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

AfonsoAlves said:
A lot of Keir Starmers criticism comes from both sides, which is the problem.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is 'a problem'... I suspect it confirms to Starmer he is right where he needs to be.
Also it's criticism mostly from the sidelines, more importantly with a 170 majority in parliament, it's impotent criticism.

True, that over the lifetime of this government, if the changes he is calling for have not been made, or progress made towards the objectives not clearly seen, or worst of all nothing has changed.... then he will have to be very carefull about how he goes into the 2029 election, he could perhaps expect to lose half his majority, but still be capable of remaining 'in power' for another 5 years, to see the job finished*

(* for others who maybe observing, I've not used the word 'dial' once)
 
It doesn't bother me now because JC is irrelevant but it would have bothered me if he was running for PM, because I think Marx was about as accurate an economist as Freud was a psychologist, notwithstanding their huge influence.
 
Maticmaker said:
I don't think it is 'a problem'... I suspect it confirms to Starmer he is right where he needs to be.
Also it's criticism mostly from the sidelines, more importantly with a 170 majority in parliament, it's impotent criticism.

True, that over the lifetime of this government, if the changes he is calling for have not been made, or progress made towards the objectives not clearly seen, or worst of all nothing has changed.... then he will have to be very carefull about how he goes into the 2029 election, he could perhaps expect to lose half his majority, but still be capable of remaining 'in power' for another 5 years, to see the job finished*

(* for others who maybe observing, I've not used the word 'dial' once)
Click to expand...
The majority he has is paper thin and only supported by a third of voters, off the back of 14 years of Tory disaster. If he wants to "move the dial" then he needs to do it in the next 5 years. If he doesn't, he'll be out of power next election.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
Does it not worry you that a former leader of the opposition holds Karl Marx in high esteem?

It's not Marx's political ideology that is concerning, more the overtures that he believed that the only way to achieve them was through violence and physical uprisings.

Not to say that Corbyn believed any of those things, but I certainly wouldn't visit someone's grave who did believe those things, no matter how much I agree with their political leanings.
Click to expand...
I have to respectfully disagree on the bold part.

Complex Ideology: Marx's political ideology is far more nuanced than just advocating for violence. It primarily focuses on critiquing capitalism and proposing a classless society with communal ownership of production means.
Revolution ≠ Violence: While Marx did discuss revolution, he didn't always specify it must be violent. Remember, he was writing in the 19th century when revolutions were common for political change.
Multiple Interpretations: Marx's works have been interpreted differently by various scholars and political thinkers. Some emphasize revolutionary aspects, while others focus on more gradual, democratic approaches.
Peaceful Possibilities: Marx actually acknowledged the possibility of peaceful transitions to socialism in some cases. He specifically mentioned countries with strong democratic traditions like the US, England, and Holland as potential candidates for peaceful change.
Economic Focus: Much of Marx's work was centered on analyzing economic forces and social structures, not prescribing specific methods of political change.
 
langster said:
Not really, does it bother you Kamala Harris's father is a Marxist? Or Trump is morally corrupt, lying, cheating, narcissistic, self obsessed compulsive liar who has been accused of selling state secrets and making deals with foreign leaders? That his son in law got paid 2.1 billion after leaving a position he had no experience or right to be in and did nothing while there? Or his daughter securing $600 million in trademark deals from the Chinese government?


Corbyn is a socialist, and a pacifist, he's made that clear numerous times with his speeches and approach towards conflicts and policy ideas. He is a scholar of history and politics and has also said many times he thought Marx was a great economist. He was for unilateral nuclear disarmament and has often said he's an idealist. Some of his policies were considered Conservative by many, especially his views on austerity with regards to stabilising the economy. He has also said on numerous occasions he does not support violent protests and thinks they don't work towards achieving political change, only causing more divisions with those who don't share the views of the protesters.

So no, it doesn't worry me. What worries me more is the hate campaign against him and the lies and false accusations made against him in order to force him out.
Click to expand...
The way he's got smeared and absolutely destroyed was a sight to behold.

I've never seen anything like it, aside from the LFI in France to an extent.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
He did indeed get attacked by right wing media, but he also didn't help himself in any way shape or form by surrounding himself with absolute cranks that indeed had a very checkered past.
Click to expand...
As could be said for the Tory regime we have just suffered under. No attacks by the right wing media though. Strange that.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
As could be said for the Tory regime we have just suffered under. No attacks by the right wing media though. Strange that.
Click to expand...
That’s not true though is it, Boris absolutely got shat on for his associations to a bunch of Russian oligarchs and Dom Cummins amongst others.

Sunak was attacked for his wife being the heiress of infosys and his broad associations with dodgy billionaires.

Liz Truss got attacked for being liz truss.

Theresa Mays circle was relatively clean but got attacked for a million other things.
 
The best way to avoid being smeared is to avoid making really really contentious statements that can be interpreted very poorly.

Then, all that happens is the media throws pointless jibes that make them look stupid. Like resorting to attacking milliband because he ate a bacon sarnie in a really stupid way or accusing Cameron of fecking a dead pig.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
That’s not true though is it, Boris absolutely got shat on for his associations to a bunch of Russian oligarchs and Dom Cummins amongst others.

Sunak was attacked for his wife being the heiress of infosys and his broad associations with dodgy billionaires.

Liz Truss got attacked for being liz truss.

Theresa Mays circle was relatively clean but got attacked for a million other things.
Click to expand...
The media didn't attack any of them, it actively avoided reporting most of them things. Liz Truss wasn't attacked until her braindead plan failed, the multiple reports saying her plan was braindead and guaranteed to fail were largely unreported.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
That’s not true though is it, Boris absolutely got shat on for his associations to a bunch of Russian oligarchs and Dom Cummins amongst others.

Sunak was attacked for his wife being the heiress of infosys and his broad associations with dodgy billionaires.

Liz Truss got attacked for being liz truss.

Theresa Mays circle was relatively clean but got attacked for a million other things.
Click to expand...
The bulk of those 'attacks' came from slightly more fringe sources like the Guardian and Mirror. The BBC's political editor during the bulk of the Tory reign Laura Kuenssberg was pretty much akin to the infamous North Korean state TV news anchor, and the Murdoch and Dacre owned media (which has the largest outreach in the country) pretty much threw their weight behind Johnson and his ilk, all the while ramping up vicious character assassinations of Corbyn and his allies. It was never an even testing ground for both parties. Its why it was so easy for Johnson to deploy his infamous 'I consider this matter closed' retort to shut up any further coverage of whatever the latest scandal was.
 
The non believers in this thread are going to look very silly when the collapse of Britian happens and Corbyn is installed as the supreme leader of a new workers dictatorship.

The english anthem will be replaced by Lee Carsely favourite karaoke tune - Pure Shores by All Saints and nationalisation without compensation of Greggs will push the revolution forward into Europe.
 
Sweet Square said:
The non believers in this thread are going to look very silly when the collapse of Britian happens and Corbyn is installed as the supreme leader of a new workers dictatorship.

The english anthem will be replaced by Lee Carsely favourite karaoke tune - Pure Shores by All Saints and nationalisation without compensation of Greggs will push the revolution forward into Europe.
Click to expand...
My (Anglo-Saxon) body is ready.
 
He's not actually playing the game in either image is he? Just staring at the title screen and holding the buttons. I can't really imagine him enjoying a video game.
 
Bert_ said:
The majority he has is paper thin and only supported by a third of voters, off the back of 14 years of Tory disaster. If he wants to "move the dial" then he needs to do it in the next 5 years. If he doesn't, he'll be out of power next election.
Click to expand...
Out of interest, who do you think would be in power, if Labour lost a 170 seat majority in a 2029 GE?

The fact that Starmer has such a majority 'in power', but only reflects a third of voters, perhaps shows that in a FPTP system there is no where else to go, that would command an overall consensus.

Marginal improvements, or a clear indication of improvements with timescales, would be enough to keep Labour in power in 2029 with a workable majority.

For me the danger is that the Tories and Reform would not merge, but would team up in 'tag-match' style, with some unholy alliance of the right.

Then you can forget 'dials' etc, movement or stationary.
 
Maticmaker said:
Out of interest, who do you think would be in power, if Labour lost a 170 seat majority in a 2029 GE?

The fact that Starmer has such a majority 'in power', but only reflects a third of voters, perhaps shows that in a FPTP system there is no where else to go, that would command an overall consensus.

Marginal improvements, or a clear indication of improvements with timescales, would be enough to keep Labour in power in 2029 with a workable majority.

For me the danger is that the Tories and Reform would not merge, but would team up in 'tag-match' style, with some unholy alliance of the right.

Then you can forget 'dials' etc, movement or stationary.
Click to expand...

The "Vote the Tories Out" mission is accomplished, so Labour can't rely on that next time. Once the Tories get their act together then and if they can see off Reform, then they probably will end up with a slight majority or a hung parliament. The game is rigged heavily in their favour.

If it wasn't for Reform splitting the Tory vote, then Labour's majority would be no where near what it is. A small swing from Labour to the Tories, on top of Reform regressing could be a disaster for Labour.

Add in that you'll probably have the Lib Dems attacking Labour from the left, plus the Greens seeing an increase in vote share. So they'll take votes off Labour like Reform took votes from the Tories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.