Registered On: September 7, 2015
You can’t really complain about a smear campaign when a lot of the stuff that the media published were real concerns
Of course it was a smear campaign. And it’s already started with Starmer and the CPS Savile investigation.
As Deerey suggests, most voters would not have studied either party’s manifesto. To them it was a choice between a lovable buffoon and a commie Jew-hater.
Such is life.
When Corbyn has been a long time supporter of a united Ireland (that in itself isn’t a bad thing), refused to back the Anglo-Irish agreement and met with Gerry Adams and co shortly after terrorist attacks it won’t seem like smears to the public. When Corbyn meets with anti-Semites who say Jews make bread from children’s blood, lays wreaths at the graves of Jew killing terrorists, defends anti-Semitic murals and refuses to make swift action against anti-Semites it won’t seem like he has a grip on the issue. They cannot be smears if they are based in truths.
This differs from the nonsense about Miliband’s dad or Starmer’s field because these are outlandish crap no-one believes. We haven’t seen as big a deal over Starmer because he doesn’t have the history. The CPS stuff doesn’t seem to stick and there is nothing else. Things were coming out about Corbyn in the droves, not because he represented some great threat to the establishment (2019 proved that), but because he has a chequered past.
The commie Jew hater can easily stick when he’s going on solidarity campaigns with Cuba and supporting Paul Eisen, a Holocaust denier. It can’t with Starmer, because there is nothing which connects them to people or countries like that.
It’s tough for any Labour leader with the press we have, they are predominantly right wing, but it helps when you don’t have real warning signs attached.