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

[nickm]

The thing about Corbyn that some seem to miss, was that he had a history of standing by his principles. He didn't just use left wing rhetoric when it suited him.

It never had to be Corbyn, and we could all see he was a bit too wooly for many people. But in the(ongoing) absence of anyone else with a moral compass, of course he should habe been supported by anyone left leaning. Shame on those that bought into the smear campaign.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm one of many who remembers corbyns sympathies with Irish republicanism during the Troubles. People with a moral compass who supported a united Ireland supported the SDLP, not sinn fein, in those days.

 

[ThehatchetMan]

@ThehatchetMan Nothing to say to this?

I really want to reply to other stuff, but best we go point by point.

Sorry mate I will reply soon. Going to walk the dog here and have a few bits at home to sort but will try to reply in an hour or so.

I enjoy the debate even if we disagree. The Ukraine conflict is far from something I'd say I have strong knowledge on though and the conversation seems to have focused on this area suddenly. But I'll try.

 

[nimic]

Damn, that's a lot of people in Ireland without a moral compass.

 

[ThehatchetMan]

Don't be ridiculous. I'm one of many who remembers corbyns sympathies with Irish republicanism during the Troubles. People with a moral compass who supported a united Ireland supported the SDLP, not sinn fein, in those days.

Well me and my family grew up in the troubles in a protestant estate which was under threat from the IRA. We can agree to disagree with our opinions on Corbyn and the troubles.

 

[nickm]

[

Damn, that's a lot of people in Ireland without a moral compass.

Since sinn fein polled only about 1.5% of the vote in the south of Ireland until peace, yes, a lot of people did in fact have a moral compass.

 

[nickm]

Well me and my family grew up in the troubles in a protestant estate which was under threat from the IRA. We can agree to disagree with our opinions on Corbyn and the troubles.

I grew up in Northern Ireland during the troubles myself and had family under threat so yes, I remember too.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

I likely said they were almost as bad as each other on that front, rather than one was bad and the other was good, but Corbyn probably does edge it for me.

I'm aware that you're being hit from all sides here, so understand that you may not reply but in what way do you consider Corbyn to be authoritarian? I get you don't like him or his policies but to consider him authoritarian, especially relative to Starmer, is bewildering to me.

 

[caid]

Interesting page or two. Seperate from Corbyn how do you go about advocating for peace and ceasefires and negotiations and it not be political suicide and geopolitically naive? Is it possible? Or is it just a bad strategy and the threat of violence is almost a requirement of peace.
I guess the political suicide part is kind of unavoidable as your almost guaranteed to be dealing with at least one murderous scumbag.

 

[ThehatchetMan]

Can't address everything at half time, but we'll start with this one.

That this House welcomes John Pilger's column for the New Statesman issue of 13th December, reminding readers of the devastating human cost of the so-termed 'humanitarian' invasion of Kosovo, led by NATO and the United States in the Spring of 1999, without any sanction of the United Nations Security Council; congratulates John Pilger on his expose of the fraudulent justifications for intervening in a 'genocide' that never really existed in Kosovo

Corbyn in tabling this motion, is explicitly denying the warcrimes of Slobodan Milosevic, and explicitly calling the genocide fraudulent and non existent. Five years after the conflict when the facts were well established.

What does it have to do with muslim lives? Those were the lives that Slobodan was specifically aiming to extinguish, and which NATO were defending against Christians.

(edit: bah, mistimed the game by 15 mins.)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding it but from the same url you've provided of the tabled motion it states:

"President Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen claimed, entirely without foundation, that 'we've now seen about 100,000 military-aged [Albanian] men missing.....they may have been murdered' and that David Scheffer, the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes, announced with equal inaccuracy that as many as '225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59' may have been killed"

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm presuming that it was due to these alleged numbers that Nato intervened?

Yet in actual fact the number of deaths was closed to 1% of the last figure tabled?

"the International War Crimes Tribunal, a body de facto set up by NATO, announced that the final count of bodies found in Kosovo's 'mass graves' was 2,788"

And as part of this motion. They wanted the UK government to assist Kosovo with cleaning up the mess from NATOs invasion?

"believes the pollution impact of the bombing of Kosovo is still emerging, including the impact of the use of depleted uranium munitions; and calls on the Government to provide full assistance in the clean up of Kosovo."


I don't think it's that bad?

 

[ThehatchetMan]

It's fact. https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/02/1112802

I'm struggling to follow the conversation here.

You quoted my post where I provided 1 quotation in relation to corbyns view on providing further arms to Ukraine.

And another totally unrelated quote related to his opinion on war in general. From before the Ukraine conflict even existed.

And I feel like you've taken the international law phrase which wasn't used in the context of Ukraine and applied that as an example of Corbyn talking shit in your opinion about Ukraine?

When he was talking about international law that was in relation to his views on war where he was saying he supports military intervention which complies with international law as a last resort. The quote is from 2018.

I think it's also worth you reading the quote I provided again to. He isn't saying every nation should stop giving Ukraine arms or that giving then arms was a huge mistake.

He's saying that by contually pouring in more arms it's just going to exaggerate and prolong the war and that he wish world leaders would put more focus and emphasis on peace and trying to find solutions rather than on war.

I agree with it.

It's fact.
They've both pretty much set out their negotiating positions. They are so far apart, if there was an obvious middle ground it would be being pushed for. There will always be the fundamental problem that Ukraine is not going to trust anything Russia says. Signing a piece of paper is not going to change that. Ukraine are going to want assurances of their security, be that via NATO membership or another mechanism. Russia is not going to accept that. There is nothing really contestable in those sentences.

I don't understand what Iraq (which I am very much against) etc has to do with this? Because Corbyn has been right before doesn't make him right here.

In regards to Iraq. It's relevant because you responded to my post where I provided 2 quotes. One on corbyns views on Ukraine. One of corbyns views on war in general.

If someone supports prolonged military intervention in the Ukraine war then it's fair to draw comparisons to other recent conflicts and to judge whether prolonged military intervention had a positive or negative impact in those.

 

[DanH]

What emphasis and focus on peace do you mean? Is it; Ukraine conceding territory and land in spite of the wishes of it's people?

 

[ThehatchetMan]

I may have misread, I thought you had also referenced it in previous conversations. I was just surprised that you would seem to conflate sanctions and military action, whereas I thought that the ability to implement sanctions would be if anything more important if someone wanted to avoid military intervention but still be able to influence outcomes. Apologies for my misunderstanding on that though.

Don't get me wrong I think sanctions are generally a much better route than war. But it's still a form of conflict which has consequences on many innocent people and can indirectly lead to loss of life.

I can't remember the original post you quoted but I believe I was simply making reference to the fact that despite sanctions and military intervention we're still no closer to a resolution.

I'm aware you are being asked to come up with answers to hypothetical situations here but I think Ukraine is one area where Corbyn would have been absolutely hammered in the media, and in this instance, I think that his position does run contrary to the stance of the voting public as well.

He's not a dictator though and I disagree when people say he's unable to look past his own views/principles.

I think just like with brexit, to his failure, where he took a more neutral stance despite historically being a euro sceptic. In terms of Ukraine I think he'd have been diplomatic and followed the parties views too. Many of his closest allies support the prolonged military support, and the original quotes I provided doesn't say he opposes it. Just that he worries it will prolong war and that more focus should have been put on peace.

And I agree the media would slaughter him simply because they see his political views as a threat to the elite. So they'll always find a way to attack him just like they did in 2019.

I don't necessarily agree with your views on the conflict in terms of providing weapons or the effectiveness of sanctions (I would be interested in a separate discussion about your views on the potential impact of BDS with regards to Israel/Palestine) however this is a thread about Jeremy Corbyn and I assume a hypothetical about general electability is fair. So how do you think he would have positioned things to the media and the public? Do you think this could have been an area of weakness in terms of getting votes? What tools would be available if we took 'sending materiel that could be used for an invasion of Russia' off the table. Do you think he would have supported sanctions (this was more your one off quote, so I wouldn't want to attribute a position to him)? What kind of tools would he have had available to bring people to the negotiating table?

I think he would have tabled his views in parliament but ultimately a democratic vote would have taken place as well as bills going through the lord's. And as a result I believe our initial reaction would likely have been similar to what we've already seen. An international one. I don't think he'd oppose the majority of his parties or members views. Just like he took a neutral stance on brexit despite historically being a eurosceptic.

With the above said though, I think he would have pushed for more talks and discussions with Putin and would have possibly even met him in person. Something I think is essential to finding a peaceful resolution. And something I'd support from any western leader.

I think given his parliamentary record and views on previous conflicts that he would be much better positioned to negotiate and have progressive talks with pro/neutral Russia countries such as China/Pakistan/India/Russia/NKorea/Oraq/Brazil (?) etc.. And I think they'd be more open to dialogue with him too than the historic old guard.

I think the cost of living crisis is an indirect effect of both covid and Ukraine and I think alot of the things on corbyns 2019 manifesto would have indirectly improced this such as his pledge to bring energy under public ownership again.

I think instead of energy price caps which effectively universally discount the rate of energy for all, that more targeted support would be provided. I don't think we'd have the same large companies making windfalls off the back of this conflict and for those which are I believe a proper fair tax would be applied.

As Ukraine is seen as an international issue and conflict, it's not Corbyns responsibility to resolve it. In the same sense that neither tory leader has done much in terms of finding a solution so far.

Again though looking at indirect effects, another one is unions and pay strikes. Again I expect corbyn would have been much more pro active in this space and I imagine he'd have more negotiating power and respect from the unions and resolutions would have been found rather than the recurring cycles of strikes were currently experiencing.

I think giving Americas and Bidens special relationship with Ireland, and corbyns positive effect on bringing peace to NI that this would help to strengthen relationships with America. I also think we'd have Stormont up and running and operating rather than the current stalemate where Sunak has changed legislation basically extending the time required for an election after one party doesn't nominate a minister.

But despite all the above the media is and always will be a huge problem for him to tackle. However actions speak louder than words and with time I think his actions would silence his critics.

 

[DanH]

Don't get me wrong I think sanctions are generally a much better route than war. But it's still a form of conflict which has consequences on many innocent people and can indirectly lead to loss of life.

I can't remember the original post you quoted but I believe I was simply making reference to the fact that despite sanctions and military intervention we're still no closer to a resolution.



He's not a dictator though and I disagree when people say he's unable to look past his own views/principles.

I think just like with brexit, to his failure, where he took a more neutral stance despite historically being a euro sceptic. In terms of Ukraine I think he'd have been diplomatic and followed the parties views too. Many of his closest allies support the prolonged military support, and the original quotes I provided doesn't say he opposes it. Just that he worries it will prolong war and that more focus should have been put on peace.

And I agree the media would slaughter him simply because they see his political views as a threat to the elite. So they'll always find a way to attack him just like they did in 2019.


I think he would have tabled his views in parliament but ultimately a democratic vote would have taken place as well as bills going through the lord's. And as a result I believe our initial reaction would likely have been similar to what we've already seen. An international one. I don't think he'd oppose the majority of his parties or members views. Just like he took a neutral stance on brexit despite historically being a eurosceptic.

With the above said though, I think he would have pushed for more talks and discussions with Putin and would have possibly even met him in person. Something I think is essential to finding a peaceful resolution. And something I'd support from any western leader.

I think given his parliamentary record and views on previous conflicts that he would be much better positioned to negotiate and have progressive talks with pro/neutral Russia countries such as China/Pakistan/India/Russia/NKorea/Oraq/Brazil (?) etc.. And I think they'd be more open to dialogue with him too than the historic old guard.

I think the cost of living crisis is an indirect effect of both covid and Ukraine and I think alot of the things on corbyns 2019 manifesto would have indirectly improced this such as his pledge to bring energy under public ownership again.

I think instead of energy price caps which effectively universally discount the rate of energy for all, that more targeted support would be provided. I don't think we'd have the same large companies making windfalls off the back of this conflict and for those which are I believe a proper fair tax would be applied.

As Ukraine is seen as an international issue and conflict, it's not Corbyns responsibility to resolve it. In the same sense that neither tory leader has done much in terms of finding a solution so far.

Again though looking at indirect effects, another one is unions and pay strikes. Again I expect corbyn would have been much more pro active in this space and I imagine he'd have more negotiating power and respect from the unions and resolutions would have been found rather than the recurring cycles of strikes were currently experiencing.

I think giving Americas and Bidens special relationship with Ireland, and corbyns positive effect on bringing peace to NI that this would help to strengthen relationships with America. I also think we'd have Stormont up and running and operating rather than the current stalemate where Sunak has changed legislation basically extending the time required for an election after one party doesn't nominate a minister.

But despite all the above the media is and always will be a huge problem for him to tackle. However actions speak louder than words and with time I think his actions would silence his critics.

I meant from a position of leader of the opposition, sorry again for confusion but useful to see how you feel he would do if in charge and a lot will carry across.

I'm not so sure how his position on Nato would go down with the US, and I think the main barrier to Stormont being in session is the DUP. I'm not sure they are really positively disposed to him. Still, work in the morning so better call it here. Thanks for coming back to me.

 

[ThehatchetMan]

What emphasis and focus on peace do you mean? Is it; Ukraine conceding territory and land in spite of the wishes of it's people?

Where have I suggested Ukraine should coded territory? You keep mentioning this.

My point is that a continued flow of arms just prolongs the war and increases the death toll.

A good start would be meeting Putin in person.

Nevermind me though. Let's flip this on to you instead for a bit:

- How many more weapons need to be provided till the war ends?
- How many more deaths till it ends?
- Do you think eventually Russia will just give up?
- What stops them from invading Ukraine again a year later? How do you know they won't?
- So is your solution just:

- Wait for Russia to attack > Refugees leave and spread across Europe > Key infrastructure destroyed > Western countries provide billions of arms to Ukrainian constricted civilians > people die > repeat last 2 steps until Russia give up > bring back refugees and rebuild infrastructure > wait x years for next Russia invasion and repeat the same cycle.

 

[ThehatchetMan]

I meant from a position of leader of the opposition, sorry again for confusion but useful to see how you feel he would do if in charge and a lot will carry across.

I'm not so sure how his position on Nato would go down with the US, and I think the main barrier to Stormont being in session is the DUP. I'm not sure they are really positively disposed to him. Still, work in the morning so better call it here. Thanks for coming back to me.

As leader of the Opposition he would struggle due to the media like last time. However the attacks only really ramp up around election time. I think like it has been under Starmer, alot more focus would slowly have been shifted back toward the tories.

I'm not bothered that JC is not leader anymore and there are many labour MPs I would support as leader. I liked JC political ideology alot more than most though and particularly Starmers.

With regards to Nato I think Corbyn is often misquoted and misunderstood as someone who wanted to pull out of Nato despite never saying this. He simply recognised it as an organisation which potentially had too much power and could threaten world peace. And unsurprisingly alot of Putins actions have often been reactions to moves by Nato. Such as the current conflict in Ukraine which occurred shortly after N Macedonia joining Nato.

The main barrier is the electoral system which requires 2 partirs of equal power from either side of the community. And where one party can abstain from parliament and effectively bring the assembly down with them.

We need urgent reforms on this but the DUP oppose it as the status quo suits them and the tories like to please the DUP as they give them their support in Westminster. Such as in 2017 when they propped up Mays government. We should have had an election in November sfger the DUP failed to nominate a DFM. The alliance parry have also made big gains on the DUP in recent years. That election should have happened and could have made a change. Sunak changed legislation to prevent it from happening. I don't believe Corbyn would have made the same change to help the DUP out.

 

[ThehatchetMan]

I grew up in Northern Ireland during the troubles myself and had family under threat so yes, I remember too.

Well fair enough not all of my family will share my exact views either.

Personally I tend to sway towards SDLP/UUP/Alliance in NI politics as both SF and DUP benefit from conflict and segregation in my eyes and only look to serve their respective sides of the community. SDLP/UUP/Alliance I find to be a bit more middle ground when it comes to tribalism along with green and pbp too.

While I'm no fan of the IRA or some of the crimes they committed. I have to remember that at the root of it all was an initial peaceful movement for equality and that catholics were being oppressed and descriminated against. And that is a sad part of Northern Ireland's history which I have to accept as a protestant.

Now as a pacafist I don't agree with the terrorist acts in any way against innocent people on all sides. And ive got alot of respect for politicians like John Hume who were instrumental in negotiating peace in a honourable manner.

But fundamentally when the GFA was finally signed in 1998 it was when the British and irish government would sit around the table with parties from all sides of Northern Ireland. Maybe had the British government been willing to meet with SF when JC was willing to a peaceful conclusion could have maybe been discovered sooner.

 

[owlo]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding it but from the same url you've provided of the tabled motion it states:

"President Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen claimed, entirely without foundation, that 'we've now seen about 100,000 military-aged [Albanian] men missing.....they may have been murdered' and that David Scheffer, the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes, announced with equal inaccuracy that as many as '225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59' may have been killed"

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm presuming that it was due to these alleged numbers that Nato intervened?

Yet in actual fact the number of deaths was closed to 1% of the last figure tabled?

"the International War Crimes Tribunal, a body de facto set up by NATO, announced that the final count of bodies found in Kosovo's 'mass graves' was 2,788"

And as part of this motion. They wanted the UK government to assist Kosovo with cleaning up the mess from NATOs invasion?

"believes the pollution impact of the bombing of Kosovo is still emerging, including the impact of the use of depleted uranium munitions; and calls on the Government to provide full assistance in the clean up of Kosovo."


I don't think it's that bad?

He said specifically: fraudulent justifications for intervening in a 'genocide' that never really existed in Kosovo (Bear in mind this was in 2004, and the evidence was well established)

The evidence is, genocide existed in Kosovo. It's indisputable.

From Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Kosovo_War

- HRW claims that the Yugoslav Army indiscriminately attacked Kosovo Albanian villages.[23] Police and military forces had partially or completely destroyed thousands of Albanian villages in Kosovo by burning or shelling them.[23] According to a UNHCR survey, nearly 40% of all residential houses in Kosovo were heavily damaged or completely destroyed by the end of the war. Out of a total of 237,842 houses, 45,768 were heavily damaged and 46,414 were destroyed.[24] In particular, residences in the city of Peja was heavily damaged. More than 80% of the 5,280 houses in the city were heavily damaged (1,590) or destroyed (2,774).[25]

- Of the 498 mosques in Kosovo that were in active use, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) documented that 225 mosques sustained damage or destruction by the Yugoslav Serb army.[38] In all, eighteen months of the Yugoslav Serb counterinsurgency campaign between 1998-1999 within Kosovo resulted in 225 or a third out of a total of 600 mosques being damaged, vandalised, or destroyed alongside other Islamic architecture during the conflict.[39][40][38] Additionally 500 Albanian owned kulla dwellings (traditional stone tower houses) and three out of four well preserved Ottoman period urban centres located in Kosovo cities were badly damaged resulting in great loss of traditional architecture.[41][39] Kosovo's public libraries, in particular 65 out of 183 were completely destroyed with a loss of 900,588 volumes, while Islamic libraries sustained damage or destruction resulting in the loss of rare books, manuscripts and other collections of literature.[42][43] Archives belonging to the Islamic Community of Kosovo with records spanning 500 years were also destroyed.[42][43] During the war, Islamic architectural heritage posed for Yugoslav Serb paramilitary and military forces as Albanian patrimony with destruction of non-Serbian architectural heritage being a methodical and planned component of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.[39][44]

And here you go, 13,517 victims: List of Kosovo War Victims Published | Balkan Insight


With regards to the remarks, this is what Cohen said, in 1999: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans/stories/cohen051699.htm - With the large numbers displaced, it was likely hard to know.

Here's an article in 2000 stating that the NATO powers exxagerated deaths and the 100,000 claim: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/aug/18/balkans3

However, commentators yesterday stressed that the new details should not obscure the fact that the major war crime in the tribunal's indictment of the Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosevic, and four other Serb officials is the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo and forced deportation of hundreds of thousands of people.

"The point is did we successfully pre-empt or not," Mark Laity, the acting Nato spokesman, said last night. "I think the evidence shows we did. We would rather be criticised for overestimating the numbers who died than for failing to pre-empt. Any objective analysis would say there was a clear crisis. There was indiscriminate killing. There were attempts to clear hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes."

It's classical Corbyn in my opinion. Misrepresenting or misunderstanding something to make a stand.

Interesting page or two. Seperate from Corbyn how do you go about advocating for peace and ceasefires and negotiations and it not be political suicide and geopolitically naive? Is it possible? Or is it just a bad strategy and the threat of violence is almost a requirement of peace.
I guess the political suicide part is kind of unavoidable as your almost guaranteed to be dealing with at least one murderous scumbag.

This. If you are weak, there will always be somebody to fill the void.

I'm aware that you're being hit from all sides here, so understand that you may not reply but in what way do you consider Corbyn to be authoritarian? I get you don't like him or his policies but to consider him authoritarian, especially relative to Starmer, is bewildering to me.

I've checked what I said now, and I did indeed say he was slightly more authoritarian than Starmer. It was a poorly worded comment though, I think they [and all major parties in Britain] have been pretty bad for it and Starmer is definitely no better. It mostly revolves around foreign affairs (his happiness to support castro/hezbollah/hamas/whoever despite them taking positions that he hates, and not criticizing them), but also for the fact he did indeed vote for the IPA. The way he threatened the press, anybody who stepped out of line, his identity politics etc, and his general lack of desire for freedom over civil liberty.

 

[GuybrushThreepwood]

It's interesting that quite a few people on the left don't particularly like John McDonnell any more.

I guess quite a few of them blame him for strongly pushing Labour to promise a 2nd EU referendum, which Corbyn was very reluctant to do, which attributed to the 2019 GE result (playing down the Corbyn factor). But I strongly disagree with that; if Labour's Brexit position had been just to pursue a new, 'soft' Brexit deal, and they went into that election promising neither another EU referendum to satisfy remainers, or leaving the EU by January 31st 2020 (so the Tories' 'Get Brexit Done' slogan still would have been devastatingly effective) to satisfy leavers, I just don't see how they would have done any better.

It was of course well known that Corbyn and McDonnell, while not bitterly feuding or becoming enemies or anything, became less close from 2018. I've seen some people on the left, such as those that work for Novara Media, criticise McDonnell for becoming 'obsessed with winning' after the 2017 GE result. That seems like a ridiculous criticism. He was the shadow chancellor and 2nd in command of a party that was pretty close to power in terms of parliamentary arithmetic after the 2017 GE, and knew that unless they entered government they couldn't enact any of the policies or 'radical agenda'' that they wanted. He was clearly frustrated that the momentum from the 2017 GE result was basically lost by early to mid 2018. He was also criticised for being interviewed by Alistair Campbell for GQ magazine. But again, a Labour shadow chancellor being interviewed by former and successful Labour strategist and also long-standing Labour party member (though he was kicked out after the 2019 European elections), should not be controversial. I didn't blame Corbyn for refusing to share a platform with Cameron during the 2016 EU referendum, but I did blame him for refusing to share a platform with Kinnock, Blair and Brown (i.e. in a rally involving all living people that had led the Labour party) during it.

While I'm far more sympathetic to the left than the right (i.e. I would find significantly more to agree with Corbyn on than Farage), there are similarities in terms of people who deviate even a bit from a set agenda / narrative / direction, being criticised as sellouts, turncoats, traitors etc. For example people who enthusiastically supported Trump during the 2020 presidential election campaign but then refused to buy the crackpot theories that the result was stolen, were criticised as 'lefties in disguise'. And people who grew up very much on the left of the Labour party, as 'Bennites' etc,. but realised that compromises had to make to gain power (i.e. promising a hugely radical agenda but remaining stuck in opposition is far worse than promising a still pretty radical agenda but more pragmatic one but winning elections and actually being able to implement it), also get heavily criticised.

 

[balaks]

I don't understand the obsession with this man - he was an awful, awful leader who if he had been any way competant would have brought Labour to victory but here we are with the Tories still in power. He also supported Brexit (or at least didnt want to argue against it) which is another in a long, long line in poor decisions he has made in his life in my opinion. He should be shuffled off into history and should never have been Labour leader in the first place. Don't get me started on his relationship with Northern Ireland either. He comes across as an incredibly arrogant person as well and is quite unlikeable generally in my view.

 

[UweBein]

.....

I think given his parliamentary record and views on previous conflicts that he would be much better positioned to negotiate and have progressive talks with pro/neutral Russia countries such as China/Pakistan/India/Russia/NKorea/Oraq/Brazil (?) etc.. And I think they'd be more open to dialogue with him too than the historic old guard.

.....

Oh, man, I have not smiled at a post for quite a while. Thank you for that.

 

[UweBein]

I don't understand the obsession with this man - he was an awful, awful leader who if he had been any way competant would have brought Labour to victory but here we are with the Tories still in power. He also supported Brexit (or at least didnt want to argue against it) which is another in a long, long line in poor decisions he has made in his life in my opinion. He should be shuffled off into history and should never have been Labour leader in the first place. Don't get me started on his relationship with Northern Ireland either. He comes across as an incredibly arrogant person as well and is quite unlikeable generally in my view.

At the end of the day, I do not think it were his leaderhip skills that failed him.
He is simply bad at politics. He has an understanding of politics, economics and international relations which has not evolved since the 70's.
If you have always voted the same way for 30 years, you are true to your principles on one hand, but on the other hand you are in fact proving that you have learned not that much in the meantime.

 

[balaks]

At the end of the day, I do not think it were his leaderhip skills that failed him.
He is simply bad at politics. He has an understanding of politics, economics and international relations which has not evolved since the 70's.
If you have always voted the same way for 30 years, you are true to your principles on one hand, but on the other hand you are in fact proving that you have learned not that much in the meantime.

A basic requirement of any political leader is to have a firm understanding of how current politics works. He was so naive or stubborn (or both) in this that he was a complete disaster - I assume he had advisors suggesting he do or say certain things but I presume he was so arrogant he just did his own thing regardless.

 

[Flying high]

Don't be ridiculous. I'm one of many who remembers corbyns sympathies with Irish republicanism during the Troubles. People with a moral compass who supported a united Ireland supported the SDLP, not sinn fein, in those days.

I'll let others discuss the rights and wrongs of that, despite my Irish heritage, I am mostly ignorant about the troubles in general. But is that why you bought into every single smear from the right? Because you were quite vociferous about every 'story' that came out about Corbyn. Even those that have subsequently turned out to be provably false.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Corbyn's personal views on foreign policy are part of the reason he was an easy target for the media, but their relevance to Labour Party policy was always massively overstated. Corbyn's pitch for the leadership, alongside making the party more democratic, was to push back against austerity, advocate for public spending on public goods and work to tackle economic inequality, and those are the things Labour focused on under his leadership. Whilst Corbyn was passionate about various foreign policy issues, you'd struggle to find an example of that impacting actual Labour policy. Commitment to NATO and Trident was in both the 2017 and 2019 manifestos.

 

[redcucumber]

Much rather Corbyn that any of the other utter cretins we've had to endure, or will have to endure going forward.

 

[DanH]

Corbyn's personal views on foreign policy are part of the reason he was an easy target for the media, but their relevance to Labour Party policy was always massively overstated. Corbyn's pitch for the leadership, alongside making the party more democratic, was to push back against austerity, advocate for public spending on public goods and work to tackle economic inequality, and those are the things Labour focused on under his leadership. Whilst Corbyn was passionate about various foreign policy issues, you'd struggle to find an example of that impacting actual Labour policy. Commitment to NATO and Trident was in both the 2017 and 2019 manifestos.

So you don't think his position on arming Ukraine would have had an impact with the voting electorate? How would he manage the media differently and actually get into power?

 

[11101]

A basic requirement of any political leader is to have a firm understanding of how current politics works. He was so naive or stubborn (or both) in this that he was a complete disaster - I assume he had advisors suggesting he do or say certain things but I presume he was so arrogant he just did his own thing regardless.

He also surrounded himself with people who were probably even worse than he was. Corbyn alone could possibly have been tolerated, but people like McDonnell and Abbot and the Momentum connection exasperated the situation and for whatever reason he only ever doubled down on them.

But yes, i don't understand why so many still cling to this aura of a great man robbed of the top job by the media/corporations/fairy godmother. He was a bad politician with questionable personal views and poor judgement.

 

[Flying high]

He also surrounded himself with people who were probably even worse than he was. Corbyn alone could possibly have been tolerated, but people like McDonnell and Abbot and the Momentum connection exasperated the situation and for whatever reason he only ever doubled down on them.

Abbott I'll give you, she's probably good at something, but it's not appearing on front of a camera. But she's no worse than about a dozen tory cabinet members over the last 10 years, or even a couple of PMs. McDonnell was fine. I'm sure he scared a few of the rich, but his economics were credible and he speaks quite well. The only time I heard about Momentum was when someone wanted to criticise Corbyn. Make of that what you will.

But yes, i don't understand why so many still cling to this aura of a great man robbed of the top job by the media/corporations/fairy godmother. He was a bad politician with questionable personal views and poor judgement.

I'm sure I speak for most who backed Corbyn when I say that I'd be delighted if Labour appointed someone else who is going to rescue this country from the right-wing disaster we currently have. It was never about Corbyn, he wasn't perfect, but his credible belief in diplomacy, fairness and obvious lack of personal greed, instantly elevates him above the majority of the HoC.

I don't want Corbyn back as leader of the party. In fact, I hoped he'd step aside mid 2019 when it was clear too much damage had been done to him. And by him, to be fair. But I don't think he was a bad politician. His style wasn't suited to the current reality of the UK, but I want my politicians to be conciliatory and kind-hearted. So, rather than make life difficult for him, as many on the left bizarrely decided to do, I supported him and yes, I wish there were more like him in westminster.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

So you don't think his position on arming Ukraine would have had an impact with the voting electorate? How would he manage the media differently and actually get into power?

Not what I said at all, quite the opposite. His personal foreign policy positions are absolutely part of the reason he couldn't win over the electorate. What I'm saying is that they had little or no bearing on Labour's actual foreign policy positions whilst he was leader, which remained the same as they had been under Milliband (NATO-membership, Trident renewal etc.).

 

[DanH]

Thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding. It would certainly have been difficult for Labour in terms of dealing with the electorate.

 

[nickm]

I'll let others discuss the rights and wrongs of that, despite my Irish heritage, I am mostly ignorant about the troubles in general. But is that why you bought into every single smear from the right? Because you were quite vociferous about every 'story' that came out about Corbyn. Even those that have subsequently turned out to be provably false.

You are welcome to list the things I found objectionable about Corbyn that were smears from the right and provably false. But I'm certainly on record here finding Corbyn's approach to Northern Ireland during the Troubles objectionable. I had no problem with a united Ireland, I just happened to think John Hume's approach was the right and moral way to go about it.

 

[Badunk]

So Jeremy Corbyn is naive for proposing a ceasefire, followed by negotiations?

Isn't this exactly how every conflict gets resolved eventually?

 

[Flying high]

You are welcome to list the things I found objectionable about Corbyn that were smears from the right and provably false. But I'm certainly on record here finding Corbyn's approach to Northern Ireland during the Troubles objectionable. I had no problem with a united Ireland, I just happened to think John Hume's approach was the right and moral way to go about it.

So you have a particular problem with him that you can't get past. I understand that. I was the same with Johnson's lying.

I won't do a list, I'm sure you remember those times well. I read a lot more on here than I post myself, so it's probably a bit unfair of me to bring up your opinions from years ago, when fewer of mine are available for similar scrutiny(and I'm certain quite a few won't have aged well!).

But I hope, if you want to be fair, that you can agree you weren't exactly slow on the uptake whenever something negative about Corbyn was in the news?

 

[DanH]

So Jeremy Corbyn is naive for proposing a ceasefire, followed by negotiations?

Isn't this exactly how every conflict gets resolved eventually?

How do you get there?
You're correct in that most conflicts get resolved that way, but peace talks with mutually acceptable outcomes is the end, not the means.

Some people believe that providing Ukraine with military support is a means of imposing cost on Russia to bring them to the negotiating table.

I would be absolutely in favour of a solution that didn't require military support if I thought there was a realistic prospect of it causing Russia to come to the negotiating table and terms being settled that were mutually acceptable not just to Russia but also Ukraine.

I've been told that it doesn't need to involve Ukraine conceding territory, but I haven't really seen what would be offered.

It's easy to say 'get to negotiating' but how?

 

[11101]

Abbott I'll give you, she's probably good at something, but it's not appearing on front of a camera. But she's no worse than about a dozen tory cabinet members over the last 10 years, or even a couple of PMs. McDonnell was fine. I'm sure he scared a few of the rich, but his economics were credible and he speaks quite well. The only time I heard about Momentum was when someone wanted to criticise Corbyn. Make of that what you will.



I'm sure I speak for most who backed Corbyn when I say that I'd be delighted if Labour appointed someone else who is going to rescue this country from the right-wing disaster we currently have. It was never about Corbyn, he wasn't perfect, but his credible belief in diplomacy, fairness and obvious lack of personal greed, instantly elevates him above the majority of the HoC.

I don't want Corbyn back as leader of the party. In fact, I hoped he'd step aside mid 2019 when it was clear too much damage had been done to him. And by him, to be fair. But I don't think he was a bad politician. His style wasn't suited to the current reality of the UK, but I want my politicians to be conciliatory and kind-hearted. So, rather than make life difficult for him, as many on the left bizarrely decided to do, I supported him and yes, I wish there were more like him in westminster.

I don't really agree with either of those things. McDonnell's policies were high risk, based on an absolute best case scenario and with major downside for anything else. Corbyn on the other hand always struck me as a particularly arrogant and vindictive character. The 'for the people' ruse was just that, he was every bit as ruthless and nasty as any other politician but with his focus in a different direction.

 

[balaks]

I don't really agree with either of those things. McDonnell's policies were high risk, based on an absolute best case scenario and with major downside for anything else. Corbyn on the other hand always struck me as a particularly arrogant and vindictive character. The 'for the people' ruse was just that, he was every bit as ruthless and nasty as any other politician but with his focus in a different direction.

That is exactly how I felt about him.

 

[Flying high]

I don't really agree with either of those things. McDonnell's policies were high risk, based on an absolute best case scenario and with major downside for anything else. Corbyn on the other hand always struck me as a particularly arrogant and vindictive character. The 'for the people' ruse was just that, he was every bit as ruthless and nasty as any other politician but with his focus in a different direction.

That description of McDonnell could apply to any chancellor/shadow, but fair enough.

Out of interest, where was Corbyn's focus? Because the rest of your description of him, I find bizarre. He's not the one purging the party of those that disagreed with him. Even if his life would have been easier if he had.

 

[ThehatchetMan]

I don't really agree with either of those things. McDonnell's policies were high risk, based on an absolute best case scenario and with major downside for anything else. Corbyn on the other hand always struck me as a particularly arrogant and vindictive character. The 'for the people' ruse was just that, he was every bit as ruthless and nasty as any other politician but with his focus in a different direction.

Vindictive really? The only time I remember Corbyn being described as vindictive was when BJ said he would go after the wealthy with a relish and vindictiveness.

Surely vindictive would be a better word to describe Starmer and his treatment of Corbyn. Or Sunak mentioning him in PMQs every other week. Or the media smear campaign.

But through all of the above, I think he has handled himself with class when many others would likely have retaliated or reacted.

 

[Flying high]

That is exactly how I felt about him.

Maybe what I saw as a measured, patient approach, others find condescending? I really am at a loss to understand it otherwise.

 

[berbatrick]

the most dangerous threat to world peace...diabolical machinations at play. who knows what he will destroy next.