You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn
November 9 2026 4.12pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Jeremy Corbyn


Page 22 of 279 < 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 >
Hoof Hearted 24 Aug 15 10.23am

Quote leggedstruggle at 24 Aug 2015 10.20am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 24 Aug 2015 10.15am

As soon as Corbyn gets in power he will start walking on two legs.

- quite right Hoof, as you no doubt know "Four legs good, two legs better".


All men are born equal... but some are more equal than others!

 
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 24 Aug 15 10.33am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 24 Aug 2015 10.23am

Quote leggedstruggle at 24 Aug 2015 10.20am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 24 Aug 2015 10.15am

As soon as Corbyn gets in power he will start walking on two legs.

- quite right Hoof, as you no doubt know "Four legs good, two legs better".


All men are born equal... but some are more equal than others!

“No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”

Socialism in a nutshell.

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Johnny Eagles Flag berlin 24 Aug 15 10.51am

Quote serial thriller at 21 Aug 2015 5.42pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 21 Aug 2015 8.16am

I think a lot of lefties must actually prefer a Tory government, because it means they can spend all day ranting and posting on social media about how 'unfeeling' and 'cruel' they are.

Then they vote in someone like Corbyn because it makes them feel good about their 'principles'.

And when there's a Tory landslide, they blame the Murdoch press. And tell themselves that the electorate really wants socialism but is denied it by 'the establishment'. Or that voters aren't as clever or enlightened as us lefties with our 'correct' world view.


Considering your typically reasoned and balanced approach to posting I'm a bit disappointed in the matt-style prophetic certainty and lefty smearing of tho post Johnny.

If people are voting for Corbyn, its because they agree with his policies, and that in a nutshell I how democracy works. To sneer at conviction in people's political decisions is to support the concept that politics is an intransigent and hopelessly narrow cult, and that compromise to the point of acceptance and submission is the only position worth taking. It is actually this exact dogma that I think people are rejecting by supporting Corbyn.

Do I think Corbyn can win? Absolutely, and I become more and more convinced he can win every day his campaign continues to surge against almost exclusive media cynicism. Why do I think so? Well firstly his case is different to other left-leaning predecessors in that it has been supported by one of the biggest grass roots political surges in recent memory. Labour now have more than 4x the number of members the tories do. 4 times! And I imagine the age average is a darn sight younger than those in the blue corner. As the Obama campaign and the snp found out, a young mobilised membership is priceless when it comes to campaigning.

The other two reasons I think he can win is the two potentially momentous political dates coming up. 1) is the eu referendum, which could totally split the tories and leave labour looking positively united. The other is interest rates rising and the massive hit the governments coffers will take when they do go up. Given what's going on in the eurozone and china currently, another recession/black Monday moment is certainly not inconceivable, and Corbyn's anti austerity message could be hammered him in the face of it.

Of course it will be difficult, especially keeping the party together should he win, but to suggest it's a foregone conclusion is myopic and arrogant imo. As for Murdoch, would you not say Johnny that given Corbyn's views are clearly shared by a sizeable percentage of the population, it is at least odd that a supposedly free press contains not 1 major newspaper showing anything other than hostility towards him?

I based my post on observations made from a couple of lefties I know who say things like, “I stopped voting Labour the day they put winning power over their principles”. Corbyn appeals to these people. Which is all well and good, but they don’t make up enough numbers to win elections for the policies they support.

And then, when they lose (as they did in May) people like the above-mentioned lefty genuinely do blame the Murdoch press.

Hence my comment that I think they genuinely do prefer Tory government because it gives them something to moan about!

When you say you think Corbyn can win, do you mean the leadership (he almost certainly will) or a general election (won't happen in a month of Sundays)?

As for the numbers joining, I suspect most of them are like that posh kid who tore up the Cenotaph on the student fees march, ie, going along for a laugh and unlikely to become grass roots activists in the long term. I may well be wrong though.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying Corbyn doesn't have support. And I'm not sneering at people for having principles (well maybe I am a bit, if I'm honest, when those principles smack of sparkling-wine socialism).

Really all I'm saying is that people who hold those principles (for all the noise they make) are a relatively small minority which is why leftist agendas repeatedly get defeated at the polls.

 

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...
Schuloff Flag Hackney 24 Aug 15 11.06am

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 5.30pm

Quote The White Horse at 23 Aug 2015 5.03pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 3.15pm

A recent survey claimed around a third of the electorate would be more likely to vote for Labour with Corbyn in charge. Most support nationalising the railways and the energy companies, keeping the NHS public, are against military intervention in Syria as they were against Iraq, and even the IMF argues against austerity. Not only does Corbyn represent the views of a sizeable percentage of the population, he actually resides in the majority view on a number of issues, putting him in stark contrast to almost anyone else in the two major parliamentary parties.

Of course, public perception changes, and that is something else you have to factor in. Should the leader of the opposition take positions against austerity, against military intervention, against widespread outsourcing, it is likely that more of the public will be convinced by views which have until now been largely kept out of mainstream discourse. That's exemplified no better than by Farage, who brought immigration and Europe in to the mainstream.

I wish all of the above was true, but it just isn't , is it? He's a joke, even a proper lefty like me can see that. He'll pick up the tiny green and tusc vote, but. Labour will lose voters to the Tories and Lib Dems.


Not true? The whole first paragraph is pretty much exclusively factual. I can get the links out for you if you fancy

I'm not a labour member, and have never voted for Labour in my life. I'm still very much in two minds as to whether I would vote for Corbyn were he to be elected; the reason that I'm sticking up for him so vigorously is because of the soothsaying which the vast majority of people I encounter seem to take pleasure in with regards to Corbyn. There is a fatalistic acceptance among so many people across the political spectrum that Corbyn will inevitably lose, and I think it's a view which is being fuelled almost exclusively through a very narrow right-wing analysis of political history.

For example, everyone is harking back to the 83 election as proof that radical politics can't win, but what about the 74 election, where Labour's manifesto was arguably more radical than the one Foot lost with? Equally, why aren't people recognising the significance of the SDP split which fractured the Labour vote?

Or you could point to the fact that the reemergence of the left is occurring throughout the Western world, and is achieving incredible success, be it in Scotland, Spain, Greece or New York. People could acknowledge that we have an incredible brew of variables which is causing this rise, namely a rejection of austerity, a fatigue with foreign interventionism and an anger at growing inequality. History never repeats itself because everything is constantly changing, everything is constantly new.

I'm not saying he will win, I understand it would be an incredible achievement should he do so. But I know for absolute certain, and I can back it up with as many historical parallels as you wish (Obama, Mitterand, Syriza) that prophesying inevitable defeat is ludicrous. Believing that myth is to accept in full the version of reality and public attitudes created by those on the right.

Serial, I think the point that many political pundits at large, and the luminaries on here are missing, is not whether Jeremy Corbyn is electable to the post of PM today, but what might happen between now and 2020 to make him electable.
The Labour Party were singularly inept at scotching the rumour that a spending on nurses and aschools building programme created the tsunami which began in 2007 and is still roiling world markets. The Tories won that argument because the focus-group-inspired Labour Party were afraid of using words like subprime, speculation, negative yields, bailouts, electronic money printing to purchase private debt and place it on public balance sheets (QE) etc, or failing that, simply world economic crisis.
Now, a host of key market players are looking at factors such as Chinese devaluation, German slowdown, inability of the Federal Reserve to wean the US economy off zero interest rates, emerging market meltdown in Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia and, significantly, banks charging negative interest rates in Germany for corporate customers and funds to park big sums of money.
So, it is possible that we are going to enter a major downturn that will lead to a real bear market at a time when interest rates are zero and bond yields are zilch. This is a tsunami; and one that Cameron and his warriors will have to face, and a situation they will not be able to say that the Labour government were responsible for.
Under these circumstances, a so-called steady hand on the fiscal rudder, austerity at all costs, will mean very little to those who feel, as matters worsen, duped. That is the reason I consider it quite possible that were Corbyn to be elected leader in September he may become electable to office as Prime Minister by 2020.

 
Catfish Flag Burgess Hill 24 Aug 15 11.35am

The argument then is that, if there is total economic collapse with savings and pensions wiped out and famine looming, then Corbyn and the Trotskyist tenency might be seen a possible option. You are right, they may pick up the "nothing to lose" vote but so too might any other fringe group. Is that really what the Labour Party aspires to after 100 years?

 

Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial
SwalecliffeEagle Flag Swalecliffe 24 Aug 15 12.11pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 23 Aug 2015 6.32pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 3.15pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 22 Aug 2015 9.36am

Quote serial thriller at 21 Aug 2015 5.42pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 21 Aug 2015 8.16am

I think a lot of lefties must actually prefer a Tory government, because it means they can spend all day ranting and posting on social media about how 'unfeeling' and 'cruel' they are.

Then they vote in someone like Corbyn because it makes them feel good about their 'principles'.

And when there's a Tory landslide, they blame the Murdoch press. And tell themselves that the electorate really wants socialism but is denied it by 'the establishment'. Or that voters aren't as clever or enlightened as us lefties with our 'correct' world view.


Considering your typically reasoned and balanced approach to posting I'm a bit disappointed in the matt-style prophetic certainty and lefty smearing of tho post Johnny.

If people are voting for Corbyn, its because they agree with his policies, and that in a nutshell I how democracy works. To sneer at conviction in people's political decisions is to support the concept that politics is an intransigent and hopelessly narrow cult, and that compromise to the point of acceptance and submission is the only position worth taking. It is actually this exact dogma that I think people are rejecting by supporting Corbyn.

Do I think Corbyn can win? Absolutely, and I become more and more convinced he can win every day his campaign continues to surge against almost exclusive media cynicism. Why do I think so? Well firstly his case is different to other left-leaning predecessors in that it has been supported by one of the biggest grass roots political surges in recent memory. Labour now have more than 4x the number of members the tories do. 4 times! And I imagine the age average is a darn sight younger than those in the blue corner. As the Obama campaign and the snp found out, a young mobilised membership is priceless when it comes to campaigning.

The other two reasons I think he can win is the two potentially momentous political dates coming up. 1) is the eu referendum, which could totally split the tories and leave labour looking positively united. The other is interest rates rising and the massive hit the governments coffers will take when they do go up. Given what's going on in the eurozone and china currently, another recession/black Monday moment is certainly not inconceivable, and Corbyn's anti austerity message could be hammered him in the face of it.

Of course it will be difficult, especially keeping the party together should he win, but to suggest it's a foregone conclusion is myopic and arrogant imo. As for Murdoch, would you not say Johnny that given Corbyn's views are clearly shared by a sizeable percentage of the population, it is at least odd that a supposedly free press contains not 1 major newspaper showing anything other than hostility towards him?


As Willo would say........ Hogwash!

Corbyn is getting the same treatment from the newspapers that Farage is/was getting.

And for the record, Corbyn's views are NOT "clearly shared by a sizeable percentage of the population". Far from it.... more people are/were shared by Farage's views and he and his party floundered at the last election.

It is you that is myopic if you actually believe that Labour will be in a good place with Corbyn at the helm. Only dyed in the wool lefties are rejoicing at this situation, but they will soon be regretting their actions as this lengthens Labour's period in opposition or worse.


A recent survey claimed around a third of the electorate would be more likely to vote for Labour with Corbyn in charge. Most support nationalising the railways and the energy companies, keeping the NHS public, are against military intervention in Syria as they were against Iraq, and even the IMF argues against austerity. Not only does Corbyn represent the views of a sizeable percentage of the population, he actually resides in the majority view on a number of issues, putting him in stark contrast to almost anyone else in the two major parliamentary parties.

Of course, public perception changes, and that is something else you have to factor in. Should the leader of the opposition take positions against austerity, against military intervention, against widespread outsourcing, it is likely that more of the public will be convinced by views which have until now been largely kept out of mainstream discourse. That's exemplified no better than by Farage, who brought immigration and Europe in to the mainstream.

To suggest that UKIP 'floundered' at the last election is ludicrous as well: they got about 3 million more votes than in 2010, but more significantly they steered the Tories to the right on the issues of immigration and still threaten to split the party apart over Europe. Were there to be a proper voting system in this country rather than FPTP, chances are they'd be in government with the Tories now.

1 seat........ that is floundering by anybody's standards.


You well know that fringe parties such as UKIP and the Greens measure success not merely in seats gained but principally by the degree to which they have altered mainstream political discourse. Of course, the one seat in Clacton (which was gained only because of the strong personal following Carswell enjoys) was a rather miserable return for their efforts in boosting parliamentary representation. But, if we compare the prominence of immigration and Europe in the media, politics, and the public imagination, with the importance placed on the environment, then UKIP begin to look like a rather successful pressure group, which is what fringe parties pretty much are.

 
Schuloff Flag Hackney 24 Aug 15 12.30pm

Quote Catfish at 24 Aug 2015 11.35am

The argument then is that, if there is total economic collapse with savings and pensions wiped out and famine looming, then Corbyn and the Trotskyist tenency might be seen a possible option. You are right, they may pick up the "nothing to lose" vote but so too might any other fringe group. Is that really what the Labour Party aspires to after 100 years?

No Catfish, I am not saying that in a terrible situation anything can happen. What I am suggesting is that the unresolved questions of value and productivity are capable of creating a further economic shock. Yesterday some 41 economists published a letter suggesting -as does the IMF - that austerity, ie steep decline in public expenditure may not be the most prudent economic response to near stagnation -eight years on, and that Corbyn's approach has its merits.
I also believe that it is quite possible that many voters outside the groups you mention above, would welcome a coherent response to a crisis that does not mean that in the hunt for value (and pensions are a big issue as you say) a system can exist that protects your pension without the necessity of rewarding the top five hedge fund managers globally, who manage tranches of your pensions in the quest for above benchmark returns, an average remuneration of one billion, three hundred million dollars per man for 2014.
We rightly look at bank bonuses in the publicly owned, and other, banks. But banks do not do what they to, it's been taken off them, since new regulations such as the Volcker Rule in the US and the Alternative Investment Fund Management Directive and Basel III in Europe have transferred the high stakes gambling. and the risky assets, to the hedge funds, all with government blessing.
Under certain circumstances I can envisage a broad swathe of voters, some former liberals, even conservative and certainly Ukip, under our two-party system choosing Labour under Corbyn. I actually don't know what the labour party aspires to, isn't that part of the reason they lost the election?

 
Stuk Flag Top half 24 Aug 15 1.41pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 5.30pm

Quote The White Horse at 23 Aug 2015 5.03pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 3.15pm

A recent survey claimed around a third of the electorate would be more likely to vote for Labour with Corbyn in charge. Most support nationalising the railways and the energy companies, keeping the NHS public, are against military intervention in Syria as they were against Iraq, and even the IMF argues against austerity. Not only does Corbyn represent the views of a sizeable percentage of the population, he actually resides in the majority view on a number of issues, putting him in stark contrast to almost anyone else in the two major parliamentary parties.

Of course, public perception changes, and that is something else you have to factor in. Should the leader of the opposition take positions against austerity, against military intervention, against widespread outsourcing, it is likely that more of the public will be convinced by views which have until now been largely kept out of mainstream discourse. That's exemplified no better than by Farage, who brought immigration and Europe in to the mainstream.

I wish all of the above was true, but it just isn't , is it? He's a joke, even a proper lefty like me can see that. He'll pick up the tiny green and tusc vote, but. Labour will lose voters to the Tories and Lib Dems.


Not true? The whole first paragraph is pretty much exclusively factual. I can get the links out for you if you fancy

I'm not a labour member, and have never voted for Labour in my life. I'm still very much in two minds as to whether I would vote for Corbyn were he to be elected; the reason that I'm sticking up for him so vigorously is because of the soothsaying which the vast majority of people I encounter seem to take pleasure in with regards to Corbyn. There is a fatalistic acceptance among so many people across the political spectrum that Corbyn will inevitably lose, and I think it's a view which is being fuelled almost exclusively through a very narrow right-wing analysis of political history.

For example, everyone is harking back to the 83 election as proof that radical politics can't win, but what about the 74 election, where Labour's manifesto was arguably more radical than the one Foot lost with? Equally, why aren't people recognising the significance of the SDP split which fractured the Labour vote?

Or you could point to the fact that the reemergence of the left is occurring throughout the Western world, and is achieving incredible success, be it in Scotland, Spain, Greece or New York. People could acknowledge that we have an incredible brew of variables which is causing this rise, namely a rejection of austerity, a fatigue with foreign interventionism and an anger at growing inequality. History never repeats itself because everything is constantly changing, everything is constantly new.

I'm not saying he will win, I understand it would be an incredible achievement should he do so. But I know for absolute certain, and I can back it up with as many historical parallels as you wish (Obama, Mitterand, Syriza) that prophesying inevitable defeat is ludicrous. Believing that myth is to accept in full the version of reality and public attitudes created by those on the right.

Links do not make anything "factual".

You're off your rocker is my conclusion. I'll use the post from the WH as my factual evidence for this.

 

Optimistic as ever
EagleEyedAlbert Flag ...too far north of the water. 24 Aug 15 1.50pm

So is he a massive jew-bashing Islamadingdong or not?

I'd like to make a snap judgement please. No time to go back & read through all of that ^^^

 

"IS HE!!?"

-Can often be found on HOL Radio chatting Palace-related nonsense:

Catch it here, Sunday Nights 8pm: [Link]

HOL Radio Twitter: [Link]

Me on the Twitter: [Link]


"You don't own a dog & bark yourself, do you?"
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 24 Aug 15 3.24pm

FTSE down 350 points. Corbyn fear I guess. Perhaps it will rally a bit if he shaves his beard off?

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 24 Aug 15 5.03pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 24 Aug 2015 3.24pm

FTSE down 350 points. Corbyn fear I guess. Perhaps it will rally a bit if he shaves his beard off?


Nothing to do with the crash in China then?

 
serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 24 Aug 15 5.03pm

Quote Stuk at 24 Aug 2015 1.41pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 5.30pm

Quote The White Horse at 23 Aug 2015 5.03pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 3.15pm

A recent survey claimed around a third of the electorate would be more likely to vote for Labour with Corbyn in charge. Most support nationalising the railways and the energy companies, keeping the NHS public, are against military intervention in Syria as they were against Iraq, and even the IMF argues against austerity. Not only does Corbyn represent the views of a sizeable percentage of the population, he actually resides in the majority view on a number of issues, putting him in stark contrast to almost anyone else in the two major parliamentary parties.

Of course, public perception changes, and that is something else you have to factor in. Should the leader of the opposition take positions against austerity, against military intervention, against widespread outsourcing, it is likely that more of the public will be convinced by views which have until now been largely kept out of mainstream discourse. That's exemplified no better than by Farage, who brought immigration and Europe in to the mainstream.

I wish all of the above was true, but it just isn't , is it? He's a joke, even a proper lefty like me can see that. He'll pick up the tiny green and tusc vote, but. Labour will lose voters to the Tories and Lib Dems.


Not true? The whole first paragraph is pretty much exclusively factual. I can get the links out for you if you fancy

I'm not a labour member, and have never voted for Labour in my life. I'm still very much in two minds as to whether I would vote for Corbyn were he to be elected; the reason that I'm sticking up for him so vigorously is because of the soothsaying which the vast majority of people I encounter seem to take pleasure in with regards to Corbyn. There is a fatalistic acceptance among so many people across the political spectrum that Corbyn will inevitably lose, and I think it's a view which is being fuelled almost exclusively through a very narrow right-wing analysis of political history.

For example, everyone is harking back to the 83 election as proof that radical politics can't win, but what about the 74 election, where Labour's manifesto was arguably more radical than the one Foot lost with? Equally, why aren't people recognising the significance of the SDP split which fractured the Labour vote?

Or you could point to the fact that the reemergence of the left is occurring throughout the Western world, and is achieving incredible success, be it in Scotland, Spain, Greece or New York. People could acknowledge that we have an incredible brew of variables which is causing this rise, namely a rejection of austerity, a fatigue with foreign interventionism and an anger at growing inequality. History never repeats itself because everything is constantly changing, everything is constantly new.

I'm not saying he will win, I understand it would be an incredible achievement should he do so. But I know for absolute certain, and I can back it up with as many historical parallels as you wish (Obama, Mitterand, Syriza) that prophesying inevitable defeat is ludicrous. Believing that myth is to accept in full the version of reality and public attitudes created by those on the right.

Links do not make anything "factual".

You're off your rocker is my conclusion. I'll use the post from the WH as my factual evidence for this.


Out of interest, what do you classify as being a fact?

 

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Stuk Flag Top half 24 Aug 15 5.50pm

Quote serial thriller at 24 Aug 2015 5.03pm

Quote Stuk at 24 Aug 2015 1.41pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 5.30pm

Quote The White Horse at 23 Aug 2015 5.03pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 3.15pm

A recent survey claimed around a third of the electorate would be more likely to vote for Labour with Corbyn in charge. Most support nationalising the railways and the energy companies, keeping the NHS public, are against military intervention in Syria as they were against Iraq, and even the IMF argues against austerity. Not only does Corbyn represent the views of a sizeable percentage of the population, he actually resides in the majority view on a number of issues, putting him in stark contrast to almost anyone else in the two major parliamentary parties.

Of course, public perception changes, and that is something else you have to factor in. Should the leader of the opposition take positions against austerity, against military intervention, against widespread outsourcing, it is likely that more of the public will be convinced by views which have until now been largely kept out of mainstream discourse. That's exemplified no better than by Farage, who brought immigration and Europe in to the mainstream.

I wish all of the above was true, but it just isn't , is it? He's a joke, even a proper lefty like me can see that. He'll pick up the tiny green and tusc vote, but. Labour will lose voters to the Tories and Lib Dems.


Not true? The whole first paragraph is pretty much exclusively factual. I can get the links out for you if you fancy

I'm not a labour member, and have never voted for Labour in my life. I'm still very much in two minds as to whether I would vote for Corbyn were he to be elected; the reason that I'm sticking up for him so vigorously is because of the soothsaying which the vast majority of people I encounter seem to take pleasure in with regards to Corbyn. There is a fatalistic acceptance among so many people across the political spectrum that Corbyn will inevitably lose, and I think it's a view which is being fuelled almost exclusively through a very narrow right-wing analysis of political history.

For example, everyone is harking back to the 83 election as proof that radical politics can't win, but what about the 74 election, where Labour's manifesto was arguably more radical than the one Foot lost with? Equally, why aren't people recognising the significance of the SDP split which fractured the Labour vote?

Or you could point to the fact that the reemergence of the left is occurring throughout the Western world, and is achieving incredible success, be it in Scotland, Spain, Greece or New York. People could acknowledge that we have an incredible brew of variables which is causing this rise, namely a rejection of austerity, a fatigue with foreign interventionism and an anger at growing inequality. History never repeats itself because everything is constantly changing, everything is constantly new.

I'm not saying he will win, I understand it would be an incredible achievement should he do so. But I know for absolute certain, and I can back it up with as many historical parallels as you wish (Obama, Mitterand, Syriza) that prophesying inevitable defeat is ludicrous. Believing that myth is to accept in full the version of reality and public attitudes created by those on the right.

Links do not make anything "factual".

You're off your rocker is my conclusion. I'll use the post from the WH as my factual evidence for this.


Out of interest, what do you classify as being a fact?

The number of grams in a kilogram. Do you need any more?

 

Optimistic as ever
serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 25 Aug 15 10.01am

Quote matt_himself at 23 Aug 2015 10.25pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 5.30pm

Quote The White Horse at 23 Aug 2015 5.03pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 3.15pm

A recent survey claimed around a third of the electorate would be more likely to vote for Labour with Corbyn in charge. Most support nationalising the railways and the energy companies, keeping the NHS public, are against military intervention in Syria as they were against Iraq, and even the IMF argues against austerity. Not only does Corbyn represent the views of a sizeable percentage of the population, he actually resides in the majority view on a number of issues, putting him in stark contrast to almost anyone else in the two major parliamentary parties.

Of course, public perception changes, and that is something else you have to factor in. Should the leader of the opposition take positions against austerity, against military intervention, against widespread outsourcing, it is likely that more of the public will be convinced by views which have until now been largely kept out of mainstream discourse. That's exemplified no better than by Farage, who brought immigration and Europe in to the mainstream.

I wish all of the above was true, but it just isn't , is it? He's a joke, even a proper lefty like me can see that. He'll pick up the tiny green and tusc vote, but. Labour will lose voters to the Tories and Lib Dems.


Not true? The whole first paragraph is pretty much exclusively factual. I can get the links out for you if you fancy

I'm not a labour member, and have never voted for Labour in my life. I'm still very much in two minds as to whether I would vote for Corbyn were he to be elected; the reason that I'm sticking up for him so vigorously is because of the soothsaying which the vast majority of people I encounter seem to take pleasure in with regards to Corbyn. There is a fatalistic acceptance among so many people across the political spectrum that Corbyn will inevitably lose, and I think it's a view which is being fuelled almost exclusively through a very narrow right-wing analysis of political history.

For example, everyone is harking back to the 83 election as proof that radical politics can't win, but what about the 74 election, where Labour's manifesto was arguably more radical than the one Foot lost with? Equally, why aren't people recognising the significance of the SDP split which fractured the Labour vote?

Or you could point to the fact that the reemergence of the left is occurring throughout the Western world, and is achieving incredible success, be it in Scotland, Spain, Greece or New York. People could acknowledge that we have an incredible brew of variables which is causing this rise, namely a rejection of austerity, a fatigue with foreign interventionism and an anger at growing inequality. History never repeats itself because everything is constantly changing, everything is constantly new.

I'm not saying he will win, I understand it would be an incredible achievement should he do so. But I know for absolute certain, and I can back it up with as many historical parallels as you wish (Obama, Mitterand, Syriza) that prophesying inevitable defeat is ludicrous. Believing that myth is to accept in full the version of reality and public attitudes created by those on the right.


Let's look at the 'incredible success' the left is achieving. Scotland - the SNP's success is far more to do with nationalism than anti austerity.

Podemos - their support is shrinking as the economy recovers and are now 'embracing the enemy' by doing deals and forming alliances with the PSOE.

Syriza - it's laughable that anyone can call this a 'success'. They have led Greece into being an economic colony of Bonn, are divided down the middle and are now simply doing deals to retain power.

And therein lies the nub. These parties can push their populism as much as they like when they are in opposition, yet when they achieve power, they do deals and become centre left or liberal. The exception being the SNP which is feeding a bullying, nationalism cause to preserve its power and mask some of the very real failings of its governance in Scotland. Syriza is now 'fighting the enemy' and creating enemies to preserve their power - isn't that something the left claim the right do with Islam or the war on drugs?

If you want to believe that the World is on the verge of a grassroots left revolution, please do. However the facts of the situation lend to a feeling that this is not the case plus even when the occasional commie nutjob does get elected they fairly quickly revert to type - meaning either they compromise their 'principles' or they split their party in many divisions and start fighting their comrades.


The SNP argument I think doesn't work. If it was simply nationalistic sentiment that was driving them, they wouldn't have needed to have formed the clear political narrative which they did to gain so many votes, but actually by positioning themselves to the left of Labour on issues like austerity and nuclear weapons they appealed to people's dissatisfaction with Labour on social justice. They didn't use the UKIP policy of simply blaming everything on a union, which would've been the thing to do were nationalism a sufficient argument to gain vote.

The far left movement has brought the successes of electoral victories, and those governments have enacted some positive policies. But, and you'll be surprised by this Matt, I actually completely agree with you. One serious criticism of Corbyn style politics is that it cannot address what are global issues on a national basis and cannot adequately deliver subversive economic policies in a world where capital is transnational. It's something Mitterand realised in the 80s, when he came to power on a socialist mandate but ended up pushing back, and it's something Syriza have realised, that especially when you are in a political union like the EU, not following the line is incredibly difficult and perhaps impossible. That's why I focus my efforts on grassroots movements and away from parliamentary politics - because while I think electoral success is important in a lot of ways, you need a constant global movement pushing people's perceptions with those successes for it to have any lasting impact.

Edited by serial thriller (25 Aug 2015 10.06am)

 

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 25 Aug 15 10.04am

Quote Stuk at 24 Aug 2015 5.50pm

Quote serial thriller at 24 Aug 2015 5.03pm

Quote Stuk at 24 Aug 2015 1.41pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 5.30pm

Quote The White Horse at 23 Aug 2015 5.03pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 3.15pm

A recent survey claimed around a third of the electorate would be more likely to vote for Labour with Corbyn in charge. Most support nationalising the railways and the energy companies, keeping the NHS public, are against military intervention in Syria as they were against Iraq, and even the IMF argues against austerity. Not only does Corbyn represent the views of a sizeable percentage of the population, he actually resides in the majority view on a number of issues, putting him in stark contrast to almost anyone else in the two major parliamentary parties.

Of course, public perception changes, and that is something else you have to factor in. Should the leader of the opposition take positions against austerity, against military intervention, against widespread outsourcing, it is likely that more of the public will be convinced by views which have until now been largely kept out of mainstream discourse. That's exemplified no better than by Farage, who brought immigration and Europe in to the mainstream.

I wish all of the above was true, but it just isn't , is it? He's a joke, even a proper lefty like me can see that. He'll pick up the tiny green and tusc vote, but. Labour will lose voters to the Tories and Lib Dems.


Not true? The whole first paragraph is pretty much exclusively factual. I can get the links out for you if you fancy

I'm not a labour member, and have never voted for Labour in my life. I'm still very much in two minds as to whether I would vote for Corbyn were he to be elected; the reason that I'm sticking up for him so vigorously is because of the soothsaying which the vast majority of people I encounter seem to take pleasure in with regards to Corbyn. There is a fatalistic acceptance among so many people across the political spectrum that Corbyn will inevitably lose, and I think it's a view which is being fuelled almost exclusively through a very narrow right-wing analysis of political history.

For example, everyone is harking back to the 83 election as proof that radical politics can't win, but what about the 74 election, where Labour's manifesto was arguably more radical than the one Foot lost with? Equally, why aren't people recognising the significance of the SDP split which fractured the Labour vote?

Or you could point to the fact that the reemergence of the left is occurring throughout the Western world, and is achieving incredible success, be it in Scotland, Spain, Greece or New York. People could acknowledge that we have an incredible brew of variables which is causing this rise, namely a rejection of austerity, a fatigue with foreign interventionism and an anger at growing inequality. History never repeats itself because everything is constantly changing, everything is constantly new.

I'm not saying he will win, I understand it would be an incredible achievement should he do so. But I know for absolute certain, and I can back it up with as many historical parallels as you wish (Obama, Mitterand, Syriza) that prophesying inevitable defeat is ludicrous. Believing that myth is to accept in full the version of reality and public attitudes created by those on the right.

Links do not make anything "factual".

You're off your rocker is my conclusion. I'll use the post from the WH as my factual evidence for this.


Out of interest, what do you classify as being a fact?

The number of grams in a kilogram. Do you need any more?


So when I say 'Most of the public support renationalising the railways' or 'the IMF are against austerity', how are those statements any less factual than, say, 'rain comes from clouds' or 'Palace scored 2 goals on Saturday'?

 

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Stuk Flag Top half 25 Aug 15 11.38am

Quote serial thriller at 25 Aug 2015 10.04am

Quote Stuk at 24 Aug 2015 5.50pm

Quote serial thriller at 24 Aug 2015 5.03pm

Quote Stuk at 24 Aug 2015 1.41pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 5.30pm

Quote The White Horse at 23 Aug 2015 5.03pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 3.15pm

A recent survey claimed around a third of the electorate would be more likely to vote for Labour with Corbyn in charge. Most support nationalising the railways and the energy companies, keeping the NHS public, are against military intervention in Syria as they were against Iraq, and even the IMF argues against austerity. Not only does Corbyn represent the views of a sizeable percentage of the population, he actually resides in the majority view on a number of issues, putting him in stark contrast to almost anyone else in the two major parliamentary parties.

Of course, public perception changes, and that is something else you have to factor in. Should the leader of the opposition take positions against austerity, against military intervention, against widespread outsourcing, it is likely that more of the public will be convinced by views which have until now been largely kept out of mainstream discourse. That's exemplified no better than by Farage, who brought immigration and Europe in to the mainstream.

I wish all of the above was true, but it just isn't , is it? He's a joke, even a proper lefty like me can see that. He'll pick up the tiny green and tusc vote, but. Labour will lose voters to the Tories and Lib Dems.


Not true? The whole first paragraph is pretty much exclusively factual. I can get the links out for you if you fancy

I'm not a labour member, and have never voted for Labour in my life. I'm still very much in two minds as to whether I would vote for Corbyn were he to be elected; the reason that I'm sticking up for him so vigorously is because of the soothsaying which the vast majority of people I encounter seem to take pleasure in with regards to Corbyn. There is a fatalistic acceptance among so many people across the political spectrum that Corbyn will inevitably lose, and I think it's a view which is being fuelled almost exclusively through a very narrow right-wing analysis of political history.

For example, everyone is harking back to the 83 election as proof that radical politics can't win, but what about the 74 election, where Labour's manifesto was arguably more radical than the one Foot lost with? Equally, why aren't people recognising the significance of the SDP split which fractured the Labour vote?

Or you could point to the fact that the reemergence of the left is occurring throughout the Western world, and is achieving incredible success, be it in Scotland, Spain, Greece or New York. People could acknowledge that we have an incredible brew of variables which is causing this rise, namely a rejection of austerity, a fatigue with foreign interventionism and an anger at growing inequality. History never repeats itself because everything is constantly changing, everything is constantly new.

I'm not saying he will win, I understand it would be an incredible achievement should he do so. But I know for absolute certain, and I can back it up with as many historical parallels as you wish (Obama, Mitterand, Syriza) that prophesying inevitable defeat is ludicrous. Believing that myth is to accept in full the version of reality and public attitudes created by those on the right.

Links do not make anything "factual".

You're off your rocker is my conclusion. I'll use the post from the WH as my factual evidence for this.


Out of interest, what do you classify as being a fact?

The number of grams in a kilogram. Do you need any more?


So when I say 'Most of the public support renationalising the railways' or 'the IMF are against austerity', how are those statements any less factual than, say, 'rain comes from clouds' or 'Palace scored 2 goals on Saturday'?


Is that "the whole first paragraph"? No, it's not.

And when you say "most of the public" you again are not using a fact. You don't know most of the public, and neither does whomever's research you claim backs up this statement.

The "IMF are not against austerity" either. The IMF has to treat each country and their needs differently.

Palace scored 3 goals on Saturday. You're not very good at this.

 

Optimistic as ever
matt_himself Flag Matataland 25 Aug 15 10.44pm

How true:

[Link]

 

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 26 Aug 15 7.55am

The four stooges were on the radio this morning discussing immigration. Corbyn thought it was an unmitigated blessing, especially good for our children apparently, and so no need for controls whatsoever. Any Burnham challenged this and pointed out the damaging effect on jobs and wages. The other too came out with the usual weasel words about how they understood peoples' concerns but would do f-all about it.

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Hoof Hearted 26 Aug 15 10.19am

I think a lot of people are seeing how long, protracted and an utter shambles this leadership contest is and thanking god that Miliband didn't get into no. 10... as the format is down to him as he changed it after the Falkirk debacle.

Basically the whole process began shortly after the May General Elections and is nowhere near completion.

The lacklustre choice of candidates and shambolic voting system should ensure a Tory victory whoever is chosen, but Corbyn will be the best option for the Tories.

Nice.

 
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 26 Aug 15 10.30am

I see that Corbyn is now addressing the major issues of the day: he will consider women-only rail carriages.

Perhaps if he becomes Labour Leader, and after the next General Election, we could have Labour-voters-only rail carriages - wouldn't need very many and would keep them away from the rest of us.

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Page 22 of 279 < 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 >

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn