Jeremy Corbyn.

alfredmizen said:

I don't think anybody is taking Corbyn to task for negotiating with PIRA , quite simply because he's never been in any sort of position where he's had the power or mandate to , that is affording him far more respect than he deserves , all he has ever done is publicly gladhand them whilst also giving them support and succour , THAT is why people like myself despise him , to say it sickens me that people on here can describe him in such glowing terms as " a breath of fresh air" is an understatement, a day after he sits down and happily takes refreshments with the likes of adams and mcguiness, who willingly presided over the murders of the British civilians and military personnel that Corbyn aspires to lead , not to mention the bomb that blew up a hotel in the town that this boards team is from , the same people that were in com.and of the scum that killed 11 year old Tim parry and 14 year old Jonathan ball , all of you to a man who have praised him , even those who have merely failed to condemn him for his treachery, hang your heads in ****ing shame .

Click to expand...

I was in Warrington the day it happened and heard it go off. They would have had me if the previous bomb had exploded - I lived down the road from the gasworks. I heard the father talk a few weeks later so please don't lecture me on that bit of history.

I'll remember it till the the day I die. The most cynical act of the the IRA in a town with a large Irish population. Brought home to me the utter stupidity of it all. Girl in my house who was in the town square in utter bits when she came back to the house. Irish friends we had in fear of their lives from locals.

When it's thrown in your face, my reaction was to support anything or anyone who will just stop it happening. Don't care about their political persuasion and have utmost respect for John Major.

I just can't and didn't swallow the hypocrisy of attacking people trying to negotiate peace publicly whilst others were doing behind closed doors whilst pretending to the public at large it wasn't happening.

There are numerous separate issues touched on here (fancy that on NSC, eh?). Let's have a bash putting it all together, with some personal sauce....

We have political parties, so if you think you have leadership qualities, you need to be in one. Preferable one of the two that can win. So you join the one that best fits.

Next, as someone says, you think about what people want. Then you apply your perspective and judgment to develop policies. The tricky bit is becoming leader because your party will always have different principles to a large part of the electorate, and you must cater for the party to become leader, then cater for the electorate to win power.

This is where Blaire was smart, and Cameron is smart. Neither are conviction politicians of doctrinaire disposition. They crafted a position that persuaded their own party, and the electrorate, and presumably didn't choke on their own 'principle challenged' vomit from the outcome.

Its called doing what is right (in the widest context). Compromising, yet showing leadership, and persuading folk to support you.

So we come to Corbyn. He is a 'conviction' type, with fixed views, rather like Ghandi, Hitler, Attilla the Stockbroker, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King . . . yes you can be a success with conviction, but only if the circumstances are very particular, and you are lucky. Tony Benn was not lucky so he was a pundit and occasional minister, not a leader with any power or effectiveness. He made mistakes too, but so did Hitler, and 2 of the above who were assassinated . . . it is the way of conviction . . . honourable but oftent futile. How many of you have been called 'your own worst enemy' because of principles? At work, I certainly have.

Unlike the successful conviction types, however, Corbyn lacks charisma, and is not lucky. If he wins (he won't though) he won't bring any luck to labour and, if he becomes PM (he won't) he'll (well I don't think I need to end this sentence).

So who should labour elect? As others have said, none of those standing inspire. So it doesn't really matter - unless the tories elect a **** for their next leader (remember, Cameron won't stand again) he or she will lose. Bojo may be a liability for the tories (if made leader - not a given), and Gideon is rather stiff and smart arsey, but as favourite to succeed as tory leader he may have the same sort of successful 'chancellor sheen' that propelled Brown into the leader role . . . but as we saw with Brown, a week is a short time in politics, and the nice relaxed Blaire regime (ahem) soon descended into paranoid kilt-wetting mayhem.

So, for me, as a man of the same dosposition as Man of Harveys, it is anyone byt Jezza, please. AND, Labour, please think through your leader election process properly next time (too slow, and ludicrously perverted by the MPs who don't support Jezza but fancied him on the list to 'balance' it, and the mad £3 and you have a vote idiocy).

Personally I think that the electorate should elect the MPs, and the parliamentary party (the elected MPs of each party) should elect their leader. Labour did that till bloody principled Tony Benn buggered it all up. BHA don't let the season ticket holders elect the bloody manager and team captain, after all.

I'm forever disappointed by labour. One thing about the tories is that on the whole they understand how to obtain power, and of course without power you are powerless . . . .principles without power is Michael Foot.

Finally, I think there is no shame to have fluid princples. Churchill changes party twice, after all. It is much better to have judgement, wisdom and luck, than political principles. Political principals occasionally force you to make decision you know to be wrong. A bit like religious principles. Gimme a technocrat politician, with humanistic values and compassion as well as courage, any day. On the whole - that's Blaire, and of the present bunch, Cameron.

Diablo said:

Jeremy Corbyn seems to be in the running for Labour Leader . A left winger pictured yesterday in Westminster chatting with Martin Mcguiness and Gerry Adams....whilst anyone may chat do others like me feel that Jeremy Corbyn if elected party leader coupled with any association with Sinn Fein would be catastophic for the Labour party.

Click to expand...

Is that the same Gerry Adams who was recently pictured shaking hands with Prince Charles....son of Nazi saluting Queen Liz?

clapham_gull said:

I was in Warrington the day it happened and heard it go off. They would have had me if the previous bomb had exploded - I lived down the road from the gasworks. I heard the father talk a few weeks later so please don't lecture me on that bit of history.

I'll remember it till the the day I die. The most cynical act of the the IRA in a town with a large Irish population.

I just can't and didn't swallow the hypocrisy of attacking people trying to negotiate peace publicly whilst others were doing behind closed doors whilst pretending to the public at large it wasn't happening.

Click to expand...

As I've said in my post , and you can hardly claim to have missed that part , Corbyn has NEVER tried to negotiate peace with PIRA , he has only ever offered public support for them and their objectives, and I'll lecture you as much as I like and ill carry on doing so all the time you fail to condemn him for the reasons I stated in my original post , and ive SEEN first hand the after effects of terrorist bombs on human bodies , a bit closer than being in the same town when they go off, what if Warrington has a large Irish population , does that make it worse somehow ? Why mention it ?

Harry Wilson's tackle said:

So, for me, as a man of the same dosposition as Man of Harveys, it is anyone byt Jezza, please. AND, Labour, please think through your leader election process properly next time (too slow, and ludicrously perverted by the MPs who don't support Jezza but fancied him on the list to 'balance' it, and the mad £3 and you have a vote idiocy).

Personally I think that the electorate should elect the MPs, and the parliamentary party (the elected MPs of each party) should elect their leader. Labour did that till bloody principled Tony Benn buggered it all up. BHA don't let the season ticket holders elect the bloody manager and team captain, after all

Click to expand...

Stupid parallel. You either believe in democracy or you don't. you seem to half believe in it. Of course Corbyn should have been on the ballot given the scale of support he has, it is miserable elitism to suggest otherwise. Let us choose our leaders, everyone should have an equal say. if you don't trust democracy, you end up going down a very slippery slope indeed.

alfredmizen said:

As I've said in my post , and you can hardly claim to have missed that part , Corbyn has NEVER tried to negotiate peace with PIRA , he has only ever offered public support for them and their objectives, and I'll lecture you as much as I like and ill carry on doing so all the time you fail to condemn him for the reasons I stated in my original post , and ive SEEN first hand the after effects of terrorist bombs on human bodies , a bit closer than being in the same town when they go off, what if Warrington has a large Irish population , does that make it worse somehow ? Why mention it ?

Click to expand...

Oh do shut up - if your politics had any influence, many Irish people (and some British) would still be being slaughtered even now

London Irish said:

Stupid parallel. You either believe in democracy or you don't. you seem to half believe in it. Of course Corbyn should have been on the ballot given the scale of support he has, it is miserable elitism to suggest otherwise. Let us choose our leaders, everyone should have an equal say. if you don't trust democracy, you end up going down a very slippery slope indeed.

Click to expand...

Of course I believe in democracy. I don't believe in 'no compromise with the electorate'. That was the Foot labour way. That is the Corbyn way. He makes no effeort to reach out to the wider constituency and is stuck in a narrow leftist ghetto. I just hope that the internal democracy of labour votes the way I want (anyone but Corbyn). I want a labour PM, not another fiasco

Harry Wilson's tackle said:

Of course I believe in democracy. I don't believe in 'no compromise with the electorate'. That was the Foot labour way. That is the Corbyn way. He makes no effeort to reach out to the wider constituency and is stuck in a narrow leftist ghetto. I just hope that the internal democracy of labour votes the way I want (anyone but Corbyn). I want a labour PM, not another fiasco

Click to expand...

I think your memory is faulty. Foot was a great leftwinger in his day but that day was long passed when he became leader, when he tailended Thatcher in that pointless war in the South Atlantic rather than do a Hugh Gaitskell who honourably opposed a similar mad venture in Suez. Foot was a gutless prisoner of the Labour right who filled his shadow cabinet, Corbyn will be very much his own man and will present something entirely new in British politics.

midnight_rendezvous said:

I'm not a typical Labour supporter but that's mainly because I don't vote Labour. I simply like Corbyn as I believe him to be an honest and principled politician, which is something of a rarity in this day and age.

Click to expand...

i think he certainly is very honest and principled. this only gets you so far in politics, because sooner or later you need to compromise, and his record of rebelion suggests he's not one for that.

a problem with your conclusion, something i see often from the left (here, papers, Labour party) is the assumption that the average chap is a left voting worker. the fact of the matter, and shown in the election, is that the average chap or chappette have the means to look after themselves and are centre right voters. prehaps they'll have left leaning opinions on some issues, but overall on the number one issue - economy - and a few others, they are right leaning. this is why Blair had such substantial majorities, by pulling in the centre right along side the core Labour vote.

its been widely noted especially by some on the right of Labour that the problem they have right now is they dont accept that they lost the election, that somehow the electorate were wrong. the party is still in denial, so the hard core, the activists who will determine the next leader are rallying around someone who they believe will make it better, without recognising the problem. and to think, Corbyn only even made it because some MPs wanted to "wided the debate" and supported him last minute. what they meant to happen was to have a left voice, to placate the left wing and declare a fair fight once the leader was selected. interesting upshot of this is how far apart the parlimentry Labour party seems to be from the membership.

Harry Wilson's tackle said:

Of course I believe in democracy. I don't believe in 'no compromise with the electorate'. That was the Foot labour way. That is the Corbyn way. He makes no effeort to reach out to the wider constituency and is stuck in a narrow leftist ghetto. I just hope that the internal democracy of labour votes the way I want (anyone but Corbyn). I want a labour PM, not another fiasco

Click to expand...

there is a young lady in Scotland who reached out to the Scottish electorate, very left, yet managed to make all the others look silly, the labour party there was like here watered down tories

People make the false assumption that the normal left-right divide always holds true. That's not the case - every now and then in politics there is a kind of rupture where old certainties get thrown to the wind - the election of Corbyn could create one of those whirlwinds. Read this blog here below - it's a very tradtional politics guy saying why he wants Corbyn to do well even though instinctively he wouldn't normally agree with his politics. The rise of UKIP is another pointer, people are sick of the westminster machine politicians and we could be in for some very interesting times ahead - neither a left revolt or a right one but a people's revolt against the elitists who control everything

https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/the-case-for-jeremy-corbyn/

London Irish said:

I think your memory is faulty. Foot was a great leftwinger in his day but that day was long passed when he became leader, when he tailended Thatcher in that pointless war in the South Atlantic rather than do a Hugh Gaitskell who honourably opposed a similar mad venture in Suez. Foot was a gutless prisoner of the Labour right who filled his shadow cabinet, Corbyn will be very much his own man and will present something entirely new in British politics.

Click to expand...

Great left winger, sure. BUT like I said earlier, you have to appeal to the electorate to become PM, and that requires other skills. Foot didn't have them, and neither does Corbyn. I hope you don't think that Foot failed to become PM for reasons other than his lack of appeal to the electrorate (based on his various too lefty principles, plus of course the 'no thanks' factor, which also blighted Kinnock, Hague and Duncan Smith)?

Actually I should add that I'm not entirely comfortable with acknowledging that having a 'winner nous and winner vibe' has such importance. I loved Foot at the time. Unfortunately, as I have tried to explain, the chances of winning a general election owing to principles alone, especially leftish ones, are slim. In Corbyn's case he has shown a total lack of understanding of what matters to people over the years (his dalliance with the IRA, as a back bencher, was pointless and futile, and ultimately left a bad taste), which is why he has done nothing in his political career. Being interviewed on Newsnight, and being featured (usually negatively) in the press doesn't count. The media loves a freak show, and he's just another freak to most voters. As I said before, I want a labour win, and Corbyn is far to big a risk (and that's a generous assessment).

London Irish said:

Oh do shut up - if your politics had any influence, many Irish people (and some British) would still be being slaughtered even now

Click to expand...

Care to explain how you arrive at that conclusion from my post ?

London Irish said:

People make the false assumption that the normal left-right divide always holds true. That's not the case - every now and then in politics there is a kind of rupture where old certainties get thrown to the wind - the election of Corbyn could create one of those whirlwinds. Read this blog here below - it's a very tradtional politics guy saying why he wants Corbyn to do well even though instinctively he wouldn't normally agree with his politics. The rise of UKIP is another pointer, people are sick of the westminster machine politicians and we could be in for some very interesting times ahead - neither a left revolt or a right one but a people's revolt against the elitists who control everything

https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/the-case-for-jeremy-corbyn/

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning. You equate the rise of Corbyn with the rise of UKIP (in terms of the wind of change, not the politics, of course). Yes, I agree. A labour party with Corbyn at the helm will do as well in the next general election as UKIP did in the last . . . . possibly ten times as well! That would give them . . . ten seats.

Anyway, we shall see. If labour does elect Jezza, perhaps he can unite the party and become PM

London Irish said:

People make the false assumption that the normal left-right divide always holds true. That's not the case - every now and then in politics there is a kind of rupture where old certainties get thrown to the wind - the election of Corbyn could create one of those whirlwinds. Read this blog here below - it's a very tradtional politics guy saying why he wants Corbyn to do well even though instinctively he wouldn't normally agree with his politics. The rise of UKIP is another pointer, people are sick of the westminster machine politicians and we could be in for some very interesting times ahead - neither a left revolt or a right one but a people's revolt against the elitists who control everything

https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/the-case-for-jeremy-corbyn/

Click to expand...

I would agree with boith what you say and whilst I think the tone of the blogger is somewhat pompous, I would generally agree with what he says.

The simple truth is that for the labour party to win the next election outright, they either need a lot more votes in england or they need some more in england and all their votes in scotland back.

The reality is that they actually got more votes in 2015 than in 2010. there was also a swing of 0.35% from Conservative to Labour. It is hard to see them winning many more votes from the conservatives. There was a 8.35% swing from Liberal to Labour. It is hard to see them winning many votes from the liberals, simply because they dont have many to lose. Where the labour lost votes was to Ukip with a 4% swing and the SNP on a 0.8% swing on the total uk vote ( rather than the scottish vote which would be much higher.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

Therefore for the Labour party to win they have to get votes back from the white working class voters who support Ukip and left wing voters who voted green and SNP.

it is hard to see how having a leader who waffles, flops around and then abstains as being the kind of leader that would attract these voters. This means that it is highly unlikely that either Liz Kendal Yvette Cooper nor Andy Burnham could lead the labour party to power. Whilst it is more credible that a man of principle and socialist belief could attract back the green and SNP votes Im not sure he would get the UKIP votes back, plus there would be a loss of some right wing labour votes. Therefore although it is slightly more likely to see a labour government under Corbyn, I dont believe that will happen either.

However a Corbyn victory will split the labour party. It will divide it between those politicians who want to be mps regardless of the politics espoused. (ie the 184 who abstained on Monday), and those that believe representing an electorate is about holding principle and belief and standing on those ( ie the 48 who voted against welfare cuts). This will mean that there will be an effective coalition of opposition to austerity agenda. This is more than we currently have as demonstrated this week. I also believe that in the long run standing on principle is far more likely to achieve good government than swaying with whatever you think will please the press. the leader of your party and the fictional average voter.

We are no longer talking about the old certainties of 2/3 party politics but seeing the dawning of a new style coalition style politics. I dont think that would automatically favour the left, but at least we would be able to be involved and not sidelined.

Harry Wilson's tackle said:

I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning. You equate the rise of Corbyn with the rise of UKIP (in terms of the wind of change, not the politics, of course). Yes, I agree. A labour party with Corbyn at the helm will do as well in the next general election as UKIP did in the last . . . . possibly ten times as well! That would give them . . . ten seats.

Anyway, we shall see. If labour does elect Jezza, perhaps he can unite the party and become PM

Click to expand...

actually if the labour party did 10 times as well as UKIP did they would have 30 million votes which would result in the biggest majority ever

The new Michael Foot

Labours politics are outdated. It's not 1997 any more. We have had a global recession and now have an extra 4-5 million people in this country, no thanks in part to Labours shambolic handling of our borders. Personally I will never vote for this party ever again, they ruined this country and if they are ever given another chance they will do it all over again.

jgmcdee said:

I thought that this was another piece of management rubbish that made absolutely no sense until I googled it and found no results at all. Guess you just made it up.

Click to expand...

Oh good, does that mean I can copyright it then?

bashlsdir said:

Labours politics are outdated. It's not 1997 any more. We have had a global recession and now have an extra 4-5 million people in this country, no thanks in part to Labours shambolic handling of our borders. Personally I will never vote for this party ever again, they ruined this country and if they are ever given another chance they will do it all over again.

Click to expand...

Had a discussion with a Labour supporting pal yesterday, and we agreed on the following:

The NHS is Labour's crowning glory, it would never have happened under the Tories.

Labour have improved the lot of the working/lower classes immeasurably since their inception.

Labour have proven themselves incapable of running a balanced economy on more than one occasion.

Old Labour are becoming irrelevant, as they really do not have a cause to fight any longer as our standards of living are so much higher for the majority of people now when compared to the past.

If Jeremy Corbyn becomes Labour leader it will split the party in the medium term, which may well happen anyway. The Labour party, in its current form, is on borrowed time.