Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Sprotyrover on August 14, 2016, 12:09:40 pm
-
All this furore over the so called new membership of the Labour Party can be easily resolved,all you have to do is look at the social media accounts of the individuals concerned and their true political views will become apparent.
-
Interesting choice of thread title. Any evidence for Jeremy being a jew hater?
-
Him being aligned with terrorist groups with the avowed intention of driving all the Jews into the sea?
-
Is that different to supporting the rights of an oppressed population against a goverment that has illegally occupied their land and carries out military acts against civilians - in defiance of 45 UN Resolutions at the last count - and an understanding that this conflict is the main catalst to the wider terrorism in the Middle East - or is that the same thing?
-
Thank you Wilts. One of the things that still staggers me about the Israelis is how they managed, within the space of a generation, to transform the support of almost the entire world in 1967 into the loathing that most people outside the USA have felt for them for the last 20 years and more. A despicable bunch puts it rather too politely tbh.
BobG
-
Corbyn is aspiring to be Primeminister of a country where the views of all persons are considered and respected in a Democratic way, there is no place for a person who has the same views as the pre World War Two German government as to a race of people who have a legitimate claim to live in the Palestine. Now that point of view applies to the Palestinians and also the Jews, it is no longer in his remit to take sides in such matters he must be totally impartial, something I doubt he can ever do.
-
Just like Tony Blair was impartial over the actions Sadam Hussein took in his country - and David Cameron over what Assad was doing in Syria?
I refer you to the 45 resolutions passed by the 'impartial' members of the United Nations against the illegal actions of the state of Israel. Why are they allowed to take sides if politicans are not allowed to state their views?
Could you please show me where Jeremy Corbyn has 'shown the same views as the pre World War Two German government'? Unless you think condeming a national government for illegal occupation of territory and military action against stone strowing civilians is the same as genocide - then you needn't bother replying.
Yes Bob agreed. Middle Eastern politics is hugely complex and complicated and it is easy to forget that not all Israelis agree with their government actions. Yitzak Rabin showed how dangerous that view is in that country and I notice his son speaking out against Trump today.
-
I don't entirely agree with Israeli tactics but being a student of history I am well aware of the attempt to annihilate the Jews in Palestine prior to world war 2.
The Palestinians started the aggression and have always come off second best.
The Palestinian terrorist factions currently operating in that region are not the sort of people,we can call friends,they most certainly are not.
Having said that I am no fan of Israeli soldiers shooting Palestinian teenagers who throw stones at them.
-
Ahh, so these Arab fighters that the Americans are training over there then - can you confirm that they are pro-Israel rather than pro-Palestinian?
http://aranews.net/2016/05/us-led-coalition-spokesman-confirms-training-arab-fighters-join-battle-raqqa/
Unless of course you are telling me that these Arab fighters are 'not the sort of people we can call friends' and that the Americans are training our enemies?
Forgive my historical ignorance, but wasn't Palestine a British mandate prior to World War II (and just after it when the Irgun began their terrorist campaign against us)? So we were complicite in this attempted annihilation were we? Please tell me more?
-
The yanks never learn, do they! I bet they wouldn't be arming those militias if Assad wasn't pro Putin.
It's called the great game!
-
Wilts look up the 'Balfour Declaration ' of 1917 and its consequences
-
You still haven't found a single point of reference regarding Corbyn's hating of jews.
-
Calling Corbyn a "Jew hater" is silly. There's a big difference between being strongly against the Israeli establishment and being a hater of Jews.
That said, there is a consistent theme in the political views of Corbyn and McDonnell over more than 3 decades. They have been strong supporters of armed struggle. One of the Hezbollah members whom Corbyn called a "friend" has regularly gone on record supporting armed struggle to eliminate Israel. McDonnell (ignoring his stupid "jokes" about shooting Thatcher and his lauding of IRA "heroes") was against the Good Friday Agreement because it "wasn't what freedom fighters had given their lives for". Corbyn was on the editorial board of the Labour Briefing magazine when it published letters lauding the IRA attempt to assassinate the British Cabinet in Brighton.
So it's a tad hypocritical to say the least to imply that the Labour leadership are "let's all hold hands and drink lemonade" peaceful conciliators.
And why would you anyway? One of the supposed attractive aspects of the Corbyn/McDonnell axis is their consistently held views. So embrace your man. He's been consistent in these views for decades.
-
He is struggling to reconcile the Arab Revolt of 1936-37 to the economic and social consequences caused by the increase of Jewish migration to Palestine following Hitler's rise to power in Germany, so dont expect anything of any value. For clarification I quote from the excellent 'Israel's Secret Wars; A History of Israel's Intelligence Service' by Ian Black and Benny Morris
'Zionist land purchases continued apace....In 1935 62000 Jews entered Palestine, the highest annual number since 1920 (when the British mandate began). By 1936 there were 400000 Jews in the country, slightly more than a third of the total population. And 40 per cent of the Jews - about 150000 - had been there five years or less'.
You wrote that rubbish in your post 7 and you are telling me to look up the Balfour Decleration. You need to look it up! Or stick to looking for Roman fords in Stainforth.
A land without a people, for a people without a land.
-
I would agree Billy, Corbyn has been extremly consistently in taking up the cause of the underdog and challenging oppression. The passage of time - and Sproty's history books - will tell if that is right or not:
7. Talking to Sinn Fein: In the 1980s, along with Tony Benn and other Labour MPs, Jeremy drew intense criticism for engaging in dialogue with Sinn Fein and inviting its representatives to the House of Commons. The government claimed it ‘would not talk to terrorists’ but we now know that by 1989, it was secretly engaged in talks. Sinn Fein has been a major party of the Northern Ireland government since 1998 and even the Queen and Prince Charles have now met with its leading figures.
https://theworldturnedupsidedownne.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/15-times-jeremy-corbyn-was-on-the-right-side-of-history/
-
Wilts
Frankly, I'm disappointed in you. You are ignoring what I posted and playing politics. I thought you were above those games. I appreciate that young Wesley goes off on one when someone addresses the facts around the Corbyn team, but he's young and impetuous. I thought you were someone who tried to find the truth. So, address the points.
McDonnell was quoted in An Phoblacht in 1998 saying, "An assembly is not what people have laid down their lives for over thirty years."
Corbyn was on the editorial board of a newsletter which, after the Brighton bombing, published a reader's letter that said, "What do you call four dead Tories? A start!"
Take it head on. Don't dance round it with comments about "challenging oppression". This is the background of the two most powerful people in the Labour Party. Explicit support for armed uprising in the UK.
-
Editorial board? I don't know anything about this publication you are referring to but the editorial boards I am familiar with (in academia) are not there to review and make decisions on individual articles, but instead to guide the general direction of the publication. I somehow doubt that, in reality, Corbyn even knew about this letter before it was published - at a time, it should be added, when he was an MP - so presumably any REAL incitement of political violence against opponents would have been taken seriously.
You're going to say something like he damn well should have or he wasn't doing his job. Fair dos - but do remember to apply this same scrutiny to other politicians. I'll suggest a few of your own criteria - over 30 years in the past, something they didn't say themselves, something written in a publication they were associated with.
-
Copps
No. Nothing like academic journals. Not remotely.
The editorial boards of small circulation political magazines are the ones who sit down and personally choose what content they publish. I used to have a similar role myself with a Labour students pamphlet. We'd get submissions ranging from the erudite through the illiterate, to the offensive and libellous. In choosing what to publish, you are putting your own values out there.
There are only two answers to this.
1) Yes, that was published on Corbyn's watch and he stands by the decision to publish it.
2) Yes, that was published on Corbyn's watch and he deeply regrets being so stupidly wrong in his judgement as to give space to a letter that supported the attempt to assassinate Cabinet ministers.
Anything else is Trumpian "What? ME?!?" bullshittery.
-
And then there's McDonnell's comments on the Good Friday Agreement. Not pleasant is it, a Westminster MP coming out against the peace process because it didn't come up to the requirements of people who had taken up arms against the British state?
-
It comes down to whether you genuinely believe that these comments where aimed at inciting (or celebrating) political violence or not? Do you?
It sounds to me like a misguided attempt to appease Irish republicans. It comes off to me like a man deeply against any form of perceived (neo)colonialism and 'big' power in all forms. It's a mistake, but one that isn't necessarily sinister. I think the man was probably committed to a peaceful political solution.
It's no greater quandary to me than, say, erm... us selling arms to Saddam then suddenly realising a few years later - 'No wait, we didn't actually like him'. Were we 'friends' with Saddam then? The last time I read up on Iraq's history, Saddam had a pretty consistent record of killing his own people. In fact, I think it was at his very inauguration (or whatever it was called) at which he literally hand-picked political opponents for execution.
-
Copps
I usually don't flatter myself to assume what people are actually thinking when they speak. I prefer to look at the actual words they use. It's normally cleaner that way.
Have a look for yourself what McDonnell actually said.
http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/3069
Now, he "wanted peace, but...". Nite the "but". Not "we want peace full stop."
He also insisted on a United Ireland as the outcome. Which was not remotely on the cards in 1998. At least, not peacefully.
There's no interpretation of those words other than as support for armed struggle in the absence of a united Ireland. Not only dangerous, but totally on the wrong side of the argument.
To address your last point, if you REALLY can't see the issue here being one of a top level politician having offered support for armed insurrection within the UK (and not only on that occasion) then there's little point us discussing this further.
-
To address your last point, if you REALLY can't see the issue here being one of a top level politician having offered support for armed insurrection within the UK (and not only on that occasion) then there's little point us discussing this further.
If us supporting a mass-murdering dictator is trivial to you then you are right, there is no point discussing this further. Almost like there is a bigger threat of Islamic than ...
Sorry, I had the cheek to interrupt your diatribe against Corbyn there for a minute. You were saying. McDonnell supports an armed insurrection in the UK. Big claims these.
-
..big claims partly founded, it would seem, on the semantics of a sentence that also contains a claim to peace.
-
The Labour Party are unlikely to have a majority for some time whoever is the leader but in my opinion the longer Corbyn remains leader the longer before Labour start on the road to recovery.
-
Anybody who has seen the film the lives of others will no doubt be waiting with baited breath for the STASI files on Jeremy and Diane's East German 'Holiday' to be 'leaked' 😂
-
Copps
"We want peace, but..." See the "but". That is crucial. What he is saying, unequivocally is "We want peace but in terms that we dictate (or actually, terms that were dictated by the heroes who gave their lives for the cause in the armed struggle)."
Having just mentioned those who gave their lives in the armed struggle in the previous sentence, what possible interpretation is there other than "We want peace, but if it's not on the terms that we want, there will not be peace"?
I await your logical somersaults to put a different spin on that.
And as I said, it's not the only comment of his on that theme. How about this one (once he realised that he was on the wrong side of history on the Good Friday Agreement and began to support it).
"It’s about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA. Because of the bravery of the IRA and people like Bobby Sands, we now have a peace process.”
He kind of apologised for this a year ago. Except of course he DIDN'T apologise for saying it. Or believing it. He apologised "for any offence it may have caused." Presumably he still believes that "the peace we now have is due to the actions of the IRA."
-
Wilts
Frankly, I'm disappointed in you. You are ignoring what I posted and playing politics. I thought you were above those games. I appreciate that young Wesley goes off on one when someone addresses the facts around the Corbyn team, but he's young and impetuous. I thought you were someone who tried to find the truth. So, address the points.
McDonnell was quoted in An Phoblacht in 1998 saying, "An assembly is not what people have laid down their lives for over thirty years."
Corbyn was on the editorial board of a newsletter which, after the Brighton bombing, published a reader's letter that said, "What do you call four dead Tories? A start!"
Take it head on. Don't dance round it with comments about "challenging oppression". This is the background of the two most powerful people in the Labour Party. Explicit support for armed uprising in the UK.
Billy, if you choose to post comment on what the leader of the Labour Party and Shadow Chancellor said regarding the Irish troubles and Thatcherite destruction of British society in the 1980's in a topic entitled 'Jeremy Jew Hater' - then apologies but I feel I am able to reply to it in any way I see fit - especially at 11.20 in the evening.
Was there an armed insurrection with thousands of masked Trotskyites going around lynching members of the Tory Party from their own flagpole after that letter appeared? Or was it rather tastless 'joke' expessing the frustration at what people felt at the time - and later? Certain posters on this forum have expressed rather similar comments about members of the Thatcher government at the time too haven't they? Would you like them banned from posting for holding those views?
Former senior members of the IRA (allegedly) who were (allegedly) involved in the murder of British citizens are now in the elected representatives of the relatives of their victims and hold senior government positions able to direct the lives of them and other British citizens. They could if they wished participate in affairs to direct your life. Times change - get over it. Life for us all is a lot better for the decisions that have been made.
Yes of course 'the peace we now have is due to the actions of the IRA'. Do you think it was done without them and they just decided to go along with it for the sake of it?
-
Wilts
As intellectual gymnastics goes, that's some effort. You appear quite determined to avoid the bleeding obvious points, so I'll spell them out.
1) There is no correlation whatsoever between someone posting a tasteless joke on here (and I've done so myself numerous times) and the man who would be PM having been involved in an editorial decision that CHOSE to publish a joke about murder and attempted murder of Government members. Of course he had a right to make that choice. That's not the point. The point is, the rest of the country has a right to assess the thinking behind that sort of judgement.
2) Your insistence on ignoring the substance of McDonnell's comments is breathtaking. When he said "the peace we have is due to the actions of the IRA", the "actions" he was alluding to weren't them getting on the bus to Stormont for tea and biscuits. The "actions" are described there in his own words. "It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice".
He is unambiguously praising the taking up of arms against the UK state as a means to an end. How can you possibly argue any differently?
3) Ah yes. But you're NOT arguing differently are you? Because you then say that people who have supported armed insurrection can be rehabilitated. (Why would you raise that point if you didn't accept the argument that McDonnell had held those views?) But in now making this argument, you utterly miss the blindingly obvious points. Sinn Fein are NOT trying to form the Government of the country against which they supported armed insurrection. McDonnell and Corbyn ARE. McGuinness and Adams have a constituency that supported the armed struggle and agreed with it. Corbyn and McDonnell do not. McGuinness and Adams can be proud of their role and reap an electoral reward for it. Corbyn and McDonnell don't have that luxury.
-
1) I have already given you my answer to that. To what extent were the feelings behind that 'joke' prelevant across Britain in 1984? That tells you if it is relevant for the time. Because it will have no relevance whatsover in 2020. Corbyn needs to make himself relevant to people who believe in his policies, not the followers of Margaret Thatcher - unlike Blair in 1997 who invited her for tea.
2) It's you who wishes to ignore the obvious - and the 300 years of conflict and history that goes with it. All the actions by everyone lead to the Peace Process - you might not have liked some of them (and I was very close to one of them) but everyone had to agree to stop. Most did. Did anyone take up arms again after McDonnell's speech? Then maybe he is cleverer than you.
3) McGuinness (and Adams until he stepped down from the Assembly) spend very large amounts of British taxpayers money every year. Both of them have met members of the royal family - a senior member of which they may/or may have not been involved in assasinating. Does that mean that the Government & the Queen agree with their actions? No it means that political realities shift over time.
Can terrorists be rehabilitated? Dunno, ask anyone who ever met Nelson Mandela - or members of the first Israeli Governments.
Edited after reading the news headlines in which I see that your candidate favours negotiating with ISIS. Good luck to both of you on that one.
-
Wilts
Pointless. And very typical of the approach of the Left keepers of the flame.
You haven't engaged with a single substantive point I made. I actually agree with most of the points you make, but they are not the issue. Go back and have a read of my previous post, then ask yourself why you ignored what I said and responded with a whole string of irrelevant points of your own.
No. Hang on. Don't bother. You've already said that there's no point debating. What was it?
2) "There is no point in having a debate as there is no middle ground to debate to. Either start up your tank or start running, those are the options."
Every day that goes by, the whole clusterf**k is looking more and more like a set of Citizen Smith mid-life crises dragging along a few hundred thousand starry eyed kids who want their own "Yes we can" moment and will ignore any reasoned discussion that suggests they might be wrong.
Happy days.
-
I doubt you intended your final para to refer to the actions of the PLP Billy - but thats what it does.
As you know I wont be voting come September so the conversation wont affect me personally but I can appreciate the difficult choice you will have. Voting for a self-confessed terrorist appeaser - or Jermy Corbyn!
Citizen Smith - I think you have lost most of the readership there Foxy.
-
The irony of Smith declaring himself an isis apologist in the midst of this discussion can't be lost to anyone.
-
An ISIS "apologist"?
Give me f**king strength. You can't argue with attitudes like this.
-
Perhaps Anjem Choudary could be lead negotiator on some of the main issues including the coming apocalypse and annihilation of man.
-
An ISIS "apologist"?
Give me f**king strength. You can't argue with attitudes like this.
To paraphrase a post someone wrote earlier in this thread, its not what you think about Smith's desire to negotiate with IS - but what the rest of the country assess the thinking behind that sort of judgement.
-
"listen lads, we can work on you wanting to wipe out the Sh'ites but can we please stop this jihad"
-
When the double act has run out of steam, you might care to reflect on the bleeding obvious issue again (going to have to get a quick key link for that phrase).
Smith has suggested doing what always happens in armed conflicts. For the record, I think he is both wrong in principle on this one (in thinking that anything good can come out of it) and naive on the politics (in thinking that those who chortled about him being a Red Tory wouldn't flip round and accuse him of being a mad beheaders' friend).
What he hasn't done is what Corbyn and in particular, McDonnell did for decades, which was to support both the aims and the operational approaches of groups taking up arms against the British State, and to praise them for doing so.
A world of difference there once you've sobered up.
-
Neither will get labour elected. I am still waiting for somebody, who links the whole party, and the public see as the better alternative, to tory rule.
I feel unfortunately, we are going to have years of 'posturing', the leadership passing through many hands, until the person comes along, who can be prime minister.
-
The irony of Smith declaring himself an isis apologist in the midst of this discussion can't be lost to anyone.
At least Jezza's shown off his cast-iron consistency again by underlining how he would refuse to negotiate with a terrorist organisation that considers innocent civilians, women and children as legitimate murder targets.
Oh, wait a mo....
-
Yep. Corbyn wouldn't have ISIS round the table. He said so clearly yesterday.
Although if you take the table away, he WOULD have discussions with them.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-says-there-could-be-benefits-to-opening-diplomatic-back-channels-with-isis-a6817181..html
He'd talk to them, but it wouldn't exactly be "dialogue" exactly, sort of, kinda.
So it'd be talking without actually calling it "talking".
This New Politics eh? Looks an awful lot like the Old Politics, only clumsier.
-
I'm not making this point with reference to either of the Labour leadership contenders, but anyone who thinks you can hold talks with ISIS is deluded.
British Governments held covert talks with the IRA, directly or via intermediaries, from the 1970s onwards. That is essentially because there were always concessions that could be given to the IRA that would cause them to cease terrorist activities. The fact that those concessions would have been unacceptable meant progress was not made, but there was always some basis for talking.
I'd love to know what you could offer to ISIS that would make them pack up and go home?
-
I also previously thought that TRB, but I'm starting to think I'd been too...ahh...fundamentalist.
What if the public front insisting that the goal is the destruction of the West and the imposition of a Caliphate is just a front? What if there are power and money hungry people high up in ISIS who can be bribed or corrupted or turned?
If that can be done in a way which weakens their ability or incentive to fight, or even better, results in internal frictions which eat them up from inside, then great.
Whether it's politically sensible to talk openly about doing that, as both Smith and Corbyn have done, is another issue altogether.
-
I'm not making this point with reference to either of the Labour leadership contenders, but anyone who thinks you can hold talks with ISIS is deluded.
British Governments held covert talks with the IRA, directly or via intermediaries, from the 1970s onwards. That is essentially because there were always concessions that could be given to the IRA that would cause them to cease terrorist activities. The fact that those concessions would have been unacceptable meant progress was not made, but there was always some basis for talking.
I'd love to know what you could offer to ISIS that would make them pack up and go home?
That's exactly what people said about the Taliban, and guess what...?
-
I also previously thought that TRB, but I'm starting to think I'd been too...ahh...fundamentalist.
What if the public front insisting that the goal is the destruction of the West and the imposition of a Caliphate is just a front? What if there are power and money hungry people high up in ISIS who can be bribed or corrupted or turned?
If that can be done in a way which weakens their ability or incentive to fight, or even better, results in internal frictions which eat them up from inside, then great.
Whether it's politically sensible to talk openly about doing that, as both Smith and Corbyn have done, is another issue altogether.
What your saying sounds more like the work of the spooks and Black Ops merchants. I'm sure the CIA, the Mossad etc will use any tool they can to try and divide ISIS from within.
However, for politicians of any stripe to raise the possibility of talks is foolish. It encourages the terrorists to believe that if they continue their campaign they will ultimately be successful. The IRA used to talk of "one more heave." The ISIS leadership probably thinks likewise.
I think Owen Smith said it because he wanted to somehow outflank Corbyn. Therein lies his problem. In order to defeat Corbyn he has to say things that will hang around his neck like an albatross if he does become leader.
-
TRB
It's irrelevant because he has close to zero chance of becoming leader.
What it did do was to show Corbyn being a bit savvier with his approach than he was in January, when he was doing his thinking on that topic in public.
-
Bit savvier you say, BST?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/18/party-splits-deepen-as-jeremy-corbyn-endorses-rival-labour-confe/
This pair are an absolute gift for the Tory press. You can see how they will spin it. One wants to appease ISIS, the other wants to appease Putin.
-
TRB
Aye. And THIS has been my concern about Corbyn all along. He had spent a lifetime being anti-NATO. I suspect that he is one of those on the Left who, as an idealistic young man, leaned towards the Soviet side (for all its faults) and saw America as the enemy. Certainly there were many that I knew in the Labour Party with that opinion in the 1980s and I flirted with it myself.
Corbyn has regularly and vehemently denounced NATO throughout his career. This latest comment is precisely what I'd expected from him. He can't rein back on lifelong beliefs.
But, this is the deeply, deeply dangerous place that you get to when idealistic beliefs trump a realpolitik outlook. He is convincing himself, against all evidence, that Putin is amenable to dialogue and reasoned debate. And in doing that, and suggesting that Article V is not rock-solid, he is taking us into very dangerous waters. Article V works because Putin knows damn well that if he f**ks about with the Baltics, all hell will break loose. And whilst he is a bully and a tyrant, he is not a madman who would risk that.
Corbyn, if PM, is essentially saying to Putin, "The consequences of you invading the Baltics are not necessarily as bad as you think." Which dramatically raises the possibility of Putin starting to think the unthinkable. Which takes us right off the map of how to deal with that issue.
Very, very dangerous thinking. I support many of Corbyn's policies, but I cannot vote for a man whose foreign policy is so dangerously flawed.
-
Billy: I have some years of very relevant experience in this matter. I endorse your comments and thoughts in the post above completely, entirely and utterly. Corbyn is now more than beginning to look like Neville Chamberlain in the fantasy nature of his thinking about foreign relations. This is unbelievably dangerous. For those that aren't aware, google 'Kalliningrad' and have a look at the info. that's publicly available about what Russia is doing there. There's plenty to look at. This is just one for starters:
http://www.rferl.org/content/kaliningrad-russia-nato-west-strategic/27079655.html
That place could see the start of something bloody awful - and Jeremy Corbyn is starting to make it easier for Putin to think he might find a chink to exploit. You'll all probably think I've gone off my rocker completely, but Corbyn is now on the way to becoming a danger to the entire western hemisphere.
BobG
-
I don't think it's Russia we need to worry about, China and everything south of Russia is far worse a threat.
-
Crikey the Russians are already in Goole? Well done Corbyn.
Course, when NATO plays silly buggers (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/06/nato-launches-largest-war-game-in-eastern-europe-since-cold-war-anaconda-2016) we call it 'defence'. You don't need a proclamation to your own intelligence to read between those lines. Funny isn't it? Constantly pointing out your own intelligence?
See, there's something called a geo-strategic balance in power. I don't think we have anything to gain at this point from an escalation is hostilities from either side. A post-Minsk framework needs to be developed in Ukraine, but last I read Ukraine is largely the one preventing that. It seems clear to me that the people in the East have to a legitimate claim to their own political determination.
Once again, sorry for interjecting. Jeremy Jew hating, most dangerous man on the planet....
-
Copps.
"I don't think we have anything to gain at this point from an escalation".
Of course we don't. Which is why, in the current climate, you make it absolutely, unequivocally clear to Putin that doing a Ukraine in the Baltics WILL trigger Article V. That is the way to ensure that any musings about starting trouble get nipped in the bud.
No ifs. No buts. You draw a line and say, "That is the trigger point. Don't activate it."
If you say, "Yeah, well, maybe, possibly we MIGHT intervene if you do something naughty", that is an appalling dangerous route to take. That invites a bully to test your mettle. And then you really are in scary territory.
Frankly, I'm astonished that we're even discussing this. The only leading politician anywhere in NATO who has ever previously suggested that Article V might be negotiable is the be-wigged perma-tanned one in the USA. Have a look here - get past the "grab your attention" headlines and look at the detail. http://www.vox.com/2016/7/21/12247074/donald-trump-nato-war
Now, Trump was saying that because he's a demagogue and a tub thumper. Corbyn is a lot smarter than Trump in terms of geopolitics, but he is saying this for a reason. He knows damn well that you won't contain Putin by asking him to hold hands, drink lemonade and sing Ed McCurdy/Pete Seeger songs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZU-9TBP2NY
Question is, what is Corbyn's REAL motivation here?
-
Best not to jump the gun. Most accurate reporting on this will be found by watching the actual video of him answering the question. He didn't answer it, or at least gave a politicians answer.
He actually started by saying 'That's in the NATO treaty, I would hope...'
A part of the quote which has even been omitted by the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/19/jeremy-corbyn-dismissal-nato-trident), who also falsely imply he said 'no'.
-
Bob
The 1930s parallels are gloomily real.
We've got a Europe and Britain struggling economically after a shockingly mis-judged reaction to an economic crisis.
We've got petty nationalists on the rise across Europe and a rapidly building hatred of the outsider.
We've got both Europe and America having a gut reaction against any military action after the senselessly wrong-headed decision to take us into a badly-judged and badly-run war a few years before.
We've got an ex-superpower that was smashed in a struggle 20-odd years ago, nursing its grievances and turning to a bristling, bullying demagogue to restore their pride.
We've got this demagogue playing the "ethnic brothers being oppressed by foreigners" card to justify some of his games.
We've got a nasty civil war on the extreme edge of the continent, where this demagogue is flexing his muscles whilst the West stands by and watches, wringing its hands.
And now we've got a senior British politician effectively saying that the way to deal with this demagogue is to listen to him and see what he wants and not be prepared to stand up to him.
You never step in the same river twice, but by God this is all scarily familiar stuff.
-
Copps.
Three opportunities to say, "Yes, if the nightmare scenario happened, then unequivocally, I would."
Easy to do. What every other politician in the West (bar Trump) would have said.
He ducked it every single time.
You credit him with giving a "politician's answer?" I thought this was the New Politics? I thought we'd donew away with spin and bluster and were being honest about our beliefs? Is that out the window now then?
And regardless of that, you are once again missing the spellbindingly obvious point. Article V works because there is no perception of a chink in its armour. It works because the other side doesn't have to try to interpret what NATO would do in scenario X. It KNOWS what NATO would do, and it doesn't want to precipitate that outcome.
Corbyn is dismantling that certainty and THAT is what is so bloody dangerous about it.
-
And for anyone who would like a more recent parallel, just think of the actions of the Thatcher government before the Argentinians invaded Las Malvinas. So far it's a scarily exact parallel. The only difference is that we could bully little old Argentina when our wrong headed weakness bit us on the bum. But Corbyn's got no chance at all of doing that with Russia. I think the dread word 'appeasement' might just be resurrecting itself.
Bob
PS And, I do believe, not even Michael Foot ever questioned Article V. So, as Billy asked, just what is Corbyn's motive eh? Corbyn is the issue here. Nothing else. Corbyn. He's messing about with the future of the planet.
-
the Argentinians invaded Las Malvinas.
You've lost me, Bob. Where is this mythical Malvinas you speak of?
-
the Argentinians invaded Las Malvinas.
You've lost me, Bob. Where is this mythical Malvinas you speak of?
Is it the place the scottish call Falkirk?
-
Little place off the east coast of Argentina mate. Don't amount to much.
Thought you would have known that tbh given your background.
Cheers
BobG
-
Never heard of it. Is it anywhere near the Falklands, the island we liberated from a right wing military occupation within living memory?
-
Why use the Argentinian name for the Falklands Bob?
I'm sure the residents wouldn't approve.
-
It's a name. Call it Tosspotville if you like. It don't make a blind bit of difference. I never did understand people who get hung up about a name. You say Beijing don't you? You say Mumbai don't you? They're not the English names for those places either.
Grow up. The point of this thread is far, far, far more serious than having a hissy fit about a proper noun.
Bob
-
If it's just a name you won't mind calling it by the proper one that your fellow countrymen died to reinstate then will you, you condescending old ball sack?
-
Bob you are a pudding the place you have referred to is the FALKLAND Islands.
-
Falkland Islands, let's face it Las Malvina's sounds like a cheap Spanish wine bar :)
-
It's a name. Call it Tosspotville if you like. It don't make a blind bit of difference. I never did understand people who get hung up about a name. You say Beijing don't you? You say Mumbai don't you? They're not the English names for those places either.
Grow up. The point of this thread is far, far, far more serious than having a hissy fit about a proper noun.
Bob
You must be the only person in the UK Bob that would call it by it's foreign name rather than it's usual British name.
-
The more pertinent comparisons are with the cold war era, not the 1930s. The threat of nuclear destruction changes a lot of things.
It seems to me Russia is not interested in invading the Baltic Nato countries. It's primary worry/fear/motivation is the Nato missile defence system (which it believes is not actually a defence system at all). It's secondary concern is ethnic Russians in its former sphere of influence. There exists a minority of such people in the Baltic countries but they are a minority.
There is a peaceful/diplomatic solution to be found in Ukraine.
Nato is playing its part in this unfortunately, from the Military plans to defend the Baltic region, from the military exercises and 'war games' to the missile defense system itself and increase of troops. This has all happened on Obama's watch and the person we should fear most on the side of the west is Clinton.
-
Copps
That is a quite spectacularly naive reading of the situation.
The driving force behind this issue, as it was with Ukraine, as it was with Georgia, as it was with Chechnya is about Russian pride.
Putin's entire public image and political popularity is based on telling the Russian people that he is the new Stalin. The hard man who will not be f**ked around. The one who will assert Russia's right to throw its weight around.
He is the hard man who pulverised Grozny as revenge for the embarrassing and bloody defeat First Chechen War. He's the hard man who cyber-destroyed the Georgian state in a morning when they tried to face down Russia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia. He's the hard man who walked into Crimea when Ukrainians overthrew his corrupt puppet.
The Russian people lap it up. Their economy is a basket case because of the collapse of the oil prices. They have a horrifically poor and unhealthy population. Their economy has been raped by his gangster cronies. But they love him because he makes them feel powerful.
But that can't stop. He can't be seen to back down. And the Baltics are the next most obvious target. At least they are IF there is any doubt that NATO wouldn't respond. If he did a Ukraine in the Baltics, in defiance of NATO, that would be the ultimate nationalistic victory. But if he does that in the Baltics, and if NATO let's him, then why not Poland? And Hungary? And Romania? And...?
-
The big difference though is that the Baltic Sates are not just in NATO but the EU, with a whole separate trenche of mutual assurance treaties.
-
. Corbyn. He's messing about with the future of the planet.
By the way, something's bothering me.
I thought the line was 'Corbyn is unelectable'.
How is he messing with the future of the planet if he can't get into power?
-
Copps mate. You're getting cause and effect muddled up.
-
I had a feeling I would be wrong / naive / making a mistake even before I started posting, stubbsy. That doesn't concern me. See me, what I'm doing is probing these subtle changes in mindset of people who want anything but Corbyn. I'm a proverbial gynecologist.
Is Corbyn now setting, not only, the political agenda of the left but the whole country? The way people are worrying about him you'd suspect so. I'm still really waiting for the alternative - if it's 'I agree with what Jeremy has to say but I'd look to negotiate with ISIS' then I'm personally going to need a bit more convincing.
As an aside, how many MPs would you predict will switch back to supporting Corbyn after he wins the leadership race?
-
Go to bed and sleep it off lad.
-
It's a name. Call it Tosspotville if you like. It don't make a blind bit of difference. I never did understand people who get hung up about a name. You say Beijing don't you? You say Mumbai don't you? They're not the English names for those places either.
Grow up. The point of this thread is far, far, far more serious than having a hissy fit about a proper noun.
Bob
Is it anywhere close to that place known as Tibet, which you also wont find on any map? Under illegal occupation and subject to ethnic cleansing for 60 years, the arbiters of moral outrage had little to say when we conducted trade deals and offered contracts to build our nuclear power stations to the country that occupies it.
I should have gone to Tibet in 2008 to do the Lhasa - Kathmandu bike ride. The the Buddist monks staged their protests to bring world attention to what was going on there, the Chinese closed the border, and that was that. I haven't had a Chinese takeaway since.
The latest action being the current destruction of the Buddhist centre at Larung Gar.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3703568/Stunning-Tibetan-Buddhist-mountainside-city-s-home-10-000-monks-nuns-DISMANTLED-Chinese-workers.html
Why are the Baltics more important to you than Tibet? Is it too far away?
-
What he hasn't done is what Corbyn and in particular, McDonnell did for decades, which was to support both the aims and the operational approaches of groups taking up arms against the British State, and to praise them for doing so.
When you defend the British state you need to be entirely sure that its actions are correct and the right ones, both morally and legally. Are you sure of that when it comes to the history of British actions in Ireland/Northern Ireland?
The IRA killed 656 British soldiers between 1969 and 1996, absolutely terrible for those people involved and their relatives. Just this week I came across the story of the SS Scillin, an Italian freighter it was carrying 800 British POW's from North Africa back to mainland Italy when it was hit and sunk by a British submarine mistaking it as a troop supply ship sailing to Africa. Only 27 POW's survived.
Terrible, but these things happen in wartime. Except the government back home knew the Scillin was only carrying POW's as they had broken their shipping codes, but refused to tell the sub as they thought this might indicate to the Italians about the broken codes. Even more terrible, but again these things happen in wartime.
Except they then refused to tell the relatives what happened and lied about it for the next 50 years. Some papers are still secret/have not been released/been destroyed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Scillin
https://www.british-genealogy.com/archive/index.php/t-19687.html
So the British state killed more of its own soldiers with one torpedo, than the IRA managed in 27 years. Deliberatly and then covered it up for 50 years.
Around the same time the Chinese invaded Tibet we sent soldiers to Kenya to put down the Mau Mau uprising. Exactly what went on there is subject to some dispute, detention camps, rape, torture, murder with allegations of hundreds of thousands killed by the British, as again the offcial papers were destroyed/kept secret. However in 2011 the government were forced to admit that other records had survived and that the contents of these records proved those allegations were true and allowing for recompence to the survivors.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/aug/18/uncovering-truth-british-empire-caroline-elkins-mau-mau
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-to-parliament-on-settlement-of-mau-mau-claims
Back to the actions of the British state in Ireland/Northern Ireland...
-
The irony of Smith declaring himself an isis apologist in the midst of this discussion can't be lost to anyone.
At least Jezza's shown off his cast-iron consistency again by underlining how he would refuse to negotiate with a terrorist organisation that considers innocent civilians, women and children as legitimate murder targets.
Oh, wait a mo....
Corbyn has been consistent with his support for a minority population that has (in their view) come under oppression by a major power, including the occupation of their land.
Whatever ISIS are they are certainly not a minority population and it is they who are the power occupying someon else's territory.
In all your attacks on Corbyn you have yet to explain what it is that Smith will discuss with ISIS? Just thought I would remind you.
-
Wilts.
It's not about morality. Morality rarely comes into foreign policy. If it were about morality, Lithuania and Tibet would be far down the list of priorities of the past few years. The rap sheet would start with Rwanda and even more dreadfully, the Democratic Republic of Congo where up to 6 million people have died in conflicts over the past two decades and no-one in the West gives a f**k.
But it's not about morality. Certainly it's not for Corbyn, because he stridently opposed NATO intervention in Kosovo to prevent Serbia carrying out the kind of bestial massacres they did in Srebrenica.
It's not about morality, because there was a moral case for removing Saddam, and look where that led to.
It's not about morality I'm afraid. And it's certainly not about morality in the Baltics. It's about hard-headed application of obligations under treaties. The sort of thing that actually prevents wars from starting in the first place.
I can shed as many tears as you over Tibet, but it's got nothing whatsoever to do with the question at hand. Because we're not discussing morality.
-
Wilts.
Presumably Smith would talk about the same things that Corbyn would talk about.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-says-there-could-be-benefits-to-opening-diplomatic-back-channels-with-isis-a6817181.html
What exactly IS this spat about?
-
The irony of Smith declaring himself an isis apologist in the midst of this discussion can't be lost to anyone.
At least Jezza's shown off his cast-iron consistency again by underlining how he would refuse to negotiate with a terrorist organisation that considers innocent civilians, women and children as legitimate murder targets.
Oh, wait a mo....
Corbyn has been consistent with his support for a minority population that has (in their view) come under oppression by a major power, including the occupation of their land.
Whatever ISIS are they are certainly not a minority population and it is they who are the power occupying someon else's territory.
In all your attacks on Corbyn you have yet to explain what it is that Smith will discuss with ISIS? Just thought I would remind you.
He might be being consistent with his support for a minority. However, that is not what I said - He is NOT being consistent with his stance regarding negotiating with MURDERING TERRORISTS.
-
In all your attacks on Corbyn you have yet to explain what it is that Smith will discuss with ISIS? Just thought I would remind you.
I don't know. But then, that's why you talk to them in the first place, n'est pas?
-
What a right little set of jingoistic warmongers some posters appear to have turned into. Appeasement, the Cold War, you will be sending troops out to sock it to the Mahdi and going around breaking windows because we didn't light up for Mafeking next.
It's 2016, not 1966, 1936 or even 1916. Russia has £27billion in investments in the City, which is only a small fraction of what it has tied up in Western Europe as whole. Russians own vast amounts of property in the UK - including some municiple football pitch in Chelsea. In turn British firms have assests in Russia.
http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/foreign-policy/uk-russia-sanctions/
Even with the current sanctions financiers are looking to see how they can expand Russian investment.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/22/russian-corporate-deals-are-starting-to-come-in-from-the-cold/
The world has moved on, we are interlinked into one global economy now, even more so with mainland Europe relying on Russian gas supplies.
The fallacy that Britain is a world superpower and Vlad Putin will be doing the polka over whatever Jeremy Corbyn says about NATO is just that - a fallacy. There is no way on this earth that British intervention in the Baltics would be anything other than a suicide mission for everyone involved. Britain has an army of 150000 troops and 400 tanks, Russia has 766000 troops (plus 2.5 million reservists) and 15000 tanks.
It's irrelevant whatever we say. Any NATO defence of the Baltics would need to come from the US and any debates on NATO are more relevant in terms of Anglo-American relations than Anglo-Russian ones. Just like our 'independent' nuclear deterrant submarines, we cant work without American guidance. And if you can predict what is going to happen in the US in the near future, then well done to you.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11586021/How-Putins-military-firepower-compares-to-the-West.html
-
We shouldn't be talking to ISIS. Full stop. (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/what-to-do-about-isis-negotiations/423432/)
It does not call for the simple granting of autonomy to its members and supporters in Syria and Iraq—it works to end the autonomy of others in both places, and far beyond, not least through ethnic cleansing and the worldwide export of wanton violence.
You won't get it more succinctly put than that. It's about legitimacy, and 'round the table' talks with ISIS (on an end game which is the end of humanity) are legitimacy they don't deserve.
-
In all your attacks on Corbyn you have yet to explain what it is that Smith will discuss with ISIS? Just thought I would remind you.
I don't know. But then, that's why you talk to them in the first place, n'est pas?
N'est-ce pas*
-
Wilts
What on earth does a globalised economy have to do with the possibility or impossibility of conflict?
In 1914, not only did we have an intricately linked "global" economy (the quotes being because obviously there were fewer players and a smaller pot) but most of the leaders of Europe were related. Didn't stop the whole thing collapsing and 10 million lives being gobbled up. (NB: of course, a major mistake on Germany's side was thinking that Britain's commitment to its Treaty of London obligation was less than certain.)
Regarding your playground insults on jingoism and the insanity of the U.K. going to war in the Baltics, you are doing the usual thing that those out on the Left do. You are equating "preparedness to go to war" with "wish to go to war". Stop being so silly and maybe we can discuss this like grown-ups, eh? Unless this is another one of those issues on which there is to be no discussion.
On the defence of the Baltics, the whole point about NATO is that it is a COLLECTIVE. The USA is the major part of that collective, but the whole concept of NATO will collapse of the second most important power rips up Article V.
But that brings us to the crux. Because that's what Corbyn has always argued for. He wants the EU to collapse. He wants NATO to collapse. Just stop a while and think who would benefit most from those outcomes.
-
We shouldn't be talking to ISIS. Full stop. (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/what-to-do-about-isis-negotiations/423432/)
It does not call for the simple granting of autonomy to its members and supporters in Syria and Iraq—it works to end the autonomy of others in both places, and far beyond, not least through ethnic cleansing and the worldwide export of wanton violence.
You won't get it more succinctly put than that. It's about legitimacy, and 'round the table' talks with ISIS (on an end game which is the end of humanity) are legitimacy they don't deserve.
But the IRA and Taliban are more legitimate? Please draw us the line where non-legitimacy becomes legitimacy as it's a bit nebulous. And completely irrelevant as far as the victims - and future victims - are concerned (Don't worry, the maiming/death you suffered wasn't legitimate you know').
-
Do read the article.
ISIS has no claim to anything anyone other than itself would recognise as legitimate. Not even other terrorist groups or other hardline muslims. That's the concrete history we are dealing with here.
Just because one terrorist group may have 'legitimate' political claims behind it doesn't justify terrorism. What you seem to be wrestling with is the abstract notion of legitimate killing which you really could extend to any form of killing, political or not. The justifications and punishments for that really are hugely dependent on circumstance* so you're going down the wrong alley looking for an absolute answer to that question.
*Not for my moral compass by the way, which would be pretty consistent, but for the rest of the human race. That's just the way it is in any pragmatic appraisal.
-
Copps
Right. So we're agreed that BOTH leadership candidates have aired ideas on this topic that you fundamentally disagree with?
-
Once again, best to watch the source material on these matters and not read what the papers report because they all report it differently and engage in various degrees of mis/selective-quoting. What Corbyn said to me was unclear. A politicians answer again. If he genuinely did think negotiating with ISIS was an option then I disagree with that. Since then, however, he's more concretely said he has no intentions for any negotiations.
-
Copps
You really ought to give me a bit more credit than to always assume that I get my information from the newspapers. In this particular case, I gave you that link because it was accurate and quick. I'll give you the video link to the BBC interview where he said that we should have "back channels" open to ISIS and mused that similar approaches were taken with the IRA and the Taliban. He did say that he wouldn't call it "dialogue" exactly. And in the recent debate he actually DIDN'T say that he wouldn't negotiate with ISIS: he said, "not round the table, no." So yeah, I see what you mean about "politicians' answers". And spinning from the likes of you. Jeremy is true, clear and consistent except when he isn't.
This New Politics eh? What do you make of it?
-
BST, I am in awe of your patience.
-
Copps
You really ought to give me a bit more credit than to always assume that I get my information from the newspapers. In this particular case, I gave you that link because it was accurate and quick. I'll give you the video link to the BBC interview where he said that we should have "back channels" open to ISIS and mused that similar approaches were taken with the IRA and the Taliban. He did say that he wouldn't call it "dialogue" exactly. And in the recent debate he actually DIDN'T say that he wouldn't negotiate with ISIS: he said, "not round the table, no." So yeah, I see what you mean about "politicians' answers". And spinning from the likes of you. Jeremy is true, clear and consistent except when he isn't.
This New Politics eh? What do you make of it?
And Owen Smith? (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/08/owen-smith-tries-play-down-negotiate-isis-gaffe). Where does he rank in your consistency barometer?
Is this comment about 'new politics' meant to be a reference to something I've said? Because I don't believe I've said anything of the sorts. Corbyn's major policies certainly don't appear to me to be anything 'new'. They are are actually pretty conventional socialist ideas - building your way out of an economic crisis through infrastructure, homes available for all (council built and ultimately available to buy) and targeted wealth re-distribution policies (geographical or otherwise). Essentially, as I've said before, this to me is what labour should be about - not about letting the banks run amok, unfettered private control in the housing market and international skirmishes without popular support.
Perhaps you mean new as in the man, the politician, and how he conducts himself. I'm just going to repeat myself on this, he is one of the most consistent politicians around. Does that mean I think the sun shines out his arse and he never mumbles stupid stuff when being interviewed - of course not! There seems to be a perception here that Corbyn supporters have lost sight of their critical faculties on all matters relating to everything by virtue of them being a Corbyn supporter. He does do somethings differently that I like - such as not living up to the antiqued, quasi-macho charade that is PMQ's and submitting to the politics-media complex.
I'm the son of a miner, I grew up in an entrenched labour town, and I got a very critical and good education - I'm exactly the type of person who SHOULD vote labour. But for a long time I haven't. Why? Because of the practice of labour in power, not what I was told in manifestos and political proclamations. Do I think Corbyn is going to achieve everything he says he is and change this and achieve equality in society? No, but I get the impression he's going to have a good go.
If you mean new as in 'entryist' then I've just outlined my circumstances above. I find this phrase particularly worrying. It's basically scorn and derision on those people realising their lives are political (and always have been). Which is a terrible, anti-democratic idea.. The reality is, in terms of the testaments I've read at least, most of the people supporting Corbyn should more correctly be described as returnists in one form or another.
-
Copps
"New politics"?
Stop theorising lad and just Google it. Corbyn himself used the term "new politics" throughout his leadership campaign last year, contrasting it against the grubby, nasty, mendacious, spinning, politicking "old" politics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34392427
-
So would this be a bad or a good time to point out title of this thread?
-
And do I need to point out that in my first contribution in this thread, I pointed out how daft that was?
-
Looks like the Labour MP's under threat from the Trotskyite faction will all join the Cooperative Party they can st up their own whip and vote against the Tros who can't complain as the Jew Hater himself has voted against his own party on more than 500 occasions in the past,they can also thwart any attempts by the Trots at de selecting them,all in all good news all round.
When it comes to an Election they will be getting the votes of the true Labour voter who in South Yorkshire has a political stance which is slightly to the right of Ghengis Khans!
-
Labour need to appeal to non- Labour voters as well as their traditional supporters to have any chance of forming a government.
The further left they go then the less chance of this happening.
It's alright gaining new or first time voters but if it is negated by losing current supporters then you are no further forward.
-
Light reading for the thread starter (https://opendemocracy.net/luke-davies/re-examining-corbyns-dangerous-friendships)
Contains further sources of information.
-
I think that in the eyes of the electorate Jeremy Corbyn has the same sort of appeal as Foote, Kinnock,Hague, IDS and Ed Milliband.
He just doesn't come across to most as a viable option.
-
Copps
I've been thinking hard about your earlier post. The one about why you as someone who should be a natural Labour supporter had not voted Labour for a long time, because of "the practice of labour in power."
I think that sums up why I am so disillusioned with the Corbyn cult members.
You (collectively, not you personally) have convinced yourselves that the Labour that was in power over the past couple of decades was something that you couldn't support. If I've heard the term "Red Tories" once in the past year, I've heard it a thousand times. If I've heard the line "there's no difference between them" coming from the Left once in the past decade, I've heard it a million times.
It's intellectually vacuous. It sounds thoughtful but it's the opposite. It refuses to engage with the facts. The facts are there on education spending, on health spending, on welfare spending, on macro economic management, on micro issues like child trust funds and a hundred other things. But those who couldn't stomach voting for pre-Corbyn Labour are either unaware of that, or don't weigh it in the balance.
Did I love everything that Blair/Brown did? Of course not. I never wanted Blair as leader and I hated some of his beliefs and actions. I left the party because of him. But I gritted my teeth and I voted for Labour because it was infinitely better than the alternative.
I'll tell you a home truth. You on the Left who wouldn't vote for Labour in 2010 or 2015 for whatever reason, YOU are responsible for Austerity. You are responsible for £9k tuition fees. YOU are responsible for education spending collapsing as a proportion of GDP and for the huge rise in NHS spending under Labour being throttled. YOU are responsible for us leaving the EU. YOU are responsible for payments to the poorest families into Child Trust Funds being scrapped and replaced by massive tax breaks for the richest families. YOU. You can dress yourself up in your principles and complain about Labour, but it was YOU who has allowed this.
And having done that, your response is an emotional spasm into a safe place with a leader who makes you feel valued and vindicated. You wrap yourself up in the warm feeling that a couple of hundred thousand others feel like you do and you have an utter refusal to countenance criticism of your standard bearer and an insistence that everyone else in the party is wrong.
Well, it's your party now. Look after it. And look yourself in the mirror every morning for the next 20 years of Tory government and ask yourself if you might have made the biggest mistake of the century.
-
I'm afraid that's simply not true. A historical political shift occurred from Labour to the SNP, the lib-dem vote collapsed into Tory support, and UKIP rose along with the prospect of euro-skepticism and most analyses suggest labour did not appeal to those in the centre. Quite why you blame a tiny minority of people who voted for fringe parties on the left, I do not know. You seem to have lost control of your senses.
It is YOU yourself who has eloquently argued that Corbyn needs to appeal to a broad church to be elected. So quite why you now suddenly believe the minority on the left have such a significant say in these matters, I do not know. Either it's a few thousands insignificant cult members, or a section of society which is responsible for every socially regressive step in the last 10 years. You have claimed both in one individual post. Which is it?
-
Copps
Go and have a look at the 2010 Election results.
A couple of hundred thousands more votes for Labour across the country, a dozen more seats won from the Tories and we'd have had a centre-left coalition in 2010. We wouldn't have had the madness of Austerity in 2010-13 that gave us the worst economic recovery for 200 years, flatlined wages and produced the SNP & UKIP surge. Everything would have been different.
You who decided that you couldn't stomach voting Labour in 2010 hold the blame for that. Self-indulgent navel gazing while the world changed.