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

Dobba said:
...last week voted in favour of reloading Britain's nuclear holocaust launchers but he's going to be ethical starting...now...no wait...now.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the kind of thing I find frustrating. You may believe that the right decision would be to unilaterally disarm, but you have to recognise that there are very good arguments on both sides of the debate (as there are on most occasions where there's a split on policy within the party). Castigating people for coming down on the other side of a complex and finely balanced argument - especially when they are voting in line with official party policy as with Trident - makes it pretty much impossible to run a party with broad appeal.

I personally think it would be kind of crazy to abandon our nuclear deterrent at this time - did you hear Trump's statement about potentially not protecting NATO allies? Very, very scary.
 
ThierryHenry said:
Oh bore off. Stella's work on payday loans, social housing, and campaigning in parliament for her constituents is exactly what you'd want in a Labour MP. You need to end this tribal nonsense, you're going to look back one day and realise what an idiot you're being.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Just right now I am so pissed off with the way the privatised essential services are ripping me off. I have to pay for water, energy and local transport whether I like it or not. People own shares in those privatised companies and are doing well out of them. Which people? Rich people. It's fecked up.
 
ThierryHenry said:
Oh bore off. Stella's work on payday loans, social housing, and campaigning in parliament for her constituents is exactly what you'd want in a Labour MP. You need to end this tribal nonsense, you're going to look back one day and realise what an idiot you're being.
Click to expand...
Bore off yourself! I wasn't talking specifically about Creasy; I was talking about Progress. Don't call me an idiot and tell me to bore off. cnut!
 
A year ago I arrived home from work to find the locks had been changed and some of my possessions were out in the communal corridor. I was behind in the rent, working from 6am to 6pm for minimum wage and waiting for a long-delayed housing benefit payment. The landlord had applied for a possession order which had been "stayed" by the court owing to him having falsified documents and not protecting my deposit. Prior to that he had refused to fix my boiler , had physically cut the cable supplying telephone, TV and internet and removed the main fuse for the electricity. I had complained to the council. They wrote to him telling him this harrassment was a serious matter. He ignored it, just as he would later ignore the court's ruling on the possession order. He took all my worldly possessions, including things passed down to me by my recently deceased parents and... well... everything bar what I was standing up in when I arrived home. I knew he had acted illegally and went straight down to the police station. They were closed. I slept rough and called the agency the next day to say I couldn't do my zero hours driving job because I hadn't slept well. I spent the next 6 months on friends' sofas, homeless shelters and often in doorways until the council was able to house me. I still don't have my possessions back. The police say it's a "civil matter". I can't get legal aid. The council have been useless - other than housing me, of course, for which I am grateful. My 6 months on the street opened my eyes to the extent of the problem. There are a lot of people in the same boat. It's serious folks!
 
MikeUpNorth said:
This is exactly the kind of thing I find frustrating. You may believe that the right decision would be to unilaterally disarm, but you have to recognise that there are very good arguments on both sides of the debate (as there are on most occasions where there's a split on policy within the party). Castigating people for coming down on the other side of a complex and finely balanced argument - especially when they are voting in line with official party policy as with Trident - makes it pretty much impossible to run a party with broad appeal.

I personally think it would be kind of crazy to abandon our nuclear deterrent at this time - did you hear Trump's statement about potentially not protecting NATO allies? Very, very scary.
Click to expand...
When it comes down to it, launching a nuke is mass murder. No question. It is not a "load previous saved game" thing; it's "game over". In the end game it's not a deterrent. It would be insane to launch a nuke - full stop. An insane person would not be put off pressing the button because they feared reprisal. They would do it anyway.
 
Smores said:
It would be good if more had her sense. The leadership election has been secured there's no need for them to carry on weakening the party.

Hopefully the task masters have told them as such.
Click to expand...

Hope so too. They have no excuse for the current dereliction of duties since the leadership election was called. The only real motivation now can be to undermine Corbyn, but if they are really so concerned about not being able to do that they can just do the jobs while talking about how much better it would be under Smith.
 
sun_tzu said:
A lot of people could say that... £18.5 million donated to labour
Over a billion to charities... He has thrown far more money at a lot more things than progress
Click to expand...

This isnt just casual contributions though as you're inadvertently suggesting. He's heavily invested in their campaigning and championed their cause.

Of course since they're a group who want rid of Corbyn suddenly they're all good in many peoples eyes. Shame such discussion is tainted by the question of whose side your on.

There are plenty of other moderate groups within labour looking to reach out across the factions. Neither Momentum as activists or Progress should be heavily influencing the party but id take the grass routes over the elitists anyday.
 
Last edited:
DenisIrwin said:
When it comes down to it, launching a nuke is mass murder. No question. It is not a "load previous saved game" thing; it's "game over". In the end game it's not a deterrent. It would be insane to launch a nuke - full stop. An insane person would not be put off pressing the button because they feared reprisal. They would do it anyway.
Click to expand...
You are right that the idea of mutually assured destruction as a deterrent relies on rational actors on both sides, which won't necessarily always be the case. But in a dangerous world where some countries have nukes and some don't, I'd much rather have them than not.
 
DenisIrwin said:
Bore off yourself! I wasn't talking specifically about Creasy; I was talking about Progress. Don't call me an idiot and tell me to bore off. cnut!
Click to expand...
Sorry mate, genuinely, and for your recent troubles. Hope you're on the other side of all that and things are going well now.

I just don't enjoy all the "Red Tory", "Blairite scum" nonsense that keeps coming and coming from the Momentum 'side' in this debate. It stifles any chance of compromise, and the more people convince themselves that those who disagree with them in the Labour Party are evil, or see the world in a completely different way, the worse our chances of any sort of success at the end of this go. If you, and many others, truly believe that the centre-left are the enemy, then the Party is truly dead, and there's no chance of any government to the left of David Cameron's in the next 15 years. The Labour Party is a shambles at the moment but it doesn't have to be forever. The left is on track to eat itself, it doesn't need to.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
You are right that the idea of mutually assured destruction as a deterrent relies on rational actors on both sides, which won't necessarily always be the case. But in a dangerous world where some countries have nukes and some don't, I'd much rather have them than not.
Click to expand...
Why? The prick that pressed the button that nuked you, your family, everyone in the hospital down the road, the kids in the playground... he's safe in a bunker. Launching in response won't touch him/her. It will, however, incinerate patients in the hospital down the road from his bunker, the kids in the playground down the road from his bunker...
 
ThierryHenry said:
Sorry mate, genuinely, and for your recent troubles. Hope you're on the other side of all that and things are going well now.

I just don't enjoy all the "Red Tory", "Blairite scum" nonsense that keeps coming and coming from the Momentum 'side' in this debate. It stifles any chance of compromise, and the more people convince themselves that those who disagree with them in the Labour Party are evil, or see the world in a completely different way, the worse our chances of any sort of success at the end of this go. If you, and many others, truly believe that the centre-left are the enemy, then the Party is truly dead, and there's no chance of any government to the left of David Cameron's in the next 15 years. The Labour Party is a shambles at the moment but it doesn't have to be forever. The left is on track to eat itself, it doesn't need to.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the conciliaritory tone and I apologise too. I'd love to be able to say "yeah, it was tough, but I'm OK now" but I'd be lying. Things are still very tough. I am on the losing side in a class war I'm afraid.
 
DenisIrwin said:
Why? The prick that pressed the button that nuked you, your family, everyone in the hospital down the road, the kids in the playground... he's safe in a bunker. Launching in response won't touch him/her. It will, however, incinerate patients in the hospital down the road from his bunker, the kids in the playground down the road from his bunker...
Click to expand...
It's the fact that having nukes makes it less likely another rational person/state is going to nuke you. Obviously, it doesn't stop anyone insane nuking you. It's a (somewhat effective) deterrent.

The choice of whether to fire nukes in response to an attack is a separate question - obviously your enemies have to think that you're willing to nuke them in response, whether you actually would in reality or not. That's the whole point.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
It's the fact that having nukes makes it less likely another rational person/state is going to nuke you. Obviously, it doesn't stop anyone insane nuking you. It's a (somewhat effective) deterrent.

The choice of whether to fire nukes in response to an attack is a separate question - obviously your enemies have to think that you're willing to nuke them in response, whether you actually would in reality or not. That's the whole point.
Click to expand...
Do you really, honestly, think that a rational person/state is going to nuke you? Really? I can well understand wanting to get the guy that hurt you or people you care about. That's not nukes though. That's not weapons of mass destruction. That's conventional arms. A whole different thing. You might want a well regulated militia for that.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
It's the fact that having nukes makes it less likely another rational person/state is going to nuke you. Obviously, it doesn't stop anyone insane nuking you. It's a (somewhat effective) deterrent.

The choice of whether to fire nukes in response to an attack is a separate question - obviously your enemies have to think that you're willing to nuke them in response, whether you actually would in reality or not. That's the whole point.
Click to expand...

Id say its more a loose assumption than a fact. I dont believe it stops conventional warfare from escalating and in that case the chances of a state deploying a nuclear weapon become worryingly feasible.

This lose-lose scenario thats always described only works in peace time. The only ones who will use nuclear weaponry then would be crazy rogue states or terrorist groups.
 
Smores said:
Id say its more a loose assumption than a fact. I dont believe it stops conventional warfare from escalating and in that case the chances of a state deploying a nuclear weapon become worryingly feasible.

This lose-lose scenario thats always described only works in peace time. The only ones who will use nuclear weaponry then would be crazy rogue states or terrorist groups.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I largely agree with this. A case in which an enemy is going to nuke us is probably one in which having nukes won't make much of a difference.

I do see the argument that it's perhaps better to be on the safe side, but when you see the money involved in renewing them, it seems a bit of a waste when we're pretty much admitting the weapons are going to sit there as a sort-of deterrent.
 
Smores said:
This isnt just casual contributions though as you're inadvertently suggesting. He's heavily invested in their campaigning and championed their cause.

Of course since they're a group who want rid of Corbyn suddenly they're all good in many peoples eyes. Shame such discussion is tainted by the question of whose side your on.

There are plenty of other moderate groups within labour looking to reach out across the factions. Neither Momentum as activists or Progress should be heavily influencing the party but id take the grass routes over the elitists anyday.
Click to expand...
He was the main backer of the sdlp / sdp back in the day... He has been nothing but consistent in backing the politics he personally believe in even before Corbyn was an mp
Though as I say 250k to progress vs 18.5m to labour vs 1bn+ to charities perhaps puts some perspective on the extent of his contributions (again he put more into vote remain than he did into progress)
As for the whole labour movement I think society has changed so much that the Labour party needs to look at its self and think if it can properly hold in both wings of the party to one coherent movement and personally I think the answer is no and it's time to split
 
Last edited:
sun_tzu said:
He was the main backer of the sdlp / sdp back in the day... He has been nothing but consistent in backing the politics he personally believe in even before Corbyn was an mp
Though as I say 250k to progress vs 18.5m to labour vs 1bn+ to charities perhaps puts some perspective on the extent of his contributions (again he put more into vote remain than he did into progress)
As for the whole labour movement I think society has changed so much that the Labour party needs to look at its self and think if it can properly hold in both wings of the party to one coherent movement and personally I think the answer is no and it's time to split
Click to expand...

Perhaps i misunderstood the context of the discussion i replied to, i wasnt insinuating he was funding progress to get Corbyn out directly merely that Progress is in my view an unwelcome lobby group trying to manipulate the party further right than it should be (imo anyway). I just don't think the party should be run by the elites who claim ownership.

I don't agree with your split though, i think the moderates need to step in. The party should be able to find a way to use the growing activism to its benefit and it should be able to do so without ignoring the electorate or pissing off its own members.
 


Could be an outlier, but if they stay at this level (or the leads continue to grow), May isn't going to be missing out on the chance.
 
Ubik said:


Could be an outlier, but if they stay at this level (or the leads continue to grow), May isn't going to be missing out on the chance.
Click to expand...

wouldnt she need labour mp's to vote for an early election (fixed term parliament act?)... Turkeys voting for Xmas springs to mind so I dont know if they would risk it (though they will look utterly shambolic protesting against the government but not being prepared to face the electorate and they would have truly failed the test of being an effective opposition - at that point you could argue they are not even a functioning opposition)
 
sun_tzu said:
wouldnt she need labour mp's to vote for an early election (fixed term parliament act?)... Turkeys voting for Xmas springs to mind so I dont know if they would risk it (though they will look utterly shambolic protesting against the government but not being prepared to face the electorate and they would have truly failed the test of being an effective opposition - at that point you could argue they are not even a functioning opposition)
Click to expand...

No. They could do that just to feck with Labour. But if Labour oppose a new election under the fixed term Parliament act then the Conservatives would vote to repeal the act (which only requires a simple majority) and then conduct a new vote.

Parliament cannot be bound by a previous act of Parliament.
 
Ubik said:


Could be an outlier, but if they stay at this level (or the leads continue to grow), May isn't going to be missing out on the chance.
Click to expand...


I think she'll triggger article 50 and get negotiations well under way before she calls an election. It'll make it more difficult for Labour to then promise a second referendum but also make the tories look like theyre in control of things.

Winning an extra year at this point isnt much of a big deal to her. Might as well let Labour continue to canabalise itself
 
Smores said:
I think she'll triggger article 50 and get negotiations well under way before she calls an election. It'll make it more difficult for Labour to then promise a second referendum but also make the tories look like theyre in control of things.

Winning an extra year at this point isnt much of a big deal to her. Might as well let Labour continue to canabalise itself
Click to expand...
It's not so much the extra year that's useful, it's the heavily increased majority - it's currently 12 and there are a significant number of bastards on her backbenches that could cause trouble if given the opportunity. It could be well over 100 if these numbers were replicated in an election. She's also then got Labour probably at least 2 elections away in terms of seats from even being an electoral threat. Plus, she may want to make the most of the advantage before any hits to the economy. I suppose the question is whether Labour can fall any lower, and whether she can afford to wait for that.
 
Last edited:
Smores said:
I think she'll triggger article 50 and get negotiations well under way before she calls an election. It'll make it more difficult for Labour to then promise a second referendum but also make the tories look like theyre in control of things.

Winning an extra year at this point isnt much of a big deal to her. Might as well let Labour continue to canabalise itself
Click to expand...
I think that would make it easier - they then promice the referendum on the result of the negotiations (which they can spin as being rushed and ill thought out by the tories)... though for that to succeed they have to stop infighting which frankly just is not going to happen
the big advantage for May would be winning an election giver her a mandate - which she of course famously said Brown never had because he didn't call an election
 
MikeUpNorth said:
This is exactly the kind of thing I find frustrating. You may believe that the right decision would be to unilaterally disarm, but you have to recognise that there are very good arguments on both sides of the debate (as there are on most occasions where there's a split on policy within the party). Castigating people for coming down on the other side of a complex and finely balanced argument - especially when they are voting in line with official party policy as with Trident - makes it pretty much impossible to run a party with broad appeal.
Click to expand...
Crazy idea, but maybe (just maybe) don't claim your foreign policy is "ethical" a week after the first part of it turns out to be nuclear weapons.

Sweet Square said:
Anyway, Owen Smith Newsnight interview
Click to expand...

Reminder, this is the face of a movement that wants their leader removed because "he can't get his message across". The thought that this guy is the answer is utterly laughable, bordering on deluded.
 
sun_tzu said:
Its hardly surprising - whichever side lost there was going to be a challenge in the court... hopefully its resolved quickly
Click to expand...

Hardly suprising? A Labour donor has taken the NEC to court because not only does he not like the members decision he also doesnt like the NECs ruling won by a majority vote.

We should just save money scrap the NEC and member votes and let the donors decide instead.
 
Smores said:
Hardly suprising? A Labour donor has taken the NEC to court because not only does he not like the members decision he also doesnt like the NECs ruling won by a majority vote.

We should just save money scrap the NEC and member votes and let the donors decide instead.
Click to expand...
Yes - but Corbyn said before the vote if it didnt go the way he wanted then he would go to court - so as I say it was going to happen whichever side won the vote.
I think we should just scrap the labour party as the divergent views are becoming more and more tribal and the country deserves a functioning opposition
 
sun_tzu said:
Yes - but Corbyn said before the vote if it didnt go the way he wanted then he would go to court - so as I say it was going to happen whichever side won the vote.
I think we should just scrap the labour party as the divergent views are becoming more and more tribal and the country deserves a functioning opposition
Click to expand...

Sorry but the fact both may argue it beyond the decision doesnt make it less suprising that a donor is trying to go above the NEC and members. Corbyn would have been representing his members will, who is the donor representing exactly?

I like engaging with the mixed opinions on here but i cant see why the anti-corbyn posters consistently fail to recognise the ridiculous behaviour by some of the actors in the rebellion. I mean most of those still backing Corbyn on here at least recognise his errors and the ridiculousness of figures as McCluskly, Ken etc.
 
Smores said:
Sorry but the fact both may argue it beyond the decision doesnt make it less suprising that a donor is trying to go above the NEC and members. Corbyn would have been representing his members will, who is the donor representing exactly?

I like engaging with the mixed opinions on here but i cant see why the anti-corbyn posters consistently fail to recognise the ridiculous behaviour by some of the actors in the rebellion. I mean most of those still backing Corbyn on here at least recognise his errors and the ridiculousness of figures as McCluskly, Ken etc.
Click to expand...

I think its a shame he decided to challenge it but it is of course his legal right to do so... you could of course argue he is doing so because thats what the majority of the PLP who represent their constituencies and the wider people who voted labour want rather than the 1% of the country that is the labour party but of course its too tribal for either side to recognise the rights and wrongs of the other side.

The party should split in my opinion and the sooner the better as the country needs a functioning opposition... its going to be months of a protracted leadership contest - almost certainly followed by some kind of purge leading to a split - lets just get it over with.
 
sun_tzu said:
I think its a shame he decided to challenge it but it is of course his legal right to do so... you could of course argue he is doing so because thats what the majority of the PLP who represent their constituencies and the wider people who voted labour want rather than the 1% of the country that is the labour party but of course its too tribal for either side to recognise the rights and wrongs of the other side.

The party should split in my opinion and the sooner the better as the country needs a functioning opposition... its going to be months of a protracted leadership contest - almost certainly followed by some kind of purge leading to a split - lets just get it over with.
Click to expand...
I don't see your logic - Unless we have PR, such a split is only going to obliterate the left in the UK.
 
ThierryHenry said:
I don't see your logic - Unless we have PR, such a split is only going to obliterate the left in the UK.
Click to expand...
I would like to think we might one day join the civilised world and have PR
But Scotland leaving the UK (which seems a possibility as well) would probably make the electoral math even more tricky for the left as well the whole left of Uk politics needs a big rethink and I believe a split in the labour party will be the best way of achieving this and finding out what actually appeals to the electorate rather than the politically engaged party members
 
You must log in or register to reply here.