Corbyn's days (very) numbered?

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Indeed. There is a quote in The Don's last post which suggests that someone made such a silly mistake.

Ignorance is bliss for some I guess.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The Corbynites' shopping list is very long - and getting longer so I see little evidence of managing spend (i.e. not just saying "yes" to everything they support) - It's not clear what the Corbynites' tax plans are but proposing to publish the tax receipts of those who earn more than £1m is an insight into their approach.

The point is that when asked nobody is going to say their position is unmanaged spending and taxes on those who can't afford it. So your description of MikeG's position is empty words.

Luckily the man himself goes in to more detail so we can see that yes in fact cut cut cut is what he supports.

To someone of that mindset anything less is going to be hard left spend spend spend.

 

[dudalb]

What a crazy thing to say. You think that inviting people to this country only to kick them out due to no fault of their own, taking away their jobs and their houses and their entire social existence, is equivalent to having a procedure that controls the flow of people who want to come here in the first place?

BTW some kind of path to citizenship for those already here..except for those who have been convicted of a serioius crime...but controlling who can come in is what I advocate for the United States...rather then "ALL IMMIGRANTS AND IMMIGRATATION BAD" crap we are getting from Cheeto Mussolini in the white house.

 

[jimbob]

There are far too many people who… want to luxuriate complacently in moral righteousness in Opposition. But who is going to pay the price for their complacency?

You can take the view that it it better to give up half a loaf if you cannot get the whole loaf, but the point is that it is not we who are giving up the half loaf. In Britain it is the unemployed and old aged pensioners, and outside Britain there are millions of people in Asia and Africa who desperately need a Labour Government in this country to help them. If you take the view that it is all right to stay in Opposition so long as your Socialist heart is pure, you will be ‘all right, Jack’. You will have your TV set, your motor car and your summer holidays on the Continent and still keep your Socialist soul intact. The people who pay the price for your sense of moral satisfaction are the Africans, millions of them, being slowly forced into racial slavery; the Indians and the Indonesians dying of starvation.

We are not just a debating society. We are not just a Socialist Sunday School. We are a great movement that wants to help real people living on this earth at the present time. We shall never be able to help them unless we get power. We shall never get their power unless we close the gap between our active workers and the average voter in the country.

Dennis Healey in 1959

 

[jimbob]

More importantly, their economic policy is far left. Tax, tax, tax, and spend, spend spend. That never ends well.

It's also difficult to work out what their policies are. I agree that his economic policies are unworkable (but that doesn't matter because they won't even get to affect the debate, let alone be implemented).

I think that the foreign policy is a clearer indication of character and aims.


Supporting Chavez might have been understandable at the start, but not for several years.

Supporting Serbia in the 1990s and early 2000's was pretty unpleasant. It shows that he is not interested in human rights, just the badge of anti Americanism. Claiming that the Kosovo genocide didn't happen is also fairly dangerous.

Ditto for Syria, where he hasn't exactly criticised Assad's chemical attacks, or Russian bombing.

He hardly rushes to distance himself from fellow travellers who are holocaust deniers. (Why that is hard left, I'm not entirely sure, but it's fairly common in the far left).

His has a rather interesting approach to 9/11

In the 2003 article for The Morning Star newspaper, Mr Corbyn wrote: “Historians will study with interest the news manipulation of the past 18 months.
“After September 11, the claims that bin Laden and al-Qaida had committed the atrocity were quickly and loudly made.
“This was turned into an attack on the Taliban and then, subtly, into regime change in Afghanistan.”

Wanting to have joint sovereignty over the Falklands is hardly a priority for the UK electorate (it's a surefire vote loser in most people). It is pretty wrongheaded because the inhabitants *really* don't want that.


To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with your view on his economic policy, and if he ever did get to power, they would have the most day-to-day impacts. However I think his 9/11 denial and support for dictators, including genicidal ones is what is potentially more severe.

 

[MikeG]

Wow. I didn't realise he was a 9/11 denier.

 

[Noztradamus]

The Guardian reports an exodus of Labour party members, with 26,000 leaving since mid 2016.

Probably only makes Corbyn's position as leader more secure.

 

[dudalb]

Wow. I didn't realise he was a 9/11 denier.

He is a "semi denier" don't out and out deny who was responsible for 9/11,but use weasel words like "Manipulate" to imply the "Official Version" is a lie.
I also have to laugh about his calling the US overthrow of the Taliaban "subtle". It was anything but.

 

[The Don]

Probably only makes Corbyn's position as leader more secure.

Depends on whether these are long-standing moderate members who have left the party (or been driven out, depending on your appetite for hyperbole) or the new members who are drifting away, distracted by a new shiny thing.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Depends on whether these are long-standing moderate members who have left the party (or been driven out, depending on your appetite for hyperbole) or the new members who are drifting away, distracted by a new shiny thing.

I had assumed the latter. As I said Corbyn will be gone after the next election if not before. Then perhaps Labour can start discussing its real problems

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Dennis Healey in 1959

While there is a lot to agree with there the whole thing kind of hangs on the assumption that the half the loaf you give up isn't the half that contains all the good stuff that helps the people you want to help.

If you adopt a policy of helping racial slavery in Africa to get into power it doesn't really help anyone.

Worse still as Labour are now finding out it doesn't actually help get you elected either. Abandoning your principles to be popular isn't really attractive.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

He is a "semi denier" don't out and out deny who was responsible for 9/11,but use weasel words like "Manipulate" to imply the "Official Version" is a lie.
I also have to laugh about his calling the US overthrow of the Taliaban "subtle". It was anything but.

From the article the quote provided suggests his quibble is that the attacks were used as justification for invasion of Afghanistan rather than say Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Which has a kernel of a point.

It would take a special kind of mentality to paint that particular quote as 9/11 denial.

 

[jimbob]

While there is a lot to agree with there the whole thing kind of hangs on the assumption that the half the loaf you give up isn't the half that contains all the good stuff that helps the people you want to help.

If you adopt a policy of helping racial slavery in Africa to get into power it doesn't really help anyone.

Worse still as Labour are now finding out it doesn't actually help get you elected either. Abandoning your principles to be popular isn't really attractive.

I'd argue that the moderate Labour wing wasn't going for that.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'd argue that the moderate Labour wing wasn't going for that.

Well they were certainly going in that direction. Not quite as bad as the Tories wasn't really an energising rallying call and when any and all principles seemed to be up for negotiation it was pretty hard to anchor the party around anything meaningful.

In many ways the moderates were anything but. as I say going after the immigrants isn't a moderate left policy. It's staking out the centre right position.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Agreed. But it also doesn't make it a bad thing. It would force us to live within our means, to have public spending under control, and it builds in an incentive to increase the size of the economy. It would force a new consensus on pensions and social care by forcing a collision course with reality.

It's a thought exercise only, because of course there is no way of enforcing such requirements on a government. However, as a guide to where the economic side of my politics lies, it may prove useful to those who want to misconstrue me as hard-left.

Balanced budgeting requirements are fine. Caps on tax levels are not. Any time someone proposes a hard institutional "cap" on anything I get nervous, because they're up to no good. It gives certain people an excuse for otherwise in excusable lack of concern for fellow citizens.

 

[Klimax]

Ignorance is bliss for some I guess.

Goes both ways. Some posters need to be bit more careful with such statements...

 

[Noztradamus]

Depends on whether these are long-standing moderate members who have left the party (or been driven out, depending on your appetite for hyperbole) or the new members who are drifting away, distracted by a new shiny thing.

The article says "resignations". I see those who committed £3 to the cause more likely to wander off, than actively resign.

 

[The Don]

The article says "resignations". I see those who committed £3 to the cause more likely to wander off, than actively resign.

It also says:

More than three-quarters of those to leave the party last year had joined after the 2015 general election, a period that saw membership grow rapidly under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.

So maybe they've used the term "resignation" to include not renewing.

 

[Craig B]

... fellow travellers who are holocaust deniers. (Why that is hard left, I'm not entirely sure, but it's fairly common in the far left).

Could we have examples of this, and evidence that it's "fairly common"?

 

[Camillus]

He hardly rushes to distance himself from fellow travellers who are holocaust deniers. (Why that is hard left, I'm not entirely sure, but it's fairly common in the far left).

I'd like to see some evidence for this. I've been active on the hard (and soft) left for many years and while I've met many a raging **cough**, anti-Zionist, **cough** I've not yet met a real holocaust denier.

Do you mean when the people on the left share platforms with bigots they shouldn't be anywhere near who are holocaust deniers?