Jeremy Corbyn

[RMutt]

Interesting that Labour could sidestep the Corbyn bashing by choosing another leader, whilst retaining the policies on taxing the rich.

The Mail and Sun will be bashing whoever is in charge, that's their job.

[dermotdermot]

If you could provide a link to the ‘land grab’ comment it would be interesting to see.

It came in a speech that he made at a rally at St. Pancreas Church in London’s a couple of days ago. They’be got the bit between the teeth now. This has nothing to do with democracy. It’s totalitarianism.

[evensteadiereddie]

Bonkers.

[Lancasterclaret]

Okay, then just provide a link then Dermot.

[dermotdermot]

I don’t know how to link from my iPhone but, if you google ‘McDonnells land grab’, you will see that he said it in the speech mentioned. Either tell me how to provide the link or put it on when you find it.

[Lancasterclaret]

Yeah, not quite what you said it was!

Its about CLT.

[ClaretAL]

McDonnell’s great Labour land grab
Will private property be targeted if Corbyn wins Downing Street?
Daily Mail14 Nov 2018By Daniel Martin Policy Editor
JOHN McDonnell will look at the collective ownership of land to change where power lies in the country if Labour wins power. The Shadow Chancellor said land reform would be one of the 'big ssues' for a Labour government. He added that community ownership would pose a 'huge challenge to the existing power relationships 'thin our society'. Mr McDonnell also laid out plans to abolish he House of Lords and replace it with an elected senate. And he boasted about how he appointed an anarchist to the oard of London Transport hen he was a member of the ong-abolished Greater London Council. On land ownership, Mr cDonnell said in a speech on onday night that it was unfair hat 69 per cent of the UK's 60million acres was owned by 0.6 per cent of the population. He added: 'One of the big issues we're now talking about s land how do we go about looking at collective ownership of land, community land trusts, the development of those by local communities. That's a huge challenge to the existing power relationships within our society at the moment; it's one I think that could be fundamen-tally important.' Suzanne Evans, the former Ukip deputy chairman, responded with a tweet saying: `Vote Labour, lose your house.' Mr McDonnell argued that the state maintained a 'relationship of dominance'. He added: 'A dominance of working-class people about how they have to behave, how they can receive any forms of support or benefits from the state, the parameters in which they operate or even the parameters in which they think, to conform to the existing distribution of wealth and power within our society.

‘It is the task of elected politicians to open the doors of that institution and transform the relationship from one of dominance into one of democratic engagement and participation. It’s that whole idea that you gain power to empower.’

Recalling his past as the GLC’s finance chairman, he said: ‘One of the most effective things that made London Transport accountable was when we appointed Ernest Rodker, an anarchist, to the board of London Transport. He knew all the bus routes, what the fare schedules were and what ordinary people could afford, a new engagement and discussion and ideas about how you can develop transport policy based upon the real needs of workingclass communities.

‘It’s no wonder that the first thing the Conservatives did when they scrapped the GLC was to sack Ernest Rodker from the board.’

Mr McDonnell also argued that Labour MPs could no longer simply be elected and told ‘off you go’.

They must, he said, be held accountable and be supplemented by ‘new people as they come forward and the next generation that comes forward as well’.

The Shadow Chancellor said Labour’s next manifesto would be more radical than the last.

And he said of the Lords: ‘How can we have a society where 92 of the people that govern this country in the House of Lords are based upon who Charles I or II slept with?’

[dermotdermot]

Let’s just hope that this manifesto includes an admittance, amongst other unpopular matters, that they will LOWER inheritance tax to virtually zero instead of the last batch of populist promises. Hopefully the country will then see them for what they are and they can just **** of.

[AndrewJB]

Defence is the area where Corbyn is **** weak (whatever anyones feelings on trident)

I'd have to add that bit to my misgivings about him.

One thing (of several) I disagree with Corbyn over is the Falkland Islands - he opposed the war, as I undestand (though his reasons for doing so are not clear - which doesn't mean he didn't have any, rather I just can't find them). I can look back with hindsight though, whereas at the time there must have been some fear generally that the task force could face disaster. Even though they faced a less than first rate opponent, it was a daunting undertaking, and a remarkable victory.

I've added a link below which sums up his position on most things, and seems fairly accurate - taken from his record as well as what he's said recently. One thing left out seemingly is WW2 - which I know he's on record as having referred to as a just war, along with the others mentioned. I would add the Falklands as a just war, however Thatcher should not have escaped the blame of allowing them to fall in the first place. I don't think it was a 'Tory plot' - but they gained far too much popularity when the war was finished, when in my mind most people should have asked themselves; 'why did you leave it open to attack in the first place?' For me it's also open to question Corbyn's assertion that Britain has not fought a 'just war' since 1945 - though I can see his point in the larger picture. In my opinion Britain has been involved in wars merely because we were there in many instances since 1945, and most of them (Northern Ireland, Indonesia, Aden, Malaysia, Cyprus, and so on), and fought them in a 'just way'. I think Corybn was right about Iraq, and right about Libya, and the rest of the Middle East.

In terms of his general idea that war is a failure of politicians to find a solution - as opposed to the Clausewitzian; 'war is an extension of politics' I completely agree. Not only that, the best strategist of all time - Sun Tzu - would agree with this. Talking is better than fighting, but of course sometimes you have to fight. The best thing is to know exactly the time to move from one to the other, and make it quick and least painful. The decisions of our political leaders are informed by military professionals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... emy_Corbyn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The link also takes you through his EU opinions, which you might find interesting.

[bluelabrador16]

Michael Rosen's poem

"The War of Corbyn’s Coat:

If Corbyn’s coat is wrong,
the others’ coats must be right.
The dead cannot see coats.
Day cannot see night.

Hurrah for the warriors of the press!
We know what rocks their boat:
at the sight of a million dead,
they quibble over Corbyn’s coat.

Let us praise famous coats,
worn to mourn the dead of war;
worn by those who lead us
as their bombs slay even more.

It’s not his coat they hate.
That’s not really their cause
What gets up all their noses?
He opposes all their wars.

Let us imagine the day –
or it could perhaps be night.
The politicians start a war
and no one turns up to fight.

[Lancasterclaret]

My issue with Corbyn is his unwillingness to accept Nato Article 5

Again, can't see that being acceptable to the majority of Lab voters, so would hope that it isn't an issue.

[Chobulous]

Michael Rosen's poem

"The War of Corbyn’s Coat:

If Corbyn’s coat is wrong,
the others’ coats must be right.
The dead cannot see coats.
Day cannot see night.

Hurrah for the warriors of the press!
We know what rocks their boat:
at the sight of a million dead,
they quibble over Corbyn’s coat.

Let us praise famous coats,
worn to mourn the dead of war;
worn by those who lead us
as their bombs slay even more.

It’s not his coat they hate.
That’s not really their cause
What gets up all their noses?
He opposes all their wars.

Let us imagine the day –
or it could perhaps be night.
The politicians start a war
and no one turns up to fight.

Rip off from Brecht

[moaninclaret]

Should change his name to Jeremy Dustbin, scruffy bas...d.

[Falcon]

Thanks for your intellectual contribution to the conversation.

[Healeywoodclaret]

Not everyone and even if I had why wouldn't I? I'm a fan and he isn't here to defend himself from idiots criticising his dress sense like it's actually important on rememberance day (or any other day for that matter). I'll defend him for not singing the national because neither do I because it's not a national anthem it's a love song to the bloody monarch. Yes I'll defend him and I'll continue to do so when the mood takes me.

And I will continue to criticise him because I simply can't stand the guy.

[Healeywoodclaret]

No he's not here to defend himself but if he was I would tell him exactly what I think of him scruffy *******.

[Falcon]

Thanks for your intellectual contribution to the conversation.

[BennyD]

The guy is a complete ****.

[Falcon]

Thanks for your intellectual contribution to the conversation.

[Spijed]

At least Jeremy Corbyn has a better dress sense than JR Mogg, who doesn't even look like he washes his hair!

[BennyD]

Thanks for your intellectual contribution to the conversation.

What I posted is succinct and factual and, as such, contributes to the conversation.

[Lancasterclaret]

But it isn't though, that is the problem.

You don't like him because you fear that he's more left wing than his supporters would like us all to believe, and that his position on UK defence in particular is worrying plus you do worry that his choices for the great offices of state might not be up to it.

Why not just say that?

[Falcon]

Because nowadays its easier to just insult people than actually attack their arguments.

Any debate just turns into tit for tat exchange of insults and lies.

[Inchy]

If people are voting based on the politicians personality, coat, hat, shoes, hair etc etc then you are in for a let down.

They are all prats. Name me a leader that’s been a decent person who you would share a pint with.


So having said that, which labour policy from their last manefesto has upset so many working class people?

How many people have died waiting for their disability benefits. If you think Corbyn looks and acts like a prat then fair enough, but at least he’s not a heartless tw*t like those at the Tory party round table

[CleggHall]

Kenneth Clarke would be OK to share a pint with.
Not a leader I know, on the payroll of tobacco companies, wears suede shoes but decent saloon bar company.

[BennyD]

Because nowadays its easier to just insult people than actually attack their arguments.

Any debate just turns into tit for tat exchange of insults and lies.

The poor fool seems completely unaware that, after a spectacularly ineffective career farting about on the distant fringes of politics, he is being used by the hard left as a vehicle to get into power. He is fronting up the rabid hardliners while taking hit after hit regarding semitism, his allegiances to dodgy political factions around the world whilst promoting idiots like Diane Abbott because he used to shag her. Anybody in high office displaying such crass stupidity and naivety, IMO, deserves to be described as a **** because anything more sanitised doesn’t fully sum him and his qualities up.

[Paul Waine]

One thing (of several) I disagree with Corbyn over is the Falkland Islands - he opposed the war, as I undestand (though his reasons for doing so are not clear - which doesn't mean he didn't have any, rather I just can't find them). I can look back with hindsight though, whereas at the time there must have been some fear generally that the task force could face disaster. Even though they faced a less than first rate opponent, it was a daunting undertaking, and a remarkable victory.

I've added a link below which sums up his position on most things, and seems fairly accurate - taken from his record as well as what he's said recently. One thing left out seemingly is WW2 - which I know he's on record as having referred to as a just war, along with the others mentioned. I would add the Falklands as a just war, however Thatcher should not have escaped the blame of allowing them to fall in the first place. I don't think it was a 'Tory plot' - but they gained far too much popularity when the war was finished, when in my mind most people should have asked themselves; 'why did you leave it open to attack in the first place?' For me it's also open to question Corbyn's assertion that Britain has not fought a 'just war' since 1945 - though I can see his point in the larger picture. In my opinion Britain has been involved in wars merely because we were there in many instances since 1945, and most of them (Northern Ireland, Indonesia, Aden, Malaysia, Cyprus, and so on), and fought them in a 'just way'. I think Corybn was right about Iraq, and right about Libya, and the rest of the Middle East.

In terms of his general idea that war is a failure of politicians to find a solution - as opposed to the Clausewitzian; 'war is an extension of politics' I completely agree. Not only that, the best strategist of all time - Sun Tzu - would agree with this. Talking is better than fighting, but of course sometimes you have to fight. The best thing is to know exactly the time to move from one to the other, and make it quick and least painful. The decisions of our political leaders are informed by military professionals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... emy_Corbyn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The link also takes you through his EU opinions, which you might find interesting.

Hi Andrew,

I'm with you on Falklands. The Gov't made a mistake (FCO, I think) in withdrawing the one protection vessel - a money saving idea at the time. This gave the Argies (Gautierre ?) the thought that maybe we would let the "Malvinas" go. I don't think there was anything more in it than that. Fortunately for everyone, the response was militarily successful, though loss of lives is always regrettable.

I think we can add, "Iraq 1" to the list of "just wars" - 1990/91 removing Iraq from Kuwait - and supported by UN resolution(s) and broad coalition.

The thing is, Chamberlain tried talking with Hitler - but, that didn't turn out to be the solution. You really need a good understanding of the other side's motiviations in order to start to find the right solutions.

[AndrewJB]

Hi Andrew,

I'm with you on Falklands. The Gov't made a mistake (FCO, I think) in withdrawing the one protection vessel - a money saving idea at the time. This gave the Argies (Gautierre ?) the thought that maybe we would let the "Malvinas" go. I don't think there was anything more in it than that. Fortunately for everyone, the response was militarily successful, though loss of lives is always regrettable.

I think we can add, "Iraq 1" to the list of "just wars" - 1990/91 removing Iraq from Kuwait - and supported by UN resolution(s) and broad coalition.

The thing is, Chamberlain tried talking with Hitler - but, that didn't turn out to be the solution. You really need a good understanding of the other side's motiviations in order to start to find the right solutions.

The mistake around allowing the Falklands to fall was huge, in the context of what it cost us to take the islands back. And it goes to illustrate the folly of austerity style spending cuts - save a few million in an area, and then spend a few hundred million to fix the issues caused by the cut. And this is before one considers the lives lost and families devastated.

I think some people are afraid of Corbyn's foreign policy opinions because they imagine that talking to enemies is a sign of weakness. But actually, not talking to them is a sign of stupidity. You mention the Munich Crisis of 1938 in which Chamberlain along with the Italians, and the French gave away the Sudetenland (a crucial area of Czechoslovakia) to Germany. I don't think Corbyn would have done that. It's more likely that he would have demanded the inclusion of Edward Benes (the Czechoslovakian premier) to be at the meeting too. Corbyn is far more an 'everyone around the table' person, than a tory 'yeah, I'll speak for them (and give their land away)'

[android]

But Corbyn does not talk to his enemies does he? He seems to only talk to his side. Or are there lots of records of his meetings with the Israeli government or the UDA for example?

You can imagine some Labour leaders working with another party on certain things. Hard to see Corbyn giving the time of day to any Tory ****.

Edit: for the record I was only using the s c u and ending in m word. Didn't know that would be deemed swearing and censored!

[bluelabrador16]

Paul Waine

"..I think we can add, "Iraq 1" to the list of "just wars" - 1990/91 removing Iraq from Kuwait - and supported by UN resolution(s) and broad coalition..."

Doh

Did you forget the following codswallop:

"Iraqi soldiers had taken scores of babies out of incubators in Kuwait City and left them to die. The Iraqis had shipped the incubators back to Baghdad."

[AndrewJB]

But Corbyn does not talk to his enemies does he? He seems to only talk to his side. Or are there lots of records of his meetings with the Israeli government or the UDA for example?

You can imagine some Labour leaders working with another party on certain things. Hard to see Corbyn giving the time of day to any Tory ****.

You're making the mistake of assuming he's on the side of - for example - Hamas against Israel, when he's always said that speaking to a group like Hamas doesn't mean he endorses their views. As for him working with Tories, he's been on cross party committees before, so I don't see why he'd refuse to work with Tories again.

[android]

Have to disagree Andrew, I have no doubt at all that he is on the side of Hamas against Israel. Same with the IRA, as a supporter of their republican cause. Of course he does not actively support their violence, although he does find it remarkably difficult to condemn it. I know IT once managed to unearth a clip of Corbyn condemning IRA violence but there are so many other instances where he has refused to do so. In the Stephen Nolan interview he managed to specifically condemn the actions of the British government but refused to specifically condemn what the IRA did. One of very many refusals.

To understand Corbyn you have to know that he blames the imperialist capitalist West (especially American and Britain) for most of the world's problems and this dictates the causes that he supports. The papers (all of them including the Guardian!) write some rubbish at times but just because the Daily Mail has covered this view of Corbyn does not make it untrue!

[RingoMcCartney]

Socialists.

Sooner or later they always run out of somebody else's money.......

[Lancasterclaret]

Speaking to the CBI today about his alternative Brexit deal.

As he's said the square root of **** all about it, and we are at the end game, be interesting to see what he's got up his sleeve.

[TVC15]

My guess would be 20 Woodbine.

[Lancasterclaret]

Whatever it is, its ludicrous to think there is time for another deal re-negotiation in the timescale (though I fully agree that the Article 50 process would have to be extended in the event of an election*)

*but that is currently itself still in a legal minefield whether its possible or not.

[TVC15]

When someone decides to write the book on this shambles it will be interesting to see how much focus for the reasons we ended up where we have is placed on the fact that the person responsible for delivering this is a remainer and the person responsible for putting together credible opposition is a leaver ?

Personally cannot see any other outcome than a peoples vote....but would not be surprised by any outcome now tbh !

[Lancasterclaret]

I'm not sure I'd read the book!

Don't want to relive any of this anytime soon

And who knows where we end up now?

[TVC15]

Hopefully where we were on the 23rd June 2016 and we can pretend that all this has just been a bad dream.

[AndrewJB]

Have to disagree Andrew, I have no doubt at all that he is on the side of Hamas against Israel. Same with the IRA, as a supporter of their republican cause. Of course he does not actively support their violence, although he does find it remarkably difficult to condemn it. I know IT once managed to unearth a clip of Corbyn condemning IRA violence but there are so many other instances where he has refused to do so. In the Stephen Nolan interview he managed to specifically condemn the actions of the British government but refused to specifically condemn what the IRA did. One of very many refusals.

To understand Corbyn you have to know that he blames the imperialist capitalist West (especially American and Britain) for most of the world's problems and this dictates the causes that he supports. The papers (all of them including the Guardian!) write some rubbish at times but just because the Daily Mail has covered this view of Corbyn does not make it untrue!

Anyone seeking to understand Corbyn has to accept that his worldview can’t just be distilled down to blaming capitalism for the world’s problems. Have a look at the link I posted above and you’ll see there’s a lot more nuance.

[RMutt]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/poli ... 707574.amp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AndrewJB]

Not surprising.