Jeremy Corbyn

I wonder why the JLM don't support JC...Could it be because he has dared to speak out against the actions of the Israeli state? That obviously makes him an anti-Semite as well; True Jambafact....

Hands up everyone who doesn't think that stronger democratic relationships and avoiding the need for war, is better than getting in a war with Russia?

Maybe you could explain to me what Ukraine did wrong? What democratic ties or structures were they missing that would have prevented Russian troops rolling over the border?

Good point ninfan, it was a missed opportunity to go to war with Russia. And it would have been a proper war with tanks and planes and ships and things. With nuclear weapons to add an edge-of-your-seat level of excitement.

Its definitely corbyns - lets just gloss over how many years before the events occurred he came to "power" as the opposition leader as we are not actually being rational- and lefties fault that no one in Nato did this and , and lets be honest here, his and our influence over NATO and the US foreign policy is immense and we really do call the shots

This entire thread was started as a vehicle to bash Jeremy Corbyn.

Loving the paranoia. Were you sent personally to make a stand against all these naysayers? I wonder what other internet forums the vanguard have infiltrated?

Clod, in the spirit of sensible debate, here's some questions for you. Do you believe JC actually wants to be PM? Is this battle Momentum are fighting purely about him or about policy? If the latter, who is there to take up reigns of the left in the event of JC returning to his allotment?

From where I'm standing, he wants nothing of the sort, and never did. This is plain to anyone who takes a vague interest in his career and the events which lead to him becoming leader. Some of us were happy that he offered the opportunity to re-align labour in a more leftwards and democratic direction, which appears to have been successful, although not fully rooted. But now, thanks largely to the incompetent machinations of the PLP, but also the paranoid delusions of Momemtum et al, his leadership has become more about him, rather than the policies. So now the labour party finds itself tearing itself apart over a leader who never wanted the position, who isn't prepared to accept the conditions of the job, and who lets face it, isn't very good at it. This seems like a stupid position to me and anyone else who is capable of actually thinking about it rather than just falling back on dogmatic positions.

the paranoid delusions of Momemtum et al

The press have not been out to get him since day one and do some very unfair reporting - LSE genuine study on this so not paranoid lefty flapping

Whether you support JC or not its ludicrous to call it paranoia and bunker mentality - its lazy name calling/meme building- as there is some pretty ****ing clear evidence of plotting against him - not even jamby would have a bash at denying this evidence

I agree with your general points/broad thrust tbh but its not paranoia is it?

BTW with reference to this :

ninfan - Member

Maybe you could explain to me what Ukraine did wrong?

Maybe you could explain this :

ninfan - Member

the behaviour of the 'West' regards many of the former Russian republics has been deplorable and utterly hypocritical.

I don't care if people want to say that the Russians 'invaded', even when they didn't (they were already there, legally) - they have not gone in dropping bombs on people, they have not gone in there kidnapping people through 'extraordinary rendition', keeping people in jail for years without charge. Its laughable for the US to accuse Russia of propping up a 'puppet' administration in Crimea to do their will, given the corruption we and the rest of the 'west' have turned a blind eye to all over the region, let alone the monsters we created in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By comparison with anything the US have done over recent decades, Russia have been incredibly moderate and restrained - I can stand sure that if it had been US strategic interests that were threatened in the same way, we would have seen outright bloody carnage on the streets!

Russia played the game by 'our' rules, up until the agreement was violently cast aside in 'our' favour, and at this point they cried foul and did it their way - I'm not saying what Russia has done is necessarily good, I'm not saying its necessarily right, but realpolitik is involved, and the hypocrisy being displayed here by the EU and even more so by the US is staggering.

Posted 2 years ago

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/ukraine-crimea-crisis/page/6#post-5863355

What's the problem there Ernie?

How does Russia being nearly as sneaky as the western powers demonstrate that Ukraine could have prevented Russian military action?

How would Jezza's “building up democratic relationships" have prevented it?

Well no, it's not paranoid in the sense that they know everyone is out to get him. I'm talking more about the obsession with Corbyn. It's all become far too personal, to the point where they think this isn't about the politics, but about Corbyn himself. My experience of the left, and to an extent grassroots politics, has always been one of people obsessing about hidden forces, infiltrators, plots, conspiracies etc. Obviously these things exist, but that's the nature of the game and you have to accept it rather than use it as an excuse for your own failure.

Momentum is a great example. To my knowledge it was set up to defend 'Jeremy's leadership' (I cringe every time I hear him referred to with just his first name). Not what it represents, not the wider movement or the people, or the policies, just 'Jeremy'. And anyone who dares question him is now a traitor, rightwing collaborator, hypocrite, or whatever else. If you ask me that has a distinct whiff of paranoia about it, or maybe it's just plain defeatism, which they left continually prove they're very good at.

Edit: Just had a look and the Momentum website offers the following mission statement [i]'Momentum exists to build on the energy and enthusiasm from the Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Leader campaign to increase participatory democracy, solidarity, and grassroots power and help Labour become the transformative governing party of the 21st century'[/i]. Seems to me the second sentence should read 'to keep Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the labour party, no matter what'.

What's the problem there Ernie?

Well I asked you to explain.

So if Corbyn were to say [i]"the behaviour of the 'West' regards many of the former Russian republics has been deplorable and utterly hypocritical"[/i] and [i]"By comparison with anything the US have done over recent decades, Russia have been incredibly moderate and restrained"[/i] would you be supporting him ?

Do you think Corbyn should be saying that the West's behaviour has been deplorable and utterly hypocritical and that Russia has been incredibly moderate and restrained ?

Do you think that's the sort of thing Corbyn should be saying ?

I'm talking more about the obsession with Corbyn. It's all become far too personal, to the point where they think this isn't about the politics, but about Corbyn himself.

That'll be the plotters that you are talking about - it's all a very personal obsession with Corbyn, it isn't about the politics.

In fact they are all backing a rival who claims to be as radical and left-wing as Corbyn.

I think you'll find that Momentum would much rather talk about policies.

Do you think Corbyn should be saying that the West's behaviour has been deplorable and utterly hypocritical and that Russia has been incredibly moderate and restrained ?

But Jezza didn't say that

He said that Russia had been provoked

That'll be the plotters that you are talking about

Yes, those too. I really don't understand the obsession with him on both sides.

But Jezza didn't say that

Yes I get that, which is why I asked you if you thought Corbyn should be saying that "the West's behaviour has been deplorable and utterly hypocritical" and that "Russia has been incredibly moderate and restrained" ?

It's what [i]you[/i] believe. Would it help Corbyn to become the next PM ?

I really don't understand the obsession with him on both sides.

On both sides ? There's more than two sides - or do you think that the Daily Telegraph, for example, hasn't become utterly obsessed with Corbyn?

Everyone is obsessed with Corbyn - this thread has been going on for more than a year so far and now consists of 257 pages.

Why ? Because Corbyn is a breath of fresh air in the otherwise very stale atmosphere of UK politics.

It's what you believe. Would it help Corbyn to become the next PM ?

If you think that what [u][b]I[/b][/u] believe would be an appropriate point of view or belief system for a potential prime minister then you're even more deranged than I thought you were Ernie

In fact I think it's pretty clear that even [b]I[/b] would choose to vote (and have voted for) a prime minister with a belief system that is far more centrist than my own beliefs, because unlike leftie die-hards like yourself, I am prepared to understand that mine isn't the 'one true way'

Why ? Because Corbyn is a breath of fresh air in the otherwise very stale atmosphere of UK politics.

Because Corbyn is a breath of fresh air

First time I've heard it called that.

Why ? Because Corbyn is a breath of fresh air in the otherwise very stale atmosphere of UK politics.

He may be a breath of fresh air, but he also has some pretty glaring shortcomings. Is he really all the left has? I can't believe there not someone more suited to leadership who also has the principles promoted by Corbyn. I'm not counting Owen Smith as one of those BTW.

ninfan - Member

If you think that what I believe would be an appropriate point of view or belief system for a potential prime minister then you're even more deranged than I thought you were Ernie

Of course I'm not so deranged as to think that what you believe is an appropriate point of view or belief system for a potential prime minister.

I'm just trying to make sense of your completely contradictory comments.

Perhaps I'm a little deranged for trying to do that eh ?

He may be a breath of fresh air, but he also has some pretty glaring shortcomings. Is he really all the left has? I can't believe there not someone more suited to leadership who also has the principles promoted by Corbyn.

I'm sorry we were talking about why everyone is obsessed with Corbyn not whether he has some pretty glaring shortcomings.

Can you explain why everyone is obsessed with Corbyn and why there is a 257 page thread on him if he's just an ordinary politician with some pretty glaring shortcomings ?

He may be a breath of fresh air, but he also has some pretty glaring shortcomings. Is he really all the left has? I can't believe there not someone more suited to leadership who also has the principles promoted by Corbyn. I'm not counting Owen Smith as one of those BTW.

He is not a bad leader the PLP just refuses to be lead by him for their reasons.

You could have the greatest manager in the world if the players wont try for him and then ignore him and then brief against him and perform poorly then the team will be harmed

Corbyns real problem is that the PLP have tarnished him as the view will be if he cannot convince them he cannot convince the voters
The PLP should be ashamed of the way it has acted to ignore the party
I dont know if JC would have worked but i do know this outcome of them in open revolt and him getting another landslide - which was inevitable - is the worst possible scenario for the party.
It was all so predictable

I guess whilst neither side wants to compromise - and I dont see one either- then it will be this which is electoral suicide- the lack of unity not the leader

"Loving the paranoia. Were you sent personally to make a stand against all these naysayers? I wonder what other internet forums the vanguard have infiltrated?"

I'm an individual, expressing my own opinions. Paranoia? The only paranoia is from the right, who are genuinely terrified of a left-wing threat to their status quo. Hence the constant, vicious attacks on Corbyn and the Left. Evidenced by the slurs of 'trotskyism', and people waffling on about tractor production and calling people 'comrade' as a term of insult.

Clod, in the spirit of sensible debate, here's some questions for you. Do you believe JC actually wants to be PM? Is this battle Momentum are fighting purely about him or about policy? If the latter, who is there to take up reigns of the left in the event of JC returning to his allotment?"

I think in the absence of anyone better within the PLP, Corbyn has accepted that somebody needs to make a stand against the Blairites, and try to drag Labour back towards the left, where it belongs. Blair and his acolytes totally undermined Labour's effectiveness as an alternative to toryism, and nullified it as a relevant political party. Corbyns appointment (by democratic mandate, let's not forget) has reignited the idea for an effective left-wing party in UK politics, and the need for ordinary people to become engaged with politics. In this, he has been tremendously successful. Maybe he is a 'reluctant' leader, but someone had to take up those reins, and he has done remarkably well, in spite of everything against him.

The deeper issue, is why Labour allowed itself to become a vehicle for careerist opportunism in the way it did. Why it ended up with people like John Mann, Hilary Benn and Chuka Umunna becoming such prominent figures. Finally, it seems the inevitable schism that needs to happen in order for a proper left-wing party to emerge once more, is going to happen. And as I've said, the Blairites are ****ing petrified and will resort to anything in the desperation to hold on to their careers. We've seen just how low they will stoop; Owen Smith basically destroying Angela Eagle's career in order to advance his own career aims. And the desperation of the Labour right, to use a manufactured corporate puppet in their attempt to oust Corbyn.

I stopped voting Labour when it was clear they were no longer a party which represented the ordinary people of the UK, and simply a means for careerist cuckoos to put themselves in the shop window for future lobbyist/consultancy/directorship positions. I stopped voting for them when it was clear they offered no credible alternative to tory policies. I stopped voting for them when it was clear they favoured supporting western military imperialism over Human Rights.

I'm now a Labour supporter once more, because of the election of Jeremy Corbyn as party leader. And I know many others, who had also drifted away, who are once again Labour supporters. The vast majority of us want rid of the Blairite cuckoos, and to get our party back. Maybe Corbyn isn't quite the person to take Labour forward into the future, but he is the person for right now.

"Is he really all the left has? I can't believe there not someone more suited to leadership who also has the principles promoted by Corbyn. I'm not counting Owen Smith as one of those BTW."

The Blairites successfully purged the party of those committed to traditional Labour principles. Now, it's about purging the party of the Blairites. Who else do you think is suitable for the job?

I guess whilst neither side wants to compromise

But that's not true is it, Corbyn has been very willing to compromise, in fact his detractors have used his willingness to comprise as a stick to beat him with.

The use of exaggerated claims like a coup in the place of a simple example of lack of confidence in the boss is an obvious example of paranoia

Why is everyone obsessed with Corbyn? Pretty obvious. We have a political pantomime where most recognisable players exited stage left, opps, stage right some time ago. Apart from a couple of folk playing the long game (ET) most of the other players are unknown, unrecognisable, insignificant and [s]militant[/s] Momentum are focused on old Jezza and its Jezza who can't lead the PLP. Not difficult.

teamhurtmore - Member

The use of exaggerated claims like a coup in the place of a simple example of lack of confidence in the boss is an obvious example of paranoia

So you think that since the media have universally referred to a coup, or attempted coup, this betrays their paranoia ?

And there is nothing "exaggerated" about claiming an attempted political coup - that is precisely what it was.

He is not a bad leader the PLP just refuses to be lead by him

I was going to post something but my mind keeps sliding off this statement like it's some kind of zen mantra, the sound of one hand clapping... Is a leader with no followers a leader? (In parliament, where decisions are made and power resides.)

The media have a constant need to exaggerate events hence the fact that headlines often bare little if any resemblance to the actual article or the facts they are supposed to discussing.

Traitors, scum, coup, - all evidence of "disturbed" minds

But wonderful irony to host the two Labour Party conferences in Liverpool this year. Hard to find a more appropriate place for a re-run of history.

The use of the term coup by the media is an example of exaggeration and evidence of "disturbed" minds? Are you for real?

The Blairites successfully purged the party of those committed to traditional Labour principles. Now, it's about purging the party of the Blairites. Who else do you think is suitable for the job?

I've no idea who else is suitable. There's not much on offer is there? And whilst re-organising the party to be more democratic and less careerist is important, that's pointless if in the process the party destroys itself by obsessing itself with purges and hysterical arguments about entryists, trotskyists, blairites, careerists, traitors, red-torys, etc. As I've said, everyone needs to calm down, on all sides. Whilst a civil war may seem inevitable, it's really doesn't have to be.

"@clod I have to say I am amused with this user id turning up out of the blue 5 months ago and getting stuck in. When I posted the fact that 92% of the JLM supported Smith and just 4% Corbyn and your responce was to try and discredit the whole organisation. Why is that I wonder ?"

What has the length of time I've been a member of this forum got to do with anything?

And in what way have I 'discredited' the JLM? All I did, was show why they would be opposed to Corbyn. You posited the JLM as representing Jewish people in the Labour party, but they are just one organisation, and certainly do not speak for all Jewish people. I know several Jewish people who really cannot stand the JLM, and would be far more vociferous than I, about their true aims. Are they anti-Semitic? Maybe they're 'self-haters'?

As it stands, you've posted a deliberate lie about me, yet still failed to recognise this (although everyone else can see it!), and are persisting with an insidious attempt to label me according to your own particular rhetoric and ideology. And repeatedly failed to answer a single question put to you, about issues that actually are of importance to the discussion of real anti-Semitism.

Why is that, I wonder?

"As I've said, everyone needs to calm down, on all sides. "

Well, they started it! 😆

Just pinched myself and it hurt so yes Ernie I believe that I am for real

But let's rewind a few months

Labour misread the reasons for their GE failure - fair enough, people do that
Jezza include in leadership debate in order to broaden the debate - no players expect or want him to win, himself include
He wins and unsurprisingly proves ill equipped to do the job
Equally unsurprisingly this triggers a vote of no confidence and mass resignations
Jezza dugs in, the cuckoos arrive and the level of absurdity reaches highs not seen for thirty odd years or so
Labour in a pickle as there are no obvious candidates for the job
Err, that's it

No need for the exaggerate claims, the hyperbole, the violence etc

If you want to/believe that you can run the country (poor choice of words) the you do need to be able to see what is happening. It really is not difficult unless....

Just pinched myself and it hurt so yes Ernie I believe that I am for real

So why the need for the hyperbole claiming that using the term coup is evidence of "disturbed" minds ?

Get a grip ffs.

I'd rather not it hurts. Tried that a few minutes ago

How about civil war?? Does that work better? 😉

Does that work better?

I don't know - you are the one with the problem.

Is using the term civil war also evidence of a "disturbed" mind ?

The use of exaggerated claims like a coup in the place of a simple example of lack of confidence in the boss is an obvious example of paranoia

civil war is the less hyperbolic term for coup 😆

Some times I love this place

my mind keeps sliding off this statement like it's some kind of zen mantra, the sound of one hand clapping... Is a leader with no followers a leader?

One of those neither side is covering itself in glory and what we need is some method of uniting the factions
I see nothing likely that will do this but its true that it is unlikely to involve JC as leader- its either that or start deselecting on a massive scale and that is not a solution either
However i remain incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of the PLP, whose number is tiny in comparison to all members, dictating to the party.

It's not about deselection it's about reselection.

Every 5 years the electorate are asked who they would like to represent them in parliament. It is therefore completely reasonable that party members should decide who will represent their party at that election.

If a sitting MP fails in their bid to be reelected it is not claimed that they have been deelected.

Reselected and reelected, not deselected and deelected.

How bout purged? Seems to fit better with the traitorous scum narrative.

true but its also semantics to some degree- god i hate folk who say that so forgive me.

The reality is some of the PLP have been threatened with not being re selected which is essentially de selected
We can label this how we please but i will use the language you have used as it is the more accurate term but both are a little misleading IMHO

using the term coup is evidence of "disturbed" minds

[i][b]coup[/b]
ku?/
noun
1. a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.[/i]

Which part of the democratic vote of no confidence in Jezza involved an illegal or violent (or inherent threat of violence) overthrow?

The term deselection is deliberately used because it has negative connotations.

But the suggestion being made by many is of mandatory reselection. How could you have mandatory deselection ? It makes no sense at all.

Definition of coup in English:
coup
Pronunciation: /ku?/
noun (plural coups /ku?z/)

1 (also coup d'état) A sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government: he was overthrown in an army coup

2An instance of successfully achieving something difficult: it was a major coup to get such a prestigious contract

I haven't heard a single person describe it as an attempted coup d'état.

It was an attempted political coup. Almost everyone accepts that, although there are obvious exceptions such as THM, and now apparently ninfan.

Although that is simply a reflection of their own personal political agendas - I'm sure that under different circumstances they would be both perfectly happy to accept the term 'political coup'.