Ship of Fools: Labour Purge

Thread: Labour Purge Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029038

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

My twitter feed today is full of people complaining about the purge the Labour Party (UK) seem to be doing to get rid of people who might possibly ever thought something not in line with the current right-wing Labour thought.

Which seems to match with anyone who might possibly vote for Corbyn. And, not surprisingly, a lot of people seem to be rather frustrated with it.

It seems to me that Labour have shot themselves in the foot with a blunderbuss by doing this. Whoever wins this leadership election will have their credibility in tatters. Even if Corbyn wins, this election has been tainted by this activity.

So can they ever recover? Have we seen the last of Labour as a political force? Is this the most utterly stupid thing they have ever done?

This is in Hell because it seems like the ultimate attack on democracy. It seems like the Labour Party no longer believe in a democratic process. Given that the Tories also don't seem to, maybe we should give up with the idea.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Don't worry, I'm sure there'll be a counter-purge once Corbyn wins.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

This is in Hell because it seems like the ultimate attack on democracy. It seems like the Labour Party no longer believe in a democratic process. Given that the Tories also don't seem to, maybe we should give up with the idea.

I'm not quite so sure. It depends on whether you think a political party has an identity aside from that of "the collective opinions of anyone who wants to join it".

At some level, parties have to be able to enforce guidelines for membership - or should parties be able to stage hostile takeovers of other political parties?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Don't worry, I'm sure there'll be a counter-purge once Corbyn wins.

I actually doubt it. There will be an almighty amount of harrumphing, spitting out of dumbies and toys thrown out of prams, and a few on the right of the party may flounce off.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
This is in Hell because it seems like the ultimate attack on democracy. It seems like the Labour Party no longer believe in a democratic process. Given that the Tories also don't seem to, maybe we should give up with the idea.

With front benchers saying that the party will revolt if JC is elected (code for I will revolt but blame it on others) then democracy in the Labour party is already cold, stiff and giving off a putrid smell.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
and a few on the right of the party may flounce off.

...and probably very few outright flounces. You can certainly expect a few MPs on the right to retire to the back benches and bide their time, expecting that the Corbyn party will be a short-lived disaster, and that their turn will come again, but I wouldn't expect many to jump ship completely.

Whether Corbyn is a disaster for the Labour party or not, I suspect we might get to find out.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

This is in Hell because it seems like the ultimate attack on democracy. It seems like the Labour Party no longer believe in a democratic process. Given that the Tories also don't seem to, maybe we should give up with the idea.
I'm not quite so sure. It depends on whether you think a political party has an identity aside from that of "the collective opinions of anyone who wants to join it".

At some level, parties have to be able to enforce guidelines for membership - or should parties be able to stage hostile takeovers of other political parties?

The whole idea of registered supporters was a stupid one to begin with. If you want to support a party, become a member. Ed Miliband should've seen this coming. However, once UKIP and Conservative party members started registering, Labour had no alternative but to start purging.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

It's like they (not just Labour) don't believe it anymore.
We had a raft of worrying comments when the Ukraine thing started. More with the Greece thing.
And now this.

Again there kind of is a point for caution. Losing 50 'certains' for even 80 maybes is probably foolish (either way). You can definitely think that Jeremy would be a disaster for labour/britain and warn against that.
But this isn't that,
this is blackmailing the british public with the threat of creating the situation.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Don't worry, I'm sure there'll be a counter-purge once Corbyn wins.

Maybe there will be

quote:
“I will absolutely use our supporters to push our agenda up to the parliamentary party and get them to follow that,” he said. “We have to encourage the Parliamentary Labour Party to be part of that process and not to stand in the way of democratising the party and empowering the party members. It is going to be an interesting discussion.”

Mr Corbyn’s comments will fuel fears on the right of the party that his election will precipitate a return of the “trigger ballot” fights of the 1980s where those on the left of the party attempted to deselect MPs who disagreed with the party’s left-wing platform.

Privately, some Labour MPs have told The Independent that they fear they will be “purged” under the cover of boundary changes that are likely to mean large numbers of MPs have to seek early reselection ahead of the next election.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-tells-labour-mps-if-you-dont-back-me-the-grassroots-will-rise-up- 10462770.html

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

When it comes from the electorate it's hardly a purge. It's just a case of voting for people who actually agree with their views, rather than people who take their money and their votes and proceed to screw them.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
This is in Hell because it seems like the ultimate attack on democracy. It seems like the Labour Party no longer believe in a democratic process. Given that the Tories also don't seem to, maybe we should give up with the idea.
With front benchers saying that the party will revolt if JC is elected (code for I will revolt but blame it on others) then democracy in the Labour party is already cold, stiff and giving off a putrid smell.

It's long been a problem with and in the Labour Party that people can't keep their precious fucking mouths shut. The Tories don't do it (members leave and that is it) and the dear old Communist Party insists on members following the party line once that has been decided.

If only, if only.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Thatcher purged 'the wets' and it didn't do her any harm.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Did the Conservative Party or major elements within it actively threaten to deselect sitting moderate Tory MPs?

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Don't worry, I'm sure there'll be a counter-purge once Corbyn wins.

When I saw this thread title I thought that's what it was about - there are already plenty of people ridiculing anyone with views anywhere to the right of Mr Corbyn's - my FB is full of such posts. It's like if you don't vote Corbyn you're not proper Labour.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

At the moment, this all sounds exaggerated to me. No doubt various people want to portray the leadership election as a farcical uproar, for their own nefarious purposes.

I suppose the Blairites are in a right old panic, and perhaps are briefing like mad against Corbyn.

The test will come when he is leader. I'm not sure if the right-wing will drift away, or actively campaign against him, or whatever. Into the dustbin of history, more likely. (Har har, must stop quoting Trotsky, if I'm to be allowed into Labour party meetings).

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Did the Conservative Party or major elements within it actively threaten to deselect sitting moderate Tory MPs?

No, they just went ahead and did it anyway.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Did the Conservative Party or major elements within it actively threaten to deselect sitting moderate Tory MPs?
No, they just went ahead and did it anyway.

Any examples? Genuine question.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The example that I always remember is Nigel Nicholson who I think was deselected, because of his strong criticism of Eden's Suez policy. Of course, a long time ago.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think there is something subtly different between the Thatcher purges and this one. thatcher was trying to purge the centre or moderates from the party - it was an attempt to define the Tories as more definitively right-wing.

Whereas Labour seem to be purging the left-wing from their party. Given how well the centrist LibDems have done over the last few decades, this seems obtuse in the extreme. They are alienating those who are their natural supporters.

It seems that Labour have been wanting to be Tory-lite, and purging the more left-wing for a while. First it was Militant, who, I think, were probably not really in line with core Labour ideas (not that this justifies it). Now they seem to be purging people who are in line with core Labour beliefs.

It is almost like the Tories rejecting anyone who supports privatisation and the free market.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Does anyone have any substantive evidence that the left are being purged? I haven't seen any, beyond the anecdotal, e.g. Jeremy Hardy. The BBC are saying that 3000 voting applications have been rejected, but there is no clue as to how many would vote for whom. And it's possible that we will never know.

I see that Burnham is saying that thousands of Tories have paid their £3 in order to vote for Corbyn, again, is this genuine or a guess?

I hope the Blairites are not angling for a cancellation of the whole thing, on the grounds that the vote was suspect. That would really discredit them.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

My feed had a number of people who were themselves being told their votes were rejected. So it is not just second hand suggestions.

Whatever the truth about it, politics is about image and trust, and the image has been badly dented.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Whatever the truth about it, politics is about image and trust, and the image has been badly dented.

Indeed. The party doesn't look competent enough to run an election which isn't great if they're claiming to be competent enough to run the country.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

Personally I thought this new rule allowing just about anyone to vote was ridiculous right from the start and knew it would cause these problems. Previously, to have any voting rights you needed to be a full member for a minimum of three months and not be in arrears. To allow anyone to vote simply by donating three quid right up until the day before the election is asking for trouble.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

When I first read the voting scheme I thought it was a spoof (one gets these on FB) but no, the dear old Labour Party appears to have shot itself in both feet with one bullet.

There's no point complaining about "the meeja" when you make it so damned easy.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Whatever the truth about it, politics is about image and trust, and the image has been badly dented.
Indeed. The party doesn't look competent enough to run an election which isn't great if they're claiming to be competent enough to run the country.

The ballot is being run by electoral reform services, who do this stuff for pretty much everyone.

My impression is that the new voting system is based on an american style primary.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

But if Yvette Cooper was well in the lead in the polls, and apparently going to win, would there be all this trouble about voting and invalid votes, and so on? Surely it's because Corbyn has exploded their tin pot little world, that people are now saying, oh the voting system was idiotic, and so on.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I see that Burnham is saying that thousands of Tories have paid their £3 in order to vote for Corbyn, again, is this genuine or a guess?

I hope the Blairites are not angling for a cancellation of the whole thing, on the grounds that the vote was suspect. That would really discredit them.

I don't know about thousands, but the Torygraph was running a 'joke' campaign for such a thing, and I have one rabid right-wing friend who has definitely joined in multiple guises just to vote for Corbyn, and claims to have friends who have done so 50+ times. Obviously on the basis that as rabid right-wingers they think Corbyn will utterly destroy the Labour party.

He's not the kind of person to joke about such things, so I would certainly believe that he and anyone he cites has done so.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

'Tories for Corbyn' is definitely a thing and some people I know have registered to vote for him. Whether their numbers run to four figures, though, I'm not sure. I was tempted myself but decided against in the end.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Given that names and addresses will be being checked against the electoral register I doubt anyone registering 50 times is likely to get through the screening process. Plus I'd be surprised if anyone was willing to blow £150+ on it.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

That's just chump change for a toy, isn't it?

I do agree that the idea of a supporter who can vote for just £3 is asking for trouble. I can understand why they did it, but there was always a danger of it being abused.

If they had counted the votes as 1/10 of a vote - still of influence, but much less so - it would have made more sense. More people still having a say, but much harder to influence the results.

The problem is they have fucked up the initial process of identifying who should have a say, and now they are fucking up the election entirely. Making their new leader an ideal target for Cameron to question their legitimacy. All at a time when they need to be presenting a solid and effective opposition.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think that will depend on how well Corbyn deals with Cameron. If he looks/sounds solid, and skewers him on various issues, and Cameron starts going red in the face, and blusters, then people will stop worrying about the voting. On the other hand ...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The problem is they have fucked up the initial process of identifying who should have a say,

It seems we can't win - we got criticised for the trade union block vote so we became more democratic - and we get critised again.

Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :

Beloved daughter has not been allowed to vote. She has voted for the labour party since she was old enough to vote and supports Corbyn.
I wonder if she can get her £3:00 back?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that will depend on how well Corbyn deals with Cameron. If he looks/sounds solid, and skewers him on various issues, and Cameron starts going red in the face, and blusters, then people will stop worrying about the voting. On the other hand ...

It will be interesting to see how a Corbyn leadership affects general political discourse and I think in some respects it might make life much harder for Cameron. Some arguments might be harder to make in the face of a hard-left opposition and Corbyn may prove to be quite a deft debater (I don't think he's exactly known for being a House of Commons performer at the moment). It's by no means certain, but there could be a shift in the way politics is debated. That said, I don't think these things will alter the result of the 2020 election.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It seems we can't win - we got criticised for the trade union block vote so we became more democratic - and we get critised again.

If you wish to run an election on the basis of "anyone who pays three quid gets a vote" then you can, of course, but tacking on some kind of post-hoc "unless we don't like you" doesn't seem quite the thing.

What would be un-democratic about "one member, one vote", where membership requires some evidence of ongoing support of the party - sustained membership for some period, support for the party in an election etc.

IMO, either the latter, or a genuine open primary style election would be democratic. What is alleged to be taking place is a bit of a shambles, really.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
Beloved daughter has not been allowed to vote. She has voted for the labour party since she was old enough to vote and supports Corbyn.

Well, not to worry, eh? Her vote for Corbyn will be supplied by some Tory mole.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It seems we can't win - we got criticised for the trade union block vote so we became more democratic - and we get critised again.
If you wish to run an election on the basis of "anyone who pays three quid gets a vote"

I didn't have to pay anything.

And those who did had to say what affiliations etc. they had and sign a sort of pledge.

Tory leadership elections are done by the 1922 committee - only.

[ 22. August 2015, 16:53: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The problem is they have fucked up the initial process of identifying who should have a say,
It seems we can't win - we got criticised for the trade union block vote so we became more democratic - and we get critised again.

How is rejecting people who might vote for the wrong purpose "more democratic"?

I think, in principle, a wider range of people voting for a party leader is a good thing. For the party to truly represent the wider people who might support them, this is a positive thing.

The problem comes when this is "We want a wider support base, but only of people who agree with us."

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Tory leadership elections are done by the 1922 committee - only.

Erm, not quite. The Parliamentary Conservative Party vote until there are two candidates remaining and those candidates are then put forward to the party membership.

So far, it's worked reasonably well.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
'Tories for Corbyn' is definitely a thing and some people I know have registered to vote for him. Whether their numbers run to four figures, though, I'm not sure. I was tempted myself but decided against in the end.

It would of course be actual fraud, I wonder if they will go ahead and prosecute any of the more high profile people who have done this.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
Beloved daughter has not been allowed to vote. She has voted for the labour party since she was old enough to vote and supports Corbyn.
I wonder if she can get her £3:00 back?

No, but she could appeal. Have they given a reason ?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
'Tories for Corbyn' is definitely a thing and some people I know have registered to vote for him. Whether their numbers run to four figures, though, I'm not sure. I was tempted myself but decided against in the end.
It would of course be actual fraud,

How so?

quote:
I wonder if they will go ahead and prosecute any of the more high profile people who have done this.

The Party could, but it'd presumably be a bit of a Pyrrhic victory? After making a bit of a mess of this election, the whole story would then be set out again in open court (and reported in the media) in detail in 12-18 months time, when people might be beginning to forget about the story.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that will depend on how well Corbyn deals with Cameron. If he looks/sounds solid, and skewers him on various issues, and Cameron starts going red in the face, and blusters, then people will stop worrying about the voting. On the other hand ...
It will be interesting to see how a Corbyn leadership affects general political discourse and I think in some respects it might make life much harder for Cameron. Some arguments might be harder to make in the face of a hard-left opposition and Corbyn may prove to be quite a deft debater (I don't think he's exactly known for being a House of Commons performer at the moment). It's by no means certain, but there could be a shift in the way politics is debated. That said, I don't think these things will alter the result of the 2020 election.

I can't wait to see the contest between Cameron and Corbyn, but I don't really know what to expect. My wife said she thought Cameron would sneer, but I think he won't. If I was him, I would start off respectful to Corbyn, and bide my time.

Surely, this could reinvigorate political life? Of course, Corbyn might be a total flop.

Also, the combination of a Corbyn-led Labour party and the SNP might be interesting.

Well, I feel interested in politics again, after a long period. I can't get excited by Yvette Cooper.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
'Tories for Corbyn' is definitely a thing and some people I know have registered to vote for him. Whether their numbers run to four figures, though, I'm not sure. I was tempted myself but decided against in the end.
It would of course be actual fraud,
How so?

Because you would be obtaining a benefit by deception.

I would also think that politician trying to sabotage an election in another political party is, or ought to be, in violation of the ethics and standards of parliament.

It is not better rthan obtaing a vote via a bribe.

[ 22. August 2015, 22:11: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Doublethink - I think any MPs engaging in this behaviour should be slapped. But I suspect that it is not MPs as such, just party members.

It would depend on the actual wording as to whether they have committed fraud.

It is the problem with the "supporter" category. For a member (I believe all parties have the same), you have to declare that you are not a member of any other party. Supporters, I presume, did not have the same restriction.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Yes they did.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

It's interesting that as recently as 17 May a Labour Party press release announced that Harriet Harman would say:

quote:
Anyone – providing they are on the electoral register, can become a registered supporter, pay £3 to and have a vote to decide our next leader.

"This is the first time a political party in this country has opened up its leadership contest in this way and I think there will be a real appetite for it out there.

It's funny, isn't it, how something that seems like a good idea at the time so quickly turns into something that's going to bring on the Apocalypse.

Except that it looks like the Apocalypse will be bypassing the majority of people who agree with Corbyn's idea to renationalise the railways and utilities. It'll bypass the thousands of people who seem actually to be becoming interested in politics again. It'll even bypass the surprising number of leading economists who think that he might be onto something. In fact the only victims of what's looking like a rather small-scale Apocalypse will be the right-wing Blairites who spent the last few years cosying up to big business and the Murdoch press, while quietly shuffling their inflated earnings offshore.

I can live with an Apocalypse like that.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's funny, isn't it, how something that seems like a good idea at the time so quickly turns into something that's going to bring on the Apocalypse.

Well, I for one didn't think it was a good idea at the time. Right from the outset I thought it was a ridiculous idea.

I've been a fully paid up member for over 20 years. I've devoted a lot of I me and effort into campaigning for the party and I find it a bit insulting that all of a sudden just about anybody can now have a say in how the party is run without even being a full member.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

I think the worst thing about Corbyn is his apparent hostility to the UK and the US and his apparent love of their enemies. His promotion of Sinn Fein/IRA in the middle of their terrorist attacks on Britain, his 'friends' in Hamas and Hezbollah, his support of Argentina's claim to the Falklands. This demonstrates the kind of hatred for his own country you sometimes see on the far left.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I think the worst thing about Corbyn is his apparent hostility to the UK and the US and his apparent love of their enemies. His promotion of Sinn Fein/IRA in the middle of their terrorist attacks on Britain, his 'friends' in Hamas and Hezbollah, his support of Argentina's claim to the Falklands. This demonstrates the kind of hatred for his own country you sometimes see on the far left.

Hardly a hatred of his own country, that's just your words. I doubt he's ever come out and said "I hate my country." Whereas you choose to interpret his activities/statements as such a hatred, rather than the presentation of a different point of view. Look to thyself. There are plenty of people who think that the UK should give the Falklands back to Argentina, get the fuck out of the interfering in Middle East politics which has resulted in the globalisation of the jihadist aspirations of a bunch of poorly-educated crooks and bandits, and actually consider that there is some corner of a foreign land which is forever - well, Ireland actually.

What the Labour Party actually needs is a set of coherent and deliverable policies. Ever since Kinnock, their approach seems to have been: "Please give us a list of what you would like (which is largely free stuff provided at the expense of The State) and we will promise it to you if you vote for us."

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I think the worst thing about Corbyn is his apparent hostility to the UK and the US and his apparent love of their enemies. His promotion of Sinn Fein/IRA in the middle of their terrorist attacks on Britain, his 'friends' in Hamas and Hezbollah, his support of Argentina's claim to the Falklands. This demonstrates the kind of hatred for his own country you sometimes see on the far left.

Yeah, how dare a British national object to British foreign policy. I mean, clearly if you are living within one jurisdiction, you have to enthusiastically support everything it does, right?

Or it could just be that you are a complete idiot.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Surely it's better to bomb other countries, or invade them, rather than talking to them. As the old saying goes, war war is better than jaw jaw. Hang on, one of my interns is telling me that I've got that the wrong way round. Well, you get the drift.

As others have said, the Middle East has benefited from Western interventions, thus pouring petrol on fire, no sorry, water on double oil, oh damn, what is the right one, oil on troubled waters. There we are.

I say, hand Suez back to Britain!

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Jeremy Corbyn's reply to those challenging him for standing on platforms with people otherwise castigated as enemies of Britain was that if we don't talk to people we can't broker peace. He was talking to the IRA long before the Good Friday agreement. And that his conversations did not mean that he agreed with what they were saying or doing. (Any Questions? on Friday 21/ Saturday 22 August)

Whether he should be standing on platforms as an MP is a different question.

He was challenged about his comments on Russian radio where he commented on ISIS and the American actions in Fallujah. He said that all he was "pointing out that there were not clean hands all over the world", not that there was "an equivalence". That "we need to criticise ourselves" as well as ISIL. The question and answers come at 41 minutes into the programme.

Dan Jones, the historian on the platform, thought that Jeremy Corbyn would be a good thing for the Labour Party, whether or not he is electable as leader. Having Corbyn as leader would mean that the Labour Party does have the discussion on policies that are necessary. (Within the first 10 minutes of the programme.)

He came over a lot better than Andy Burnham did the week before.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Right wing smears and misrepresentations of Corbyn seem to be becoming more intense. I can see why the Blairites are worried, as their careers are on the line, but the Tories are now joining in. I thought that they were egging people on to vote Corbyn, or even doing it themselves, but they seem to be turning to attack now.

Apparently, 12 years ago, Corbyn was in a bus queue and the guy behind him had recently been on a holiday to Egypt, and went to a mosque, in other words SCARY ISLAM. Come on, Jez, cough up, it's a fair cop.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I think the problem is that he has somehow escaped the "conditioning"* process necessary for all modern politicians, is still using his own brain to think with, and the process cannot be applied now as everyone would notice the change of behaviour and language.

*Sorry, too much listening to "Journey into Space" with the process used on Mars to ensure that abductees behaved properly, spouting the catchphrase "Orders must be obeyed without question at all times".

[ 24. August 2015, 13:16: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I think this is part of his attraction, he actually talks like a normal person, instead of the glassy-eyed persona which the Blairites adopt, in fact, all politicians.

This must be alarming for the politicians themselves, both Labour and Tory. He's not really one of us.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
... His promotion of Sinn Fein/IRA in the middle of their terrorist attacks on Britain, his 'friends' in Hamas and Hezbollah, his support of Argentina's claim to the Falklands. ...

He's never "promoted" Sinn Fein - he was just talking openly with them at a time when others were talking secretly. And the very worst you can say about his approach to the Middle East, despite some very nasty media coverage, is that he's pro-Palestinian. As for the Falklands/Malvinas, the only reason they're still "British" is because our government wants a convenient staging post for when someone finally breaks one of the Antarctic treaties and starts mining. We won't be the first to do it, but with the Falklands/Malvinas we'll be second or third.

Regarding international conflicts in general, Corbyn's position is "all wars end with a politically negotiated solution, so why not get straight down to the negotiations and miss out the middle bit?" - which seems eminently common-sensical to me.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
...12 years ago, Corbyn was in a bus queue...

...which is something you couldn't say about many of our politicians!

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I think the worst thing about Corbyn is his apparent hostility to the UK and the US and his apparent love of their enemies. His promotion of Sinn Fein/IRA in the middle of their terrorist attacks on Britain, his 'friends' in Hamas and Hezbollah, his support of Argentina's claim to the Falklands. This demonstrates the kind of hatred for his own country you sometimes see on the far left.

Strange how not having the xenophobic hatred of everyone else is turned into hatred for your own country. I think it is more that he is not prepared to demonise others, something that might be a positive.

Not hating others seems like a positive. Yes, it needs to be mitigated against the needs of your own. But the balance is important.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by passer:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
I think the worst thing about Corbyn is his apparent hostility to the UK and the US and his apparent love of their enemies. His promotion of Sinn Fein/IRA in the middle of their terrorist attacks on Britain, his 'friends' in Hamas and Hezbollah, his support of Argentina's claim to the Falklands. This demonstrates the kind of hatred for his own country you sometimes see on the far left.
Hardly a hatred of his own country, that's just your words. I doubt he's ever come out and said "I hate my country." Whereas you choose to interpret his activities/statements as such a hatred, rather than the presentation of a different point of view. Look to thyself. There are plenty of people who think that the UK should give the Falklands back to Argentina, get the fuck out of the interfering in Middle East politics which has resulted in the globalisation of the jihadist aspirations of a bunch of poorly-educated crooks and bandits, and actually consider that there is some corner of a foreign land which is forever - well, Ireland actually.

Firstly Britain can't 'give the Falklands back' to Argentina because they were never part of Argentina.

A quick history lesson on that point. After the United Provinces of Rio de la Plate gained their independence they attempted to use military force at various times to asset their rule over Uruguay, Paraguay, the Pampas, Boliva, the Falklands and Patagonia. They succeeded with the Pampas and Patagonia and part of Paraguay. They failed elsewhere. After their failed attempt to occupy the Falklands the country was renamed Argentina. Argentina frankly has a stronger claim to Uruguay than it does to the Falklands.

Northern Ireland is a part of the UK and the IRA was a criminal organisation devoted to using terrorism to try and rob Britain of part of its own territory against the democratic wishes of the people there. Corbyn was not simply speaking to these people, he's made it perfectly clear then and now that he sympathises with Irish republicanism.

As for calling the neo-fascist anti-Semitic groups Hamas and Hezbollah friends its difficult to see what excuse there is for that.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
... His promotion of Sinn Fein/IRA in the middle of their terrorist attacks on Britain, his 'friends' in Hamas and Hezbollah, his support of Argentina's claim to the Falklands. ...
He's never "promoted" Sinn Fein - he was just talking openly with them at a time when others were talking secretly. And the very worst you can say about his approach to the Middle East, despite some very nasty media coverage, is that he's pro-Palestinian. As for the Falklands/Malvinas, the only reason they're still "British" is because our government wants a convenient staging post for when someone finally breaks one of the Antarctic treaties and starts mining. We won't be the first to do it, but with the Falklands/Malvinas we'll be second or third.

Regarding international conflicts in general, Corbyn's position is "all wars end with a politically negotiated solution, so why not get straight down to the negotiations and miss out the middle bit?" - which seems eminently common-sensical to me.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
...12 years ago, Corbyn was in a bus queue...
...which is something you couldn't say about many of our politicians!

On the Sinn Fein point holding talks with your enemies to negotiate a peace deal is not the same thing as promoting your country's enemies because you don't see them as enemies but as people who have a legitimate point of view that you think is legitimate and want to promote.

As for the Falklands many people on the left seem to support the Argentine claim not because it has any real historical validity but because they don't like the Falkland Islanders who tend to be the kind of good decent patriotic people that hard leftists hate.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
On the Sinn Fein point holding talks with your enemies to negotiate a peace deal is not the same thing as promoting your country's enemies because you don't see them as enemies but as people who have a legitimate point of view that you think is legitimate and want to promote.

As for the Falklands many people on the left seem to support the Argentine claim not because it has any real historical validity but because they don't like the Falkland Islanders who tend to be the kind of good decent patriotic people that hard leftists hate.

You're full of shit. Do fuck off.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Regarding international conflicts in general, Corbyn's position is "all wars end with a politically negotiated solution, so why not get straight down to the negotiations and miss out the middle bit?" - which seems eminently common-sensical to me.

This is not true. Quite a number of wars end not in negotiated settlement but in defeat of one side or the other. The same is true of some terrorist conflicts. For example the Sri Lankan government recently ended its conflict with the Tamil tiger terrorists not by negotiating with them but by defeating them. Likewise when Argentine terrorist 'Che' Guevara set up a terrorist organisation in Bolivia the Bolivian government ended the conflict not through negotiations but by defeating the terrorists.

Now it is one thing to say 'whilst defeating the IRA in this way would be desirable it is also impractical so we have to accept a negotiated settlement.' I think that is a reasonable position to take, although I think the UK government should have taken a harder line. The Corbyn perspective however was to think that such a defeat for the IRA would be not just impractical but actually undesirable and that he sympathised with their views. That I think is where he steps over the bounds of acceptability.

[ 24. August 2015, 18:24: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
[Corbyn's] never "promoted" Sinn Fein - he was just talking openly with them at a time when others were talking secretly.

Out of choice, whereas any secret negotiations were more likely out of necessity. I think Corbyn claims that he was fostering negotiation, though reports of his meetings with Loyalist terrorists to help facilitate such negotiations have curiously gone unrecorded.

He was also given the opportunity to condemn IRA terrorism recently on Northern Irish radio. He was given five chances to unequivocally condemn it and he seemed unable to do so.

quote:
And the very worst you can say about his approach to the Middle East, despite some very nasty media coverage, is that he's pro-Palestinian.

Seriously? I don't see how being in favour of the rights of Palestinians necessarily leads one to calling members of these terrorist groups your 'friends'. I don't think it's wrong to question why he's been sharing platforms with some quite dodgy individuals. (Unless racism and anti-semitism is so endemic in parts of the British Left these days that it's impossible to sit on the stage at a rally without rubbing shoulders with unsavoury characters.)

Generally, I think the fact that the public might share his views on railway nationalisation are nothing compared to some of the people he's been seen with and the things he's said (or not said). This stuff is politically toxic. Probably not to the denizens of SoF but certainly to the public at large. He's going to get crucified at the polls.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
On the Sinn Fein point holding talks with your enemies to negotiate a peace deal is not the same thing as promoting your country's enemies because you don't see them as enemies but as people who have a legitimate point of view that you think is legitimate and want to promote.

As for the Falklands many people on the left seem to support the Argentine claim not because it has any real historical validity but because they don't like the Falkland Islanders who tend to be the kind of good decent patriotic people that hard leftists hate.
You're full of shit. Do fuck off.

Chillax Arethosemyfeet, wipe the froth from your mouth and calm down.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Generally, I think the fact that the public might share his views on railway nationalisation are nothing compared to some of the people he's been seen with and the things he's said (or not said). This stuff is politically toxic. Probably not to the denizens of SoF but certainly to the public at large. He's going to get crucified at the polls.

Unlikely. The lesson of Blair is that, when it comes to voting, most people don't give a shit about foreign policy.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Chillax Arethosemyfeet, wipe the froth from your mouth and calm down.

I didn't realise "chillax" was a word people actually used. I thought it was a satire on the trying-to-sound-cool-but-mostly-come-across-as-tepid vapid morons of which you are such a prime example. And, just for the record, I'm not likely to get excited about anything you do or say you tedious little turd.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
And, just for the record, I'm not likely to get excited about anything you do or say you tedious little turd.

Well calm down then.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Well calm down then.

Did you try to learn put-downs from David Cameron and that was the only one that stuck in your head?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Generally, I think the fact that the public might share his views on railway nationalisation are nothing compared to some of the people he's been seen with and the things he's said (or not said). This stuff is politically toxic. Probably not to the denizens of SoF but certainly to the public at large. He's going to get crucified at the polls.
Unlikely. The lesson of Blair is that, when it comes to voting, most people don't give a shit about foreign policy.

That's certainly true to an extent (Nigel Farage, for example, has said lots of nice things about Putin but voters didn't really seem to notice). But I'm not sure that Ireland constitutes foreign policy (as much as Corbyn would perhaps like it to) and people will have a stronger view on the IRA than, say, Hugo Chavez. Also, since 2005 we've had first-hand experience of things like suicide bombings and we've a better idea of the sort of things that Jeremy's friends get up to.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I doubt his friend comment had more emotional content than Dennis Skinner addressing Tony Blair as my honourable friend.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

History lessons from Bibliophile are like sex education from celibate priests.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The figures I am seeing now are that 50, 000 have been rejected, as not being on the electoral register, and a few thousand as belonging to other parties.

I don't see this as a problem, although I suppose the £3 supporter element invites fraud and jokesters. At the same time, Labour seem caught between wanting people from other parties to vote for them (of course), and rejecting them in this vote.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

Labour's latest cunning plan

Labour are apparently going to phone any new supporters who told a canvasser that they intended to vote for a different party and ask if they are an infiltrator.

Can’t see any problem with that approach
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

"Hello. You have applied to be a supporter of the Labour party, and I am ringing to check that you are not an infiltrator from the ...... Leave Our Trees Alone party. Can you confirm whether you are please.!

"No, I am not an infiltrator."

"OK, that's fine then. Thank you, and welcome to the party."

This farce would be fine if it was a relatively minor party. I mean, if it were the Greens, I would be embarrassed and humiliated, probably put my complaints in writing, and accept that maybe we were not ready for government yet.

But this chaos of indecisive witch-hunting is being done by the second largest parliamentary party. Who should be demonstrating their ability to take leadership and manage the country at the next election. And be providing an effective and meaningful opposition.

And if ever a government needed an opposition, this one does. Not to mention replacing. A possibility that diminishes by the day, not because Corbyn might be leader, but because the party seems intent on demonstrating a lack of Brewery-based piss-up organisations skills.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Isn't there some kind of data protection with this, you are only allowed to collect personally identifiable information for a set purpose and keep it as long as it is needed *for that purpose* ?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Generally, I think the fact that the public might share his views on railway nationalisation are nothing compared to some of the people he's been seen with and the things he's said (or not said). This stuff is politically toxic. Probably not to the denizens of SoF but certainly to the public at large. He's going to get crucified at the polls.
Unlikely. The lesson of Blair is that, when it comes to voting, most people don't give a shit about foreign policy.
That's certainly true to an extent (Nigel Farage, for example, has said lots of nice things about Putin but voters didn't really seem to notice). But I'm not sure that Ireland constitutes foreign policy (as much as Corbyn would perhaps like it to) and people will have a stronger view on the IRA than, say, Hugo Chavez. Also, since 2005 we've had first-hand experience of things like suicide bombings and we've a better idea of the sort of things that Jeremy's friends get up to.

We can add to the list of 'foreign policy stuff that floating voters might sit up and take notice of' Jeremy Corbyn's description of the death of Osama bin Laden as a 'tragedy' and his comparison of the incident to 9/11 and his belief that we should half give-up the Falklands.

It does make me wonder what juicy stuff the papers might be holding back until after his election.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Again with the lack of context, the man was talking about the descent into the use of torture and assination fueling a cycle of violence that costs tens of thousands of lives. Which is obvious in the video clip.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, the right-wing misrepresentation of Corbyn is quite enjoyable to watch really. Here, the elegant quote-mining of his comments, which opposed assassination to legal process, and called it a tragedy that the US preferred the former.

Of course, Paddy Ashdown made similar comments, but hey, the right-wing are not targeting him at the moment!

I had to laugh when Farron (Lib Dem leader) criticized Corbyn for his comments.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The danger for the anti-Corbyn hate machine is that they've started so quickly out of the blocks that more people have heard the smears than have heard the man they're aimed at. When people actually hear him speak they're likely to question the smears and little will stick to him after that.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I suspect that at the moment, the misrepresentations of Corbyn are counter-productive. People expect the Daily Hate to spread lies, and others to copy them, and in a sense, this may boost Corbyn's status.

What will be interesting will come later, when it comes to PMQs and so on. I doubt if Cameron will resort to such crude smears, and they will be more subtle - but will Corbyn be able to counter them?

It should make for lively politics!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

If Corbyn becomes Labour leader the Tories won't have to use personal smears. They'll just have to point out that he will take more money out of Middle-class pockets so that he can give it to those who don't feel like working for a living, and the election will be in the bag.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Just what percentage of people of people on benfits due you sincerely believe are unemployed, and unemployed by choice ?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

More than zero.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Do you believe there should be a welfare state at all ? If so, what percentage "error rate" do you think would be acceptable in the claim system ?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The danger for the anti-Corbyn hate machine is that they've started so quickly out of the blocks that more people have heard the smears than have heard the man they're aimed at.

They're out of the blocks so quickly because he makes it so easy for them.

quote:
When people actually hear him speak they're likely to question the smears and little will stick to him after that.

Didn't people say this about Ed Miliband? That worked out well.

[ 31. August 2015, 21:14: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If Corbyn becomes Labour leader the Tories won't have to use personal smears. They'll just have to point out that he will take more money out of Middle-class pockets so that he can give it to those who don't feel like working for a living, and the election will be in the bag.

The usual. A Tory win by appealing to base selfishness, although Bliar won that way too.

People ought to realise that tax cuts were easy back in the eighties when the oil revenue came on stream. Oil, and especially gas, production isn't what it was.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, the right-wing misrepresentation of Corbyn is quite enjoyable to watch really. Here, the elegant quote-mining of his comments, which opposed assassination to legal process, and called it a tragedy that the US preferred the former.

Of course, Paddy Ashdown made similar comments, but hey, the right-wing are not targeting him at the moment!

I had to laugh when Farron (Lib Dem leader) criticized Corbyn for his comments.

This.

This latest anti-Corbyn assault reeks of cheap desperation. It's highly likely to be counter-productive. Personally, I hope it is - and I hold no candle for Corbyn's agenda whatsoever. It'll serve the grubby, unprincipled, controlling bastards right if it tilts things everso slightly more in Corbyn's favour.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
More than zero.

The current person I know who they're harassing and threatening to leave destitute because they think he might possibly 'not feel like working' is brain-damaged, has to use a powered wheel-chair because of it, and can't communicate properly by speaking, thanks to the brain damage. But I'm sure he can be put up a chimney or something to make sure you feel that you're getting your money's worth.

Or maybe fed to a bear for a bit of reality television/youtube gold? You know, make the idle bastard give hard-working folk like you some entertainment? How dare he sit around in a chair all day while you're out working!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0