Yeah but Sure Start.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Yeah, comparisons to former politicians are inherently difficult because of how much things have changed. Attlee had a fondness for the empire that a lot of Labour supporters would balk at today, but probably partly because of the era he came from. I'll maintain that on actual economic policy though he was solidly left and would be considered on the left of the party today if he maintained his economic views from that time-period.
I'm not even against praise for Blair's governments - objectively speaking they achieved plenty even if there are severe criticisms to be made. But someone saying "But Iraq" in an ironic sense strikes me as fairly ignorant and bizarre. I'd understand if the war was someone Blair was unwittingly dragged into by a country determined to go - to the contrary, our involvement was to a significant extent a byproduct of his fairly hawkish approach, his black-and-white worldview when it came to foreign policy, and his belief that he held more sway with Bush and his cabinet than he really did. Indeed his decision to go with the US into Iraq was probably one of the most conviction-laden things he did. On that front it's fair game to criticise him for it because it came as a direct result of his political approach as a leader and his tendency to prefer a select few close advisers as opposed to his cabinet as a whole.
All that will be irrelevant to the next general election, general elections going forward after that and any new centrist Labour movement that might form. That was the posters point I think.
Can someone tell Blair that he'll be irrelevant to Labour before he's back, on any medium that will have him, to tell people to vote for Tories and Lib Dems again, whilst Labour members who back Green party policy on Twitter get kicked out of the party?
Blair is free to say whatever he wants. Does he have any real influence over the party any more?
It's relevant when Oscie talks about the Blair years as a period of unparalleled greatness we need to return to instantly. Ideally we can consign it to the past and I'm not particularly keen on branding all Labour centrists as pro-war Blairites etc. Just that it's relevant if we're considering his merits and drawbacks as a leader.
Apparently enough to be able to get away with considerably worse than your average member, without even a whiff of the threat of expulsion.
He wasn't on the left of the Labour party at the time, and wasn't really one of the driving forces behind the push for nationalisation of industry that was going on. NHS, yes, but remember that came from the recommendations of the Beveridge report, a Lib. There was also massive austerity under his government (obviously not that surprising given the war). Was a weird time in politics, though I guess it's gone back to being pretty weird now.
Surely there's a crusty socialist somewhere in the party with the power to do something about it?
Yeah, suffice to say the war really changed everything. Like a lot of Europe we were massively dependent on the US as well financially.
I don’t understand why you can’t have a form of relevant/updated Blairist moderation at home without the evangelical approach to foreign policy that led to Iraq. This idea that Iraq invalidates the whole domestic approach is just obviously wrong, but it is convenient of hard left types to pretend that it does, as it tars everything with the same brush.
Iraq's generally just the initial point of contention for people who dislike Blair - his economic approach helped domestically in regards to investment but didn't really do anything substantial in regards to reducing inequality between the richest and poorest. He to an extent accepted Thatcher's economic agenda and didn't really do anything to try and shift the paradigm again. This isn't to argue that there weren't benefits to his premiership or that he didn't introduce a lot of positive legislation that the Tories would've strayed away from - quite to the contrary. Nevertheless it's fair to say that he isn't really ideal for anyone who aligns themselves on the left of the political spectrum, and his style of politics works as a substantial compromise at best. Considering recent financial crises and the continuation of economic inequality, centrism isn't exactly popular at the moment and a lot of centrist European political parties have been on the slide due to that. Hard to see any route back into power for a Blair-type politician unless they're oozing charisma. And Labour certainly isn't filled with charismatic prospective leaders as it stands...
Blair actually pumped more money into public services and undertook a bigger redistribution of wealth than Labour were pledged to do under the last election under Corbyn had they won. Going by the last manifesto Cobyn's government would have been far more modest than Blair on most all measurements of 'left-wing' or socialist credentials. Yet we have to pretend that Corbyn's some revolutionary and Blair was 'continuing Thatcher's legacy'
What people want to pretend the last Labour government was vs what it actually was are often to very different things. But then people want to pretend things now are going quite well for the Labour party so all bets are off when it comes to some people's perceptions of reality.
What people want to pretend the last Labour government was vs what it actually was are often to very different things. But then people want to pretend things now are going quite well for the Labour party so all bets are off when it comes to some people's perceptions of reality.
He put a lot into public services but did little to reverse the trends of tax cuts implemented during Thatcher's reign. Income inequality wasn't really tackled substantially at all during his spell in power.
Thatcher herself (I believe, don't have the quote at hand) cited New Labour and Blair as one of her greatest achievements because she successfully managed to shift the economic paradigm and it's remained there ever since.
Blair's first manifesto pledged to mirror the spending plans of the Tories
For the first 3 years, yes. Rightly or wrongly they judged that it's reputation as a 'spend now, ask questions later' party was the biggest threat to the country trusting the Labour party again. In 10 years the (1997-2007) the NHS budget trebled. It went from 4.6% of GDP to 7.5%. Yes the Blair govt had faults yes it wasn't radical enough in many areas but the criticism it gets from the hard of thinking who paint it of 10 years of Thatcher-lite + an "illegal war", is so far wide of the mark it's actually insulting to everyone's intelligence.
EDIT: The GDP figure includes the Brown era too, up to 2010. The overall budget trebling was 1997-2007.
The conflict has never been tried in any international court, it has never been held to be illegal by any recognised authority. Aaron Bastini and George Galloway are not the arbitrators of international conflict. Quotation marks were 100% factually correct.
This is the other thing the hard of thinking struggle with. "I reckon, therefore it is", isn't a thing.
This is the other thing the hard of thinking struggle with. "I reckon, therefore it is", isn't a thing.
Even if it wasn't an illegal war it was still a reprehensible and unjustifiable one which led to countless deaths and hasn't resolved anything more than a decade later. I don't think anyone would really seek to defend it now.
So Henry Kissinger is perfectly fine individual for you then ?
You say that but Cameron governed from the Blair playbook until Brexit. They called him 'the master' and Blair's book was required reading amongst his ministers. Blair did shift the terms of the debate. His kind of triangulation is out of fashion but I suspect not for long, once the current bunch of charlatans and incompetents are shown up.
That's because income inequality wasn't seen as the issue of the day back then, the alarmingly high rates of pensioner and child poverty were the pressing social ills. Which were targeted with re-distributive policies like tax credits and the winter fuel allowance, with some success - https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6738
There's a strong argument to say they didn't go near as far as they could have given the majority they had, but they'd also gotten that majority on the back of a manifesto, which they followed.
I think that's fair. But it's a point worthy of sensible debate which demonstrably isn't possible here. Blair's domestic legacy was not perfect by any stretch. Progress was made in some areas, less so in others. In the olden-days we used to use pragmatism to judge these things in the round.
Now it's hysterical, common-room politics where imperfect is traitorous, disagreements intolerable
Last edited:
I don't get the cult going after Watson. Corbyn seems to have acknowledge a problem with antisemtiism, which the cult lauded as some eminently wonderful work by the messiah. Watson follows that up by acknowledging the party has a problem with antisemtiism and the cult now see him as a traitor who should resign.
Even in the context of these being people who self-harm the image of the Dear Leader's face into their forearms each morning, that's a little illogical isn't it?
Even in the context of these being people who self-harm the image of the Dear Leader's face into their forearms each morning, that's a little illogical isn't it?
The same objective pragmatism you use when discussing Corbyn?
I do think some posters can often be immediately dismissive of opposing points in a way which doesn't necessarily help, but at the same time people on either end of the political spectrum haven't just become more divided and polarised because they feel like it - people are being increasingly driven towards that because of persistent inequality, austerity, and a variety of other factors which has resulted in their quality of life declining or stagnating. This is especially true among the young, who're often condescendingly told to just get on with it. The mainstream wings of the most prominent political parties haven't offered those who are struggling anything more than fairly meek solutions that don't address the core issues which have resulted in certain problems. Hence they're looking outside that. I feel like that's something that needs to be acknowledged when discussing Corbyn etc. I don't think he's perfect by any means, but I think a lot of points those who subscribe to his general ideals make are bang on the money, and if you're a lifelong Labour supporter who endured years where the party didn't align to your beliefs but got on with it due to compromise, then being told the opposite now they're in power again can seem rather frustrating. This is true here but especially prevalent in the US, where moderate centrists haven't been able to halt the march of an increasingly extreme and radical Republican party.
Self harm 'gags' now. Blimey.
The people going after Watson are not helping Corbyn's case.
I'm not sure they care about helping Corbyn's case. Someone who did would be concerned about his and the party's cause to grow and to attract more people and win over more voters. Everything I observe from how the hardcore Corbyn base behave indicates they couldn't give less of a shit about any of that. They're quite happy to tell people to leave the party unless they're already fully converted. They want it effectively to be a safe space for people who already agree on one thing and that one thing has to be how utterly brilliant Jeremy Corbyn is.
What gets me is the reluctance for even the normal ones among his fanbase to accept how weird and a bit creepy it all is; complaining about the use of the word 'cult' one minute and the next screaming hysterically that someone should be excluded from the party they've been a member of for 50 years because some 19 year old airhead who has been politically aware for 5 minutes has decided he wants his party back. Usually citing Michael Foot and Tony Benn, two people they almost certainly know absolutely nothing about.
It's odd he isn't putting himself out there for questioning on this matter. I'm not a huge fan of politicians like Corbyn and Trump bypassing the media and communicating only through an open platform on social media where they can not only completely control the message but their can eliminate and questioning of it.
There'll be people who want to argue when Trump does it it's awful but when Corbyn does it it's brilliant - but it's shit when anyone does it. Generally there's a growing trend of politicians either only speaking with the media when they know the person asking the question is onside, or just releasing Tweets/YouTube videos or making speeches that nobody has the opportunity to question you on.
There'll be people who want to argue when Trump does it it's awful but when Corbyn does it it's brilliant - but it's shit when anyone does it. Generally there's a growing trend of politicians either only speaking with the media when they know the person asking the question is onside, or just releasing Tweets/YouTube videos or making speeches that nobody has the opportunity to question you on.
Not sure quite how much I believe the Express though
It would be a strange general election if we held one today. The usual wisdom is that the divided party loses, but in this case both major parties are divided.
Only the Express running with that story. Refuse to believe it until more credible papers run with it.
I'm not Corbyn's biggest fan but there is absolutely no benefit to having another leadership debate right now .It's totally the wrong time.
Why can't this fecking party stop making unforced errors?
This anti semitism row should be done with.
Why can't this fecking party stop making unforced errors?
This anti semitism row should be done with.
But that would require Corbyn supporters angrily posting anti Semitic conspiracy theories on Twitter and Facebook to admit they were wrong.
Interesting numbers
Whatever your views on the respective merits of allegations against the Labour party there is absolutely no denying that a huge proportion (if not the majority) of reactions to them from Corbyn supporters on social media has been to blame a right-wing secretive cabal of Jews who control the media narrative. If you don't believe me spend five minutes on Twitter or on the comments from any Momentum post on Facebook about it.
Denying there's any anti-semitism in the Labour party by using one of the oldest, textbook examples of antisemitism is a ballsy move if nothing else.
It's social media though so it could literally be anyone - example
And recent polling showed anti semitism among Labour member since 2015 has actual gone down(Of course any anti semitism to much too). So the idea the anti semitism has shot up since Corbyn and left took over the party is just untrue.
Also I think your missing the actual debate/fight in the party which is over the use of the IHRA, some MPs want the party to adopt the full IHRA wording but other MPs think adopting the full wording will discriminate against Palestine activists as the full wording say it's anti semitic to describe Israel as a racist state.