Jeremy Corbyn & Tom Watson elected leader and deputy leader of the Labour Party

[yorksrob]

One of Labour's few foreign policy achievements was not getting embroiled in the Vietnam war, as was not using military force against Rhodesia.

I'll give them that.

 

[DarloRich]

And Owen Smith will do that? So far everyone seems to think not.

Jeremy Corbyn supposedly doesn't connect with the public and lacks lustre. The solution? Replace him with someone equally lack lustre. Hell, there's people out there who won't vote for him because he's Welsh. Gonna give him speech therapy like Milliband, cos that worked well. As long as it isn't Corbyn right? What's the excuse gonna be in 2020?

And we all know who the Corbyians will blame for our massive failure at the next election don't we? That's right everyone but thier useless hero.

Smith wont win either, but at least he will try and win and at least he has a chance of connecting with the voters we need to reach. Corbyn isn't interested in winning, doesn't know how to lead, has vague policies and doesn't connect with the majority of the population.


The polls ,evil MSM (?), plots that they are show this clearly. Why cant you see it? Corbyn is leading us directly into the iceberg. I would rather we had someone at the helm who at least tried to miss it!

 

[Tetchytyke]

I empathise with your dilema at the current state of the Labour Party but you ruin it with all your anti-tory rhetoric. Has it ever occurred to you that you probably have more in common with left wing Conservatives than the same ilk within your own party ?

The classical liberal Conservatives lost control of their party a long long time ago.

The neo-liberalism and libertarianism the current lot go for is nothing more than psychopathy explained away as political doctrine. Though it's funny how they don't call for a free market when it's their financial interests (farming, grouse hunting, arms manufacture) at stake...

But you can't turn the tanker easily. The Tories' biggest success in recent years is moving the Overton Window far to the right. Corbyn the "trotskyite" is probably no more left wing than David Owen was. IMO Labour need someone relatively right-wing to start moving the Overton window back towards the centre, someone like Blair.

 

[DarloRich]

I can remember when Darlington had a Conservative MP 1983-1992 Michael Fallon was it not - you only scraped it by 3,000 odd at the last Election.

I empathise with your dilema at the current state of the Labour Party but you ruin it with all your anti-tory rhetoric. Has it ever occurred to you that you probably have more in common with left wing Conservatives than the same ilk within your own party ?

perhaps but they should convert and renounce thier evilitude

I wasnt in that constituency then but you are right. My MP at that time was a fresh faced young man called Tony Blair. I wonder what became of him?

 

[yorksrob]

Has it ever occurred to you that you probably have more in common with left wing Conservatives than the same ilk within your own party ?

I've often felt that the Tory party would be more popular if it ditched the free market claptrap and concentrated a bit more on conserving things, like industry, institutions such as the BBC and the British way of life. Perhaps they need to relearn a few lessons from Supermac.

 

[asylumxl]

perhaps but they should convert and renounce thier evilitude

I wasnt in that constituency then but you are right. My MP at that time was a fresh faced young man called Tony Blair. I wonder what became of him?

I don't know, let's ask Sir John Chilcot.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And we all know who the Corbyians will blame for our massive failure at the next election don't we? That's right everyone but thier useless hero.

Smith wont win either, but at least he will try and win and at least he has a chance of connecting with the voters we need to reach. Corbyn isn't interested in winning, doesn't know how to lead, has vague policies and doesn't connect with the majority of the population.


The polls ,evil MSM (?), plots that they are show this clearly. Why cant you see it? Corbyn is leading us directly into the iceberg. I would rather we had someone at the helm who at least tried to miss it!

Oh the irony. So by your own admission the Labour party is ****ed come the elections anyway?

So instead of focusing on what the party needs to do as a whole, the party will instead fight amongst themselves about who can fail to win them votes.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't know, let's ask Sir John Chilcot.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Oh the irony. So by your own admission the Labour party is ****ed come the elections anyway?

So instead of focusing on what the party needs to do as a whole, the party will instead fight amongst themselves about who can fail to win them votes.

You seem to want us to go down under full power with all hands! That will lead to a catastrophic fracturing of the party and the years of internecine warfare over names, history, policies and cash that will create almost endless Tory. That should help our people loads! :roll:

Smith will at least show some fight and desire to win. Corbyn ( and certainly his £3 army) dont & wont. They want us to be a party of 12 Mp's but with a righteous purity of thought and policy.

I wish these people would wake up and acknowledge where we are going. Corbyn delivers long term Tory rule and division. He delivers more bedroom taxes not less, more NHS cuts not less, more austerity not less, more rich man friendly tax policies not less. He delivers more suffering to the people we should be helping not less. At least though, you can hear nice warming slogans about the awful Tories but not actually have to compromise to do anything about them. :roll:

You might be happy with that. I am not.

 

[Butts]

perhaps but they should convert and renounce thier evilitude

I wasnt in that constituency then but you are right. My MP at that time was a fresh faced young man called Tony Blair. I wonder what became of him?

Here is a classic example of how I am less dogmatic than your goodself - Blair was a good Prime Minister

 

[backontrack]

Here is a classic example of how I am less dogmatic than your goodself - Blair was a good Prime Minister

Who led us into war.

I've put a poll up in another thread.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

He's been drawing pretty big crowds at various venues around the country.

Donald Trump managed to draw extremely big, and very enthusiastic, crowds throughout the period when he was campaigning for the Republican nomination, but is currently looking like he'll lose badly in November, because the message that so attracts and motivates all the people who already agree with him is not attracting the people who don't - and so far, he's proved unable/unwilling to rework the delivery of his message so as to attract people who don't already agree with him. There's a lesson there which I think is rather relevant to Corbyn-supporters and to your comment about big crowds!

 

[DarloRich]

Who led us into war.

I've put a poll up in another thread.

was it not 2 wars and several other non war conflicts? There were, however, a few positives we could consider...............

 

[Harbornite]

was it not 2 wars and several other non war conflicts? There were, however, a few positives we could consider...............

There was Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and that elephant in the room which has gone missing, much like the WMDs of one Mr Saddam Hussein.


I've just re-read Darlo's comment and it seems it was referring to Iraq, not all the conflicts that occurred between 1997 and 2007.

 

[backontrack]

was it not 2 wars and several other non war conflicts? There were, however, a few positives we could consider...............

I'm using 'war' as a mass noun; for example, the phrase 'the 1400s saw an age of war' refers to both to the Hundred Years' War and the Wars of the Roses (where, once again, the plural is used).

 

[asylumxl]

Donald Trump managed to draw extremely big, and very enthusiastic, crowds throughout the period when he was campaigning for the Republican nomination, but is currently looking like he'll lose badly in November, because the message that so attracts and motivates all the people who already agree with him is not attracting the people who don't - and so far, he's proved unable/unwilling to rework the delivery of his message so as to attract people who don't already agree with him. There's a lesson there which I think is rather relevant to Corbyn-supporters and to your comment about big crowds!

Perhaps. Corbyn mind you is an actual politician, while Donald Trump is essentially an internet troll running for President.

Trump donated large amounts to Hillary Clinton's previous campaigns and said he would "shake up the GOP". Forgive me if I don't think it's a coincidence he insisted on running as a Republican.

Now he's just seeing how far he can push things. Making the Republican candidate so awful that people vote for Hillary was a bold strategy that seems to have worked.

But that's another topic entirely.

 

[backontrack]

Perhaps. Corbyn mind you is an actual politician, while Donald Trump is essentially an internet troll running for President.

Trump donated large amounts to Hillary Clinton's previous campaigns and said he would "shake up the GOP". Forgive me if I don't think it's a coincidence he insisted on running as a Republican.

Now he's just seeing how far he can push things. Making the Republican candidate so awful that people vote for Hillary was a bold strategy that seems to have worked.

But that's another topic entirely.

Or is it? :neutral:

Although Corbyn may have experience, he's spent the bulk of his career as an MP in a safe seat. During all that time it would at least have been nice to see him try to make a difference. The only time before he won the leadership when he'd made any impact at all was when he was the only MP to support same-sex marriage on a Commons vote at some point..

 

[Domh245]

Or is it? :neutral:

Although Corbyn may have experience, he's spent the bulk of his career as an MP in a safe seat. During all that time it would at least have been nice to see him try to make a difference. The only time before he won the leadership when he'd made any impact at all was when he was the only MP to support same-sex marriage on a Commons vote at some point..

Not only that, but he has been a backbencher for 30 years. That's not to say that being a backbencher isn't being a politician, but career backbenchers typically aren't very well suited to leadership (as we can see)

 

[PHILIPE]

We have heard a lot about new people joining the Labour Party but have any people been leaving, I wonder, since Jeremy Corbyn became leader.

 

[Harbornite]

Thiught I'd share this blog here.

In May 1987, eight members of the Provisional IRA launched an attack on the police station in Loughgall, County Armagh. Three men drove a digger through the perimeter fence with a Semtex bomb in the bucket, while the rest arrived in a van and opened fire. However, the British Army had received a tip-off about the plans, and ambushed the IRA unit, killing all eight men.

In London, a short while later, Jeremy Corbyn joined others in a minute’s silence for those killed whilst trying to murder police officers. He explained that he was “happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland”.

The next couple of months will see a Labour leadership election which will test Jeremy Corbyn’s support in the party. My expectation is that he will win in September and remain in post; however, I very much hope for him to be defeated.

As I write, the news is covering Owen Smith, one of the potential candidates. Smith is discussing Corbyn in terms familiar to anyone who follows Labour politics; that Jeremy is a decent man, but he is not meeting expectations as leader and so must be replaced.

I suspect that it ultimately will be his performance that denies him his leadership of the party, either via the members deciding he isn’t up to taking the fight to the Tories, or by a crushing general election defeat. And in the second part of this piece, I will set out why I believe Corbyn will not be electorally successful.

But to focus on electability, as Smith does, is to sidestep a very serious conversation that Labour and the left need to be having. In this blog I will argue that it is his politics that should preclude him from leading the Labour movement. That Corbynism is an immoral politics, which the left should wholly reject. That Jeremy Corbyn is not the “decent man” he is often professed to be.

As with almost everything in contemporary Labour politics, it goes back to the Iraq war. Part of Jeremy Corbyn’s rise is undoubtedly due to his uncompromising opposition to the invasion, and already, his supporters are making much capital out of comparing Corbyn’s supposedly prescient stance against the war with Angela Eagle’s support.

I opposed the war. Yet I also recognise that the decision facing Blair and Bush in 2003 was a choice between two terrible scenarios. The brutal crimes of Saddam Hussein’s regime are well documented. To not go to war was to acquiesce in leaving Iraq in the hands of a monstrous tyrant.

None of this seems to trouble Corbyn or his acolytes; for them, the war was wrong and that’s it. Jeremy Corbyn has no answer as to what the world should do about future Saddam Husseins, nor does he seem to care.

Still, any decent person who opposed the Iraq war should, at the least, have hoped for a quick end to the fighting, a rapid overthrow of Saddam, minimal casualties, and a successful transition to a stable, democratic Iraq. Regardless of your position, you should surely hope for the best possible outcome to the situation, the least bloodshed.

But in 2004, the Stop The War Coalition, of which Jeremy Corbyn was a founder and one of its leading members, said

“The StWC reaffirms its call for an end to the occupation, the return of all British troops in Iraq to this country and recognises once more the legitimacy of the struggle of Iraqis, by whatever means they find necessary, to secure such ends”

Jeremy Corbyn in 1987 held a minute’s silence for people whose aim was to slaughter police officers. Jeremy Corbyn in 2004 was part of an organisation which urged jihadists to kill British soldiers. Why?

To unpick Corbynism, it needs to be understood that everything is viewed through an anti-western prism. The “West”, typically America, Britain and Israel, are seen to be at fault for all that goes wrong in the world, the source of all problems. Everything else is subservient to this premise.

This explains why Corbyn so often forms alliances with toxic people. For him, anti-western politics is the focus of his energies; the character, words or actions of any allies he makes in the struggle become secondary or unimportant.

This is why, despite professing to be a staunch defender of human rights, he can be paid to appear on Iranian state television, on a channel that filmed the torture of an Iranian journalist, and which acts as a mouthpiece for a regime that executes gay people.

This is why he speaks at Cuba Solidarity events, in support of a regime that has an appalling human rights record, one with a long history of jailing gay people and trade unionists.

This is why he finds friends amongst people such as Raed Salah (jailed for inciting anti-Jewish violence in Israel, and found by a British judge to have used the blood libel), Stephen Sizer (a vicar who shared an article on social media entitled “9/11: Israel Did It”), Paul Eisen (Holocaust denier), and of course, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Is it any wonder that the Israeli Labour Party is extremely concerned? Do we not owe our solidarity to them, as our sister party? Do we not owe our solidarity to gay people facing persecution in Iran, or trade unionists in Cuba? Why would anyone on the left seek to side with their oppressors instead? These alliances are made because Corbyn places anti-western ideology above all else. His enemy’s enemy has become his friend.

So, is Jeremy Corbyn a decent man?

One way out of the above could be to argue that he is not bad, but instead hopelessly naive; a foolish man who romanticises revolutionaries. That should in itself be enough to prevent him holding any real authority, but let’s take some recent examples to test the decency claim.

Following the launch of Shami Chakrabarti’s report into Labour antisemitism, Marc Wadsworth, a Momentum activist, stood up and accused Ruth Smeeth, a Jewish Labour MP, of colluding with the media. Wadsworth says he didn’t know Smeeth was Jewish. Perhaps not. But Jeremy Corbyn did. And accusing Jewish people of controlling the media is a classic antisemitic trope. So, confronted with this, what did Jeremy Corbyn do? He stood there and said nothing.

Except it was worse than saying nothing. Because later, Corbyn was caught on camera apologising to Wadsworth, and saying that he’d sent him a text message. Smeeth now understandably believes Corbyn has made Labour an unsafe place for Jews.

As a further example, consider his actions at the recent NEC meeting, which was to decide whether Corbyn needed MPs’ nominations in order to stand in the leadership election. Some committee members pleaded for the vote to be conducted in secret. One member was in tears as she explained her fears of intimidation, bullying and worse. Ignoring the distress of members, Corbyn voted against a secret ballot. He was not prepared to intervene to protect his colleagues.

After the NEC decision, Jeremy Corbyn went to a rally, and shared a stage with people who referred to senior members of the party as “****ing useless”, a “disgrace to Wales”, and told Labour MPs to leave the party. Corbyn said nothing, save for some laughable platitudes about being against abuse.

Every time, Corbyn puts himself and his ideology above people that he owed a duty of care to. Wadsworth was a comrade, an ally, so Corbyn had texted him before he’d even left the building. No such treatment for Ruth Smeeth. On the NEC, Corbyn’s priority was getting on the ballot, and he was happy to put other committee members in harm’s way to get there. Jeremy Corbyn saw no need to defend his MPs from the abuse at the rally. It was enough for him to disown abuse in general terms. His hands were clean.

Is he a decent man? Is this how decent people behave?

The problem of placing abstract ideology above real people is a facet of not just Corbyn but Corbynism. Witness Diane Abbott explaining how Chairman Mao is revered because “on balance, he did more good than harm”. Or George Galloway’s consistent support for tyrants. Or John McDonnell supporting theIRA bombing campaign. So committed was McDonnell, in fact, that during the negotiations leading to the Good Friday Agreement, Sinn Fein had to ask Tony Blair to keep him quiet, as he was discouraging hardliners from accepting a deal.

The Labour Party Rule Book is explicit; we are committed to deliver people from the tyranny of prejudice, and to work with international bodies to secure peace and freedom for all.

If your allies execute homosexuals, or imprison trade unionists, or bomb shopping centres, or murder people who dissent, or hold deeply antisemitic conspiracy theories, I don’t see how you can claim to be upholding these aims. If you say nothing whilst members of the party you lead are insulted in public, are you living by the Labour values of solidarity, tolerance and respect?

None of this is a left I want to be a part of.

The left now needs to decide what it stands for. An anti-western, anti-American, self-righteous strand of thinking, nurtured by the Iraq war, is gripping the party ever tighter. We cannot let the Labour Party fall prey to people who believe that every brutal dictator who opposes America is to be venerated. We cannot let the terrible errors of Iraq turn us away from supporting those who suffer at the hands of tyrants; this road leads to Srebrenica and Nyarubuye.

There is an internationalist left, which does not rely on knee-jerk anti-westernism. Which believes in alliances with other liberal democracies and showing solidarity with those being persecuted rather than their oppressors. There is also a left which genuinely believes in those values of solidarity, tolerance and respect; not just in the abstract or in platitude, but in how we conduct ourselves, and the examples we set for others.

The Labour leadership election isn’t just about whether Jeremy Corbyn can beat the Tories. It’s about salvaging a morality that has gone desperately missing.

https://thegerasites.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/labour-leadership-1-the-immorality-of-corbynism/

I don't particularly agree with the stance on Iraq that is given in that article because a UN resolution should have been sought and the evidence for invading wasn't great, despite Saddam's human rights violations. Nevertheless I agree wuth the rest of the oice and serves as a reminder as to why I dislike Jeremy "Israel are as bad as ISIL" Corbyn and Diane "the Brits invented racism" Abbott. Bloody clowns those two are.

 

[yorksrob]

Thiught I'd share this blog here.



https://thegerasites.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/labour-leadership-1-the-immorality-of-corbynism/

I don't particularly agree with the stance on Iraq that is given in that article because a UN resolution should have been sought and the evidence for invading wasn't great, despite Saddam's human rights violations.

The left always fails on foreign policy.

I noticed that according to the BBC, Mr Owen was espousing talking to ISIS, which hardly instills confidence.

Why can't we have a left wing stance against the excesses of capitalism without succumbing to woolly internationalism and sucking up to foreign enemies ?

Why can't we have a left which stands up for the working class and Britain ?

I honestly don't know.

 

[Harbornite]

The left always fails on foreign policy.

I noticed that according to the BBC, Mr Owen was espousing talking to ISIS, which hardly instills confidence.

Why can't we have a left wing stance against the excesses of capitalism without succumbing to woolly internationalism and sucking up to foreign enemies ?

Why can't we have a left which stands up for the working class and Britain ?

I honestly don't know.

I can't fault Labour's foreign policy too much. In 1945, they didn't go neutral or cling on to the every colony empire. Instead they laid the foundation for Britain as a nuclear power and encouraged decolonisation (though this was quite badly handled in the crown jewel of the empire: India). In the 60s, we didn't intervene militarily in Rhodesia or Nam and decolonisation was more peaceful than formthe French or Portuguese, although it goes without saying that many of the newly independent African countries flopped. The withdrawal from Aden and east of suez in 1967 was understandable then but is now bring reversed as we know. Them in the 90s and 2000s, Labour got a deal with the IRA and intervened successfully in Sierra Leone. After this, it goes downhill.

Regarding your last two statements, the majority of people in this country don't find full glown socialism appealing; it breeds complacency. That's why it's better to be nearer to the right if you want to win an election.

 

[yorksrob]

I can't fault Labour's foreign policy too much. In 1945, they didn't go neutral or cling on to the every colony empire. Instead they laid the foundation for Britain as a nuclear power and encouraged decolonisation (though this was quite badly handled in the crown jewel of the empire: India). In the 60s, we didn't intervene militarily in Rhodesia or Nam and decolonisation was more peaceful than formthe French or Portuguese, although it goes without saying that many of the newly independent African countries flopped. The withdrawal from Aden and east of suez in 1967 was understandable then but is now bring reversed as we know. Them in the 90s and 2000s, Labour got a deal with the IRA and intervened successfully in Sierra Leone. After this, it goes downhill.

Regarding your last two statements, the majority of people in this country don't find full glown socialism appealing; it breeds complacency. That's why it's better to be nearer to the right if you want to win an election.

The majority of people are wrong.

This free market utopia has brought us an infantilized country which can't build anything without going cap in hand to someone else.

Look at the Hinkley point fiasco, which is only happening because we flogged off our own capability to build nuclear power stations.

What was it Michael Hesletine said about bargain basement Britain.

When I was growing up, I was proud to live in a country which had built and designed Concord and the IC125. What has bargain basement Britain got to be proud of ?

 

[AlterEgo]

When I was growing up, I was proud to live in a country which had built and designed Concord and the IC125. What has bargain basement Britain got to be proud of ?

Given that Concorde was a joint project, perhaps the Airbus A380?

There are countless engineering projects which are worthy of mention. The Falkirk Wheel, Crossrail, the Olympic venues, HS1, Queensferry, and so on. Hinkley is a farce but it's not all bad news.

 

[Butts]

Given that Concorde was a joint project, perhaps the Airbus A380?

There are countless engineering projects which are worthy of mention. The Falkirk Wheel, Crossrail, the Olympic venues, HS1, Queensferry, and so on. Hinkley is a farce but it's not all bad news.

Here Here ....don't forget The Kelpies

Seriously 2nd Forth Road Bridge , Channel Tunnel et al.

 

[Harbornite]

Millennium dome?







I'll get my coat. It could be worse, we are still Europe's third largest car manufacturer (even if the majority of companies are foreign) and the world's second largest aerospace industry is that of the UK.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The majority of people are wrong.

Odd statement. It's not their fault that Labour are crap.

This free market utopia has brought us an infantilized country which can't build anything without going cap in hand to someone else.

We probably can build more, it's just cheaper unfortunately to get others to do it.

Look at the Hinkley point fiasco, which is only happening because we flogged off our own capability to build nuclear power stations.

Agreed, I'm not sure if the CEGB et all should have been privatized.

When I was growing up, I was proud to live in a country which had built and designed Concord and the IC125. What has bargain basement Britain got to be proud of ?

If you are so proud of Concorde, at least get the name right!

We do still make things in this country, it's just that we like to cooperate with other countries (then again so was Concorde). However I do think the decline of the British train building industry is depressing.

 

[asylumxl]

Here Here ....don't forget The Kelpies [emoji14]

Seriously 2nd Forth Road Bridge , Channel Tunnel et al.

You mean the Queensferry Crossing? The one thats bridge deck was constructed outside of Britain? To quote Wikipedia:

149 segments of bridge deck, each of which is*12 metres (39*ft)*long and*40 metres (130*ft)wide, were to be constructed in China and Spain

British indeed.

 

[yorksrob]

If you are so proud of Concorde, at least get the name right!
.

I prefer to use the Anglicised version

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Reverting back to the subject of the thread, can anyone well versed in the historical details of the Labour Party say when was the last time that a leader of the party and his supporters came from the political side that seems to currently ensue and how long did that faction retain power in the party.

 

[asylumxl]

Agreed, I'm not sure if the CEGB et all should have been privatized.

I would say it certainly shouldn't have. When you consider we were at the forefront of new reactor designs (Magnox/Advanced Gas Cooled reactors) only a few decades ago, it's incredibly depressing to resort to buying inferior designs from abroad.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The majority of people are wrong. This free market utopia has brought us an infantilized country which can't build anything without going cap in hand to someone else.

Would you class America, Germany, South Korea and Japan in the same status?

 

[yorksrob]

Reverting back to the subject of the thread, can anyone well versed in the historical details of the Labour Party say when was the last time that a leader of the party and his supporters came from the political side that seems to currently ensue and how long did that faction retain power in the party.

Harold Wilson started off on the Bevanite left. I believe he resigned from the Atlee gmt because of opticians charges (or something similar).

He was more of a centrist by the time he began his eight or so (interrupted) years as PM.

Of course, in today's topsy turvy world, a centrist would be characterised as hard left.