Forum menu
Looks like you've got all your ducks in a row there, THM.
IMO Corbyn's opponents are at their most weakest when they attack him on foreign policy.
Firstly it is widely accepted that former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair was responsible for the worse foreign policy disaster since the Suez Crises.
And today as a direct result of foreign polices pursued by UK governments we have chronic conditions of war, countries without functioning governments, 100s of thousands dead, unprecedented levels of international terrorism, and the highest levels of war refugees since WW2, many arriving daily onto European shores.
And no solution in sight.
Looks like you've got all your ducks in a row there, THM.
Naughty 😉
[quote=ernie_lynch ]IMO Corbyn's opponents are at their most weakest when they attack him on foreign policy.
Corbyn might be wanting to do something different to our recent disasters, but that doesn't mean what he is proposing isn't even worse. I'm certainly not at all sure he has the solution.
The hype around corbyn gets ever more overblown
theres a huge amount of fearmongering from the press (look at woppit's wildly speculative link above), even if he wins and even if he were to become PM, how much foreign, policy, renationalisations etc could he actually dictate, hed still have to get it all past parliament
the more the men in suits in the media and their backers in the city sling mud at him, the more popular he becomes as he seems less like one
at the very least if he were to win the leadership he might help shift the debate to to the left, the way farige has got our politicians responding to the meeja hysteria about 'swarms' of immigrants
Mr Woppit - MemberLooks like you've got all your ducks in a row there, THM
Not really,if the best he can do is racially motivated insults.And there are over 30 to pages to suggest that is the case.
Crikey, get a grip man. Thirty pages of racially motivated insults - really!? And I thought AS was the master of hyperbole. Blimey...
Not really,if the best he can do is ra
Clearly, that joke went over your head. Bit like an aeroplane.
I didn't intend to trip a focus on the "foreign policy" aspect of the article. My point was that this is the first reference I've seen in the "meeja" that attaches the word "dangerous" to Corbyn, in this case from a libertarian/free marketeer with attachments to right wing consultancies and governments/political parties...
As I said, the first indication of a disguised and silky threat.
grum - Member
" I've just deleted a big chunk of this - if we want to get into the specifics of Scottish history, let's start another thread for it. "
ie 'I've made myself look quite foolish and my attempts to justify/backtrack didn't go very well'.
How about - all this stuff is going to totally derail this thread about Corbyn. If you really want to see it, start a thread on Scotland/Independence.
Meanwhile the news that Lord Mandelson tried to negate the leadership election demonstrates what is wrong with Labour.
Why are the Blairite faction so terrified of democracy? Could it be because some of them fear an appointment with the Hague?
If you really want to see it, start a thread on Scotland/Independence.
If only someone had already thought to do that... 😉
Why are the Blairite faction so terrified of democracy?
Because they can see the party they worked hard to build to success (at least as they see it) being destroyed. You may not agree with them(!) but it's not exactly a difficult concept to understand is it and hardly needs a war crimes threat to be a credible way to act upon.
Or failing that, because they'd like comfortable peerages, etc in later life.
Thirty pages of racially motivated insults
Nope, read what I typed again petal. If you don't like being called on referring to Scots as "Sweatys" why do it? I wonder if Alex Salmond,"the master of hyperbole" invents acronyms for politicians he doesn't like? DO,Dear Leader anybody?
With ref to Dragon's post so still on Scotland.
I'm starting to wonder if Corbyn as a temporary leader (2-3 years) might be just the ticket for a longer term rebuild of the Labour party. He will take back votes from the SNP and to some extent Plaid, the Greens and maybe UKIP. So win back the 'core' support, while planning for a new younger more centerist person to take over for 2020
He may take back votes from SNP,BUT...The damage Ed did the brand here in the run up to the GE has left nobody in any doubt as to who calls the tune for the Scottish branch.You also have the perception of the new boss being a slightly less workshy Murphy with breasts.Like Murphy she doesnt focus on any positives,just SNP bad n'kay? Factor in the already mentioned boots on the ground approach the SNP have and Labour have a huge amount of work to do,and seemingly not much energy left.
The worry for Labour must be that if he proves to be unelectable in 2020,then the latest incarnation of the Tory Government,led by Boris the bold,will probably lead to an indy movement starting about in line with Birmingham.Corbyn will be viewed as a positive by Scottish Labour,but I think he is not quite as much of a bogeyman for the SNP as some sections of the media seem to think.Labour spent too long assuming whole social groups would vote for them here and became complacent.
I really hope he dos win and it would be great if it got Labour and the SNP into a race to the left.
Corbyn might be wanting to do something different to our recent disasters, but that doesn't mean what he is proposing isn't even worse.
Yes of course, no one could have predicted beforehand the mess that Blair took us into, or the consequences of bombing Libya to help the "rebels" after they were flying the Al Qaeda flag from government buildings in Benghazi, ffs.
As I said, imo Corbyn's opponents are at their most weakest when they attack him on foreign policy. The electorate might still need to be convinced that austerity is a choice rather than a necessity but not many still remain to be convinced that recent UK foreign policy has been a self-inflected disaster.
Besides, I have no idea why the right-wing are even attacking Corbyn on foreign policy when they claim with total certainty that Corbyn has absolutely zero chance of winning a general election.
It's almost as if they are doubting their own rhetoric. Surely that can't be right?
"Why are the Blairite faction so terrified of democracy?"Because they can see the party they worked hard to build to success (at least as they see it) being destroyed.
Labour Party membership which more than halved under Tony Blair's premiership has doubled in the last few weeks. The Labour Party leadership election has re-energized British politics. That doesn't sound like a party being destroyed but a party coming back to life.
And if the Blairite faction were really concerned about the success of the Labour Party they wouldn't be backing the candidate least likely to ever becoming the next Labour Prime Minister, Liz Kendall. They are not in the least bit bothered about the Labour Party losing the next general election, that's why they are backing a completely talentless woman who's been an MP for just over 5 years and will never become prime minister.
Besides, Tony Blair said last month that he wouldn't back a left-wing candidate [i]"Even if I thought it was the route to victory"[/i] so just that in itself nails the lie that his major concern is Labour winning the next general election. Blair couldn't care less, and why would he? As long as he can continue to make millions out of giving advise to murdering despots.
Not convinced as I reckon that they have a skewed perspective on things and what they say is demonstrably not what they always mean but you could be right of course.
Labour Party membership which more than halved under Tony Blair's premiership has doubled in the last few weeks. The Labour Party leadership election has re-energized British politics. That doesn't sound like a party being destroyed but a party coming back to life.
Conservative party membership halved under Cameron, from 253,000 in 2005 to just 134,000 in 2013 - did that sound like a party being destroyed too?
Not really ninfan. What's your point?
In case you weren't paying attention, and I suspect you weren't, I didn't claim that any party was being destroyed. Apparently the blairite faction think their party is being destroyed.
The Labour Party are the ones doing that vast majority of attacking with figures throughout the senior echelons of the party queuing up to warn of the obvious dangers of a Corbyn victory. The right and centre will bide their time until he's leader then let him have it full blast, a Corbyn victory will be a gift to them dragging the Labour Party left. Even if he doesn't win the contest is casting the Labour Party as one deeply divided and if you can't organise your own leadership election how could you possibly run the country. The centre and right are correct to highlight that now as it damages the Labour Party no matter who wins.
@duckman just to reply to your earlier question about why I care about the SNP / Scotland. Independence would be bad for the UK (and much worse for Scotland), the deeply dishonest and untrustworthy SNP are now sitting in Westminster voting on issues including those of no relevance to them (example of dishonesty as they said they would not) whilst complaining bitterly despite having greater devolved powers and the significant financial support of the UK.
Ok duckman - last comment on this because don't want to fall out or bore others. But be careful who you are accusing of being racist or racially motivated. Given that the term sweaty has only been applied to the other candidates in the Labour election (p24) or other members of the Union (p29), you are way off the mark. Even then Scottish is not a race. Why even use the term? Deliberate, to show how propesterous your racist allegations are. Final comment from me on that. But you don't have a monopoly on the word "sweaty" - we use it all the time at work, and no reason to stop now.
And get a SOH....
Ernie, you've repeatedly used the example of how party membership fell since Blair, generally to back up your position of how dissatisfaction with the policies of the leadership excommunicated the party from its own voters.
I'm pointing out that the Tories clear and unequivocal win at the election after halving their membership proves that it indicates or means the grand sum of **** all.
Though we could always look at it another way - from Bliairs initial election winning manifesto, the party crept gradually to the left, with classic Labour behaviour and 'big state' spending gradually replacing the footing that he came to power on, every time loosing support - Brown went further to the Left, Miliband even further - each time bleeding votes, each time loosing worse - now Corbyn looks set to throw the party back to the days of the longest suicide note in history. No wonder the election winning Blairites are pissed off.
[quote=ernie_lynch ]Yes of course, no one could have predicted beforehand the mess that Blair took us into, or the consequences of bombing Libya to help the "rebels" after they were flying the Al Qaeda flag from government buildings in Benghazi, ffs.
It's not really anything to do with Blair's mess though, or even whether that was predictable. The question is whether Corbyn's policies make sense. It doesn't follow that because recent foreign policy was rubbish that because he is proposing something different it is even preferable to that, let alone the right way forwards.
Besides, I have no idea why the right-wing are even attacking Corbyn on foreign policy when they claim with total certainty that Corbyn has absolutely zero chance of winning a general election.
It's almost as if they are doubting their own rhetoric. Surely that can't be right?
You're suggesting they don't need to bother to criticise any of his policies? If he gets elected as Labour leader they don't need to bother to campaign at the next GE? Maybe they just reckon he has no chance provided they point out the flaws they see in his policies.
Though as has been pointed out a few times, it's not even the right-wing who are mainly criticising him (I'm assuming given the context you're not having a dig at the rest of the Labour party being right wing). I thought most of them were rubbing their hands with glee or paying their £5 in order to vote for him.
if you have got a vote dont put a photo of your ballot paper on social media - [url= http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/vote-early-vote-often-vote-using-someones-instagram#.ftXzBwNav ]here's why[/url]
EL - [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11808048/Andy-Burnham-the-radical-who-never-rebels.html ]You may prefer this Michael Deacon article[/url]
THM - you use the term "sweaty" to deliberately offend. And you obviously think that finding "clever ways" to use it is hilariously funny.
Ninfan - CBA
Says a man who constantly misrepresents others to annoy/offend or create anargument on the Internet. But good choice of phrase - CBA. That is the final comment.
Hahaha - CBA, but only after I slayed your 'party membership dropped under Blair' dragon, (one that you had been using since page one of the thread weeks ago) diddums 😆
THM there is arguably no such thing as a "race" so anti-Scottishness is as racist as any similar prejudice
If you say so, but who is anti-Scottish?
Does that make someone who is anti Tory or anti Lib Dem, anti - English?
What an odd idea.
ninfan - MemberHahaha - CBA, but only after I slayed your 'party membership dropped under Blair' dragon, (one that you had been using since page one of the thread weeks ago) diddums
Yes you won ninfan. Lucky you.
i stand by what I said thm, others would seem to agree, just as they did on the rugby thread when you did it there as well. And why be careful? Feel free to report the above post.Maybe report the sense of humour failure as well.
So; can Corbyn possibly lose? And what is the fallout. New Labour Party for the Blairites?
That's very noble of you Jambalaya,thanks for looking out for us.
...don't want to fall out or bore others.
Ship.
Sailed.
Top bantz though.
Fine - your choice, you live with how honest you want to be
THM - you use the term "sweaty" to deliberately offend. And you obviously think that finding "clever ways" to use it is hilariously funny.
This is 100% accurate. You ysed the term on the rugby thread and were called out over it you then started using the term as often as possible in slightly diffetent contexts to make [s]yourself look like a tit[/s] yourself look clever. Its onbvious it causes offence so why do it?
THM, I don't follow the rugby thread. I have heard you say good things about Scotland, and enjoy your indepth knowledge of the Financial Times, and are clearly not stupid, however if true about the sweaty thing, I would be a bit disappointed. 😥
Serious question. Does Corbyn actually have any foreign policies ? Seems to me he's a classic protest candidate votes against everything (400 times against the Labour government) and be-friends the terrorists as you "have to talk to everyone". Pulling out of NATO would be extremely difficult so that statement from him is just another unworkable protest. Cancelling Trident isn't a foreign policy.
@duckman my take is a Corbyn win precedes huge amount of infighting with the centre/right of the Labour Party deposing him within 3 years as the party is further starved of funds (loss of 50 MPs has cut a large chunk from their budget/personnel) and Corbyn stumbles from one disaster to another with a ragtag shadow cabinet. The Blairites won't leave to form a new party any more than Corbyn left Labour.
Why would tmh be anti Scottish, the majority voted No ? Is "sweaties" any more offensive than pigeon holing people as the "Westmister elite" ?
yes, because it's a denigration of people for who they are (Scottish) rather than what they do (be part of an elite remote that supposedly insulates itself from "real Britain"). which is obvious
Because 'Labour' aren't socialist and won't become so.
Do you think JC is a socialist?
well, he did throw the traders out of the temple and encourage people to share their loaves and fishes...
Why would tmh be anti Scottish
As you know I am not. Up there in a few weeks time for the handshake! And in October and December. Love the place.
Kona 🙂
Do you think JC is a socialist?
Well he's a member of the [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Campaign_Group ]Socialist Campaign Group[/url] perhaps he's joined for some taster sessions to see if he likes it ?
Pulling out of NATO would be extremely difficult so that statement from him is just another unworkable protest.
Firstly you don't understand Corbyn or why he has become apparently so popular with Labour Party members and supporters. Corbyn is personally opposed to UK membership of NATO, as indeed am I, but that does not automatically mean that it will become Labour Party policy. It will be a matter for the Labour Party to decide, not one man. Gone will be the stalinist grip of the leader as demcracy, destroyed by the blairite hard-right, is re-introduced.
And secondly, you think the UK can be forced to remain in NATO ? 🙂 Leaving NATO would be a piece of piss. When France left NATO in 1966 it couldn't have been easier. Obviously there were a few technical issues such as having to relocate NATO headquarters from France to Belgium but hardly anything insurmountable.
"Do you think JC is a socialist?"Well he's a member of the Socialist Campaign Group perhaps he's joined for some taster sessions to see if he likes it ?
[img] 
[/img]
I hate to be pedantic but France didn't leave Nato in 1966, it removed its forces from the Nato Military Command structure, it continued to be a member of the alliance and committed to defend Germany in the event of a Warsaw Pact attack. Also Nato's Joint Command Structure was in its infancy in 1966, being a member of Nato has been the fundamental pillar of our defence strategy for 60 years now, it would not be a piece of piss to unwind that. (My father was stationed at Nato HQ in France until 1965 and the broad nature of Nato's membership is illustrated by the fact that his boss was a Turk.)
EDIT:
[img] https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSFwtXSVI6l_SjiX2s7A1PLqPPzVyE65FqWbpYBRUfjNpV_iFew [/img]
My father was stationed at Nato HQ in France until 1965
And then NATO HQ moved to Belgium in 1966 when France withdrew from NATO. France did not become a neutral country and it did have a commitment to Germany, it had troops stationed there ffs, but it was not part of NATO command structure, although it did sometimes carry out joint exercises with NATO, it also occasionally cooperated with the Soviet military.
It continued to be part of the alliance(i.e a member of Nato), but not the command structure (i.e an operational member), as I said at the beginning of my post it is a pedantic point. I am not denying their withdrawal from the command structure or indeed the relocation of the HQ to Belgium. A process of immediate reintegration into the operational structure was also agreed in the event of a Warsaw Pact attack, which I believe extended to beyond merely a defensive role for their forces in the French Sector in the south of West Germany.
Being in NATO means being part of an integral command structure. When France withdrew from the integral command structure it was no longer part of NATO although it did maintain an alliance with NATO. If anything is difficult to withdraw from it has to be the integral command structure, France proved that was not the case and it was quite easy.
jambalaya's claim that it would be "extremely difficult" to leave NATO is false. Specially for a nuclear armed member of the UN Security Council.
I always wonder whether Judas would have beaten Barrabas if he'd been elected leader.
Well even though it makes me feel a bit dirty agreeing with Jambalaya, comparing the complexity of withdrawing after 15 years of operation (France 1966) compared to nearly 65 year of operation (us now) is invalid. De Gaulle was always insistent on Frence military self determination and planned according, we have never planned like this and are thoroughly entwined.
Specially for a nuclear armed member of the UN Security Council.
I thought nukes would be going too.