Corbyn did win, what's next?

Some rather interesting rhetoric about Jeremy Corbyn's letter regarding Syrian air strikes from his opponents in the Labour party. Words like "bunker" and "Hitler" have been thrown about by Labour MPs who want to carry out airstrikes in Syria.

Corbyn's view that UK airstrikes aren't currently justified seems to align with the vast majority of Labour Party members (although the same MP who made reference to bunkers and Hitler alluded to the party rank being swelled by inner city members "of a certain allegiance" - is this a reference to an Islamic fifth column ? An extraordinary claim if true).

Personally I'm not convinced that UK airstrikes will make a blind bit of difference to ISIS ability to make the Syrian people miserable. Perhaps it would make a difference in being seen to do something but IMO more airstrikes will just result in more collateral damage and more propaganda material for ISIS. After all, it's not like there's been a shortage of airstrikes over the last three years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34940728
 
It's not the stance on airstrikes which has got the Labour upper echelons tearing themselves to bits, it is the politicking. Corbyn couldn't win over the shadow cabinet to his viewpoint, so he appealed over their heads (or under their feet) directly to the Labour MPs, thereby rendering shadow cabinet discussion pointless. Understandably, this has annoyed the shadow cabinet somewhat.

Incidentally, there was what I thought rather a generous tribute paid to Corbyn on Have I Got News for You by Jacob Rees-Mogg last week. The arch conservative paid heartfelt tribute to Corbyn for having principles and sticking to them. The effect of this was somewhat spoiled by Ian Hislop mentioning that Corbyn had retracted whatever statement they were talking about some 24 hours later....
 
Last edited:
The Don said:
....... the same MP who made reference to bunkers and Hitler alluded to the party rank being swelled by inner city members "of a certain allegiance" - is this a reference to an Islamic fifth column ? An extraordinary claim if true.........
Click to expand...

That's your claim, not that of the Labour MP.
 
MikeG said:
That's your claim, not that of the Labour MP.
Click to expand...

Correct. But then I'm not sure how else to take it.

He was saying that there were large numbers of people from inner cities who had significantly affected opinion in the Labour Party (as opposed to long standing members who were pro-bombing Syria - not a group I recognise from my two decades in the party but maybe it's changed a lot recently).

During the Corbyn election campaign, the Blairite wing of the party had a number of suggestions about who had recently joined the party (and who would affect the outcome). One was that large numbers of Tories had signed up - I can hardly see them opposing action in Syria.

I know that Corbyn has attracted a lot of youngsters to the Labour Party but I'm not sure that they are over-represented in inner cities. I can imagine that they may be more reticent to support action in Syria.

Like I say, I don't know how to take a comment that Labour Party opinion regarding Syria has been swung by an influx of members from certain parts of inner cities but he did seem to me to be hinting.

Then again I found the whole bunker and Hitler thing to be rather drama queenish (but IMO typical of the Labour Party I knew well - and left) so maybe our elected official was just acting out in a strop that his opinion wasn't supported by the rank and file of the party.
 
The Don said:
Correct. But then I'm not sure how else to take it........
Click to expand...

Well, the only place I have seen this quote is here, in your post, and I immediately took it to mean hard-left Corbyn supporters.
 
In a way I agree with Corbyn's criticism of the proposed RAF bombing in Syria. I disagree with Corbyn that he would have done a citizen's arrest on Jihadi John, and made sure the police heard about it. He is lacking in wide and practical experience.

My own theory is that Cameron is really only concerned about spending billions on things like Trident, and wars in Syria, because he wants to be involved in any Syria conference, and still keep a top table at the UN. Where are the Australians? There is no military logic in it unless you are going to rely on the Kurds and the Iraqi army, who could come in useful. The CIA have been providing Isis with American Tow anti-tank weapons, if not anti-aircraft weapons, to fire at the RAF, and to use on the Syrians and Russians.

In the 2010 Osborne austerity cuts the Foreign Office funding of about £50 million to BBC World Service was withdrawn. Now Cameron suddenly wants Africans and Arabs to hear what he has to say, he suddenly restores that funding in the recent budget.

Cameron needs to learn that Britain is now a third-rate EU province country with British manufacturing run by commercial marauders from abroad, and property own by tax dodgers from abroad.
 
Henri McPhee said:
.......The CIA have been providing Isis with American Tow anti-tank weapons, if not anti-aircraft weapons, to fire at the RAF, and to use on the Syrians and Russians..........
Click to expand...

OK, this is the single most important piece of news I have heard this year. I can't understand why it isn't all over the newspapers and news bulletins. Could you provide some links so that we can examine this jaw-dropping anti-NATO activity by the CIA?
 
MikeG said:
OK, this is the single most important piece of news I have heard this year. I can't understand why it isn't all over the newspapers and news bulletins. Could you provide some links so that we can examine this jaw-dropping anti-NATO activity by the CIA?
Click to expand...

It came as a surprise to me too. What I'm finding is many references to the USA providing these weapons (and other stuff) to Syrian rebels.
example report
another

I can't speak for the reliability of those sites, nor guess whether ISIS has simply acquired the TOW systems indirectly.
 
The old blairites would like us to bomb. Then when the report finally comes out showing how Blair broke the law to bomb Iraq, they'll have the cover of, 'The current Labour party is still supporting such actions'.

Also, at least some of them lobby for munitions and weapons manufacturers - so any war is a good war in their eyes.
 
GlennB said:
It came as a surprise to me too. What I'm finding is many references to the USA providing these weapons (and other stuff) to Syrian rebels......
Click to expand...

Which is rather a different thing from supplying ISIS. Unless of course one has a real agenda, and is prepared to twist facts to suit.
 
MikeG said:
Which is rather a different thing from supplying ISIS. Unless of course one has a real agenda, and is prepared to twist facts to suit.
Click to expand...

I agree that claiming that the CIA is supplying ISIS is a flat out lie AFAIK.

Then again, if weapons supplied by the CIA or other Western powers or agencies have found their way readily into the hands of ISIS I think that should cause pause for thought about supplying "good" rebels quite so readily. There were also stories of fighters, trained by the CIA who immediately defected to ISIS taking their knowledge with them. If this is an isolated incident then that's bad luck, if it isn't then the vetting processes need to be improved.

In any case it's an object lesson in the perils of getting involved in a proxy conflict.
 
The Don said:
Correct. But then I'm not sure how else to take it.

He was saying that there were large numbers of people from inner cities who had significantly affected opinion in the Labour Party (as opposed to long standing members who were pro-bombing Syria - not a group I recognise from my two decades in the party but maybe it's changed a lot recently).

During the Corbyn election campaign, the Blairite wing of the party had a number of suggestions about who had recently joined the party (and who would affect the outcome). One was that large numbers of Tories had signed up - I can hardly see them opposing action in Syria.

I know that Corbyn has attracted a lot of youngsters to the Labour Party but I'm not sure that they are over-represented in inner cities. I can imagine that they may be more reticent to support action in Syria.

Like I say, I don't know how to take a comment that Labour Party opinion regarding Syria has been swung by an influx of members from certain parts of inner cities but he did seem to me to be hinting.

Then again I found the whole bunker and Hitler thing to be rather drama queenish (but IMO typical of the Labour Party I knew well - and left) so maybe our elected official was just acting out in a strop that his opinion wasn't supported by the rank and file of the party.
Click to expand...

Not sure yet if we are seeing the reformation of Labour back to an actual opposition or its final days but it appears that the issue is that the politics of the Labour base is at odds with the politics of many of the Blairite MPs who are simply Tories in red ties.

Its remarkable to me just how far to the right a lot of so-called Labour voices are these days. Perhaps when they talk about an influx of members from inner cities they mean people who actually are on the left and the kind of people Labour used to represent.

Looks like Corbyn's days are numbered anyway, whether Labour's are too is the question.
 
The CIA passed arms and ammunition to Syrian opposition from Libya, through Turkey, for train and equip purposes in order to topple Assad, and help Cameron with his regime change policy. Much of that ended up with Isis, somehow or other.

In a way I sympathise with Corbyn. Many Labour MPs are in reality Tory Blairites like Cameron. They are not in touch with all classes. Leadership is needed, and comprehensive vision.

This question of whether bombing alone can win a war, which Corbyn is now facing, is something that has been controversial since before the second world war. RAF propaganda had been intense on this subject for many years before the second world war. They were insistent they could win the war by bombing alone. What was the final result? Right up to the end of the war the German Army was very well equipped in spite of the bombing of the munition factories, and they only gave in because they were defeated by the Allied armies on the battle-field.

I suppose now the Navy thinks Trident and aircraft carriers will win a war, while the poor old Army suffers from disbanded regiments and a lack of kit and equipment and manpower.
 
Henri McPhee said:
The CIA passed arms and ammunition to Syrian opposition......... Much of that ended up with Isis, somehow or other........
Click to expand...

Do you accept that this is very different from the statement "the CIA supplied anti-tank weapons to ISIS"?.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
Do you accept that this is very different from the statement "the CIA supplied anti-tank weapons to ISIS"?.
Click to expand...

There is quite a long discussion on this forum about Isis secretly being trained and equipped in Jordan by the CIA. Isis were not being given toy guns by the CIA. Much of the Isis equipment could have been supplied indirectly. There are all sorts of alarming and hysterical websites on the internet about this matter, like Isis being supplied with anti-aircraft missiles from Ukraine. I don't know whether to believe all that because I don't know. Much of it is secret.

It's like you can believe something but you don't know. What a barrister says is not evidence. You can think you are being bugged but you don't know.

There was an American General called, I think, Wesley Clark who let the cat out of the bag once by saying they were going for regime change first in Iraq, then Libya and Syria and Sudan, and finally Iran. That makes sense to me from what has been going on, with Isis being in the front line against Iran, supported by Israel and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, and Turkey.

I have found one website with a calm presentation about all this:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39603.htm
 
Henri McPhee said:
There is quite a long discussion on this forum about Isis secretly being trained and equipped in Jordan by the CIA. Isis were not being given toy guns by the CIA.........
Click to expand...

I don't think that any of your long post justifies stating categorically that ISIS are being armed by the CIA to shoot down fellow NATO member's planes, as you claimed previously. I'd put your original statement closer to disingenuous than hyperbole, particularly as you haven't cited anything in evidence.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
...SNIP..

Looks like Corbyn's days are numbered anyway, whether Labour's are too is the question.
Click to expand...

Problem for the Labour men in grey suits is that even if they could find a way to have a new election Corbyn would win again if he stood, it is the PLP that is causing the bad press and the "disunity".

What I find very sad is that as far as the mainstream media is concerned the story is "Labour's internal arguments" rather than the question of whether we should start bombing in Syria.
 
Darat said:
.........What I find very sad is that as far as the mainstream media is concerned the story is "Labour's internal arguments" rather than the question of whether we should start bombing in Syria.
Click to expand...

I sort-of agree with this, but Corbyn only has himself to blame with the way he has handled this. He could easily have put the focus on the question of whether or not to bomb in Syria, but by bypassing his Shadow Cabinet he must have known that he would achieve nothing other than make himself even more enemies.
 
Darat said:
Problem for the Labour men in grey suits is that even if they could find a way to have a new election Corbyn would win again if he stood, it is the PLP that is causing the bad press and the "disunity".

What I find very sad is that as far as the mainstream media is concerned the story is "Labour's internal arguments" rather than the question of whether we should start bombing in Syria.
Click to expand...

I don't think Corbyn would stand again if they could find a way of engineering him out. It is the PLP that is causing the problem but when they are against him, pretty much the entire media are against him and large parts of the country are jumping on his every move I think his position is untenable in the medium term.

The PLP are pretty much a disgrace and most of them should really be sitting on the other side of the house. Sadly the establishment has decided that Corbyn is a no-no so he will be dealt with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom