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

Ubik said:
Literally from last month - https://inews.co.uk/news/scotland/jeremy-corbyn-single-market-hold-uk-back/

There are plenty more of these from Corbyn, McDonnell and Starmer.

And no, article 50 was triggered by a parliamentary vote - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38833883
Click to expand...
Last first, Labour voted for Article 50, not Brexit, Soft Brexit or Hard Brexit.

Retaining the benefits of the single market and the Customs Union is a stated aim from the Labour Manifesto

I think you said that my statement on the single market was a flat out untruth, I guess you don't do apologies.
 
oates said:
Last first, Labour voted for Article 50, not Brexit, Soft Brexit or Hard Brexit.

Retaining the benefits of the single market and the Customs Union is a stated aim from the Labour Manifesto

I think you said that my statement on the single market was a flat out untruth, I guess you don't do apologies.
Click to expand...
And you just stated in your previous post that it was triggered by the referendum result and not voted for by Labour, which was false. Without that being triggered, there is no Brexit. Labour voted for it (not abstained on, voted for).

"The benefits of" is not the single market, because it's the same kind of cherry picking approach the Conservatives use, where they can avoid the single market rules on state aid and freedom of movement (here's Corbyn saying flat out that FoM will end, if you're still interested - http://www.itv.com/news/2017-05-15/...ght-freedom-of-movement-will-end-with-brexit/ ). It's also the kind of arrangement that the EU have ruled out multiple times already.
 
Ubik said:
And you just stated in your previous post that it was triggered by the referendum result and not voted for by Labour, which was false. Without that being triggered, there is no Brexit. Labour voted for it (not abstained on, voted for).

"The benefits of" is not the single market, because it's the same kind of cherry picking approach the Conservatives use, where they can avoid the single market rules on state aid and freedom of movement (here's Corbyn saying flat out that FoM will end, if you're still interested - http://www.itv.com/news/2017-05-15/...ght-freedom-of-movement-will-end-with-brexit/ ). It's also the kind of arrangement that the EU have ruled out multiple times already.
Click to expand...
Honestly I don't believe that in voting to honour the UK vote by Referendum is voting for Brexit. It is honouring that vote but not actually voting for it. The Labour PP did not get to vote for or against Brexit, they voted for Article 50.

Again, how you get to retain the benefits of the single market and customs union without having a single market and customs union would mean that you don't get the said benefits doesn't it? Please Mr, can we just keep the benefits without having a single market? Nah.

The Manifesto is what the Labour Party wants, it instructs the members and MPs in the LPP what the aims are. The Labour Party votes for it.

Yeah, incorrect about Freedom of Movement but still EU citizens and UK citizens are to retain full rights in respective countries is probably what I should have remembered before finding the manifesto to display.

Edit. Corbyn says it would be wrong to stay in the single market and customs union if the agreement would prevent Labour from implementing its “radical plans” for Britain. Labour wants to ensure employees rights etc. He's not against the single market but instead not one without the other.
 
Last edited:
Oscie said:
Unless you're Jewish that's not really for you to decide, is it? I'm not black therefore whilst I can determine whether I think an individual incident is evidence of racism, I can't really say there's no basis for considering there's racism on a wider scale simply because as a white guy I wouldn't experience it. People wouldn't be racist around me, or at least I might not be as in tune to recognising when they are because whilst I'm anti-racist, I'm not particularly sensitive to it. In the same way a straight person can't really determine there's no widespread evidence of homophobia in an organisation on the basis that she hasn't experienced much/any of it.

Plus:
Click to expand...

Nothing in that list links Corbyn even slightly explicitly with anti Semitism. His political career has been defined by the campaign for social justice, equality and peace - the antithesis of discrimination. He certainly holds a higher moral standing than some of the clowns (or war criminals like Blair) whom seem so morally outraged by this episode.

Theresa May welcomed Saudi Prince Salman into the country a couple of weeks. Does that mean she condones widespread human rights abuse?

I am not attempting to undermine the fight against anti Semitism - but to suggest that this is a problem concentrated within the Labour party is nonsensical, and I have no idea how this has escalated into the bandwagon it has. Unless I am missing something.
 
Local election results could be the key to whether this latest dissatisfaction with the leadership rumbles on or dissipates.
 
Oscie said:
Local election results could be the key to whether this latest dissatisfaction with the leadership rumbles on or dissipates.
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised. Seems most likely to me that Labour does quite well but the debate continues.

To be honest - if people really thought the anti-antisemitism charge was politically powerful we would've had far more effort to press it from the Tories and the Tory media before now than we have. I think the truth is that for most people it's not a hugely important topic - however much it is for us politics nerds and those it personally affects.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
I'd be surprised. Seems most likely to me that Labour does quite well but the debate continues.
Click to expand...


Depends what 'quite well' means, I guess. Not doing terribly and doing 'quite well' have become terribly conflated when it comes to the Labour party in recent times. My fear is that we've allowed expectations to be sufficiently lowered to the point where once we would have demanded complete annihilation of a chaotic government in mid-term but instead we're now braced for: 'if it isn't a disaster for us, it's a positive'
 
Oscie said:
Depends what 'quite well' means, I guess. Not doing terribly and doing 'quite well' have become terribly conflated when it comes to the Labour party in recent times.
Click to expand...
I anticipate moderate gains. What are your definitions?
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
I anticipate moderate gains. What are your definitions?
Click to expand...

Any opposition in a local elections vs this govt should not be satisfied with moderate gains. This is one of my biggest bones of contention with the where the party is right now. Local elections are an excuse to give the government a bloody nose. It's not always the best indicator of where the country is right now but if the opposition can't make huge headway on such occasions then they're in trouble. Even the Tories under some of the dross they had leading them in the late 90s/2000s made significant gains in local elections.
 
Oscie said:
Any opposition in a local elections vs this govt should not be satisfied with moderate gains. This is one of my biggest bones of contention with the where the party is right now. Local elections are an excuse to give the government a bloody nose. It's not always the best indicator of where the country is right now but if the opposition can't make huge headway on such occasions then they're in trouble. Even the Tories under some of the dross they had leading them in the late 90s/2000s made significant gains in local elections.
Click to expand...
Give me a target for a successful Labour result, then?
 
Oscie said:
Gains should be more than 'moderate'. As should be the case any opposition vs any government not least one with a record that this one has.
Click to expand...
Pick a result from modern times that we should be aiming to emulate? You can surely understand my desire not to allow you to declare your frustration at gains that are only moderate without telling us what you think we should be aiming for.
 
If that is true .Then as i said good riddance.If it hurts anyone it will be the Blairites.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Pick a result from modern times that we should be aiming to emulate? You can surely understand my desire not to allow you to declare your frustration at gains that are only moderate without telling us what you think we should be aiming for.
Click to expand...
Okay, I'm in!

Last time these seats were up was 2014. Results on that night saw Labour gain 324 and the Tories lose 236, with an equivalent national vote of 31% to Labour and 29% to the Tories (Lib Dems 13%, UKIP 17%). Obviously times have changed muchly since then, but I think we can use that as a "par" score, or what you'd consider moderately successful (in terms of vote share, I'm talking lead over Tories rather than the % itself, which should rise a lot regardless). I think it's also useful as a comparison because it was a time when Labour had a persistent polling lead over the Tories of around 5 points, which correcting for the eventual polling error about matches the current state of it being about tied (or a small lead in either direction). A great night would be 500+ gains and a clear lead of around 5 points in the ENV. A meh night would be a Tory lead in ENV and slim gains to none.

Unknowns - UKIP are going to probably collapse their vote again, so that introduces big uncertainties with regards to where it's going to end up. There's usually a bit of a national vs local issues debate in terms of what drives people to the polls, but I think if Brexit is the dominating issue in the media then the Tories will probably benefit a bit (particularly with the Ukippers going spare), whereas if health and services are bigger stories at that point (as happened last year), Labour will get a boost. Similarly on turnout, particularly the yoof - the electorate in locals is usually disproportionately older, so if young voters turn out in greater numbers than usual it'll have a big effect.

That's a fairly shallow early guestimate anyway, the one I usually follow as a guideline on the night itself is Stephen Bush's, so maybe just ignore whatever I wrote and go with what he says eventually.

And obviously, in the end the whole thing will make bugger all difference anyway.
 
You have to question a society that gives wums like Hopkins space to air her nonsense.
She has a column in a national newspaper is a talk show host on national radio.
 
A lot maybe has to do with the fact before Corbyn these people were largely unrepresented in the mainstream political culture and are perhaps uncultured and unversed in what had become the normal decorum of political debate. Corbyn has brought many people out from the wilderness. Those with 'fringe' views when they're on the fringe where we expect them to be are at a place few take notice. When a guy who they can identify with becomes leader of the Labour party they come with him too. They're not used to having to check what they say because pre-Corbyn winning the leadership contest no-one was interested in listening to them.

Think you can attribute a lot of some of the more outlandish and direct things said by his supporters to that. It's not too dissimilar to how whenever you hear a minor Ukipper and they come out with something that to the ear of someone who's been following the mainstream political discourse, sounds absolutely whack. Truth is it's what they've always been saying but we've only started listening.
 
Oscie said:
A lot maybe has to do with the fact before Corbyn these people were largely unrepresented in the mainstream political culture and are perhaps uncultured and unversed in what had become the normal decorum of political debate. Corbyn has brought many people out from the wilderness. Those with 'fringe' views when they're on the fringe where we expect them to be are at a place few take notice. When a guy who they can identify with becomes leader of the Labour party they come with him too. They're not used to having to check what they say because pre-Corbyn winning the leadership contest no-one was interested in listening to them.

Think you can attribute a lot of some of the more outlandish and direct things said by his supporters to that. It's not too dissimilar to how whenever you hear a minor Ukipper and they come out with something that to the ear of someone who's been following the mainstream political discourse, sounds absolutely whack. Truth is it's what they've always been saying but we've only started listening.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, he's obviously got some nutcases backing him but for the most part the people supporting Corbyn are traditional Labour members who'd spent years compromising and realised things weren't working anymore, and disaffected, relatively normal voters who have been inspired to action by his campaign.

The Tories have been in power for years and yet have plenty of fringe nutters within their party who worship the likes of Rees-Mogg and hold positions so conservative they'd probably make Farage blush.

Similarly, the centre-ground of the Labour party has its share of muppets as well - as all political wings do - and the Blair/Brown governments were hardly scandal free or examples of exemplary political conduct when we consider the Ecclestone scandal, Mandelson's house thing, Iraq, Brown calling that old woman a bigot (even if she was a bigot) and a whole host of major cock-ups that you'd likely be crucifying Corbyn for to a greater degree.
 
Cheesy said:
Oh come on, he's obviously got some nutcases backing him but for the most part the people supporting Corbyn are traditional Labour members who'd spent years compromising and realised things weren't working anymore, and disaffected, relatively normal voters who have been inspired to action by his campaign.

The Tories have been in power for years and yet have plenty of fringe nutters within their party who worship the likes of Rees-Mogg and hold positions so conservative they'd probably make Farage blush.

Similarly, the centre-ground of the Labour party has its share of muppets as well - as all political wings do - and the Blair/Brown governments were hardly scandal free or examples of exemplary political conduct when we consider the Ecclestone scandal, Mandelson's house thing, Iraq, Brown calling that old woman a bigot (even if she was a bigot) and a whole host of major cock-ups that you'd likely be crucifying Corbyn for to a greater degree.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying everyone doesn't have nutters but those nutters are nutters nobody really gave a platform to pre-Corbyn. It turned fringe voices into mainstream ones.

Not everything about Corbyn that's said has to get everyone so fecking defensive. I even cited the UKIP nutters.
 
Oscie said:
I'm not saying everyone doesn't have nutters but those nutters are nutters nobody really gave a platform too pre-Corbyn.

Not everything about Corbyn that's said has to get everyone so fecking defensive.
Click to expand...

You're basically saying that all Corbyn's supporters are rank amateurs who have no idea how to conduct themselves the proper way, i.e. the way good Tories/centrist Labour types do. I'm not a Corbyn supporter/voter despite thinking he's alright (in spite of my reservations on him regarding Europe) but if I were a Corbyn supporter who'd put a ton of work into last year's election then I'd probably be a pissed off at the patronising tone of someone saying I don't really know how to conduct myself politically. And you can say you weren't talking about all Corbyn supporters, but if that's the case then the point isn't really relevant at all because as I've said your point basically applies to all wings of all major UK political parties.
 
Cheesy said:
You're basically saying that all Corbyn's supporters are rank amateurs who have no idea how to conduct themselves the proper way, i.e. the way good Tories/centrist Labour types do.
Click to expand...

No I'm saying that some people who've found themselves in hot water due to social media comments over recent weeks might have done so because they were previously voices on the fringe of politics who haven't ever really had anyone much listen to them before so they're perhaps part of a group not used to filtering their views/language to be palatable to the bourgeoisie.

Or as you might put it: "Basically you're saying ALL Corbyn supporters, and all Labour members and all people who aren't Tony Blair are wankers".
 
Oscie said:
No I'm saying that some people who've found themselves in hot water due to social media comments over recent weeks might have done so because they were previously voices on the fringe of politics who haven't ever really had anyone much listen to them before so they're perhaps part of a group not used to filtering their views/language to be palatable to the bourgeoisie.

Or as you might put it: "Basically you're saying ALL Corbyn supporters, and all Labour members and all people who aren't Tony Blair are wankers".
Click to expand...

You're arguing that a significant portion of Corbyn supporters don't know how to conduct themselves the proper way. That's patronising as feck.

All political parties have had scandals/problems with what they say in the media. The literal last Labour PM managed to find himself scandal-ridden because he called an old woman a bigot. I imagine your assessment of that at the time would've been that it was an honest mistake but largely correct comment. If Corbyn were to do it you'd likely say he's a rank amateur who has no idea how to conduct himself, because you hold Corbyn and his mob to different standards than your own preferred wing of the party.

As I've said, I'm not even that big a fan of Corbyn. His handling of Europe has been somewhere between non-existent and poor, and his refusal to actually commit to any sort of Brexit because he knows it'll cost him voters contradicts his 'more honest politics' mantra. I generally still think Scottish Labour are a bit of a shambles in spite of their own shift to the left, and I find some of the comments from figures like McDonnell in the past to be extremely problematic. But I also don't really see Corbyn supporters as being anywhere near as amateurish or deluded as you're determined to portray them. If anything I'd argue the general media narrative of Momentum and the British left as being rabid and irrational fantasists ended up resulting in people ignoring what was a very shrewd and well-conducted electoral campaign.
 
Supporters are one thing, how in the name of cromulent feck are these people becoming council candidates?
 
Ubik said:
Supporters are one thing, how in the name of cromulent feck are these people becoming council candidates?
Click to expand...

Wait I've got this:

So you're basically saying no councillor from any other party has ever tweeted or said or done anything bad ever?
 
Oscie said:
A lot maybe has to do with the fact before Corbyn these people were largely unrepresented in the mainstream political culture and are perhaps uncultured and unversed in what had become the normal decorum of political debate. Corbyn has brought many people out from the wilderness. Those with 'fringe' views when they're on the fringe where we expect them to be are at a place few take notice. When a guy who they can identify with becomes leader of the Labour party they come with him too. They're not used to having to check what they say because pre-Corbyn winning the leadership contest no-one was interested in listening to them.

Think you can attribute a lot of some of the more outlandish and direct things said by his supporters to that. It's not too dissimilar to how whenever you hear a minor Ukipper and they come out with something that to the ear of someone who's been following the mainstream political discourse, sounds absolutely whack. Truth is it's what they've always been saying but we've only started listening.
Click to expand...

Comparing Corbyn's appeal to that of UKIP is false equivalency. A small but significant number of anti-Jewish conspiracy nuts have leeched onto Corbyn's Labour because they can use Labour's current anti-imperialist stance as a mask for anti-semitism, the racists and other bad'uns are on board with UKIP because racism and various other bigotries underpin UKIP's policy platform, or because people like Farage are happy to exploit bigotry to win votes. Whatever Labour's failings in getting shot of antisemites, and there have been some (for a start if I was in charge Livingstone would have been out as soon as he refused to apologise for his comments), it's not like Corbyn's/Labour's stance on Israel-Palestine is based in antisemitism, or that he's actively courting anti-semitism to gain votes.

Like many others, you're overestimating the 'fringe' nature of the bulk of Corbyn's support. 99% of them aren't the empty-cans-rattle-the-loudest strawmen you're envisioning, and that media outlets which tend towards both small-c conservatism and actual Conservatism like to portray them as.
 
Oscie said:
Yes, I am.
Click to expand...

So what is the 'proper' way to conduct yourself? And what percentage of Corbyn supporters fail to do this in comparison to staunch Tory supporters or centrist Labour supporters?
 
jeff_goldblum said:
Comparing Corbyn's appeal to that of UKIP is false equivalency. A small but significant number of anti-Jewish conspiracy nuts have leeched onto Corbyn's Labour because they can use Labour's current anti-imperialist stance as a mask for anti-semitism, the racists and other bad'uns are on board with UKIP because racism and various other bigotries underpin UKIP's policy platform, or because people like Farage are happy to exploit bigotry to win votes. Whatever Labour's failings in getting shot of antisemites, and there have been some (for a start if I was in charge Livingstone would have been out as soon as he refused to apologise for his comments), it's not like Corbyn's/Labour's stance on Israel-Palestine are based in antisemitism, or that he's actively courting anti-semitism to gain votes.

Like many others, you're overestimating the 'fringe' nature of the bulk of Corbyn's support. 99% of them aren't the empty-cans-rattle-the-loudest strawmen you're envisioning, and that media outlets which tend towards both small-c conservatism and actual Conservatism like to portray them as.
Click to expand...

I wasn't comparing beyond two groups of people who went from not having their opinions listened to, to being thrust into the mainstream of political debate. The comparison was self contained. Any attempt to try and pretend I was comparing the two groups beyond that very specific example is wrong.
 
Cheesy said:
So what is the 'proper' way to conduct yourself? And what percentage of Corbyn supporters fail to do this in comparison to staunch Tory supporters or centrist Labour supporters?
Click to expand...


If there is a protest of Jews in Parliament square the proper way to conduct yourself isn't to stage a counter-protest to shout them down.

It's bizarre how that's not even self-evident any more. Now I've said that I fully expect a response of 'SO what percentage of Tory voters hate Jews?'

I was actually absolving Corbyn from responsibility, merely stating that this is what happens when people not used to the limelight of debate, have the spotlight shone on them. But even that's too critical for the fan club. Apparently I should have included mention of the Bernie Eccleston donation from the 90s as you can't say anything without saying everything.

"Hello"
- Oh right, what about 'hi'? W*****
 
Silva said:
All you need to become a councillor is free time and a bit of ass kissing in the local party.
Click to expand...
And presumably ensure that no-one at that local party notices your massively racist posts on social media.
 
Oscie said:
If there is a protest of Jews in Parliament square the proper way to conduct yourself isn't to stage a counter-protest to shout them down.

It's bizarre how that's not even self-evident any more. Now I've said that I fully expect a response of 'SO what percentage of Tory voters hate Jews?'
Click to expand...

I agree. Not all Corbyn voters are doing this though. In fact I'd wager a very significant portion aren't. And again - he'll no doubt have plenty of supporters who're fairly delusional and irrational, but then that's the case for any core political base where people fervently hold their views.

I'm not referring to other political parties as a form of obfuscation either - I'm doing so because you argued Corbyn supporters don't know how to conduct themselves in the 'normal' manner. Any discussion of that naturally involves evoking comparisons to other major political parties in the UK and how they conduct themselves. So naturally I'm pointing out the plentiful numbers of cases where other major political parties have conducted themselves in a way that's particularly embarrassing or shoddy.
 
Ubik said:
And presumably ensure that no-one at that local party notices your massively racist posts on social media.
Click to expand...

Still think it's bizarre how Corbyn's been leader for so long and only recently someone thought that removing anything potentially embarrassing from his social media profiles might be a good idea. I'm not his biggest fan but the man has been let down big time by people who are supposed to protect him but do such an amateur job at it. Again maybe an example of how people outside the 'how it usually works' sphere who aren't used to how things are done, not doing what you'd expect them to do

Or for Cheesy: I'm saying all Corbyn advisors are crap and don't think any advisor of any politician ever before them has ever given bad advice ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.