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

DenisIrwin said:
It's been almost 2 months since the Guardian first published the story that led to "traingate". Today they admit that they distorted the story they were given - and have corrected it. Had they told the truth in the first place, "traingate" may not have been a thing. Still, a lot of papers were sold.
Click to expand...
http://uk.businessinsider.com/guardian-story-jeremy-corbyn-no-seat-on-train-wrong-2016-10

Not supring in the least. The Guardian really is a centrist/liberal paper(It only looks left wing because of how right wing the others are), so it's no surprise that it's actively trying to harm a Left wing Labour Party.
 
DenisIrwin said:
It's been almost 2 months since the Guardian first published the story that led to "traingate". Today they admit that they distorted the story they were given - and have corrected it. Had they told the truth in the first place, "traingate" may not have been a thing. Still, a lot of papers were sold.
Click to expand...

Sweet Square said:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/guardian-story-jeremy-corbyn-no-seat-on-train-wrong-2016-10

Not supring in the least. The Guardian really is a centrist/liberal paper(It only looks left wing because of how right wing the others are), so it's no surprise that it's actively trying to harm a Left wing Labour Party.
Click to expand...

Chadwick's investigation also showed that the two authors of the story were Labour activists, not objective reporters. Freelancer Yannis Mendez was being paid by the Corbyn leadership election campaign, and "Charles B Anthony" was a fake name for his friend Anthony Casey, who "is a passionate Corbyn supporter."

Always best to read the whole article.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Chadwick's investigation also showed that the two authors of the story were Labour activists, not objective reporters. Freelancer Yannis Mendez was being paid by the Corbyn leadership election campaign, and "Charles B Anthony" was a fake name for his friend Anthony Casey, who "is a passionate Corbyn supporter."

Always best to read the whole article.
Click to expand...
Oops my bad. I've actual read it wrong(The criticism is of the the video itself and not the reporting afterwards). I mean it's still earlier in the morning here.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Chadwick's investigation also showed that the two authors of the story were Labour activists, not objective reporters. Freelancer Yannis Mendez was being paid by the Corbyn leadership election campaign, and "Charles B Anthony" was a fake name for his friend Anthony Casey, who "is a passionate Corbyn supporter."

Always best to read the whole article.
Click to expand...

It's a fascinating read on the state and standards of much contemporary journalism

And I suspect much of the criticism applies to the follow up - the original video was not criticially assessed, nor was Virgin's PR briefing.

If journalism had occurred, the "-gate" never would have.

I find it astonishing that an article written by a Corbyn campaigner would appear (unpaid) on the Guardian website and on page 4 of the print version with a standard byline.
 
Untied said:
I find it astonishing that an article written by a Corbyn campaigner would appear (unpaid) on the Guardian website and on page 4 of the print version with a standard byline.
Click to expand...

So you are trying to mitigate the stupidity of the Corbyn camp with the journalistic standard at The Guardian?

They use mostly freelance writers now anyway. I am not sure on the remuneration policy though.
 
Interesting story from Private Eye that the Guardian's editor has directed that Corbyn news should be "balanced" - to avoid criticism any negative story must be offset by a positive. That would likely explain why this was published.
 
Sweet Square said:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/guardian-story-jeremy-corbyn-no-seat-on-train-wrong-2016-10

Not supring in the least. The Guardian really is a centrist/liberal paper(It only looks left wing because of how right wing the others are), so it's no surprise that it's actively trying to harm a Left wing Labour Party.
Click to expand...

They're a liberal paper trying to undermine Labour at every step. Same way Fallon pops up every now and again just to have a go.

No surprise Guardian spun the story at all. As much as i rely on the Guardian for news only their opinion peices are really worth reading.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
So you are trying to mitigate the stupidity of the Corbyn camp with the journalistic standard at The Guardian?

They use mostly freelance writers now anyway. I am not sure on the remuneration policy though.
Click to expand...

Would you like to spell out what that stupidity is, because it seems to me the Guardian removing the reference to Corbyn eventually being seated, and failing to contact either Corbyn or Virgin for comment, is at the core of the entire ensuing controversy
 


fecks sake Corbyn

(Speaking at an SWP event that he claimed to be boycotting)
 
712 said:
Give me someone who admits they're wrong any day. It's the 'I'm always right' brigade that are bleeding dangerous.
Click to expand...
Cheers.
Smores said:
They're a liberal paper trying to undermine Labour at every step. Same way Fallon pops up every now and again just to have a go.

No surprise Guardian spun the story at all. As much as i rely on the Guardian for news only their opinion peices are really worth reading.
Click to expand...
Yeah he talked Blair and New Labour a lot during the Lib Dem conference, but it was so on the noise that it looked rather pathetic. Be interesting to see how the Lib Dem do in the next election(Whenever that is)as it seems both they and the centrist of the Labour Party have leant nothing from the crash of 08.
 
Untied said:


fecks sake Corbyn

(Speaking at an SWP event that he claimed to be boycotting)
Click to expand...


I appreciate that I am not the man's biggest fan, but is this actually an SWP event? The flyers and adverts I saw didn't mention the SWP, and other speakers included Lord Dubs and Sally Hunt from UCU and Malia Bouattia from the NUS.
 
Okay scratch that, a perfunctory Google search shows that it is an SWP sponsored event, but they have done their best to mask that fact.

And the chair of the SWP supported Stand Up to Racism? Our new Shadow Home Secretary.
 
Back in the 70s there were dozens of left groups constantly forming, reforming, and generally hating each other as much as the capitalist 'enemy'; marxists, trots, communists, international socialists etc.
It's one reason why Life of Brian was so brilliant, it took the piss out of the endless schisms of both religious and left-wing loons at the same time.
 
That was avoidable, I think. However, a positive is that they have not given lengthy resignation letters or statements, so there is a possibility for damage limitation and rebuilding.
 
Dobba said:
No worries. I'm sure the Tories will put forward another horrendous bill, that they can all abstain on, soon enough.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that the welfare bill has now taken on a life of its own, and that all is fair in politics, but the abstentions were only on a second reading of a bill which contained a great deal of the manifesto Labour had stood on three months previously. The strategy of abstaining on second reading and defeating the more egregious measures on third reading is sound parliamentary politics.

Still, kudos to Corbyn and his team for seizing the narrative. And I do mean that. I just hope that now he is leading the opposition some nuance is exercised when faced with similar types of proposals, I stead of blanket opposition.
 
Frosty said:
I appreciate that the welfare bill has now taken on a life of its own, and that all is fair in politics, but the abstentions were only on a second reading of a bill which contained a great deal of the manifesto Labour had stood on three months previously. The strategy of abstaining on second reading and defeating the more egregious measures on third reading is sound parliamentary politics.

Still, kudos to Corbyn and his team for seizing the narrative. And I do mean that. I just hope that now he is leading the opposition some nuance is exercised when faced with similar types of proposals, I stead of blanket opposition.
Click to expand...
It was nothing more than an attempt to look "tough on scroungers", just look at the comments the great abstainers like Caroline Flint, ******* Harman and Rachel Reeves made at the time and since. The Tories didn't sneak the horrendous shit into the bill while they were looking the other way.
 
Dobba said:
It was nothing more than an attempt to look "tough on scroungers", just look at the comments the great abstainers like Caroline Flint, ******* Harman and Rachel Reeves made at the time and since. The Tories didn't sneak the horrendous shit into the bill while they were looking the other way.
Click to expand...

I don't question that some comments were unhelpful to say the least. However the same Bill contained provision for 3 million apprenticeships, which was lifted from the Labour manifesto, as well as other measures. Nuance in approaching legislation as an opposition can be more effective than all out opposition. Just look at the Republicans in the US as an example.

Anyway, the narrative is what it is now.
 
Frosty said:
I don't question that some comments were unhelpful to say the least. However the same Bill contained provision for 3 million apprenticeships, which was lifted from the Labour manifesto, as well as other measures. Nuance in approaching legislation as an opposition can be more effective than all out opposition. Just look at the Republicans in the US as an example.

Anyway, the narrative is what it is now.
Click to expand...
Those other measures, based on Harman's 'reasoned amendment', included the benefits cap. On the subject of the amendment it made absolutely no reference to the proposal to limit the child tax credits to two children (set to cost hundreds of thousands of families support by 2020/21) so their hill was hardly worth dying on in the first place.

If they didn't panic on realising their enormous misreading of the party membership and start talking about regretting their choice in abstaining or that protecting the vulnerable is one of their personal principles, I'd buy this claim of nuance. Other than Rachel Reeves of course who has decided to nosedive a little deeper into the gutter ever since.
 
Dobba said:
Those other measures, based on Harman's 'reasoned amendment', included the benefits cap. On the subject of the amendment it made absolutely no reference to the proposal to limit the child tax credits to two children (set to cost hundreds of thousands of families support by 2020/21) so their hill was hardly worth dying on in the first place.

If they didn't panic on realising their enormous misreading of the party membership and start talking about regretting their choice in abstaining or that protecting the vulnerable is one of their personal principles, I'd buy this claim of nuance. Other than Rachel Reeves of course who has decided to nosedive a little deeper into the gutter ever since.
Click to expand...

The leadership certainly rowed back after membership backlash, yes. Some backbenchers are still explaining the nuanced approach too, which shouldn't be conflated with Harman et al's approach.

There is a bigger issue here of course, especially given the direction of the party at present. The Bill had support from the public based on polling. Labour were seen as favouring the "feckless and workshy" before the last election. What Miliband failed to do (and what Corbyn has a chance to do now) is explain how a stronger welfare state doesn't simply mean hand outs to all.

That's the real challenge here, especially with a hostile media.
 
sun_tzu said:
She boxes... probably more "sporty" than most mp's
Though something in health would be the most obvious fit she has very limited experience so sport seems a decent fit
Click to expand...

Likewise, I would have thought health would surely have been better. Especially as she supported the doctors strikes.
 


This just adds to the list of smaller issues that will be used against Corbyn later on, and there really is no need for it. In some ways he has improved as a leader, yet this sort of stuff just seems engrained in him.


 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:


This just adds to the list of smaller issues that will be used against Corbyn later on, and there really is no need for it. In some ways he has improved as a leader, yet this sort of stuff just seems engrained in him.

Click to expand...


It's a difficult one to pick apart isn't it. There are plenty in our political establishment and on the right who are trying to exploit the Syria situation as part of the emerging new cold war with Russia. E.g. Boris Johnson calling for protests outside the Russian embassy, as if Russia is somehow solely responsible for the situation in Syria, whilst continuing to utterly ignore our own failings in Syria as well as our relationship with Saudi atrocities in Yemen. The same inconsistency is applied to the accusation of war crimes: Swathes of the right wing press are jumping at the opportunity to make that case against Russia whilst simultaneously attacking the "vexatious" historical Iraq inquiries and completely ignoring Yemen.

However, regardless of the geopolitical manoeuvring and propaganda that is occurring, Russia clearly is guilty of murdering thousands of civilians and should face the criticism, protests, investigations and sanctions that such crimes warrant. They are killing civilians at 8 times the rate of the US led coalition so should clearly be facing much greater condemnation.

Corbyn/Milne seem to be of a strand in the left who are willing to turn a blind eye to Russian atrocities in the same way the bulk of the UK/US population, media and political establishment are willing to ignore our own. So yes, the Greens are more coherent because they condemn everyone equally.
 
Untied said:
It's a difficult one to pick apart isn't it. There are plenty in our political establishment and on the right who are trying to exploit the Syria situation as part of the emerging new cold war with Russia. E.g. Boris Johnson calling for protests outside the Russian embassy, as if Russia is somehow solely responsible for the situation in Syria, whilst continuing to utterly ignore our own failings in Syria as well as our relationship with Saudi atrocities in Yemen. The same inconsistency is applied to the accusation of war crimes: Swathes of the right wing press are jumping at the opportunity to make that case against Russia whilst simultaneously attacking the "vexatious" historical Iraq inquiries and completely ignoring Yemen.

However, regardless of the geopolitical manoeuvring and propaganda that is occurring, Russia clearly is guilty of murdering thousands of civilians and should face the criticism, protests, investigations and sanctions that such crimes warrant. They are killing civilians at 8 times the rate of the US led coalition so should clearly be facing much greater condemnation.

Corbyn/Milne seem to be of a strand in the left who are willing to turn a blind eye to Russian atrocities in the same way the bulk of the UK/US population, media and political establishment are willing to ignore our own. So yes, the Greens are more coherent because they condemn everyone equally.
Click to expand...

So far as the UK is concerned, i think that Yemen/Saudi Arabia presents the greater moral question for us. Whereas Iraq/Syria could push Corbyn onto the back foot, as he has made some misjudgements on the conflict besides Russia. Whether he likes it or not Corbyn has to accept the instinctive feeling of the electorate with which he is dealing, and attempt to communicate his message with that in mind.

That last point seems to be one which Corbyn struggles with . To draw a parallel with the Brexit debate: it doesn't follow that because i support Leave, i wish to give businesses free rein. Similarly, he can condemn Russia without granting Western forces a free hand. Back in 2013 an anti-interventionist vote had cross-party backing remember (unfortunately for Obama yet the right call IMO).
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
So far as the UK is concerned, i think that Yemen/Saudi Arabia presents the greater moral question for us. Whereas Iraq/Syria could push Corbyn onto the back foot, as he has made some misjudgements on the conflict besides Russia. Whether he likes it or not Corbyn has to accept the instinctive feeling of the electorate with which he is dealing, and attempt to communicate his message with that in mind.

That last point seems to be one which Corbyn struggles with . To draw a parallel with the Brexit debate: it doesn't follow that because i support Leave, i wish to give businesses free rein. Similarly, he can condemn Russia without granting Western forces a free hand. Back in 2013 an anti-interventionist vote had cross-party backing remember (unfortunately for Obama yet the right call IMO).
Click to expand...

And what is the publics instinctive feeling on Syria? As you rightly point out between 2013 and 2015 it changed and i'm not certain you can attribute Cameron's speedy attempt to cash in on an angry public sentiment post Bataclan as anything more than political game playing nor as proof that the public is still (or ever was) completely in favour of intervention.

Besides, even post Bataclan a huge vocal number of people were anti-interventionist (I think the lowest it dropped was 30% and was rebounding strongly up to the vote) of those I'd say a fair chunk of them were Labour supporters so it's surely in Corbyn's remit to push that view.

At any rate your Brexit example strikes as particularly odd because if Farage had taken the advice you are offering Corbyn at the start of his career and 'recognised the instinctive feeling of the electorate' we wouldn't be where we are now. It seems especially odd to criticise politicians for standing up for what they believe in given the usual ire reserved for slimy career politicians doing what they think will win them votes.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:


This just adds to the list of smaller issues that will be used against Corbyn later on, and there really is no need for it. In some ways he has improved as a leader, yet this sort of stuff just seems engrained in him.


Click to expand...


What is actually wrong with that statement, you dont think the public are aware that Russia arent the only ones committing these acts? Ill caveat that to say they probably aren't to the same extent.

If your argument is that he should just go along with the pitchforks against Russia and ignore everything else thats weak. The current diversionary tactics are rather transparent.
 
Corbyn appears to be slowly adopting Obama's approach to foreign policy, and applying it to the running of his party - don't do stupid shit.

This is a good thing in my view. Keep it up.
 
With Corbyn as leader, Labour are going to get slaughtered at the next election. The Corbynistas live in their own little bubble world, where ideological purity and gaining control of the Labour Party is what matters ... in the deluded belief that they can sell their anti-NATO, anti-nuclear-deterrent, tax-raising, borrow-more and spend-more policies to the general public.

Apart from anything else, divided parties don't tend to get elected .. and Labour is engaged in an internal civil war.
 
NinjaFletch said:
And what is the publics instinctive feeling on Syria? As you rightly point out between 2013 and 2015 it changed and i'm not certain you can attribute Cameron's speedy attempt to cash in on an angry public sentiment post Bataclan as anything more than political game playing nor as proof that the public is still (or ever was) completely in favour of intervention.

Besides, even post Bataclan a huge vocal number of people were anti-interventionist (I think the lowest it dropped was 30% and was rebounding strongly up to the vote) of those I'd say a fair chunk of them were Labour supporters so it's surely in Corbyn's remit to push that view.

At any rate your Brexit example strikes as particularly odd because if Farage had taken the advice you are offering Corbyn at the start of his career and 'recognised the instinctive feeling of the electorate' we wouldn't be where we are now. It seems especially odd to criticise politicians for standing up for what they believe in given the usual ire reserved for slimy career politicians doing what they think will win them votes.
Click to expand...
Smores said:
What is actually wrong with that statement, you dont think the public are aware that Russia arent the only ones committing these acts? Ill caveat that to say they probably aren't to the same extent.

If your argument is that he should just go along with the pitchforks against Russia and ignore everything else thats weak. The current diversionary tactics are rather transparent.
Click to expand...

As neither the Government nor Labour have put forward a coherent strategy for increasing our present military involvement, this story isn't really about that. Rather, it falls into a somewhat similar category to that of Trident; an ideological battle that isn't likely to enhance his electoral chances.

I would also ventured to say that he finds some agreement with STW's position, which is more anti-Western than it is anti-Russian.

He has opposed air strikes in Iraq, targeted drone strikes against terrorists and refuses to condemn Russia's actions. These stances are simply not vote winners on many of the streets of this country. I happen to think that he could do some good for raising the profile of what is taking place in Yemen currently, yet he remains a liability with regard to Syria IS and Syria.


Frosty said:
Corbyn appears to be slowly adopting Obama's approach to foreign policy, and applying it to the running of his party - don't do stupid shit.

This is a good thing in my view. Keep it up.
Click to expand...

His plans for Syria in 2013 would speak against such high praise. Obama didn't have a clue what he was about, and Cameron was a Commons vote away from joining him.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
His plans for Syria in 2013 would speak against such high praise. Obama didn't have a clue what he was about, and Cameron was a Commons vote away from joining him.
Click to expand...

Nick -- I think reading back my post wasn't clear at all. I will put that down to tiredness. If you have read my views on Corbyn and his leadership in this thread then you will know I am not fullsome in my praise of him.

I wasn't referring to Syria - more the fact that, on the whole, over the past week, Labour have not officially supported Trident and the performance at PMQs and briefings was, on the whole, good.

To be honest I am starting from a low bar here. The first step has to be a cessation of criticisms and divisions from within the party (including talk of deselection), and work on being an effective opposition. This week has been a step towards this.

I would be much happier if Corbyn would replace Milne and other advisors, especially the ones which encouraged him to talk at SWP fronted events, but that's another matter...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.