assets are held by NBCUniversal, which is also under its control and was formed when Vivendi sold 80% of Universal Pictures to the now-defunct General Electric, NBC’s then-owner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_Group
As with many giant conglomerates their ownership structure is complicated and confusing. Whether Murdoch has a share in it now or not isn’t really relevant. What is relevant is that Sky News produce huge amounts of shite journalism, and can therefore not be trusted as a reputable organisation.
They’re an American media company that serve the interests of their American capitalist owners first and foremost, why would they ever report fairly on a new up and coming British socialist party?
He owns Sky?
He owns the Australian version of Sky News. The UK version is owned by Comcast, who bought Murdoch out in 2018.
I don’t think he does if the other comment in this thread is accurate.
deleted by creator
He’s a pain in the arse apparently. He has his opinions on things, sometimes not very informed or nuanced opinions, and he won’t let go of them. He’s like antimatter Boris Johnson. Stubborn and unthinkable but from the other direction.
He’s as much of an isolationist as any flag shagger. Hence his Brexit betrayal
A real socialist would be all in favour of a trade bloc.
Given his massive popularity at the time had he said something along the lines of, “It’s better we remain and fix it from the inside rather than destroy ourselves outside” then maybe all his momentum and red wall supporters might have bothered to vote to remain and we could have got those cursed 52:48 numbers the other way around.
But he didn’t. He kept deliberately low profile and played right into UKIP’s plans. Even fucking David Cameron campaigned more vigorously to remain! Unforgivable.
It’s pretty obvious that this party is going nowhere.
I wish we could get some disaffected labour MPs and actually form a version of this party. Because the idea isn’t bad, it’s just it started with immature idiots (and yeah I include Corbin in that), and it’s got progressively worse as time has gone on.
They had a real opportunity to be a disruptive force on the left, and they threw it away because they were incapable of acting like professionals.
That last sentence wasn’t really true though. Many do not. Tony Benn was opposed to it and the effects it had on jobs. Labour were at one point against it.
For example, subsidies are prevented under EU terms and deemed as state aid and uncompetitive. Many govs were shackled from helping their industry and the effects were wide ranging.
I voted Remain, but I have many good socialist friends that were for Leave. Assuming a right wing Brexit was the only option is shallow and lacking in imagination. Unfortunately, Greens, SNP and Lib Dems supported the election before the question of Brexit was resolved and we got a Tory hard Brexit.
Zarah has pissed off more people in the formation process, and acted uniliterally, but dunking on JC was always more fun for Liberals/Soc Dems.
Jeremy is a stubborn democrat that saw the Labour party get corrupted in real time, sitting through decades of it. I wouldn’t be surprised if he had a view what to avoid and how to embed democracy and trade unionism into it to ensure it cannot get subverted the same way the Labour party did.
Unfortunately none of that turned into any actual action on his part. He just sat there and allowed untruths to be passed off as reality, he did not do his job and so frankly he can stick it where the sun does not shine.
I do not trust him as a political activist, he has far too many skeletons in far too many cupboards for that. I do not trust him as a person, he has demonstrated himself to be quite prepared to sacrifice at the altar of his own prejudices than to actually represent an alternative viewpoint, and I do not want to be a member of any party that has him as leader, he’s a terrible incompetent bringless politician that will bring destitution to any political cause he is associated with.
But other than that small complaint is a great swell guy.
Zarah has pissed off more people in the formation process
She’s a political irrelevant, everyone could just ignore her and it would be fine. Corbyn is the one with history, it’s his responsibility to make this work. If he doesn’t think he can trust her then he should get rid of her. This is what I’m talking about about his political incompetence, he’s associated (apparently according to you) with a political problem, and rather than dealing with the problem he’s just going to pretend that it doesn’t exist and thus allow the issue to fester.
From what it’s worth I don’t actually accept that arguement, I’ve seen Corbyn be the problem far too many times to just accept that the issue is Zara, and not him.
Oh, so you’re not a socialist trying to suggest how socialists should operate. I get real Lib Dem vibes.
I think it’s pretty clear you don’t want any left initiative to succeed and are here just to stick the boot in. You’re the Guardian from 6 years ago.
I get people may think he’s incompetent or slow, or stubborn, but the anger, oh boy, the tabloid smear campaign got you good.
Yeah you’re right. I should totally be in favour of a competent and stubborn individual leading the movement, that’s clearly me responding to a smear campaign and not me responding to the fact that he betrayed this country with his Brexit shenanigans.
You’re just dedicated to the man, which is cute, but not particularly politically helpful. I want the movement to succeed so I don’t want a stubborn jackass to lead it.
Dedication to an individual at the expense of logical thought is what got America into its current position.
Who should lead it then?
You throw many veto’s but aren’t proposing any options.
Defending a man against unfair smears isn’t dedication, just human decency. It might be a concept you struggle to comprehend.
The classic blame JC for Brexit is one of the weakest logical arguments I’ve seen. Every time I counter, the person goes missing. It’s a regurgitated view that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
He’s 76. So honestly. It would be more surprising if folks found him easy to convince of new ideas.
At 55 I honestly have to kick myself every now and then the rethink some things.
I tend to agree with much of what he says. But think he lacks the political awareness to lead the party.
But honestly while I like ZS as a person. Her own mistakes mean we need someone a little more considered to lead the party.
But we are not in a hurry. The plan (if the votes doesn’t change it) to have 2 leadership elections in the first year post conference, one now in forming the party. Then one a year later to head into the election.
ATM id not vote JC for either. But feel other members may well select him as the first leader.
I’d be more surprised if he is selected in the 2nd year. As A) he is unlikely to be fighting Starmer. B) I honestly think we need a younger leader that can attract younger voters to back them.
Imagine being told you’re running a sexist club and not wanting to call someone a friend. I’m a surprised he’s not more angry with her conduct tbh.
Honestly she was pretty darn careful not to name Corbyn as leading the group. She openly stated that it was a group within his team that was taking over and not him.
As for being her friend. There is no evidence they have ever been anny more then political allies. She has only ever said she respected him. Never claimed some personal relationship.
The whole not using the word friend argument is just a pathetic one. He is 45 years older then her. It is unlikely they have anything in common beyond politics.
