Good luck with that, Pap.
Theyâd have Hitler if he told them heâd borrow to balance the books, but thatâs a bit unrealistic - Hitler was far too good an economist to do that.
(Invoking Godwinâs Law by the way).
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
See comment above re. enjoying the sun, Papster.
I saw that. Thought it was pretty patronising as it goes, given the amount of content the pro-Corbyn lot have put forward since this debate began.
Iâm not that arsed. The pro-Corbyn stuff has been robustly argued, or at least, more robustly argued than a simple dismissal of any opponents as people on an ideological package tour.
Originally posted by @pap
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
See comment above re. enjoying the sun, Papster.
I saw that. Thought it was pretty patronising as it goes, given the amount of content the pro-Corbyn lot have put forward since this debate began.
Iâm not that arsed. The pro-Corbyn stuff has been robustly argued, or at least, more robustly argued than a simple dismissal of any opponents as people on an ideological package tour.
It was pretty patronising! I was being a wind up, sorry 
But also thereâs some truth in it. Some of the excitement over Corbyn (and lack of any critique whatsoever) can only be put down to euphoria of socialist victory. Other than that, Iâm scratching my head trying to understand how anyone can see some of his actions as positive. But I get that feeling, Iâve been there.
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
It was pretty patronising! I was being a wind up, sorry
But also thereâs some truth in it. Some of the excitement over Corbyn (and lack of any critique whatsoever) can only be put down to euphoria of socialist victory. Other than that, Iâm scratching my head trying to understand how anyone can see some of his actions as positive. But I get that feeling, Iâve been there.
Help me out here, Lou. Thatâs like getting an email from one of my customers saying âsystem broken. please fixâ.
Which of Jeremyâs actions have put him beyond the pale for you, or if you donât feel that strongly, negative?
I think his first couple of days have been quirky. Iâm struggling to see a positive spin on the PMQs approach even though it did take the wind out of Cameronâs sails. And I think youâve got to work really hard to find positive in his speeches so far, heâs certainly no orator. And the refusal to sing the anthem, is just an open door to criticism. I fear for whatâs going to happen next. But I can understand why youâre all so excited - itâs what youâve all been craving for a long time.
I donât really care bout any of them things. It donât matter what bros say when theyâre doing that meeting thing with the green chairs, cos we donât watch that kind of thing on TV. We mostly watch football + HBO type shows. It donât matter if his speeches is good, cos we donât listen to speeches, unless weâre captive audience at i.e. wedding reception. It donât matter how good his singing is cos we go out of our way not to listen to politicians singing. If they really want to inflict their beastly warbling on bros, they should go on x-factor like everyone else.
What is important is this bro has got a beard, and that we understand in some vague, nebulous way, that he is on the side of more money for bros like me who donât have much money, and less money for bros like Alan Sugar, who have got too much money. Beardman has got these attributes in spades!
4 Likes
Perhaps Iâm being over-sensitive on language; thatâs normal. I started a thread on Cameronâs use of collective nouns, after all - so take that into consideration when reading what Iâm about to write next. Craving? Really? What are we? Fucking drug addicts? 
âYo, brah, got any Marx?â
âNah, I donât deal with that shit, man. Itâs too heavy. Iâve got some fine socialist principles thoâ. Fresh in from Islington, man.â
âHook me up, man. Iâm fucking jonesing for some needs-based policyâ
Such hilarity out of the way, I happen to agree with much of what heâs done, including not singing the national anthem. I donât think he should in future either, and should instead concentrate on promoting a discussion about how we live in a democracy where people can legitimately hold different views.
I donât think that the PMQs were a zinger, but he has immediately framed the terms of debate. Cameron tried to capitalise on that when he got a bit of jeering from across the house, and briefly took the high ground, only to forget himself ten minutes later to have his comment returned on him tenfold by the SNP. Hard to break old habits, I guess. Cameron didnât answer the question about rent, as ms pap pointed out with a scouse preface of âbollocksâ (I didnât even spot that myself. I am justly proud of her).
I even agree with the appointment of McDonnell, despite the fact that he has _said things _in the past. He is going to have to deal with those things himself - I am sure the media are going to quiz him on his more extreme statements, as Jon Snow did concerning the comments about the IRA. I saw a man prepared to climb down from his own dogma, contextualise the comments, yet still stand by them. Thatâs what other voters are doing as well.
Corbyn is trading on authenticity. Thatâs why it wasnât a mistake for him to forego the national anthem, and it will be a mistake if he does sing it. I donât know if youâve noticed this, and I certainly wouldnât blame you if you havenât, because people genuinely interested in politics are a lot more forgiving of its characters, but the general public loath what politicians have become. They donât trust them, because there is an underlying suspicion that they are only in it for themselves, or people like themselves. This is not an unjustified suspicion.
People have felt trapped, and feeling trapped is one of the worst feelings that anyone can feel. You can vote for any mainstream party you like, as long as you vote for austerity. Scotland had a lefter wing alternative on the go, or at the very least, a party with a track record of investing money in its citizens. They cleaned up in the generals, virtually wiping out everybody else.
What lessons do we take from that? is Scotland a naturally rebellious and ultimately incongruent part of our shaky political union, or could it be that people simply vote for a good deal? Personally, I think the lesson we take is listen to the people that are not being heard. That is all the SNP did, and all they ever needed to do.
Austerity is not popular, millions are not being heard and hate the things theyâre hearing from politicians. Seeing Corbyn in PMQs today was like night and day, compared to either Cameron or Miliband, He may never get the respect of the politically inclined that have already made their minds up, but heâs going to go down a storm with people that are tired of polished turd politicians, tired of austerity and tired of all the other crap heâs proposing to fix. Wait and see.
2 Likes
First major TV interview tonight on Channel 4 news. 10pm.
Not sure if this is the whole thing.
Mhairi Black MP @MhairiBlack
Tories sniggering every time Corbyn mentions a member of the publicâs name. At least they are real people, unlike those the DWP made up.
I thought he did well today. It was a bold gamble to position himself as an outsider representing the people. I reckon it worked, on the whole. He does come across as a slightly baffled and introverted 80âs Sociology professor, suddenly put in the limelight. Which is kind of what he is. He needs to get an effective press team working with him, otherwise heâs toast
2 Likes
Just goes to illustrate the childish nature of Westminster politics - itâs all just an extension into adulthood of the cliquey, elitist upbringings a lot of these politicians have had. 30 Eton boys sitting in a row on the Tory bench sniggering at questions from the public theyâre elected to represent. Yay, politics!
Wouldâve preferred a more robust attack from Corbyn on Cameron from his first PMQs, but heâll have plenty more opportunities to do so in the future. Looked a bit nervy, getting the feelers for the whole thing I think.
1 Like
Originally posted by @pap
Perhaps Iâm being over-sensitive on language; thatâs normal. I started a thread on Cameronâs use of collective nouns, after all - so take that into consideration when reading what Iâm about to write next. Craving? Really? What are we? Fucking drug addicts?
OK, Iâll take back âcravingâ (no offence intended) and replace with âcrying out forâ or plain old âwantingâ. My point was - thereâs not much point debating back and forth on this - itâs too early days to genuinely assess (although I canât help but feel concerned) and the people who support Corbyn are going to be caught up in the euphoria of his win, to really consider any alternative argument on this, or see any problems. Call me patronising, whatever. I know Iâd probably be the same. My observation about the âcrowd sourcing questionsâ was genuine - you think a great idea, because you believe in the man. Not because itâs necessarily a great idea.
Whats undeniable, is that this is and will be interesting to watch. Even though, for those concerned, itâs a bit like tearing your hair out.
I enjoyed reading your perspectives on Corbyn (edited out).
Heavens, those awful right-wing press barons, writing off Crobynâs chances of lasting longer than an Indian summerâŚ
He wonât last long. His enemies will be those on right of the party.
1 Like
It has been a long time since July. Remember that Chuka was unable to stand the heat of a leadership contest the first time around, and that his endorsement, Liz Kendall, got just 4.5% of the vote. Take that to the bank.
Thatâs why he looked so ashen faced as the results were read out on Saturday. The extraordinary mandate that Corbyn received, coupled with the dismal performance of his wing of the party, means that any rebellion plans should be on hold.
I do wonder if anyone considering the plausibility of a coup has considered the effect of previous interventions by high-ranking members of the Labour establishment. Each and every time people have implored Labour membership or its members not to vote Corbyn, Corbynâs support rises.
I am looking forward to McDonnellâs performance on QT tomorrow night. Heâs going to have some questions to answer.
Hereâs an exceptionally well argued piece from Suzanne Moore in the Guardian, which articulates a lot of my sense of the problem with Corbyn and acolytes: their essential conservatism, 70s anachronism, statism, failure to understand how old and new media actually work, etc.
These problems were evident even in his supposed half-success in PMQs yesterday. Cameron was delighted by Corbynâs radio-phoni-in approach not just because it gave him such an easy ride. He was also happy because the subjects Corbyn chose defined Labour as a protest party demanding statist solutions for everything.
Corbyn had, he said, 40,000 responses to his email about questions. That he chose those on the subjects he did - all in one way or another welfare questions requiring statist responses - makes Labourâs interests look narrowed down to a Corbynite protest agenda.Heâs turning Labour into a single-issue party: welfare.
An exceptionally well crafted open letter to Suzanne Moore, noting her near constant opposition to Corbynâs campaign.
http://www.sodiumhaze.org/2015/08/18/an-open-letter-to-suzanne-moore-of-the-guardian/
Over time, sheâs exposed as a bit of hack with many of the same soundbites as (ahem) football forum contributors.
Coincidence? 
Yes, I did notice the cultistsâ characteristically apoplectic responses underneath the article: the âyou canât see what we can seeâ meme which is self-definingly cult-like, âyou old media hacks are all against usâ ad hominem line and the âthe more you hurt us the more weâll growâ evidence-free nonsense.
Precisely none of which undermines the strength of her arguments. The ironic thing is, if Corbynites were willing to listen to some of their critics theyâd improve, but the whole enterprise seems locked firm in a miasma of protest-politics and 70s-anachronism.
Iâm sure it seems that way to you. Most people that read it will see a woman with an agenda, and is using the same kind of smears most anti-Corbyn commentators, yourself included, have chosen to deploy throughout the debate.
Thatâs fair enough; everyone is entitled to their opinion, just as I am entitled to my opinion that this sort of debate lacks any sort of intellectual quality. There is nothing to learn, except for some reason, intelligent people abandon rational debate and go for a stylised version of what youâd see in a playground.