Terrific performance from Corbyn at PMQs today
Why can't he do that every week?
Why can't he do that every week?
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Mayday Mayday. The lackey is floundering. The lackey is floundering.
Was good to see him pull out the issue of the day. Too often they choose something they want to discuss when there's another story they could have fed a news cycle.
Not to say raising awareness on other issues isn't important but it should be selectively implemented.
May is fecking shit isn't she? She's getting such an easy ride at the moment, I don't understand it at all.
Got schooled by Corbyn.
Go on Jez. Promising signs, he's looking increasingly confident.
Mayday Mayday. The lackey is floundering. The lackey is floundering.
Mayday Mayday. The lackey is floundering. The lackey is floundering.
Reed and Danczuk ffs
More like this pleaseAs bad as he's been I honestly think he's improved a lot in general. Despite benefiting from the audience a tad, he was streets ahead of Smith on QT last week and looked so much more calm, composed and confident than him.
I don't think he's ever going to be that viable because of his dodgy history in regards to the IRA, but if he can become more savvy (which he's shown signs of) and surround himself with more apt people (ie, get rid of McDonnell and Abbott), then he's got a chance of doing alright. Of course I doubt that'll happen because even after he wins the leadership election the party will no doubt still struggle to back him and will be lying in wait for the next time they can turn on him.
I don't think he's ever going to be that viable because of his dodgy history in regards to the IRA, but if he can become more savvy (which he's shown signs of) and surround himself with more apt people (ie, get rid of McDonnell and Abbott), then he's got a chance of doing alright. Of course I doubt that'll happen because even after he wins the leadership election the party will no doubt still struggle to back him and will be lying in wait for the next time they can turn on him.
Impressive
I think their the only two people in the party that actually like him, got to have someone on your side.
Even the fecking Guardian have done a peice praising his performance
Im still convinced relationships have been repaired in the background and for the immediate period the Labour MPs will back him. They weren't taken with Smith and they must know the damage continued assault would do.
Im still convinced relationships have been repaired in the background and for the immediate period the Labour MPs will back him. They weren't taken with Smith and they must know the damage continued assault would do.
Caroline Flint seemed to be distancing herself from Smith's EU referendum idea today and did a bit of Corbsplaining too, which I found interesting.Even the fecking Guardian have done a peice praising his performance
Im still convinced relationships have been repaired in the background and for the immediate period the Labour MPs will back him. They weren't taken with Smith and they must know the damage continued assault would do.
He's certainly growing into the roll. Needs to keep it up with the follow up questions.
Wow she got torn a new one
It's not a conspiracy that when Corbyn is absolutely village - as he has been for the majority of his leadership - the commentariat are resoundly against him and when he sticks to the script and plays PMQs as they are designed for (like today), battering May for the utter shambles of a policy more selection is, then they give him the praise he deserves.
If he had done this before and not dithered about doing nothing to secure his support within the PLP (arrogantly assuming people had to support the leader) he could have actually started shaping labour in his own image with a much larger backing.
Politics is all about compromise in order to reach a common ground that a party can agree on and appeal to the electorate. Today's PMQs, he stuck to the script and hammered the PM. Was glorious when he quoted Cameron back to May. His congratulations for the unity among education officials was good too. If only he'd bothered being this brutal on a range of other topics...
If he had done this before and not dithered about doing nothing to secure his support within the PLP (arrogantly assuming people had to support the leader) he could have actually started shaping labour in his own image with a much larger backing.
Politics is all about compromise in order to reach a common ground that a party can agree on and appeal to the electorate. Today's PMQs, he stuck to the script and hammered the PM. Was glorious when he quoted Cameron back to May. His congratulations for the unity among education officials was good too. If only he'd bothered being this brutal on a range of other topics...
Come on Jeremy
Here you go:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...eve-jeremy-corbyn-i-cant-believe-seumas-milne
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/features-december-2015-michael-mosbacher-seumas-milne-jeremy-corbyn
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/40bgkf/private_eye_1409_stalin_grad_a_brief_history_of/
https://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/seamas-milne-on-stalins-missing-millions/
http://www.politico.eu/article/stalinist-voice-of-labour-seumas-milne-jeremy-corbyn-putin/
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/seumas-mil...eves-about-stalin-milosevic-lee-rigby-1525040
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/back-in-the-ussr-jeremy-corbyn-hires-seumas-milne/
https://usefulstooges.com/2015/10/30/whitewashing-stalin-seumas-milne/
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/10/2...olarising-bear-pit-god-help-the-labour-party/
http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2014/03/12/seamus-milnes-shoddy-arguments-putin
https://leftfootforward.org/2015/03/projecting-the-kremlin-line/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/21/britain-s-new-pr-master-is-a-soviet-apologist.html
http://labourlist.org/2015/10/seumas-milne-lands-top-corbyn-job/
Also on Milne:
Very strong performance today at PMQs too. Hopefully this will lead to a reversal of the policy in due course.
Jez kicking Owens ass on Sky right now! One hour live debate
Owen comes across as a smarmy snide in a shiny suit who thinks intellect is too smart for Corbyn.
Except he isn't smarter than Corbyn at all. He's a bully.
Except he isn't smarter than Corbyn at all. He's a bully.
They both are, Owen more himself, Corbyn with his allies (most generous use of that term ever)
He isn't as smart as the podium he's stood behind.
Owen's only strategy seems to be 'Jez,I don't like you'.
I want to punch him.
I want to punch him.
Who'd have thought that bringing up Tony Blair would divide a room of Labour members? What did he ever do wrong?
Oh and Owen Smith claiming he's not got involved in divisive comments is his finest moment yet. What a performer.
Oh and Owen Smith claiming he's not got involved in divisive comments is his finest moment yet. What a performer.
Christ, Smith is appalling. He goes onto Corbyn's dissent with previous leaders...but the problem for him with that is that it plays straight into Corbyn's hands since he's immediately able to rhyme off a bunch of good stuff he did agree with...and his major, central disagreement was Iraq...which he's firmly justified in.
Then he gets onto the petty stuff of Corbyn not condemning abuse and booing enough...which again doesn't have much of a basis because Corbyn's condemned it (even if it's not been enough), meaning Smith doesn't have much to actually go on.
His whole challenge is...well, what is it? I have no idea. He admits he has a lot in common with Corbyn. As soon as that's the case there's just no reasonable case for a full-scale party rebellion. None at all. If you rebel against your party leader then there's got to be some actual, long-term disagreements with that person's central vision, unless they've done something genuinely awful. Smith's 'credibility' argument just makes him come across like a complete and utter dick because he condescends to Corbyn in the process by painting Corbyn as some sort of weird, strange other. And he only looks like even more of a dick when he fails to actually show this, because he's not that intelligent at all and has probably fared worse in these contests than Corbyn.
Then he gets onto the petty stuff of Corbyn not condemning abuse and booing enough...which again doesn't have much of a basis because Corbyn's condemned it (even if it's not been enough), meaning Smith doesn't have much to actually go on.
His whole challenge is...well, what is it? I have no idea. He admits he has a lot in common with Corbyn. As soon as that's the case there's just no reasonable case for a full-scale party rebellion. None at all. If you rebel against your party leader then there's got to be some actual, long-term disagreements with that person's central vision, unless they've done something genuinely awful. Smith's 'credibility' argument just makes him come across like a complete and utter dick because he condescends to Corbyn in the process by painting Corbyn as some sort of weird, strange other. And he only looks like even more of a dick when he fails to actually show this, because he's not that intelligent at all and has probably fared worse in these contests than Corbyn.
the anti semitism was swiftly swept under the carpet
Smith describing the current govt as radical right wing is fairly bonkers
Smith describing the current govt as radical right wing is fairly bonkers
None of those links actually suggest that he is a Stalinist. About the only thing that backs up the comment you're seeking to reify, is a suggestion by Milne that Stalin wasn't as bad as Hitler. That's hardly being a Stalinist, is it?
Heidl Alexander is a moron. As is anyone supporting Smith. Anyone in mainstream politics, that is.
Sky is a joke.
This blog post presents the argument more concisely than I could manage at this hour: http://modies.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/milne-on-ussr.html
Radical right is daft but there's no doubt that as the Conservative's position is more and more assured as the left bicker, they are moving further and further away from centre-right as they test the water with various issues.
This Grammar School business with May, 10 years ago they'd never have tried it as it's the sort of thing that could really lose centrist votes. Now they just don't give a feck and will be attempting more and more controversial moves knowing that it won't be enough to force enough swing voters away from them.
Ed Balls was correct - there is no point offering such a challenge to the party members. It is no real choice. Smith has aped Corbyn rather than offer a centre-left alternative which could have allowed for a proper debate on policy. That, and the decision to introduce a cut-off for voting (which, ironically, Corbyn could have done something about if he stayed in the room) were major errors. As there is no debate on policy, the issues have turned increasingly personal.
Even that blog post is factually unsound. It asserts that Stalin was as responsible for World War Two as Hitler. That's some extremely dodgy historiography at work -- aside from that, it offers no new evidence of Milne being a Stalinist.
The author also doesn't understand the term "neo-liberalism".
My rule of thumb is that if it doesn't have any references, it usually isn't worth reading.
Well, if all the links don't do it for you (and, to be honest, they are just the first two pages worth of a cursory Google search), and the Private Eye coverage too, then I think we need to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
For me, Milne was an individual who held Stalinist views in his youth, and has promoted a revisionist view of Stalin and his policies through his writing, even in recent years.
At a time when Owen Smith gets (rightly) interrogated for past statements on PFI (for instance), with people showing that this proves he does not have left-wing views, I personally cannot see how the same principles cannot be applied to someone like Milne who has come out with dodgy statements on one of history's worst mass murderers.
Also, I assume that your comment on neoliberalism relates to the comments below the article, where the author opines that he is not sure whether it means anything different from capitalism? Apart from this being a response rather to another individual's point rather than a detailed analysis, I think it does make an important point. Namely, 'neoliberalism' is often used by academics and thinkers to refer to a series of things or processes which must be opposed, yet the thing itself is left undefined and indistinct.
All the evidence pertains to two articles -- neither of which can be interpreted as Milne practicing Stalinist ethics. As for revisionism -- well, who has the patent on that? The people who make estimates of 20m or 30m? or those who challenge those figures? It's all revisionism -- that's literally the definition of history.
Fair point, although neoliberalism is quite easy to define from an economic standpoint.
No, I just misread that sentence. Actually makes more sense now. Still, the blog post is just opinion. It offers no evidence of anything, merely interpretation without reference or citation. True, the author cites some of Milne's work in hyperlinks, but it isn't exactly up to academic standards, is it?
Actually, he cites Wikipedia. That's pretty telling.
Which is the problem. The Labour moderates argument that they are doing this for the common good of sorts; that they are doing it to become a credible opposition starts to grow incredibly thing when their incredibly shit contender doesn't actually disagree with a lot of what the leader says.
And while Corbyn's not perfect (and surrounds himself with clowns), it's Smith who comes across as the worse one when it gets personal. He's accused Corbyn of not voting Remain, and has done so continually. He suggests that Corbyn condones aggressiveness within the party when Corbyn continues to deny this. His assertion that he is somehow more credible and capable than Corbyn is based on no evidence whatsoever; it's based on his own arrogant belief that he's somehow better than Corbyn for presenting himself in a more appealing manner. But that isn't true. Some of what he says may have some basis, but without any cold, hard verification it's essentially pointless slander, designed to drag down Corbyn.
I see the "unity" angle is going great guns.
Isn't Milne's position in Corbyn team essentially the Malcolm Tucker role. So it's no surprise if Milne turned out to have some let's say extreme views.