And yet, call someone who is not relying on anyone else a beggar, and the criticism would likely be met with incredulity or a chuckle.
It only hurts because it’s true, and I suspect most in that situation would applaud the Shadow Chancellor for using plain language that properly highlights their plight, instead of what the Tories did, which was say that the rise of foodbanks was down to “good marketing”.
Had another thought on the dynamic of the Labour Party today, especially the practice of parachuting preferred political candidates into very safe Labour seats. Those seats are going to be full of Corbyn supporters. The sitting MPs are mostly New Labour, and are going to have to answer to people that on some issues that they’ll be fundamentally opposed to. That’s always been true, but what’s new is that with Corbyn in place as leader, they can no longer be ignored or fobbed off.
There are some very good Corbyn pieces around the media.
First up is Ed Vulliamy’s piece in the Observer today, perhaps a sign that the Guardian Media Group knows it has betrayed its readership.
Instead of a stirring leader, which did not have to endorse Corbyn but could celebrate the spirit of the vote along with those who delivered it, we’ve left a lot of good, loyal and decent people who read our newspaper feeling betrayed.
Vulliamy has an interesting past. In 2002, a year before the invasion of Iraq, he discovered that there were no WMD in Iraq in his guise as Observer journalist. He tried to get the story published six times in different forms, but was rejected at every turn. This StopWar article has some background on that, and suggests that the left leaning media may have self-wounded in its pursuit of Corbyn.
The Guardian and the Observer, complicit for so long with the Red Neoliberals led by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, thought they could kill off Corbyn’s campaign by joining in the general media bullying. They thought they could continue to police the boundaries of the political left – of what counts as credible on the left – and place Corbyn firmly outside those borders.
But he won even so – and with an enormous lead over his rivals. In truth, the Guardian’s character assassination of Corbyn, rather than discrediting him, served only to discredit the paper with its own readers.
This bit perhaps explains some of my frustration.
Corbyn is not just threatening to expose the sham of the PLP as an alternative to the Conservatives, but the sham of Britain’s liberal-left media as a real alternative to the press barons. Which is why the Freedlands and Toynbees, who are the keepers of the Guardian flame, of its undeserved reputation as the left’s moral guardian, demonstrated such instant antipathy to his sudden rise to prominence.
They and the paper followed the rightwing media in keeping the focus resolutely on Corbyn rather than recognising the obvious truth: this was about much more than one individual. The sudden outpouring of support for Corbyn reflected both an embrace of his authenticity and principles and a much more general anger at the injustices, inequalities and debasement of public life brought about by neoliberalism. Corbyn captured a mood, one that demands real, not illusory change. He is riding a wave, and to discredit Corbyn is to discredit the wave.
Corbyn is one thing - just a politican in the end, with a dodgy voting record including voting against the Good Friday agreement.
It’s the Corbynites I can’t stand. Every newspaper piece is infected by the insistent, cloying whining of the troglodytes under the articles. How unfair it all is that their cherished leader is spoken of in less than hushed tones!
It seems that Corbyn is not so much a political leader to them, but more of an emotional love-bunny.
I’ve trawled through most of these 40 pages of corbyn v not corbyn (really Pap V Furball). I recently had to agree to disagree with a good friend the other week. Could we just do that here too? There is nothing new here on the “debate”. I also stopped reading comments on articles a long time ago as they annoyed me. You should try it Furball. Helps the stress levels to lower. 
I think if it devolves into "yes it is/no it isn’t, then yeah, agree to disagree; the need to do that is becoming ever more apparent on social media. I retain a significant interest in the comments sections of newspaper articles, although I’d certainly agree that it’s not worth trying to draw too many conclusions from the content, especially when it comes to what lies in people’s heads.
I’m on here so much that I’ve almost inevitably repeated myself, but I have tried to keep the thread co-ordinated with real life events. I find the arguments for and against interesting, even if I remain unconvinced by some of the vaguer claims.
My overall feeling is that the modernism that Corbyn is decried for not having isn’t working for the majority. Neo-liberalism has really been about the transfer of public assets and services into the private sector. Politicians couldn’t sell that nakedly, so we’ve had decades worth of spin wrapping up fundamentally bad ideas into saleable political soundbites. I could bore you for ages with the details, but I think the most pervasive lie has been about taxation, specifically the idea that the tax payer is a better arbiter of where to place his or her funds than the government. The public are told that governments take too much, and that they’ll see more money in their pay packets. Numerically, that may have been true, may still be true. The problem is that while people do receive more take home pay, they’re also paying more for their essential services.
Whatever your feelings on the halcyon days of the Jurassicorbyn age (1945-75), the country managed to get some of its finest ever achievements over the line, including the NHS - during that primordial soup of socially oriented policy. The direction the neo-liberal drift takes us in isn’t really the future. Many of its fundamental tenets, the prioritisation of the market over people, removing workers’ rights and forcing the unemployed to work for free are relics of much earlier times.
On a more meta pap vs Furball thing, I’ve given the matter some thought. I’ve taken the hump a couple of times because I’ve felt that things were travelling down an offensive path which would end up demeaning the debate. I was wrong to do that. A poster’s right to express his or her views trumps other considerations, including people getting upset or not wanting to contribute because there’s a version of WW3 going on 
The flipside of that is that everyone has a right to reply.
I’m not stressed at all, thanks. I enjoy arguing a case, especially when it’s a minority view against a sheeple (TM pap) majority. So I’ll bang on and no doubt piss people off but that’s the essence of political debate. Also not sure why I’m singled out.
Anyway, so why did the Conservatives (majority 16) win by a 35 vote margin on the welfare reform bill last week? (Rhetorical, because I know the answer: Corbynite Labour were an unwhipped shambles). Isn’t this what Corbynite Labour is meant to be fighting, rather than allowing an easy passage?
I enjoying the debate too FWIW. I think good effort from both sides. Impressive stamina.
Originally posted by @Furball
I’m not stressed at all, thanks. I enjoy arguing a case, especially when it’s a minority view against a sheeple (TM pap) majority. So I’ll bang on and no doubt piss people off but that’s the essence of political debate.
You’re wasted here guv’nor, and I would be very surprised if you weren’t also plying your trade in a more challenging forum. We’re pussycats here compared to other places on the 'net. Yes yes, you get a wee bit more scrutiny here, but dropping a four syllable word into a post no longer produces the near universal “fire-from-his-hands” effect it did on SaintsWeb, but I reckon that’s a good thing anyway.
Also not sure why I’m singled out.
Euphemistically, no-one’s arguing as passionately as you are against Corbyn or his supporters.
Anyway, so why did the Conservatives (majority 16) win by a 35 vote margin on the welfare reform bill last week? (Rhetorical, because I know the answer: Corbynite Labour were an unwhipped shambles). Isn’t this what Corbynite Labour is meant to be fighting, rather than allowing an easy passage?
This is an interesting question. Thanks for asking it.
The New Statesman delves into this specific issue, on this specific bill. The whipping situation is the main factor, but it’s not the only factor. An interesting read.
FYI, I only post comments on here (though not as frequently as before), and have given up on SWF now. I write variously elsewhere.
Euphemistically? I’m just pointing out that Corbynites and their love-bunny are wrong, and that they will wreck the party in their lemming-like rush for the cliff - a rush motivated by cultish fervour and amusing incompetence. Perfectly rational position to take.
So they’re reverting to New Labour excuses now? Good grief. This is supposed to be a tooth-and-nail fight! That’s how it was advertised by the Corbynites anyway. They should have shown us the evidence that it this was a declaration of oppositional intent. How pathetic. Still, with the intent gone, that’s just another U-turn to chalk up. How do you feel about not getting your NATO chopped, or your EU opposed, and the easiest of the unworkable “nationalisations” opted for, meaning only one major franchise - the East Coast - will fall into public ownership by 2020?
I notice incidentally that Corbyn’s co fun-bunny, Diane Abbott, had better things to do and was “absent”.
You may be right in one sense. I don’t need so much to oppose as to witness the depressing spectacle of a political implosion the likes of which we’ve not seen since the Liberals at the turn of the last century.
Oh, and how do you feel about Corbyn’s imminent endorsement of Trident renewal? I bet just a few weeks ago that would have been one of the least likely U-turns in the minds of Corbynites. But it’s happening without a whimper, as Corbyn’s cabinet line up on the side of renewing.
With the deliberate indiscipline of a PLP whose individual members are free to express and campaign for their own take on policy issues like Trident NATO, EU, the economy, welfare (Cap? No cap? Who knows what Labour’s position is meant to be - no matter, it’s not important) etc., this is politics as shoulder-shrugging.
Watch out for the next episode of Corbynshambles: the party conference. At the best of times Labour conferences can be unruly. With the usual rules of party discipline abandoned, it’s going to be chaos.
Unbelievable. It would also be entertaining were it not for the fact that the very people Labour are supposedly there to defend are forced to watch this internecine spectacle of incompetence and lack of principle from the distant sidelines.
Originally posted by @Furball
Oh, and how do you feel about Corbyn’s imminent endorsement of Trident renewal? I bet just a few weeks ago that would have been one of the least likely U-turns in the minds of Corbynites. But it’s happening without a whimper, as Corbyn’s cabinet line up on the side of renewing.
Let’s deal with this in the abstract to start with, because similar scenarios are going to pop up throughout his leadership. e.g. policies that are close to Corbyn’s heart, at odds with the perceived wishes of the electorate at large. Trident is a decent example of that, but Corbyn is going to face similar situations throughout his tenure.
His stated plan, to consult the wider membership, is good enough for me. I think it will be a mistake to commit to renewing Trident without doing that.
With the deliberate indiscipline of a PLP whose individual members are free to express and campaign for their own take on policy issues like Trident NATO, EU, the economy, welfare (Cap? No cap? Who knows what Labour’s position is meant to be - no matter, it’s not important) etc., this is politics as shoulder-shrugging.
That’s why going for a democratic mandate for policies is the way to go. Corbyn very much has to play the hand he has been dealt, which includes a number of people on the right of the party. You call it the politics of shoulder shrugging, but what else could Corbyn have done? This is not a problem of his making. Blame the people that decided to parachute ideologically compatible children into safe, left-wing seats.
If anything, it just goes to show how fragile power can be when it fails to heed its base.
Watch out for the next episode of Corbynshambles: the party conference. At the best of times Labour conferences can be unruly. With the usual rules of party discipline abandoned, it’s going to be chaos.
I’m looking forward to it, although I doubt it’s going to reach the nadir of that LU ISIS vote. Again, much respect for sticking your neck out. We don’t have long to wait on this, but we could do with some clarification on what you mean by chaos. I doubt you’re referring to the mathematical concept, and most party conferences are chaotic in the sense that they’re busy.
Unbelievable. It would also be entertaining were it not for the fact that the very people Labour are supposedly there to defend are forced to watch this internecine spectacle of incompetence and lack of principle from the distant sidelines.
The only people inside the Labour Party that are damaging it are those that are briefing against Corbyn, imo. What a complete lack of respect for the democratic process. Support from the membership isn’t the only thing they lack. Barring largely anonymous sniping, they’ve no ideas, no courage in their political convictions. They’re acting like parasites that have just got an eviction notice from the host, claiming that they have a right to dominate the Labour organism, despite being rejected by the body politic of the wider party.
A rigorous and challenging analysis by the philosopher John Gray.
My view regarding his two alternative conclusions is that his second one is the more likely: that Labour will from now on exist as an extraparliamentary protest movement, not as a parliamentary party able to win elections and command the intellect and drive to shape the country.
Could be. Could be.
The New Labour movement has a lot to answer for.
Since Corbyn was elected leader, more people have joined the Labour Party than presently exist in the entire Liberal Democrat party.
The left won in Greece and won again with the same mandate, I don’t agree with much of what he says but I voted for him as he will shake the party to its core, he will have to concede an awful lot on his part as well and I think he’ll will, he is not soft and this is politics.
This is a short speech delivered a couple of weeks ago in Chelmsford.
I don’t agree with him on everything. He’s not interested in electoral reform, which is something I think we need. I can understand his reluctance, because the trade-off concerns swapping representation for a government that is going to be able to deliver its legislation. He needs that power.
I love the way he handles cause and effect. It’s something we haven’t really seen deployed in an honest way for a bit. The Tories are happy enough to play cause and effect when it comes to the deficit, but are less enthused when people suggest that people are dying as a consequence of their policies.
If social media is anything to go by these days, we need his 'splaining skills more than ever.
Originally posted by @pap
I’m looking forward to it, although I doubt it’s going to reach the nadir of that LU ISIS vote. Again, much respect for sticking your neck out. We don’t have long to wait on this, but we could do with some clarification on what you mean by chaos. I doubt you’re referring to the mathematical concept, and most party conferences are chaotic in the sense that they’re busy.
I’m not sure anything could get as low as the ISIS vote! Anyway, my “chaos” prediction for the conference is this. That the conference will do what it’s always done, and “mandate” the hell out of its MPs to do this and that. In the past, this hasn’t mattered much where MPs are of divergent views. But this time, I expect it to unleash a trickle - and possibly a wave - of deselection crises, where sitting MPs are told by local Corbynites that they’re going to be removed, to be followed, of course, by the electorate removing the removers. In short: from too few MPs to fight the Tories to far fewer MPs.
The point is that Corbyn doesn’t give the impression of caring much about dissensions among his shadow cabinet. And the reason he doesn’t care is that he expects conference, not the parliamentary organisation, to whip them back into line. If this were to happen, and members of the shadow cabinet found themselves defeated on everything they’ve nailed their colours to, it doesn’t take much to imagine how this will all end. And remember, only two, maximum, of the shadow cabinet are “Blairite” (the assumption made by the majority of Corbynites I hear whining on every possible forum is that anyone not Corbynite is Blairite, “Tory-lite”, etc. So the MPs taken out will be mainstream, committed Labour Party members.
This is why I think the party is headed for one course and one course only - to exist as an extra-parliamentary protest movement of diminishing influence. Corbyn has neither the interest nor the political skill to steer this in any other direction. Then one of two things happen: the party will collapse in chaos and be reclaimed in some way from the Corbynites (but heaven knows what state the party will be in after this trashing), or there will be a wider realignment of the centre-left. The lattter is already in train, with a new policy centre - a Labour counter-model to Keith Joseph’s brilliantly effective Centre for Policy Studies, which defined the culture of Thatcherism - likely to be announced soon.
But whatever happens, the Tories are safe and smug until 2025 at least - and able to conduct the most vicious rearrangement of British society ever attempted by a single government.
Originally posted by @pap
If social media is anything to go by these days, we need his 'splaining skills more than ever.
By all means, get him away from speaking to his acolytes and addressing his arguments to the wider electorate. I’m really keen to see how all this flies (or not). I suspect people will be less interested in yet more stentorian homilies about the frightful West and more interested in what action is now taken (Corbyn is mealy-mouthed about that).
This is the problem. What’s lost in translation is that Corbynites think that the elevation of Corbyn is some kind of rerun of the general election. I even came across one Corbynite today saying that the shadow cabinet should fall into line “because the people have spoken”. Yes, they have - and just a few weeks ago they elected a Tory majority government for the first time in more than two decades.
Originally posted by @Furball
I’m just pointing out that Corbynites and their love-bunny are wrong, and that they will wreck the party in their lemming-like rush for the cliff - a rush motivated by cultish fervour and amusing incompetence. Perfectly rational position to take.
LOL!