He was thinking (quite rightly) that the Tories have no qualms over allowing Chinese state owned companies to invest in Britain and own part of our nuclear stations, despite the abysmal human rights situation in China. Xi Jinping is said to be the most authoritarian leader in a while. China still glorifies Mao to an extent, he is after all the founder of the Communist state, which the CCP still bases its legitimacy on. Only someone who doesn't give a toss about the Labour Party and is intent on discrediting the leader (elected with a massive mandate among full members) could fail to understand McDonnell's joke. Lets not forget that while Cameron was cosying up to Xi Jinping just a few weeks ago, Jeremy Corbyn raised the issue of human rights with him. Or that when the Egyptian butcher El Sisi had the red carpet rolled out for him, John M was offering principled opposition. I suggest you stop hitting out at men whose commitment to human rights is, *on balance*, quite impressive, and focus your fire on the Tories comrade. If you give a toss about the Labour Movement that is...I sometimes have my doubts.
The point is that politically and tactically, McDonnell quoting Mao, a mass murderer was quite simply, at best, dozy, at worst, incredibly stupid and further damaged his already shot to pieces party.The post by Howie was not meant to appease Osbournes's sickening costing up to a terrible modern Chinese regime.
Yes I get that, and I do think it was a tactical blunder (though quite funny), but, why not focus on Osbourne's cosying up and actually get BEHIND those like McDonnell who are using their positions on the Labour front bench to hold him to account? Rather than slating him as 'unelectable' when we're 4.5 years away from the next election? The Labour Party has changed a hell of a lot recently, and credibility in the eyes of the electorate will come from dissecting the Tory narrative on the economy and making a strong, factual case for an alternative, that should include public ownership, standing up to the unscrupulous financiers, spivs and oligarchs, cracking down on tax avoidance and extending democracy. These are not extreme or unrealistic ideas, many leading economists broadly support them. And in terms of individual freedom, is it really a free country when more and more people are being pushed into low paid, insecure work while the pay of an average CEO has risen from 35 times the average wage in the late 80's, to 183 times the average wage today, while per capita income growth is lower than it was in the 70's and 80's? Making the case for some wealth and power to be taken from the wealthiest with the aim of increasing prosperity for all is surely an argument FOR more individual freedom? But out of the leadership candidates, only Corbyn was prepared to make that argument, which is precisely the mission of Labour, 'wealth and power to be concentrated in the hands of the many not the few' (source, my Party card).All this 'I will never support Corbyn because he is 'friends with Hamas' (he actually met a few of them once and doesn't support them at all), just spouting the line of the capitalist media, is far more damaging to the Party than the Left, and frankly amounts to deliberate sabotage, as well as showing an inability to think critically about the narrative presented by the billionaire controlled 'free (lol) press'.