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

It's ludicrous that Brexit won't be officially discussed at the conference. Absolutely ludicrous.
 
Smores said:
Looks like a compromise has been made on nuclear. Tone so far is very much stick with existing policy but actually put effort into multilateral disarmament.

Impressed with what ive heard so far.
Click to expand...
stick with policy - so vote to renew trident... but tell everybody else to give up their nukes - sounds like a typically bad fudge
Are we going to have the commission a nuclear weapons platform that costs billions then stick conventional weapons on it suggestion again...
 
sun_tzu said:
stick with policy - so vote to renew trident... but tell everybody else to give up their nukes - sounds like a typically bad fudge
Are we going to have the commission a nuclear weapons platform that costs billions then stick conventional weapons on it suggestion again...
Click to expand...

What the hell is a fudge about that? Thats been every goverments policy for decades hasnt it?

The tories are supposed to be for multilateral disarnment they just dont do anything about it, shunning UN talks. Labour actually saying it'll try to progress that agenda whilst maintaining "protections" doesn't suddenly make it a fudge.

I dont really get your point? We pay for trident so we have to use it to get our monies worth?
 
Smores said:
What the hell is a fudge about that? Thats been every goverments policy for decades hasnt it?

The tories are supposed to be for multilateral disarnment they just dont do anything about it, shunning UN talks. Labour actually saying it'll try to progress that agenda whilst maintaining "protections" doesn't suddenly make it a fudge.

I dont really get your point? We pay for trident so we have to use it to get our monies worth?
Click to expand...
making the subs nuclear rather than conventional weapons launch systems is where the large cost is - the missiles themselves not so much - which is why building replacement subs and equipping them with conventional weapons is plain stupid

That said if it is now policy to support the renewal of trident whilst pushing for talks I look forward to see Corbyn walk through the lobbies and cast his vote in line with party policy (or will the leader actually vote against policy - or will we get some fudge (free vote?)
 
sun_tzu said:
making the subs nuclear rather than conventional weapons launch systems is where the large cost is - the missiles themselves not so much - which is why building replacement subs and equipping them with conventional weapons is plain stupid

That said if it is now policy to support the renewal of trident whilst pushing for talks I look forward to see Corbyn walk through the lobbies and cast his vote in line with party policy (or will the leader actually vote against policy - or will we get some fudge (free vote?)
Click to expand...

Id expect it will be a free vote which will be bad press sure. However its no different to May now pushing through Brexit after not supporting it , as long as the leader recognises the decision and responsibility to implement it then it shouldn't cause issues.

As long as he doesn't decide the members should have a say, then all hell will break loose.
 
ThierryHenry said:
It's ludicrous that Brexit won't be officially discussed at the conference. Absolutely ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's quite incredible. I still don't think Labour have any idea how to address the issue because it's quite topical since many of their constituencies voted to Leave.
 
Given that a 2017 GE is not inconceivable , McDonnell's speech was rather tame i thought. It must've been a stack of waffles for breakfast for certain.

The BBC were going big on the new living wage target, yet we already knew about that.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Given that a 2017 GE is not inconceivable , McDonnell's speech was rather tame i thought. It must've been a stack of waffles for breakfast for certain.

The BBC were going big on the new living wage target, yet we already knew about that.
Click to expand...
The BBC also mentioned that by 2020 the living wage will be around £9.50 an hour. The only difference really will be the hope that of Corbyn government will in force it.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Click to expand...


All this talk of Dan Jarvis because he once punched a mugger, i think Lewis is a much more likely future candidate. His media work is excellent and i think he's balanced enough that the PLP wouldn't resign when they dont get what they want.
 
Smores said:
All this talk of Dan Jarvis because he once punched a mugger, i think Lewis is a much more likely future candidate. His media work is excellent and i think he's balanced enough that the PLP wouldn't resign when they dont get what they want.
Click to expand...

It is more that Jarvis commanded a special forces unit in the British army. He has fantastic crossover appeal. Lewis being an ex soldier will benefit from that as well. They will command respect from factions of UK society that Corbyn can never reach.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
It is more that Jarvis commanded a special forces unit in the British army. He has fantastic crossover appeal. Lewis being an ex soldier will benefit from that as well. They will command respect from factions of UK society that Corbyn can never reach.
Click to expand...

widowed single father as well I think for Jarvis - basically even the more right wing elements of the press will find it hard to have a pop at him without making themselves look bad

But yes if you compare their military records then its pretty clear that although both have military experience in Afganistan there are more differences than similarities (from wiki)

Lewis joined the Territorial Army, passing out of Sandhurst Military Academy in 2006 as an infantry officer with 7th Rifles. In 2009, he served a three-month tour of duty in Afghanistan.[6] Shortly after returning from his tour of duty, he faced depression, saying "I just felt like I was being crushed by it all."

Jarvis attended the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst as an officer cadet. On 9 August 1997, he was given a short service commission into the Parachute Regiment as a second lieutenant with seniority from 9 July 1994. On the same day he was promoted to lieutenant with seniority from 9 July 1996.[6] He then joined the 1st Battalion, Parachute Regiment. On 4 October 2000, he transferred to an intermediate regular commission. At the time he was an acting captain.[7] He was promoted to captain on 10 October 2001.[8]

Having attended the Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Joint Services Command and Staff College, he was promoted to major on 31 July 2003.[9] He transferred to a regular commission on 9 February 2004.[10] In the later part of his army career he was stationed at HQ Land Forces in Wilton, and lived in Salisbury.[11]

During his time in the Parachute Regiment, Jarvis was a platoon commander with 3 Para in Kosovo in 1999, and was with General Sir Mike Jackson during the Pristina Airport incident when Jackson refused the suggestion of his American NATO superior to confrontRussian forces. Jarvis later described Jackson's comment to Wesley Clark that he was "not going to start World War Three for you" as a "very surreal moment in my life". Jarvis then served as Jackson's personal staff officer. In 2000 he was deployed to Sierra Leone in the aftermath of Operation Barras to help the Army learn the lessons of the kidnap of a group of troops by an armed rebel group.[4]

Jarvis served in Iraq during Operation Telic and in Afghanistan during Operation Herrick.[12] He was deployed to Afghanistan twice, first as a member of the team making the first reconnaissance trips to Helmand Province in 2005 to 2006 in preparation for a decision on whether to commit British troops there. The second deployment was a six-month tour as a company commander with theSpecial Forces Support Group, leading a company of 100 troops.[4] He was also deployed to Northern Ireland.[13]

He resigned his commission on 3 March 2011.[14] In the 2011 Queen's Birthday Honours, he was made a Member of the Order of the British Empire (Military division).[15]
 
sun_tzu said:
widowed single father as well I think for Jarvis - basically even the more right wing elements of the press will find it hard to have a pop at him without making themselves look bad

But yes if you compare their military records then its pretty clear that although both have military experience in Afganistan there are more differences than similarities (from wiki)

Lewis joined the Territorial Army, passing out of Sandhurst Military Academy in 2006 as an infantry officer with 7th Rifles. In 2009, he served a three-month tour of duty in Afghanistan.[6] Shortly after returning from his tour of duty, he faced depression, saying "I just felt like I was being crushed by it all."

Jarvis attended the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst as an officer cadet. On 9 August 1997, he was given a short service commission into the Parachute Regiment as a second lieutenant with seniority from 9 July 1994. On the same day he was promoted to lieutenant with seniority from 9 July 1996.[6] He then joined the 1st Battalion, Parachute Regiment. On 4 October 2000, he transferred to an intermediate regular commission. At the time he was an acting captain.[7] He was promoted to captain on 10 October 2001.[8]

Having attended the Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Joint Services Command and Staff College, he was promoted to major on 31 July 2003.[9] He transferred to a regular commission on 9 February 2004.[10] In the later part of his army career he was stationed at HQ Land Forces in Wilton, and lived in Salisbury.[11]

During his time in the Parachute Regiment, Jarvis was a platoon commander with 3 Para in Kosovo in 1999, and was with General Sir Mike Jackson during the Pristina Airport incident when Jackson refused the suggestion of his American NATO superior to confrontRussian forces. Jarvis later described Jackson's comment to Wesley Clark that he was "not going to start World War Three for you" as a "very surreal moment in my life". Jarvis then served as Jackson's personal staff officer. In 2000 he was deployed to Sierra Leone in the aftermath of Operation Barras to help the Army learn the lessons of the kidnap of a group of troops by an armed rebel group.[4]

Jarvis served in Iraq during Operation Telic and in Afghanistan during Operation Herrick.[12] He was deployed to Afghanistan twice, first as a member of the team making the first reconnaissance trips to Helmand Province in 2005 to 2006 in preparation for a decision on whether to commit British troops there. The second deployment was a six-month tour as a company commander with theSpecial Forces Support Group, leading a company of 100 troops.[4] He was also deployed to Northern Ireland.[13]

He resigned his commission on 3 March 2011.[14] In the 2011 Queen's Birthday Honours, he was made a Member of the Order of the British Empire (Military division).[15]
Click to expand...

At least we know Jarvis edits his own Wikipedia page.
 
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/09/26/...ean-calls-media-bias-jeremy-corbyn-end-video/

BBC Newsnight host comes clean, calls for the media bias against Jeremy Corbyn to end [VIDEO] | The Canary
James Wright
Following Jeremy Corbyn’s landslide victory in the leadership contest, regular guest host on BBC Newsnight and LBC radio presenter James O’Brien has admitted that the mainstream media is stacked against the newly re-elected Labour leader.

Straight from the horse’s mouth
Coming clean about the commentariat’s negative inclinations about Corbyn, O’Brien called for the bias to end:

The media, myself included, now have to stop talking about Jeremy Corbyn like he is some sort of pimple on the backside of British politics and start talking about him as the only alternative Prime Minister to Theresa May.

In the interests of journalistic standards, he vowed to stop treating Corbyn more negatively than other politicians:

I’m not going to lie to you. I’ve made a conscious personal and professional decision to leave the scepticism at the door and will now treat this party and this man as I treat all politicians – with a degree of cynicism but not as some sort of aberration.

O’Brien then queried why there has been such a widespread negative reaction to what seem like common sense policies:

Try this on for size. We spend far too much money on war and weapons and we should be spending that money on the poor. What’s not to like about that? Why is that even controversial?

He went on to ground Corbyn’s scepticism over military interventionism within the context of the failings in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan:

Especially when we look at the mess that our military endeavours usually create. From Iraq, to Libya, to Afghanistan we all are pretty much agreed now that David Cameron dropped a huge clanger on Libya, Tony Blair dropped a huge clanger on Iraq. Afghanistan hasn’t really been left any better than it was before we piled in there.

Quite extraordinarily for the traditional media, he plainly called out the military industrial complex:

So those slightly shadowy conversations about industrial military complexes. And all the money that makes it’s way from Western taxpayers to Western businessmen to buy weapons that are used to kill Eastern civilians, looks relevant today – look at Syria.

The occasional BBC Newsnight presenter then appeared to suggest that the threat of terrorism is overplayed to maintain the flow of blood money:

And Jeremy Corbyn says, in a world where we’re probably not under existential threat from any enemy, why are we spending all that money on weapons when we could be spending it on poor people?

O’Brien then moved away from foreign policy and towards the negative language used to describe Corbyn by himself and others in the media. He condemned it as redundant:

I used to call it undergraduate, quasi-Marxist. Parking all that language, it’s over, it’s finished, it’s meaningless.

As the hangover from Cold War propaganda is still in the process of subsiding, ‘Marxist’ remains a dirty word in mainstream discourse. But studies show it is far from the worst language used in the media to smear Corbyn rather than engage in policy discussion.

Systemic media bias
Earlier this year, a report by the London School of Economics and Political Science analysed the media response to Corbyn. According to the findings, the press has turned into an “attackdog”, abandoning its supposed role as watchdog. A shocking 75% of press coverage misrepresents him. Another academic study by the Media Reform Coalition (MRC) found that the BBC gave double the airtime to Corbyn’s opponents than what it gave to his allies during the mass cabinet resignations back in June.

Onto media language, political commentators often refer to Corbyn’s many supporters as a “cult”. In response to the incumbent winning the leadership election, The Independent wrote:

the Labour Party now resembles a cult of personality.

The language of “saviour“, “worshippers” and “cult” has been consistently invoked by the mainstream media to describe Corbyn supporters. This functions to convert something good (Corbyn has a lot of supporters) to something bad (they are hapless followers of a personality).

Why such bias?
David Graeber, a political activist and professor at the London School of Economics, offered his reason for the smears against Corbyn supporters in the editorial-free section of The Guardian:

If the opposition to Jeremy Corbyn for the past nine months has been so fierce, and so bitter, it is because his existence as head of a major political party is an assault on the very notion that politics should be primarily about the personal qualities of politicians. It’s an attempt to change the rules of the game, and those who object most violently to the Labour leadership are precisely those who would lose the most personal power were it to be successful: sitting politicians and political commentators.

Politicians and pundits smear the movement coalescing under Corbyn because it represents a shift of power from themselves (individuals and leaders) to ordinary people.

On LBC, listeners heard about media bias against Corbyn from the horse’s mouth. Respecting the result of a second election where Corbyn broke his own record mandate (an increase from 59.5%, to 61.8%), O’Brien called on his fellow commentators to end the negative reporting about the Labour leader. Let’s hope at least a few pundits take note.

Watch the speech on LBC radio here:
Click to expand...
 
So today at the Labour conference, we've had Tom Watson sing the praises of a leader he tried to get rid of (no not the current one) and Rachel Reeves channel Enoch Powell. Unity n' shit.
 
How long has O'Brien been a presenter on Newsnight? Talk about falling standards. Admittedly i've found the guy to be annoying for a long time, and Peter Allen is far better listen.
 
Dobba said:
So today at the Labour conference, we've had Tom Watson sing the praises of a leader he tried to get rid of (no not the current one) and Rachel Reeves channel Enoch Powell. Unity n' shit.
Click to expand...

I mean, you could hear the subtle pops from Watson during his speech, talking about capitalism not being bad etc and saying some heckler didn't get the unity memo. Khan's speech was quite heavy on needing to get into power too, which I'd say was a dig at Corbyn arguably being more interested in spreading his message than winning over voters.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Should they have propped up Labour instead? Coalition government was something which the Lib Dems believed in strongly prior to the election, and the Tories were the only real option. Had they decided against an alliance with Cameron, the chances are that we'd have ended up a Conservative overall majority a few years sooner.
Click to expand...

I don't think they should have entered into a formal coalition with the Conservatives no. I'm not saying they should have propped up a minority Labour government but it remains utterly incomprehensible to me how the Lib Dems, despite having all of the leverage, managed to get nothing substantive out of their time in coalition. I guess you have to credit Cameron, Osborne and the Conservatives for taking them for a ride. They should have held out for a confidence and supply arrangement.

I mean honestly, if you ask the Lib Dems what they achieved in coalition they simply point to things that the Conservatives would have liked to do but which they held back.

They are a political party that claims responsibility for things that didn't happen and shirks responsibility for things that did.
 
Untied said:
I don't think they should have entered into a formal coalition with the Conservatives no. I'm not saying they should have propped up a minority Labour government but it remains utterly incomprehensible to me how the Lib Dems, despite having all of the leverage, managed to get nothing substantive out of their time in coalition. I guess you have to credit Cameron, Osborne and the Conservatives for taking them for a ride. They should have held out for a confidence and supply arrangement.

I mean honestly, if you ask the Lib Dems what they achieved in coalition they simply point to things that the Conservatives would have liked to do but which they held back.

They are a political party that claims responsibility for things that didn't happen and shirks responsibility for things that did.
Click to expand...
The libs almost got the thing they wanted most of all.. a referendum on pr... they did get a referendum on av though that failed to gain much interest with the public
 
Last edited:
sun_tzu said:
So corbyn wants the party to unite... well except for him being free to go against his own party's policies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37487312
It feels like a long drawn out episode of the thick of it rather than a credible oposition
Click to expand...
Absolutely. He clearly disagrees with the party's democratic policy on continuing to build nukes (that we all hope will never be used) - and will continue to make his case rather than abandon his principles. I would expect nothing else. He will (as PM) naturally ensure the UK is fully engaged with efforts and obligations under existing treaties to pursue and promote multilateral disarmament (which is showing no signs of ever actually happening) in the hope that more in the party come around to his way of thinking. Time will tell. Maybe in the not too distant future many of the current MPs, those that agree or disagree with him on this and other policies, will have the opportunity to check with their CLPs if their constituencies want them to continue to represent them.
 
DenisIrwin said:
Absolutely. He clearly disagrees with the party's democratic policy on continuing to build nukes (that we all hope will never be used) - and will continue to make his case rather than abandon his principles. I would expect nothing else. He will (as PM) naturally ensure the UK is fully engaged with efforts and obligations under existing treaties to pursue and promote multilateral disarmament (which is showing no signs of ever actually happening) in the hope that more in the party come around to his way of thinking. Time will tell. Maybe in the not too distant future many of the current MPs, those that agree or disagree with him on this and other policies, will have the opportunity to check with their CLPs if their constituencies want them to continue to represent them.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the mp's should check will all the constituents they represent?
 
Cheesy said:
I mean, you could hear the subtle pops from Watson during his speech, talking about capitalism not being bad etc and saying some heckler didn't get the unity memo. Khan's speech was quite heavy on needing to get into power too, which I'd say was a dig at Corbyn arguably being more interested in spreading his message than winning over voters.
Click to expand...

It was good of Khan to spend his time stating over and over that Labour need to win. Really useful contribution that.

Also not sure why Tom Watson chose to make defending New Labour such a big item either, seemed more like petty tribalism than anything else. Im not sure going back to defending New Labours record and telling the voters they were wrong is going to cut it.
 
Smores said:
It was good of Khan to spend his time stating over and over that Labour need to win. Really useful contribution that.

Also not sure why Tom Watson chose to make defending New Labour such a big item either, seemed more like petty tribalism than anything else. Im not sure going back to defending New Labours record and telling the voters they were wrong is going to cut it.
Click to expand...

Yeah...I mean it was alright the first six times, but it kinda started to wear thin after that.
 
Corbyn has got a lot better at this speech lark. Think people will across the board be mostly happy with the content.
 
Pretty drastic improvement on last year's speech. Good policy ideas.



So Milne isn't completely shit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.