My point is this. I wonder at the sheer, stunning hypocrisy of those who complain about civility when those who are critical of Corbyn are “scum”, “cunts”, “Torylite”, but who at the same time mewl and howl at the nasty media who gang up on their idol, who himself wouldn’t say boo to a goose and is all sweetness and defenceless light.
Among the women subjected to ferocious sexist abuse by Corbynites is Harriet Harman, the architect of one of the most significant pieces of social-justice legislation in recent years, the Equalities Act. Anyone not Corbynite is Blairite, meaning Brown, for example, is too - yet it’s his “Tory-lite” tax credits that Corbynites are now supposedly defending (very badly I might add). Who the hell put all the things in place that the Tories are now dismantling but the “Tory-lite scum”? And finally, the greatest hypocrisy of all, Blair himself is beanth contempt despite the fact that it was he who led Labour to three election victories and led a party that put vast amounts of the social safety net legislation in place. There is no leader in the history of the party who managed what Blair did. This doesn’t absolve him from criticism, especially over Iraq, but to be the subject of unmitigated and generalised vitriol far worse than is directed at the Tories is breathtaking.
Yet while Corbynites abuse and threaten, they are the first to complain at the very slightest non-congratulatory commentary. It’s an extraordinary spectacle to watch, for example, how The Guardian is now so throughly trashed and demonised - subject to a constant barrage of abuse whenever even quite sympathetic pieces appear.
There is an hysteria attached to Corbynism that is deeply, deeply worrying. Populism of any sort is prone to turn nasty. As Corbynites find life unfolding not so very smoothly, the temptation to resort to the spite of the streets is going to grow. The search for scapegoats is already underway.
Weird. There actually hasn’t been that much remarked upon this week on this subject on here, so I’m intrigued by this latest area of concern for you. Let’s break it down. You’re trying to conjure an image of Corbyn supporters as dangerous and hysterical, presumably just a mere uniform fitting away from becoming a stormtrooper in Corbyn’s colours.
Your evidence for this, once again, the comments sections on the Internet sites of major broadsheets. Having visiting them myself, I can certainly concur that there is a great deal of disappointment and a sense of betrayal among Guardian supporters, recognised by the Guardian Media Group itself. Despite all of this, it’s the readers who are the problem, and not the newspaper that fell so short of their expectations. Right.
Now if Corbyn supporters have been abusing or threatening people online, where are the arrests? You can be arrested for either in this country, which while not something I agree with, is a sanction that can be applied if things are as bad as you say. For the most part, the stuff I’ve seen has played the ball. The Danzcuk graphic is a great example of that. Does that fit into your category of threat and abuse?
Ultimately, I guess my intrigue lies in the fact that you’re using this forum as a right to reply to people on other online communities. I don’t think any of the extremes you’re trading on here have been for sale in Sotonians, and given our scope, it’s unlikely you’re going to reach those dangerous folk on the Guardian’s comment forums.
I mean, one could legimitately look at your unsubstantiated claims, history of posting on the subject and legitimately cry “smear”. Except the entire point of your post was to close that avenue off, wasn’t it?
And who on this forum has behaved in the manner you describe? It seems to me that you’ve seen Corbyn supporters jumping on any unfavourable mention, and abusing anyone who speaks less than well of Corbyn. But who’s been doing that on here? More pertinently perhaps, who’s been doing it elsewhere? You’ve mentioned previously that you’ve based your assessment on the comments sections of news web sites, where people can post anonymously and and vitriolically as they wish. Do these people really represent anybody other than themselves? Do they have any actual influence? Surely if they did they wouldn’t need to be posting bile in comments sections. I think we’ll know a great deal more about how things will shape up in a few days time, once the Labour Party conference is done.
You do seem, though, to be doing pretty much the same as those you despise - your posts suggest that anyone who takes issue with your own view must be a fanatical Corbynite nutter, and you respond to them accordingly.
Jeez folks, surely an oppposing viewpoint is a good thing on a forum? I get you don’t like the forcefulness(ish) of Furball’s debating style, but what he’s referencing is out there, whether you’ve seen it or not. And I’ve certainly heard the “Tory-lite” claim plenty of times, and it annoys me to the bone - I just choose to not react to it (whereas you’re choosing to react to Furball).
You may view what Furball is saying as unfair and outlandish, but from my point of view it’s absolutely spot on. The inner tensions of the Labour Party are complex and fascinating, and frankly what the far left have done over the years, is pretty nauseating. He’s a lone voice (apart from me occasionally chipping in) - why not stay open minded and consider the point of view as one of value (whether you ultimately reject it or not). If Furball sounds passionate, then it’s probably because the destruction of the Labour Party is something to get passionate about (again, whether or not you agree the Labour Party is about to self destruct).
For a political debate, this one really isn’t very angry. I’m really quite perplexed by the response to Furball on here.
frbl better watch himself, is all we’re saying. The revolution is coming + we are taking names. We will be chasing torylite scumcunts down whitehall, out knives dripping with centre-left blood! Beard Power!
People respond negatively to negativity shocker. If this is merely the work of a passionate individual, where are the politics? Where are the policies? What is the way forward for the Labour Party?
Apart from a suggestion that Alan Johnson would have been a better leader if he’d bothered to stand, which huge central tenets of the neoliberal system are you both passionate about?
You may see these comments as legitimate debate. Personally, I don’t think that they are too far away from the dehumanisation you’d normally associate with propagandists. Look at them!* Hysterical threateners and abusers. They must all be like that!
It’s pathetic stuff which fails to enumerate either an alternative cause, or any justification for that cause, save some vague call to go look at the nutters on the Guardian’s comments thread.
The overall impression isn’t very flattering, and tactically, isn’t too much different from what the EDL do. Try to find the worst examples of extremism (or don’t, and just say you have), present them as the norm, relying on the ignorance or indifference of others to make it true, normally available in spades.
We’ve got a real shortage of both at Sotonians, so I am entirely unsurprised to see people get frustrated with the approach.
If people elsewhere are calling each other names that’s one thing. My objection to Furball’s debating style (in this particular case) is that he appears to seek to trivialise and belittle those he disagrees with - the term I picked up on specifically was ‘love bunny’. I just don’t think that’s necessary. Has anyone on here called Furball ‘scum’, ‘cunt’ or ‘Tory-lite’? I don’t think so, though I’d have to re-read this entire thread to be certain, and that’s really not going to happen.
My point is that debate and discussion are diminished by name-calling. As I’ve said previously, I take no side in this particular debate; I’m open-minded where Corbyn is concerned, and am happy to wait to see how things pan out. He may prove to be the disaster his detractors are certain that he will be, he may not. And I have no problem whatsoever with opposing viewpoints, but I do sometimes take exception to the way in which they are expressed.
You’re not immune to using incendiary language yourself Pap. What you say above is wrong on so many levels.
But I have a solution.
Why don’t we create a new thread called the ‘Corbyn Appreciation Thread’ where members can discuss the direction of the labour leader, and vent frustrations when the media attacks. Negativity will be unwelcome.
Then let’s rename this thread to ‘Corbyn and new far left direction of Labour Party’ where meaty, provocative, challenging debate is very welcome.
Because if we’re saying political debate is welcome on this forum, but all we have is the former, than that is just a little bit [insert word used in post above 4th para, 2 word in].
I am not above inflammatory language, but it is not my first choice, and at no point have people on the other side of the debate been labelled in the way that those supporting Corbyn have. That said, I won’t be placated with unsubstantiated points that say I’m wrong, without really saying why.
I ask again, where is the policy discussion? Where are the counterpoints? As I’ve recently remarked, I’ve reinvested myself with the true meaning of freedom of speech, so frankly, I am not arsed if Furball wants to debate this way. Others have the right to reply, and I think people have been far more measured in their replies, merely pointing out their problems with the approach.
For now, I’m interested in all the levels on which I am wrong, and why the qualification provided in each case is unacceptable.
I enjoy having somebody with an opposing viewpoint to discuss this kind of thing with Lou, but Furball does seem to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder about this particular issue which makes it difficult to have a reasonable debate. Fowllyd’s post above explains my feelings a lot better.
Well, for one comparing Furball’s debating style to that of the EDL. Low blow. And ironic given the debating style generally of the far left over the years. Do you want me to pull out examples on that? I’d assumed that was a given, but clearly not.
I get where you’re coming from here, Pap. But there’s a big back story to the far left…big back story. To some, that’s a case of enemies pulling out old quotes ‘out of context’ because now these people are in power they’ll adapt. To others it’s more a case of people with nasty views, now being put in a position of power, and feeling pretty scared at the consequences of that. You may not want to hear it and you may not agree with it, but that debate is there to be had.
If you want more from Furball - then grill him. Pick him apart. It’s the repeated offence taken at his debating style (which is quite rambunctious) that is perplexing me.
I don’t want to get drawn into this debate for good reason, Pap. It’s really going nowhere, and it’s a drain on time and energy. But I’m finding it interesting to read, and I wish posters would quit stifling it.
Again, I’m jonesing for some substantiation. I explained exactly why the tactics were similar to that of the EDL, qualifying my point. I understand that it is an unflattering comparison, but said that at the time too.
I’m also amazed that I’m being pulled up for a low blow when your entire input up until this point, last post included, is about not stifling debate.
You can’t have it both ways. If Furball’s unsubstantiated comments about Corbyn’s supporters are fair game, then surely robust responses in reply add to, rather than stifle the debate. How is debate served by allowing the comments to remain uncontested?
To use a footballing analogy, watching Furball take this line is akin to watching Barcelona play hoof ball. You know that a much better contest could be had, and you’re kind of left scratching your head as to why the fuck such obvious talent is being employed in such profligate fashion.
Personally, if I were going to insult Furball, I’d have gone for the “your style isn’t too much different to the Social Workers Party” comparison. Would have provided far more irony, and would have totally wound him up.
I’m trying, and mostly succeeding on the not insulting people front. That was an observation rather than an insult, merely based on the way that both parties seek to marginalise large groups of people by presenting extremism as the norm. In one sense, the EDL do more to justify their position - they’ll at least find a specific example which they can take totally out of context. Here, we’re told that people are saying certain things, but the onus is really on us to go seek, or not as the case may be.
Corbyn was elected with a mandate of 60%, gathering three times the votes of his nearest rival. Since his election, the Labour Party have taken on over 60,000 new members. The man clearly has a huge deal of support within his own party. The old guard he democratically usurped is largely reviled. The policies that he is promoting, while controversial in places, should have broad appeal with much of the electorate.
If he can’t make the case for his ideas, then everything falls apart anyway and I have no problem with that outcome. Tried. Failed. Democratically defeated. That’s the basis of our system, and if he cannot make the case for his ideas in the current climate of austerity, then he has no business being Labour leader, and we’ll have five more years of a Tory government. Corbyn will succeed or fail based on his own conduct in the office, but what cannot be denied is that democratically, he has a strong mandate within his own party.
Attacking his supporters is simply a veiled attack on that mandate. If a mandate is seen to be made up of crazy people, then anything they decide is diminished by default.
Famous economists Thomas Piketty, David Blanchflower and Ann Pettifor are among the names to have joined Labour’s Economic Advisory Committee, the party have today revealed.
The group will be convened by Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell and will report to leader Jeremy Corbyn. They will meet four times a year to discuss ideas to be fed into Labour’s official economic strategy. The committee will be made up of:
· Mariana Mazzucato, Professor, University of Sussex
· Joseph Stiglitz, Professor, Columbia University, recipient of the 2001 Nobel Memorial Prize in economics.
· Thomas Piketty, Professor, Paris School of Economics
· Anastasia Nesvetailova, Professor, City University London
· Danny Blanchflower, Bruce V, Rauner Professor of Economics Dartmouth and Stirling, Ex-member of the MPC
· Ann Pettifor, Director of Policy Research in Macroeconomics (PRIME), and an Honorary Research Fellow at the Political Economy Research Centre of City University
French economist Piketty shot to fame last year when his book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, became an unexpected international bestseller. Pettifor has worked as an adviser to Ken Livingstone and Margaret Beckett, and has published nine book on economic matters, while Blanchflower served on the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee and has written extensively for The Guardian.
Both Piketty and Stiglitz have been quoted in reference to Corbyn’s policies before, both also had a lot to say about Greece.
Famous economists Thomas Piketty, David Blanchflower and Ann Pettifor are among the names to have joined Labour’s Economic Advisory Committee, the party have today revealed.
The group will be convened by Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell and will report to leader Jeremy Corbyn. They will meet four times a year to discuss ideas to be fed into Labour’s official economic strategy. The committee will be made up of:
· Mariana Mazzucato, Professor, University of Sussex
· Joseph Stiglitz, Professor, Columbia University, recipient of the 2001 Nobel Memorial Prize in economics.
· Thomas Piketty, Professor, Paris School of Economics
· Anastasia Nesvetailova, Professor, City University London
· Danny Blanchflower, Bruce V, Rauner Professor of Economics Dartmouth and Stirling, Ex-member of the MPC
· Ann Pettifor, Director of Policy Research in Macroeconomics (PRIME), and an Honorary Research Fellow at the Political Economy Research Centre of City University
French economist Piketty shot to fame last year when his book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, became an unexpected international bestseller. Pettifor has worked as an adviser to Ken Livingstone and Margaret Beckett, and has published nine book on economic matters, while Blanchflower served on the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee and has written extensively for The Guardian.
Both Piketty and Stiglitz have been quoted in reference to Corbyn’s policies before, both also had a lot to say about Greece.
Piketty and Stiglitz sound like graverobbers in a long lost Dickens novel.
