• Corbyn ally says Venezuela sanctions are 'not right', calls for dialogue and an end to protests
    40 replies, posted
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40810341[/url] [quote]A Labour MP has criticised the United States' decision to impose sanctions on the Venezuelan president, who the US called a "dictator". Chris Williamson said it would be "better to facilitate talks" between government and opposition.[/quote] [quote]But speaking to BBC Newsnight on Wednesday, Mr Williamson said: "Clearly it can't be right can it - in a situation where there is a massive crisis in Venezuela - to impose sanctions on the country." Under the sanctions, announced on Monday, US firms and individuals are banned from doing business with President Maduro. "Surely it would be far better to try and bring the sides together, to facilitate talks and to encourage the right wing opposition to stop these protests on the streets," Mr Williamson added[/quote] [quote]Asked whether his political philosophy was closer to President Maduro's or Tony Blair's, Mr Williamson declined to answer but said: "When a government is doing good things, as they certainly were under Hugo Chavez...that's surely a good thing that we should celebrate."[/quote] Update: Ken Livingston says the unrest is because Chavez "didn’t kill all the oligarchs" [url]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/03/ken-livingstone-venezuela-crisis-hugo-chavez-oligarchs[/url]
[quote=Clueless idiot]"When a government is doing good things, as they certainly were under Hugo Chavez...that's surely a good thing that we should celebrate."[/quote] Chavez is [B]the[/B] reason why the country is in this clusterfuck, you imbecile, and why so many gangsters are allowed to attack protestors by the government (Actual hired thugs)
We don't want dialogue. We don't want anything that doesn't involve Maduro stepping down immediately. We cannot have elections if the Electoral Council has just committed the largest case of voter fraud in the country's history.
British Labour again looking foolish and dickish to me especially after British Labour started to not fight for staying in the Single Market. This only proves to me British politics is fucked up.
It's embarrassing to see people defend Maduro's Venezuela because it's branded with an ideology they think they need to defend. They don't. Maduro is plainly corrupt. He's abusing his power. He's injuring and killing civilians and damaging their property and livelihoods. I don't care if he labels himself a democratic socialist, a capitalist, a fascist, whatever - he's an authoritarian despot who needs to be removed [I]immediately[/I].
[QUOTE=.Isak.;52535115]It's embarrassing to see people defend Maduro's Venezuela because it's branded with an ideology they think they need to defend. They don't. Maduro is plainly corrupt. He's abusing his power. He's injuring and killing civilians and damaging their property and livelihoods. I don't care if he labels himself a democratic socialist, a capitalist, a fascist, whatever - he's an authoritarian despot who needs to be removed [I]immediately[/I].[/QUOTE] This. You can be a leftist [I]and[/I] be against Maduro. You can be anti-imperialist [I]and[/I] be against Maduro. Maduro doesn't care about ideology, he does not practice what he preaches, this whole idea of him being a champion of the poor went straight to the rubbish bin the moment it became clear he has hundreds of millions of dollars in assets in the US, and so do the rest of his cabinet.
People who subscribe to ideology and will do anything to defend that ideology without looking at the case in context are very, very dangerous and a huge reason why I will never say I am an "x party" supporter, and while I'm probably a social democrat type person, will always avoid describing myself that way.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;52535142]This. You can be a leftist [I]and[/I] be against Maduro. You can be anti-imperialist [I]and[/I] be against Maduro. Maduro doesn't care about ideology, he does not practice what he preaches, this whole idea of him being a champion of the poor went straight to the rubbish bin the moment it became clear he has hundreds of millions of dollars in assets in the US, and so do the rest of his cabinet.[/QUOTE] It's kinda hard to be a "democratic socialist" when you can't even succeed on the first word because you falsify the results of a democratic vote. It's hard for the second word, too, when the profits that come from the oil (which composes 96% of your exports) is funneled through the wildly corrupt government and no real form of collective ownership exists. Best of luck to the Venezuelan people - left or right, this sort of authoritarianism and corruption is despicable.
so venezuela hacked our general election, right?
"Encourage the right wing opposition to stop these protests on the streets" stung the most for me. Fuck off
[QUOTE=.Isak.;52535115]It's embarrassing to see people defend Maduro's Venezuela because it's branded with an ideology they think they need to defend. They don't. Maduro is plainly corrupt. He's abusing his power. He's injuring and killing civilians and damaging their property and livelihoods. I don't care if he labels himself a democratic socialist, a capitalist, a fascist, whatever - he's an authoritarian despot who needs to be removed [I]immediately[/I].[/QUOTE] Socialists need to stop looking at what people label themselves as and start looking at what they do, how can maduro call his country socialist if it doesn't even have the basic requirements to be one? it's bollocks.
For a moment I thought the angle was that they thought the sanctions would hurt the people more than the government, but then "right wing opposition", "stop the protests", "Chavez did good". Yeah no, go sodomise yourself with a cactus.
What a dumb fuck, I can see why people don't take him seriously.
This is pretty stupid, but why is Corbyn's name in the title if he himself hasn't said anything on the subject yet? It's just some random labour mp, not corbyn himself.
[QUOTE=madmanmad;52535327]This is pretty stupid, but why is Corbyn's name in the title if he himself hasn't said anything on the subject yet? It's just some random labour mp, not corbyn himself.[/QUOTE] Purely smear. Look, Corbyn's involved! Dirty Socialist! Corbyn wants to make us Venezuela!
[QUOTE=madmanmad;52535327]This is pretty stupid, but why is Corbyn's name in the title if he himself hasn't said anything on the subject yet? It's just some random labour mp, not corbyn himself.[/QUOTE] From wikipedia [quote]Williamson is a staunch ally of the Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn and has been described as the "most pro-Jeremy Corbyn candidate in England’s most marginal constituency".[12] Corbyn has described Williamson as a "very great friend", saying that his defeat in the 2015 general election was "a shock" and "the worst result of that night".[13] Williamson expressed that his campaign in Derby North would be a "test case for Corbynism".[14] and Corbyn came to campaign for Williamson on 6 May 2017 during the snap general election campaign.[/quote] Hopefully Corbyn himself will say something soon but right now it seems like this is the closest we've got, though Emily Thornberry [url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/02/labour-concerns-on-venezuela-raise-pressure-on-jeremy-corbyn-to-speak-out]spoke out[/url] against Maduro's 'authoritarian rule' [editline]3rd August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Crumpet;52535332]Purely smear. Look, Corbyn's involved! Dirty Socialist! Corbyn wants to make us Venezuela![/QUOTE] If Corbyn fails to speak out against Maduro, who he's previously praised, then he deserves any shit that comes his way imo
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52535337] If Corbyn fails to speak out against Maduro, who he's previously praised, then he deserves any shit that comes his way imo[/QUOTE] I fully agree Corbyn should speak out, but I don't see how putting him in the title of something someone else said serves any purpose but petty smearing and clickbait.
[QUOTE=Crumpet;52535387]I fully agree Corbyn should speak out, but I don't see how putting him in the title of something someone else said serves any purpose but petty smearing and clickbait.[/QUOTE] Because what your political allies say can often reflect a leader's own views? You have to admit it's pretty suspicious for Corbyn to not have immediately hit back for what are pretty shitty views from someone in his own party.
Article's been updated, Corbyn is apparently on holiday and not expected to say anything this week. We'll see what he says when he gets back but my view is that since he went out of his way to praise Maduro in the past, he now needs to explicitly update/correct that
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52535412]Because what your political allies say can often reflect a leader's own views? You have to admit it's pretty suspicious for Corbyn to not have immediately hit back for what are pretty shitty views from someone in his own party.[/QUOTE] While that may be true, Corbyn's best mate McDonnell is a Marxist but Corbyn sure isn't. Corbyn also tends to stay quiet on in-party affairs. He never said anything publicly about the Blairites infesting the party and causing over a year of chaos. He just chopped them when they crossed him. If I were to be optimistic, I'd say he's being cautious with how he talks to the media. He doesn't speak in soundbites, he speaks in long nuanced answers that constantly get chunked up for out of context shock value. I'm sure you've heard plenty of out-of-context soundbites from Corbyn. It must be pretty tiring and push you away from trying to clarify your stances. So I hope he does speak out, as he did with the IRA. He's probably busy. [editline]3rd August 2017[/editline] didn't see the above post. I suppose he is busy.
[QUOTE=Crumpet;52535454]While that may be true, Corbyn's best mate McDonnell is a Marxist but Corbyn sure isn't. Corbyn also tends to stay quiet on in-party affairs. He never said anything publicly about the Blairites infesting the party and causing over a year of chaos. He just chopped them when they crossed him.[/QUOTE] And do you not think that Labour and possible the people of Britain suffered for that? I think a politician should speak out against things that go against their goals and what they believe is right. Otherwise why be a politician? Maybe working in the background is not a bad way to be but I think that a leader should take much more charge, especially when they are in opposition. This just doesn't suit right with me. And I don't think it's really the same as the IRA situation, from what I remember reading of it (though I still dislike how he opposed legislation like the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, which helped lead the way to peace).
I think British socialists who spoke without really knowing what was happening on the ground in Venezuela caused a lot of damage, they're responsible for the media silence around the whole situation that was only broken recently. They're responsible for creating this perception that the struggle in Venezuela is somehow a right vs left thing, and not another case of the common people fighting a dictatorship.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52535466]And do you not think that Labour and possible the people of Britain suffered for that? I think a politician should speak out against things that go against their goals and what they believe is right. Otherwise why be a politician? Maybe working in the background is not a bad way to be but I think that a leader should take much more charge, especially when they are in opposition. [/QUOTE] Well that's a good question. I think he did the right thing in keeping quiet with his shuffling. While it wasn't very transparent, which isn't great, it got the job that needed to be done out of the way without a huge uninformed argument taking place. I don't think your average person has any idea of the ins and outs of why the PLP hated Corbyn. To them, it was down to incompetence, and anything coming out of Corbyn's mouth was inaccurate and not to be trusted. People tend to believe what they hear first. [QUOTE=Big Bang;52535476]I think British socialists who spoke without really knowing what was happening on the ground in Venezuela caused a lot of damage, they're responsible for the media silence around the whole situation that was only broken recently. They're responsible for creating this perception that the struggle in Venezuela is somehow a right vs left thing, and not another case of the common people fighting a dictatorship.[/QUOTE] I agree. The Socialists let their 'persecution' get the better of them and jumped to justify their rare position. They do it all the time, it doesn't help their image, and it certainly doesn't help foreign affairs. But it's not a brush to tar them all with.
No one in their right mind would invest in a country that can seize your assets at any time to begin with. It's called capital flight.
Right, halt the thread everyone. Ken Livingstone (still suspended from Labour over his "Hitler was a Zionist" comments) just said the unrest is a result of Chavez failing to execute enough oligarchs [url]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/03/ken-livingstone-venezuela-crisis-hugo-chavez-oligarchs[/url]
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52535559]Right, halt the thread everyone. Ken Livingstone just said the unrest is a result of Chavez failing to execute enough oligarchs [url]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/03/ken-livingstone-venezuela-crisis-hugo-chavez-oligarchs[/url][/QUOTE] Yeah but that's the same guy that's suspended from Labour for saying something about Hitler supporting zionism before he went mad, and he identifies as a socialist, so what is your point?
[QUOTE=gokiyono;52535572]Yeah but that's the same guy that's suspended from Labour for saying something about Hitler supporting zionism before he went mad, and he identifies as a socialist, so what is your point?[/QUOTE] Point is he's fucking bonkers
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52535616]Point is he's fucking bonkers[/QUOTE] And that have to do with this?
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52535559]Right, halt the thread everyone. Ken Livingstone (still suspended from Labour over his "Hitler was a Zionist" comments) just said the unrest is a result of Chavez failing to execute enough oligarchs [url]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/03/ken-livingstone-venezuela-crisis-hugo-chavez-oligarchs[/url][/QUOTE] Chavez is an oligarch. His daughter is one of the richest people in the country. The Maduro government is formed by oligarchs who are absolutely corrupt, who have stolen the people's money. Anyone too blind to see that is not worth listening to.
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52535559]Right, halt the thread everyone. Ken Livingstone (still suspended from Labour over his "Hitler was a Zionist" comments) just said the unrest is a result of Chavez failing to execute enough oligarchs [url]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/03/ken-livingstone-venezuela-crisis-hugo-chavez-oligarchs[/url][/QUOTE] I'll agree but only if Chavez were to be included at the bottom of that list, and Venezuela's future might've turned out differently if that message had been sent. But I get the feeling he didn't include Chavez :bullshit:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.