Of course there’s nothing to learn. The purity of the Corbynites must be preserved at all costs. I repeat: if the Corbynites around him actually listen to their critics on the Left, things may well improve. They certainly couldn’t do any more harm than has already been done.
Remember: everyone’s interested in Corbyn and what he represents now, but the fuss will quickly die down. This thread, even, will slip back down the pages, as hard as that might be to imagine. By that time, the die will be cast: Corbyn will have been Milibandised and the briefest moment will have passed for Corbyn to step outside of single-issue protest politics and make a difference.
Of course there’s nothing to learn. The purity of the Corbynites must be preserved at all costs. I repeat: if the Corbynites around him actually listen to their critics on the Left, things may well improve. They certainly couldn’t do any more harm than has already been done.
Nice one, Suzanne.
Corbynism now represents a kind of purity. And, on the left, purity always shades into puritanism, an unbecoming exercise in self-flagellation that is curiously indulgent.
Coming soon on Sotonians - original thoughts. Hopefully.
There does seem to be a feeling of “stone the heretic” for anyone who puts out anything that isn’t positive towards Corbyn. Whether that is a reflection of feeling of persecution by the media or an inability to accept criticism, I don’t know. Hopefully it will all die down a bit, althougn i suspect that JC will provide plenty of ammo to his critics over the coming months.
Well, I can only speak personally - but I’m tired of being patronised and/or jeered at for expressing political support, and as usual, am trying my best to stick to the posts presented. I read the article Furball linked last night; the open letter was in the comments section underneath it.
The Guardian seems to have been a particular disappointment. I read quite a bit of it, and I can’t really remember the participants turning on the paper with quite as much ferocity, and many of these people are the same people that have been posting there for years. I think there’s a sense that Corbyn actually represents the values that Guardian readers look for, and that the paper has fallen short of their expectations by publishing articles that are little more than hit pieces.
The policies are legitimate, sensible and in many cases, in operation in countries that are outperforming us economically. They’ve also got a broad base of appeal across the electorate. If Corbyn, and by extension his supporters, are labelled with this stuff, surely they have a right to reply?
Of course there’s nothing to learn. The purity of the Corbynites must be preserved at all costs. I repeat: if the Corbynites around him actually listen to their critics on the Left, things may well improve. They certainly couldn’t do any more harm than has already been done.
Nice one, Suzanne.
Corbynism now represents a kind of purity. And, on the left, purity always shades into puritanism, an unbecoming exercise in self-flagellation that is curiously indulgent.
Coming soon on Sotonians - original thoughts. Hopefully.
If you’re making some half-arsed ad hominem attack on supposed plagiarism, you really need to try harder. I’ve referenced Moore’s article just a couple of posts above, and made it very clear that I agree with an awful lot of her arguments. We are, however, using the single word “purity” in different senses.
Again, for the umpteenth time, why not engage in the arguments? You talk about “playground” stuff (I have no idea what this is supposed to mean) but fail utterly to respond to criticisms of Corbyn’s disastrous opening days as leader. Why is it such a bad idea, for example, to try to drag Corbyn’s attention above the lowering horizon of protest politics? Why is it such a bad idea to listen to those saying he has to communicate in a much better way, both in terms of thinking about and properly preparing his speeches, and in being concerned with shaping the message to a wider audience?
It’s just hopeless and literally self-defeating to go one with the stock response of: They don’t know what we know, because we’re magic.
Fair play to JC for not singing the National Anthem. It is an outdated dirge. Let’s have something like I Vow To Thee My Country, much more uplifting. Many people dont believe in God now and the “reigning” aspect as she has no power and we havent been serfs for some time. She must be sick to death of it too.
If you’re making some half-arsed ad hominem attack on supposed plagiarism, you really need to try harder. I’ve referenced Moore’s article just a couple of posts above, and made it very clear that I agree with an awful lot of her arguments. We are, however, using the single word “purity” in different senses.
I’m just suggesting that if all we’re going to see here are regurgitated opinions and approaches, we’re better off getting it at source. It’s not just you either. The anti-Corbyn rhetoric is all of a similar ilk. You’re all singing from the same “abuse the opponent and their supporters” game, and all pretending like you’re doing it for our own good.
How fucking patronising. That is all.
Again, for the umpteenth time, why not engage in the arguments? You talk about “playground” stuff (I have no idea what this is supposed to mean) but fail utterly to respond to criticisms of Corbyn’s disastrous opening days as leader. Why is it such a bad idea, for example, to try to drag Corbyn’s attention above the lowering horizon of protest politics? Why is it such a bad idea to listen to those saying he has to communicate in a much better way, both in terms of thinking about and properly preparing his speeches, and in being concerned with shaping the message to a wider audience?
I wrote a huge post last night engaging in the “arguments”. When you read it, you’ll see that I disagree with your assessment of his first few days as disastrous, and your assertion that he isn’t trying to reach out is incorrect. Blairites in the shadow cabinet, actively trying to represent the public’s concerns in Parliament (fancy that!) and handling some very difficult questions with a great deal of dignity.
It’s just hopeless and literally self-defeating to go one with the stock response of: They don’t know what we know, because we’re magic.
No-one is saying that. This thread has covered policy and it is the pro-Corbyn lot that are trying to cover it. I think you’re now getting diminishing returns with this combined strategy of repetitive insult and making up strawmen.
I’m afraid all I see here is someone hermetically sealed from reality. If you think for a second that Corbyn has not suffered from his own bumbling then it is, as I say, self-defeating, because he’ll have soon lost any initiative he had from winning the Labour selectorate contest.
Has it not occurred to you that there are plenty of people in and around the party who could offer the kinds of guidance and help that Corbyn needs to avoid looking like a single-issue protester who can’t deliver an effective message beyond those who fawn on him? And that help is not being asked for or offered so that he’ll twist in the wind?
I respect the right of people to defend their views, although with the Guardian I wonder if it is more a case of the Corbyn supporters feeling reenfranchised and therefore being more vocal with their views. That does not make the criticism of Corbyn any less relevent when it is balanced (Andrew Neil stated on twitter that he was getting abuse for interogating Corbynite MPs - he does that to everyone).
He has had a wobbly start - which I would suggest is down to inexperience in terms of being a front bench politician and being is the media spotlight. He does need to get a grip of this as fast as possible because eventually the negative headlines will become toxic. He will have a big enough job selling his ideas to the wider electorate without scoring own goals.
With regard to his policies will reserve judgement until I see them knitted together into a coherent offering which explains how the various schemes will be funded. This is where his biggest challenge will come - people will like one or more of his policies, however ultimately they will ask how will this be paid for. If he fails to convince the public on this point then he is dead in the water. BTW the TUC did him no favours by playing him in with the tune “Hey Big Spender”.
Never voted Labour in my life but I find the bumbling non media savvy JC a refreshing change from the freshly scrubbed anodyne talking heads we have had to endure since Blair. I want my policitcal parties and politicians to be different. I want a real choice. At last we are moving back to something approaching that. And as much as many people are laughing at JCs “naiviety” many are engaged by it and it is good to see Labour becoming something more than a watered down Tory Party again.
I’m afraid all I see here is someone hermetically sealed from reality. If you think for a second that Corbyn has not suffered from his own bumbling then it is, as I say, self-defeating, because he’ll have soon lost any initiative he had from winning the Labour selectorate contest.
We’ll see. He was never winning the leadership, according to an earlier prediction you made - so you’ll forgive me if I don’t bank this one just yet.
Has it not occurred to you that there are plenty of people in and around the party who could offer the kinds of guidance and help that Corbyn needs to avoid looking like a single-issue protester who can’t deliver an effective message beyond those who fawn on him? And that help is not being asked for or offered so that he’ll twist in the wind?
Again, stop with the strawmen - or explain why, despite being the first candidate to offer a set of policy proposals covering a range of policy areas, and one of only two that bothered, is a single-issue protestor.
Also, He has people with a great deal of experience in the Shadow Cabinet from different parts of the party. Burnham is onboard. Lord Falconer is on his team. What I see is someone that has already reached out to people that don’t agree with him.
Which is precisely what’s happening.
From your perspective, perhaps - but it’s one that requires all your statements to stand substantiated, uncontested and undisputed.
Pap, when you’ve said you think Corbyn can unite the Labour Party and its supporters, all you have to do is read this thread to realise how difficult a task it will be, with so many Labour v Labour arguments going on.
With regard to his policies will reserve judgement until I see them knitted together into a coherent offering which explains how the various schemes will be funded. This is where his biggest challenge will come - people will like one or more of his policies, however ultimately they will ask how will this be paid for. If he fails to convince the public on this point then he is dead in the water. BTW the TUC did him no favours by playing him in with the tune “Hey Big Spender”.
This bit in bold! I like some of his ideas (I won’t call them policies yet) and I like the fact he stickes to his principles but, for me, the biggets problem comes from how they are going to be funded should he get the seat of power!
Most of the Labour Party are behind him. Much of the Parliamentary Labour Party is not. However, that mandate is huge. What does the PLP say to them? Sorry guys, but you’re wrong?
The other candidates may have had a better time with the PLP, but don’t think any of them had a chance in claiming the membership. The numbers back that up. From the Channel 4 news interview this evening, my understanding is that Labour are going to use this conference to democratise policy making, and use next conference to get the policies on the platform.
If Corbyn is true to his word, and decides policy using the wider party, I think that is more potentially unifying than any hedged bets about being a mate to the market, but caring at the same time.
That for me is the problem in a nutshell. Out of his depth & a Rabbit in the Headlights.
In simple terms he just is not the intellectual equivalent of a Tony Benn. He’s a left-over.
His ideas may be great, they may be what the planet needs, but in two days he has managed to split the Labour party but more importantly draw absolute disgust from Middle England AND world - wide. Christ on a Bike, EVERYONE down here (FROM OTHER NATIONS) says that he is a disgrace and an embarrassment. Disrespecting people who gave their lives to make a cheap political point is what Uni Students do.
(And before you go on about the National Anthem being obsolete, did the Great Revolutionary Mandela snub South African history? Can you see Corbyn shaking hands with Robshaw should England win the RWC?)
“Oh yes he will grow into the job” will be the cry.
But he WON’T. His naivety simply now means that he has to have a crash course in Media Management, he now is going to need spin doctors around him. The entire “machine of political blandness” can simply waltz in and carry on.
The issue is not his ideas or the policies he was already a country mile behind and then he went and fvcked it up.
He bumbled into the job and he has left himself open to cronies to now come in and “assist him with his image” - game over back to square one.
Sure, he isn’t as lowQ as say Michael Foot, but that moment, in St Paul’s Cathedral he lost the Nation for New Labour 2.0 by being naive and petty.
Sure, he isn’t as lowQ as say Michael Foot, but that moment, in St Paul’s Cathedral he lost the Nation for New Labour 2.0 by being naive and petty.
Agreed. The irony is that if he is so desperate to help those that he perports to represent then looking a bit smarter and singing the anthem would have taken him one step nearer to achieving his goal. As it is he will simply hand the 2015 election to the Tories on a plate.
That for me is the problem in a nutshell. Out of his depth & a Rabbit in the Headlights.
In simple terms he just is not the intellectual equivalent of a Tony Benn. He’s a left-over.
His positive is he seems a likeable bearded man with well meaning, ‘nice’ principles. This is a handy cover for someone like John McDonnell now placed in a position of high influence.
And given Tony Blair and New Labour approach was such a big influence on Cameron, and brought the Tories to the centre ground, you could argue the Tories are a watered down version of New Labour.
