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

GlastonSpur said:
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.
Click to expand...

The tories aren't much better off to be fair. This Scottish referendum threat is going to hurt May's Brexit negotiations.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree it probably isnt a vote winning position and its probably best avoided. However substance wise there's nothing wrong with what was stated, its natural to be more criticial of ourselves first and foremost and any weakness on criticising Russia is only born out of frustration that its hypocritical from the west.

This forum tends to be quite anti-Western so its not a completely hard left position. Probably best Corbyn doesn't source policy based on caf logic though :D
 
They should just ride the Danny DeVito endorsement all the way to number 10 :D
 
If you ever needed a reminder of how shite Scottish Labour are, Ian Murray's interview there would've done the job. Smarmy, arrogant, and finding a way to essentially answer nothing whatsoever.
 

Don't give a shit about Hodges but I've been fearing this for a while.
Labour just looked fecked no matter how you look at it.
The only thing that can save gem is total economic collapse.
 
Adisa said:
Bloomers fecking up again.
Click to expand...

Fingere crossed for a harsh winter (joking honest)

The question really is whether its a cultural divide between the age groups or whether we'll continue to see people become right leaning in old age.

Anyway came here to post Chuka has now been left without any position. The so called hopes of New Labour Chuka and Jarvis need to be getting experience under their belt to build their profile.
 
feck the old people trying to look after their final 10 years and feck up our next 50.
 
25-54: Tories lead by 9
Click to expand...

I think this is by far the more important statistic, as it represents a vast swathe of the working population. It also spans both the young and those in the middle years, so can't be dismissed as being at one end of the electoral range. Moreover, it is probably where the majority of floating voters reside.
 
That poll does seem a bit off in that even UKIP's previous figure of 9 is quite low for what they've generally gotten. But yeah, still very worrying. May's not long into her term though and will surely get a boost at some point.
 
Whoah. Just stumbled across his big bro's twitter feed. Turns out he's a Trump supporting, climate change denying, conspiracy theory believing, EU sceptic, certified mentalist (fond of egregious use of hash tags). I know we can't be responsible for our families but this is kind of shocking. Especially when you consider there's at least some explicit common ground here (rants about the "establishment")
 
Last edited:
Cheesy said:
That poll does seem a bit off in that even UKIP's previous figure of 9 is quite low for what they've generally gotten. But yeah, still very worrying. May's not long into her term though and will surely get a boost at some point.
Click to expand...

UKIP's falling apart at the seams, and the Tories who joined them have got what they wanted now, so they're flocking back. Labour are in serious trouble and, as Nick pointed out, it's not just among the old.
 
lynchie said:
UKIP's falling apart at the seams, and the Tories who joined them have got what they wanted now, so they're flocking back. Labour are in serious trouble and, as Nick pointed out, it's not just among the old.
Click to expand...

UKIP are in trouble and will perhaps fade away but that's not been reflected in many other polls yet unless I'm wrong. This still seems to be a bit of an outlier.
 
lynchie said:
UKIP's falling apart at the seams, and the Tories who joined them have got what they wanted now, so they're flocking back. Labour are in serious trouble and, as Nick pointed out, it's not just among the old.
Click to expand...

Labour lead in every age group between 18-44. The Conservatives in every age group 44+

We can of course argue about whether 45-54 really counts as old or not, but it is only the 30% Conservative lead in this age group that enables misleading averages like a 9 point lead in 25-54s. I mean if you want another misleading average: Labour lead with 18-54s
 
http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/reign-british-neo-cons-and-party-war-128790447

How Britain's party of war gave the green light to Saudi in Yemen
Peter OborneFriday 28 October 2016 11:15 UTC 3434 2639googleplus8 6102
Last month, Jeremy Corbyn was re-elected as Labour leader. It was his second victory by an overwhelming majority in a year, and it should have given Corbyn uncontested authority.

Yet he is still regarded with mutinous contempt by a significant proportion of his own side. They flatly refuse to accept Corbyn’s leadership.

I have reported politics from Westminster for almost 25 years and can recall few more shocking parliamentary events

This became clear on Wednesday night, when more than 100 Labour MPs failed to support a three-line whip on British policy towards the Yemen. It was disloyalty on an epic scale.

Corbyn cannot be faulted for calling a debate on Yemen. For the past 18 months, Britain has been complicit with mass murder as our Saudi allies have bombarded Yemen from the air, slaughtering thousands of innocent people as well as helping fuel a humanitarian calamity.

Corbyn clearly felt that it was his duty as leader of a responsible and moral opposition to challenge this policy. He nevertheless bent over backwards to make sure that the Yemen vote was uncontroversial. The Labour motion therefore stopped short of calling for the suspension of arms sales to Saudi Arabia which has been demanded by many charities and campaign groups.

This is because Corbyn and his foreign affairs spokeswoman Emily Thornberry were mindful that some Labour MPs represented constituencies where local jobs depended on the arms industry. So they contented themselves with demanding an independent United Nations inquiry into crimes committed by all sides – not just the Saudis – in this terrible and bloody conflict. They reasonably suggested that Britain should suspend support for the Saudis until this investigation was completed.

Green light to Saudi
This is the position taken by the bulk of the international community, by all reputable aid agencies and, as far as I can tell, by almost all ordinary Yemenis. In her excellent speech on Wednesday afternoon, Thornberry set out the reasons why the Saudis could no longer be trusted to investigate their own affairs.

But for Labour abstainers and absentees, Corbyn’s motion would have been carried and parliament would have voted for an independent investigation

Yet more than 100 Labour MPs – not far short of half the Labour Party - defied Corbyn. As a result, Labour’s call for an independent inquiry was defeated by 283 votes to just 193, a majority of 90. But for Labour abstainers and absentees, Corbyn’s motion would have been carried and parliament would have voted for an independent investigation.

The vote is bound to be interpreted by Saudi King Salman as a vote of confidence in his deeply controversial assault on the Yemen.

It will also lift pressure on the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson as he resists a growing international clamour for Britain to throw its weight behind an independent UN investigation.

To sum up, on Wednesday night, the British parliament sent the green light to Saudi Arabia and its allies to carry on bombing, maiming and killing. I have reported politics from Westminster for almost 25 years and can recall few more shocking parliamentary events.

Party of War
Shocking – but not surprising. The Yemen vote demonstrates something that has been apparent ever since the vote on 18 March 2003 to support the invasion of Iraq: the party of war holds a majority in the Commons.

It comprises virtually all of the Conservative Party and the Blairite wing of Labour. As Nafeez Ahmed wrote in July, there is a clear and demonstrable connection between the vote for war in Iraq, opposition to an Iraq inquiry, support for the calamitous intervention in Libya, and opposition to Jeremy Corbyn.

For the past 15 years, parliament has been governed by a cross-party consensus in favour of war

Ahmed showed the majority of those who tried to unseat Corbyn last summer were interventionist. Some 172 supported the motion of no confidence in Corbyn’s leadership. By coincidence or not, exactly the same number of MPs have supported Britain’s calamitous overseas wars.

Now let’s look at the Labour MPs who put a smile on the faces of King Salman and Boris Johnson by defying Corbyn’s three-line whip and abstaining in Wednesday night’s vote: once again we are at least partly talking about a confederacy of Blairites.

It turns out that Ann Clywd, who made such a sparkling speech in favour of war during the 2003 Iraq debate, has abstained over Corbyn’s call for an independent investigation of Yememi war crimes. So have John Spellar, Gloria de Piero, Fiona MacTaggart, Barry Sheerman, Angela Eagle, Liz Kendall, Luciana Berger, Lucy Powell, Mike Gapes, Stephen Kinnock, Tristram Hunt, Margaret Hodge etc etc.

Even Keith Vaz, who was born in Aden and makes a big deal of his Yemeni antecedents, defied Labour’s three-line whip and abstained.

It is important to highlight the fact that some of the most prominent opponents of Jeremy Corbyn did traipse through the division lobbies with their leader on Wednesday night. Alan Johnson, Hilary Benn and Yvette Cooper are just three examples. And, of course, the majority of those who abstained on Wednesday were not in parliament for the Iraq vote in 2003.

The Neocons and the unforgiven
Nevertheless there is a telling pattern here. For the past 15 years, parliament has been governed by a cross-party consensus in favour of war. During that period, Britain has undertaken three major foreign interventions, each one of them utterly disastrous. In each one, military success was swiftly followed by political and, ultimately, state failure.

Despite the hard-won experience of 15 years, there is still a parliamentary majority in favour of intervention.

There is an intimate connection between politicians who style themselves as moderate and neoconservative policies overseas

Very few parliamentarians opposed all these interventions. Jeremy Corbyn was among them and he has never been forgiven for it.

This brings me to the final paradox of Wednesday night’s vote: the intimate connection between politicians who style themselves as moderate or occupying the centre ground in Britain and neoconservative policies overseas.

For the past 20 years, the so-called "modernisers", whether Blair’s Labour or Cameron’s Conservatives, have been in charge at Westminster. As has been well-documented (not least by Labour’s Jon Cruddas), they have hollowed out British politics through techniques of spin and electoral manipulation.

It is these same modernisers who have caused havoc in the Middle East, condemning the region to bloodshed and war. They were at it again on Wednesday by sending a signal to the Saudi dictatorship that it was acceptable to carry out its murderous policies in the Yemen. Thirteen years after Iraq, neoconservatism still rules.

- Peter Oborne was named freelancer of the year 2016 by the Online Media Awards for an article he wrote for Middle East Eye. He was British Press Awards Columnist of the Year 2013. He resigned as chief political columnist of the Daily Telegraph in 2015.
 
Sweet Square said:
Saw this on Twitter, I guess it's worth a watch

Legacy of New Labour & Corbyn



Click to expand...


It's a pretty strong argument against democracy if anything. (At least the parts where I could understand the accent).
The 1st group either didn't know that Blair went to Iraq or had no opinion on it either way. They also didn't know a single good thing he did. How.
 
berbatrick said:
It's a pretty strong argument against democracy if anything. (At least the parts where I could understand the accent).
The 1st group either didn't know that Blair went to Iraq or had no opinion on it either way. They also didn't know a single good thing he did. How.
Click to expand...
From the same meeting.



And



I'm with you, I don't know how someone can be so out of the loop. It's very worrying.
 
Just get all the Labour politicians on strictly and that baking show wherever it may be and the next election is assured.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.