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.
20 years ago...
Just quit ffs!
Some delicate snowflakes in here
I cringe seeing these terms come into everyday language. There was a Guardian article yesterday about Blair that started with a trigger warning for those who get angry at Blair discussion. That was a journalist ffs, balanced argument is long dead.
Coincidently they then went on to defend Blairs timing of his speech amongst the by-elections by saying no cares about Blair, so much so they had to repeatedly mention how much he angers people.
20 years ago...
I get that Labour are in the shits at the moment but I find it slightly odd that there is a need to look back on the Blair years. The Blair government was fecking rubbish at best and at worse downright dangerous.
Give me a failed election over a Labour government hell bent on blowing the shit out of the middle east(This is all without mentioning most if not all the problems we face now are down to that government and it's brand of politics.).
yeah because when labour fail at the election Theresa May wont just follow trump into blowing shit up as well
... the only real difference will be the lack of policies like minimum wage, tax credits, civil partnerships etc etcYou prefer the Tories to Labour?
He comes across as incredibly weak in almost everything he does. He's not a leader and he never will be
This argument is pathetic.
The first most people knew of Corbyn is that he was some crazy leftie crackpot who'd been nominated as some kind of joke. This theme continues to today, where he is being attacked relentlessly from all sides of the media and, worse, from within his own party. That the labour party is filled with right wing(not centrist - Liz Kendall anyone?) remnants of the Blair days is both the reason for his support and the cause of most of his difficulties. Anyone vaguely left-leaning has felt compelled to support Corbyn because the only alternative, outside of Scotland, was the greens. The right of the party are so desperate to keep the status quo that they brief against him and sabotage any attempts of progress. With even the temerity to wail like children then pre-empt any fallout with cries of 'authoritarianism'.
It's not funny.
Thing is though. For years the bbc and others have decried the problems with 'personality politics'. Yet, when polled, most people in the UK support many of Corbyn's policies. Surely that is where the focus should be? Not that he lives in a shabby terraced house, or wears jackets that make him look like a geography teacher. Personally I really don't want years of tory governments saying one thing and doing almost the polar opposite.
I get that he's not a fantastic speaker. He hasn't been groomed to be a PM and, horror, he actually tries to answer questions honestly. We aren't used to that and I guess it must scare some people. But it has to be said, against all of that, the labour party has grown to have quite incredible membership numbers. Maybe not everyone is being taken in by the hatchet job sponsored by Murdoch and co.
He'll get my vote when the time comes. Even if he doesn't win, I suspect the proper spotlight of a general election will once again give some light to the arguments of the left(fiscally more than socially, the left has been allowed to win many of the social inequality arguments tbf). Many of the disillusioned of the country who, for some bizarre reason, have turned to the far right for their answers, may just find that the left has been trying to look out for them all along and that they need support against the might of the financially backed right.
This argument is pathetic.
The first most people knew of Corbyn is that he was some crazy leftie crackpot who'd been nominated as some kind of joke. This theme continues to today, where he is being attacked relentlessly from all sides of the media and, worse, from within his own party. That the labour party is filled with right wing(not centrist - Liz Kendall anyone?) remnants of the Blair days is both the reason for his support and the cause of most of his difficulties. Anyone vaguely left-leaning has felt compelled to support Corbyn because the only alternative, outside of Scotland, was the greens. The right of the party are so desperate to keep the status quo that they brief against him and sabotage any attempts of progress. With even the temerity to wail like children then pre-empt any fallout with cries of 'authoritarianism'.
It's not funny.
Thing is though. For years the bbc and others have decried the problems with 'personality politics'. Yet, when polled, most people in the UK support many of Corbyn's policies. Surely that is where the focus should be? Not that he lives in a shabby terraced house, or wears jackets that make him look like a geography teacher. Personally I really don't want years of tory governments saying one thing and doing almost the polar opposite.
I get that he's not a fantastic speaker. He hasn't been groomed to be a PM and, horror, he actually tries to answer questions honestly. We aren't used to that and I guess it must scare some people. But it has to be said, against all of that, the labour party has grown to have quite incredible membership numbers. Maybe not everyone is being taken in by the hatchet job sponsored by Murdoch and co.
He'll get my vote when the time comes. Even if he doesn't win, I suspect the proper spotlight of a general election will once again give some light to the arguments of the left(fiscally more than socially, the left has been allowed to win many of the social inequality arguments tbf). Many of the disillusioned of the country who, for some bizarre reason, have turned to the far right for their answers, may just find that the left has been trying to look out for them all along and that they need support against the might of the financially backed right.
No. I'm just saying I would rather lose than win with the politics of Blair. Although not that it really matters as theses centrist lot are useless now.
Just find the nostalgia a tad odd.
Last edited:
Tend to agree with much of this. I really don't get the Corbyn hate, especially when those that were trying to get rid of him agreed with his policies. Seems like as soon as he was about to/became leader, there was a massive media attack on him and to be honest not much of it was to do with his policies.
And this isn't only the case with Labour either. From centre-left to centre-right the electorate was getting a diminishing return on many of the questions/challenges of the present era. Worst still, they weren't even exploring any.
I was listening the the latest episode of Politics Weekly yesterday, and the opinion of one contributor was that it will take defeat in Stoke before MPs are shocked out of their complacency.
Last edited:
This would be pretty extraordinary. This would make his position completely untenable.
Mandelson in the house
“I don’t want to, I resent it, and I work every single day in some small way to bring forward the end of his tenure in office. Something, however small it may be – an email, a phone call or a meeting I convene – every day I try to do something to save the Labour party from his leadership.”
Nah definitely no conspiracy against Corbyn
“I don’t want to, I resent it, and I work every single day in some small way to bring forward the end of his tenure in office. Something, however small it may be – an email, a phone call or a meeting I convene – every day I try to do something to save the Labour party from his leadership.”
Nah definitely no conspiracy against Corbyn
This is a bizarre, blinkered opinion, considering the alternatives we've had in the last 40 or so years. It's easily been the best government in my lifetime, warts and all. Iraq was a colossal feck up, but the Corbynite faction's inability to separate it from anything else New Labour did is faintly ridiculous, and the kind of thing that gets the left accused of ideological naivety.
Last edited:
Not contesting about best or not, but it wasn't just Iraq.
If you've read a single post by Nick in the CE, ever, you would have it branded onto your brain that Blair's govt took to NHS privatsiation in a big way. There are also various quotes and actions from Brown and Blair related to deregulation and income inequality that added fuel to the fire for what eventually happened in 2008.
In short, 2 of the major short-term problems in the world right now: an extended flatlining of the economy since 2008, and absolute chaos in the ME, and the most pressing domestic issue - the falling standards at the NHS - can somewhat be blamed on Blair. If you believe Nick, Blair also caused Brexit and Scottish independence.
Of course not... Its clearly all Blairs fault
Blair's reign is now like a sweet fairytale even with the Iraq war. Simply down to the increasing incompetence of each PM following him.
Agree that the Blair years were the best I've known politically and by far. Still gutted that he got into bed with Bush.
He'd have to go if that's anything other than a Labour victory. Stoke-on-Trent Central has been Labour since its creation.
They are up against Paul Nuttall as well FFS.
I know, the man is a walking disaster. He'll lead UKIP into obscurity if allowed, and now I worry if Corbyn will do the same to Labour.
These type of things never seemed to bother you during the Brexit campaign.
Which is not to say that the Tories wouldn't have been similarly culpable for much of the above, considering the prevailing cultural patterns of the time. Labour were the ones in power however, and bear the responsibility.
I was only a kid back in 97, if a somewhat of a nerdy type even then, but it was the second term where many fateful forks in the road were met (the tripartite system had its origins earlier IIRC).
Can i no longer post news on this forum without certain individuals questioning my validity to do so? And what others might have believed to be justifiable in campaigning, shouldn't negate my feelings on the EU.
I'm sick and tired of people like you posting all this shite on here to justify your blatantly far right populist views.
Nick voted Green in 2015. He's not far-right.
Well, he must be schizophrenic then because for the past year he's been spouting some scary right wing views.
If I was being critical of his views I'd say he's more contradictory than anything else; I strongly disagree with his optimism regarding Brexit and I'm not all too sure he's provided consistent reasoning as to why it's a good thing but he's been heavily critical of elements of the Tories for a while, doesn't support UKIP or any other far-right party, and favours control over immigration as opposed to an outright ban. He isn't far-right, and labeling him as such is fairly counter-productive to discussion.
Why did he post all this nonsense about how damaging immigrants are to the U.K. when the facts prove the opposite is true?
Immigration is damaging to the UK in plenty of ways its just beneficial in plenty more, there's nothing wrong with discussing the negative elements such as pressures on housing, services.
I've never seen anything overtly far right from Nick on the subject, mostly discussing how open borders is impractical.
He certainly shouldnt be hounded for the fact he's one of one of a few in the CE forums who doesnt sit in the echo chamber on all issues.
Last edited:
Oh dear. I don't know if I was just blissfully unaware but the way that the left seem so intent on screeching about islamophobia at every opportunity seems like a new - and extremely counter-productive - phenomenon.
This is exactly what I mean. I'm sick & tired people making statements as if they are factually correct when they aren't. Back it up with facts & arguments.
The reason for the pressure on housing and other services is because of decades of neglect by governments. Take the NHS for example. The UK simply can't afford a national health service anymore and it should be abolished ASAP for the good of the country and its civilians. Yet, there now seems to be some kind of alternative truth whereby immigration for example is being blamed for the pressure on the NHS. It's complete bull. The problem is that there's no political party who has the guts to tell the population the truth about the NHS in fear of losing votes. So the impression is given that pressures such as that from immigration are to blame and people like Nick are all to willingly jumping on the bandwagon.
Here's the thing. Net migration contributes around 50% of our population growth (the other 50% is births exceeding deaths - i.e increased longevity). EU migration is about half of that again.
In terms of factually dealing with the housing challenge the answer was clearly to take advantage of the incredibly low cost of government borrowing to engage in massive house building program. Instead of which we have taken a path that will do nothing to actually reduce immigration numbers, will make the country and it's inhabitants poorer and even less able to confront these genuine problems.
(Side note: Councils are currently buying a huge amount of commercial property, to take advantage of low borrowing costs. Essentially many local authorities are operating as banks to shore up their funding positions. It's a great example of how Governments are as much driven by incompetence as ideology. The Conservatives wanted to shrink the state and public ownership, especially for the first 5 years, but they are overseeing a large scale nationalisation of commercial properties)
You seem to be excluding immigration as the primary cause therefore excluding it completely.
Immigration pressures exist, thats a non-debtable point it doesn't need evidencing just as your statement of goverment neglect doesn't. The fact there are other causes including primarily goverment neglect does not mean the point should not be debated, that attitude has led to Brexit and has allowed alternatives truth to prosper.
There's questions to be answered and not ignored thats usually the point Nick has made.
For example what needs laying out to the public is whether the pressures on housing and the NHS are best resolved via reducing immigration or whether the benefits immigration brings are actually a net gain that can help resolve those funding issues. That should not be hard to answer but how often do you see it discussed?
The actual solutions are really not anything to do with immigration but its a very visible peice of the pie so it needs discussing.
Prove to me that immigration pressure exits and what the immigration pressure exactly is. Because over the past year I've read a lot about it on the Caf but I haven't seen one iota of proof to back up the argument.
All the evidence (facts & numbers) I've actually seen on here points towards the fact that immigration brings a net gain that can help resolve those funding issues. But hey, if you're unemployed, white and live in a shit hole like Stoke ,then you probably don't what to hear about the benefits of immigration and much rather prefer to blame the Paki's across the road for your troubles.
You need me to explain why more people equals more pressure on services?
The net gain discussion is exactly the point im making but you're shouting people down for raising one element of it. Pressures on schools exist, you quantify the net GDP gain against increasing class room sizes and the difficulty of building new schools. Its not possible unless you look at every element.
Its a complex issue and you cant just shout net gdp gain at people and expect them to say alrighty then.
The fact of the matter is if we can't expand services (and its upto the goverment to justify that) then future immigration needs to be controlled. Now that's a very different debate to the immigrant blaming you're trying to make it out to be.
I can see this subject means a lot to you. Like you said, I didn't quote you or make this a response to you or anyone in particular. But I am interested to know if you won't vote labour, then who? No politician will ever get 100% agreement on all policies from anyone, why is it impossible to vote labour with Corbyn in charge, when, if you are even slightly left of centre, I doubt you'd agree with even half of May's policies.
My analysis could hardly be described as a glowing endorsement of Corbyn. It just seems to me that he is being held to so much higher standards than everyone else, just because he doesn't act like the normal Westminster politician. For me, he is a great deal closer to what I would like to see in a leader. The world should be about cooperation, not competition. Compromise, not war.
People lead in different ways. If we, as a country, can only handle someone who can regurgitate platitudes without substance to be our PM, then that is just sad and needs addressing before we all end up living in Idiocracy.
1. Pressure on NHS exits not because of immigrants, but because of an aging population and increased medical costs. In fact, in theory immigrants should decrease the pressure on the NHS because they are the least likely use its services. It's the OAP's, of which a large majority voted Brexit ironically enough, who are the ones most likely to use its services and demand ever more expensive medical treatment.
2. The vast majority of immigrants arrive in the UK whithout children. Again in theory immigration should decrease the pressure on education. And again here we see the enormous toll that government cuts have had on its services, teachers being made redundant and thus forcing increased class sizes upon schools, combined with decades of neglect & lack of investment in school infrastructures.
To conclude, the current immigration levels in the UK do not cause a significant increase of pressure on public services. Decades of lack of investment, lack of foresight and complete incompetence do increase the pressure on public services.