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

[Oscie]

There's confusion both between those who confuse anti-Israeli with being antisemitic but also those who confuse being antisemitic with anti-Israeli. The confusion doesn't exist solely on one side. Often the supposedly 'I'm simply anti-zionist' spills quite substantially into obviously antisemitic territory.

Presumably Corbyn deleted his Facebook page because it definitely didn't contain links to any groups that have expressed antisemitic sentiment. If it did then clearly that's a result of him not looking closely enough.

 

[oates]

There's confusion both between those who confuse anti-Israeli with being antisemitic but also those who confuse being antisemitic with anti-Israeli. The confusion doesn't exist solely on one side. Often the supposedly 'I'm simply anti-zionist' spills quite substantially into obvously antisemititc territory.

That's probably fair. I think

 

[17 Van der Gouw]

So...anti-semitism debate aside.

Is Corbyn in trouble, politically, in the wake of this?

 

[Ubik]

So...anti-semitism debate aside.

Is Corbyn in trouble, politically, in the wake of this?

Nope.

 

[Cheesy]

So...anti-semitism debate aside.

Is Corbyn in trouble, politically, in the wake of this?

Unless the scandal gets bigger than it already has I don't think so.

Do think it'll maybe damage his polling figures a little bit though. Feels like this has derailed some of the momentum he's been carrying since last year's election, especially since most have judged May's handling of the Russia crisis to be fairly satisfactory, which has helped her considering how weak she tends to look on Brexit.

 

[Oscie]

The Chakrabarti report was, I think, when the situation began to turn toxic. Or at least where the rot set in with people concerned about Corbyn's ability or willingness to tackle antisemitism within the party. There's simply no defending how that played. It was an insult to the issue and a sign that at the time the leadership weren't interest in paying it any more than lip service. The speed at which Chakrabarti was given a peerage and welcomed into the inner circle of the leadership after concluding there wasn't a problem with antisemitism within the party, presumably to much relief to the leadership she was coincidentally (I'm sure) about to join was an abomination of a decision. Of course anyone who questioned the sense of that move at the time was no doubt accused of trying to "smear" the leader.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

So on the day Izzard declares that Labour will ‘eradicate the stain of antisemitism from the party’ Corbyn deletes his personal Facebook page. Doh!

 

[oates]

So...anti-semitism debate aside.

Is Corbyn in trouble, politically, in the wake of this?

Politically? With The Labour Party? No. He'll be okay up to the next General Election.

With the voters? I don't think he'll lose any within Momentum or the votes he had from Labour supporters. Probably okay with the new voters who have just turned 18. Subtract older voters who have died who might have been up in arms.

I think the trouble is that anti-semitism is possibly institutionalised within a large sector of the populace in as much as they really don't see the problem. They carry on seeing the effects of Zionism and land grabs by the Israeli Government and they carry on seeing bodies being carried out of bombed buildings. They don't seem to see the Jewish bodies from a Palestinian missile strike. We've become immunised to the images.

TLDR. No for now. Not very technical, no proof, no pie charts.

 

[Oscie]

So on the day Izzard declares that Labour will ‘eradicate the stain of antisemitism from the party’ Corbyn deletes his personal Facebook page. Doh!

Incredible that didn't happen the day he became leader to be honest. This is what happens when someone who doesn't expect to win, wins. The state of affairs is that these ducks are long before anyone decides to even run for such a position. What are we now, 2 years on and they've only this week thought checking whether his social media presence has potential to cause embarrassment.

Take your pick over which one you choose, those with sophisticated spin doctors who bury the evidence in good time, or those with shit spin doctors who don't but later try to cover it up and accuse people of a "smear" if they notice.

Moreover the unreadiness of the leadership or those advising the leadership on so many issues is arguably one of the reasons why the Tories do get away with it all the time on so many issues. Guaranteed that if May is on the ropes over Brexit, Corbyn will pitch up at PMQs and use all five of his questions about funding for alternative medicine, or the plight of the badgers. The unorganised and uncoordinated opposition has prolonged the life and popularity of this government.

He rarely gives policy speeches. Just his 'war is bad, peace is good' nothingness to cheering supporters that have no value whatsoever other than to get his supporters irate that it doesn't knock actual news stories off the front pages, calling the BBC 'biased' if it doesn't lead with it.

 

[nickm]

It’s not a smear to be held to account for th8ngs he actually did, said and participated in though.

 

[oates]

It’s not a smear to be held to account for th8ngs he actually did, said and participated in though.

Yeah, I responded to you on this topic and you didn't want to come back on it then so it's just round and round we go.

 

[Cheesy]

Incredible that didn't happen the day he became leader to be honest. This is what happens when someone who doesn't expect to win, wins. The state of affairs is that these ducks are long before anyone decides to even run for such a position. What are we now, 2 years on and they've only this week thought checking whether his social media presence has potential to cause embarrassment.

Take your pick over which one you choose, those with sophisticated spin doctors who bury the evidence in good time, or those with shit spin doctors who don't but later try to cover it up and accuse people of a "smear" if they notice.

Moreover the unreadiness of the leadership or those advising the leadership on so many issues is arguably one of the reasons why the Tories do get away with it all the time on so many issues. Guaranteed that if May is on the ropes over Brexit, Corbyn will pitch up at PMQs and use all five of his questions about funding for alternative medicine, or the plight of the badgers. The unorganised and uncoordinated opposition has prolonged the life and popularity of this government.

He rarely gives policy speeches. Just his 'war is bad, peace is good' nothingness to cheering supporters that have no value whatsoever other than to get his supporters irate that it doesn't knock actual news stories off the front pages, calling the BBC 'biased' if it doesn't lead with it.

The reason he won was because he was the only contestant in the leadership campaign offering a viable alternative to the fairly wet and uninspiring brand of centrism that'd seen Labour lose two successive elections. Labour had largely become a party lacking any conviction, unsure of what their views were so long as those views might appeal to the general public, still trying to live off their appeal from the Blair years in spite of the fact those years had largely passed and Blair had become mostly detested. Miliband moved them slightly more to the left but again didn't do so with any conviction, sort of almost apologising every time he announced a remotely left-wing policy.

Corbyn isn't perfect. As a speaker he's somewhat meddling, paling in comparison to Benn and even someone like Skinner. He's largely just there because the left wanted someone to act as their defacto candidate, and because the centre-ground patronisingly thought it'd be nice to let him stand. But he's there for a reason, and those reasons shouldn't be ignored when it's considered that he managed to deliver election results more successful than those of Brown or Miliband.

There probably is a solid argument that a lot of Corbyn's ideals hold him back and it's quite possible to be very critical of his leadership, but the centre-ground of the Labour party need to actually offer something substantial if they hope to regain power in the party.

 

[Sweet Square]

Liberals listen to Mason and just feck off away from the Labour Party.

 

[Oscie]

The reason he won was because he was the only contestant in the leadership campaign offering a viable alternative to the fairly wet and uninspiring brand of centrism that'd seen Labour lose two successive elections. Labour had largely become a party lacking any conviction, unsure of what their views were so long as those views might appeal to the general public, still trying to live off their appeal from the Blair years in spite of the fact those years had largely passed and Blair had become mostly detested. Miliband moved them slightly more to the left but again didn't do so with any conviction, sort of almost apologising every time he announced a remotely left-wing policy.

Corbyn isn't perfect. As a speaker he's somewhat meddling, paling in comparison to Benn and even someone like Skinner. He's largely just there because the left wanted someone to act as their defacto candidate, and because the centre-ground patronisingly thought it'd be nice to let him stand. But he's there for a reason, and those reasons shouldn't be ignored when it's considered that he managed to deliver election results more successful than those of Brown or Miliband.

There probably is a solid argument that a lot of Corbyn's ideals hold him back and it's quite possible to be very critical of his leadership, but the centre-ground of the Labour party need to actually offer something substantial if they hope to regain power in the party.

I agree the 2015 leadership contest wasn't the best field. And Miliband was in over his head. Think it goes further than Corbyn not being perfect though. Pre-leadership election (1st one) he had trouble answering the question as to whether he even wanted the role. I've never felt his heart was in it and fundamentally have always resented the fact I think he's there just to prove a point.

I said before that whilst I wouldn't back McDonnell to take the party where I think it should, at least he'd provide inspired, radical leadership. Corbyn is every bit a wet-fish as Yvette Cooper was really, he just has radicals cheering him on. He's a bit meh - and recent events show that he struggles to manage and control issues. A competent leader/leadership team should get making amends for defending an antisemitic image right the first time, not need two or three goes at it. Symbolic of the utter shambles that's aided one of the most incompetent governments we've ever had.

 

[oates]

These 5 antisemite Facebook Groups that he was "Friends' with on his account were called things like "Jeremy Corbyn Leads Us To VICTORY" and some members of that group made antisemite statements about the Rothschilds. Another was called "Labour For Democratic Socialism" which had some posts at some point about Holocaust denial, and again the Rothschilds. Don't know about the others but I'm guessing (pure guesswork) that none of them were called "Kill Jews for Jeremy" or "Let's get rid of the Jews for a Labour Victory.

I guess again that some members of some of these Facebook sites were perfectly normal nose breathers and maybe Jeremy just didn't look at his Facebook page too closely. Who does?

Anyway, informed about all this his Account is off line, sorted.

 

[Oscie]

Besides everything else, why the feck is this only happening now?

"Maybe it's an idea to expunge his social media sites of anything potentially damaging" isn't a conversation someone paid to advise the leader of the Labour party has 2 years after they become leader.

 

[Cheesy]

I agree the 2015 leadership contest wasn't the best field. And Miliband was in over his head. Think it goes further than Corbyn not being perfect though. Pre-leadership election (1st one) he had trouble answering the question as to whether he even wanted the role. I've never felt his heart was in it and fundamentally have always resented the fact I think he's there just to prove a point.

I said before that whilst I wouldn't back McDonnell to take the party where I think it should, at least he'd provide inspired, radical leadership. Corbyn is every bit a wet-fish as Yvette Cooper was really, he just has radicals cheering him on.

Not really, because by just generally taking on the leadership contest at all he's provided an alternative to the narrative that had dominated Labour for years. If we're going to criticise him back then though - it surely has to be noted that he's improved massively. During last year's election he looked a lot Prime Ministerial and human than he previously did in 2015.

Overall I'm not sure where the party can be other than on the left at the moment - the older brand of centrism clearly isn't popular anymore as people seek genuine solutions to economic inequality, and that wing of the party doesn't really have any substantive political figures like Blair or Brown who can realistically lead the party to an election win. The membership is overtly left-wing because they view the party as being an inherently left-wing one and that's not going to change; I think anyone genuinely dissatisfied with that is probably better off being in the Lib Dems. And I don't even mean that in a disparaging way - it's just they're a lot closer to that brand of centrism than Labour realistically will be for a while.

 

[oates]

Besides everything else, why the feck is this only happening now?

"Maybe it's an idea to expunge his social media sites of anything potentially damaging" isn't a conversation someone paid to advise the leader of the Labour party has 2 years after they become leader.

Labour aren't the Tories, maybe we didn't have the money for a staffer to watch his facebook page.

 

[nickm]

Yeah, I responded to you on this topic and you didn't want to come back on it then so it's just round and round we go.

Did you? I will look at it.

 

[Oscie]

Not really, because by just generally taking on the leadership contest at all he's provided an alternative to the narrative that had dominated Labour for years. If we're going to criticise him back then though - it surely has to be noted that he's improved massively. During last year's election he looked a lot Prime Ministerial and human than he previously did in 2015.

Overall I'm not sure where the party can be other than on the left at the moment - the older brand of centrism clearly isn't popular anymore as people seek genuine solutions to economic inequality, and that wing of the party doesn't really have any substantive political figures like Blair or Brown who can realistically lead the party to an election win. The membership is overtly left-wing because they view the party as being an inherently left-wing one and that's not going to change; I think anyone genuinely dissatisfied with that is probably better off being in the Lib Dems. And I don't even mean that in a disparaging way - it's just they're a lot closer to that brand of centrism than Labour realistically will be for a while.

He hasn't provided an alternative narrative. His poor media handling means he's largely been ignored by the mainstream media. We can resent how much power they have but we can't acknowledge that and then pretend someone who bypasses them stands any chance. Labour's 'success' at the last election was because May and the Tories fought the worst campaign in living memory. Corbyn is well meaning guy but ultimately a politician that struggles to construct a message that branches out. I can't honestly remember a single policy the party had at the last election besides guessing more money for public services was probably in the manifesto.

It's just generally agreeable white noise, the kind of thing you'd expect from a backbench MP, not from a leader of a party.

 

[Oscie]

Labour aren't the Tories, maybe we didn't have the money for a staffer to watch his facebook page.

Yeah advisors that actually pay attention to things people say or do or have heard of social media must be really expensive.

 

[oates]

Yeah advisors that actually pay attention to things people say or do or have heard of social media must be really expensive.

Or switched on. Anyway, they're on it now. Like he said they'd be. Zero Tolerance.

 

[Cheesy]

He hasn't provided an alternative narrative. His poor media handling means he's largely been ignored by the mainstream media. We can resent how much power they have but we can't acknowledge that and then pretend someone who bypasses them stands any chance. Labour's 'success' at the last election was because May and the Tories fought the worst campaign in living memory. Corbyn is well meaning guy but ultimately a politician that struggles to construct a message that branches out. I can't honestly remember a single policy the party had at the last election besides guessing more money for public services was probably in the manifesto.

It's just generally agreeable white noise, the kind of thing you'd expect from a backbench MP, not from a leader of a party.

His general idea that Tory austerity wasn't working and needed a genuine left-wing alternative was very clear to anyone who pays even the remotest attention to politics. A lot of the details surrounding it were probably vacuous and dishonest but then that's generally the case with just about every politician, and was generally what Blair was known for insofar as his image over substance style went.

The hostility from the mainstream media towards Corbyn is because he's left-wing, and because the majority of the British printing press backs the Tory party. Even the most competent left-winger would be receiving an onslaught in that regard.

 

[Oscie]

His general idea that Tory austerity wasn't working and needed a genuine left-wing alternative was very clear to anyone who pays even the remotest attention to politics. A lot of the details surrounding it were probably vacuous and dishonest but then that's generally the case with just about every politician, and was generally what Blair was known for insofar as his image over substance style went.

The hostility from the mainstream media towards Corbyn is because he's left-wing, and because the majority of the British printing press backs the Tory party. Even the most competent left-winger would be receiving an onslaught in that regard.

But even that is vague. He fought an election less than a year ago. You should be able to come up with more than "His general idea....." Even if you now Google the party's manfiesto the fact nothing sprung to mind during your first bite of the cherry is telling.

Blair won 3 general elections and enacted pushed through hundreds of pieces of legislation on, among other things, protection for women, rights for gays, cut crime, raised the standards of public services, lifted children and pensioners out of poverty, and all the rest of it. If that's 'style over substance then I'll take that over a guy who hasn't ensured the enactment of a single piece of legislation but whose supporters have his face on a t-shirt.

Think what you like of Blair and what he did he introduced laws, made actual changes to domestic policy. Agree or disagree with what he did - he did things. Lots of things. Dismissing that as style over substance is fine in most contexts as he was a flash git who cared about spin way too much. But when comparing him to someone who doesn't even hav a record in government to stand on? Nah, don't think so.

This is the problem: government vs saying nice things. Too many of the party view 'saying nice things' as substantively important and aren't really bothered about the whole being in power thing.

 

[Sweet Square]

Blair won 3 general elections and enacted pushed through hundreds of pieces of legislation on, among other things, protection for women, rights for gays, cut crime, raised the standards of public services, lifted children and pensioners out of poverty, and all the rest of it. If that's 'style over substance then I'll take that over a guy who hasn't ensured the enactment of a single piece of legislation but whose supporters have his face on a t-shirt.

Iraq.

 

[oates]

Blair won 3 general elections and enacted pushed through hundreds of pieces of legislation on, among other things, protection for women, rights for gays, cut crime, raised the standards of public services, lifted children and pensioners out of poverty, and all the rest of it. If that's 'style over substance then I'll take that over a guy who hasn't ensured the enactment of a single piece of legislation but whose supporters have his face on a t-shirt.

WMD.

 

[Ubik]

The reason he won was because he was the only contestant in the leadership campaign offering a viable alternative to the fairly wet and uninspiring brand of centrism that'd seen Labour lose two successive elections. Labour had largely become a party lacking any conviction, unsure of what their views were so long as those views might appeal to the general public, still trying to live off their appeal from the Blair years in spite of the fact those years had largely passed and Blair had become mostly detested. Miliband moved them slightly more to the left but again didn't do so with any conviction, sort of almost apologising every time he announced a remotely left-wing policy.

Corbyn isn't perfect. As a speaker he's somewhat meddling, paling in comparison to Benn and even someone like Skinner. He's largely just there because the left wanted someone to act as their defacto candidate, and because the centre-ground patronisingly thought it'd be nice to let him stand. But he's there for a reason, and those reasons shouldn't be ignored when it's considered that he managed to deliver election results more successful than those of Brown or Miliband.

There probably is a solid argument that a lot of Corbyn's ideals hold him back and it's quite possible to be very critical of his leadership, but the centre-ground of the Labour party need to actually offer something substantial if they hope to regain power in the party.

Nit-pick here - it was a combination of a few old-timers being a bit patronising (like Frank Field and Margaret Beckett), some former Creagh backers who just wanted a fourth person on the ballot (such as Jo Cox and Sarah Champion) and then all the London mayoral candidates (except Jowell, who was in the Lords) who wanted a bit of the London left vote in the nomination battle. The 2010 nomination of Abbott was more of a centrist sop, but then it was also to avoid the embarrassment of the field being four white, male, middle-aged ex-SpAds.

 

[Cheesy]

But even that is vague. He fought an election less than a year ago. You should be able to come up with more than "His general idea....." Even if you now Google the party's manfiesto the fact nothing sprung to mind during your first bite of the cherry is telling.

Blair won 3 general elections and enacted pushed through hundreds of pieces of legislation on, among other things, protection for women, rights for gays, cut crime, raised the standards of public services, lifted children and pensioners out of poverty, and all the rest of it. If that's 'style over substance then I'll take that over a guy who hasn't ensured the enactment of a single piece of legislation but whose supporters have his face on a t-shirt.

Think what you like of Blair and what he did he introduced laws, made actual changes to domestic policy. Agree or disagree with what he did - he did things. Lots of things. Dismissing that as style over substance is fine in most contexts as he was a flash git who cared about spin way too much. But when comparing him to someone who doesn't even hav a record in government to stand on? Nah, don't think so.

Of course. I'm not going to deny the Blair governments implemented a lot of stuff I'd agree with. But they also pretty much accepted Thatcher's economic doctrine tax-wise, maintaining fairly low rates and completing the deregulation of the banks, while introducing PFI and handling Iraq catastrophically. All-in-all they achieved a lot, yes, but they also fundamentally alienated a lot of their core base while not really winning a new core base - a lot of the right-wingers who were more likely to vote for New Labour quickly shifted back in 2010 and 2015, meaning the party was left with a fairly alienated and disillusioned core base that hadn't been listened to and that were crying out for someone like Corbyn. Most reasonable lefties can admit Blair achieved plenty of good - the criticism leveled at him is he didn't do enough, and considering the state the Tories were in during the 90s he'd have won an election comfortably if he'd been a little bit more to the left, as evidenced by the fact Smith was doing fairly well polling-wise until his death.

 

[Oscie]

Iraq.

Oh yeah, now you said that it must have been Corbyn who was PM all those years and lead all those bills through Parliament.

Being PM for a decade and is less of an achievement than being a backbench MP because someone said 'Iraq'. Got it.

 

[Cheesy]

Nit-pick here - it was a combination of a few old-timers being a bit patronising (like Frank Field and Margaret Beckett), some former Creagh backers who just wanted a fourth person on the ballot (such as Jo Cox and Sarah Champion) and then all the London mayoral candidates (except Jowell, who was in the Lords) who wanted a bit of the London left vote in the nomination battle. The 2010 nomination of Abbott was more of a centrist sop, but then it was also to avoid the embarrassment of the field being four white, male, middle-aged ex-SpAds.

Fair, my comment was probably a bit of a generalisation in that regard. Although I do still think there was a slightly patronising element to it in that if most of the centrists had been aware Corbyn stood an actual chance of winning then they'd have been more likely to sacrifice their initial reasons to ensure he was excluded.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Oh yeah, now you said that it must have been Corbyn who was PM all those years and lead all those bills through Parliament.

Being PM for a decade and is less of an achievement than being a backbench MP because someone said 'Iraq'. Got it.

They were notable ommissions to the list of achievements you were attributing to Blair.

 

[Oscie]

Of course. I'm not going to deny the Blair governments implemented a lot of stuff I'd agree with. But they also pretty much accepted Thatcher's economic doctrine tax-wise, maintaining fairly low rates and completing the deregulation of the banks, while introducing PFI and handling Iraq catastrophically. All-in-all they achieved a lot, yes, but they also fundamentally alienated a lot of their core base while not really winning a new core base - a lot of the right-wingers who were more likely to vote for New Labour quickly shifted back in 2010 and 2015, meaning the party was left with a fairly alienated and disillusioned core base that hadn't been listened to and that were crying out for someone like Corbyn. Most reasonable lefties can admit Blair achieved plenty of good - the criticism leveled at him is he didn't do enough, and considering the state the Tories were in during the 90s he'd have won an election comfortably if he'd been a little bit more to the left, as evidenced by the fact Smith was doing fairly well polling-wise until his death.

Smith and Blair were up against a better calibre of government than the current Labour leadership is. I'm just bored of the excuses. It's the media, it's the Blairites, it's the Jews, it's a smear. When all's said and done if the official opposition party changed it's name to the Jimmy Savile Was Innocent Party, you'd have to ask serious questions as to why they kept on letting the government off the hook. The gap between this government vs any opposition of the last 30 years would be 20 points, at least.

As we're about to be ripped from the EU in to satisfy the racists and nutcases on the right, it historically has never been a worse time for the 'I'm fine if we don't win a long as ideologically we're moving in a direction I'm pleased with' experiment with the Labour party.

 

[Oscie]

They were notable ommissions to the list of achievements you were attributing to Blair.

I wasn't attributing achievements, I was stating some of the things he did. I even acknowledged that people mightn't like what he did - but he did it. Being PM for 10 years doesn't mean you've achieved less than someone who hasn't on the basis that some people could name things he did they didn't like. But I felt that was a completely redundant thing to have to point out.

Doing things vs talking about things.

I hated virtually everything Thatcher did, doesn't mean I can't acknowledge the fact she did them and achieved more than someone who sat on the backbenches opposing what she was doing to little effect. The person who does X is always winning a 'style over substance' context with the person who voices his opinion on Y.

 

[oates]

Smith and Blair were up against a better calibre of government than the current Labour leadership is. I'm just bored of the excuses. It's the media, it's the Blairites, it's the Jews, it's a smear. When all's said and done if the official opposition party changed it's name to the Jimmy Savile Was Innocent Party, you'd have to ask serious questions as to why they kept on letting the government off the hook. The gap between this government vs any opposition of the last 30 years would be 20 points, at least.

As we're about to be ripped from the EU in to satisfy the racists and nutcases on the right, it historically has never been a worse time for the 'I'm fine if we don't win a long as ideologically we're moving in a direction I'm pleased with' experiment with the Labour party.

Smith dies, probably the best PM that never was. Blair lied, he lied and he lied. And then he lied some more, endlessly. But he's much better than Corbyn. But Blair stepped down and Brown lost to this incredible Tory Party led by Cameron who leads the country eventually into Brexit but not out of it. But you want Blair back?

 

[Cheesy]

Smith and Blair were up against a better calibre of government than the current Labour leadership is. I'm just bored of the excuses. It's the media, it's the Blairites, it's the Jews, it's a smear. When all's said and done if the official opposition party changed it's name to the Jimmy Savile Was Innocent Party, you'd have to ask serious questions as to why they kept on letting the government off the hook. The gap between this government vs any opposition of the last 30 years would be 20 points, at least.

As we're about to be ripped from the EU in to satisfy the racists and nutcases on the right, it historically has never been a worse time for the 'I'm fine if we don't win a long as ideologically we're moving in a direction I'm pleased with' experiment with the Labour party.

Okay. But we've already established that Labour's typical brand of centrism isn't particularly popular right now and is unlikely to win an election, considering there are no particularly outstanding or impressive leadership candidates to promote it, and considering Labour outright rejecting a Brexit which involves ending freedom of movement would massively dent their popularity with sects of the party who voted for Brexit. This only really works if the political environment present is one in which the country is crying out for a centrist option. Right now they aren't. Significant portions of the public are tired after being ignored by various governments for years in the face of growing economic equality, and a slight increase in public investment while not really doing anything substantial to address those inequalities isn't going to change that. Corbyn may not be the man to regain power, granted - but a shift back to the centre isn't going to help.

 

[Sweet Square]

Oh yeah, now you said that it must have been Corbyn who was PM all those years and lead all those bills through Parliament.

Being PM for a decade and is less of an achievement than being a backbench MP because someone said 'Iraq'. Got it.

Iraq(Blair foreign policy up until then had being very good)and the deregulation of the banks made any achievements by New Labour worthless.

 

[Oscie]

Iraq(Blair foreign policy up until then had being very good)and the deregulation of the banks made any achievements by New Labour worthless.

Name a Corbyn achievement.

One.

Thanks.

The left's obsession with Blair means so many of you would rather a Tory government than an 'impure' Labour one. Smith and Blair were actually far closely aligned than Smith and Corbyn. He would have been hated by the left too had he lived and went on to win. The hard left resent anyone who disrupts their ideal which seems to be perpetual Tory rule so they can complain about it. Only have to look at issues Wilson and Callaghan had with the hard left to know that this isn't an issue unique to Blair. Anyone who wins and is successful for Labour, the left resist.

They only laud Attlee because we're so many decades removed now that they can pretend he was one of theirs. Transplant Attlee into the modern party and the people who take their 'B-LIAR' placard with them wherever they go in case an emergency protest breaks out would have him top of their deselection list.

Blair and Iraq are convenient scapegoats to the fact that there's a long history of the left of the party hating whoever it is who delivers government for them. Smith may not have had Iraq but nor did Callaghan or Wilson and their battles with the same element of the party Corbyn supporters come from isn't expunged from history. Smith would have gone same way. Which is what always makes me laugh when people from the left cite Smith favourable as a 'what if'. The man who, if anything, was the forerunner to the 'neo-liberalism' Blair and Brown (to a lesser extent) heralded. But the poor bastard died so lets pretend the fact he was one of the architects to move Labour away from the left and towards the centre, didn't happen. And let's ignore the fact one of his protegees became one of the most important figures in the New Labour movement.

 

[oates]

Oh yes, I remember the good old days of people telling us that Labour would be wiped out at the Polling Booths. And The Conservatives needed a coalition with some Northern Irish people they shared no ideology with but gave them a bung instead.

 

[Sweet Square]

The left's obsession with Blair means so many of you would rather a Tory government than an 'impure' Labour one. Smith and Blair were actually far closely aligned than Smith and Corbyn. He would have been hated by the left too had he lived and went on to win. The hard left resent anyone who disrupts their ideal which seems to be perpetual Tory rule so they can complain about it. Only have to look at issues Wilson and Callaghan had with the hard left to know that this isn't an issue unique to Blair. Anyone who wins and is successful for Labour, the left resist.

They only laud Attlee because we're so many decades removed now that they can pretend he was one of theirs. Transplant Attlee into the modern party and the people who take their 'B-LIAR' placard with them wherever they go in case an emergency protest breaks out would have him top of their deselection list.

Blair and Iraq are convenient scapegoats to the fact that there's a long history of the left of the party hating whoever it is who delivers government for them. Smith may not have had Iraq but nor did Callaghan or Wilson and their battles with the same element of the party Corbyn supporters come from isn't expunged from history. Smith would have gone same way. Which is what always makes me laugh when people from the left cite Smith favourable as a 'what if'. The man who, if anything, was the forerunner to the 'neo-liberalism' Blair and Brown (to a lesser extent) heralded.

Oh my god you actual are Tony Blair aren't you.

 

[nickm]

Well that's the thing, in that I don't see any context to this other then he'd meet or talk with these organisations as a politician. I don't know about you but I was talking about so called 'friends' but all of us can increase that exponentially when we talk about associates. My political views are to the left and yet as a businessman I'm a member of the CBI and so many other members have diametrically opposed views to me and we might often clash but how do you hope to occasionally change an opinion if not to be a part of something.

He wasn’t just meeting organisations as a politician, he was often meeting with violent organisations whose aims he shared. Eg the Sinn Fein / IRA stuff from the 80s... he shared their goal of a United ireland. He wasn’t meeting all sides as any honest broker would, or even thr peaceful advocates of his position. The SDLP, who at the time were the peaceful advocates of a United ireland, are on record as saying Corbyn never spoke to them and that they regarded him as taking the side of Sinn Fein.