Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Oh that Dyab Abou Jahjah.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/19/jeremy-corbyn-backtracks-over-claim-he-had-never-met-lebanese-activist
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3203575/Muslim-firebrand-gloated-murder-British-soldiers-insists-DID-collaborate-Jeremy-Corbyn-despite-Labour-leadership-frontrunner-s-furious-denials.html
I suppose we can look forward to Corbyn coming under scrutiny, now he is in the running for leadership rather than on the outside.
Some stories will inevitably take things out of context, but not all.0 -
I read with amusement that Comrade Blunkett has now spoken out against voting for Corbyn. Quite ironic for one that is rumoured to have raised the Soviet flag above Sheffield Town Hall in his early political career as a Communist Councillor..... sorry I mean Socialist Councillor...... sorry I mean Labour Councillor.
Long Live the Mother Land, Comrades! Off to the local farming collective wheat fields with my sickle to bring in the harvest.
Now where have I seen a hat like that before?
Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
This could run and run. Legal challenge by sore loser/s?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/19/leak-eveal-labour-ignored-legal-membership0 -
One candidate for the labour deputy leadership said in his area they found 10% of all applicants are "strongly against the Labour Party" in their own canvassing of votes. I do wonder if any candidate will decide to investigate this further after losing and mount a challenge? It would give members an impression of dis-loyalty to the party and possibly end their leadership opportunities in the future but would help the other candidates. i suppose I would say the only one I would think suitable would be Kendall since she is a bit of a no-hoper at the moment, and possibly in the future. If the challenge was won the other two could possibly win in a re-vote if that happened.
All fun and games. No matter what your affiliations are this labour leadership contest has been more fun than any such contest for years. I mean has anyone even noticed that LibDems voted for their leader during this labour contest???
My sneaking suspicion is that no matter who gets the top labour job they would still be out of power for one term after this current. I think they are just so confused in their position politically and in other ways are in disarray IMHO. That means the leader in 2020 is standing as the opposition party leader and will remain so after GE 2020. For this role I think Corbyn is the most qualified. I think nobody on here can deny he has made a political career out of opposition. Whether that is against the Tories, his own party/Blairites/Brownites, Israelis treatment of the Palestinians, racism, etc. His is a career completely based on opposing something rather than trying to create something. IMHO he is a perfect leader of the opposition.
Conversely, the likes of Blair and Brown at his side had an idea to work for. Partly to modernize and get a grip of the Labour party but to take Labour to the business world and spend a bit on traditional Labour "strengths" like education and health. At least they had an idea that was new for Labour, I am not sure if Corbyn has any new ideas of his own or at least one that is enough to hang an election on. Hence my opinion that he is an opposition leader only. If he does get in and makes this country better I will admit I was wrong and be pleased. Not least because if he is making it better for the "working man" then I fit into that category too.0 -
Frank and myself are going to see Corbyn speak tonight, no doubt he'll post his opinion on here tomorrow
Edit: I mean Frank will give his opinion of Corbyn, I'm sure Corbyn will form his own opinion of Frank
0 -
yes comes with the territory i suppose, but it does show that he has rattled his opponents.
Corbyn was hauled over the coals when he talked to the IRA many years ago....mmmm guess who is in power in NI now?
Pity thatcher and the conservatives never came under this level of scrutiny over her/their friendship with Pinochet, a man responsible for the torture, internment and murder of 10s of 1000's.
Or who they now associate with in the EU parliament.0 -
Corbyn is upsetting the cosy little status quo between the government and the "opposition", and understandably they don't like it.
Put the actual politics to one side and consider what (appears) to be a modest but none the less significant groundswell of opinion gaining momentum against the accepted mantra. Of course there will be twitchy bums among the establishment.
Remember, from tiny acorns and all that!Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
I think most of the western world had a friendship with Pinochet at the time. I'd put money on a Labour government also fostering ties with him if they had been in power. The way of the world at the time. I think you must accept that most Western countries have fostered ties with dictators so singling out one case involving the Tory government to make a party political point is a bit blind. Are you saying Blair never had ties with dictators when in power? I thought he had a very cosy meeting with Ghadaffi in his little tent back in the day. Hmmm! is it only Tories who are bad for cosying up to dictators for the national good?
One benefit with Pinochet of course is that under his regime they helped a lot in the sidelines with controlling the ability of the Argentinians to obtain the very dangerous exocet missiles at the time of the Falklands IIRC plus other support. I am sure others can give examples of Labour and Tory PMs and governments cosying up to dictators to make Pinochet seem normal for a government.0 -
I think most of the western world had a friendship with Pinochet at the time. I'd put money on a Labour government also fostering ties with him if they had been in power. The way of the world at the time. I think you must accept that most Western countries have fostered ties with dictators so singling out one case involving the Tory government to make a party political point is a bit blind. Are you saying Blair never had ties with dictators when in power? I thought he had a very cosy meeting with Ghadaffi in his little tent back in the day. Hmmm! is it only Tories who are bad for cosying up to dictators for the national good?
One benefit with Pinochet of course is that under his regime they helped a lot in the sidelines with controlling the ability of the Argentinians to obtain the very dangerous exocet missiles at the time of the Falklands IIRC plus other support. I am sure others can give examples of Labour and Tory PMs and governments cosying up to dictators to make Pinochet seem normal for a government.
i think i m starting to see how this works..... its ok for the right to score political points against Corbyn by dragging up his associations but the moment Corbyn is defended and thatcher is critizised, that becomes a cheap shot?
Of course our political masters rhetoric and practice (of all parties) are not the same BUT thatcher and her government had a friendship with pinochet that went way beyond any national interest didnt it? carrying on even once he was out of power.
france sold Argentinia 5 exocets and france enforced an embargo to prevent them getting anymore, im not sure what pinochet did in that regard ?
Pinochet was far away from normal.0 -
I think most of the western world had a friendship with Pinochet at the time. I'd put money on a Labour government also fostering ties with him if they had been in power. The way of the world at the time. I think you must accept that most Western countries have fostered ties with dictators so singling out one case involving the Tory government to make a party political point is a bit blind. Are you saying Blair never had ties with dictators when in power? I thought he had a very cosy meeting with Ghadaffi in his little tent back in the day. Hmmm! is it only Tories who are bad for cosying up to dictators for the national good?
One benefit with Pinochet of course is that under his regime they helped a lot in the sidelines with controlling the ability of the Argentinians to obtain the very dangerous exocet missiles at the time of the Falklands IIRC plus other support. I am sure others can give examples of Labour and Tory PMs and governments cosying up to dictators to make Pinochet seem normal for a government.
i think i m starting to see how this works..... its ok for the right to score political points against Corbyn by dragging up his associations but the moment Corbyn is defended and thatcher is critizised, that becomes a cheap shot?
Of course our political masters rhetoric and practice (of all parties) are not the same BUT thatcher and her government had a friendship with pinochet that went way beyond any national interest didnt it? carrying on even once he was out of power.
france sold Argentinia 5 exocets and france enforced an embargo to prevent them getting anymore, im not sure what pinochet did in that regard ?
Pinochet was far away from normal.
Not at all. If you go way back in my post history, you will find me saying that I couldn't justify Thatcher's support for Pinochet. I do not find everything the Tories do 100% right 1oo% of the time. You don't get that level of support this side of N Korea.
I suspect her support for him was payback for his support during the Falklands War, details of which we may never know. I know Chile allowed British special forces to operate from within its borders and I suspect much more.0 -
Frank and myself are going to see Corbyn speak tonight, no doubt he'll post his opinion on here tomorrow
Edit: I mean Frank will give his opinion of Corbyn, I'm sure Corbyn will form his own opinion of Frank
What's the betting that Frank will report back that Corbyn is too right wing for him. 0 -
Actually I saw that I also need to vote for a deputy Labour leader and a Labour mayoral candidate. Who are the biggest swivel-eyed lefties out of the candidates on the list?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Apart from allowing secret use of Chilean airfields, sharing intelligence on Argentinean capabilities and other support despite Chile maintaining a.public neutrality (they had to because of the tendency of south American nations to ave solidarity among themselves). Apart from that they also shared information from listening in to Argentinean communications and use of Chile's long range radar that they used to track Argentinean air force movement. In fact that last one allowed an early warning of an.attack on the the fleet allowing for use of air cover efficiently only when attack was needed. The one time it was turned off for essential maintenance two different ships got attacked, sir Galahad and sir Tristam.
There was something ou saw about a British intelligence working with the French and another nation's intelligence service to waste Argentinean time in their desperate search for exocets on the side. I thought it was the Chilean intelligence who directed the Argentinans to an arms dealer who was either French or British intelligence agent. Whilst focusing on this false source of exocets they weren't getting them elsewhere. Not 100% sure it's Chile though but there was a BBC documentary about it years ago.
It seems Corbyn has become of interest right now because he has gone from a bit part, MP known for opposing a lot of things and organizations to the front runner for the leadership of the UK's second placed party. Like it or not you go from nowhere to the top political table at the pace Corbyn has just recently you should not be surprised your past will come out. Comes with the territory. Thatcher's relationship with Pinochet's regime benefited Britain back then and she personally had a good relationship with him and other leaders. That's public knowledge and oft regurgitated by opponents. Now the bogeyman consists not so much of dictators but extremists. Moaning about people questioning Corbyn about his possible contacts with distasteful extremists is a bit weak. If he's nothing to hide prove it. Thatcher wasn't ashamed of her contacts with.Pinochet is Corbyn ashamed of his past contacts? It's to be expected people are going to probe that.0 -
Political doping, I tell you!It seems Corbyn has become of interest right now because he has gone from a bit part, MP known for opposing a lot of things and organizations to the front runner for the leadership of the UK's second placed party.0 -
Thatcher mIght well defend her friendship with Pinochet, though I'm surprised you do, but does that make it right? Many right thinking Tories were ashamed of this.
Corbin makes no secret of his desire to talk to some pretty distasteful people if it hastens peace.
Political alliances yes but to carry that on into a personal friendship with a man who killed and tortured to gain power, just as Isil do today...... No.0 -
Unfortunately people in the UK have been free to make their own associations without prior vetting from others. I agree Pinochet was a nightmare dictator for his country but that does not mean we can dictate to Thatcher or anyone over their contacts. Pinochet escaped sanction over his actions in Chile and the Spanish prosecutors tried to rectify that when he came over here for medical treatment. As much as we despise his actions unfortunately we can not stop people associating themselves with him whether he has been prosecuted or not for his crimes.
He was undoubtedly responsible for many murders, disappearances and torture. He was on a level only bettered by the most heinous of dictators I think. Of course murderers have friends so perhaps you just object to Thatcher being Pinochet's friend because he was never prosecuted, he was responsible for so much murder and torture, because it is Thatcher or because you think there is a murder/torture count above which they should have no friends. I do agree it was an unwise friendship and distastful but hey her choice.
I personally do not defend Thatcher and her associations with him after he left office. The above is just some pointers. I do not defend Corbyn's associations with distasteful characters neither. It would be nice to be able to avoid these people but like you say about Corbyn willing to speak to these people to negotiate peace or bring about something to the greater good that is exactly what Thatcher did with Pinochet for national benefit and indeed a lot of western leaders did with Ghadaffi and all the other dictators around the world. At least a lot of these associations are in the public knowledge (now at least if not then). It is only right that all Corbyn's dodgy associations come out too. Shine a light on them and the public can decide (initially labour supporters and members then later the electorate, perhaps). The better to judge his decisions and actions against. I think that is fair.
I wish I had registered now with the £3 supporters fee. I would genuinely vote for Corbyn just to see what happens. I find the whole leadership interesting only because of Corbyn. My main interest is to see how principled he really is. Will he stick with his beliefs he had when he was opposing Tories and his own party too? Or will he change and go with political expediency in order to stand a chance in 2020? I wonder whether he will force a move to the left or if the party will force a lurch to the right in his actions. Is being leader of a party truly the case of being top dog and everyone follows you????0 -
It is my belief that politicians should be voted in or out based on their policies.
They should stand or fall on those principals.
How naive.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Policies without any idea of their influences and associations? Perhaps you are right in an ideal world but since there is an interests file (mind blank, can't remember its real name) that each MP needs to keep up to date it seems the public and Parliament believe there should be some accounting for their influences and associations. Perhaps not personal associations just the pecuniary ones and perhaps memberships of organizations too.
BTW, do MPs have to declare any membership of any cycling lobby groups?0 -
You vote for them if you agree with the policies and vote against them if you disagree.Policies without any idea of their influences and associations? Perhaps you are right in an ideal world.
Quite simple really.
But naive in this less than perfect world.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Ignoring how they came to their policies I would agree. In a perfect world. Reality is MPs of all persuasions asking questions in parliament in exchange for something (money or favours or whatever reason other than serving the nation). That in itself earns the need to provide scrutiny of their interests and connections. We are not in a perfect world hence the imperfect system of petty attempts to smear each other with innuendo or facts. I doubt any of the 4 candidates is clean of this, even principled Corbyn is not 100% focusing on his policies. Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall and Andy Burnham are probably more dodgy and their camps more geared to spin, lies and smears than Corbyn but they are all at it to some degree.
As someone who would never want to vote in a Labour Party leadership ballot I think this whole election is seriously flawed to the point you could probably drive a legal bus right through it whatever the result. I mean all the revelations coming out about lawyers advising for better level of scrutiny being overruled. the reason I heard was because the database (best information they had) was not right up to date. UKIPers trying to get a ballot paper, even a tory MP tried it under some stupid pretense of showing up how dodgy the system was. IIRC it was Milliband's legacy this system. Hmmm! Says a lot about him I think. What a relief he isn't running the country now!! Where are all the quality Labour MPs of old? Where are the quality MPs of old? Is there any politician of principle nowadays? No! Corbyn is not one in my view.0 -
I gave you lot enough notice...I wish I had registered now with the £3 supporters fee. I would genuinely vote for Corbyn just to see what happens.
Think of it as a sort of long running lab experiment on what happens when a party lurches to the left. Probably won't change the result of the next election but will be fun to watch in any event."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
[/quote]
Think of it as a sort of long running lab experiment on what happens when a party lurches to the left. Probably won't change the result of the next election but will be fun to watch in any event.[/quote]
As Major Hitchcock would say "They're a shower. Absolute shower."
Are they scrutinising your application to become a Labour Party supporter and your voting rights, Harriet Harman (Champagne Socialist), is getting her knickers in a twist about nasty tory infiltrators voting for Mr Corbyn.0 -
Think of it as a sort of long running lab experiment on what happens when a party lurches to the left. Probably won't change the result of the next election but will be fun to watch in any event.[/quote]
As Major Hitchcock would say "They're a shower. Absolute shower."
Are they scrutinising your application to become a Labour Party supporter and your voting rights, Harriet Harman (Champagne Socialist), is getting her knickers in a twist about nasty tory infiltrators voting for Mr Corbyn.[/quote]
They've already sent me a web link and password to vote, so I guess I have passed their super rigorous scrutineering I mean, all they had to do was read Cake Stop. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Economist puts the point very succinctly as always.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21661662-victory-hard-left-candidate-would-be-bad-labourbut-also-tories
The harm to Labour is obvious.Good government needs a coherent opposition to scrutinise it and hold it to account. Under Mr Corbyn, hard-left policies, his lack of support among MPs and his own record as a serial party rebel will make this impossible. A shambolic Labour Party, and a rump Liberal Democrat Party that has also drifted left, will leave the Scottish nationalists as the most potent opposition to David Cameron’s government.
The Conservative Party is itself a coalition—of English nationalists, libertarians and “one-nation” Tories. Without the discipline of strong opposition, these factions tend to fight each other—and Mr Cameron. Having only a slender majority, the government is vulnerable in difficult forthcoming votes, such as those on air strikes in Syria or airport expansion in London. The referendum on Britain’s EU membership will become more unpredictable. Britain needs an opposition that lives in the real world and a united, focused government. With Mr Corbyn as Labour leader, it risks having neither.0 -
Economist puts the point very succinctly as always.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21661662-victory-hard-left-candidate-would-be-bad-labourbut-also-tories
The harm to Labour is obvious.Good government needs a coherent opposition to scrutinise it and hold it to account. Under Mr Corbyn, hard-left policies, his lack of support among MPs and his own record as a serial party rebel will make this impossible. A shambolic Labour Party, and a rump Liberal Democrat Party that has also drifted left, will leave the Scottish nationalists as the most potent opposition to David Cameron’s government.
The Conservative Party is itself a coalition—of English nationalists, libertarians and “one-nation” Tories. Without the discipline of strong opposition, these factions tend to fight each other—and Mr Cameron. Having only a slender majority, the government is vulnerable in difficult forthcoming votes, such as those on air strikes in Syria or airport expansion in London. The referendum on Britain’s EU membership will become more unpredictable. Britain needs an opposition that lives in the real world and a united, focused government. With Mr Corbyn as Labour leader, it risks having neither.
ah so in the long run, all good, Tories self destruct, electorate, never ones to trust a party that splinters, turns to a reformed labour party (once all those Blairites have defected to the liberals) and the Conservatives are consigned to the dustbin of history, leaving the UK Governed by a lab/lib/snp coalition.....happy days 0 -
Blair won 3 elections for Labour. So defection of the Blairite part of the party means labour losing what made them more electable. Not sure how that will help what is left of a splintered Labour party.Economist puts the point very succinctly as always.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21661662-victory-hard-left-candidate-would-be-bad-labourbut-also-tories
The harm to Labour is obvious.Good government needs a coherent opposition to scrutinise it and hold it to account. Under Mr Corbyn, hard-left policies, his lack of support among MPs and his own record as a serial party rebel will make this impossible. A shambolic Labour Party, and a rump Liberal Democrat Party that has also drifted left, will leave the Scottish nationalists as the most potent opposition to David Cameron’s government.
The Conservative Party is itself a coalition—of English nationalists, libertarians and “one-nation” Tories. Without the discipline of strong opposition, these factions tend to fight each other—and Mr Cameron. Having only a slender majority, the government is vulnerable in difficult forthcoming votes, such as those on air strikes in Syria or airport expansion in London. The referendum on Britain’s EU membership will become more unpredictable. Britain needs an opposition that lives in the real world and a united, focused government. With Mr Corbyn as Labour leader, it risks having neither.
ah so in the long run, all good, Tories self destruct, electorate, never ones to trust a party that splinters, turns to a reformed labour party (once all those Blairites have defected to the liberals) and the Conservatives are consigned to the dustbin of history, leaving the UK Governed by a lab/lib/snp coalition.....happy days
And as for the SNP in power being good for the country - really?
Anyhow, I've exercised my democratic right to help set the labour bandwagon on course for the electoral brick wall "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
the point i m making is that no one knows the future and all this talk about the uk being governed by the tories for decades to come, should Corbyn get elected, is pure BS.
the electorate should nt be taking for granted like that, as said earlier, these sort of things have habit of blowing up in ones face.0 -
the point i m making is that no one knows the future and all this talk about the uk being governed by the tories for decades to come, should Corbyn get elected, is pure BS.
I think that Labour could be in a lot of difficulty anyway due to their stance on immigration. Unless things calm down a bit in parts of the Muslim world, the left in Europe will continue to lose working class votes.
(As soon as Stevo reads this, he'll be putting £3 in an envelope to send to Islamic State :P )0 -
the point i m making is that no one knows the future and all this talk about the uk being governed by the tories for decades to come, should Corbyn get elected, is pure BS.
the electorate should nt be taking for granted like that, as said earlier, these sort of things have habit of blowing up in ones face.
Precisely!!
History teaches us well. In 1975, the Labour party celebrated long into the night when Margaret Thatcher was elected leader of the Conservatives............ That worked out well for them didn't it?
And to those voting for Corbyn to keep Labour out of power for the foreseeable future......... Careful what you wish for!!0 -
The idea that the disarray of the opposition is all that is required to keep you in power is misguided. It certainly helps your case to have weak opponents but eventually, when your winning party becomes so corrupt with power they lose control of themselves, they become just as objectionable as the opposition. Tories imploded in power last time round. Absolutely no reason they won't again. The tensions are all still there. But right now, I'd suggest things are in their favour for 2020.0
