I don’t understand why you can’t have a form of relevant/updated Blairist moderation at home without the evangelical approach to foreign policy that led to Iraq. This idea that Iraq invalidates the whole domestic approach is just obviously wrong, but it is convenient of hard left types to pretend that it does, as it tars everything with the same brush.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
I don’t understand why you can’t have a form of relevant/updated Blairist moderation at home without the evangelical approach to foreign policy that led to Iraq. This idea that Iraq invalidates the whole domestic approach is just obviously wrong, but it is convenient of hard left types to pretend that it does, as it tars everything with the same brush.
Iraq's generally just the initial point of contention for people who dislike Blair - his economic approach helped domestically in regards to investment but didn't really do anything substantial in regards to reducing inequality between the richest and poorest. He to an extent accepted Thatcher's economic agenda and didn't really do anything to try and shift the paradigm again. This isn't to argue that there weren't benefits to his premiership or that he didn't introduce a lot of positive legislation that the Tories would've strayed away from - quite to the contrary. Nevertheless it's fair to say that he isn't really ideal for anyone who aligns themselves on the left of the political spectrum, and his style of politics works as a substantial compromise at best. Considering recent financial crises and the continuation of economic inequality, centrism isn't exactly popular at the moment and a lot of centrist European political parties have been on the slide due to that. Hard to see any route back into power for a Blair-type politician unless they're oozing charisma. And Labour certainly isn't filled with charismatic prospective leaders as it stands...
Blair actually pumped more money into public services and undertook a bigger redistribution of wealth than Labour were pledged to do under the last election under Corbyn had they won. Going by the last manifesto Cobyn's government would have been far more modest than Blair on most all measurements of 'left-wing' or socialist credentials. Yet we have to pretend that Corbyn's some revolutionary and Blair was 'continuing Thatcher's legacy'
What people want to pretend the last Labour government was vs what it actually was are often to very different things. But then people want to pretend things now are going quite well for the Labour party so all bets are off when it comes to some people's perceptions of reality.
What people want to pretend the last Labour government was vs what it actually was are often to very different things. But then people want to pretend things now are going quite well for the Labour party so all bets are off when it comes to some people's perceptions of reality.
He put a lot into public services but did little to reverse the trends of tax cuts implemented during Thatcher's reign. Income inequality wasn't really tackled substantially at all during his spell in power.
Thatcher herself (I believe, don't have the quote at hand) cited New Labour and Blair as one of her greatest achievements because she successfully managed to shift the economic paradigm and it's remained there ever since.
Blair's first manifesto pledged to mirror the spending plans of the Tories
For the first 3 years, yes. Rightly or wrongly they judged that it's reputation as a 'spend now, ask questions later' party was the biggest threat to the country trusting the Labour party again. In 10 years the (1997-2007) the NHS budget trebled. It went from 4.6% of GDP to 7.5%. Yes the Blair govt had faults yes it wasn't radical enough in many areas but the criticism it gets from the hard of thinking who paint it of 10 years of Thatcher-lite + an "illegal war", is so far wide of the mark it's actually insulting to everyone's intelligence.
EDIT: The GDP figure includes the Brown era too, up to 2010. The overall budget trebling was 1997-2007.
The conflict has never been tried in any international court, it has never been held to be illegal by any recognised authority. Aaron Bastini and George Galloway are not the arbitrators of international conflict. Quotation marks were 100% factually correct.
This is the other thing the hard of thinking struggle with. "I reckon, therefore it is", isn't a thing.
This is the other thing the hard of thinking struggle with. "I reckon, therefore it is", isn't a thing.
Even if it wasn't an illegal war it was still a reprehensible and unjustifiable one which led to countless deaths and hasn't resolved anything more than a decade later. I don't think anyone would really seek to defend it now.
So Henry Kissinger is perfectly fine individual for you then ?
You say that but Cameron governed from the Blair playbook until Brexit. They called him 'the master' and Blair's book was required reading amongst his ministers. Blair did shift the terms of the debate. His kind of triangulation is out of fashion but I suspect not for long, once the current bunch of charlatans and incompetents are shown up.
That's because income inequality wasn't seen as the issue of the day back then, the alarmingly high rates of pensioner and child poverty were the pressing social ills. Which were targeted with re-distributive policies like tax credits and the winter fuel allowance, with some success - https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6738
There's a strong argument to say they didn't go near as far as they could have given the majority they had, but they'd also gotten that majority on the back of a manifesto, which they followed.
I think that's fair. But it's a point worthy of sensible debate which demonstrably isn't possible here. Blair's domestic legacy was not perfect by any stretch. Progress was made in some areas, less so in others. In the olden-days we used to use pragmatism to judge these things in the round.
Now it's hysterical, common-room politics where imperfect is traitorous, disagreements intolerable
Last edited:
I don't get the cult going after Watson. Corbyn seems to have acknowledge a problem with antisemtiism, which the cult lauded as some eminently wonderful work by the messiah. Watson follows that up by acknowledging the party has a problem with antisemtiism and the cult now see him as a traitor who should resign.
Even in the context of these being people who self-harm the image of the Dear Leader's face into their forearms each morning, that's a little illogical isn't it?
Even in the context of these being people who self-harm the image of the Dear Leader's face into their forearms each morning, that's a little illogical isn't it?
The same objective pragmatism you use when discussing Corbyn?
I do think some posters can often be immediately dismissive of opposing points in a way which doesn't necessarily help, but at the same time people on either end of the political spectrum haven't just become more divided and polarised because they feel like it - people are being increasingly driven towards that because of persistent inequality, austerity, and a variety of other factors which has resulted in their quality of life declining or stagnating. This is especially true among the young, who're often condescendingly told to just get on with it. The mainstream wings of the most prominent political parties haven't offered those who are struggling anything more than fairly meek solutions that don't address the core issues which have resulted in certain problems. Hence they're looking outside that. I feel like that's something that needs to be acknowledged when discussing Corbyn etc. I don't think he's perfect by any means, but I think a lot of points those who subscribe to his general ideals make are bang on the money, and if you're a lifelong Labour supporter who endured years where the party didn't align to your beliefs but got on with it due to compromise, then being told the opposite now they're in power again can seem rather frustrating. This is true here but especially prevalent in the US, where moderate centrists haven't been able to halt the march of an increasingly extreme and radical Republican party.
Self harm 'gags' now. Blimey.
The people going after Watson are not helping Corbyn's case.
I'm not sure they care about helping Corbyn's case. Someone who did would be concerned about his and the party's cause to grow and to attract more people and win over more voters. Everything I observe from how the hardcore Corbyn base behave indicates they couldn't give less of a shit about any of that. They're quite happy to tell people to leave the party unless they're already fully converted. They want it effectively to be a safe space for people who already agree on one thing and that one thing has to be how utterly brilliant Jeremy Corbyn is.
What gets me is the reluctance for even the normal ones among his fanbase to accept how weird and a bit creepy it all is; complaining about the use of the word 'cult' one minute and the next screaming hysterically that someone should be excluded from the party they've been a member of for 50 years because some 19 year old airhead who has been politically aware for 5 minutes has decided he wants his party back. Usually citing Michael Foot and Tony Benn, two people they almost certainly know absolutely nothing about.
It's odd he isn't putting himself out there for questioning on this matter. I'm not a huge fan of politicians like Corbyn and Trump bypassing the media and communicating only through an open platform on social media where they can not only completely control the message but their can eliminate and questioning of it.
There'll be people who want to argue when Trump does it it's awful but when Corbyn does it it's brilliant - but it's shit when anyone does it. Generally there's a growing trend of politicians either only speaking with the media when they know the person asking the question is onside, or just releasing Tweets/YouTube videos or making speeches that nobody has the opportunity to question you on.
There'll be people who want to argue when Trump does it it's awful but when Corbyn does it it's brilliant - but it's shit when anyone does it. Generally there's a growing trend of politicians either only speaking with the media when they know the person asking the question is onside, or just releasing Tweets/YouTube videos or making speeches that nobody has the opportunity to question you on.
Not sure quite how much I believe the Express though
It would be a strange general election if we held one today. The usual wisdom is that the divided party loses, but in this case both major parties are divided.
Only the Express running with that story. Refuse to believe it until more credible papers run with it.
I'm not Corbyn's biggest fan but there is absolutely no benefit to having another leadership debate right now .It's totally the wrong time.
Why can't this fecking party stop making unforced errors?
This anti semitism row should be done with.
Why can't this fecking party stop making unforced errors?
This anti semitism row should be done with.
But that would require Corbyn supporters angrily posting anti Semitic conspiracy theories on Twitter and Facebook to admit they were wrong.
Interesting numbers
Whatever your views on the respective merits of allegations against the Labour party there is absolutely no denying that a huge proportion (if not the majority) of reactions to them from Corbyn supporters on social media has been to blame a right-wing secretive cabal of Jews who control the media narrative. If you don't believe me spend five minutes on Twitter or on the comments from any Momentum post on Facebook about it.
Denying there's any anti-semitism in the Labour party by using one of the oldest, textbook examples of antisemitism is a ballsy move if nothing else.
It's social media though so it could literally be anyone - example
And recent polling showed anti semitism among Labour member since 2015 has actual gone down(Of course any anti semitism to much too). So the idea the anti semitism has shot up since Corbyn and left took over the party is just untrue.
Also I think your missing the actual debate/fight in the party which is over the use of the IHRA, some MPs want the party to adopt the full IHRA wording but other MPs think adopting the full wording will discriminate against Palestine activists as the full wording say it's anti semitic to describe Israel as a racist state.
No it doesn't.
Of course some are bots. Unfortunately if you happen to personally know vocal Labour supporters on social media you'd know that a far higher proportion of them than you'd like are very, very real.
They have adopted the full definition, they haven't adopted all the examples. Here's a thread which sums up nicely why that's a daft fecking move:
It also touches on why you can't separate the current debate about Labour's ham-fisted implementation of the IHRA from previous recent scandals involving Labour and anti-semitism.
Well ok then the examples
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism
But these people aren't showing up at all when the membership is polled and you would think they if so in grained in the party.
It's a good thread but it's right that Labour haven't adopted the example - ''by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour'' just on anti racist principle alone as Barnaby Raine mentions it makes the Palestine people and their history almost invisible.
That still doesn't say what you posted previously.
Oh christ your not one of those people who thinks the example is fine because it says a state of Israel.
I'd like to see this polling. At any rate, I don't think anyone is suggesting that anti-semitism is the norm, but rather there's a sizeable minority who the Labour leader has been uncomfortably close to in the past and that when concerns have been raised they've been dismissed out of hand.
My feelings on that are covered by number 18 and 19 in the tweet thread I quoted, but either way. I can't help but think that, that line is being deliberately misquoted to pretend like it says 'the State of Isreal can't be accused of being racist' so people can get indignant about how the IHRA definition stops them from calling out the Isreali treatment of Palestinian citizens, whilst it's meant to refer to the original idea that their should be a state for Jewish people.
There we go.
https://evolvepolitics.com/yougov-p...amatically-since-jeremy-corbyn-became-leader/
But this actual happens
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.or...icism-disallows-legitmate-criticism-of-isrel/
Again from the same article
On the 'About us' page of Jewish Voice for Labour.
"We oppose attempts to widen the definition of antisemitism beyond its meaning of hostility towards or discrimination against Jews as Jews."
That's a heck of a thing for a Jewish group to think defines them as a group. Maybe BMEforLabour.org's website goes on a rant about how people cry racism too much. In fact it seems to have been established only in 2017 and founded by Corbyn cheerleaders with the specific purpose of defending their guy against accusations of antisemitism.
Not sure it's really a source worth paying attention to unless we're going to accept Muslim Women for Letterbox Analogies when we're talking about how Boris definitely wasn't being Islamophobic this week.
"We oppose attempts to widen the definition of antisemitism beyond its meaning of hostility towards or discrimination against Jews as Jews."
That's a heck of a thing for a Jewish group to think defines them as a group. Maybe BMEforLabour.org's website goes on a rant about how people cry racism too much. In fact it seems to have been established only in 2017 and founded by Corbyn cheerleaders with the specific purpose of defending their guy against accusations of antisemitism.
Not sure it's really a source worth paying attention to unless we're going to accept Muslim Women for Letterbox Analogies when we're talking about how Boris definitely wasn't being Islamophobic this week.
Last edited:
Not the right type of jew for you then ?
Not the right type of jew for you then ?
As above, it's an organisation set up by Corbyn supporters with the sole purpose of defending Corbyn, that describes itself as "entirely secular". It wasn't even established until 2017, until Corbyn and the party was and Corbyn were already marred in rows over antisemitism.
It's a pro-Corbyn organisation from someone who thinks being Jewish meant that she could defend the guy she championed from allegations of antisemtiism because "Oh, if she says it and she IS Jewish"...would somehow shut the debate down.
Pretending that somehow a "entirely secular" group ran by a staunch Corbyn supporter, set up for the sole purpose 11 months ago of defending Jeremy Corbyn in regards to antisemitism accusations, is somehow a credible source to cite when debating Jeremy Corbyn's antisemitism then either you're taking the piss or you thought Chuckevision was reality TV. You might as well claim UKIP doesn't have a homophobia problem because of that gay candidate they had in Scotland
"Hahaha, wrong kind of gay is he?"
Yes, yes he fecking is.