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

NinjaFletch said:
I think they're being reactionary to appease public opinion rather than dealing with the issue logically.

You're a good case in point. Corbyn discusses the problems, but you've attacked him for being 'out of his depth' for not having a decisive action plan.

It's better, apparently, in politics to be seen doing something, even if in 2 years time its shown to be demonstrably wrong, for the sake of being seen to do something.
Click to expand...

It's more complicated than that.

When IS invaded Iraq, I thought the best thing the West could do was nothing. A long, costly American and British intervention had just ended with an outcome which hardly advanced Western interests, and there was little to be gained by running back into the swamp. IS's energies were focused on the establishment of its regional Caliphate, and the idea, advanced by some politicians, that its sympathizers were traveling from Western countries to fight, and perhaps die, in the Middle East, merely to use the newly won territory as a springboard to attack their countries of origin in Europe, didn't make a lot of sense. So stay out, stay neutral, don't make another war in a faraway land the West's war, seemed the best response.

But, for me, all that ended with the plight of the Yazidi refugees on the mountains in Sinjar. How to stand by and watch IS massacre innocent people when we could do something about it? The murderous barbarism of IS proved impossible to ignore. Predictably, once air strikes for 'humanitarian reasons' had taken place, the line rapidly dissolved, and soon the US was fighting a fully fledged air war.

The question is where the line could have been drawn? Because of the nature of IS, a victory for them would have had appalling consequences for the people of the region. Would it really have been possible for the West to do nothing?
 
Mozza said:
If they knew that Thursday why hadn't they bombed them already?
Click to expand...

I read there were 20 bombs dropped and there will have been a mix of new and old targets that were revisited.
 
The people running this party are idiots

 
Ubik said:
The people running this party are idiots

Click to expand...


Euurgh. Why is it so hard to find people with left-leaning socio-economic views who do not also say or believe stupid stuff. You'll be glad to hear that I'm becoming a little frustrated with the current leadership because they are tarnishing the left with their ineptitude.
 
I'm just waiting for George Galloway to soon be given an important role within the party now.
 
I just did a yougov survey and voted Corbyn to resign now. Next question was who should replace him, and the best answer I could give was Alan Johnson. Yes he's said he's not interested, but maybe if most Labour MPs went down on their knees and begged him to do it for a few years he might, especially as he didn't know the disaster that was about to unfold when he said it. If not Johnson, who?
 
712 said:
I just did a yougov survey and voted Corbyn to resign now. Next question was who should replace him, and the best answer I could give was Alan Johnson. Yes he's said he's not interested, but maybe if most Labour MPs went down on their knees and begged him to do it for a few years he might, especially as he didn't know the disaster that was about to unfold when he said it. If not Johnson, who?
Click to expand...
Johnson would be my preference as an interim, try and gain as much ground back as possible before 2020 whilst promoting those who'll be the long term potential successors. If he still doesn't want to, hard to pick out anyone who'd both position Labour correctly and win a leadership vote.
 
712 said:
I just did a yougov survey and voted Corbyn to resign now. Next question was who should replace him, and the best answer I could give was Alan Johnson. Yes he's said he's not interested, but maybe if most Labour MPs went down on their knees and begged him to do it for a few years he might, especially as he didn't know the disaster that was about to unfold when he said it. If not Johnson, who?
Click to expand...

This is a big issue, and probably the main reason Corbyn won the leadership race in the first place.

I don't think any of the previous competitors against Corbyn should get involved except for possibly Cooper. Burnham has already lost 2 leadership elections and Kendall has far too little support among Labour's membership.

Jarvis is being touted as a strong potential from the centrist camp, I wouldn't mind him at all but he stayed out because of family reasons and I doubt they will have changed in the past 4 months.
 
It's quite farcical how bad it is going for Labour under Corbyn but it was always going to happen. Unfortunately for him and those who still have the same socialist beliefs were always on a hiding to nothing as the rest of the world have moved on. The added problem as has been highlighted by those above is that there are no credible alternatives to take over.
 
It was always going to be a bumpy ride (part of the reason I liked the idea of him being leader was the debate it would create) but it seems like both Corbyn's allies and opponents have acted about as badly as I could have imagined throughout.
 
Bumpy ride to say the least! Without opening the door on a debate about the policies because I sense we are miles apart, Corbyn's obvious and understandable struggle to convince his own party he's the future will be the least of his troubles... persuading the voters to follow him will be nigh on impossible.
 
Marching said:
Bumpy ride to say the least! Without opening the door on a debate about the policies because I sense we are miles apart, Corbyn's obvious and understandable struggle to convince his own party he's the future will be the least of his troubles... persuading the voters to follow him will be nigh on impossible.
Click to expand...

The left-right stuff is secondary to me. I'm not even particularly strong in terms of socialist beliefs - the main areas where I agree with Corbyn are Trident, mental health, and military intervention. I would have supported a more centrist candidate if any of them seemed compelling.

Whether or not you agree with the principles and ideas, the execution has been dire from both Corbyn's supporters and opponents. I've always said in this thread that a party will never get elected when it is perceived as being so split. The Ken Livingstone thing just tipped me over the edge in how it showed that Corbyn can't even trust his allies to not undermine him.

Anyway what Labour needs next is someone who can steady the ship.

All that said I'm still horrified by the media coverage of Corbyn, the constant damaging leaks from "senior MPs", and I still quite strongly believe that people like Simon Danczuk and Jamie Reed can go feck themselves.

What annoys me about Corbyn is that he's given all of them too much ammunition and is still doing so, plus he's never seemed particularly engaged in his role as leader, I would have expected him to start looking like it by now after giving him the benefit of the doubt to start with.

To be honest I'm starting to consider the Lib Dems more anyway, despite the fact that they haven't got a hope of ever being in government.
 
Shamwow said:
To be honest I'm starting to consider the Lib Dems more anyway, despite the fact that they haven't got a hope of ever being in government.
Click to expand...

Me too. The Liberal claim that in coalition they deserved credit for preventing the Tories from being their true nasty selves has some merit for me, although I accept few see it that way. Assuming Labour doesn't split and provide a modern left-of-centre party that way.
 
712 said:
Me too. The Liberal claim that in coalition they deserved credit for preventing the Tories from being their true nasty selves has some merit for me, although I accept few see it that way. Assuming Labour doesn't split and provide a modern left-of-centre party that way.
Click to expand...

It was a terrible strategic decision to join the coalition which we can now all see in hindsight but I think they got a lot of unfair criticism and were basically made to be scapegoats.
 
712 said:
I just did a yougov survey and voted Corbyn to resign now. Next question was who should replace him, and the best answer I could give was Alan Johnson. Yes he's said he's not interested, but maybe if most Labour MPs went down on their knees and begged him to do it for a few years he might, especially as he didn't know the disaster that was about to unfold when he said it. If not Johnson, who?
Click to expand...

He's good in Peep Show, to be fair.
 
The only thing that matters is the ballot box . The first test that will be the by election next month.
 
The greatest comeback ever begins.
 
Cameron's got 4 games in hand though.
 
Shamwow said:
However my principle here is that if you have 2 potential courses of action and you don't know how either will turn out, go with the one that doesn't involve bombing. I can't place much trust in the government to know best on this occasion because we've been misled in the past, and there hasn't been a particularly compelling case this time around.
Click to expand...

Yes and no...whilst i can certainly understand why you might not have a great deal of confidence in the PM when it comes to the minutiae, allowing others to act on our behalf ash produced some very unsatisfactory results over the past two years. Cameron has had many months in which to examine the situation on the ground and decide upon some attainable objectives, he shouldn't just get a free pass.


Shamwow said:
Another good point, maybe there's a difference between intervening when it's just the Syrians dying and intervening when things start to get a bit closer to home. Which is a fair enough distinction for the public to make but I'd still argue that the debate should be wider than just "do we intervene militarily or not?". Corbyn raised some good points about dealing with the funding and arms sources - I think this should be the first endeavour. The government needs to present a solid case for how the conflict will be resolved and what happens next before I will ever support introducing more bombs and bullets to the region.
Click to expand...

Very possibly, but then when i think back to the terrorist attack in Tunisia the reaction was more emotional than practical. There were some who attempted to use the incident as a driver for air strikes in Syria, although part of what we were dealing with was spillover from Libya (unrest with the Qataris have been all too happy to ferment i understand). Besides the head of MI5 or MI6, i forget which, i don't think any ministers suggested that Britain return/Europe return to the difficulties in North Africa.

As the conflict has progressed IS' sources funding have changed: for some time they were able to seize resources with such ease that their external sponsors must've been of diminishing importance, however as they lose territory the balance will shift again. I do wonder to what extent our hands might be tied though, with many Western countries being in hock to Qatar or Saudi or the like. Who is prepared to rock that particular boat right now?


Shamwow said:
Something I'd like your opinion (as someone who's opinion I respect) on is the wider point of whether intervening in civil wars is ever a good strategy in the long-term.
Click to expand...

I think much hinges upon the ability of an intervening power to define its objectives honestly, and they being aware of their own limitations. Success also requires a great deal of commitment once the initial salvos are at and end (something that we certainly didn’t see in the case of Libya). I still wonder what could’ve been achieved in Afghanistan had that been our sole focus for a decade or more.
 
Cheesy said:
I'm just waiting for George Galloway to soon be given an important role within the party now.
Click to expand...
You laugh, he was just on This Week and was tons better than Corbyn's been!
 
also from the same poll though
ipsosmorirvotingintention.JPG


But those were the only two categories where the new Labour leader beats his Tory rival, with just a third of respondents saying they viewed Mr Corbyn as a "capable leader," compared to six out of 10 for Mr Cameron.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
sun_tzu said:
also from the same poll though
Click to expand...

There'll be a study done one day about Corbyn and the mass case of confirmation bias from his supporters. Never mind that 3 polls have come out this week that all have a huge lead for the Tories of 6 or 7 points. Never mind that the poll in question has the Tories going past the magic 40% mark. Never mind that he's gone backwards in the same poll since last month, as he has done in every poll this month. Never mind that he's behind every opposition leader in history at the same point in their tenure. Because there's one way of looking at one of the polls where Corbyn looks not so bad, so lets do that and ignore the rest!
 
bishblaize said:
There'll be a study done one day about Corbyn and the mass case of confirmation bias from his supporters. Never mind that 3 polls have come out this week that all have a huge lead for the Tories of 6 or 7 points. Never mind that the poll in question has the Tories going past the magic 40% mark. Never mind that he's gone backwards in the same poll since last month, as he has done in every poll this month. Never mind that he's behind every opposition leader in history at the same point in their tenure. Because there's one way of looking at one of the polls where Corbyn looks not so bad, so lets do that and ignore the rest!
Click to expand...
also the bbc are reporting that poll as saying Corbyn leads Cameron (when quite clearly the majority of data shows the opposite) yet the Corbynistas will still point to a huge media bias against Corbyn...
The fist real test will be the elections next year (I dont think the by election is a good reflection as there is such a large labour majority to start with and of course it is the seats they lost that Corbyn needs to do better in).
some of that poll in question was also done on 14th November which is before he put his foot in his mouth ref shoot to kill and before he threw red ken into the trident mix... (not moves likely to increase his popularity overall)
 
Corbynista's again :rolleyes:.

People point to a huge media bias against Corbyn because there has quite clearly been one from the tabloids. Unless you think that the Sun's repeated front page lies are somehow acceptable.
 
Shamwow said:
Corbynista's again :rolleyes:.
Click to expand...
yup - its a name thats not going to disapear

we have what would have at one point have been called staunch brownites now classified as blairites ffs but blairites and corbynistas seems to have more of a ring to it and is certainly more media friendly than centrists and socialists... though im sure the blairites would prefer language such as progressives vs marxists (as we have already had new labour vs old labour) and the corbynistas prefer tory-lite vs true labour... I suppose we could go with old new labour vs new old labour but lets be honest corbynistas, comrade corbyn, jihadi jez is a bit like camerons hug a hoodie - its going to take a long time to shake it off and its going to take a strong PR plan and good media management to achieve it. (I have my doubts that team Corbyn are the people to achieve that)
 
Last edited:
sun_tzu said:
yup - its a name thats not going to disapear

we have what would have at one point have been called staunch brownites now classified as blairites ffs but blairites and corbynistas seems to have more of a ring to it and is certainly more media friendly than centrists and socialists... though im sure the blairites would prefer language such as progressives vs marxists (as we have already had new labour vs old labour) and the corbynistas prefer tory-lite vs true labour.
Click to expand...

Maybe we can call his opponents Cuntras in the interests of balance.
 
Shamwow said:
Maybe we can call his opponents Cuntras in the interests of balance.
Click to expand...
In fairness Im sure you would much rather just line us up against the wall come the glorious day of the revolution than call us names? Or use the tried and trusted ice pick methodology as a pre-emptive strike but yeah go straight for the sweary name calling if you want - though if thats how you treat centrist voters in your own party you have to question how realistic winning the votes of people who voted tory last time actually is?
 
sun_tzu said:
In fairness Im sure you would much rather just line us up against the wall come the glorious day of the revolution than call us names? Or use the tried and trusted ice pick methodology as a pre-emptive strike but yeah go straight for the sweary name calling if you want - though if thats how you treat centrist voters in your own party you have to question how realistic winning the votes of people who voted tory last time actually is?
Click to expand...

:lol: I guess that one went over your head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.