UK Election June 08

[Jericho]

In the end, Corbyn is just a footnote in history, and that is the best one can say for him.

We shall see.

But in the mean time, lets take an empty chair and crush the saboteurs!

[peejaye]

If Corbyn as a decent campaign, he could win? The biggest problem is the Establishment, far right media that is the BBC and Murdoch who will ignore Corbyn at every opportunity, as they always do, and keep kissing Mr's Mays bottom, as they always do.
The BBC's "Daily Politics" & their "Newsnight" shows are appallingly bias!
I think the sooner we have an "opt-out" of the license fee the better!

[broncofan]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/334480...is-questioned/

One might argue against the logical conclusion of this article by attacking the source. Afterall I have no idea what the reputation of the sun is but it wouldn't surprise me if it were a tabloid.

But this article paints the picture of a man who is unable to accept criticism of his leadership and takes any critique as evidence of disloyalty. Corbyn supporters might say Coyle represents the establishment or some force sent to undermine dearest Jeremy and his sacred agenda. Could it be the guy just doesn't think Jeremy is as effective a leader as he might be?

Edit: maybe a better article here. Would love to see that email to Corbyn. https://www.theguardian.com/politics...smear-campaign

[Stavros]

One might argue against the logical conclusion of this article by attacking the source. Afterall I have no idea what the reputation of the sun is but it wouldn't surprise me if it were a tabloid.

But this article paints the picture of a man who is unable to accept criticism of his leadership and takes any critique as evidence of disloyalty. Corbyn supporters might say Coyle represents the establishment or some force sent to undermine dearest Jeremy and his sacred agenda. Could it be the guy just doesn't think Jeremy is as effective a leader as he might be?

The Sun is the tabloid that has been the flagship for the Murdoch empire since the Dirty Digger took it over in 1969 and transformed a dull and lifeless broadsheet into a popular daily written in a language the ordinary man and woman could understand but which, unlike the (pro-Labour) Daily Mirror, its most intense competitor, was right-wing, reflecting Rupert Murdoch's view of the world. The Sun became famous for its 'Page 3 girls' flashing their tits, at one time including a 16 year old which in some states in the US would have landed Murdoch in prison. The Sun plied so relentless an anti-Labour campaign between 1980 and 1987 that when Labour lost the General Election it ran a headline 'It woz the Sun wot won it', and Murdoch has been walking in and out of 10 Downing Street ever since, but lost readers over The Sun's disgraceful smears about Liverpool football fans after the Hillsborough tragedy in 1986. The point being that The Sun does not investigate news stories, but makes them up, and if there has been a major event, instead of querying what the Police or the Government says, it just repeats them.

I think an important point is that the 1960s saw the end of a Christian tradition in the Labour Party, and the growth of a secular, often Marxist/Trotskyist trend. Labour's roots are in the non-established Christian communities of Scotland, Wales and rural England, such as the Devon which produced the Tolpuddle Martyrs, workers who organised a union to protect their craft and wages and in 1834 were arrested, and deported to Australia as criminals. The secular left was always in a minority in the party dominated by Keir Hardie, Ramsay MacDonald and Clement Attlee, but by the 1960s the decline of Empire and the challenges to the UK economy that saw the beginning of the end of coal, steel, shipbuilding and textiles also undermined the solidity of Labour's natural working class constituency. This aspect of Labour is not dissimilar to the decline of the industrial working class as the Democrats natural base in the USA, and both parties have relied on the public servant to fill the gap, while policies that used to be focused on the issues most important to to workers: wages, working conditions, education, housing and health, were sidelined as the party recruited supporters based on rights, as in the rights of minorities, women, LGBT and so on. Blair succeeded because he looked reliable, and because voters were fed up with corruption in the Tory Party, and while Blair overhauled the original socialist ideology of Labour to replace it with a modified version of Thatcherism (much as Clinton was a clone of Reagan), he also scored early successes with the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, and a major boost to spending on education. But as Mark Antony put it, 'The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones', thus Blair is now tainted by Iraq and the slavish caving in to the demands of Saudi Arabia. At least Golf can claim to be protecting his brand and financial interests when kow-towing to the unelected dictators of that horrible kingdom.

It is simple really, Labour lost four elections in a row because Labour offered policies the people did not want, and did not trust the leadership. It won elections when the policies were sound and the leadership looked competent. Theresa May exudes confidence even though her actual record in office, as Home Secretary -an almost impossible job in which to be a success anyway- is mixed if not poor. When Tony Benn, a Christian Socialist died, he took that tradition with him into the graveyard of history, though there must be some Labour people with values left in the party. I have rarely known the Labour Party to be led by a group of people so lacking in intellect and culture, so lacking in inspiration, so out of touch with ordinary voters. This is worse than 1983, and it could be even worse on June 9th.

[broncofan]

they welcomed the creation of Israel on the same terms, seeing it as a positive climax of the anti-fascist struggle and anti-semitism, and viewing Ben-Gurion's Labour Party as their fraternal comrades in the Socialist International, given that in 1948 Israel was considered to be a Socialist country.
But the Arab-Israeli War of 1967 the War and its aftermath, in particular the occupation of the West Bank and the onset of illegal settlement buildings, changed the perspective of the left for whom justice now lay with the Palestinians.

With this viewpoint, one could construct a policy that is coherent. An activist might see the benefit of a boycott tactic to bring pressure to bear on Israel, but a politician is probably in a better position to explain to Netanyahu how he intends to shift Britain's policies and which Israeli policies he sees as unacceptable. The veneration of revolutionary movements regardless of their tactics represents a kind of stunted development. Even the most pro-Israeli person would not think a two state solution could be effectuated without including some Palestinian leadership, whether Fatah or Hamas. How exactly does Corbyn plan to help create a Palestinian state if he is unwilling to talk to any Israeli and even engages in strange efforts to avoid saying the name of the state while talking about it?

Every interview I see with the guy, he seems to look shocked that an interviewer would dare ask him a challenging question. Like the person is breaking some unwritten rule by asking him a tough question. I don't know that it's going to go badly for him, but every time I hear one of his daft supporters complain about traitors within the party, I think it might be for the best. He can take his corduroy jacket and his che guevara hat and complain to his cat about how everyone was out to get him. Yeah, I would prefer him over any Conservative (obviously I don't get a say), and I would not want to go back to the warmongering of Blair but dissent within his party and attention to the priorities of the average person is the only way forward.

[blackchubby38]

For those who are left of center politically, would you prefer a politician who is pragmatic or uncompromising? One dilemma is that we distrust the pragmatic politician bc we fear they might sell out our interests. But then there is the concern that the purist does not have broad enough appeal and will not yield to what is expedient, as all leaders must occasionally do.


One also has to question his judgment somewhat. He is someone who insisted that he spoke with Holocaust deniers and invited both Hamas or Hezbollah to Parliament because he is willing to share a platform with anyone even when they have disagreements on specific issues. When Netanyahu came to Britain he was unwilling to meet with him. Either of these positions is tenable on its own. Don't meet with Netanyahu bc you think his policies are destructive or meet with Hamas bc you think they are necessary for a peace agreement despite their rancid incitement. The two positions put together don't seem consistent to me. I doubt this is the specific reason he has lost support as those on the left seem very defensive (to the point of willful blindness) about this issue. But it might be a symptom of his tone deafness and general inflexibility.

I think if you're far of left center politically, you have to accept a pragmatic politician on the national and state level. You also have to pick your battles. Fight the ones you know you can win and compromise on the other ones where there is some wiggle room.

I consider myself a moderate who leans left and libertarian on social issues. But if you give me the choice between voting for a moderate Republican candidate and a purist Left one, I'm going to vote for the former. I just can't get on board with a lot of what the pure Left stands for. Their stance on Israel is actually one of them.

[Stavros]

With this viewpoint, one could construct a policy that is coherent. An activist might see the benefit of a boycott tactic to bring pressure to bear on Israel, but a politician is probably in a better position to explain to Netanyahu how he intends to shift Britain's policies and which Israeli policies he sees as unacceptable. The veneration of revolutionary movements regardless of their tactics represents a kind of stunted development. Even the most pro-Israeli person would not think a two state solution could be effectuated without including some Palestinian leadership, whether Fatah or Hamas. How exactly does Corbyn plan to help create a Palestinian state if he is unwilling to talk to any Israeli and even engages in strange efforts to avoid saying the name of the state while talking about it?

Every interview I see with the guy, he seems to look shocked that an interviewer would dare ask him a challenging question. Like the person is breaking some unwritten rule by asking him a tough question. I don't know that it's going to go badly for him, but every time I hear one of his daft supporters complain about traitors within the party, I think it might be for the best. He can take his corduroy jacket and his che guevara hat and complain to his cat about how everyone was out to get him. Yeah, I would prefer him over any Conservative (obviously I don't get a say), and I would not want to go back to the warmongering of Blair but dissent within his party and attention to the priorities of the average person is the only way forward.

You raise interesting issues, one of which is the support the Labour left has given to national liberation movements without thinking though the potential consequences. Corbyn's second wife was from Chile, his current wife is from Mexico, and you could say they backed the right horse with the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, but their support for Hugo Chavez could not reconcile their 'international socialism' with his more nationalist version of it if indeed it was socialism, which is debatable. Venezuela has an abundance of conventional and unconventional oil and gas resources, but is an economic basket case, a testament to failure if ever there was one, yet Chavez remains a 'fallen hero' for reasons not clearly explained.

The problem with Israel is that even with the relatively warm relations between Israel and the UK's Labour Party, most of of whose leaders have been members of Labour Friends of Israel, it was a lukewarm relationship until 1977 when Menachem Begin became Prime Minister, whereupon it deteriorated to the point that Israel gave military support to Argentina during the 1982 Falklands War. It is rooted in the experience of the British Mandate and the 'armed struggle' -to the British, terrorism- that was as violent and destructive as the conflict in Northern Ireland and means there is, particularly with Netanyahu a mild contempt for the British who are simply not important and whose views on the conflict with the Palestinians are mostly ignored. For their part, the left around Corbyn and Livingstone tend to view Israel as an outpost of American Imperialism (and the relationship with the US is now worth a staggering $38 Billion a year), and make a point of forming liaisons with Jews in Israel who not only oppose the occupation of the West Bank, but are also opposed to Zionism, claiming it is possible to be anti-Zionist without being anti-Jewish. The extent to which this means they offer support to Palestinians leaves behind critical thinking in favour of 'situationist' politics, given that while there are acceptable and moderate Palestinians whose voices should be heard, they nevertheless offer support to HAMAS because it is part of the 'resistance struggle' where all good comrades should be, even though in policy terms, the kind of Palestinian state HAMAS wants would be intolerant and undemocratic, and they also never mention the fact that Israel sponsored HAMAS when it was formed because it was opposed to Yasir Arafat and his Fateh movement.

Similarly the Boycott movement is adopted without thinking all of it through, not least whether or not it is effective, the tired argument being that it worked in South Africa, which is debatable. Yes, Israel should not be allowed to market products made on the West Bank and label them 'Made in Israel', but the Boycott is a limp weapon, and in real terms, Israel only does deals in peace when the terms are advantageous to it, and right now the backing Israel's government gives to Settler Fanatics and the repudiation of the Oslo process makes a just peace for both sides difficult if not impossible to produce. The conundrum at the heart of this conflict is that Israel is a democratic state with a vibrant and diverse civil society, but in the West Bank it is little more than a brutal, military dictatorship, which is why those Israelis who recall the original purpose of their state are so appalled at what has happened since 1967, and you don't need to be left, right or centre to agree with that.

Finally, I doubt that if and when the UK leaves the EU it will be able to develop a diplomatic role in the world that leads to it being an honest broker in conflict zones; not only did we lose an Empire, we never did find a role, and I see no demand for the British in the near to medium future least of all in the Middle East where it has a long history of intervention that has created more problems than it solved.

[peejaye]

I'm interested to know which Labour MP these Corbyn critics would like to lead the party? All these Corbyn critics seem to want a "Red Tory" Blairite style, pro Establishment character in charge? Then you have nothing different from the far right you have now!
The membership put Corbyn where he is right now, it's pro-Establishment people out there & the media who don't like it!
109.000 people were asked who they would prefer as UK PM yesterday, 63% said Corbyn, sorry I don't know source, it will be on-line somewhere.

[peejaye]

Excellent precise view of "The Sun" newspaper Stavros. Always remember as a child my dear old grandma saying; I won't have it in the house!

[Stavros]

I'm interested to know which Labour MP these Corbyn critics would like to lead the party? All these Corbyn critics seem to want a "Red Tory" Blairite style, pro Establishment character in charge? Then you have nothing different from the far right you have now!
The membership put Corbyn where he is right now, it's pro-Establishment people out there & the media who don't like it!
109.000 people were asked who they would prefer as UK PM yesterday, 63% said Corbyn, sorry I don't know source, it will be on-line somewhere.

The two front runners are Yvette Cooper and Keir Starmer, assuming they are re-elected as MPs!

My longer term bet, if he wants the job, would be London Mayor Sadiq Khan. Prepare yourselves for a Muslim Prime Minister, but not in the next 5 years...

Odd are here-(note Tony Blair is 200/1)
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics...-labour-leader