UK Labour Leadership election

Dohnjoe

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

and what are they?

Complete opposite end of the spectrum, typical right-wing principles, which he has very firmly stuck to

And like Corbyn he's not afraid to challenge establishment, straight talking, no spin, not funded by external corporates, no pandering to political correctness, playing by his own rules, a maverick

Has been reviled in the media. Disowned and berated by his own party.

Being a principled straight-talker in politics is.. relatively good, but it's not enough.

Lemming

Very Bored wrote: »

Of course people know what song it is, and what it represents. Your comment about it not being a single from this week's chart is ludicrous.

The fact that you can't seem to distinguish the act from the song and are instead trying to compare the meaning of the songs themselves shows that you don't get it. It's not which national anthem we're talking about or which anthem has what lyrics - that doesn't matter. What does matter is that it's the national anthem of the UK, and a man who wants to lead the UK refused to acknowledge it whilst at an event commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Britain; a profound and defining moment of national identity for the UK and a pivotal moment in the history of WW2.

Are you unable to see how that would be viewed as offensive to UK nationals? Particularly to those who had served, or had relatives serve, or had relatives killed during WW2 be they civilian or military.

However, the point is he followed his principles. People not sticking up for principles is how despotic regimes end up being successful. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" (Edmund Burke). OK, it might be stretching it a bit to call the modern British monarch evil (though the cap would have fit well in the not so distant past), but the sentiment remains the same. Frankly, the whole idea that he MUST sing is in itself fascist. You MUST conform to national norms or you're out. Sick.

Well clearly it's a principle he doesn't hold very well as he's already recanted on it. So what was the point of what he did? Just ill-conceived stupidity given the surroundings in which he did it.

karma_ wrote: »

Just a quick note on the anthem thing, I've never sang the Irish anthem in my life I don't think. A politician or anyone in fact not singing an anthem is, for me at least a complete non-issue.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

On the issue of Corbyn not sing the British anthem nothing wrong with that. Over here hey if Gerry or Varadkar decided not to sing the national anthem I would not think any less of them. Exercising their rights. For all we know Corbyn was doing the Vets a favour.

Well that's the thing Karma; you or I not singing the national anthem wouldn't be particularly notable because we're just joe soap. But again - as I've repeatedly pointed out - we have the leader of a major political party in the UK, who wants to be the PM of the UK, refuse to acknowledge the national anthem of the nation at an event celeberating a profound, defining moment of national identity and a pivotal moment in shaping the course of WW2. And he did this in front of the world's media. A poorer, more foolish error in judgement would not be expected from a school boy.


As for Vadakar et. al , if an Irish politician refused to acknowledge the anthem whilst stood on the podium on O'Connell St. whilst the 1916 commerative parade was doing its thing, in full view of the media, how do you think it would be received? Poorly.

BoJack Horseman

Very Bored wrote: »

If you actually cared

I obviously dont.
Outside of a poli-sci class, neither did anyone else.

Marxism -> Leninism -> Trotskyism -> Stalinism.....
All the same, absolute control & utter misery inducing failure.

Only its acolytes differentiating to excuse said failure.

the prize for King Turd must go to the capitalist -ism.

That's the same capitalism that has done more than anything else to raise the poorest up?

I commend you for tolerating existing in this wretched capitalist hell-hole, I don't know how you tolerate how awful it is!

Very Bored

First of all, that is the least politically and historically astute comment I have ever read. Though as they say, to the victors the spoils. Are you truly naive enough to believe that in the capitalist world, a world which was at war with socialism for decades and continues to despise it that there isn't such a thing as western propaganda? That our states aren't as benevolent as some would like to think. And that America isn't always somewhere in the background waggling the controls? If you do honestly believe that, look into gli anni di piombo in Italy, who was really behind it and why. Its a real eye-opener.

You say capitalism raises up the poor. On what level? For the majority or for a select few? What happens to the rest? When I read about queues at food banks, children going to school in ragged clothes, people living in cold homes etc. forgive me for thinking capitalism hasn't done so well. Yes, capitalist lovers will automatically retort that those people are lazy and that's why they are where they are, but frankly that's an insult to even their intelligence.

When I read about the Middle East and the various conflicts there, I'm not entirely convinced that capitalism is guiltless. Oh yes, capitalists will blame Islam and anything to do with it, but ask yourself, if Islam had been left alone would you have the same angry factions today? Capitalism, typically through America but also through other countries has brought more war and conflict to the world than any other political system, so you can save your accusations of bringing misery to millions, I don't see anyone laughing in regions that have been bombed mercilessly by America. And don't kid yourself that its to bring democracy, as if any country had the right to do that anyway, its all money related somewhere. As is the sale of arms which facilitate those wars which capitalists have no qualms about selling even to their enemies. That's your humanitarian capitalism for you.

blinding

Re; Jeremy Corbyn kneeling before the queen with regarding joining the Privvy Council.

Shouldn't it be the Queen kneeling before elected representatives and thanking them for not including her family in the benefits cap.

I mean after all hasn't Jeremy been elected repeatedly for over 30 years for Islington.

How do the British get this stuff so topsy turvy ! ! !

Very Bored

The idea of anyone kneeling before anyone else is laughable in this day and age.

Sam Russell

Why are people here parroting the UK Tory press, and worse, the UK Tory Tabloid press?

Who cares if Corbyn can sing or whether he has a dodgy leg and cannot bend his knee?

He is a democrat and could well modify his more extreme views to the will of his party. That is what democratic politicians do.

RDM_83 again

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why are people here parroting the UK Tory press, and worse, the UK Tory Tabloid press?

Who cares if Corbyn can sing or whether he has a dodgy leg and cannot bend his knee?

He is a democrat and could well modify his more extreme views to the will of his party. That is what democratic politicians do.

I like a lot of Corbyns ideas, I personally like that he didn't sing god save the queen and that he has said positive things about SF, I'm a northern nationalist, but I am realistic he isn't appealing to just me he has to appeal to a big chunk of middle England too to actually win the elections otherwise all we have is a lot of noble statements and another term of the Conservatives where society gets more unequal and the working class gets hammered.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why are people here parroting the UK Tory press, and worse, the UK Tory Tabloid press?

Who cares if Corbyn can sing or whether he has a dodgy leg and cannot bend his knee?

He is a democrat and could well modify his more extreme views to the will of his party. That is what democratic politicians do.

I don't think Corbyn's one for bending his ideals tbh...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/may/13/uk.politicalnews2

Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn confirmed yesterday that he and his wife have separated after a disagreement over whether their son should be educated at one of the country's best grammar schools or at the local inner city comprehensive.

KingBrian2

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why are people here parroting the UK Tory press, and worse, the UK Tory Tabloid press?

Who cares if Corbyn can sing or whether he has a dodgy leg and cannot bend his knee?

He is a democrat and could well modify his more extreme views to the will of his party. That is what democratic politicians do.

Well the UK has a lost of constituencies, the English Republicans, Scottish and Welsh nationalists and old labour have their opinions on the Queen of England. Not everyone is a Royalist. Substantial numbers of Britons have a variety of opinions on what system of government they would like. Corbyn reflects those views that are never heard. :cool:

Also I would like to point out I love these Smilies Boards.ie have, did Zuckerberg steal the idea from somewhere?:rolleyes:

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think Corbyn's one for bending his ideals tbh...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/may/13/uk.politicalnews2

He does not need to change his views - merely tolerate others having different views even if they are quite different from his.

I heard his appointment to shadow NI secretary and he said HE will pursue his previous policies (cross-party) and Corbyn agrees.

jank

Very Bored wrote: »

First of all, that is the least politically and historically astute comment I have ever read. Though as they say, to the victors the spoils. Are you truly naive enough to believe that in the capitalist world, a world which was at war with socialism for decades and continues to despise it that there isn't such a thing as western propaganda? That our states aren't as benevolent as some would like to think. And that America isn't always somewhere in the background waggling the controls? If you do honestly believe that, look into gli anni di piombo in Italy, who was really behind it and why. Its a real eye-opener.

You say capitalism raises up the poor. On what level? For the majority or for a select few? What happens to the rest? When I read about queues at food banks, children going to school in ragged clothes, people living in cold homes etc. forgive me for thinking capitalism hasn't done so well. Yes, capitalist lovers will automatically retort that those people are lazy and that's why they are where they are, but frankly that's an insult to even their intelligence.

When I read about the Middle East and the various conflicts there, I'm not entirely convinced that capitalism is guiltless. Oh yes, capitalists will blame Islam and anything to do with it, but ask yourself, if Islam had been left alone would you have the same angry factions today? Capitalism, typically through America but also through other countries has brought more war and conflict to the world than any other political system, so you can save your accusations of bringing misery to millions, I don't see anyone laughing in regions that have been bombed mercilessly by America. And don't kid yourself that its to bring democracy, as if any country had the right to do that anyway, its all money related somewhere. As is the sale of arms which facilitate those wars which capitalists have no qualms about selling even to their enemies. That's your humanitarian capitalism for you.

If Capitalism is so bad, then why are millions of people risking life and limb to try and get into capitalist countries and not socialist paradises like Cuba or Venezuela. People generally try to get OUT of these places not in. Perhaps the West/East Germany experiment as a figment of imagination.

The rest of your post is bordering the CT stuff so tbh there is no point debating the more finite points with you as your mind is made up.

Very Bored

jank wrote: »

If Capitalism is so bad, then why are millions of people risking life and limb to try and get into capitalist countries and not socialist paradises like Cuba or Venezuela. People generally try to get OUT of these places not in. Perhaps the West/East Germany experiment as a figment of imagination.

The rest of your post is bordering the CT stuff so tbh there is no point debating the more finite points with you as your mind is made up.

What about all the refugees arriving in Europe? They're all escaping Stalin I suppose :rolleyes:.

The suggestion that there is no point debating the more finite posts because my mind is already made up when you are as dogmatic as you are yourself does nothing but bring fits of laughter.

karma_

jank wrote: »

If Capitalism is so bad, then why are millions of people risking life and limb to try and get into capitalist countries and not socialist paradises like Cuba or Venezuela.

This is a monumentally poor argument, and in pretty bad taste.

Very Bored

karma_ wrote: »

This is a monumentally poor argument, and in pretty bad taste.

Strange how he doesn't mention how a fifth of the world's population lives in China and I don't see people risking life and limb to get out of it. Oh, now I've mentioned it he'll point to human rights abuses there, as if there aren't any in the West. God bless America, Britain and all other benign and pacifist capitalist states.

A Dub in Glasgo

Corbyn has made a serious error of judgement in appointing the convicted fire raiser Mike Watson to his front bench team in the HoL

KingBrian2

jank wrote: »

If Capitalism is so bad, then why are millions of people risking life and limb to try and get into capitalist countries and not socialist paradises like Cuba or Venezuela. People generally try to get OUT of these places not in. Perhaps the West/East Germany experiment as a figment of imagination.

The rest of your post is bordering the CT stuff so tbh there is no point debating the more finite points with you as your mind is made up.

Many people are trying to get into Venezuela from neighbouring Colombia. North Koreans pour into Communist China.

Dohnjoe

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Many people are trying to get into Venezuela from neighbouring Colombia. North Koreans pour into Communist China.

Those are Columbians escaping conflict and North Korea is Stalinist hell-hole

Venezuela itself is an example of disastrous economic/social policy and populist leadership (oil-rich country currently in recession with one of the highest inflation rates in the world)

BoJack Horseman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

North Koreans pour into Communist China.

China is a capitalist dictatorship, its hyper-capitslist compared to Ireland... Money rules. They are just stuck with the 1 party.

And North Koreans don't 'pour' anywhere, they are prisoners of a quasi-socialist hell some few here seem to hold a grá for.

Very Bored

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Those are Columbians escaping conflict and North Korea is Stalinist hell-hole

Venezuela itself is an example of disastrous economic/social policy and populist leadership (oil-rich country currently in recession with one of the highest inflation rates in the world)

Now the word Stalinist is being used, we're finally getting somewhere on the differentation scales.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

China is a capitalist dictatorship, its hyper-capitslist compared to Ireland... Money rules. They are just stuck with the 1 party.

And North Koreans don't 'pour' anywhere, they are prisoners of a quasi-socialist hell some few here seem to hold a grá for.

Again with the ridiculous statements, no-one here holds a grá for North Korea.

BoJack Horseman

Very Bored wrote: »

no-one here holds a grá for North Korea.

There are very few places where capitalism as a concept is spat upon.
You know yourself by the company you keep.

And as I said, you have my admiration for tolerating your existence in this decadent capitalist hell.

KingBrian2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Those are Columbians escaping conflict and North Korea is Stalinist hell-hole

Venezuela itself is an example of disastrous economic/social policy and populist leadership (oil-rich country currently in recession with one of the highest inflation rates in the world)

North Korea has moved decidedly towards Fascism. It no longer even practises a small amount of socialism. It is pure state control.

Very Bored

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

There are very few places where capitalism as a concept is spat upon.
You know yourself by the company you keep.

And as I said, you have my admiration for tolerating your existence in this decadent capitalist hell.

Round of applause for turning it personal!

My point all along has been that capitalism has many faults too. I've backed up anything I've said with evidence, you've just shot ideas out into the wind. I am interested in continuing the discussion regarding Corbyn, but not with you, as we are simply going around in circles because your ideas are simply so dogmatic as to render debate impossible. Subsequently, I will leave the last word to you, but don't expect a response to it.

Now, if we could be left return to talking about Corbyn hmm?

KingBrian2

Well speaking about Corbyn I do believe he can repair the Labour party and build a strong movement from within. He will need to get important people on board though the challenge of taking on the Tories will be enough to provide strong ambition to get his party back into the fight and hoping to win more seats in parliament. A victory for Corbyn Labour will also help the smaller parties as it is clear the Tories only want a two party system to which to run the country.

Very Bored

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Well speaking about Corbyn I do believe he can repair the Labour party and build a strong movement from within. He will need to get important people on board though the challenge of taking on the Tories will be enough to provide strong ambition to get his party back into the fight and hoping to win more seats in parliament. A victory for Corbyn Labour will also help the smaller parties as it is clear the Tories only want a two party system to which to run the country.

Corbyn becoming leader has the potential to virtually wipe out small parties on the left though. The Green vote, for what it was, was essentially borne from the fact Labour had moved too much to the right. The same could be said of the SNP. The Scots had already rejected independence so that arm of the SNP wasn't a winning strategy. The Scots voted SNP principally because its on the left. And with Sturgeon seemingly making a hames of everything since the election they could be in for problems further ahead. Plaid Cymru will always poll amongst Welsh speakers and fare badly amongst English speakers. I don't see how Corbyn will help smaller parties to be honest. Possibly UKIP will take on the Conservatives more in time, but that remains to be seen. Britain First seems to be replacing the BNP but, fortunately, seems equally impotent. I can't see the UK changing from a 2.5 system any time soon.

A Dub in Glasgo

Very Bored wrote: »

Corbyn becoming leader has the potential to virtually wipe out small parties on the left though. The Green vote, for what it was, was essentially borne from the fact Labour had moved too much to the right. The same could be said of the SNP. The Scots had already rejected independence so that arm of the SNP wasn't a winning strategy. The Scots voted SNP principally because its on the left. And with Sturgeon seemingly making a hames of everything since the election they could be in for problems further ahead.

45% voted for independence and 50% voted for the SNP in May, your statement above is not accurate. Sturgeon has not made a hames of everything. Corbyn will not save the LP in Scotland

ancapailldorcha

The SNP took 56 out of 59 seats in Scotland and by the looks of things, they're doing better than ever.

Very Bored

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The SNP took 56 out of 59 seats in Scotland and by the looks of things, they're doing better than ever.

They are on the basis of the election, but since then some of the press Sturgeon's been receiving hasn't been the best. She also seems to be a bit confuddled, seeing as she wants Scotland to be independent but was caught singing GSTQ at the Queen's special day for living a long time about a week ago. Some Scots nats didn't like that.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

45% voted for independence and 50% voted for the SNP in May, your statement above is not accurate. Sturgeon has not made a hames of everything. Corbyn will not save the LP in Scotland

45% voted for independence, 55% voted against, so in what way is saying Scotland rejected independence inaccurate? 50% voted for the SNP in the general election, meaning 5% more voted than in the independence referendum, its not far fetched to imagine that that 5% voted for reasons other than independence.

Here's a nice picture from Facebook to evidence my point about the independence referendum. Sorry its a day late :P.

A Dub in Glasgo

Very Bored wrote: »

45% voted for independence, 55% voted against, so in what way is saying Scotland rejected independence inaccurate? 50% voted for the SNP in the general election, meaning 5% more voted than in the independence referendum, its not far fetched to imagine that that 5% voted for reasons other than independence.

Well, let me put it this way, if 45% voted for independence and 50% voted for the SNP... how does that make your statement 'The Scots voted SNP principally because its on the left' accurate?

Very Bored

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Well, let me put it this way, if 45% voted for independence and 50% voted for the SNP... how does that make your statement 'The Scots voted SNP principally because its on the left' accurate?

You are assuming that the 45% who voted for independence all vote SNP.

Relating it to Ireland, if there was a border poll not everyone who voted against maintaining the border would be Sinn Féin supporters.

The rise of the SNP in the recent General Election was beyond meteoric. It went from 6 to 56. Labour went from 41 to 1 (and it had enjoyed a rise in support in 2011, taking 42% of the vote, very close to the 45% you're talking about) and the Lib Dems went from 11 to 1. Scotland has traditionally been left wing, just like Wales. It has always been staunchly Labour. Now, something happened in those five years between the 2010 election and the 2015 one. And for such a cataclysmic change, the reasons can't be simply attributed to a referendum however important it was at the time.