The Labour Thread

[Ebeneezer Goode]

i far from agree with many of his policies but calling him an idiot is ignorant. he's done exactly what we knew he'd do and what we wanted him to do, which was to refuse to play the game of politics and stick by his personal beliefs. personal beliefs which are mostly in line with a huge segment of the country's population. people want peace and an end to austerity. people want a socialist party that at least attempts democratic socialism, and people are bored of corporate shills quipping away about austerity and playing it safe and the game of politics. corbyn and farage are kind of the anti-politicians, and calling them 'idiots' for doing precisely what we wanted them to do reflects more on those slinging the barbs than them as people and potential leaders.

I don't think it was unreasonable for those of a particular political persuasion to want or to assume that he'd be trying to win an election over being principled to the point of recklessness, or even for those that did want him to be honest, to now view many of his beliefs as those of an idiot. You can want peace, for example, but still think someone an idiot for thinking that his approach is the way to get there.

 

[Womble98]

He clearly isn't that big on his principles though as my earlier post showed. He demands that we listen to the Chagos islanders in the question of who should be allowed on the Chagos Isles (rightly so), but then with the Falkland Isles he calls for a power sharing deal with the Argentinians when that is not remotely what any of the falklanders want, as the 98% poll showed. He is more than willing to drop his principles it seems in order to bang on about imperialism.

 

[Womble98]

No chance of being elected you say ?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35003152

His party won a by election in a safe labour seat. If you look at the polls( which whilst have a large margin of error), every single one of them shows labour performing at its worst level ever. The labour members I know who voted for him are being increasingly turned off by his actions.

 

[Pliny Harris]

Jeremy Corbyn is dangerous because he's a power grabber. Jeremy Corbyn is dangerous because he never actively searched for a powerful position in the PLP until applying for leadership.

Jeremy Corbyn is bad because he has principles. Jeremy Corbyn is bad because he doesn't have principles.

Jeremy Corbyn needs to keep in line with the rest of the PLP. Jeremy Corbyn shouldn't be a career politician mercenary with a diluted message that fails to challenge the opposition.

Jeremy Corbyn is bad because he keeps hitting himself when I grab his fist and punch his face with it.

 

[Aber gas]

His party won a by election in a safe labour seat. If you look at the polls( which whilst have a large margin of error), every single one of them shows labour performing at its worst level ever. The labour members I know who voted for him are being increasingly turned off by his actions.

A lot of political pundits were predicting ukip to run labour close in Oldham. In fact some were already writing Corbyn's political obituary but thankfully Labour performed very well. His popularity and approval in the Labour Party is still high and you can't argue with his mandate.
I'm a Labour member and I'm more than happy with his leadership.

 

[Womble98]

Jeremy Corbyn is dangerous because he's a power grabber. Jeremy Corbyn is dangerous because he never actively searched for a powerful position in the PLP until applying for leadership.

Jeremy Corbyn is bad because he has principles. Jeremy Corbyn is bad because he doesn't have principles.

Jeremy Corbyn needs to keep in line with the rest of the PLP. Jeremy Corbyn shouldn't be a career politician mercenary with a diluted message that fails to challenge the opposition.

Jeremy Corbyn is bad because he keeps hitting himself when I grab his fist and punch his face with it.

I'll agree that the media are ridiculous in their attacks on him. But Corbyn writes half the headlines for them with the dumb stuff he has said and done.

 

[Pliny Harris]

"Moderates" or the "centre (left)" or w/e are matching the criticism frequently directed towards radicals now of being all-complaint, no-solution. There has been very little responsibility assumed for the electoral disaster in Scotland they oversaw, where they remain "Tory-lite", and there's little explanation of how a Burnham/Cooper/Kendall leadership would be any better by their standards (usually those of electability over any other principle). Burnham would be deeply incoherent, chuff knows what Cooper would get up to, while Kendall would just sit down in PMQs, smacking a blue clapper board towards the despatch box after every Tory hoo-rah like a scabby Leicester City fan.

I'll agree that the media are ridiculous in their attacks on him. But Corbyn writes half the headlines for them with the dumb stuff he has said and done.

Though I know to well he's made gaffes, I think compared to the number of incidents framed as gaffes these are small. Falklands for one, is certainly not worth sticking an oar in over though as it was an absolute lifesaver for Thatcher following her first term of deficit after deficit and a contracting economy. The surface hardly needs to be scratched however, to see how fervently this government is being opposed, especially so compared to Ed Miliband's "it's all gone quiet over there" reign. I feel we also afford people with the strongest principles, the least leeway for dopey moves in the public eye. I honestly can't remember Labour ever being more scrubbed up. Although they knew how to pass through the media's lenses cleaner in the past, it's obvious that a new leadership that won't let media curated by super-rich neoliberals run around scot-free isn't gonna be favoured back. So I'll judge party politics by independent opinion and my own standards rather than print press/TV consensus.

 

[blade1889]

. So I'll judge party politics by independent opinion and my own standards rather than print press/TV consensus.

Sadly that isn't how this country works though

 

[Aber gas]

Sadly that isn't how this country works though

Doesn't mean that it can't in the future though.

 

[blade1889]

Doesn't mean that it can't in the future though.

Can't see it changing any time soon though

 

[Pliny Harris]

Bollocks. I won't bother trying myself then.

 

[blade1889]

Bollocks. I won't bother trying myself then.

No harm in doing it yourself but when the electorate are very much swayed by media its idiotic to ignore their influence. Corbyn may not want to play the politics game but he is doing, badly. Its incredibly idealistic to think morals trump owt else and that his media image is not important.

You don't have to like something to accept its being.

 

[Aber gas]

No harm in doing it yourself but when the electorate are very much swayed by media its idiotic to ignore their influence. Corbyn may not want to play the politics game but he is doing, badly. Its incredibly idealistic to think morals trump owt else and that his media image is not important.

You don't have to like something to accept its being.

We will see mate, there is a long way to go before the general election. I personally think the media has gone too early and too hard almost to the point of parody. The next election won't be fought in the traditional way, there is no way Labour can win that way. I've been mocked for it before but I reckon the way to go is a guerrilla campaign utilising the re- energised grass roots.
I'm not stupid enough( despite a lot of evidence to the contrary) to believe it will be easy, it will take a momentous effort to get Corbyn elected but it's far from impossible imo

 

[blade1889]

We will see mate, there is a long way to go before the general election. I personally think the media has gone too early and too hard almost to the point of parody. The next election won't be fought in the traditional way, there is no way Labour can win that way. I've been mocked for it before but I reckon the way to go is a guerrilla campaign utilising the re- energised grass roots.
I'm not stupid enough( despite a lot of evidence to the contrary) to believe it will be easy, it will take a momentous effort to get Corbyn elected but it's far from impossible imo

Aye, a lot can change and will. We already know DC is standing down at some point, if Gideon gets to be leader it'll be interesting as he's such a hate figure without the personality (cant believe in saying this...) that DC has.

Edit: Give it to Samantha, watching Bake Off and she comes across as a really nice person

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

I don't think it's that unreasonable to paint him as a threat to national security, I think it sounds hyperbolic and alarmist because normally it would be, but not for him. He hasn't been shy about wanting to gimp our nuclear deterrent or power projection capabilities, and now talk of negotiating with Argentina. If he actually managed to make these changes happen I think they'd weaken us practically irrecoverably.

What, coz being more heavily militarised = a safer and more secure nation? Pfft. I don't really have that firm a position on trident but I reckon it's kinda reasonable to think that possessing nuclear weaponry makes the world an altogether less safe place. Most nations manage ok without an apocalyptic arsenal.

"Moderates" or the "centre (left)" or w/e are matching the criticism frequently directed towards radicals now of being all-complaint, no-solution. There has been very little responsibility assumed for the electoral disaster in Scotland they oversaw, where they remain "Tory-lite", and there's little explanation of how a Burnham/Cooper/Kendall leadership would be any better by their standards (usually those of electability over any other principle). Burnham would be deeply incoherent, chuff knows what Cooper would get up to, while Kendall would just sit down in PMQs, smacking a blue clapper board towards the despatch box after every Tory hoo-rah like a scabby Leicester City fan.

Quite. It's pretty absurd for anyone to think that Corbyn should just throw in the towel. He has only been in the job for a matter of months, has a huge mandate from Labour members and is thus far wholly untested. There's absolutely no evidence at this moment in time to suggest that the party is doing any worse under his stewardship than it was under Miliband. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that Labour has anyone waiting in the wings who would be any more palatable to the electorate (I'm fairly certain they wouldn't be doing any better with any of the other leadership candidates at the helm). Those dissatisfied with his leadership should at least afford him the luxury of a little bit of time.

 

[Pliny Harris]

No harm in doing it yourself but when the electorate are very much swayed by media its idiotic to ignore their influence. Corbyn may not want to play the politics game but he is doing, badly. Its incredibly idealistic to think morals trump owt else and that his media image is not important.

You don't have to like something to accept its being.

Of course I acknowledge it, as I had done in my previous post. Luckily though, the media share owned by the very wealthy is forever dropping, and their share may become crucially low within the next generation (that is, for legitimately anti-establishment politicians to succeed according to merit). But it's a trouble, however not one big enough for me to leave behind what I believe is right, to latch onto a more diluted message that may be represented better. And with that I'm not sure what we're debating over.

As for Osborne, I agree, fewer will warm to him. He's canny as owt and has that "get the job done" attitude that makes so many Brits swoon, but exudes upper-class smugness that could make many people bowk. He's not memorable or... perhaps paternal's the word...

Meanwhile the political landscape will have shifted a bit, however. The "cocktail of threats" he speaks of could even lead to issues like the NHS and housing topping the agenda, which Corbyn would perform very well on. Just one possibility.

Quite. It's pretty absurd for anyone to think that Corbyn should just throw in the towel. He has only been in the job for a matter of months, has a huge mandate from Labour members and is thus far wholly untested. There's absolutely no evidence at this moment in time to suggest that the party is doing any worse under his stewardship than it was under Miliband. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that Labour has anyone waiting in the wings who would be any more palatable to the electorate (I'm fairly certain they wouldn't be doing any better with any of the other leadership candidates at the helm). Those dissatisfied with his leadership should at least afford him the luxury of a little bit of time.

+1 on all that. Not too much to add. It's a huge job ahead though but there remain plenty of scenarios that could see voters coming around to Labour again. In anticipation of those, y'know, we keep going.

 

[Pliny Harris]

Was he in a position to get rid of it?



Yes.

Cheers for replying pal. I don't think we're gonna meet on this, but it's my opinion that troops are much, much more likely to provide an adequate defence to this country towards any threat on the horizon than a nuclear weapon deployed on Uncle Sam's demand. Not taking into account the scale of nuclear apocalypse, Labour here is the lesser of two evils.

Of course though, I'm one of them there unilateralists. The biggest issue in it for me is providing industry and training for a post-Trident Barrow. You'll have heard this everywhere before, but I can't envisage a need for nuclear weaponry in the future, I can't imagine it'd be our sovereign decision, I think it's frivolous given lack of public spending to alleviate poverty, support for Trident seems to be conflated in support for people working in the armed forces, the divide in opinion between genders on Trident screams phallic symbolism to me, I think we're not a big enough world power to lay claim on nuclear warheads, and reckon we're ill-fitted amongst the countries reported who are in possession of them.

 

[SUTSS]

I'm going to challenge the idea that Corbyn and his ilk are all about peace, he isn't. If Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne, Stop The War etc. were genuine pacifists they would oppose war and violence in all it's form, they repeatedly do not. Whilst they never outright support it they are constantly making excuses about Russian imperialism, Islamic fundamentalism, the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, various tyrants and any other violent organisation that has a veneer of anti-westism. Sure this viewpoint would keep Britain out of war but not because they are intrinsically anti-war but because they see the west as the root cause of all the world's ills.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

It's an intellectually lazy sort of way of trying to prove how self-critical and empathetic and enlightened you are without actually letting go of your narrow Euro-centric world-view. It's in part the reason why we see the Crusades or the slave trade the way we do.

 

[Womble98]

Fundamentally, someone who is 100% committed to their ideals and refuses to compromise on them does not make a good prime minister.

 

[smat]

Fundamentally, someone who is 100% committed to their ideals and refuses to compromise on them does not make a good prime minister.

does your hero tim farron 100% commit to his opposition to gay marriage

 

[Pliny Harris]

Jeremy Corbyn is a weak leader because he's 100% committed to his ideals and refuses to budge. Jeremy Corbyn is a weak leader because he caves in and listens to others across the Labour party too much.

Jeremy Corbyn is a weak leader because I nicked his lunchbox and told him to say "I am a widdle girl" to get it back and he didn't want to say it and now I've eaten all of his Lunchables.

 

[Womble98]

does your hero tim farron 100% commit to his opposition to gay marriage

Never said he was my hero, and I didn't vote for him. But no, he is 100% for gay marriage

Farron told the Observer that his abstention did not mean he opposed equal marriage. “It is important to be very, very clear that I voted for the legalisation of equal marriage and support it, and will fight very hard against any attempts to water it down – which there might be.”

So nice try but you are wrong.

Jeremy Corbyn is a weak leader because he's 100% committed to his ideals and refuses to budge. Jeremy Corbyn is a weak leader because he caves in and listens to others across the Labour party too much.

Jeremy Corbyn is a weak leader because I nicked his lunchbox and told him to say "I am a widdle girl" to get it back and he didn't want to say it and now I've eaten all of his Lunchables.

Now you are being ridiculous. Comrade Corbyn is clearly beyond reproach for you.

 

[Pliny Harris]

Comrade Corbyn

HOUSE!

 

[Aber gas]

I'm going to challenge the idea that Corbyn and his ilk are all about peace, he isn't. If Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne, Stop The War etc. were genuine pacifists they would oppose war and violence in all it's form, they repeatedly do not. Whilst they never outright support it they are constantly making excuses about Russian imperialism, Islamic fundamentalism, the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, various tyrants and any other violent organisation that has a veneer of anti-westism. Sure this viewpoint would keep Britain out of war but not because they are intrinsically anti-war but because they see the west as the root cause of all the world's ills.

Taking the view that military intervention is not always the best option is not making excuses for tyrants or terrorists. You mention the IRA in your post, the British government as well as Clinton, Allbright and even Paisley have sat down with former commanders. The only difference between them and Corbyn is that he was brave enough to do it in a less favourable political climate.
Not every problem in the world can be resolved by force, sometimes politicians have to sit down with bile people. It seems when mainstream politicians do it it's called realpolitik and when left wing politicians do it's called supporting or making an excuse for a tyrant.

 

[Aber gas]

It's an intellectually lazy sort of way of trying to prove how self-critical and empathetic and enlightened you are without actually letting go of your narrow Euro-centric world-view. It's in part the reason why we see the Crusades or the slave trade the way we do.

It's not lazy to have a different view of the world. It's possible to understand that the rhythms of history still have a effect on the present without any other agenda.
I think you're mistaking people having different views to you as lazy thinking.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I don't think you've fully understood the posts you're responding to. You seem to be contending positions that I don't think either of us have really taken.

 

[Aber gas]

I don't think you've fully understood the posts you're responding to. You seem to be contending positions that I don't think either of us have really taken.

I think both of my posts make sense. Please explain.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Well, I never said it was lazy to have a different world view, for one, and I'm pretty sure that SUTSS wasn't attacking Corbyn for being non-interventionist either. If anything, he was attacking him for being a hypocrite on that score and being far too sympathetic of violent organizations for a supposed pacifist.

 

[Aber gas]

Well, I never said it was lazy to have a different world view, for one, and I'm pretty sure that SUTSS wasn't attacking Corbyn for being non-interventionist either. If anything, he was attacking him for being a hypocrite on that score and being far too sympathetic of violent organizations for a supposed pacifist.

"Lazy thinking" to misquote. You're making a judgement on people who have different views to you. I'm confused, are you not making that judgement ?