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

Smores said:
Significantly i dont think so, a lot more have voted Blair despite objections. You may have had some vote Labour previously who flitter between the left parties sure.

We had it in the US thread, 90% saying people had to vote Clinton over wasted votes on independents despite objections. That kind of logic seems to only be presented when its the left who have the objections.
Click to expand...
In the US thread, 90% of people (including me) would have been saying exactly the same thing had Bernie been the nominee. The US is a rigid two-party system and the Republican opponent was a bigot that wanted to ban muslims from the country.

Over here, my apparently traitorous vote last Thursday actually managed to help a Lib Dem take a Tory seat.
 
sun_tzu said:
yeah - I mean forget Ive given over 20k in donations, forget Ive campaigned etc in the past - I mean I wont blindly follow corbyn into a resounding loss so I must be blairite scum...

I mean its probably a good job he is going to get obliterated otherwise id be in a gulag / re-education facility...
Click to expand...
Well the isle of white has to be used for something.

Last election I thought Ed(Although somewhat of a nice guy)ran a horrible campaign, the list written in stone shite, immigration cups(Overall anti immigration rhetoric), going against worker strikes, talk of cuts to welfare and failing to challenge austerity. So really there no reason why I should have voted for him, but I did for one rather big reason -
He wasn't a tory.

Recently all the talk from liberals is that the left has to vote for their candidate to stop the bigger evil - wither that be Clinton in the US or Macron in the France yet when it's their turn to step up, they suddenly go missing.
 
Sweet Square said:
Well the isle of white has to be used for something.

Last election I thought Ed(Although somewhat of a nice guy)ran a horrible campaign, the list written in stone shite, immigration cups(Overall anti immigration rhetoric), going against worker strikes, talk of cuts to welfare and failing to challenge austerity. So really there no reason why I should have voted for him, but I did for one rather big reason -
He wasn't a tory.

Recently all the talk from liberals is that the left has to vote for their candidate to stop the bigger evil - wither that be Clinton in the US or Macron in the France yet when it's their turn to step up, they suddenly go missing.
Click to expand...

This isn't one of those elections though. For all her wrong doings and obvious failures, Theresa May is neither Trump nor Le Pen. Brexit can't be changed anyway, it will happen. And I can understand people trusting Corbyn leading this country even less than May. He's one of those bumbling far left candidates which spring from social democrats all over Europe thinking that after they have been crushed in elections again and again, moving even further to the left will miraculously get them more votes. It's the wrong way and they need to realise that.
 
fcbforever said:
This isn't one of those elections though. For all her wrong doings and obvious failures, Theresa May is neither Trump nor Le Pen. Brexit can't be changed anyway, it will happen. And I can understand people trusting Corbyn leading this country even less than May. He's one of those bumbling far left candidates which spring from social democrats all over Europe thinking that after they have been crushed in elections again and again, moving even further to the left will miraculously get them more votes. It's the wrong way and they need to realise that.
Click to expand...
She's not a bad as Le Penn but I'd put her in the same bracket as Trump. Her record around immigration and LGBT rights is sickening.
 
fcbforever said:
This isn't one of those elections though. For all her wrong doings and obvious failures, Theresa May is neither Trump nor Le Pen. Brexit can't be changed anyway, it will happen. And I can understand people trusting Corbyn leading this country even less than May. He's one of those bumbling far left candidates which spring from social democrats all over Europe thinking that after they have been crushed in elections again and again, moving even further to the left will miraculously get them more votes. It's the wrong way and they need to realise that.
Click to expand...
His policies really aren't that left wing, though. Perhaps the most left wing policy he has is to nationalize the rail industry, and polls show that the public support that movement. Corbyn is a victim of his own image, the split between membership and PLP, as well as the perception he's weak because he can't bring the PLP into line.

The problem is simple. The PLP think he's unelectable, so they sought to sabotage him before any election could take place. Whilst they're probably correct that he would have been unelectable regardless, they've fecked themselves over because now they're the biggest contributors to Labour's current woes. The party split is the biggest problem.
 
fcbforever said:
This isn't one of those elections though. For all her wrong doings and obvious failures, Theresa May is neither Trump nor Le Pen. Brexit can't be changed anyway, it will happen. And I can understand people trusting Corbyn leading this country even less than May. He's one of those bumbling far left candidates which spring from social democrats all over Europe thinking that after they have been crushed in elections again and again, moving even further to the left will miraculously get them more votes. It's the wrong way and they need to realise that.
Click to expand...
He wasn't exactly a "bumbling" candidate "crushed in elections again and again" for leadership of the party now was he? It's pure spin at this point.
 
DenisIrwin said:
What "wacky views"?
Click to expand...

He's been quite impartial to certain communist dictators in the past - not supportive as such, but not particularly condemning them either. He's said there should be a 'dialogue' over the Falklands when no such thing is needed, and I believe he was in favour of homeopathy...might have changed on that one now. Overall I don't mind him and much prefer him to May, but he's got a few weird views here and there that just aren't going to swing with the British public.
 
DenisIrwin said:
He wasn't exactly a "bumbling" candidate "crushed in elections again and again" for leadership of the party now was he? It's pure spin at this point.
Click to expand...

I mean, to be fair...he was up against some other pretty crap candidates. Beating out Yvette Cooper or Owen Smith isn't much to shout home about. Especially when leadership elections aren't essentially a small part of the electorate and don't reflect what's going to happen in a wider sense.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
His policies really aren't that left wing, though. Perhaps the most left wing policy he has is to nationalize the rail industry, and polls show that the public support that movement. Corbyn is a victim of his own image, the split between membership and PLP, as well as the perception he's weak because he can't bring the PLP into line.

The problem is simple. The PLP think he's unelectable, so they sought to sabotage him before any election could take place. Whilst they're probably correct that he would have been unelectable regardless, they've fecked themselves over because now they're the biggest contributors to Labour's current woes. The party split is the biggest problem.
Click to expand...

Largely true. Throw in someone who's got his economic agenda (albeit with more clarity and certainty), but take away figures like McDonnell and Abbott, and take away the whole dodgy background in regards to the likes of Hamas and the IRA etc, and such a candidate would probably stand a decent chance of winning.
 
Cheesy said:
Largely true. Throw in someone who's got his economic agenda (albeit with more clarity and certainty), but take away figures like McDonnell and Abbott, and take away the whole dodgy background in regards to the likes of Hamas and the IRA etc, and such a candidate would probably stand a decent chance of winning.
Click to expand...
Part of me thinks Corbyn should have been more "inclusive" in his choice of shadow cabinet members (more centrist), another part of me remembers the shambles that was Hilary Benn and the other few centrists undermining him from within. It's a fractured party, and I think Corbyn did try, but the PLP was never going for it. First chance they had, they put the boot in.

I think he could have survived the IRA fiasco, because it's very easy to spin that as a peace maker, especially when senior IRA figures are meeting the Queen. Hamas is similar, and Corbyn made overtures to Labour Friends of Israel to navigate that particular stumbling block. He's done what he could, but it won't be enough. The party might have to split because he won't stand down and the membership will reelect him.

Oh, and Abbot more than any other Labour MP is electoral poison.
 
DenisIrwin said:
He wasn't exactly a "bumbling" candidate "crushed in elections again and again" for leadership of the party now was he? It's pure spin at this point.
Click to expand...

It's not about him losig elections, but about Labour losing election after election to right wing parties and thinking going even further left will solve their problems.
 
Cheesy said:
He's been quite impartial to certain communist dictators in the past - not supportive as such, but not particularly condemning them either. He's said there should be a 'dialogue' over the Falklands when no such thing is needed, and I believe he was in favour of homeopathy...might have changed on that one now. Overall I don't mind him and much prefer him to May, but he's got a few weird views here and there that just aren't going to swing with the British public.
Click to expand...
What annoys me is that most people would agree with you - without knowing what the feck they're talking about. In my opinion, Pienaar on BBC is one of the very worst culprits for spreading that view. I really can't remember a single time he was on the radio when he wasn't bashing Corbyn - usually in a devious, underhand way. A lie repeated often enough...
 
DenisIrwin said:
What annoys me is that most people would agree with you - without knowing what the feck they're talking about. In my opinion, Pienaar on BBC is one of the very worst culprits for spreading that view. I really can't remember a single time he was on the radio when he wasn't bashing Corbyn - usually in a devious, underhand way. A lie repeated often enough...
Click to expand...
What of what Cheesy said was a lie?
 
Cheesy said:
He's been quite impartial to certain communist dictators in the past - not supportive as such, but not particularly condemning them either. He's said there should be a 'dialogue' over the Falklands when no such thing is needed, and I believe he was in favour of homeopathy...might have changed on that one now. Overall I don't mind him and much prefer him to May, but he's got a few weird views here and there that just aren't going to swing with the British public.
Click to expand...

He also is one of those left wings with a real big soft spot for anti-semitism. He would be completely unelectable for me.
 
DenisIrwin said:
What did he say that was very damning? Maybe he could find more damning things to say about Boris, or Cameron, or, let's see... May?
Click to expand...
You're accusing Cheesy of being biased in favour of Tories?
 
Ubik said:
In the US thread, 90% of people (including me) would have been saying exactly the same thing had Bernie been the nominee. The US is a rigid two-party system and the Republican opponent was a bigot that wanted to ban muslims from the country.

Over here, my apparently traitorous vote last Thursday actually managed to help a Lib Dem take a Tory seat.
Click to expand...

I'm all for tactical voting across the board, its smart. If its a Lib Dem vote just because Corbyn that i have an issue with.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
That's absolute nonsense.
Click to expand...

Is it? I don't think so. His reaction to anti-semitism in his own party has been lukewarm at best, he openly admitted on having had contact to Paul Eisen and having donated to his organisation. That's a guy calling himself a holocaust denier with proud.

Combine that with his rather partisan views on the middle eastern conflict and his constant refusal to openly speak out against anti-semitism, that's enough for me.
He might not be an anti semit by heart, but he's near enough the line and tolerating enough stuff for me to despise him deeply.
 
fcbforever said:
Is it? I don't think so. His reaction to anti-semitism in his own party has been lukewarm at best, he openly admitted on having had contact to Paul Eisen and having donated to his organisation. That's a guy calling himself a holocaust denier with proud.

Combine that with his rather partisan views on the middle eastern conflict and his constant refusal to openly speak out against anti-semitism, that's enough for me.
He might not be an anti semit by heart, but he's near enough the line and tolerating enough stuff for me to despise him deeply.
Click to expand...
Corbyn isn't an anti Semite, and the triple conflation between Zionism, Israel and antisemitism just muddies the waters. Paul Eisen, himself a Jewish man, is insane. However, Corbyn's dealings with that man were severely limited, and never centered around the topic of Holocaust.

His views on the ME conflict aren't particularly partisan, but rather reflect majority world opinion. What you're saying is libelous. Corbyn threw Livingstone under the bus to appease Israeli lobbyists within the PLP. Livingstone isn't an anti Semite, nor is Corbyn, but the charge of antisemitism against both was being used to try and oust Corybn. It's an absolute nonsensical notion, but it has political capital, and the likes of Chuka are deplorable for using it to their own ends.
 
fcbforever said:
Is it? I don't think so. His reaction to anti-semitism in his own party has been lukewarm at best, he openly admitted on having had contact to Paul Eisen and having donated to his organisation. That's a guy calling himself a holocaust denier with proud.

Combine that with his rather partisan views on the middle eastern conflict and his constant refusal to openly speak out against anti-semitism, that's enough for me.
He might not be an anti semit by heart, but he's near enough the line and tolerating enough stuff for me to despise him deeply.
Click to expand...
Claptrap!
 
fcbforever said:
Is it? I don't think so. His reaction to anti-semitism in his own party has been lukewarm at best, he openly admitted on having had contact to Paul Eisen and having donated to his organisation. That's a guy calling himself a holocaust denier with proud.

Combine that with his rather partisan views on the middle eastern conflict and his constant refusal to openly speak out against anti-semitism, that's enough for me.
He might not be an anti semit by heart, but he's near enough the line and tolerating enough stuff for me to despise him deeply.
Click to expand...

Corbyn isn’t an anti-Semite, but he looks at foreign policy sole through the lens of “imperialism”. It is a common feature for politicians on the far-left. They consider themselves anti-imperialists, which means in reality that they embrace anti-Americanism. Consequently, they are apologists for anyone who opposes “imperialism”. Usually their heroes are Russia, China, Hamas, the PLO, FARC, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and various less know terrorist organisations. Anyone who is fighting the virtuous fight is getting their stamp of approval.
 
PedroMendez said:
Corbyn isn’t an anti-Semite, but he looks at foreign policy sole through the lens of “imperialism”. It is a common feature for politicians on the far-left. They consider themselves anti-imperialists, which means in reality that they embrace anti-Americanism. Consequently, they are apologists for anyone who opposes “imperialism”. Usually their heroes are Russia, China, Hamas, the PLO, FARC, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and various less know terrorist organisations. Anyone who is fighting the virtuous fight is getting their stamp of approval.
Click to expand...

I haven't called him an anti-semit and I don't think he is one in the classic "Rothshild Soros financial complex REEEEEEE" sense.
I said he got a soft spot there and he is an apologetic for some if its less radical proposers. And I stand by that, looking at his actions.
And you are right he is coming to that conclusion because of his anti-"imperialist" views. That's the same reason the German Die Linke is party supporting the Venezuelan regime.
 
PedroMendez said:
Corbyn isn’t an anti-Semite, but he looks at foreign policy sole through the lens of “imperialism”. It is a common feature for politicians on the far-left. They consider themselves anti-imperialists, which means in reality that they embrace anti-Americanism. Consequently, they are apologists for anyone who opposes “imperialism”. Usually their heroes are Russia, China, Hamas, the PLO, FARC, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and various less know terrorist organisations. Anyone who is fighting the virtuous fight is getting their stamp of approval.
Click to expand...
I agree with the imperialist lens, but that isn't a lens which necessitates an anti-American view, or an embrace of far left governments. The anti-American sentiment arises from American foreign policy, and resentment of a hegemonic power which refuses to acknowledge itself on those terms. The problem is that American foreign policy has left the Middle East in flames, yet the balance of power remains with America because America is the sole hegemonic military power. For instance, the Iranian deal was met by applause all around the world, except in two places. Israel, and the American far right. And the narrative is about Iranian danger, but that reflects only the tiniest proportion of extremist opinion (the far right, and MIC logic).

The balance has to be redressed in order to hold the most powerful to account, so long as that influence is being used for bellicose ends. Do you think Corbyn is against America, or against American actions in the Middle East? Because there is a clear distinction.

The rise of anti Americanism started post-Reagan. It's not a coincidence that this coincided with the first Gulf War as well as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention lesser military operations in Libya, Syria, and elsewhere). It's a legitimate response to what is often illegitimate (by UN standards) action.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
I agree with the imperialist lens, but that isn't a lens which necessitates an anti-American view, or an embrace of far left governments. The anti-American sentiment arises from American foreign policy, and resentment of a hegemonic power which refuses to acknowledge itself on those terms. The problem is that American foreign policy has left the Middle East in flames, yet the balance of power remains with America because America is the sole hegemonic military power. For instance, the Iranian deal was met by applause all around the world, except in two places. Israel, and the American far right. And the narrative is about Iranian danger, but that reflects only the tiniest proportion of extremist opinion (the far right, and MIC logic).

The balance has to be redressed in order to hold the most powerful to account, so long as that influence is being used for bellicose ends. Do you think Corbyn is against America, or against American actions in the Middle East? Because there is a clear distinction.

The rise of anti Americanism started post-Reagan. It's not a coincidence that this coincided with the first Gulf War as well as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention lesser military operations in Libya, Syria, and elsewhere). It's a legitimate response to what is often illegitimate (by UN standards) action.
Click to expand...

You are either very young or have been living in a completely different place than me.
Because anti-americanism sure as hell didn't start with Reagan, it started much earlier. And with good reason.
But sorry, anti-zionism or whatever you wanna call it isn't fueled by anti-americanism and neither is it sanctioned by the American actions in neighbouring countries. As you were the one claiming that Corbyns contact to Eisen was peripherical: Why would you have ANY contact with someone like that? Is there any reason?

Because yes, I do think the settlement policy of Israel is bullshit and diametral to solvin the conflict. I do think certain actions of the Israeli military have been unjustified and harmful. But if I were to agree with anyone with those views, even the notion of holocaust denial would see me making sure I don't have any kind of contact to that person at all.
 
fcbforever said:
You are either very young or have been living in a completely different place than me.
Because anti-americanism sure as hell didn't start with Reagan, it started much earlier. And with good reason.
But sorry, anti-zionism or whatever you wanna call it isn't fueled by anti-americanism and neither is it sanctioned by the American actions in neighbouring countries. As you were the one claiming that Corbyns contact to Eisen was peripherical: Why would you have ANY contact with someone like that? Is there any reason?
Click to expand...
No, you're right, there was always an anti American sentiment during the Cold War, which was set up as socialism versus capitalism. But that intensified after Soviet collapse left America as the sole superpower, and subsequent American actions in the ME.

Antisemitism is fueled by antisemitism. Racism is racism. The distinction that needs to be made is between criticism of Israel, and criticism of Jewish people. Plenty of the latter engage in the first, plenty constituents of the former ridicule progressive members of the latter.

Eisen was aligned to pro Palestinian cause. His views weren't widely known at the time, otherwise no politician would have been seen with him. It's electoral suicide.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
I agree with the imperialist lens, but that isn't a lens which necessitates an anti-American view, or an embrace of far left governments. The anti-American sentiment arises from American foreign policy, and resentment of a hegemonic power which refuses to acknowledge itself on those terms. The problem is that American foreign policy has left the Middle East in flames, yet the balance of power remains with America because America is the sole hegemonic military power. For instance, the Iranian deal was met by applause all around the world, except in two places. Israel, and the American far right. And the narrative is about Iranian danger, but that reflects only the tiniest proportion of extremist opinion (the far right, and MIC logic).

The balance has to be redressed in order to hold the most powerful to account, so long as that influence is being used for bellicose ends. Do you think Corbyn is against America, or against American actions in the Middle East? Because there is a clear distinction.

The rise of anti Americanism started post-Reagan. It's not a coincidence that this coincided with the first Gulf War as well as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention lesser military operations in Libya, Syria, and elsewhere). It's a legitimate response to what is often illegitimate (by UN standards) action.
Click to expand...

I’d agree with most of what you say. Anti-imperialism and Anti-americanism are not the same thing. US foreign policy deserves a lot of criticism. It becomes Anti-americanism when (almost) anyone, who opposes the USA, is getting praised (or at least their crimes are getting excused). The same goes for Israel, who are seen as the ultimate imperialist nation and consequently almost all their enemies are getting absolved. You don’t need to call Hamas a friend, because you don’t like Israel’s policy towards Palestinians. You don’t need to embrace conspiracy theories and support dictators, just because these dictators are railing against the USA. That’s the line when Anti-Imperialism becomes blatant Anti-Americanism.
 
PedroMendez said:
I’d agree with most of what you say. Anti-imperialism and Anti-americanism are not the same thing. US foreign policy deserves a lot of criticism. It becomes Anti-americanism when (almost) anyone, who opposes the USA, is getting praised (or at least their crimes are getting excused). The same goes for Israel, who are seen as the ultimate imperialist nation and consequently almost all their enemies are getting absolved. You don’t need to call Hamas a friend, because you don’t like Israel’s policy towards Palestinians. You don’t need to embrace conspiracy theories and support dictators, just because these dictators are railing against the USA. That’s the line when Anti-Imperialism becomes blatant Anti-Americanism.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree.
 
PedroMendez said:
I’d agree with most of what you say. Anti-imperialism and Anti-americanism are not the same thing. US foreign policy deserves a lot of criticism. It becomes Anti-americanism when (almost) anyone, who opposes the USA, is getting praised (or at least their crimes are getting excused). The same goes for Israel, who are seen as the ultimate imperialist nation and consequently almost all their enemies are getting absolved. You don’t need to call Hamas a friend, because you don’t like Israel’s policy towards Palestinians. You don’t need to embrace conspiracy theories and support dictators, just because these dictators are railing against the USA. That’s the line when Anti-Imperialism becomes blatant Anti-Americanism.
Click to expand...
This is basically what I was going to post earlier. Most of his time in the commons has been spent on foreign policy issues, and there's been a clear anti-US trend to it. People bring up his (correct) opposition to the Iraq war, but less to his opposition to Kosovo and putting his name to a motion that sought to downplay atrocities committed there.
 
Enjoyed the debates in here today. :boring:
DenisIrwin said:
Click to expand...

Of the wide range of things JC has been criticised for, I don't think 'not meeting people' and 'not talking to enough crowds' have ever been amongst them. This growing idea of the BBC as the enemy for Corbynites is scary.
 
ThierryHenry said:
Enjoyed the debates in here today. :boring:

Of the wide range of things JC has been criticised for, I don't think 'not meeting people' and 'not talking to enough crowds' have ever been amongst them. This growing idea of the BBC as the enemy for Corbynites is scary.
Click to expand...
That's Dr Eoin Clarke for you :lol: He was pushing some very dodgy pie charts the other day.
 
ThierryHenry said:
Enjoyed the debates in here today. :boring:

Of the wide range of things JC has been criticised for, I don't think 'not meeting people' and 'not talking to enough crowds' have ever been amongst them. This growing idea of the BBC as the enemy for Corbynites is scary.
Click to expand...
Iirc, it was Kuesenberg that said something along those lines around the time May's team was accused of "locking local reporters in a small room" in Cornwall. And yes, it is indeed scary that the BBC is seen as anti-Corbyn. It is scary because it is demonstrably factual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.