Forum menu
LOL BND you've got yourself in a right tangle!
Two separate points:
1) Corbyn has said that the UK should leave NATO, many times, just not as leader. This is one of many reasons voters did not trust him on security.
2) If he was PM, he would never have been able to withdraw the UK from NATO, as parliament would never have let him. This is one of many reasons that the fear of voters about Corbyn were unfounded.
As regards point one… Starmer (and Lammy) have to work hard to make sure no such fear from the voters attaches to them.
As regards point two… parliament (both sides of the house) are right to be broadly aligned as regards Russia right now. If anything, it is the PM and key ministers that are out of line with the rest of the house as regards “Magnitsky Act” style restrictions and sanctions on money and individuals connected to Putin. The government is dragging its heals. Starmer is speaking for most in the house when he focusses on that reluctance to act by the PM and his team.
And as we know a parliamentary majority would be able to cayrry a bill to leave
So now you are changing what you are saying.
Now it's not simply Corbyn who would have ignored the Labour manifesto commitment to remain in NATO, and sent troops to help the Russians in Ukraine, but the Labour Parliamentary majority.
Just as well the Tories won the election eh?
Corbyn has said that the UK should leave NATO, many times, just not as leader
Did he?
Its rather odd then that when you look at even the hard right press the quotes provided dont really match this despite all the times he said it and more neutral factcheckers havent found such a simplistic argument either.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-did-call-for-nato-to-disband-but-its-labour-policy-to-stay-in
Arguing it should have been replaced at the cold war by something better suited to the environment isnt exactly unreasonable.
It seems to be one of those cases where people decided he said something and have then kept shouting "why did he say that" repeatedly until it is taken as fact.
This is one of many reasons voters did not trust him on security.
Yes I am sure they all came to carefully studied and thought through conclusions rather than just listening to the hard right press shout "he wants to leave nato" and then repeating it obediently.
Well, even in your linked article, the material has Corbyn saying that NATO should be disbanded… but that there “isn’t the appetite” for that. If the voters take that as him being suspect of NATO membership, they can’t be blamed can they. But he was right, there isn’t the appetite to abandon NATO, because sadly NATO is still needed, long after it was hoped it would become irrelevant, because… Putin.
Well, even in your linked article, the material has Corbyn saying that NATO should be disbanded… but that there “isn’t the appetite” for that.
And?
I has been suggested on this thread that had Labour won the general election a couple of years ago we would out of NATO by now and possibly helping the Russians on Ukraine.
How does Corbyn allegedly suggesting that NATO should be disbanded but that there isn't the appetite for it back up that ludicrous claim?
has Corbyn saying that NATO should be disbanded… but that there “isn’t the appetite” for that. I
Does it? Since you failed to provide some of the many times he said "UK should leave NATO," lets try an easier one.
Provide where he said "NATO should be disbanded" in that article.
I mean we will skip over your dubious use of "...". Always a bad sign when quoting someone in a bad light even when done properly.
I has been suggested on this thread that had Labour won the general election a couple of years ago we would out of NATO by now
Not by me. I made my points quite clearly. Voters didn’t trust Corbyn on security, but if he was PM we wouldn’t have left NATO. He wouldn’t have the house behind him to make such a move.
Starmer (and Lammy) are taking the right line now on Russia. They need to do more still to distance themselves from the past leader and the other MPs backing the stance that “Stop The War [no, not that war]” has taken as regards Putin expanding Russian held territory by force. They need to keep pushing Johnson and his core team on money connected to Putin as well.
As I posted before there is a deeply ingrained Russian cultural fear of being invaded from the west
Putin's Russia also strategically thinks it's a global super-power that has more rights than the countries on it's borders and that their role is that of a buffer zone against what it perceives as a Euro-Atlantic alliance that it's necessarily "against" in world that it understands tries to limit Russia's "rightful say" in world affairs. if there is a failure of NATO countries to prevent escalation along Russia's borders, there's an equal failure of Putin's regime to understand the rest of the world only as a zero-sum game.
Did he?
Yes, in 2011 he called for "The radical end of Labour's left to campaign against NATO as it's a danger to world peace and security" in 2012 he wrote in the Morning Star that it was "High time for an End to NATO" in 2014 in a anti NATO rally outside of the NATO summit in Cardiff he said that NATO "had been founded in order to promote a cold war with the Soviet Union" he's also called NATO "an engine to deliver oil to the oil companies and the main nations of the world"
It's difficult to reconcile those statements without wanting to leave NATO although he's never used those words. He's often just chosen instead to say that it should be disbanded or it's role severely limited
It's only when he became Leader that he endorsed the official Labour stance of being fully committed to NATO and spending at least 2% GDP on defense. Something he's broadly been against his entire political career.
And the obsession with Corbyn on a thread about Starmer continues.
Voters didn’t trust Corbyn on security
Only because people like yourself, BnD, Starmer, and the Daily Mail, deliberately misrepresented what he supported. In reality they actually agreed with most of what said, even if they didn't realise it.
In fact they were more likely to agree with Corbyn than with the current right-wing cabal running the Labour Party.
Putting this view to the British public, YouGov found that the majority (53%) agree that wars the UK has supported or fought are responsible, at least in part, for terror attacks against our country. This was more than twice the proportion who think it is not responsible for terror attacks (24%). Voters from across all parties were more likely to side with the Corbyn stance than not.
I voted for Labour at both of the general elections with Corbyn as leader. I wanted him to be PM. I, like most of the country, agree with Corbyn and Stop The War as regards the Iraq war and the escalation in terror attacks in the UK and elsewhere that followed it. All nothing do to with NATO’s role in Europe, or Putin wanting to expand the RF by force.
A more sensible strategy might have been for the buffer states to remain neutral militarily whilst pursuing other ways of ‘westernising’ if that’s what they wanted.
This isn't possible when Russia is controlled by Putin. He won't accept those states as neutral, he sees them as being part of a Russian influenced zone that he necessarily has a controlling part ( see Belarus for how this works) Both Medvedev and Putin have said that Russia has "privileged interests" that over-ride the needs/wants of the countries that border it, and will seek to control that in the only way they have at their disposal; overwhelming military force.
I don't disagree that eastwards expansion of NATO hasn't been a massive policy success, but at the same time, what alternative has Putin's Russia offered those countries that border it? The example of all the countries in the last 20 years that Russia has invaded along it's borders push those countries Russia has not into the arms of both the EU and NATO
All nothing do to with NATO’s role in Europe, or Putin wanting to expand the RF by force.
But everything to do with whether Corbyn's stance on wars was supported by voters or not.
Yes, in 2011 he called for
This should be fun. Lets see if you are any better than Kelvin at accurate quotations.
“The radical end of Labour’s left to campaign against NATO as it’s a danger to world peace and security”
Source please. Since the one I can see doesnt match that quote and talks about limiting its power and putting it under broader control not disbanding it.
The rest of your quotes arent any better. Its amazing for how often he has said it should be disbanded no one has provided any examples outside of the at the end of the cold war which even then had the caveat of being replaced by something better suited for the changed circumstances.
He’s often just chosen instead to say that it should be disbanded or it’s role severely limited
Ah got it. You need to read what he says in the proper approved manner to see the secret meaning.
But everything to do with whether Corbyn’s stance on wars was supported by voters or not.
I said voters didn’t trust him on security, partly because of his stance on NATO and Russia, not that they didn’t support his past positions on foreign interventions in the Middle East.
But everything to do with whether Corbyn’s stance on wars was supported by voters or not.
Whether Corbyn's stance on some wars was shared by the public. the article you pointed to outlines the time when his stance wasn't supported by the public, and you only need to look at Corbyn's personal ratings after his speech in the HoC after the Skirpal poisonings to see that mostly, the public didn't agree with him then either.
Btw Kelvin Re :
I voted for Labour at both of the general elections with Corbyn as leader.
You do realise that undoubtedly Keir Starmer also did, and quite possibly even Tony Blair?
Despite your repeated claims that you are a bit of a leftie nothing you post on here provides any evidence of that.
You always appear to argue from an anti-left wing perspective.
Ah got it. You need to read what he says in the proper approved manner to see the secret meaning.
I think in the Labour leadership campaign he said that NATO should've been wound up at the end of the cold war. You can't say that and not want to leave it as an organisation. There doesn't need to be any "secret meaning to be read in a approved manner" about that statement, that's about as un-coded as any modern politician is likely to be.
You always appear to argue from an anti-left wing perspective.
If this is about be, I never voted for Labour at a general election before Corbyn was leader, not least because of the Iraq war. I voted for them both times with Corbyn as leader. I’m not anti-left wing. But I am against Russia pushing west further into Europe by military means, and will point out that Stop The War and others blaming NATO for Putin’s actions is wrong headed. Putin is not left wing. RF expansion is not left wing, and it is definitely not peaceful.
You can’t say that and not want to leave it as an organisation.
Oh why not? I could think, for example, NATO should have been disbanded at the end of the cold war and replaced by a organisation designed for the post cold war political environment but since that wasnt done we have no choice but to stick with Nato but get some democratic reforms in place.
Indeed if you do something so boring as actually read the entire quote from him during the leadership campaign and not just the misleading misquotes thats what he pretty much said.
What did Corbyn title his Morning Star essay (referenced in your source)…?
“High Time for an End to NATO”
What message would most people take away from that?
Oh why not?
because through his entire career as a politician Corbyn has had a admirable anti-war stance that includes getting rid of organisations that by their very nature, increase the likelihood of war. he's campaigned relentlessly and earnestly about it It's only when he became leader that his own beliefs came up hard against established Labour policy, and he adapted to that, and continued to promote that despite the fact that it contradicted his own views.
Corbyn has been proudly anti war and anti NATO his entire life, I don't think you do him any favours by trying to obfuscate that.
What did Corbyn title his Morning Star essay…?
I dont know since I dont know the morning stars editoral practices. You do know dont you that the headlines are often written by subeds and not the actual authors. Hence why they often bear only limited resemblance to the articles in question.
Have you actually read the article? I dont agree with much of it but if you bother to do so its rather specifically challenging the use of Nato for Afghanistan and its changing purpose.
Anyway found this “NATO should be disbanded” in the fact finding piece yet?
I don’t think you do him any favours by trying to obfuscate that.
Wait, what? I thought he was the one obfuscating things using hidden codes but now its me?
Remember this started with Kelvin announcing Corbyn said "UK should leave NATO, many times" and me asking for some actual evidence.
Something neither you or him have actually managed to produce. Just lots of misquoting and general claims.
Corbyn had that Morning Star on his website, with no “correction” to its title. Assuming he was happy with the “High Time for an End to NATO” title seems fair in that context, don’t you think? It didn’t take a “special reading” or any “hunting for sources”. Just referring to the source you posted makes it very clear where Corbyn stood on NATO before being leader. And the last few weeks have made it clear where he stands now. And the Labour front bench, especially Starmer, need to keep making it very clear to the voters that they are not aligned with his views as regards NATO in Europe, RF, Putin, the Ukrainian situation, and support for other independent countries in Eastern Europe.
Corbyn had that Morning Star on his website, with no “correction” to its title
Okay that would somewhat support your new claim although given your habit of misquoting and making claims which arent backed up by evidence I would like to see a link to a reputable source for it.
So you disagree with the idea that Corbyn has been both anti-NATO and anti-War? Something he's campaigned about in the past and continues to campaign about now?
So you disagree with the idea that Corbyn has been both anti-NATO and anti-War?
Right so you fail to answer anything from me and now have gone on to deciding what I think as well.
I will leave you to it.
Byeeeee.
Weird conversation.
I don't think Corbyn campaigning to be anti war, anti the causes of war and anti organisations that promote war is a bad thing, he's been honest about where he stands all his life, he couldn't be clearer. In fact the only time he's ever espoused any view differently is when he became leader and accepted the Labour policy as it stood.
That's a politician being honest and straightforward, something that the current leadership team could learn from frankly
I would like to see a link to a reputable source for it
I have deliberately only referred to the material cited in the Channel4 FactCheck link you provided.
"NATO should have been disbanded at the end of the cold war and replaced by a organisation designed for the post cold war political environment"
The cold war never thawed. If that isn't obvious by now then there's no helping us.
The cold war never thawed.
The reunification of Germany, iron curtain countries toppling dictators, getting rid of their nukes, having actual elections, joining the EU, blimey, meeting the first actual tourists from soviet union countries, going to Prague and East Berlin for the first time when these had all my life been gray and inaccessible countries in spy novels. Optimism in the air. Basically, if you think there wasn't a thaw you're in a different reality of some sort.
I have deliberately only referred to the material cited in the Channel4 FactCheck link you provided.
Okay. So it will be easy enough for you to provide the section from that article stating Corbyn had that article on his website?
You also havent been referring to only to that link since nowhere does it have "NATO should be disbanded" as a quote from Corbyn. Either deliberately or not you have misquoted which makes it rather hard to have a sensible conversation.
The cold war never thawed. If that isn’t obvious by now then there’s no helping us.
There was a few years (at least with Russia) where it was possible it was over. Just that chance got lost and Putin got in.
So it will be easy enough for you to provide the section from that article stating Corbyn had that article on his website?
It's all in there. Click in the link to Corbyn's article on the Channel4 FactCheck page you provided. Are you saying that Corbyn didn't have that article on his website? Or are you just arguing for the sake of it?
You also havent been referring to only to that link since nowhere does it have “NATO should be disbanded” as a quote from Corbyn.
You're just being pointlessly picky. In what way is “High Time for an End to NATO” not close enough to “NATO should be disbanded” to as not really matter? Corbyn was against NATO before being leader, and then took the Labour party line while leader, and is now blaming NATO for Russian advances.
There was a few years (at least with Russia) where it was possible it was over. Just that chance got lost and Putin got in.
Agreed 100%.
So having discussed in length Corbyn's popularity, and what he might have and not have said, any possibility of diverting the thread onto Sir!Keir! Starmer!??
Has anyone got any opinion on how well he's doing as leader of the Opposition?
The latest poll gives his party a 6% lead over the Tories :
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-21-february-2022/
Is this a satisfactory position for Labour to be in and one which reflects the current government's popularity during a period of almost unprecedented international medical, military, diplomatic, and economic, crises?
Should Starmer receive a well-deserved pat on the back for providing inspirational leadership in a time of unprecedented crises and finally giving British voters something which they can truly believe in?
"Basically, if you think there wasn’t a thaw you’re in a different reality of some sort."
That might well be the case. As dissonance points out, there was a brief moment when things looked optimistic, when Medvedev was President. It was a mirage though, in the West we didn't realise that Medvedev was a stooge, simply put there whilst Putin rearranged the chairs behind the scenes.
Mitt Romney was pilloried during the 2012 election when he said that Russia was the biggest threat US security faced. Obama nailed him with the retort, "You've borrowed your foreign policy from the 1980's Mitt, you don't realise the cold war is over". Romney was seen as completely out of touch.
Not everybody saw the falling of the Berlin Wall as 'the end of history'.
It’s all in there. Click in the link to Corbyn’s article on the Channel4 FactCheck page you provided
Its not though. This is the problem. You keep announcing things as fact when its your opinion.
Lets take your claim.
"Corbyn had that Morning Star on his website, with no “correction” to its title"
Whereas if we look at the Channel 4 page we will see several things.
Its an imgur link from an unknown source. Anyone sensible would be wanting the web archive instead.
It looks to be a cutting from the paper rather than a screenshot of his site.
Even if we accept its from his website there is nothing to your secondary claim about no "correction.
Can you not see the problem here?
This isnt being "picky" but wanting a sensible conversation based on facts.
Its fine to claim you think Corbyn (or anyone for that matter) thinks x based on the y and z which they said in the past but why are you simply inventing stuff and claiming it as fact?
That might well be the case. As dissonance points out, there was a brief moment when things looked optimistic, when Medvedev was President
Nah I would go back beyond him. It was right after the fall that there was a chance. Once Putin got it then whilst it might not have gone back to full cold war it was never going to be great.
...why are you simply inventing stuff and claiming it as fact?
Hold on.. if you're not happy with the source you provided... let's look ask the Way Back Machine for some help...
http://web.archive.org/web/20130103035605/http://www.jeremycorbyn.org.uk/?p=1551
Is this a satisfactory position for Labour to be in and one which reflects the current government’s popularity during a period of almost unprecedented international medical, military, diplomatic, and economic, crises??
I'd be very surprised if he can keep the lead in the next few weeks, as the UK is moved to pretending that the international medical crisis is over, and the news becomes dominated by Putin's actions.
Should Starmer receive a well-deserved pat on the back for providing inspirational leadership in a time of unprecedented crises and finally giving British voters something which they can truly believe in?
If he can hold it at +6 through the Ukrainian crisis then he's done well, Boris gets to be statesmanlike which always boosts ratings
Is this a satisfactory position for Labour to be in
No it isn't.
That might well be the case. As dissonance points out, there was a brief moment when things looked optimistic,
It is the case. Though I was thinking of the Gorbachev and early Yeltsin years before Putin emerged to bugger things up. When absolutely multiple opportunities were missed. But if you're polish, Bulgarian, or from a Baltic republic, from East Germany (reunification being the single most successful public health intervention ever amongst other things) etc etc you'll think of these as historical developments you'd prefer not to see reversed.
Nah I would go back beyond him. It was right after the fall that there was a chance
I really don't think there was sadly. The politicians that took over from Gorbachev and Yeltsin were still all ex-communists, because that's all there was, without any sort of opposition parties there was never going to be a flourishing of democracy in Russia in the 1990s If it wasn't going to be Putin it would've been Primakov, (another former KGB spy) and I don't think Russia would've ended up much different where it is now.
"Should Starmer receive a well-deserved pat on the back for providing inspirational leadership in a time of unprecedented crises and finally giving British voters something which they can truly believe in?"
No. I'm still pretty disappointed with his overall performance but I do think he is pointing Labour in a better direction if they want to get elected next time.
I've conceded that Corbyn managed to muster some energy and offer something people could 'believe in' but it's not just that it didn't work, its that you can only take that approach once a decade or so.
Corbyn's engaging approach reminded me of Red Wedge in the early 80's and of Blair's Cool Britania. The thing is, win or lose, a few years down the line most of the participants felt buyers remorse, embarrassment even.
Labour would find it really hard, impossible even to muster the kind of spirit and energy amongst the public that you're asking for ernie, and post Brexit nobody really knows what the political landscape in the UK is like, other than the fact we are divided between those who like Mrs Brown's Boys and those who like Have I Got News Got You.
Anyone coming out with a 'Vision for Britain' at this moment in time will get it wrong. They always said that Brexit would tear the Tory party apart. Instead, what it did is tear up the contract between progressives and the working class.
In this respect Brexit was always a bigger threat to Labour than to the Conservatives. Just one more thing Corbyn didn't realise..