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

Of the labour supporters on the Cafe, who supports airborne action and who does not?

I am traditionally a labour supporter - though I voted green in the general. I like Corbyn's conviction but at this stage I really believe we need to be seen as taking some action against Daesh.. now, the specifics of this are the interesting part. Surely Corbyn can't be saying no action at all? Airstrikes can be fairly indiscriminate, that much is certain. But _something_ must be done, there is no reasoning to be done with them, so what is the answer?
 
Flying_Heckfish said:
Of the labour supporters on the Cafe, who supports airborne action and who does not?

I am traditionally a labour supporter - though I voted green in the general. I like Corbyn's conviction but at this stage I really believe we need to be seen as taking some action against Daesh.. now, the specifics of this are the interesting part. Surely Corbyn can't be saying no action at all? Airstrikes can be fairly indiscriminate, that much is certain. But _something_ must be done, there is no reasoning to be done with them, so what is the answer?
Click to expand...
I think it's a legitimate enough position to oppose airstrikes due to the uncertainty surrounding the ground forces they'd be supporting, though I'm personally in favour. The trouble with Corbyn is that he won't countenance sanctioning military force whatever the scenario, and has previously talked about negotiating with Da'esh. Corbyn is/was one of the key figures in the Stop the War coalition (the same bunch that said the west was "reaping its own whirlwind" when the Paris attacks happened, classy bunch), so you can probably take it for granted that his prescription matches theirs, which is:

7) The alternatives. Bombing is not the only available foreign policy. Among the many positive measures that could be taken are isolating Isis and other jihadi groups by ending arms sales to the most reactionary and authoritarian regimes in the region, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar. These are countries that sponsor terrorist networks in Syria. We should also pressure Turkey to stop allowing its borders to be used for the supply of arms and fighters into Syria. Crucially Britain and the US should pursue rather than impede peace negotiations.
Click to expand...
 
Well, then.. that is a massive problem.

Overall, of course, any rational person, party or body would want to see peace in the middle east, but when the opposition would sooner die than even attend a meeting then we know we cannot even begin this process. The only way to stop this without intervention, from what I can see, is basically to wash ourselves of the entire region and let them sort it out between them - which should remove any direct (i.e. responsive) reason for them to commit atrocities on EU soil - but would do nothing for world peace whatsoever.

Even then, our 'infidelity' could be used as reason to continue..

It's a difficult situation and this could come to define Corbyn as a leader, even at such an early stage IMO
 
Flying_Heckfish said:
Well, then.. that is a massive problem.

Overall, of course, any rational person, party or body would want to see peace in the middle east, but when the opposition would sooner die than even attend a meeting then we know we cannot even begin this process. The only way to stop this without intervention, from what I can see, is basically to wash ourselves of the entire region and let them sort it out between them - which should remove any direct (i.e. responsive) reason for them to commit atrocities on EU soil - but would do nothing for world peace whatsoever.

Even then, our 'infidelity' could be used as reason to continue..

It's a difficult situation and this could come to define Corbyn as a leader, even at such an early stage IMO
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's true. Humanitarian aid for the refugees goes a long way, and everyone should be doing more on that front. It'll be the thing that really defines the actors to the people who find themselves in the middle of this horror. Do you want the average Syrian to associate us with proving them with shelter and sustenance when they most needed it or to think of us as another monster in the sky that can destroy their house any second?

And as has been said a million times before, the people running these barbarians are in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Bombing their militants in Syria won't have the impact we want.
 
Last edited:
Silva said:
I'm not sure that's true. Humanitarian aid for the refugees goes a long way, and everyone should be doing more on that front. It'll be the thing that really defines the actors to the people who find themselves in the middle of this horror. Do you want the average Syrian to associate us with proving them with shelter and sustenance when they most needed it or to think of us as the monster in the sky that can destroy their house any second?

And as has been said a million times before, the people running these barbarians are in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Bombing their militants in Syria won't have the impact we want.
Click to expand...
As UK or EU as a whole?

In either case, taking in the needy is only part of it, we can do that AND still bomb, after all.. and there's no guarantee how many we will take in, especially in the UK given the net migration numbers we have seen.

Bombing is naturally indiscriminate and as you say 'just' bombing Syria probably wouldn't fix the issue anyway, so perhaps it is correct to stand up now and block it at this stage, rather than risk a lengthily military campaign over multiple states
 
Flying_Heckfish said:
As UK or EU as a whole?

In either case, taking in the needy is only part of it, we can do that AND still bomb, after all.. and there's no guarantee how many we will take in, especially in the UK given the net migration numbers we have seen.

Bombing is naturally indiscriminate and as you say 'just' bombing Syria probably wouldn't fix the issue anyway, so perhaps it is correct to stand up now and block it at this stage, rather than risk a lengthily military campaign over multiple states
Click to expand...
Pretty much all of NATO is on the wrong side of this because thanks to Turkey and certain members relationship with Saudi Arabia.

We can bomb them alongside the humanitarian aid, yes, but what I'm trying to argue it that it'll be futile.
 
FWIW I voted for international intervention in the "what to do about ISIS?" thread. But the way everyone's going about this seems ridiculously short-sighted.
 
Last edited:
The USA, Russia & France are all bombing Syria as we speak. What could we possibly do that would alter the outcome by now? Why needlessly get involved, and have a big debate about the rights and wrongs, the consequences and the motives like we're the only ones thinking about it? The only tangible outcome we could change, is that we could possibly increase our chances of a major terrorist attack in our own country. Sounds like a great idea.
 
^ not sure if you are actually being serious.

Maybe to be united with our historical allies for centuries? That share our same ideas of equality and freedom?

Or are you saying we should leave that burden for them?
 
Flying_Heckfish said:
Well, then.. that is a massive problem.

Overall, of course, any rational person, party or body would want to see peace in the middle east, but when the opposition would sooner die than even attend a meeting then we know we cannot even begin this process. The only way to stop this without intervention, from what I can see, is basically to wash ourselves of the entire region and let them sort it out between them - which should remove any direct (i.e. responsive) reason for them to commit atrocities on EU soil - but would do nothing for world peace whatsoever.

Even then, our 'infidelity' could be used as reason to continue..

It's a difficult situation and this could come to define Corbyn as a leader, even at such an early stage IMO
Click to expand...

Well said.

Corbyn is an irrelevant figure in this discussion. As is the EU, frankly.

US (always), Russia, Arab countries will shape the outcomes of this conflict.
 
Aside from the hard-left demagogues who joined the Labour party just to vote for him, does anybody take Corbyn and his shadow cabinet seriously?
 
Mutter Merkel said:
Aside from the hard-left demagogues who joined the Labour party just to vote for him, does anybody take Corbyn and his shadow cabinet seriously?
Click to expand...
When you ask the general public what they think on an issue by issue basis they agree with him more often than not, but that rarely seems to count for much when people actually go and vote.
 
Silva said:
When you ask the general public what they think on an issue by issue basis they agree with him more often than not, but that rarely seems to count for much when people actually go and vote.
Click to expand...
Especially when the question asked is based on Corbyn's genuine views on the issue and not the right wing media (and sadly some within the PLP) misrepresenting his agenda.
 
Silva said:
When you ask the general public what they think on an issue by issue basis they agree with him more often than not, but that rarely seems to count for much when people actually go and vote.
Click to expand...
Except on issues like going to war, Trident, public spending, immigration. The little stuff.
 
Ubik said:
Except on issues like going to war, Trident, public spending, immigration. The little stuff.
Click to expand...
I'll give you the war stuff, the public's a bit bloodthirsty for the moment, but like post 9/11 it'll soon regret it.

Public spending, though, nah. They've bought the 'cut the deficit' bollocks, but if you actually ask them specifics you'll soon find out they don't want anything cut. Everyone seems to have this bizarre idea that the government spends money on things that don't effect anyone. See the governments attempt to cut Tax Credits.
 
Silva said:
I'll give you the war stuff, the public's a bit bloodthirsty for the moment, but like post 9/11 it'll soon regret it.

Public spending, though, nah. They've bought the 'cut the deficit' bollocks, but if you actually ask them specifics you'll soon find out they don't want anything cut. Everyone seems to have this bizarre idea that the government spends money on things that don't effect anyone. See the governments attempt to cut Tax Credits.
Click to expand...
Not true at all, I saw a poll just a few days ago that still wanted particularly welfare and foreign aid cut a lot. I disagree with them on both matters, but to say they don't want things cut is plainly false.
 
Ubik said:
Not true at all, I saw a poll just a few days ago that still wanted particularly welfare and foreign aid cut a lot. I disagree with them on both matters, but to say they don't want things cut is plainly false.
Click to expand...
That's largely down to ignorance. If you ask those same people what they specifically actually want to cut from welfare you'll soon find most of them silent, with some of those making an argument for cutting the smallest parts the welfare budget. Again, see Tax Credits. Once you actually try to cut something from the welfare budget you'll find people saying "whoa now, we didn't mean that"
 
Silva said:
That's largely down to ignorance. If you ask those same people what they specifically actually want to cut from welfare you'll soon find most of them silent, with some of those making an argument for cutting the smallest parts the welfare budget. Again, see Tax Credits. Once you actually try to cut something from the welfare budget you'll find people saying "whoa now, we didn't mean that"
Click to expand...
Tax credits was always an unpopular target, which was why the Tories said they wouldn't cut them during the election. How much has the welfare budget been cut already? Why were the Tories voted for in greater numbers if such cuts are not popular with the public?
 
Ubik said:
Tax credits was always an unpopular target, which was why the Tories said they wouldn't cut them during the election. How much has the welfare budget been cut already? Why were the Tories voted for in greater numbers if such cuts are not popular with the public?
Click to expand...
How often does the British public vote out a government before they've fecked up the economy? Add to that a shambolic campaign from Labour and it's not hard to see why many of their would be voters chose the SNP and UKIP instead. Once the economy crashes roles will reverse again and the conservatives will be having this conversation, pretending like they can win the next election by changing a policy or two.

And lets not ignore the part FPTP plays in this. Labour got a similar percentage of the vote to 2010 and far fewer seats. But of course, they'd rather wait their turn than use vote a better system.
 
Last edited:
Ubik said:
Tax credits was always an unpopular target, which was why the Tories said they wouldn't cut them during the election. How much has the welfare budget been cut already? Why were the Tories voted for in greater numbers if such cuts are not popular with the public?
Click to expand...
Because the public bought the media's trashing of Miliband and the Labour party, the Libs trashed themselves by siding with the tories earlier and UKIP are still only a protest vote for all bar a handful of knuckledraggers.

It's not surprising people want a cut in welfare budgets but that is largely down to how they are misrepresented to them in both the media and the government's own figures, it looks fairly horrendous on your tax bill when you see that 35% of your tax bill goes on welfare yet when you look deeper into that, the welfare budget includes items like civil service pensions which have nothing to do with the perceived issue of welfare being the money we chuck at the idle poor to drink and smoke at our expense. As for overseas aid, it amounts to barely 1% of your tax bill so hardly a major concern for most people.
 
Flying_Heckfish said:
Of the labour supporters on the Cafe, who supports airborne action and who does not?

I am traditionally a labour supporter - though I voted green in the general. I like Corbyn's conviction but at this stage I really believe we need to be seen as taking some action against Daesh.. now, the specifics of this are the interesting part. Surely Corbyn can't be saying no action at all? Airstrikes can be fairly indiscriminate, that much is certain. But _something_ must be done, there is no reasoning to be done with them, so what is the answer?
Click to expand...

I'm against strikes and statements like the bolded one annoy the feck out of me when we're talking about something as serious as interfering in a civil war by killing people halfway across the world with powerful explosive weapons.
 
Bury Red said:
Because the public bought the media's trashing of Miliband and the Labour party, the Libs trashed themselves by siding with the tories earlier and UKIP are still only a protest vote for all bar a handful of knuckledraggers.

It's not surprising people want a cut in welfare budgets but that is largely down to how they are misrepresented to them in both the media and the government's own figures, it looks fairly horrendous on your tax bill when you see that 35% of your tax bill goes on welfare yet when you look deeper into that, the welfare budget includes items like civil service pensions which have nothing to do with the perceived issue of welfare being the money we chuck at the idle poor to drink and smoke at our expense. As for overseas aid, it amounts to barely 1% of your tax bill so hardly a major concern for most people.
Click to expand...
Yup, they're under the impression that it's all going to people off benefits street, rather than just about everyone else.
 
Bury Red said:
Because the public bought the media's trashing of Miliband and the Labour party, the Libs trashed themselves by siding with the tories earlier and UKIP are still only a protest vote for all bar a handful of knuckledraggers.
Click to expand...

One of the downsides of Corbyn's election is that people still think Labours problems are as simple as this, because we never actually had the debate we all said we needed.
 
bishblaize said:
One of the downsides of Corbyn's election is that people still think Labours problems are as simple as this, because we never actually had the debate we all said we needed.
Click to expand...
False consciousness in the 21st century.
 
Mutter Merkel said:
Aside from the hard-left demagogues who joined the Labour party just to vote for him, does anybody take Corbyn and his shadow cabinet seriously?
Click to expand...

I don't think so, I'm genuinely interested as to how many Labour voters think he has the ability to successfully run the country.
 
It will be massive if Labour lose Oldham West and Royton. Growing up round there I know that the place has been Labour for years and wider Greater Manchester is largely red. Even if they win a narrow majority it is a major blow for Corbyn. This is supposed to be the kind of area that he really speaks too.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
It will be massive if Labour lose Oldham West and Royton. Growing up round there I know that the place has been Labour for years and wider Greater Manchester is largely red. Even if they win a narrow majority it is a major blow for Corbyn. This is supposed to be the kind of area that he really speaks too.
Click to expand...

Sadly I don't think it's in Corbyn's nature to speak loudly enough to drown out the cacophony of media and PLP voices misrepresenting his every word. He's not said or done anything that should invite the opprobrium received but sadly people are so inclined to accept the soundbites these days that he has little chance.

Chorley1974 said:
I don't think so, I'm genuinely interested as to how many Labour voters think he has the ability to successfully run the country.
Click to expand...

Given the chance, I see no reason why he could not run the country and I know he'd be a better leader for the majority of the population than any of the Tories or Blairites. Sadly, he will never be given that chance by his own party, let alone by the electorate.
 
Bury Red said:
Sadly I don't think it's in Corbyn's nature to speak loudly enough to drown out the cacophony of media and PLP voices misrepresenting his every word. He's not said or done anything that should invite the opprobrium received but sadly people are so inclined to accept the soundbites these days that he has little chance.

Given the chance, I see no reason why he could not run the country and I know he'd be a better leader for the majority of the population than any of the Tories or Blairites. Sadly, he will never be given that chance by his own party, let alone by the electorate.
Click to expand...

Remarkable point of view.
 
bishblaize said:
Remarkable point of view.
Click to expand...
Really? Why's it so remarkable? The last decent politician I encountered was Dave Nellist when I was in my student days, I admired John Smith at the time and have long favoured the likes of Livingstone and Benn over the soundbite labour politicians who have taken over the party and turned it into a Tory light. Unfortunately the media under Murdoch have swung public opinion so far to the right that I no longer feel in tune with the country I live in. People buy into the same bile about welfare recipients, immigrants, religious minorities etc that the likes of Enoch Powell once caused riots with yet now it's acceptable on the front page of virtually every paper, not just the Mail and the likes of Farrage rather than being a once a year joke on Question Time are given equal television footing to the main parties and treated as celebrities on comedy panel shows that would not have given his ilk a platform 20 years ago.
 
Bury Red said:
Sadly I don't think it's in Corbyn's nature to speak loudly enough to drown out the cacophony of media and PLP voices misrepresenting his every word. He's not said or done anything that should invite the opprobrium received but sadly people are so inclined to accept the soundbites these days that he has little chance.



Given the chance, I see no reason why he could not run the country and I know he'd be a better leader for the majority of the population than any of the Tories or Blairites. Sadly, he will never be given that chance by his own party, let alone by the electorate.
Click to expand...

You've been drinking BR! ;)
 
Marching said:
You've been drinking BR! ;)
Click to expand...
Not until kick off Marcher.

Afraid I've just never bought into the great capitalist myth pedaled by Thatcher and every British politician since, this whole ethos that everyone should aspire to own their own home, work in a white collar service industry and not give a damn about their fellow man has been bought wholesale by the UK population and whilst we might kid ourselves that we've never had it so good with our widescreen TVs, high speed broadband, smart phones and tablets we've steadily slid down the global rankings in terms of practically every measure. From the likes of GDP, median income, trade deficit, productivity and the things the right supposedly care about to education, health and the number of people living in poverty which the left supposedly care about. Our infrastructure is crumbling, our transport system at a grinding halt much of the time, our industry is dead and we've finally tipped the scales to the point where the current generation will fare better than their offspring in terms of lifespan, prosperity and security.
 
Shamwow said:
Surely you can think of some possibilities? A few that I've thought of:

1) Outside interference in civil wars correlates with them lasting longer and being more bloody
2) Mission creep that could have us still bombing the place in a decade's time (at best)
3) We incite ISIS and other Islamist groups into being more likely to attack us whilst doing very little to actually deal with the idealogy
4) Spending loads of money that we keep getting told we don't have
5) Accidentally killing a bunch of innocent people
6) Accidentally blowing up a Russian plane
Click to expand...
I wouldn't even call it accidentally. If you choose to submit yourself to military action such as this, you're accepting the 'costs of war' and inevitable civilian casualties.
Ubik said:
Bunch of pricks.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Bury Red said:
Not until kick off Marcher.

Afraid I've just never bought into the great capitalist myth pedaled by Thatcher and every British politician since, this whole ethos that everyone should aspire to own their own home, work in a white collar service industry and not give a damn about their fellow man has been bought wholesale by the UK population and whilst we might kid ourselves that we've never had it so good with our widescreen TVs, high speed broadband, smart phones and tablets we've steadily slid down the global rankings in terms of practically every measure. From the likes of GDP, median income, trade deficit, productivity and the things the right supposedly care about to education, health and the number of people living in poverty which the left supposedly care about. Our infrastructure is crumbling, our transport system at a grinding halt much of the time, our industry is dead and we've finally tipped the scales to the point where the current generation will fare better than their offspring in terms of lifespan, prosperity and security.
Click to expand...

After that I think I'll have a drink! We live in different worlds buddy. I hope Leicester don't make things worse for you ;)
 
bishblaize said:


Blairite hedgehog in Corbyn oust plot shock.
Click to expand...

Still unsure as to how I feel about this. Not from an ethical standpoint, fine with it in that sense, just fairly sure the coup would be bungled to such an extent that he'd both manage to get on the ballot and win by an increased margin thanks to the sympathy vote.
 
Bury Red said:
Not until kick off Marcher.

Afraid I've just never bought into the great capitalist myth pedaled by Thatcher and every British politician since, this whole ethos that everyone should aspire to own their own home, work in a white collar service industry and not give a damn about their fellow man has been bought wholesale by the UK population and whilst we might kid ourselves that we've never had it so good with our widescreen TVs, high speed broadband, smart phones and tablets we've steadily slid down the global rankings in terms of practically every measure. From the likes of GDP, median income, trade deficit, productivity and the things the right supposedly care about to education, health and the number of people living in poverty which the left supposedly care about. Our infrastructure is crumbling, our transport system at a grinding halt much of the time, our industry is dead and we've finally tipped the scales to the point where the current generation will fare better than their offspring in terms of lifespan, prosperity and security.
Click to expand...
Great post. Agree with you 100%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.