those wanting Labour 'to go down the middle'
How did that work out with the last election?
How did that work out with the last election?
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Do you not see that an unwise isolationism can be as harmful as wrongful intervention? It is merely a self-serving ideology of another kind, one which presumably seeks to shield a politician from risk and responsibility. Of course if one's inaction allows death to occur on a large scale, the individual must own their role in that out come just the same.
He had decades of conflicts from which to cite an example of justified intervention: Korea, the Falklands, Sierra Leone, RAF sorties against IS in Iraq e.t.c.
For how many of the above could the Labour leader be relied upon?
Worked out well for Chamberlain, after all.
Getting involved in other peoples wars is a complete waste of time, just like bailing out bankrupt countries, pointless and not a vote catcher for me.
Yes, he got that appeasement thing wrong in dealings with Hitler, and Churchill was right about that. Shame that Churchill, after following Atlee as PM, later decided to help the CIA overthrow the democratic government in Iran and support the Shah. History shows that meddling in middle east regime change in order to ensure access to oil worked out less well.
Sometimes war can't be avoided. No one is saying it can in all circumstances. I personally feel Hitler's rise to power was aided by the bellicose attitudes of other European leaders in the previous couple of decades - although he was a particularly fecked up human being.
Oh come on, don't confuse them further. They're already doing mental gymnastics to follow a campaign that has John McTernan among its backers, while simultaneously claiming it to be more electable than the alternative.
They didn't go down the middle. On a number of policies, especially around austerity, the Balls/Miliband manifesto is inseparable from Corbyn's approach. What failed in 2015 was the lack of a coherent narrative (there was an anti-austerity manifesto, with a pro-austerity message), a weak leader seen as not suitable for a PM, language which was tough on immigration that was not believed and not backed up with any policies or ideas (those ridiculous mugs aside), and such leaden-footed strategy that they were attacked from the right by UKIP/Tories, from the left by UKIP/SNP, and did not (or were incapable) of responding to this. All symptoms of being a party of organised labour in an age where organised labour no longer has the power it once did.
Iroinies for me from the last year:
- Labour politicians and members realising that Labour has a woman problem.
- Labour politicians and members realising that Labour has a problem with anti-semitism.
- Labour politicians and members blaming both of the above on Corbyn, conveniently ignoring the fact that these issues are longstanding and have been ignored for years by those self-same politicians and members.
- Labour politicians and members realising that Labour has a woman problem.
- Labour politicians and members realising that Labour has a problem with anti-semitism.
- Labour politicians and members blaming both of the above on Corbyn, conveniently ignoring the fact that these issues are longstanding and have been ignored for years by those self-same politicians and members.
The speech was from August 2014.
The Telegraph report it here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-for-nato-to-be-closed-down-and-members-to-g/
The full video is here (he called for NATO to have been dissolved in 1990 and replaced with the OCSE):
Even funnier when the alternative to Corbyn wants to have talks round the table with ISIS.
"NATO is an engine for the delivery of oil to the oil companies and the main nations of this world. Make no illusions about that".
@ around 4.20
@ around 4.20
Yes.Even funnier when the alternative to Corbyn wants to have talks round the table with ISIS.
Conservative writer Peter Hitchens(Who's a bit of an arse most of the time) mentions something similar, how MP's on both sides seems to think they are always Winston Churchill fighting the Nazi and maybe more importantly the constant belief in the ''Good War''.
Last edited:
Firstly, if we're already under attack then we're presumably fecked. Retaliating with nukes that will kill millions of civilians is atrocious and barbaric.
Secondly, don't you think an enemy should be able to deduce that we won't actually retaliate unless we have an utterly careless, uncaring person for a prime minister? And if they're just mad enough to do it anyway, they probably don't care about their civilian casualties.
feck the so-called "deterrent". It's a waste of space and money.
exactly.
Unilateral disarmement will lead to others disarming.
Nukes are not not a deterrent.
The argument always seem to portray it as the only detterent. As if we dont have enough conventional weaponary to respond in force, never mind they'd be facing a global response in this day and age.
I dont think there's much argument around this issue as people are vert set on their ideals. I guess those in favour would read a peice of a paper and nuke millions, i definitely wouldn't.
That certainly was one issue in 2015. It definitely played a part in relation to economic competence, in part immigration. The economic competence argument was lost in part because of Labour not challenging the Tory's narrative about the cause of the financial crisis, instead focusing on Iraq and how Ed, rather than David, had better judgment because of the fact he wasn't an MP then so didn't vote for the action. I still maintain that naval gazing has helped ruin the lives of millions in the UK through a failure to stand up to austerity, and challenge the austerity narrative built up by Osborne against Labour in 2010. That's an unpopular view, but so be it.
Now I know I have answered a different point from the one you made, but I thought it was a point worth making.
Here's the rub though. The following men have won an electoral majority for Labour:
- Tony Blair
- Harold Wilson
- Clement Attlee
How many of these men won a majority on a 'left' manifesto? Wilson and Blair have long been the target of critics from the Left for being too centrist/right-wing.
Attlee built the bomb, joined NATO, the Korean War and many other belligerent actions. Even the flagship policy - the NHS - was an extension of Conservative policy, not a radical break from it. Ditto universal education.
Now, the key question for me is how a Labour Party can win a majority under FPTP when they are swimming against the predomanant political tide, not in its general direction, on policies which (when measured against the political centre of the age) place them (relatively) to the left of Blair and Wilson.
Regardless of who is in charge, that needs to be answered.
fact is even if one side used nukes, they themselves will be affected by the fallout...at least.
There is No reason to completely destroy millions of people.
Complete nucklear disarmement is possible.
There is No reason to completely destroy millions of people.
Complete nucklear disarmement is possible.
The main area to address is how we pay for socialist policies. And we can. The economic argument is important. To honestly say that Trickle Down Economics (TDE) which is where the Austerity arguments comes in, is a lie.
Its not about Left or Right. Its about Facts.
TDE is propaganda. Simple. Of course there is waste. We need to address that always. I do believe NATO is more a reason why we have to fear Russia.
I don't understand. I actually believe the "left" strives to support the 95% being exploited by the 5%. I know the 5% are extremely powerful and control MSM etc., but still - there should be enough in the 95% that see the injustice and are not prepared to put up with it to win a GE. What am I missing?
The highlighted statement is why I was so angry/annoyed/resigned (delete as appropriate) at Corbyn/McDonnell's failure to make use of the Economic Advisory Panel. When you have Stiglitz, Blanchflower, Mazzucato, Piketty et al signed on to create workable policies which can create a dynamic State which can work via the private sector whilst opposing austerity, you really, really shouldn't mess it up.
However, TDE and austerity are not inextricably linked. Again, Attlee and Wilson undertook austerity measures, and TDE operated through the 'roaring nineties' as well. And my point is not that the only alternative to a 'left' manifesto is TDE. That is plainly not true. Just look at the economists who offered their services to the advisory panel. However, the fact is that the UK electorate have, since the War, not elected a government who adopted a 'left' manifesto. Would costing the policies convince people? I am not sure. But then, that is the debate that we should be having on the Left in this country.
Well, electoral history does not support this. The UK remains a small 'c' conservative country in that respect. However, I do know that the centre can move, and it is possible for an unpopular doctrine to gain widespread acceptance (see the Chicago School of economics for one). That usually takes decades, rather than years, though.
The other point is that the argument you put forward (one which is shared by many) does come close to a form of 'false consciousness' analysis you find in Marx. That the 95% will join the movement once they see the injustice. Again, the historical evidence does not bear this out, and it also can assume that the arguments being offered for solving a nation's problems are the right ones, and the opposite side in the argument are offering the wrong arguments. It doesn't really factor in human agency, and issues relating to why people may actually disagree with your side's arguments yet still feel that they support your causes through different means. To be a little less obtuse - many people feel that voting Conservative is the best way to make people - rich and poor - better off. To form a government under FPTP, Labour needs to convince these voters that Labour offers a better alternative. That takes work, not just talking in the abstract (which is not an accusation of you, but one issue I have with Corbyn's media and political strategy to date).
What about massively increasing stamp duty on 2nd and subsequent properties to favour homebuyers over private rent landlords seeking to extend their property portfolios? That would increase revenue whilst at the same time empowering those striving to own their own homes. I think it makes sense.
The pledge to build loads of new energy efficient houses also has to be a good move to both ease the housing crisis and stimulate the construction sector, etc..
It seems to me there are loads of ideas like these that just make sense and do no harm - except to those that profit from the current situation where low interest rates, high rents, and high demand stimulate buy-to-let private landlords being supported by increasing housing benefit payments.
Cheers bud.
The "Afghanistan isn't in the North Atlantic" line is unbelievable. He's either dense with no idea about article 5 or a liar.
The big issue with housing is land. Here is a long read, but interesting nonetheless: http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/10/land-tax-labour-britain
The policies you mention are certainly intriguing prospects, but do miss the bigger picture I think (not that they may not help in some regard). We need hundreds of thousands of new properties. Housing policy could be changed in a number of ways to assist (more high rise properties, for instance, as London has some of the lowest housing density for any major city on the planet). A land tax could help in this regard too.
I did cringe when I listened to it (like I did with Smith made his ridiculous 'negotiate with ISIS' pledge).
Being charitable, it looks like Corbyn is speaking from the heart and in the heat of the moment at a political rally. Many of the points he makes are reasonable in terms of a broadly pacifist view (People can always disagree as to whether they are idealistic etc). However, he does jump the shark with more than a few lines. What I found most interesting was the introduction - it sounded like most people needed to be told who this man was and what he stood for at the time (at least that is how the MC's intro sounded to me). Perhaps he was going for a killer line, knowing that as a backbench MP that was how he could ensure coverage? I don't know...
The key is to bring in economists from different sectors. The goal that should be given is to ensure the least number of people suffer. Obviously the vast majority of ordinary people are the ones that are affected.
His career basically was speaking at anti-war rallies prior to last year, that was probably his equivalent of a stump speech. Usual anti-west stuff, Russia annexing Crimea is a like-for-like reaction to NATO expansion etc.
The Economic Advisory Council seems to fit this remit: http://press.labour.org.uk/post/129975218774/labour-announces-new-economic-advisory-committee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Advisory_Committee
The one positive is that those who remain seem happy to keep advising the party after September. They really, really need to be listened to.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/thomas-piketty-quits-as-adviser-to-jeremy-corbyn
cheers @Frosty
Not sure Wren-Lewis will be back - http://www.theguardian.com/politics...remy-corbyn-cant-win-next-election-owen-smith
None of them have been particularly complimentary about McDonnell's use of it.
He does seem to know a lot about it - as you would expect from someone that has spent his entire life thinking and speaking about the subject. Who is to say really - he might know a bit more about the subject than you or I.
In these debates, my question is always...'What do you do once in power?'
How do the policies that we plan to implement help the vast majority.
The economy Is the welfare of ordinary people.
How do the policies that we plan to implement help the vast majority.
The economy Is the welfare of ordinary people.
I was genuinely excited when it was announced. There was such an opportunity to do something fantastic with it. There still is, given half a chance. To be honest, I hold McDonnell more responsible than Corbyn for its failure. He didn't take it seriously enough.
Sorry to sound like an ITK, but I actually know one of the SPADs who works for McDonnell. The report was not flattering. He is interested in posturing more than policy. Apparently everyone tried to talk him out of the stunt with the Little Red Book, but he went ahead with it anyway.
After September he really needs to focus on policy constructively, working with the EA Council and business and unions to offer a credible alternative.
Rather a facile argument, unless you believe that one wrong must beget others out of a misguided penance.
Maybe you can point to an scenario where Corbyn could be relied upon to act? Something comparable to the Rwandan genocide or the Congolese wars perhaps, or would he fall short even then?
Congratz... you just disproved game theory
Its a bit much when even the Daily Mail are slagging off Smiths attempts and declaring him worse than Corbyn. To think all these terribly electable and qualified Labour MPs who care so much about the party stood aside and let Eagle and Smith challenge.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...tent-Owen-Smith-s-house-cards-collapsing.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...tent-Owen-Smith-s-house-cards-collapsing.html
Jeremy Corbyn or anyone else who would be PM would act accordingly in such a situation. This left is soft on military action rhetoric is tired and cliched. Playing to your political base whilst in opposition is entirely different to being the countries leader. You know this well