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

I'm pretty sure Nick is the official Tory HQ Redcafe account. Either that or he is actually Paul Dacre in disguise.

I do find it hilarious how the right wing press are shitting themselves so much so as to turn every opinion or mundane thing done by Corbyn into stalinist hysteria. It was obviously going to be bad, as Corbyn poses a threat to them, but I imagine it will continue to get worse. They saw how effective a character assassination worked on Ed Miliband in swaying the average member of public, so I am sure that they will do it again and again, regardless of the truth about Corbyn.
 
Drifter said:
Murdoch as certainly got them working overtime. Not that it really matters.
Click to expand...
Hope your right but I was surprised the amount of people that believed some of the shite that the papers wrote about Miliband i.e he was going to let the SNP rule England, he was Karl Marx reincarnated with a wig etc....

People believe any old shite.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
@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?
Click to expand...

To be even a halfway decent contributor one must strive for a balance between disagreement on policy and what could be realised electorally. From the latter standpoint it is still too early to describe the choice as appalling, as both Europe and succession present challenges to the Government. So far as this forum goes my views on the EU and foreign policy are probably considered to be rather right-wing, yet that doesn't prevent me from being concerned about departmental cuts throughout this parliament. If imprudent efficiencies are to to be challenged effectively the opposition must be seen as credible on the economy, which at present remains a very sketchy topic for Corbyn.
 
HabeasC said:
I'm pretty sure Nick is the official Tory HQ Redcafe account. Either that or he is actually Paul Dacre in disguise.

I do find it hilarious how the right wing press are shitting themselves so much so as to turn every opinion or mundane thing done by Corbyn into stalinist hysteria. It was obviously going to be bad, as Corbyn poses a threat to them, but I imagine it will continue to get worse. They saw how effective a character assassination worked on Ed Miliband in swaying the average member of public, so I am sure that they will do it again and again, regardless of the truth about Corbyn.
Click to expand...
As an outsider looking in. ( foreign student so don't get to vote). You will admit that Corby's biggest threat is getting control of his own party. It will not reflect well on him if he can't get people in his party on side and put to side the belief that the Unions will be the ones calling the shots. Those things will do more damage to him than any media campaign could.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
To be even a halfway decent contributor one must strive for a balance between disagreement on policy and what could be realised electorally. From the latter standpoint it is still too early to describe the choice as appalling, as both Europe and succession present challenges to the Government. So far as this forum goes my views on the EU and foreign policy are probably considered to be rather right-wing, yet that doesn't prevent me from being concerned about departmental cuts throughout this parliament. If imprudent efficiencies are to to be challenged effectively the opposition must be seen as credible on the economy, which at present remains a very sketchy topic for Corbyn.
Click to expand...
Fair.

Cheers.
 
Adisa said:
As an outsider looking in. ( foreign student so don't get to vote). You will admit that Corby's biggest threat is getting control of his own party. It will not reflect well on him if he can't get people in his party on side and put to side the belief that the Unions will be the ones calling the shots. Those things will do more damage to him than any media campaign could.
Click to expand...

It is hard to separate the two issues though. The so-called more moderate members of the labour party will be worrying about their own future electability and prospects. The right wing press will worry them into thinking that siding with Corbyn is political suicide and as such will attempt to disassociate with him. This will then fuel the right wing press even more (as they can propagandise any 'disharmony' within the party).

To be honest, I have been really disillusioned with a lot of newspapers that I used to respect. The Telegraph has always been right wing and basically the talking mouth of the tory party but it is no better than the Mail now. It will take anything Corbyn does and spin it into something overwhelmingly negative. Say what you will about the Guardian, but it is much better than the Telegraph when it comes to taking an objective point of view on neutral positions. Even The Times and The Economist have spieled garbage about Corbyn and the labour party when you used to be able to respect some level of reasonableness from them, despite their right wing tendencies.
 
The announcement that Stiglitz, Piketty, et al will be economic advisers is pretty big news as well. The Corbyn camp are smarter than they are given credit for. It will be a hell of a lot easier to defend Labour's economic competence if their policies are written/endorsed by world famous economists.
 
Untied said:
The announcement that Stiglitz, Piketty, et al will be economic advisers is pretty big news as well. The Corbyn camp are smarter than they are given credit for. It will be a hell of a lot easier to defend Labour's economic competence if their policies are written/endorsed by world famous economists.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. Krugman (another of the most famous and well respected economists in the world) also supported an end to austerity in the last GE, which was espoused to an extent by labour. The biggest problem is that people compare fiscal policy to their own budgeting. I.e. if you are in debt, you can't spend. This is obviously too basic a way to look at economics at this level. The tories jumped on this ignorance and use it as an excuse to cut public services (in effect, the size of the state). Getting over this is an almost impossible task, as people stick to what they know, regardless of how many nobel-winning laureates and professors tell them differently.
 
Untied said:
The announcement that Stiglitz, Piketty, et al will be economic advisers is pretty big news as well. The Corbyn camp are smarter than they are given credit for. It will be a hell of a lot easier to defend Labour's economic competence if their policies are written/endorsed by world famous economists.
Click to expand...
Or will they be sidelined like hillary Ben if they don't share exactly the same view?
 
Ducklegs said:
I dont think Jeremy understands the that the point of Trident is to not have to use it.
Nobody is ever going to push the button, but thats only the case if both sides have them.
Click to expand...

One line argument against this would be that there's really no reason for a country like Britain to have nuclear weapons as it has such close connections with the US. If there was any threat of nuclear weapons being used against Britain you would image there would be instant retaliation from the US. And then there's always that part of the renewal of Trident that stems from the UK trying to show/hold on to the idea that it's still powerhouse on the international stage, that it can't be messed with and so on rather than the reality which is that it's just another country in the world(The UK has only around 250 nukes which is tiny compare to the US, Russia and China).

Still even with that I'm not 100 percent sure on full nuclear disarmament because as soon as you get rid of your nukes it pretty takes you out of the talks of having a world wide disarmament.

Can see why the Labour party is in a bit of a mess about this.
 
Untied said:
The announcement that Stiglitz, Piketty, et al will be economic advisers is pretty big news as well. The Corbyn camp are smarter than they are given credit for. It will be a hell of a lot easier to defend Labour's economic competence if their policies are written/endorsed by world famous economists.
Click to expand...

It would have been more interesting if they'd got a range of different opinions on board, rather than 6 experts who already agree with them.

Besides McDonnell stupidly agreed to eliminate the (current) deficit & vote for Osborne's idiotic fiscal charter, and in doing so perpetuated this belief that the deficit is the only thing that matters, rather than challenging the very notion of austerity. People will rightly wonder why, if McDonnell really thinks eliminating the deficit matters, he's producing experts who don't agree with him.
 
There is a weird difference in reaction between that quoted Telegraph report and the entirely unsubstantiated third hand rumours about Cameron from the Mail recently.
 
Ubik said:
There is a weird difference in reaction between that quoted Telegraph report and the entirely unsubstantiated third hand rumours about Cameron from the Mail recently.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure prime ministerial pig fecking allegations are a sufficiently quantifiable event to be used in comparisons.

If you're moaning about 'Corbynistas putting their heads in the sand' then I think you've a point. There's a siege mentality, at the moment, given some of the utter bollocks that has been thrown at him.
 
Adebesi said:
So countries like Spain, Germany, Japan and Canada that don't have a bomb are at risk from nuclear attack?
Click to expand...

Japan has already been the victim of a nuclear attack.
Japan and Germany have also lost the last war they fought in, to nuclear powers.

Germany and Japan, I think you will notice, haven't started any wars in the last 60 odd years, and have been under self imposed bans to not operate outside of their own borders/Nato defensive zone......


Nuclear deterrent working as intended.
 
bishblaize said:
It would have been more interesting if they'd got a range of different opinions on board, rather than 6 experts who already agree with them.

Besides McDonnell stupidly agreed to eliminate the (current) deficit & vote for Osborne's idiotic fiscal charter, and in doing so perpetuated this belief that the deficit is the only thing that matters, rather than challenging the very notion of austerity. People will rightly wonder why, if McDonnell really thinks eliminating the deficit matters, he's producing experts who don't agree with him.
Click to expand...

I'm not as convinced it was a stupid move in fact grounding their position in this way was what I was hoping from them early on.

As a headline the media will take his position as an agreement with Osbourne's deficit reduction but he's clearly laid out the differences. I'm just hoping they're planning to use this to substantiate their anti austerity message going forward with an area of common ground.

I'd also like to hear them push home the message that reducing government spending is merely weakening the economy unless we remedy our trade balance.
 
Ducklegs said:
Japan has already been the victim of a nuclear attack.
Japan and Germany have also lost the last war they fought in, to nuclear powers.

Germany and Japan, I think you will notice, haven't started any wars in the last 60 odd years, and have been under self imposed bans to not operate outside of their own borders/Nato defensive zone......


Nuclear deterrent working as intended.
Click to expand...
You havent really answered the question. The fact is, most countries in the world dont have nuclear bombs, and they are encouraged not to build them, and to be assured that nobody will attack them. If Japan and Germany have been given such assurances and feel secure, there is no reason why we need our own nuclear bombs in order to have that same security.
 
Ducklegs said:
Japan has already been the victim of a nuclear attack.
Japan and Germany have also lost the last war they fought in, to nuclear powers.

Germany and Japan, I think you will notice, haven't started any wars in the last 60 odd years, and have been under self imposed bans to not operate outside of their own borders/Nato defensive zone......


Nuclear deterrent working as intended.
Click to expand...

The war in Europe was over before the USA was a nuclear power.

Germany lives with the guilt of Nazism and it's resulting atrocities. It's this that is behind their self imposed military caution not any impending sense of threat due to their lack of an independent nuclear deterrent.

What should happen really is that there is a NATO nuclear deterrent, paid for and operated in collaboration by all the countries within NATO. Saving the nuclear power members the cost of maintaining their own independent nuclear weapons
 
Adebesi said:
You havent really answered the question. The fact is, most countries in the world dont have nuclear bombs, and they are encouraged not to build them, and to be assured that nobody will attack them. If Japan and Germany have been given such assurances and feel secure, there is no reason why we need our own nuclear bombs in order to have that same security.
Click to expand...

I have answered the question, its right there in front of you.

I shouldn't need to write pages and pages as to why neither Japan or Germany have nuclear weapons, or indeed why Japan doesn't have an army rather a "defence force".
You learned it in school, in your history lessons.
 
Ducklegs said:
I have answered the question, its right there in front of you.

I shouldn't need to write pages and pages as to why neither Japan or Germany have nuclear weapons, or indeed why Japan doesn't have an army rather a "defence force".
You learned it in school, in your history lessons.
Click to expand...
Im not asking why they dont have nuclear weapons. Im pointing out that many countries dont have them and feel safe from nuclear attack. Therefore it is wrong to suggest we need our own nuclear weapons to be safe from attack. If that point was true, NPT wouldnt work, as every country would be scrambling to build their own.
 
Untied said:
The war in Europe was over before the USA was a nuclear power.

Germany lives with the guilt of Nazism and it's resulting atrocities. It's this that is behind their self imposed military caution not any impending sense of threat due to their lack of an independent nuclear deterrent.

What should happen really is that there is a NATO nuclear deterrent, paid for and operated in collaboration by all the countries within NATO. Saving the nuclear power members the cost of maintaining their own independent nuclear weapons
Click to expand...

I was being factious of course.

Germany has access to a nuclear deterrent through the nuclear shared arms agreement, where they have a say in the planning and deployment of said weapons.

Of course for that to happen, somebody has to have them to be shared. in this case, we have them, and its for the benefit of all of NATO, including Germany.
 
Adebesi said:
Im not asking why they dont have nuclear weapons. Im pointing out that many countries dont have them and feel safe from nuclear attack. Therefore it is wrong to suggest we need our own nuclear weapons to be safe from attack. If that point was true, NPT wouldnt work, as every country would be scrambling to build their own.
Click to expand...

Germany have access to a nuclear deterrent, they share ours.
That's why they feel safe, they are part of the nuclear shared arms agreement where they have a say in the planning and deployment of NATO states nuclear weapons.
 
Ducklegs said:
Germany have access to a nuclear deterrent, they share ours.
That's why they feel safe, they are part of the nuclear shared arms agreement where they have a say in the planning and deployment of NATO states nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Sincere question because I have no idea - is this a formal agreement? Do they pay for any of it? By this logic, given that we're part of NATO and so are the US, do we not share theirs?
 
To be clear I think Trident should be replaced but I would like to see its cost covered by tax rises (if the public are in favour of it they should be willing to pay for it) rather than it taking money away from other services.

Or pay for it with the financial transaction tax. What I resent is the Conservatives cutting back the state whilst protecting a huge investment in an uneccessary luxury.
 
Untied said:
To be clear I think Trident should be replaced but I would like to see its cost covered by tax rises (if the public are in favour of it they should be willing to pay for it) rather than it taking money away from other services.

Or pay for it with the financial transaction tax. What I resent is the Conservatives cutting back the state whilst protecting a huge investment in an uneccessary luxury.
Click to expand...
We are already. Don't need more tax hikes, we've had enough stealth ones.
 
CBI responds to McDonnell's speech:

"The shadow chancellor was strong on intent but has not yet provided great detail on how he intends to deliver his plans. The overall impression of this speech was of rather more intervention in the world of business and the economy.

"What’s clear to us is that you can’t be pro-growth and pro-jobs without being pro-business. And a thriving private sector is essential for raising living standards and paying for high-quality public services.

"We share the aim of seeing more people getting into higher-paid jobs but pay rises need to be sustainable and affordable - and based on rising productivity.

"Mr McDonnell talks of working in partnership with businesses and entrepreneurs, and recognises the importance of deficit reduction, infrastructure, and skills. But this is best achieved by liberating entrepreneurs to create wealth and jobs.

"Most companies pay the right amount of tax and in the last financial year business paid £174bn into the Treasury - singling out individual companies from the podium is not the best way of signalling a partnership approach with business."
Click to expand...



Corbyn has also called for the history curriculum to be re-written, so as to reflect the suffering caused by the expansion of the British Empire (it didn't feature one way or the other during my school days). He also wishes for the importance of unions to be explored by teachers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...er-the-British-Empire-Jeremy-Corbyn-says.html
 
Mr Woodcock said Labour "must respect" the alternative view that 150,000 new party members do not represent a "sign of hope".

He said: "We must respect the view which was put to me in really pithy terms by a candidate who hadn't been able to win their seat. They had been discussing the ramifications of the leadership result with their children and family. A seven-year-old marched in and said 'la la la, we're f-----'.
Click to expand...

:lol:

There goes the youth vote.
 
bishblaize said:
They raise a fair point. Boosting the economy and increasing the amount of money taken from businesses are potentially contradictory aims.
Click to expand...

Potentially being the key word there. More likely it'll be recirculated by way of public investment or a reversal of the benefit cap.

Potentially it may boost the economy as companies have been suprisingly unwilling to invest and expand despite the cheap credit.

Potentially they'll continue to evade paying as much tax as possible as it's their duty to shareholders.

I know which I'd bet on.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
Sincere question because I have no idea - is this a formal agreement? Do they pay for any of it? By this logic, given that we're part of NATO and so are the US, do we not share theirs?
Click to expand...

Its part of their NATO membership.

I would imagine they get that right as part of the fact that they would be staging point for any NATO land operations against the former USSR.

I also cant remember if this is something I've said on here in the past or not so bear with me:

The reason there is no will to really give up the NATO nuclear deterrent is quite simple and it stems right the back to the start of the cold war.
NATO believed it could not win a conventional war against the former USSR, it was that cut and dry, the USSR had SO many troops, and SO much hardware that the NATO forces in Europe couldn't kill enough enough of them quickly enough to stop any concerted effort by the USSR to move into western Europe, a conventional war would be over before you know it NATO resistance would be utterly crushed in days.

The only realistic option to stop them would be the threat of nuclear weapons which is why there is no rush to get rid of them.

People still fear the old USSR, they fear the arab nations developing a meaningful nuclear arsenal, there really isnt an option to sit round the table and all be friends unfortunately.

My father used to fly vulcans back in the 60s and 70s when they were the nuclear deterrent, and he has some stories to tell about just how bad things were, for real.

He used to get scrambled at random times during the day or night, loaded with live ordinance waiting for the order to attack his target in the USSR. Which back then, was a one way mission, the Vulcan couldnt carry enough fuel for the return trip, and IF he made it to the target and got out, there would be nobody left to come back to.

His orders were to head to Cypress and if that was gone, to attempt to ditch in the sea and take it from there.
Nasty stuff all round really.
 
Last edited:
Adebesi said:
So countries like Spain, Germany, Japan and Canada that don't have a bomb are at risk from nuclear attack?
Click to expand...

Germany was not allowed to obtain nuclear weapons during the Cold War as West Germany (or East Germany) because of strategic concerns for Russia and signed the NPT before the end of the Cold War. Japan, Canada, and Spain (pursued weapons under Franco but signed after his death) all signed the NPT as non-nuclear powers. Obtaining nuclear weapons would violate the NPT. Japan, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, and several Nordic countries all have a very small breakout period that would allow them to obtain nuclear weapons but doing so would create major strategic problems with Russia and China. To balance the threat from Russia and China, NATO or the US offers protection of their nuclear umbrella, which also prevents arms races and security dilemma in those regions. Canada has no need of nuclear weapons because the US will protect it and Canada provides the US with extensive first warning systems as a part of NORAD. In addition to elimination of Trident, Corbyn would also seek to change the nature of relations between the US and UK and international goals. This could jeopardize the willingness of France and the US to guarantee the UK's security given that it would increase the workload on both the French and US navies.

Nuclear weapons are not just deterrents against nuclear attacks. They are a deterrent against attacks in general. If Ukraine still had nuclear weapons, Russia would not have invaded it over the last 18 months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.