Exactly! I dunno if it is just hyperbole to say there is no difference, I hope so.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Corbyn's days (very) numbered?
- Thread starter GlennB
- Start date
Exactly! I dunno if it is just hyperbole to say there is no difference, I hope so.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,209
That begs the question that John Smith would have lost the election, I think.
By then Kinnock's removal of Militant had set in and Labour was already more rational and electable than under Foot.
What I am saying is that there is a significant difference between Blair, and by extension other centre left moderates, compared to any given Tory government hypothetical or real.
John Smith does not enter into it. (And Blair did not beat John Smith in a leadership election... he beat Prescott and Beckett). But if Smith hadn't suddenly died, or someone else had won the Labour leadership election in 94 its possible that Labour might have won the election in 97 and have done a better job than Blair did. That does not change the fact that the Blair government was better (imo) than any possible Tory government in 97 would have been.
Last edited:
Yes and John Smith was a more electable leader than Foot or Kinnock (who was someone who genuinely got bad press)
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
And my problem with this is that it's basically saying 'a left-wing government can never happen again so we'll just give in without a fight and try to get a slightly less bad option elected'
It also seems to suggest at its root that the people who do want a left wing government should put their weight behind policies they don't believe in just because they aren't as bad as the worst option. I don't think that's really going to get them energised or excited and it also, to me, just seems fundamentally dishonest.
And that, for me, is the fundamental problem that New Labour now face. Having spent two decades trying to put forward popular policies they've lost any foundation or principle on which to unite and energise the party. It's hard to say exactly what Labour stands for.
If the future is to split into a centre and left part so be it but pretending to be left while actually being centre or even centre-right can only last so long. I think that approach has had its day. It's time for them to decide what they actually want to be.
I think the UK does actually need a left of centre option though so if Labour are not prepared to provide it they should be honest about that. Equally if the party decides that IS what it wants to be then the MPs need to get behind that or find a new party.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
I agree but nor is any one of the other options so what then? And it doesn't follow that because Corbyn isn't a charismatic leader that Labour need to abandon the left.
These two things seem to get conflated in the argument.
Corbyn is centre left. Blair et al were centre right. Blair certainly wasn't "moderate"" He was a hyperviolent extremist.
That would seem to be saying that Corbyn isn't getting genuinely bad press? That flies in the face of the available evidence.
If anything Corbyn, because he looks quite amiable, has got a better press than he deserves.
A lot of Corbyn's bad press is either deserved, or self-inflicted.
If the Government is struggling with dealing with severe floods in Cumbria, only a really inept Opposition leader raises the idea that he'd like joint sovereignty over the Falklands.
People mentioning his support for the IRA before it renounced violence is justified.
People mentioning the personal bullying that has taken place under his watch is justified. Obviously Whips tend to put pressure to keep their MPs in line, but Corbyn has not denounced threats of violence in his name. Seamus Milne, told Jess Phillips that she shouldn't take it personally when a leftwinger said that she could have a blowtorch taken to her neck. Apparently this is a well known phrase meining that she has a brass neck, except nobody I know has ever come across it. My colleague's son, told him that during his work experience, lots of the labour staff mentioned bullying from Corbyn and McDonnell.
It's valid to mention how he has alienated many of his natural supporters. It;s valid to point out how he handicapped his own policies - which is incompetence, not malice.
It is valid to point out how his actions hamstrung the Labour Remain campaign, and it is valid to point out how he has campaigned far more effectively for something that he does want. It is valid to question whether he actually supported Remain at all - given his previous stances on Europe.
It's valid for people to mention his idea that he'd not necessarily respond to a fellow NATO member invoking Article 5. It's valid to point out his one-eyed view of Russian actions in neighbouring countries. It's valid to point out his support of Milosevic and of the Kosovo genocide.
It's valid to point out his connection to Press TV, which is a propaganda arm for a highly repressive regime. It's valid to point out the extreme antisemitism of many people with whom he has shared platforms.
It's valid to point out his liking for the Venezuelan regime, which is following on a similar trajectory to Zimbabwe.
I haven't been able to find the more embarassing articles he has written for the Morning Star, - I've seen it claimd that they have been removed from online, but there is enough to say that his views are not democratic, they are not "centre left", and they are viewed through a prism of West Bad, Russia Good.
His views were wrong in the 1980s and they haven't advanced.
I suspect that you are confusing fair criticism for bad press. The actual research shows he had been subject to bad press.
Compared to Miliband or Kinnock, it is a lot more justified.
Bad press is never justified. Again you seen to be confusing criticism for bad press. They are very different things.
p0lka
Illuminator
Is Corbyn a proven electoral disaster?
I see no evidence of this at all, he seems to be quite good at getting the votes so far.
but whatever, mainstream media likes to create the narrative, just go with it eh'.
Last edited:
No, but neither is he what Labour needs right now, a resounding electoral success.
In the 2016 local elections, Labour overall lost a few council seats and gained control of one council and lost control of another. If these results had come in the middle of a Labour term of government and following historically excellent results previously then they would have been a good set of results. Against a Conservative government implementing "austerity" then IMO they weren't so good.
He's very good at attracting the votes of Labour Party members (both the old-timers and the newly recruited "Momentum" members), it is not yet established whether he can capture the hearts of "Middle England" in quite the same way.
His success at capturing votes has yet to be determined but by any reasonable standard, his performance as leader of the opposition has been pretty poor by any standards. Not only has he not held the government's feet to the fire, he's lost control of his own MPs.
He lost seats in the council elections. Oppositions tend to gain unless they're due a drubbing in the the next general election.
He can't lead the parliamentary party, and has missed many open goals, whilst scoring some utterly unnecessary own goals.
He has left lots of skeletons to be raked up against him.
He keeps company with lots of unsavoury people. Being against Israeli settlements in the West Bank is one thing, repeatedly sharing a platform with someone who literally repeats the blood libel is another. His support for the IRA during its bombing campaign would not be ignored in the run-up to a general election.
Both healthy fruits. 
They all helped the IRA to achieve their goals. As a back-bench opposition MP, Corbyn's statements were called "support" by the right wing media. But the secret negotiations undertaken by Major and Blair weren't reported at the time (because they were secret), and when they were reported they were mostly characterized as "Heroic efforts towards a peace settlement".
They all helped the IRA to achieve their goals. As a back-bench opposition MP, Corbyn's statements were called "support" by the right wing media. But the secret negotiations undertaken by Major and Blair weren't reported at the time (because they were secret), and when they were reported they were mostly characterized as "Heroic efforts towards a peace settlement".
The difference is rather obvious. One supported the anti-democratic terrorist campaign of an organisation also supportedby Gaddafi, whilst the other negotiated an end to that on condition that the IRA renounced violence.