Anyone calling me some kind of equivalent to the EDL is a piece of shit.
My objections to the Corbyn cult have been made.
Originally posted by @Furball
Anyone calling me some kind of equivalent to the EDL is a piece of shit.
No-one is saying that, but you share tactics. The EDL has to go outside the UK to find its worst examples of Islamic extremism., because guess what? There isnât too much of it going on here.
Similarly, and not for the first time, youâve gone off-piste, summarising the comments made on other Internet sites as representative of the whole crazy Corbyn mob.
I will happily concede that your motives and specific means are undoubtedly very different, but tactically, youâre running the same play. You couldnât find the levels of abuse you wanted here, so you widened your parameters to find things conducive to your arguments, just like they did.
Iâve already provided the justification for this argument. It has, and has always been about that specific tactic, and while âwounded posterâ is the ideal casting couch to pluck a âTurd Number Oneâ from âCorbyn cultâ obscurity, itâs sitting on very shaky foundations. There is absolutely no suggestion of racism, bad spelling or descending mob-handed on market towns to protect democracy.
My objections to the Corbyn cult have been made.
And bloody welcome they are too, not just from the point of view of having a healthy thread, but also for often discussing policy during these discussions in some detail. I think the rail franchise negotiations could be quite interesting, given McDonnellâs claims on âno compensation on renationalisationâ. That was great worst-case vs best-case shit on a specific idea.
Speaking of shit, weâll briefly revisit the piece of shit thing. At this point, the broadsides fired at unspecified Corbyn supporters have accreted to such a stage that the insult is garnish next to the accusations of cultism, or best of all, being abusive.
Now I donât really give a monkeys what you call me, or anyone else on this site. We believe in freedom of speech here, even (and perhaps especially) if one of the site runners is getting called names. The flipside of that is that everyone has got those free speech powers too. Iâm going to waive my eye for an eye ticket, and simply suggest that if one of your key aims is to expose Corbynites as abusive, argument might be a better avenue of attack than yer know, abuse.
Just a suggestion though. Sir must do as he must.
I watched that too. He did very well, imo. Came across as intelligent, compassionate and was putting stuff on the table that hadnât been discussed for a while, including some subjects that could cause a divide between Corbyn and the public. Marr is pretty good too; probing, yet cordial.
I think youâve actually made quite a pertinent point here, Corbyn is the left equivalent of Farage. Man of the people with extreme left/right views, trying to appeal to the masses but mainly appealing to the extremes of either party.
Looking forward to McDonnell tell us how he will cut the deficit without cutting spending and will spread the proceeds of growth more evenly without increasing taxation.
Spoiler; Keynes did it. Good speech though. Names and shames big corporate tax avoiders, and says he is going to go after them. Commits to running a balanced budget.
1 Like
One thing I found quite refreshing was that with Corbyn speech at the TUC - no one new about the content until he delivered it. Now it looks like the spin doctors have got in on the act and are pre briefing the press again. Shame really.
Anyone watching/listening to Corbynâs conference speech? I know itâs conference and a âsoft crowdâ (in theory), but heâs been quite impressive Iâd say. Making the right noises at least. Though if he coudnât do that here, heâd probably be in big trouble.
What are your thoughts on Corbyn in the main and how you think heâll do in charge of Labour? From previous interactions I would assume youâre pretty happy with him as a lot of your ideologies fit with his, but do you think he can bring change with him?
(Sorry if youâve already said on this thread, but it is very long!!)
It is long, and I donât think I have really.
Iâve been reserving judgement to be honest. Iâm not a labour member or supporter, so didnât have a huge stake in the leadership election, other than I enjoy watching these things (itâs my soap opera I guess - yes I am sad).
Itâs probably fair to say that his views and mine do align on certain things. Of the candidates that stood, he probably would be the one Iâd choose (if I had a vote).
I guess itâs early days so far to assess how exactly he will do as Leader of the Opposition. For me, he makes the right noises. I think unlike Miliband, he offers an actual alternative to Tory policy. I guess that could go one of two ways, and weâll have to see exactly how that lands. I personally feel there has been a growing sense amongst an ever increasing number of people that society is broken. Too much power, and wealth is concentrated in the hands of too few. Itâs probably fair to say that has been the case for a long while, but that chasm seems to be growing at an alarming rate. Maybe itâs because of the age Iâm coming to and the people around me are changing (quite possible, but I think thereâs people of all ages in my life that mimic this) and becoming more aware and engaged with these things. But I also feel this is represented in society on a wider level.
I think there is evidence of this in increasing amounts of people voting for parties like the SNP, The Greens, and yeah UKIP too. Heâll have a tough task clawing all of those people back, especially on certain issues that will probably clash with his own convictions. I think EU and immigration could be particularly troublesome (surprised he barely made any mention of these, to be honest). I think plans on transport & housing could prove more popular.
Iâd like to see him bring change. Particualrly on challenging the status quo, and just accepting what we have. Imo we should never stop challenging, and asking if things are fair. I have a serious problem with the rickest folk in the country telling everyone else that they should accept their lot, as thatâs the way it is whilst they carry on getting richer.
I want to see how he goes, and how the policy review goes. Itâs early days, but I think it is encouraging. Not really emphatic, just yet though.
3 Likes
Excellent precis. Although my views certainly donât align with Corbynâs, I am fully behind there being a more credible left wing choice, so that those who believe in that way of governing have an outlet in an established party, instead of a smattering of votes within the Greens etc. I just still worry that it gives the Conservatives the chance to go further right, claw back some of the UKIP vote and still attract the right of the Labour Party. It will be unlikely that this Labour Party will get in, but I would like to see it be close.
1 Like
I think theyâve played everything pretty well so far, from appointing an independent economics panel, to demanding that BoE and other government agencies test the financial plausibility of their policies. By seeking outside help and independent verification, theyâre immediately making their economic policy credible, transparent and testable. Thatâs before they demand that the Conservatives put their ideas through the same scrutiny.
Potential liabilities, like McDonnellâs strong prior statements, have been met head on, and with a continuing sense of acknowledging self-deprecation, while the shadow chancellorâs conference speech was marked by a departure from those qualities.
The big messages coming from both speeches are that weâre going to chase business for the money it should be paying to government, and that weâre going to build more council houses for rent or sale. Thatâs a policy that is going to have universal appeal, as is the tuition fees abolishment.
The traditional avenue of attack would be that these are uncosted pipe dreams, but thatâs surely dead if these policies pass independent tests of scrutiny. If Labour can identify where the money is going to come from, I think they have an excellent chance.
3 Likes
At the risk of fighting the early love-in, it was a speech of great soundbites but no substance. Help the low paid. Help the young find work. Build more council houses. Etc. All very good so far. But, falling into Papâs traditional line, how to pay for this? While at the same time not cutting spending - a.k.a. âwe fight austerityâ. A juggling act that needs a lot more explanation, but as you say, it was a soft crowd so it was the time for headlines and not detail.
Originally posted by @Bucks
At the risk of fighting the early love-in, it was a speech of great soundbites but no substance. Help the low paid. Help the young find work. Build more council houses. Etc. All very good so far. But, falling into Papâs traditional line, how to pay for this? While at the same time not cutting spending - a.k.a. âwe fight austerityâ. A juggling act that needs a lot more explanation, but as you say, it was a soft crowd so it was the time for headlines and not detail.
Didnât really feel that at all. Iâve watched a lot of political speeches over the years, including Milibandâs attempt at hijacking one nation. I think that is the most unspun speech Iâve seen from a party leader for a long time. He talked about issues that people havenât been discussing, completely setting him apart from both the right of his party and the Conservatives.
One of the reasons austerity was allowed to become the accepted consensus is because the leadership of all three parties were telling us that it was essential. Even the Lib Dems, usually reliable as a party of protest, were in lockstep to the ridiculous idea that the general public should cover the losses of big business. No-one was mentioning corporate welfare, or shouting too loudly at firms that make a killing from this country, but pay almost nothing back.
In terms of deviation from those damaging ideas, I think the speech was hugely substantive, near to revolutionary given the very narrow political space weâve all lived in for the past five years. Theyâve made the right moves on the economic front too; set out their priorities, enlisted the help of internationally renowned economists, and say they intend to use government agencies to validate their numbers prior to implementation.
Heâs not out of the woods yet, and I think he would be very wise to consult Burnham on the issue of immigration. I have no expectation that theyâll do anything UKIP-py, but Burnham was floating an interesting idea in his manifesto about seeking additional funding from the EU to cope with the infrastructure demands. Pretty good start though, and I think heâll pick up converts along the way.
1 Like
Every time I hear Corbyn he sounds quite sensible, especially if you ignore the cartoon image the media is trying to create.
That said, voters donât want an ordinary bloke running the country.
Stats suggest that UK residents like Strictly, beer, and Bake Off.
They like Jeremy Kyle, The Sun, and breakfast television - and in the last couple of decades they have favoured millionaire career politicians who are polished by spin and in bed with bankers and Murdoch.
Blair/Cameron? - different parties, but the same sorry template.
Loads of people moan about career politicians, me included, but we are a democracy, and the UK has demonstrated that it favours shit television and rich boys in slick suits running the country.
Blimey. Not often Eamonn Holmes gets accused of being a lightweight. Stick to brekkie TV mate. 
Corbyn said today on Radio 4 that if he got to power he would not use nukes if we ever got to that point. That strikes me a a bit naive. In the great game of international diplomacy it is often not about what you will or will not do, itâs more about what your opponant thinks you might or might not do. Corbyn has just declared to the world that they can discount the nuclear deterrent if he gets into power, even if his party overwhelmingly supports the idea. I think sometimes you can be too frank in your views.