At least he's said how he's fund it - by using Bank of England money for this kind of thing instead of handing it over to the banks.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Has funding actually been the problem though?
That's a fair point, but if money is directly allocated to solving the issue I have little doubt that the other problems surrounding it can be solved. I think I've advocated the Amsterdam model on here before (tall, narrow housing) and I'm sure if you put people who are better suited to the issue they'll come with solutions.
I think the tall, narrow housing would be quite good here in Oxford. Not much space for expansion but there's enough jobs that the population will only grow. Can't think of any other solution.
Your Lord Mandelson has just shown up in Singapore praising the ruling People's Action Party for continuing its 50-year winning streak in our recent General Election and suggesting that there are things the PAP and Labour can learn from each other.
Unstated is the fact, unfortunately, that all too often this has been achieved with tactics like the repressive usage of sedition and defamation laws against political opponents, academics, the news media and ordinary citizens alike. (For the record, I did personally vote PAP, but it's complicated - the other guys were xenophobes.) This seems.... like a terrible message for New Labour to be trying to associate itself with.
-----------------------------------------
I first had the privilege of being introduced to Singapore by Mr Lee Kuan Yew in the 1990s, and have been returning here once or twice a year ever since.
One thing that has always struck me is the keen interest in what goes on in Britain, and the similarities in some respects of Singaporean and British politics.
During this last week in Singapore, my experience has been no different. Almost everyone I met was eager for me to explain what has happened in the British Labour party, and what the recent election of Mr Jeremy Corbyn as the party leader means for the direction of my country and for the party I have belonged to for over 40 years and about which I care deeply.
It occurs to me that one of the reasons for this intense interest is that Singaporeans see - quite rightly - some of their own politics reflected in those of Britain.
British Labour and the Singaporean People's Action Party have in some senses a common heritage. Both had their roots in social action, the empowerment of labour and the principles of social democracy.
The election of Mr Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party and the emergence of extremist politics across Europe also pose questions for Singapore and its neighbourhood. -PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
As the global economy has evolved over the last 50 years, and with it the nature of society and the concept of "labour", both parties have come under pressure.
In the 1980s and 1990s, I worked with Mr Tony Blair and Mr Gordon Brown in Britain to re-orient and rebuild the Labour party so that it could represent a broader swathe of the British electorate, so that it could be progressive in all senses of the word and look towards the future rather than remain in the past.
In 2011, the PAP was facing a similar crisis of confidence here in Singapore and suffered its poorest election result. The problem was that Singaporean society had evolved quickly and politics was struggling to keep up.
The party had begun to be seen by some as out of synch and out of touch with the needs of ordinary Singaporeans. The election results were a wake-up call: Evolve, or become irrelevant.
At the time, I had many discussions in Singapore about what lessons the PAP could learn from the election result, drawing at times on my own experience of transforming the Labour Party in Britain. It was a time for a steady hand and not for panic - but one nonetheless that did not complacently take success for granted.
The PAP took action and it did it well. It reflected, re-engaged and rebuilt the party, and earlier this month, it was rewarded.
In many respects, giving your vote to a party is like entering a transaction. You want to know what you are getting in return for your money, you want the best possible price for your vote and your negotiation will go on until the very end. This is what happened in this year's election.
It went to the wire as uncertainty about the result grew, but ultimately the voters decided that the PAP had earned the public's confidence. But, rightly, the PAP had to work hard for this endorsement.
In Britain, my party has been going through a similar crisis. After an unprecedented three successive terms in office, our defeat in 2010 was a devastating blow. Labour too went through a period of reflection, but unlike the PAP, we learnt the wrong lessons and moved further away from people, not closer. The result is the election of Mr Corbyn, an old-style personality on the hard left who managed to appear as if he was offering something fresh.
Many young people, tasting politics for the first time, thought it was time to try something new. They had no memory of the sort of isolationist, quasi-Marxist policies that Mr Tony Benn and his followers like Mr Corbyn had brought into vogue in the Labour Party in the early 1980s.
They were joined by many older "re-treads" who had never liked New Labour's modernising approach and saw a big opportunity to take the party backwards.
In many respects, giving your vote to a party is like entering a transaction. You want to know what you are getting in return for your money, you want the best possible price for your vote and your negotiation will go on until the very end. This is what happened in this year's election.
Significantly, Mr Corbyn's election as the Labour leader is not a freak anomaly but represents a wider trend across Europe. Voters are increasingly rejecting mainstream politics in favour of the extreme left and right.
It is the same momentum that has driven voters towards Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain and the National Front in France. Politics in Europe is now more divided and in greater flux than at any other point in my political lifetime. Whether these forces are strong enough to propel Europe towards disintegration remains to be seen.
Personally, I do not believe so. As the economy recovers, confidence will return and mainstream parties will reassert themselves. But no one should underestimate the turmoil that will continue in the meantime.
The election of Mr Corbyn in the British Labour Party and the emergence of extremist politics across Europe also pose questions for Singapore and its neighbourhood.
Will Asia be immune from this trend, whereby political and financial elites find themselves becoming increasingly discredited before an electorate that is increasingly disenchanted?
Party activists in the United Kingdom are drawn to Mr Corbyn for the same reasons that Republicans are drawn to Mr Donald Trump in the US: He appeals to them because they see him as straight-talking, anti-establishment and authentic (even if his authenticity is rather forced and the policy choices he presents are false).
As the PAP builds on its commendable election victory - which other incumbent governing party could wish for a rising share of the vote when the opposition has free rein in social and other media? - the party also needs to understand that delivering strong economic growth and improving public services are not the only things that are needed to keep voters on its side.
The party needs to continue to update the way it views and manages its relationship with the electorate.
One of the things that is attractive about the PAP is that it has no swank or swagger. Like Singapore as a whole, there is much to boast about but intense modesty in showing it off.
The party's leaders need to continue to use their emotional intelligence and keep on the public's wavelength.
Above all, there has to be a constant modernising thrust to the party's thinking, both in how Singapore creates new competitive advantages so as to maintain its national income and new ways to redistribute the fruits of this endeavour to the widest number of people. Economic efficiency and social justice must not become separated.
Singapore's politics have always been the envy of the rest of Asia.
I am sure it will not fall for the compelling but ultimately futile rhetoric of politicians like Labour's new leader, but this means continuing to develop a model of its own that really does provide for the many not the few.
•Peter Mandelson is chairman of strategic consulting firm Global Counsel. He is a British former Labour minister and European Union trade commissioner.
Unstated is the fact, unfortunately, that all too often this has been achieved with tactics like the repressive usage of sedition and defamation laws against political opponents, academics, the news media and ordinary citizens alike. (For the record, I did personally vote PAP, but it's complicated - the other guys were xenophobes.) This seems.... like a terrible message for New Labour to be trying to associate itself with.
-----------------------------------------
I first had the privilege of being introduced to Singapore by Mr Lee Kuan Yew in the 1990s, and have been returning here once or twice a year ever since.
One thing that has always struck me is the keen interest in what goes on in Britain, and the similarities in some respects of Singaporean and British politics.
During this last week in Singapore, my experience has been no different. Almost everyone I met was eager for me to explain what has happened in the British Labour party, and what the recent election of Mr Jeremy Corbyn as the party leader means for the direction of my country and for the party I have belonged to for over 40 years and about which I care deeply.
It occurs to me that one of the reasons for this intense interest is that Singaporeans see - quite rightly - some of their own politics reflected in those of Britain.
British Labour and the Singaporean People's Action Party have in some senses a common heritage. Both had their roots in social action, the empowerment of labour and the principles of social democracy.
The election of Mr Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party and the emergence of extremist politics across Europe also pose questions for Singapore and its neighbourhood. -PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
As the global economy has evolved over the last 50 years, and with it the nature of society and the concept of "labour", both parties have come under pressure.
In the 1980s and 1990s, I worked with Mr Tony Blair and Mr Gordon Brown in Britain to re-orient and rebuild the Labour party so that it could represent a broader swathe of the British electorate, so that it could be progressive in all senses of the word and look towards the future rather than remain in the past.
In 2011, the PAP was facing a similar crisis of confidence here in Singapore and suffered its poorest election result. The problem was that Singaporean society had evolved quickly and politics was struggling to keep up.
The party had begun to be seen by some as out of synch and out of touch with the needs of ordinary Singaporeans. The election results were a wake-up call: Evolve, or become irrelevant.
At the time, I had many discussions in Singapore about what lessons the PAP could learn from the election result, drawing at times on my own experience of transforming the Labour Party in Britain. It was a time for a steady hand and not for panic - but one nonetheless that did not complacently take success for granted.
The PAP took action and it did it well. It reflected, re-engaged and rebuilt the party, and earlier this month, it was rewarded.
In many respects, giving your vote to a party is like entering a transaction. You want to know what you are getting in return for your money, you want the best possible price for your vote and your negotiation will go on until the very end. This is what happened in this year's election.
It went to the wire as uncertainty about the result grew, but ultimately the voters decided that the PAP had earned the public's confidence. But, rightly, the PAP had to work hard for this endorsement.
In Britain, my party has been going through a similar crisis. After an unprecedented three successive terms in office, our defeat in 2010 was a devastating blow. Labour too went through a period of reflection, but unlike the PAP, we learnt the wrong lessons and moved further away from people, not closer. The result is the election of Mr Corbyn, an old-style personality on the hard left who managed to appear as if he was offering something fresh.
Many young people, tasting politics for the first time, thought it was time to try something new. They had no memory of the sort of isolationist, quasi-Marxist policies that Mr Tony Benn and his followers like Mr Corbyn had brought into vogue in the Labour Party in the early 1980s.
They were joined by many older "re-treads" who had never liked New Labour's modernising approach and saw a big opportunity to take the party backwards.
In many respects, giving your vote to a party is like entering a transaction. You want to know what you are getting in return for your money, you want the best possible price for your vote and your negotiation will go on until the very end. This is what happened in this year's election.
Significantly, Mr Corbyn's election as the Labour leader is not a freak anomaly but represents a wider trend across Europe. Voters are increasingly rejecting mainstream politics in favour of the extreme left and right.
It is the same momentum that has driven voters towards Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain and the National Front in France. Politics in Europe is now more divided and in greater flux than at any other point in my political lifetime. Whether these forces are strong enough to propel Europe towards disintegration remains to be seen.
Personally, I do not believe so. As the economy recovers, confidence will return and mainstream parties will reassert themselves. But no one should underestimate the turmoil that will continue in the meantime.
The election of Mr Corbyn in the British Labour Party and the emergence of extremist politics across Europe also pose questions for Singapore and its neighbourhood.
Will Asia be immune from this trend, whereby political and financial elites find themselves becoming increasingly discredited before an electorate that is increasingly disenchanted?
Party activists in the United Kingdom are drawn to Mr Corbyn for the same reasons that Republicans are drawn to Mr Donald Trump in the US: He appeals to them because they see him as straight-talking, anti-establishment and authentic (even if his authenticity is rather forced and the policy choices he presents are false).
As the PAP builds on its commendable election victory - which other incumbent governing party could wish for a rising share of the vote when the opposition has free rein in social and other media? - the party also needs to understand that delivering strong economic growth and improving public services are not the only things that are needed to keep voters on its side.
The party needs to continue to update the way it views and manages its relationship with the electorate.
One of the things that is attractive about the PAP is that it has no swank or swagger. Like Singapore as a whole, there is much to boast about but intense modesty in showing it off.
The party's leaders need to continue to use their emotional intelligence and keep on the public's wavelength.
Above all, there has to be a constant modernising thrust to the party's thinking, both in how Singapore creates new competitive advantages so as to maintain its national income and new ways to redistribute the fruits of this endeavour to the widest number of people. Economic efficiency and social justice must not become separated.
Singapore's politics have always been the envy of the rest of Asia.
I am sure it will not fall for the compelling but ultimately futile rhetoric of politicians like Labour's new leader, but this means continuing to develop a model of its own that really does provide for the many not the few.
•Peter Mandelson is chairman of strategic consulting firm Global Counsel. He is a British former Labour minister and European Union trade commissioner.
But the bank of England is independent...
Unless he is going to change that and have the Chancellor set interest rates again
Milliband had the burden of trying to be all things to all people and being as inoffensive as possible. If you're trying to attempt triangulation politics it limits how much you can challenge the opposition.
Corbyn can at least fight from a position of conviction and that'll make things more difficult for the Tories. His own policies may betray him but the tories won't be able to rely upon weak opposition anymore.
How's the BoE going to get a return on that? BoE is not like your average bank onviously.
Corbyn also wants to remove its independence. Making it independent was one of the most sensible things Labour did in '97.
It's certainly the essence of his appeal I think.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...892383/Jeremy-Corbyn-911-was-manipulated.html
The Telegraph exceed themselves with their latest propagandistic effort. Read the title of the article, the way it's framed, and then read the quotes attributed to Corbyn. Everything Corbyn says is completely true, and 100% verifiable. Yet the Telegraph obviously wants to portray it in the light of crazed conspiracy theory. Their attempts are so utterly transparent as to be beyond ridiculous at this stage.
1. He's correct on Afghanistan.
2. He's correct on the nature of colonial interest in the gulf region.
3. He's correct on the nature of the United States' military industrial complex.
4. The term New World order was coined by the people who sought to impose a new world order -- the Neo Cons of the late 80s and early 90s. It was frequent in various political manifestos, a blanket term to cover stated aims and goals. To reference the term is not to be a conspiracy theorist, it is merely to quote heads of state who used the term frequently themselves. Corbyn is not referring to the Illuminati, or some fanciful notion, he is merely referring to the extant world order as brought about by various heads of state. This is all 100% verifiable through internal memos, publicly released documents, etc. The Telegraph is one of the worst rags in the world.
The Telegraph exceed themselves with their latest propagandistic effort. Read the title of the article, the way it's framed, and then read the quotes attributed to Corbyn. Everything Corbyn says is completely true, and 100% verifiable. Yet the Telegraph obviously wants to portray it in the light of crazed conspiracy theory. Their attempts are so utterly transparent as to be beyond ridiculous at this stage.
1. He's correct on Afghanistan.
2. He's correct on the nature of colonial interest in the gulf region.
3. He's correct on the nature of the United States' military industrial complex.
4. The term New World order was coined by the people who sought to impose a new world order -- the Neo Cons of the late 80s and early 90s. It was frequent in various political manifestos, a blanket term to cover stated aims and goals. To reference the term is not to be a conspiracy theorist, it is merely to quote heads of state who used the term frequently themselves. Corbyn is not referring to the Illuminati, or some fanciful notion, he is merely referring to the extant world order as brought about by various heads of state. This is all 100% verifiable through internal memos, publicly released documents, etc. The Telegraph is one of the worst rags in the world.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-will-match-osborne-and-live-within-our-means
I thought this was quite radical, and I naively assumed many newspapers would be carrying it. Naivety strengthened after I saw that the Independent had it, albeit as the second lead story.
Well, the Telegraph's headline: "Corbyn says 9/11 was manipulated". The Times and the Mail had nothing on domestic policy. I wouldn't dare look at the tabloids.
It's an anti-democratic disgrace.
I thought this was quite radical, and I naively assumed many newspapers would be carrying it. Naivety strengthened after I saw that the Independent had it, albeit as the second lead story.
Well, the Telegraph's headline: "Corbyn says 9/11 was manipulated". The Times and the Mail had nothing on domestic policy. I wouldn't dare look at the tabloids.
It's an anti-democratic disgrace.
I can't see many people voting for Mcdonald setting interest (and by default) mortgage rates...
So much for anti-austerity. All McDonnell is saying is that austerity should occur through tax rises alone, not cuts, or a mix of the two. The trouble is, not running a deficit and repealing cuts and introducing new expenditure means a big rise in the required tax take.
So when you boil it down, all he's offering here is a tax and spend programme. Except this time he's also shifting the deficit onto tax payers, as well as eveything else.
Edit: The response on twitter & on the Guardian to this is pretty funny. A lot of people pointing out that this is exactly what Labour has been derided for, by the far left, all summer.
Last edited:
To re-use the chart I posted earlier, they're essentially the same numbers that Ed had:
So to be blunt, they're pretty terrible numbers.
Nah, those numbers of Miliband were heading into election and these are after elections for Corbyn when Cameron will be in bit of a honeymoon period too after winning a majority. (No one wants to admit some other guy is better so early after electing Cameron.)
What Corbyn needs to do is explain his positions more in other aspects and keep hammering on the more honest than most politicians and does what he says aspect time and again.
Jeremy Corbyn to apologise for Iraq war on behalf of the Labour Party
Jeremy Corbyn is set to use his first conference speech as Labour leader to apologise on behalf of his party for taking Britain into war in Iraq.
In a sign of how Mr Corbyn wants to reshape the public’s view of the party under his leadership, he is expected to say that Labour has learnt its lesson from the conflict and will “never make the same mistake again”.
He will add that in future Britain’s role in international affairs needs to change to the promotion of conflict resolution and co-operation rather than using UK forces to achieve regime change.
An apology will delight Labour activists and be welcomed by some senior members of the parliamentary party who hope it will pre-empt criticisms of former ministers when the Chilcot inquiry finally reports later this year.
“We are urging him to make the apology in his speech. It would be surprising if he did not take the opportunity to do it on Tuesday,” said one Labour MP who supports Mr Corbyn.
But the move will cause disquiet among some in the centre of the party who fear it will reinforce public perceptions that Labour are “soft” on national security. That view is likely to be re-enforced if, as expected, the party decides to hold an emergency debate on whether Labour should support the renewal of Trident during the conference.
Mr Corbyn indicated that he would support a move to debate the issue and has long advocated unilaterally scrapping Britain independent nuclear deterrent.
He has suggested that scrapping Trident would become official policy if a resolution to that effect is passed.
Mr Corbyn indicated during his campaign for the leadership that he would make the symbolic apology for the invasion of Iraq should he win.
“It is past time that Labour apologised to the British people for taking them into the Iraq war on the basis of deception and to the Iraqi people for the suffering we have helped cause,” he said.
“The endless delay on the Chilcot inquiry is wrong. But we don’t have to wait for Chilcot to know that mistakes were made,” Mr Corbyn said.
Mr Corbyn’s team hopes his first conference will showcase what it describes as the “three pillars” of his leadership: a new approach to the economy based on growth rather than austerity; political reform that engages voters “more directly” and a changed approach to foreign affairs.
µ Jeremy Corbyn has written to David Cameron calling on him to raise the case of Ali al-Nimr, a teenage Saudi dissident who is facing execution for taking part in protests against the regime.
Jeremy Corbyn is set to use his first conference speech as Labour leader to apologise on behalf of his party for taking Britain into war in Iraq.
In a sign of how Mr Corbyn wants to reshape the public’s view of the party under his leadership, he is expected to say that Labour has learnt its lesson from the conflict and will “never make the same mistake again”.
He will add that in future Britain’s role in international affairs needs to change to the promotion of conflict resolution and co-operation rather than using UK forces to achieve regime change.
An apology will delight Labour activists and be welcomed by some senior members of the parliamentary party who hope it will pre-empt criticisms of former ministers when the Chilcot inquiry finally reports later this year.
“We are urging him to make the apology in his speech. It would be surprising if he did not take the opportunity to do it on Tuesday,” said one Labour MP who supports Mr Corbyn.
But the move will cause disquiet among some in the centre of the party who fear it will reinforce public perceptions that Labour are “soft” on national security. That view is likely to be re-enforced if, as expected, the party decides to hold an emergency debate on whether Labour should support the renewal of Trident during the conference.
Mr Corbyn indicated that he would support a move to debate the issue and has long advocated unilaterally scrapping Britain independent nuclear deterrent.
He has suggested that scrapping Trident would become official policy if a resolution to that effect is passed.
Mr Corbyn indicated during his campaign for the leadership that he would make the symbolic apology for the invasion of Iraq should he win.
“It is past time that Labour apologised to the British people for taking them into the Iraq war on the basis of deception and to the Iraqi people for the suffering we have helped cause,” he said.
“The endless delay on the Chilcot inquiry is wrong. But we don’t have to wait for Chilcot to know that mistakes were made,” Mr Corbyn said.
Mr Corbyn’s team hopes his first conference will showcase what it describes as the “three pillars” of his leadership: a new approach to the economy based on growth rather than austerity; political reform that engages voters “more directly” and a changed approach to foreign affairs.
µ Jeremy Corbyn has written to David Cameron calling on him to raise the case of Ali al-Nimr, a teenage Saudi dissident who is facing execution for taking part in protests against the regime.
Yeah, he's had barely any time at all to let people know what he's about and argue his points. If those numbers are the same a year or two from now then that's different. Not to mention, as you say, that there's every chance Cameron/his replacement will fall in popularity.
They're just finding out that it's easy to make proposals you don't have to implement, difficult to make those proposals with the intention of one day governing. Baptism of fire for Corbyn.
I've always thought it's independence was a bit of a political fallacy myself. Okay it can protect against short term manipulation of interest rates for political purpose but it's long term aims of controlling the money supply are so heavily influenced by central goverment policy (i.e austerity) that it has to fall in line. At the moment it's little more than a passenger.
Without the original Morning Star article to put those quotes into context, i decided against posting the above link. But in that light i do wonder from where comes your certainty?
It is indeed possible to infer some rather contentious points from the following quotesm were one so be so inclined:
1) Should the first statement be interpreted as doubt over al-Qaeda's culpability?
2) Did he feel that there were no grounds for military action in Afghanistan at that time?
If Corbyn's response to either point were to be in the affirmative (particularly the former), his credibility as a prospective prime minster would be damaged.
Policy commitments of dubious value, you mean?
For if we believe Team Jeremy:
- Re-nationalisation of multiple sectors or the economy, to the tune of nearly £200bn.
- No extra taxes for low-middle earners, not even to pay for the ongoing operation of these newly acquired industries.
- Investment in widespread infrastructure projects.
- Increased spending on the nations' housing stock.
- All within our means.
Has McDonnell found one of those mythical cities of gold deep in the Amazon?
If much of the necessary blunt is to be sourced through PQE, i should consider extreme scepticism a quite natural response.
Last edited:
1. The first statement merely highlights the facts. The drift from Al Queda's immediate culpability (genuine) to regime change via carpet bombing in a country that the United States viewed as integral to maintaining hegemony in that particular region. The Wolfowitz Doctrine highlights all of this, as well as subsequent policy taken within the Middle East region in general.
2. He did feel there were no grounds, or very tenuous grounds, for military intervention in Afghanistan. Rightly so when one considers the facts. The bombers were not Afghanis. It's the equivalent of the UK bombing Northern Ireland to bits due to the actions of the IRA. It's a war crime.
My certainty comes from reading an awful lot of political documents regarding foreign policy interventions and contrasting them against subsequent military aggression taken by the United States. I will post a detailed and cited account later on.
A little gift for the Corbynistas whilst they eat their smoked salmon and scrambled egg this fine Sunday morning, or marmite on toast. 
Jeremy Corbyn's top team encouraged street riots
Labour's shadow chancellor called for insurrection against government, economic adviser said the ruling class would be killed if they resisted and key political aide boasted of his role in violent student protests
By Andrew Gilligan
26 Sep 2015
Key members of Jeremy Corbyn’s team have actively supported “insurrection” and rioting against the police, a Telegraph investigation has found.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, Andrew Fisher, Mr Corbyn’s new political adviser, and John Ross, a close ally and economic expert, have all condoned or justified violence.
A trawl by this newspaper of archives, reports and internet postings shows how Mr Corbyn’s inner circle has frequently supported civil unrest and even praised violent demonstrators – including in one case a hooligan jailed for hurling a fire extinguisher at police from the top of a building.
The revelations – on the eve of the Labour party conference – raise serious questions over Mr Corbyn’s judgment in picking his inner team.
After two weeks in charge, Mr Corbyn’s personal ratings are already dire and his party is deeply divided over issues including air strikes in Syria, the Trident nuclear programme and cuts to spending on state benefits.
Mr Corbyn is facing his first threat of resignations from the shadow cabinet over his plan to withdraw Labour support for an independent nuclear deterrent. The question is expected to be put to a vote at the Brighton conference.
Mr McDonnell, who in the past has praised the IRA, was a controversial choice as shadow chancellor but the Telegraph investigation will stoke fears he is far too radical for such a crucial post.
At least three times between 2010 and 2012, he called for “insurrection” to “bring down” the government.
At a Liverpool conference on March 10 2012, he said: “There’s three ways in which we change society. One is through the ballot box, the democratic process and into Parliament. The second is trade union action, industrial action. The third is basically insurrection, but we now call it direct action…
“Don’t expect that change [to society] coming from Parliament…we have an elected dictatorship, so I think we have a democratic right to use whatever means to bring this government down. The real fight now is in our communities, it’s on the picket lines, it’s in the streets.”
In a speech in 2011 to a Right-to-Protest rally, he praised rioters who had “kicked the s---” out of the Conservative Party’s headquarters at Millbank Tower in Westminster.
At the Lancashire Against Cuts rally the same year, he also defended Ed Woollard, a student jailed for 32 months for hurling a fire extinguisher at police from the building’s seventh-floor roof, saying he had been "victimised."
Mr McDonnell said: “That kid didn’t deserve 36 months (sic). Actually, he’s not the criminal. The real criminals are the ones that are cutting the education services and increasing the fees… We’ve got to encourage the direct action, [in] any form it can possibly take.”
In another speech on May 10 2012, Mr McDonnell said workers should seize control of their workplaces. “If they want to occupy their factories, we’ll support them. We’re here to fight for every factory, every job and against every cut.” In 2010, he advocated “repossessing” the property of “100 top tax evaders”, saying: “Let’s choose a day when we become tax collectors, turn up at their offices and demand the money. And if they do not pay, do what they do to us – repossess, saying we’re occupying until you pay.”
Mr Fisher, Mr Corbyn’s new political adviser whose salary is paid by taxpayers as part of Mr Corbyn’s personal staff, boasted on a far-Left website of his role in a second student riot, outside Parliament in December 2010.
He described how he had “taken back Whitehall” as part of a 200-strong group that “burst through” police lines and “pushed the two-deep line of riot police back three quarters of the way back to King Charles Street”.
Mr Fisher, who was 30 at the time, wrote on a Left-wing blog: “Hundreds of people were enjoying the role reversal of the police being penned in and scared. I felt elated.”
His account of the affray has been removed from the website, but was retrieved by The Sunday Telegraph from an internet archive.
Mr Ross, now an economic adviser, was a prominent member of an international Marxist group. In an election speech in 1974, Mr Ross – quoted in a biography of former London mayor Ken Livingstone – said: “The ruling class must know that they will be killed if they do not allow a takeover by the workers. If we aren’t armed there will be a bloodbath.”
The Sunday Telegraph has also uncovered evidence of how other key figures around Mr Corbyn, including his chief of staff, Simon Fletcher, as well as Mr Ross are or were members of a tiny, secretive Trotskyite sect, Socialist Action, which seeks a communist revolution and believes that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a “tragedy for humanity”.
In secret documents seen by this newspaper, Socialist Action calls itself the “revolutionary wing of the Labour Party” and describes how it performed a “clandestine form of entry” to infiltrate the party.
Mr Corbyn is also linked to a publication which, during the riots in the 1980s, strongly supported the violence and hoped it would be “better” next time.
In a June 1981 editorial on the Brixton riots, London Labour Briefing, a hard-Left newsletter, said: “The street fighting was excellent, but could have been (and hopefully will be in future) better organised. There are occasions when, in defence of genuine legality and democracy, insurrectionary methods become necessary… The task, surely, is to break the Metropolitan Police as presently constituted.”
According to an authoritative parliamentary reference work, Mr Corbyn was general secretary of Briefing’s editorial board. He also ran its mailing list, wrote many bylined articles for the magazine and usually chaired its main fringe meetings at events like the Labour party conference.
Briefing explicitly demanded what it called a “British revolution” through “physical resistance if necessary.”
Meanwhile, last night Mr Corbyn failed to mention his promise to tackle the Budget deficit, in a speech to a rally ahead of the party conference.
According to a draft released in advance, he was expected to say, “We will balance the books – but not on the backs of low and middle income earners.”
However, he did not mention balancing the Budget at all despite Mr McDonnell using an interview on Saturday to promise to ensure Britain always lives within its means.
Mr Corbyn’s omission echoes the blunder by his predecessor Ed Miliband at last year’s party conference, when he forgot an entire section of his main leader’s speech on the deficit.
Team Corbyn, a secret Marxist cadre and vocal support for violence
Many of the inner circles of Labour's new leader share a past in the shadowy Socialist Action
In October 2009, in the shadow of Karl Marx’s massive tomb, there took place a unique gathering of a Marxist sect that has just taken over several of the top jobs in the Labour Party.
For much of Labour’s history, the idea that the party was covertly influenced by revolutionaries, Communists and terrorists was dismissed as a fiction propagated by Right-wing tabloids.
But now it is true.
Full article :: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11893986/Jeremy-Corbyns-top-team-encouraged-street-riots.html
To post the piece in its entirety the content would span 3-4 posts, but there is some interesting detail there IMO.
A few excerpts from further on the article:
Jeremy Corbyn's top team encouraged street riots
Labour's shadow chancellor called for insurrection against government, economic adviser said the ruling class would be killed if they resisted and key political aide boasted of his role in violent student protests
By Andrew Gilligan
26 Sep 2015
Key members of Jeremy Corbyn’s team have actively supported “insurrection” and rioting against the police, a Telegraph investigation has found.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, Andrew Fisher, Mr Corbyn’s new political adviser, and John Ross, a close ally and economic expert, have all condoned or justified violence.
A trawl by this newspaper of archives, reports and internet postings shows how Mr Corbyn’s inner circle has frequently supported civil unrest and even praised violent demonstrators – including in one case a hooligan jailed for hurling a fire extinguisher at police from the top of a building.
The revelations – on the eve of the Labour party conference – raise serious questions over Mr Corbyn’s judgment in picking his inner team.
After two weeks in charge, Mr Corbyn’s personal ratings are already dire and his party is deeply divided over issues including air strikes in Syria, the Trident nuclear programme and cuts to spending on state benefits.
Mr Corbyn is facing his first threat of resignations from the shadow cabinet over his plan to withdraw Labour support for an independent nuclear deterrent. The question is expected to be put to a vote at the Brighton conference.
Mr McDonnell, who in the past has praised the IRA, was a controversial choice as shadow chancellor but the Telegraph investigation will stoke fears he is far too radical for such a crucial post.
At least three times between 2010 and 2012, he called for “insurrection” to “bring down” the government.
At a Liverpool conference on March 10 2012, he said: “There’s three ways in which we change society. One is through the ballot box, the democratic process and into Parliament. The second is trade union action, industrial action. The third is basically insurrection, but we now call it direct action…
“Don’t expect that change [to society] coming from Parliament…we have an elected dictatorship, so I think we have a democratic right to use whatever means to bring this government down. The real fight now is in our communities, it’s on the picket lines, it’s in the streets.”
In a speech in 2011 to a Right-to-Protest rally, he praised rioters who had “kicked the s---” out of the Conservative Party’s headquarters at Millbank Tower in Westminster.
At the Lancashire Against Cuts rally the same year, he also defended Ed Woollard, a student jailed for 32 months for hurling a fire extinguisher at police from the building’s seventh-floor roof, saying he had been "victimised."
Mr McDonnell said: “That kid didn’t deserve 36 months (sic). Actually, he’s not the criminal. The real criminals are the ones that are cutting the education services and increasing the fees… We’ve got to encourage the direct action, [in] any form it can possibly take.”
In another speech on May 10 2012, Mr McDonnell said workers should seize control of their workplaces. “If they want to occupy their factories, we’ll support them. We’re here to fight for every factory, every job and against every cut.” In 2010, he advocated “repossessing” the property of “100 top tax evaders”, saying: “Let’s choose a day when we become tax collectors, turn up at their offices and demand the money. And if they do not pay, do what they do to us – repossess, saying we’re occupying until you pay.”
Mr Fisher, Mr Corbyn’s new political adviser whose salary is paid by taxpayers as part of Mr Corbyn’s personal staff, boasted on a far-Left website of his role in a second student riot, outside Parliament in December 2010.
He described how he had “taken back Whitehall” as part of a 200-strong group that “burst through” police lines and “pushed the two-deep line of riot police back three quarters of the way back to King Charles Street”.
Mr Fisher, who was 30 at the time, wrote on a Left-wing blog: “Hundreds of people were enjoying the role reversal of the police being penned in and scared. I felt elated.”
His account of the affray has been removed from the website, but was retrieved by The Sunday Telegraph from an internet archive.
Mr Ross, now an economic adviser, was a prominent member of an international Marxist group. In an election speech in 1974, Mr Ross – quoted in a biography of former London mayor Ken Livingstone – said: “The ruling class must know that they will be killed if they do not allow a takeover by the workers. If we aren’t armed there will be a bloodbath.”
The Sunday Telegraph has also uncovered evidence of how other key figures around Mr Corbyn, including his chief of staff, Simon Fletcher, as well as Mr Ross are or were members of a tiny, secretive Trotskyite sect, Socialist Action, which seeks a communist revolution and believes that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a “tragedy for humanity”.
In secret documents seen by this newspaper, Socialist Action calls itself the “revolutionary wing of the Labour Party” and describes how it performed a “clandestine form of entry” to infiltrate the party.
Mr Corbyn is also linked to a publication which, during the riots in the 1980s, strongly supported the violence and hoped it would be “better” next time.
In a June 1981 editorial on the Brixton riots, London Labour Briefing, a hard-Left newsletter, said: “The street fighting was excellent, but could have been (and hopefully will be in future) better organised. There are occasions when, in defence of genuine legality and democracy, insurrectionary methods become necessary… The task, surely, is to break the Metropolitan Police as presently constituted.”
According to an authoritative parliamentary reference work, Mr Corbyn was general secretary of Briefing’s editorial board. He also ran its mailing list, wrote many bylined articles for the magazine and usually chaired its main fringe meetings at events like the Labour party conference.
Briefing explicitly demanded what it called a “British revolution” through “physical resistance if necessary.”
Meanwhile, last night Mr Corbyn failed to mention his promise to tackle the Budget deficit, in a speech to a rally ahead of the party conference.
According to a draft released in advance, he was expected to say, “We will balance the books – but not on the backs of low and middle income earners.”
However, he did not mention balancing the Budget at all despite Mr McDonnell using an interview on Saturday to promise to ensure Britain always lives within its means.
Mr Corbyn’s omission echoes the blunder by his predecessor Ed Miliband at last year’s party conference, when he forgot an entire section of his main leader’s speech on the deficit.
Team Corbyn, a secret Marxist cadre and vocal support for violence
Many of the inner circles of Labour's new leader share a past in the shadowy Socialist Action
In October 2009, in the shadow of Karl Marx’s massive tomb, there took place a unique gathering of a Marxist sect that has just taken over several of the top jobs in the Labour Party.
For much of Labour’s history, the idea that the party was covertly influenced by revolutionaries, Communists and terrorists was dismissed as a fiction propagated by Right-wing tabloids.
But now it is true.
Full article :: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11893986/Jeremy-Corbyns-top-team-encouraged-street-riots.html
To post the piece in its entirety the content would span 3-4 posts, but there is some interesting detail there IMO.
A few excerpts from further on the article:
Last edited:
Says a right wing tabloid.
what a load of shite
The Telegraph is getting desperate.
I haven't had time to keep updated in this thread (new job) but I never saw this coming..
would @sun_tzu and @Nick 0208 Ldn precis their thoughts?
From my side.. I am a socialist at heart with green leanings.. so Corbyn is a decent appointment from a position of weakness, but he's not a heavyweight capable of seizing power
I always thought the best way of Labour remaining 'relevant' was through centre-right, new-labour policy .. that'd be the closest.. but to go opposite way? Fair play.. I like it.. can they win though? I doubt it.
would @sun_tzu and @Nick 0208 Ldn precis their thoughts?
From my side.. I am a socialist at heart with green leanings.. so Corbyn is a decent appointment from a position of weakness, but he's not a heavyweight capable of seizing power
I always thought the best way of Labour remaining 'relevant' was through centre-right, new-labour policy .. that'd be the closest.. but to go opposite way? Fair play.. I like it.. can they win though? I doubt it.
So it was anot covered because of its alleged dubious value? Given that the election was fought on Labour's economic incompetence, a big statement like this might be a good chance for the right-wing press to expose it dubious value?
But I guess its better to ignore a major policy announcement from the main opposition party. An announcement which might make glib slogans about their recklessness a little more difficult...
Tory Nick still shitting his pants on here daily, I see.
Do you think Mcdonnells announcement was a good idea?
Last edited:
I don't read too much into the polls at the moment... See where he is polling around new year after announcing some policies and more importantly being questioned about their funding (I suspect badly).
I'm done with the party until they can offer some economic credibility... Certainly guaranteeing the bank of England independence (so by default no people's qe as mark carney said there are no circumstances that would be a good idea)
The local elections will give the first real glimpse as to how the public feel but I would suggest that to win a majority in a general election they need to win seats off the conservatives and I cant envisage them putting together a coherent manifesto in order to do so that appeals beyond their own supporters and appears economically sound.
Basically if he can't poll above a pig fu##er he is in trouble (I think he would actually fair worse against Boris or Gideon)
I think it was a newsworthy idea.
Think you were just being impatient, its in today's papers. McDonnell also gets an interview about his plans in the Sunday Times.
In all honesty this isn't that big news for the general public - the idea that the deficit is the most important thing & should be eliminated as soon as possible is widely believed, so Labour agreeing with that is not a revelation. But its interesting for politics watchers because we expected McDonnell to challenge the austerity narrative, when instead he's gone along with it.
Corbyn came across well on Marr today by all accounts.
I saw it, I think it depends on what you're looking for. If you've been told he's some Trot firebrand here to destroy all you love, then yeah he was much better than that. He came across as the calm genial bloke he is.
However I thought he was evasive on actually answering any questions. For example when Marr said to him that his economic policy would result in tax rises for the middle classes, his response was to criticise the Government for cutting taxes for the rich. When Marr brings him back to the question, he does it again.
On some things like Trident Marr kept asking the question - what happens if conference resolves one thing and the shadow cabinet can't agree with it. He kept avoiding actually answering, basically saying that he hoped he'd be able to convince people to change their minds.
That okay up to a point. We've not actually had a resolution on Trident yet after all, so we're not at that bridge yet. But this is the biggest issue facing the party at the moment, and its not very encouraging hearing our leader sound like he doesn't know what he'd do in a situation we're certain to face one day, possibly even this week. Even worse, he at one point said that its okay if we have two opinions in the party. Well I kinda feel like a party can't have two opinions on something so fundamental. You can't go to the polls being both for and against Trident.
So if, like me, you're worried about his policy and leadership it wasn't that encouraging. But it'll make the Telegraph's campaign to make him sound like a baby-eater look foolish.
Says a right wing tabloid.
what a load of shite
The Telegraph is getting desperate.
Over what? We're fiver years away from the next general election.
Naturally, there is an element of playing to the audience in the article i posted, however i don't see why that should preclude the information detailed within from being relevant.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor sought to downplay (as well as use for political purposes) what could have been an act of attempted murder on the part of a protester.
Another of Corbyn's advisers believes that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a "catastrophe". And she, an officer of the Stop the War Coalition, considers a ghastly civil war to have been "the greatest step forward that humanity had ever taken".
This stuff is three fires short of a Happy Meal.
The extent to which Corbyn is influenced by such characters (as opposed to his cabinet colleagues), could prove to be rather important.
Thanks for the heads up, i've just been watching the appearance. I think @bishblaize has summed it up pretty well. His general comportment isn't going to be something that let him down, although that likely won't come as news to anyone who's followed Corbyn's career. But were any other party leader to have ducked questions in that fashion, the reaction from his supporters would be scathing to say the least.
If McDonnell can actually demonstrate how they would go about the practical application of their economic policy, there will be plenty of ink expended in its coverage.
I look at this from the position of an outsider you understand (never having voted for Labour), others in this thread are far more knowledgeable about the range of the personalities involved any any historical parallels. Yet as one of those voters who mostly inhabit the centre ground of politics, i'd have sooner the opposition elected a moderate leader, albeit one new ideas to offer. In the days following Miliband's resignation it was my belief that a break with the past was the best course of action; Jarvis and Kendall were the names i suggested for leader, with Umunna as shadow chancellor. I did think that Corbyn's inclusion would be beneficial in so far as broadening the debate, something which was lacking in the early stages.
A Corbyn-led Labour Party is going to be a bloody difficult sell, particularly if the economy continues on an even keel. And maintaining a unity of purpose amongst his supporters won't be easy, each new compromise is a test.Whilst it is possible that the Tory leadership race will descend into an acrimony, i very much doubt whether this new regime are capable of seizing the initiative.
I think that's true regardless who won the Labour leadership.
The telegraph are reaching Daily Mail/Sun-esque levels of hysteria.
Corbyn has turned them from a relatively sensible Tory-centric paper, to a doom-mongering tabloid
Corbyn has turned them from a relatively sensible Tory-centric paper, to a doom-mongering tabloid
It's a hysterically written article, that actually has some stuff worth reporting in it, I think.
Nothing that bothers me, personally, as the mental lefty that I am, but there are things there that would be relevant to others.
It's not one of the more shameless attacks on Corbyn, that we've seen.
Nothing that bothers me, personally, as the mental lefty that I am, but there are things there that would be relevant to others.
It's not one of the more shameless attacks on Corbyn, that we've seen.
I don't really know how these things work. Beeb says "the motion failed to get the support it needed from activists in a ballot selecting the issues to be debated". Is there a number of signatures required, or... what?
News from the Labour conference:
ETA: That tweet refused to load whenever i looked at it.
- It is being reported that there will be no debate on Trident at the conference, a decision which follows threats from Unite to block any attempt to scrap the nuclear deterrent.
- Hilary Benn, the most senior moderate in the Labour party, has been removed from the Labour party’s ruling national executive by Jeremy Corbyn. Sources close to Mr Benn confirm that the shadow foreign secretary was asked to stand down by Mr Corbyn, and not given a choice about staying. It shows how Mr Corbyn is shoring up his position on the NEC, which sets the rules and runs the Labour party. The Labour party has confirmed that Mr Benn was replaced by Rebecca Long-Bailey MP, one of the 36 MPs who nominated Mr Corbyn for the leadership of the party. (Telegraph newsfeed)
ETA: That tweet refused to load whenever i looked at it.
Last edited:
@Nick 0208 Ldn
It seems pretty clear you think Corbyn is an appalling choice for leader. How do feel about that? Are you pleased at the thought of no threat to the government or concerned about how it will operate without an effective opposition?
It seems pretty clear you think Corbyn is an appalling choice for leader. How do feel about that? Are you pleased at the thought of no threat to the government or concerned about how it will operate without an effective opposition?
Murdoch as certainly got them working overtime. Not that it really matters.