Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
...just in case it doesn't get reported in MSM
That is impressive .And in bad weather to.
Oh come on. I'm active on a few Bernie websites. What gets me most angry is this opinion that anyone an inch to your right is your mortal enemy, a shill for corporates, and a climber who's forgotten his roots. It's possible to have different points of view, and even as someone who'd love the symbolism of a Corbyn victory, I can see just from this thread (and from reading Owen Jones himself) that he has a million problems as a leader.
They had to close Lime Street I heard.
Yeah so I'll just leave this here
Good questioning from Guru-Murthy there. When's Corbyn going on?
Absolutely spot on. Most on here seem to be obsessed with pointing out any spec of hypocrisy and not focusing on the bigger problems.
Labour's problem with immigration is that when they aren't for it (which I'm fine with) they're saying shit like "it should be on the table". On the table. Like my gran's brussel sprouts are "on the table" at Christmas, where they stay until someone chucks them while she's not looking.
I want to believe in Smith, but I'm not sure how much I do. My main worry is that he's not clever enough to position himself in the way he's trying to, as a populist, soft-left, competent leader. He just looks like he's trying to say what people want to hear in answer to every question than that he has something genuine to say. Look at his answer to the Brexit question at 4:50 - what is he saying? What does any of that actually mean? I've been annoyed since his ludicrous manifesto to be honest, I just want a believable, logical Labour politician who has a realistic view of their party and country, and the ability to coherently argue their position. Clearly, far too much to ask.
Still, he'll do less damage than Jez, no question there. Maybe we'll only lose the next election by 100 seats...
Yup. And there's no reason you can't be left-wing and wish immigration was lower.
Aye you can wish it was lower but I don't think you can put that wish into practice - if you aren't sure yourself you can tell it by the completely unconvincing way in which they speak on the matter.
Genie's out of the bottle, I fear.
I wouldn't say no question. Owen Smith's leadership is a Pandora's box to me. I don't quite know what we'll get out of it.
The soft left of the Labour Party are facing the same problem the Party as a whole faced in the last election when it came to voters who wanted tougher immigration rules. Why vote for something in between when there's a real alternative - UKIP (Although in this case it's a real Left alternative - Corbyn)
How do you mean? That it would be impossible to convince the public that Labour would be a party to vote for if they had a desire to cut immigration?
If so, I agree. We're probably lost to those people for a generation, and there's nothing that can be done. Knowing zero about German Politics, I wonder if the same is going to happen to Angela Merkl's CDU party.
Yup.
Well I do think that it would be very hard for Labour to convince much of the public that they are the right ones to cut immigration.
But truthfully what I mean is that I think those in power want immigration at its current levels right now. Maybe someone who knows more on the subject can put me right but it seems to me like the political establishment benefit the most from it.
Yep, they seem to think that when some voters show some anti-immigrant sentiment, they'll be able to win them back merely be saying they should be slightly tougher on immigration. The problem is that it's almost a tad patronising. Those who are switching from Labour to UKIP don't just want a slightly tougher party on immigration, who vaguely promise to do something about it. They want an actual alternative, who they believe really will take strong action on the issue.
At least Corbyn's open and honest in his extremely open pro-immigration stance. What does Smith really believe on it? When he says it should be on the table...well, what? 100k net for year? 10k? 250k? We don't know...and I suspect we never would, because it'd only be a ploy to try and get the party elected. I'm fine with a politician being more hardline on immigration if they wish to be, but Smith metaphorically reducing the overall number coming in by about 23 isn't anymore hardline and isn't going to win back UKIP sympathisers.
Problem is, what is a realistic view of the Labour party? According to the membership, it's not a sort of centre-left, moderate type party with a wide appeal...but at the same time, the wider voting base clearly does not see it as this socialist type party that Corbyn would ideally like it to be. The fundamental problem for Labour is that there is no sole, popular view of what the party can be. Which is what happens when you mix centrists with socialists, and pacifist types with those who favour foreign intervention, nukes etc. I'm sure there are stronger Labour MP's than Smith out there...but there is not one who will be able to provide a single, strong, unified view of the party.
Same can be said for the country. What's a realistic view of Britain? We don't even know if Britain will exist in its current form in, say, 20 years, and we don't know where our relations will be in regards to the EU and other such matters.
lots of moving parts.
Watching the interview, it's really, really bad. Like the sort of thing Corbyn would find himself being slated for.
I'm not actually sure if Smith knows himself what he intends to do. He talks about immigration being high in too many areas of the country, for example, but refuses to commit to any plans on the matter, instead arguing that an honest conversation should be had. This is effectively him trying to appeal to anti-immigrant voters, without doing anything about the issue. His statement about immigration being too high in certain areas is a bit meaningless, because it's not as if you can just restrict people to certain areas of the country if they wish to move and have the means of doing so.
Then there's his EU plans. He plans to negotiate toughly on the Europe, but doesn't intend to negotiate at all...because he doesn't even plan for us to leave! He's not just going to overturn it immediately, though, because he's going to wait until it's the right time or until he has a precedent to do so. This is all, again, meaningless because he's not committing to anything, while saying he'll do about five different contradictory things in the process. The contradictions are like a satirical Thick of It sketch.
It's also incredibly, incredibly daft if he intends to win back UKIP sympathisers and people who voted Leave due to immigration. Incredibly patronising and dishonest, too. He's trying to appeal to them and make them feel listened to by being tougher on immigration, yet simultaneously argues that we should eventually ignore their decision on the EU...because of course Labour supporters and members will eventually do what they're told by the MP's. That tends to work out well.
I'm not actually sure if Smith knows himself what he intends to do. He talks about immigration being high in too many areas of the country, for example, but refuses to commit to any plans on the matter, instead arguing that an honest conversation should be had. This is effectively him trying to appeal to anti-immigrant voters, without doing anything about the issue. His statement about immigration being too high in certain areas is a bit meaningless, because it's not as if you can just restrict people to certain areas of the country if they wish to move and have the means of doing so.
Then there's his EU plans. He plans to negotiate toughly on the Europe, but doesn't intend to negotiate at all...because he doesn't even plan for us to leave! He's not just going to overturn it immediately, though, because he's going to wait until it's the right time or until he has a precedent to do so. This is all, again, meaningless because he's not committing to anything, while saying he'll do about five different contradictory things in the process. The contradictions are like a satirical Thick of It sketch.
It's also incredibly, incredibly daft if he intends to win back UKIP sympathisers and people who voted Leave due to immigration. Incredibly patronising and dishonest, too. He's trying to appeal to them and make them feel listened to by being tougher on immigration, yet simultaneously argues that we should eventually ignore their decision on the EU...because of course Labour supporters and members will eventually do what they're told by the MP's. That tends to work out well.
Watching the interview, it's really, really bad. Like the sort of thing Corbyn would find himself being slated for.
I'm not actually sure if Smith knows himself what he intends to do. He talks about immigration being high in too many areas of the country, for example, but refuses to commit to any plans on the matter, instead arguing that an honest conversation should be had. This is effectively him trying to appeal to anti-immigrant voters, without doing anything about the issue. His statement about immigration being too high in certain areas is a bit meaningless, because it's not as if you can just restrict people to certain areas of the country if they wish to move and have the means of doing so.
Then there's his EU plans. He plans to negotiate toughly on the Europe, but doesn't intend to negotiate at all...because he doesn't even plan for us to leave! He's not just going to overturn it immediately, though, because he's going to wait until it's the right time or until he has a precedent to do so. This is all, again, meaningless because he's not committing to anything, while saying he'll do about five different contradictory things in the process. The contradictions are like a satirical Thick of It sketch.
It's also incredibly, incredibly daft if he intends to win back UKIP sympathisers and people who voted Leave due to immigration. Incredibly patronising and dishonest, too. He's trying to appeal to them and make them feel listened to by being tougher on immigration, yet simultaneously argues that we should eventually ignore their decision on the EU...because of course Labour supporters and members will eventually do what they're told by the MP's. That tends to work out well.
Well said.
Yeah but Owen has got a tie on.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-greens-caroline-lucas-brighton-a7169686.html
Interesting article in the Indie today regarding a possible electoral pacts with the Greens.
Interesting article in the Indie today regarding a possible electoral pacts with the Greens.
And still a bad idea.
Watched the Hustings. Can't see Smith getting my vote and I think Corbyn will win based off that performance. Oh well.
If Corbyn wins the leadership election and then loses a general election later this year, I wonder if Clive Lewis would be ready for the step up, he'd definitely have the backing of the membership and would probably be more appealing to the wider public.
If he could get the nominations and Corbyn's endorsement, he could probably win a leadership contest. If Labour slip to 180 MPs next election, the nomination threshold would be 27 which would possibly be doable for him, if he was the left's agreed candidate.
Main trouble would be that, in a uniform swing from Labour to the Tories, he'd be in severe danger of losing his own seat.
While that's all the usual conspiracy nonsense, the thing I find most interesting is that someone came up with the name "Global Center for Advanced Studies" with a straight face.
"I agree with Jeremy"
If true
If true
Presumably they're worried about the drubbing he'd receive being too comprehensive and convincing, then? Better to brood in the shadows and plan for the next backstabbing instead of suffering something like an 80-20 defeat.
This further reinforces the idea for me that anyone who thinks replacing Corbyn with someone like Smith will result in any greater competency is in for a big shock. The planning and execution of this coup has gone beyond embarrassing.
"Labour insider". Looks legit.
Richard Seymour is pretty close to the Corbyn side of Labour at least.
But yes it could be a load of bollocks.
I'm struggling to figure out what my party's identity is nowadays. I agree with a lot of the things Corbyn stands for but it's difficult to agree with what he says sometimes because very rarely does he get his point across in a direct way. Whether or not that's because of media coverage or not isn't really the major issue for me, it's more to do with him and his party not having a clear message - the internal fighting doesn't help. What I'm basically trying to say is that the party is fecked at the moment and there's more than one problem.