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

[owlo]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding it but from the same url you've provided of the tabled motion it states:

"President Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen claimed, entirely without foundation, that 'we've now seen about 100,000 military-aged [Albanian] men missing.....they may have been murdered' and that David Scheffer, the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes, announced with equal inaccuracy that as many as '225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59' may have been killed"

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm presuming that it was due to these alleged numbers that Nato intervened?

Yet in actual fact the number of deaths was closed to 1% of the last figure tabled?

"the International War Crimes Tribunal, a body de facto set up by NATO, announced that the final count of bodies found in Kosovo's 'mass graves' was 2,788"

And as part of this motion. They wanted the UK government to assist Kosovo with cleaning up the mess from NATOs invasion?

"believes the pollution impact of the bombing of Kosovo is still emerging, including the impact of the use of depleted uranium munitions; and calls on the Government to provide full assistance in the clean up of Kosovo."


I don't think it's that bad?

He said specifically: fraudulent justifications for intervening in a 'genocide' that never really existed in Kosovo (Bear in mind this was in 2004, and the evidence was well established)

The evidence is, genocide existed in Kosovo. It's indisputable.

From Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Kosovo_War

- HRW claims that the Yugoslav Army indiscriminately attacked Kosovo Albanian villages.[23] Police and military forces had partially or completely destroyed thousands of Albanian villages in Kosovo by burning or shelling them.[23] According to a UNHCR survey, nearly 40% of all residential houses in Kosovo were heavily damaged or completely destroyed by the end of the war. Out of a total of 237,842 houses, 45,768 were heavily damaged and 46,414 were destroyed.[24] In particular, residences in the city of Peja was heavily damaged. More than 80% of the 5,280 houses in the city were heavily damaged (1,590) or destroyed (2,774).[25]

- Of the 498 mosques in Kosovo that were in active use, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) documented that 225 mosques sustained damage or destruction by the Yugoslav Serb army.[38] In all, eighteen months of the Yugoslav Serb counterinsurgency campaign between 1998-1999 within Kosovo resulted in 225 or a third out of a total of 600 mosques being damaged, vandalised, or destroyed alongside other Islamic architecture during the conflict.[39][40][38] Additionally 500 Albanian owned kulla dwellings (traditional stone tower houses) and three out of four well preserved Ottoman period urban centres located in Kosovo cities were badly damaged resulting in great loss of traditional architecture.[41][39] Kosovo's public libraries, in particular 65 out of 183 were completely destroyed with a loss of 900,588 volumes, while Islamic libraries sustained damage or destruction resulting in the loss of rare books, manuscripts and other collections of literature.[42][43] Archives belonging to the Islamic Community of Kosovo with records spanning 500 years were also destroyed.[42][43] During the war, Islamic architectural heritage posed for Yugoslav Serb paramilitary and military forces as Albanian patrimony with destruction of non-Serbian architectural heritage being a methodical and planned component of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.[39][44]

And here you go, 13,517 victims: List of Kosovo War Victims Published | Balkan Insight


With regards to the remarks, this is what Cohen said, in 1999: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans/stories/cohen051699.htm - With the large numbers displaced, it was likely hard to know.

Here's an article in 2000 stating that the NATO powers exxagerated deaths and the 100,000 claim: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/aug/18/balkans3

However, commentators yesterday stressed that the new details should not obscure the fact that the major war crime in the tribunal's indictment of the Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosevic, and four other Serb officials is the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo and forced deportation of hundreds of thousands of people.

"The point is did we successfully pre-empt or not," Mark Laity, the acting Nato spokesman, said last night. "I think the evidence shows we did. We would rather be criticised for overestimating the numbers who died than for failing to pre-empt. Any objective analysis would say there was a clear crisis. There was indiscriminate killing. There were attempts to clear hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes."

It's classical Corbyn in my opinion. Misrepresenting or misunderstanding something to make a stand.

Interesting page or two. Seperate from Corbyn how do you go about advocating for peace and ceasefires and negotiations and it not be political suicide and geopolitically naive? Is it possible? Or is it just a bad strategy and the threat of violence is almost a requirement of peace.
I guess the political suicide part is kind of unavoidable as your almost guaranteed to be dealing with at least one murderous scumbag.

This. If you are weak, there will always be somebody to fill the void.

I'm aware that you're being hit from all sides here, so understand that you may not reply but in what way do you consider Corbyn to be authoritarian? I get you don't like him or his policies but to consider him authoritarian, especially relative to Starmer, is bewildering to me.

I've checked what I said now, and I did indeed say he was slightly more authoritarian than Starmer. It was a poorly worded comment though, I think they [and all major parties in Britain] have been pretty bad for it and Starmer is definitely no better. It mostly revolves around foreign affairs (his happiness to support castro/hezbollah/hamas/whoever despite them taking positions that he hates, and not criticizing them), but also for the fact he did indeed vote for the IPA. The way he threatened the press, anybody who stepped out of line, his identity politics etc, and his general lack of desire for freedom over civil liberty.

 

[GuybrushThreepwood]

It's interesting that quite a few people on the left don't particularly like John McDonnell any more.

I guess quite a few of them blame him for strongly pushing Labour to promise a 2nd EU referendum, which Corbyn was very reluctant to do, which attributed to the 2019 GE result (playing down the Corbyn factor). But I strongly disagree with that; if Labour's Brexit position had been just to pursue a new, 'soft' Brexit deal, and they went into that election promising neither another EU referendum to satisfy remainers, or leaving the EU by January 31st 2020 (so the Tories' 'Get Brexit Done' slogan still would have been devastatingly effective) to satisfy leavers, I just don't see how they would have done any better.

It was of course well known that Corbyn and McDonnell, while not bitterly feuding or becoming enemies or anything, became less close from 2018. I've seen some people on the left, such as those that work for Novara Media, criticise McDonnell for becoming 'obsessed with winning' after the 2017 GE result. That seems like a ridiculous criticism. He was the shadow chancellor and 2nd in command of a party that was pretty close to power in terms of parliamentary arithmetic after the 2017 GE, and knew that unless they entered government they couldn't enact any of the policies or 'radical agenda'' that they wanted. He was clearly frustrated that the momentum from the 2017 GE result was basically lost by early to mid 2018. He was also criticised for being interviewed by Alistair Campbell for GQ magazine. But again, a Labour shadow chancellor being interviewed by former and successful Labour strategist and also long-standing Labour party member (though he was kicked out after the 2019 European elections), should not be controversial. I didn't blame Corbyn for refusing to share a platform with Cameron during the 2016 EU referendum, but I did blame him for refusing to share a platform with Kinnock, Blair and Brown (i.e. in a rally involving all living people that had led the Labour party) during it.

While I'm far more sympathetic to the left than the right (i.e. I would find significantly more to agree with Corbyn on than Farage), there are similarities in terms of people who deviate even a bit from a set agenda / narrative / direction, being criticised as sellouts, turncoats, traitors etc. For example people who enthusiastically supported Trump during the 2020 presidential election campaign but then refused to buy the crackpot theories that the result was stolen, were criticised as 'lefties in disguise'. And people who grew up very much on the left of the Labour party, as 'Bennites' etc,. but realised that compromises had to make to gain power (i.e. promising a hugely radical agenda but remaining stuck in opposition is far worse than promising a still pretty radical agenda but more pragmatic one but winning elections and actually being able to implement it), also get heavily criticised.

 

[balaks]

I don't understand the obsession with this man - he was an awful, awful leader who if he had been any way competant would have brought Labour to victory but here we are with the Tories still in power. He also supported Brexit (or at least didnt want to argue against it) which is another in a long, long line in poor decisions he has made in his life in my opinion. He should be shuffled off into history and should never have been Labour leader in the first place. Don't get me started on his relationship with Northern Ireland either. He comes across as an incredibly arrogant person as well and is quite unlikeable generally in my view.

 

[UweBein]

.....

I think given his parliamentary record and views on previous conflicts that he would be much better positioned to negotiate and have progressive talks with pro/neutral Russia countries such as China/Pakistan/India/Russia/NKorea/Oraq/Brazil (?) etc.. And I think they'd be more open to dialogue with him too than the historic old guard.

.....

Oh, man, I have not smiled at a post for quite a while. Thank you for that.

 

[UweBein]

I don't understand the obsession with this man - he was an awful, awful leader who if he had been any way competant would have brought Labour to victory but here we are with the Tories still in power. He also supported Brexit (or at least didnt want to argue against it) which is another in a long, long line in poor decisions he has made in his life in my opinion. He should be shuffled off into history and should never have been Labour leader in the first place. Don't get me started on his relationship with Northern Ireland either. He comes across as an incredibly arrogant person as well and is quite unlikeable generally in my view.

At the end of the day, I do not think it were his leaderhip skills that failed him.
He is simply bad at politics. He has an understanding of politics, economics and international relations which has not evolved since the 70's.
If you have always voted the same way for 30 years, you are true to your principles on one hand, but on the other hand you are in fact proving that you have learned not that much in the meantime.

 

[balaks]

At the end of the day, I do not think it were his leaderhip skills that failed him.
He is simply bad at politics. He has an understanding of politics, economics and international relations which has not evolved since the 70's.
If you have always voted the same way for 30 years, you are true to your principles on one hand, but on the other hand you are in fact proving that you have learned not that much in the meantime.

A basic requirement of any political leader is to have a firm understanding of how current politics works. He was so naive or stubborn (or both) in this that he was a complete disaster - I assume he had advisors suggesting he do or say certain things but I presume he was so arrogant he just did his own thing regardless.

 

[Flying high]

Don't be ridiculous. I'm one of many who remembers corbyns sympathies with Irish republicanism during the Troubles. People with a moral compass who supported a united Ireland supported the SDLP, not sinn fein, in those days.

I'll let others discuss the rights and wrongs of that, despite my Irish heritage, I am mostly ignorant about the troubles in general. But is that why you bought into every single smear from the right? Because you were quite vociferous about every 'story' that came out about Corbyn. Even those that have subsequently turned out to be provably false.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Corbyn's personal views on foreign policy are part of the reason he was an easy target for the media, but their relevance to Labour Party policy was always massively overstated. Corbyn's pitch for the leadership, alongside making the party more democratic, was to push back against austerity, advocate for public spending on public goods and work to tackle economic inequality, and those are the things Labour focused on under his leadership. Whilst Corbyn was passionate about various foreign policy issues, you'd struggle to find an example of that impacting actual Labour policy. Commitment to NATO and Trident was in both the 2017 and 2019 manifestos.

 

[redcucumber]

Much rather Corbyn that any of the other utter cretins we've had to endure, or will have to endure going forward.

 

[DanH]

Corbyn's personal views on foreign policy are part of the reason he was an easy target for the media, but their relevance to Labour Party policy was always massively overstated. Corbyn's pitch for the leadership, alongside making the party more democratic, was to push back against austerity, advocate for public spending on public goods and work to tackle economic inequality, and those are the things Labour focused on under his leadership. Whilst Corbyn was passionate about various foreign policy issues, you'd struggle to find an example of that impacting actual Labour policy. Commitment to NATO and Trident was in both the 2017 and 2019 manifestos.

So you don't think his position on arming Ukraine would have had an impact with the voting electorate? How would he manage the media differently and actually get into power?

 

[11101]

A basic requirement of any political leader is to have a firm understanding of how current politics works. He was so naive or stubborn (or both) in this that he was a complete disaster - I assume he had advisors suggesting he do or say certain things but I presume he was so arrogant he just did his own thing regardless.

He also surrounded himself with people who were probably even worse than he was. Corbyn alone could possibly have been tolerated, but people like McDonnell and Abbot and the Momentum connection exasperated the situation and for whatever reason he only ever doubled down on them.

But yes, i don't understand why so many still cling to this aura of a great man robbed of the top job by the media/corporations/fairy godmother. He was a bad politician with questionable personal views and poor judgement.

 

[Flying high]

He also surrounded himself with people who were probably even worse than he was. Corbyn alone could possibly have been tolerated, but people like McDonnell and Abbot and the Momentum connection exasperated the situation and for whatever reason he only ever doubled down on them.

Abbott I'll give you, she's probably good at something, but it's not appearing on front of a camera. But she's no worse than about a dozen tory cabinet members over the last 10 years, or even a couple of PMs. McDonnell was fine. I'm sure he scared a few of the rich, but his economics were credible and he speaks quite well. The only time I heard about Momentum was when someone wanted to criticise Corbyn. Make of that what you will.

But yes, i don't understand why so many still cling to this aura of a great man robbed of the top job by the media/corporations/fairy godmother. He was a bad politician with questionable personal views and poor judgement.

I'm sure I speak for most who backed Corbyn when I say that I'd be delighted if Labour appointed someone else who is going to rescue this country from the right-wing disaster we currently have. It was never about Corbyn, he wasn't perfect, but his credible belief in diplomacy, fairness and obvious lack of personal greed, instantly elevates him above the majority of the HoC.

I don't want Corbyn back as leader of the party. In fact, I hoped he'd step aside mid 2019 when it was clear too much damage had been done to him. And by him, to be fair. But I don't think he was a bad politician. His style wasn't suited to the current reality of the UK, but I want my politicians to be conciliatory and kind-hearted. So, rather than make life difficult for him, as many on the left bizarrely decided to do, I supported him and yes, I wish there were more like him in westminster.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

So you don't think his position on arming Ukraine would have had an impact with the voting electorate? How would he manage the media differently and actually get into power?

Not what I said at all, quite the opposite. His personal foreign policy positions are absolutely part of the reason he couldn't win over the electorate. What I'm saying is that they had little or no bearing on Labour's actual foreign policy positions whilst he was leader, which remained the same as they had been under Milliband (NATO-membership, Trident renewal etc.).

 

[DanH]

Thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding. It would certainly have been difficult for Labour in terms of dealing with the electorate.

 

[nickm]

I'll let others discuss the rights and wrongs of that, despite my Irish heritage, I am mostly ignorant about the troubles in general. But is that why you bought into every single smear from the right? Because you were quite vociferous about every 'story' that came out about Corbyn. Even those that have subsequently turned out to be provably false.

You are welcome to list the things I found objectionable about Corbyn that were smears from the right and provably false. But I'm certainly on record here finding Corbyn's approach to Northern Ireland during the Troubles objectionable. I had no problem with a united Ireland, I just happened to think John Hume's approach was the right and moral way to go about it.

 

[Badunk]

So Jeremy Corbyn is naive for proposing a ceasefire, followed by negotiations?

Isn't this exactly how every conflict gets resolved eventually?

 

[Flying high]

You are welcome to list the things I found objectionable about Corbyn that were smears from the right and provably false. But I'm certainly on record here finding Corbyn's approach to Northern Ireland during the Troubles objectionable. I had no problem with a united Ireland, I just happened to think John Hume's approach was the right and moral way to go about it.

So you have a particular problem with him that you can't get past. I understand that. I was the same with Johnson's lying.

I won't do a list, I'm sure you remember those times well. I read a lot more on here than I post myself, so it's probably a bit unfair of me to bring up your opinions from years ago, when fewer of mine are available for similar scrutiny(and I'm certain quite a few won't have aged well!).

But I hope, if you want to be fair, that you can agree you weren't exactly slow on the uptake whenever something negative about Corbyn was in the news?

 

[DanH]

So Jeremy Corbyn is naive for proposing a ceasefire, followed by negotiations?

Isn't this exactly how every conflict gets resolved eventually?

How do you get there?
You're correct in that most conflicts get resolved that way, but peace talks with mutually acceptable outcomes is the end, not the means.

Some people believe that providing Ukraine with military support is a means of imposing cost on Russia to bring them to the negotiating table.

I would be absolutely in favour of a solution that didn't require military support if I thought there was a realistic prospect of it causing Russia to come to the negotiating table and terms being settled that were mutually acceptable not just to Russia but also Ukraine.

I've been told that it doesn't need to involve Ukraine conceding territory, but I haven't really seen what would be offered.

It's easy to say 'get to negotiating' but how?

 

[11101]

Abbott I'll give you, she's probably good at something, but it's not appearing on front of a camera. But she's no worse than about a dozen tory cabinet members over the last 10 years, or even a couple of PMs. McDonnell was fine. I'm sure he scared a few of the rich, but his economics were credible and he speaks quite well. The only time I heard about Momentum was when someone wanted to criticise Corbyn. Make of that what you will.



I'm sure I speak for most who backed Corbyn when I say that I'd be delighted if Labour appointed someone else who is going to rescue this country from the right-wing disaster we currently have. It was never about Corbyn, he wasn't perfect, but his credible belief in diplomacy, fairness and obvious lack of personal greed, instantly elevates him above the majority of the HoC.

I don't want Corbyn back as leader of the party. In fact, I hoped he'd step aside mid 2019 when it was clear too much damage had been done to him. And by him, to be fair. But I don't think he was a bad politician. His style wasn't suited to the current reality of the UK, but I want my politicians to be conciliatory and kind-hearted. So, rather than make life difficult for him, as many on the left bizarrely decided to do, I supported him and yes, I wish there were more like him in westminster.

I don't really agree with either of those things. McDonnell's policies were high risk, based on an absolute best case scenario and with major downside for anything else. Corbyn on the other hand always struck me as a particularly arrogant and vindictive character. The 'for the people' ruse was just that, he was every bit as ruthless and nasty as any other politician but with his focus in a different direction.

 

[balaks]

I don't really agree with either of those things. McDonnell's policies were high risk, based on an absolute best case scenario and with major downside for anything else. Corbyn on the other hand always struck me as a particularly arrogant and vindictive character. The 'for the people' ruse was just that, he was every bit as ruthless and nasty as any other politician but with his focus in a different direction.

That is exactly how I felt about him.

 

[Flying high]

I don't really agree with either of those things. McDonnell's policies were high risk, based on an absolute best case scenario and with major downside for anything else. Corbyn on the other hand always struck me as a particularly arrogant and vindictive character. The 'for the people' ruse was just that, he was every bit as ruthless and nasty as any other politician but with his focus in a different direction.

That description of McDonnell could apply to any chancellor/shadow, but fair enough.

Out of interest, where was Corbyn's focus? Because the rest of your description of him, I find bizarre. He's not the one purging the party of those that disagreed with him. Even if his life would have been easier if he had.

 

[ThehatchetMan]

I don't really agree with either of those things. McDonnell's policies were high risk, based on an absolute best case scenario and with major downside for anything else. Corbyn on the other hand always struck me as a particularly arrogant and vindictive character. The 'for the people' ruse was just that, he was every bit as ruthless and nasty as any other politician but with his focus in a different direction.

Vindictive really? The only time I remember Corbyn being described as vindictive was when BJ said he would go after the wealthy with a relish and vindictiveness.

Surely vindictive would be a better word to describe Starmer and his treatment of Corbyn. Or Sunak mentioning him in PMQs every other week. Or the media smear campaign.

But through all of the above, I think he has handled himself with class when many others would likely have retaliated or reacted.

 

[Flying high]

That is exactly how I felt about him.

Maybe what I saw as a measured, patient approach, others find condescending? I really am at a loss to understand it otherwise.

 

[berbatrick]

the most dangerous threat to world peace...diabolical machinations at play. who knows what he will destroy next.

 

[nickm]

So you have a particular problem with him that you can't get past. I understand that. I was the same with Johnson's lying.

That is just one of the problems I took issue with.

As soon as he got the leadership, I knew Labour was ultimately doomed, and it made me angry because we were going to have to go through the whole Foot/Kinnock cycle again, where Labour loses, keeps losing and ultimately re-learn's Blair's analysis on this the hard way. What a waste. But on top of that, Corbyn always was unpopular (he never had a net positive rating!), too many people remembered the kicking around with Sinn Fein/Hamas/Hezbollah, which of course the Tabloids were going to love, he kept making dumb unforced errors (like the whole antisemitism thing) and he just wasn't a smart or agile enough politician. He was an absolute gift to the Tories.

He always was a really, really bad choice for a party that needs to win centre ground votes. Too many people let their wishful thinking run away with themselves, and just utterly deceived themselves about his electability, which made it even worse. That is the long and short of my objection to him.

 

[DOTA]

Hated. Adored. Never ignored.

 

[Sweet Square]

Hated. Adored. Never ignored.

 

[ThehatchetMan]

Is he standing in Islington?

Do we think he will beat labour? I think he will get the backing of the people!

 

[horsechoker]

He's an Arsenal fan

I think that says it all.

 

[Flying high]

As soon as he got the leadership, I knew Labour was ultimately doomed

Maybe. We'll never know what would have happened had the attacks from within his own party not started immediately. It was so incredibly damaging.

and it made me angry

That did/does come across. Sorry. But I've read a lot of your posts on Corbyn and they do tend to lack balance.

go through the whole Foot/Kinnock cycle again, where Labour loses, keeps losing and ultimately re-learn's Blair's analysis on this the hard way.

What makes you think this? Corbyn's policies were popular. Most didn't know who he was before he was nominated.

too many people remembered the kicking around with Sinn Fein/Hamas/Hezbollah

Would you describe yourself as on the left? Does that not mean, at a fairly basic level, trying to see both sides of an argument, and attempting to deal with both sides with compassion? Mediation before bombs etc? Particularly, not demonising the oppressed. 'Kicking around with'? Really?

He was an absolute gift to the Tories.

He was easy to attack. His ideas and general approach do need more than a 3 word slogan to succeed. Maybe that's the biggest failing of the left.

The biggest gift to the tories though, was the constant sniping from inside the party. In public and the more clandestine maneuvers, about which we've since learnt some quite remarkable things.

He always was a really, really bad choice for a party that needs to win centre ground votes. Too many people let their wishful thinking run away with themselves, and just utterly deceived themselves about his electability, which made it even worse. That is the long and short of my objection to him.

Johnson was a really, really bad choice. So was Truss. And Cameron. May Too.

Corbyn would be miles better than all of them.

But we have Starmer. Raising the rhetoric against immigrants. Offering more austerity and virtually nothing in terms of reshaping the economy. Of course I want Labour to win, I might even vote for them. But 5 years of nothingness from Labour will do just about as much damage in the long term as the tories cause. Because if there's no alternative to the tories, then what's the point? It's not like we can guarantee we'll be free from the corruption and lies of the tories. Starmer is inviting all donations! What could go wrong?

We need a radical shift in this country. The longer it takes to start, the more difficult it will be. As we can see now after the Blair years. It doesn't matter if we have the 5th/6th biggest economy if we have disproportionate amounts of poverty and ill health, while our education system is getting worse and housing is a joke. As is the criminal justice system. We need a new voting system. We must restore, and hopefully improve, our commitments to international aid. We need to stop facilitating the plundering of poorer nations by corporations. We need to build international relationships, not barriers. Wages are low, prices are high, while the number of billionaires is increasing not decreasing. I could go on and on.

If we continue to pick leaders for the left that won't scare Murdoch and co, then we'll only ever be heading in the wrong direction.

 

[nickm]

Maybe. We'll never know what would have happened had the attacks from within his own party not started immediately. It was so incredibly damaging.

He almost destroyed Labour as a viable electoral force in the last election and on the evidence available, that was not because of "attacks from within his party".

That did/does come across. Sorry. But I've read a lot of your posts on Corbyn and they do tend to lack balance.

I'm not trying to be "balanced" whatever that means, I'm trying to make a point. I was upset because it guaranteed the Tories were going to get 10+ years because Labour. Never. Learns. And look where we are now. He was a disaster. His philosophy was crushingly rejected at the last election. And yet here you still all are wanting more! Labour. Never. Learns.

What makes you think this? Corbyn's policies were popular. Most didn't know who he was before he was nominated.

A generation of people who were too young to remember Michael Foot, Kinnock's battles with Militant and the sheer electoral toxicity of that politics, thought he was great. Blair, who whatever else he was, is the greatest political strategist Labour has ever had - was right : "a traditional leftwing party competes with a traditional rightwing party, with the traditional result”.

Would you describe yourself as on the left? Does that not mean, at a fairly basic level, trying to see both sides of an argument, and attempting to deal with both sides with compassion? Mediation before bombs etc? Particularly, not demonising the oppressed. 'Kicking around with'? Really?

I consider myself a political moderate. Ideologues put me off. I especially don't have a lot of truck with ideologies of violence. And I don't think Corbyn's approach was ever even handed or fundamentally about seeing both sides of an argument, for example, the great criticism levelled at him, is he tended to communicate with Hamas/Hezbollah/Sinn Fein ("the oppressed") but not generally with their opponents ("the oppressors"). Real mediators, real peacemakers, talk to both sides.

Johnson was a really, really bad choice. So was Truss. And Cameron. May Too.

Corbyn would be miles better than all of them.

Well, what Cameron, Johnson and May had in their favour was they won their elections.

If we continue to pick leaders for the left that won't scare Murdoch and co, then we'll only ever be heading in the wrong direction.

The party has to choose leaders and programmes that are able to win votes from Tory switchers. Look at the electoral map of the country. Count how many constituencies have Tories in first place, Labour in Second. Labour can only win those constituencies by taking votes from those Tories. But I know that's not very romantic, so keep blaming Murdoch.

(On the plus side, the current narrowing of the polls, where the Tories are now doing slightly better than being dead, is not because Tories switching to Labour, have decided not to. It's because Tory 'don't knows' are returning to the Tories. So far, those Tories who switched to Labour, are staying switched, and that is good news.)

 

[Flying high]

He almost destroyed Labour as a viable electoral force in the last election and on the evidence available, that was not because of "attacks from within his party".

Such hyperbole without any recognition of the damage done from within the party.

I'm not trying to be "balanced" whatever that means, I'm trying to make a point.

Ah right. So you're happy to be one-eyed to make a point. That's a pretty poor way to make your point, in my opinion.

I was upset because it guaranteed the Tories were going to get 10+ years because Labour. Never. Learns. And look where we are now. He was a disaster. His philosophy was crushingly rejected at the last election. And yet here you still all are wanting more! Labour. Never. Learns.

It didn't guarantee anything. Never learns what? We all know the uphill battle any Labour leader faces. Especially a left leaning one. Any chance should be grabbed with both hands.

A generation of people who were too young to remember Michael Foot, Kinnock's battles with Militant and all that. Blair, who whatever else he was, is the greatest political strategist Labour has ever had - was right : "a traditional leftwing party competes with a traditional rightwing party, with the traditional result”.

Brilliant at getting elected. Not too bad when it came to improving lives in this country. Awful at not going into an illegal war. Not so brilliant at inspiring following generations to vote Labour.

I consider myself a political moderate. Ideologues put me off. I especially don't have a lot of truck with ideologies of violence. And I don't think Corbyn's approach was ever even handed or fundamentally about seeing both sides of an argument, for example, the great criticism levelled at him, is he tended to communicate with Hamas/Hezbollah/Sinn Fein ("the oppressed") but not generally with their opponents ("the oppressors"). Real mediators, real peacemakers, talk to both sides.

I'm sorry, I thought you were a Labour supporter. Or, at least leftish.

Where you see idealogue though, I see a man who's dedicated many years to the cause. Corbyn may well be out of place in Westminster, but considering the vast majority are very like to only meet the other half of the oppressor/oppressed dynamic, is that really a stick to beat him with?

The party has to choose leaders and programmes that are able to win votes from Tory switchers. Look at the electoral map of the country. Count how many constituencies have Tories in first place, Labour in Second. Labour can only win those constituencies by taking votes from those Tories.

This isn't true. There's a huge number of people who have turned off from politics because they are all the same. Those people started to get massively energised leading up to 2017. It wasn't quite enough, but considering the tories chose what should have been an oppotune moment to increase their majority, as well as all the other hurdles, the extreme leftie did alright.

 

[ThehatchetMan]

Labour Party membership over time. The corbyn surge followed by decline upon Starmer taking over.

Let's also remember that Corbyns 2017 election result was the highest percentage point gain of any labour government since war times.

And then the many other statistics out there which show brexit was a key factor in the 2019 election. Alongside the smear campaign on the BBC, Murdoch media, BBC representatives such as Alan Sugar etc.

I think Nick allows his personal and obvious dislike of Corbyn to cloud his judgement though.

He doesn't hold Blair, Brown, Milliband or Starmer to any accountability. Yet over the last 20 years there has been a decline in public approval under each and every one of these, corbyn aside, the only leader who could convey across a vision which people believed in. A vision which resulted in labours membership to surge and to send them to record breaking election results in 2017.

You don't become unelectable from 2017 to 2019 because of your opinions on war or your views on palestine or the NI troubles. All that stuff happened many years ago and was in the public domain prior to 2017. None of it was new.

So then you go back to the drawing board and think what other big events could have influenced things. Oh yes "get brexit done" and then the whole media smear campaign which you'd have to live under a rock to not have noticed how it amplified in 2019. I guess after the 2017 result the elite feared him and they really amplified their propoganda.

 

[Drainy]

He is literally a moron if he thinks that a negotiation with Russia giving them anything that they would accept at this moment would lead to more stability in the world.

 

[Frosty]

He is literally a moron if he thinks that a negotiation with Russia giving them anything that they would accept at this moment would lead to more stability in the world.

He has always been consistent with his principles and pacifism and preferred to suffer unpopularity rather than compromise. I think he needed to bend and compromise in order to become PM, but the paradox is that he would not have been elected leader of the Labour Party if he was such a politician.

 

[MoskvaRed]

This thread feels like arguing with born again Christians about Jesus.

Agreed that the current system doesn’t work. Agreed that some of the ideas on domestic policy of Corbyn and McDonnell were worthy of consideration.. But on foreign policy (particularly Russia), Jesus Christ….It would be like hiring Gary Glitter as a child minder. Aside from Corbyn’s RT appearances and ludicrous response to the Salisbury poisonings, his chief of staff (Seamus Milne) was in his newspaper columns an apologist for Stalin.

 

[11101]

Vindictive really? The only time I remember Corbyn being described as vindictive was when BJ said he would go after the wealthy with a relish and vindictiveness.

Surely vindictive would be a better word to describe Starmer and his treatment of Corbyn. Or Sunak mentioning him in PMQs every other week. Or the media smear campaign.

But through all of the above, I think he has handled himself with class when many others would likely have retaliated or reacted.

Yes, you don't want a PM who goes after anybody with a relish and vindictiveness. Its not a good trait for a person in a position of power because sooner or later they'll go after somebody you don't want them to, and I never liked the way he tried to create an us vs. them mentality in his campaigning.

 

[Frosty]

This thread feels like arguing with born again Christians about Jesus.

Agreed that the current system doesn’t work. Agreed that some of the ideas on domestic policy of Corbyn and McDonnell were worthy of consideration.. But on foreign policy (particularly Russia), Jesus Christ….It would be like hiring Gary Glitter as a child minder. Aside from Corbyn’s RT appearances and ludicrous response to the Salisbury poisonings, his chief of staff (Seamus Milne) was in his newspaper columns an apologist for Stalin.

The Salisbury response highlights one of the main issues I had with Corbyn - far too loyal.

In the Commons Chamber his response to the poisonings was nearly exactly that given by PM May.

Milne, the idiot, started unilaterally briefing to journalists that Russia wasn't involved during the debate. This got picked up by Tory MPs who started grilling Corbyn. Corbyn thought his friend was being unfairly attacked and undermined and, without knowing the full context, backed Milne's integrity, and away we went to the races.

A more ruthless and less loyal leader would have condemned Milne in the Commons, then sacked him and appointed a better person (quite how Grace Blakely and Ash Sarkar weren't headhunted I don't know).

 

[nickm]

The Salisbury response highlights one of the main issues I had with Corbyn - far too loyal.

In the Commons Chamber his response to the poisonings was nearly exactly that given by PM May.

Milne, the idiot, started unilaterally briefing to journalists that Russia wasn't involved during the debate. This got picked up by Tory MPs who started grilling Corbyn. Corbyn thought his friend was being unfairly attacked and undermined and, without knowing the full context, backed Milne's integrity, and away we went to the races.

A more ruthless and less loyal leader would have condemned Milne in the Commons, then sacked him and appointed a better person (quite how Grace Blakely and Ash Sarkar weren't headhunted I don't know).

Well whether he was too loyal or not, he was rightly ridiculed for saying we should send the poison sample back to Russia for their confirmation. I mean, top mind right there.

 

[nickm]

That isn't true. There's a huge number of people who have turned off from politics because they are all the same. Those people started to get massively energised leading up to 2017. It wasn't quite enough, but considering the tories chose what should have been an oppotune moment to increase their majority, as well as all the other hurdles, the extreme leftie did alright.

I wish the maths supported your view. Even with this surge of enthusiasm, biggest vote share in ages etc etc, the Tories still managed to win 55 seats more than labour. Because they were not able to switch the right votes in the right seats.