Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

Smores said:
I think you're just confused when a Labour leader doesnt as a matter of fact use tough words to try and win votes on security.

No where did Corbyn or has Corbyn said he'd never use force. His first focus is on diplomacy and sees war as a very last resort, do you really think it should be the other way round?

Sure id wish he'd make his message somewhat more palatable to the public but its preferable to continued intervention in unnecessary wars.
Click to expand...

When asked my Liz Kendall whether he could think of any circumstances under which British forces would be deployed overseas, Corbyn said: "Any? I am sure there are some. But I can’t think of them at the moment."

That is probably a greater negative against him than those statements he has made about Trident.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
When asked my Liz Kendall whether he could think of any circumstances under which British forces would be deployed overseas, Corbyn said: "Any? I am sure there are some. But I can’t think of them at the moment."

That is probably a greater negative against him than those statements he has made about Trident.
Click to expand...
I'd probably take that view over Liz Kendall's who, if a foreign diplomat farted in a lift, would have the bombers on the way to their country before the smell dissipated.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
When asked my Liz Kendall whether he could think of any circumstances under which British forces would be deployed overseas, Corbyn said: "Any? I am sure there are some. But I can’t think of them at the moment."

That is probably a greater negative against him than those statements he has made about Trident.
Click to expand...

Yeah I just don't see the issue with that. I'm not a pacifist by any means but in this day and age I'd prefer diplomatic channels over aggressive on security mantra. The latter has done nothing to make us or anyone else safer in recent times.

Do we really think with Corbyn in charge we'd sit idly by whilst half of Europe was taken over? Do even forsee that as a likely situation?
 
Does anyone know the context of this?

 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
When asked my Liz Kendall whether he could think of any circumstances under which British forces would be deployed overseas, Corbyn said: "Any? I am sure there are some. But I can’t think of them at the moment."

That is probably a greater negative against him than those statements he has made about Trident.
Click to expand...

Two endless middle eastern wars that crippled the global economy not good enough for you?
 
Dobba said:
I'd probably take that view over Liz Kendall's who, if a foreign diplomat farted in a lift, would have the bombers on the way to their country before the smell dissipated.
Click to expand...

Do you not see that an unwise isolationism can be as harmful as wrongful intervention? It is merely a self-serving ideology of another kind, one which presumably seeks to shield a politician from risk and responsibility. Of course if one's inaction allows death to occur on a large scale, the individual must own their role in that out come just the same.


Smores said:
Yeah I just don't see the issue with that. I'm not a pacifist by any means but in this day and age I'd prefer diplomatic channels over aggressive on security mantra. The latter has done nothing to make us or anyone else safer in recent times.

Do we really think with Corbyn in charge we'd sit idly by whilst half of Europe was taken over? Do even forsee that as a likely situation?
Click to expand...

He had decades of conflicts from which to cite an example of justified intervention: Korea, the Falklands, Sierra Leone, RAF sorties against IS in Iraq e.t.c.

For how many of the above could the Labour leader be relied upon?
 
Getting involved in other peoples wars is a complete waste of time, just like bailing out bankrupt countries, pointless and not a vote catcher for me.
 
Ubik said:
Worked out well for Chamberlain, after all.
Click to expand...

Yes, he got that appeasement thing wrong in dealings with Hitler, and Churchill was right about that. Shame that Churchill, after following Atlee as PM, later decided to help the CIA overthrow the democratic government in Iran and support the Shah. History shows that meddling in middle east regime change in order to ensure access to oil worked out less well.

Sometimes war can't be avoided. No one is saying it can in all circumstances. I personally feel Hitler's rise to power was aided by the bellicose attitudes of other European leaders in the previous couple of decades - although he was a particularly fecked up human being.
 
Red Dreams said:
those wanting Labour 'to go down the middle'

How did that work out with the last election?
Click to expand...

They didn't go down the middle. On a number of policies, especially around austerity, the Balls/Miliband manifesto is inseparable from Corbyn's approach. What failed in 2015 was the lack of a coherent narrative (there was an anti-austerity manifesto, with a pro-austerity message), a weak leader seen as not suitable for a PM, language which was tough on immigration that was not believed and not backed up with any policies or ideas (those ridiculous mugs aside), and such leaden-footed strategy that they were attacked from the right by UKIP/Tories, from the left by UKIP/SNP, and did not (or were incapable) of responding to this. All symptoms of being a party of organised labour in an age where organised labour no longer has the power it once did.
 
Iroinies for me from the last year:

- Labour politicians and members realising that Labour has a woman problem.
- Labour politicians and members realising that Labour has a problem with anti-semitism.
- Labour politicians and members blaming both of the above on Corbyn, conveniently ignoring the fact that these issues are longstanding and have been ignored for years by those self-same politicians and members.
 
Cheesy said:
Even funnier when the alternative to Corbyn wants to have talks round the table with ISIS.:lol:
Click to expand...
Yes. :lol:


Conservative writer Peter Hitchens(Who's a bit of an arse most of the time) mentions something similar, how MP's on both sides seems to think they are always Winston Churchill fighting the Nazi and maybe more importantly the constant belief in the ''Good War''.
 
Last edited:
Frosty said:
They didn't go down the middle. On a number of policies, especially around austerity, the Balls/Miliband manifesto is inseparable from Corbyn's approach. What failed in 2015 was the lack of a coherent narrative (there was an anti-austerity manifesto, with a pro-austerity message), a weak leader seen as not suitable for a PM, language which was tough on immigration that was not believed and not backed up with any policies or ideas (those ridiculous mugs aside), and such leaden-footed strategy that they were attacked from the right by UKIP/Tories, from the left by UKIP/SNP, and did not (or were incapable) of responding to this. All symptoms of being a party of organised labour in an age where organised labour no longer has the power it once did.
Click to expand...

I'll sum up the problem this way.

People can tell when you don't mean what you say.
 
sun_tzu said:
Don't worry.... if anybody attacks us prime minister Corbyn can retaliate with our nukes... oh wait he has already cnuted up the principal of a nuclear deterant by saying he won't use it (but let's still pay for the subs and stick conventional weapons on them)
Click to expand...

Firstly, if we're already under attack then we're presumably fecked. Retaliating with nukes that will kill millions of civilians is atrocious and barbaric.

Secondly, don't you think an enemy should be able to deduce that we won't actually retaliate unless we have an utterly careless, uncaring person for a prime minister? And if they're just mad enough to do it anyway, they probably don't care about their civilian casualties.

feck the so-called "deterrent". It's a waste of space and money.
 
ClutchHunter said:
Firstly, if we're already under attack then we're presumably fecked. Retaliating with nukes that will kill millions of civilians is atrocious and barbaric.

Secondly, don't you think an enemy should be able to deduce that we won't actually retaliate unless we have an utterly careless, uncaring person for a prime minister? And if they're just mad enough to do it anyway, they probably don't care about their civilian casualties.

feck the so-called "deterrent". It's a waste of space and money.
Click to expand...

exactly.

Unilateral disarmement will lead to others disarming.

Nukes are not not a deterrent.
 
ClutchHunter said:
Firstly, if we're already under attack then we're presumably fecked. Retaliating with nukes that will kill millions of civilians is atrocious and barbaric.

Secondly, don't you think an enemy should be able to deduce that we won't actually retaliate unless we have an utterly careless, uncaring person for a prime minister? And if they're just mad enough to do it anyway, they probably don't care about their civilian casualties.

feck the so-called "deterrent". It's a waste of space and money.
Click to expand...

The argument always seem to portray it as the only detterent. As if we dont have enough conventional weaponary to respond in force, never mind they'd be facing a global response in this day and age.

I dont think there's much argument around this issue as people are vert set on their ideals. I guess those in favour would read a peice of a paper and nuke millions, i definitely wouldn't.
 
Red Dreams said:
I'll sum up the problem this way.

People can tell when you don't mean what you say.
Click to expand...

That certainly was one issue in 2015. It definitely played a part in relation to economic competence, in part immigration. The economic competence argument was lost in part because of Labour not challenging the Tory's narrative about the cause of the financial crisis, instead focusing on Iraq and how Ed, rather than David, had better judgment because of the fact he wasn't an MP then so didn't vote for the action. I still maintain that naval gazing has helped ruin the lives of millions in the UK through a failure to stand up to austerity, and challenge the austerity narrative built up by Osborne against Labour in 2010. That's an unpopular view, but so be it.

Now I know I have answered a different point from the one you made, but I thought it was a point worth making.

Here's the rub though. The following men have won an electoral majority for Labour:

- Tony Blair
- Harold Wilson
- Clement Attlee

How many of these men won a majority on a 'left' manifesto? Wilson and Blair have long been the target of critics from the Left for being too centrist/right-wing.

Attlee built the bomb, joined NATO, the Korean War and many other belligerent actions. Even the flagship policy - the NHS - was an extension of Conservative policy, not a radical break from it. Ditto universal education.

Now, the key question for me is how a Labour Party can win a majority under FPTP when they are swimming against the predomanant political tide, not in its general direction, on policies which (when measured against the political centre of the age) place them (relatively) to the left of Blair and Wilson.

Regardless of who is in charge, that needs to be answered.
 
Frosty said:
That certainly was one issue in 2015. It definitely played a part in relation to economic competence, in part immigration. The economic competence argument was lost in part because of Labour not challenging the Tory's narrative about the cause of the financial crisis, instead focusing on Iraq and how Ed, rather than David, had better judgment because of the fact he wasn't an MP then so didn't vote for the action. I still maintain that naval gazing has helped ruin the lives of millions in the UK through a failure to stand up to austerity, and challenge the austerity narrative built up by Osborne against Labour in 2010. That's an unpopular view, but so be it.

Now I know I have answered a different point from the one you made, but I thought it was a point worth making.

Here's the rub though. The following men have won an electoral majority for Labour:

- Tony Blair
- Harold Wilson
- Clement Attlee

How many of these men won a majority on a 'left' manifesto? Wilson and Blair have long been the target of critics from the Left for being too centrist/right-wing.

Attlee built the bomb, joined NATO, the Korean War and many other belligerent actions. Even the flagship policy - the NHS - was an extension of Conservative policy, not a radical break from it. Ditto universal education.

Now, the key question for me is how a Labour Party can win a majority under FPTP when they are swimming against the predomanant political tide, not in its general direction, on policies which (when measured against the political centre of the age) place them (relatively) to the left of Blair and Wilson.

Regardless of who is in charge, that needs to be answered.
Click to expand...

The main area to address is how we pay for socialist policies. And we can. The economic argument is important. To honestly say that Trickle Down Economics (TDE) which is where the Austerity arguments comes in, is a lie.

Its not about Left or Right. Its about Facts.

TDE is propaganda. Simple. Of course there is waste. We need to address that always. I do believe NATO is more a reason why we have to fear Russia.
 
Frosty said:
That certainly was one issue in 2015. It definitely played a part in relation to economic competence, in part immigration. The economic competence argument was lost in part because of Labour not challenging the Tory's narrative about the cause of the financial crisis, instead focusing on Iraq and how Ed, rather than David, had better judgment because of the fact he wasn't an MP then so didn't vote for the action. I still maintain that naval gazing has helped ruin the lives of millions in the UK through a failure to stand up to austerity, and challenge the austerity narrative built up by Osborne against Labour in 2010. That's an unpopular view, but so be it.

Now I know I have answered a different point from the one you made, but I thought it was a point worth making.

Here's the rub though. The following men have won an electoral majority for Labour:

- Tony Blair
- Harold Wilson
- Clement Attlee

How many of these men won a majority on a 'left' manifesto? Wilson and Blair have long been the target of critics from the Left for being too centrist/right-wing.

Attlee built the bomb, joined NATO, the Korean War and many other belligerent actions. Even the flagship policy - the NHS - was an extension of Conservative policy, not a radical break from it. Ditto universal education.

Now, the key question for me is how a Labour Party can win a majority under FPTP when they are swimming against the predomanant political tide, not in its general direction, on policies which (when measured against the political centre of the age) place them (relatively) to the left of Blair and Wilson.

Regardless of who is in charge, that needs to be answered.
Click to expand...
I don't understand. I actually believe the "left" strives to support the 95% being exploited by the 5%. I know the 5% are extremely powerful and control MSM etc., but still - there should be enough in the 95% that see the injustice and are not prepared to put up with it to win a GE. What am I missing?
 
Red Dreams said:
The main area to address is how we pay for socialist policies. And we can. The economic argument is important. To honestly say that Trickle Down Economics (TDE) which is where the Austerity arguments comes in, is a lie.

Its not about Left or Right. Its about Facts.

TDE is propaganda. Simple. Of course there is waste. We need to address that always. I do believe NATO is more a reason why we have to fear Russia.
Click to expand...

The highlighted statement is why I was so angry/annoyed/resigned (delete as appropriate) at Corbyn/McDonnell's failure to make use of the Economic Advisory Panel. When you have Stiglitz, Blanchflower, Mazzucato, Piketty et al signed on to create workable policies which can create a dynamic State which can work via the private sector whilst opposing austerity, you really, really shouldn't mess it up.

However, TDE and austerity are not inextricably linked. Again, Attlee and Wilson undertook austerity measures, and TDE operated through the 'roaring nineties' as well. And my point is not that the only alternative to a 'left' manifesto is TDE. That is plainly not true. Just look at the economists who offered their services to the advisory panel. However, the fact is that the UK electorate have, since the War, not elected a government who adopted a 'left' manifesto. Would costing the policies convince people? I am not sure. But then, that is the debate that we should be having on the Left in this country.
 
DenisIrwin said:
I don't understand. I actually believe the "left" strives to support the 95% being exploited by the 5%. I know the 5% are extremely powerful and control MSM etc., but still - there should be enough in the 95% that see the injustice and are not prepared to put up with it to win a GE. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Well, electoral history does not support this. The UK remains a small 'c' conservative country in that respect. However, I do know that the centre can move, and it is possible for an unpopular doctrine to gain widespread acceptance (see the Chicago School of economics for one). That usually takes decades, rather than years, though.

The other point is that the argument you put forward (one which is shared by many) does come close to a form of 'false consciousness' analysis you find in Marx. That the 95% will join the movement once they see the injustice. Again, the historical evidence does not bear this out, and it also can assume that the arguments being offered for solving a nation's problems are the right ones, and the opposite side in the argument are offering the wrong arguments. It doesn't really factor in human agency, and issues relating to why people may actually disagree with your side's arguments yet still feel that they support your causes through different means. To be a little less obtuse - many people feel that voting Conservative is the best way to make people - rich and poor - better off. To form a government under FPTP, Labour needs to convince these voters that Labour offers a better alternative. That takes work, not just talking in the abstract (which is not an accusation of you, but one issue I have with Corbyn's media and political strategy to date).
 
Frosty said:
The highlighted statement is why I was so angry/annoyed/resigned (delete as appropriate) at Corbyn/McDonnell's failure to make use of the Economic Advisory Panel. When you have Stiglitz, Blanchflower, Mazzucato, Piketty et al signed on to create workable policies which can create a dynamic State which can work via the private sector whilst opposing austerity, you really, really shouldn't mess it up.

However, TDE and austerity are not inextricably linked. Again, Attlee and Wilson undertook austerity measures, and TDE operated through the 'roaring nineties' as well. And my point is not that the only alternative to a 'left' manifesto is TDE. That is plainly not true. Just look at the economists who offered their services to the advisory panel. However, the fact is that the UK electorate have, since the War, not elected a government who adopted a 'left' manifesto. Would costing the policies convince people? I am not sure. But then, that is the debate that we should be having on the Left in this country.
Click to expand...
What about massively increasing stamp duty on 2nd and subsequent properties to favour homebuyers over private rent landlords seeking to extend their property portfolios? That would increase revenue whilst at the same time empowering those striving to own their own homes. I think it makes sense.
The pledge to build loads of new energy efficient houses also has to be a good move to both ease the housing crisis and stimulate the construction sector, etc..
It seems to me there are loads of ideas like these that just make sense and do no harm - except to those that profit from the current situation where low interest rates, high rents, and high demand stimulate buy-to-let private landlords being supported by increasing housing benefit payments.
 
DenisIrwin said:
What about massively increasing stamp duty on 2nd and subsequent properties to favour homebuyers over private rent landlords seeking to extend their property portfolios? That would increase revenue whilst at the same time empowering those striving to own their own homes. I think it makes sense.
The pledge to build loads of new energy efficient houses also has to be a good move to both ease the housing crisis and stimulate the construction sector, etc..
It seems to me there are loads of ideas like these that just make sense and do no harm - except to those that profit from the current situation where low interest rates, high rents, and high demand stimulate buy-to-let private landlords being supported by increasing housing benefit payments.
Click to expand...

The big issue with housing is land. Here is a long read, but interesting nonetheless: http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/10/land-tax-labour-britain

The policies you mention are certainly intriguing prospects, but do miss the bigger picture I think (not that they may not help in some regard). We need hundreds of thousands of new properties. Housing policy could be changed in a number of ways to assist (more high rise properties, for instance, as London has some of the lowest housing density for any major city on the planet). A land tax could help in this regard too.
 
Ubik said:
Cheers bud.

The "Afghanistan isn't in the North Atlantic" line is unbelievable. He's either dense with no idea about article 5 or a liar.
Click to expand...

I did cringe when I listened to it (like I did with Smith made his ridiculous 'negotiate with ISIS' pledge).

Being charitable, it looks like Corbyn is speaking from the heart and in the heat of the moment at a political rally. Many of the points he makes are reasonable in terms of a broadly pacifist view (People can always disagree as to whether they are idealistic etc). However, he does jump the shark with more than a few lines. What I found most interesting was the introduction - it sounded like most people needed to be told who this man was and what he stood for at the time (at least that is how the MC's intro sounded to me). Perhaps he was going for a killer line, knowing that as a backbench MP that was how he could ensure coverage? I don't know...
 
Frosty said:
The highlighted statement is why I was so angry/annoyed/resigned (delete as appropriate) at Corbyn/McDonnell's failure to make use of the Economic Advisory Panel. When you have Stiglitz, Blanchflower, Mazzucato, Piketty et al signed on to create workable policies which can create a dynamic State which can work via the private sector whilst opposing austerity, you really, really shouldn't mess it up.

However, TDE and austerity are not inextricably linked. Again, Attlee and Wilson undertook austerity measures, and TDE operated through the 'roaring nineties' as well. And my point is not that the only alternative to a 'left' manifesto is TDE. That is plainly not true. Just look at the economists who offered their services to the advisory panel. However, the fact is that the UK electorate have, since the War, not elected a government who adopted a 'left' manifesto. Would costing the policies convince people? I am not sure. But then, that is the debate that we should be having on the Left in this country.
Click to expand...

The key is to bring in economists from different sectors. The goal that should be given is to ensure the least number of people suffer. Obviously the vast majority of ordinary people are the ones that are affected.
 
Frosty said:
I did cringe when I listened to it (like I did with Smith made his ridiculous 'negotiate with ISIS' pledge).

Being charitable, it looks like Corbyn is speaking from the heart and in the heat of the moment at a political rally. Many of the points he makes are reasonable in terms of a broadly pacifist view (People can always disagree as to whether they are idealistic etc). However, he does jump the shark with more than a few lines. What I found most interesting was the introduction - it sounded like most people needed to be told who this man was and what he stood for at the time (at least that is how the MC's intro sounded to me). Perhaps he was going for a killer line, knowing that as a backbench MP that was how he could ensure coverage? I don't know...
Click to expand...
His career basically was speaking at anti-war rallies prior to last year, that was probably his equivalent of a stump speech. Usual anti-west stuff, Russia annexing Crimea is a like-for-like reaction to NATO expansion etc.
 
Red Dreams said:
The key is to bring in economists from different sectors. The goal that should be given is to ensure the least number of people suffer. Obviously the vast majority of ordinary people are the ones that are affected.
Click to expand...

The Economic Advisory Council seems to fit this remit: http://press.labour.org.uk/post/129975218774/labour-announces-new-economic-advisory-committee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Advisory_Committee

The one positive is that those who remain seem happy to keep advising the party after September. They really, really need to be listened to.

Mariana Mazzucato, an economics professor at Sussex University, Ann Pettifor, the director of economics consultancy Prime and the Oxford University professor Simon Wren-Lewis were among the other advisers to agree that they should delay further meetings until “the dust has settled”.

They said in a statement: “We have always seen this body as providing advice to the Labour party as a whole, and not as an endorsement of particular individuals within it.

“For example, we all share the view that the EU referendum result is a major disaster for the UK and we have felt unhappy that the Labour leadership has not campaigned more strongly to avoid this outcome.

“We believe it is now crucial to find a way to resolve the economic and political impasse with the EU in a way that brings the least damage possible to the UK economy and those of our neighbours. We will be honoured to advise the Labour party in the future, should our advice be sought once the current situation is resolved.”
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/thomas-piketty-quits-as-adviser-to-jeremy-corbyn
 
Frosty said:
The Economic Advisory Council seems to fit this remit: http://press.labour.org.uk/post/129975218774/labour-announces-new-economic-advisory-committee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Advisory_Committee

The one positive is that those who remain seem happy to keep advising the party after September. They really, really need to be listened to.



http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/thomas-piketty-quits-as-adviser-to-jeremy-corbyn
Click to expand...
Not sure Wren-Lewis will be back - http://www.theguardian.com/politics...remy-corbyn-cant-win-next-election-owen-smith

None of them have been particularly complimentary about McDonnell's use of it.
 
Ubik said:
His career basically was speaking at anti-war rallies prior to last year, that was probably his equivalent of a stump speech. Usual anti-west stuff, Russia annexing Crimea is a like-for-like reaction to NATO expansion etc.
Click to expand...
He does seem to know a lot about it - as you would expect from someone that has spent his entire life thinking and speaking about the subject. Who is to say really - he might know a bit more about the subject than you or I.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.