# Is it time for a Corbyn thread?



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Let's start with this:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9637452/why-ive-finally-given-up-on-the-left/


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

The author of that article is but a prattling nincompoop with self promotion being his true interest. As to the subject of the article, politics really rather bores me, the truth is obfuscated by the necessarily hideous immediacy of 24 hour news.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Shaver, I sympathize. The political coverage here is insufferable. And astonishingly devoid of substance. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

tocqueville said:


> Shaver, I sympathize. The political coverage here is insufferable. And astonishingly devoid of substance.


Yet another reason to select WSJ and NPR over MSNBC, Fox, and the rest of the attention whores that masquerade as news organizations.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Unfortunately, though, all politicians are now so heavily instructed in media savoir that policy is replaced by polish.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Disregarding odd scandals concerning secret societies and pig's head initiation rites, Labour, and to some extent the Conservative Party also, have become hollowed-out and bland in their efforts to be populist. Society now is rather fragmented and for some, extremist policies at either end of the political spectrum have growing appeal - certainly there is a strand of public opinion that supports Corbyn's far-left policies.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...most-people-actually-agree-with-10407148.html


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

There is indeed. Whether or not one agrees with Corbyn's policies and views, his appearance has revitalised British politics.Party membership has declined dramatically in the last decade or two, especially amongst the young. This is mainly because they couldn't see any significant difference between the two main parties or between the mainstream politicians. Corbyn's success has changed that drift towards apathy and indifference, and can only be a good thing.
The popular media's sustained attacks on him seem to be highlighting their right wing views, however. My younger son asked me last week why the popular press hate him so much and write so much trivial rubbish in the guise of criticism of him, because, in his words, it only makes them look pathetic.
I would, however, suggest that his views are simply of the left, rather than the far left. We're not talking about communism here, or even socialism. The political spectrum in Europe certainly has drifted so far to the right that an ideolgical approach that is left of centre is now viewed as far left. The Labour party when it developed into "New Labour" was further to the right than the Tories were in the 1960's and early 1970's, for example.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

*Cameron vs Corbyn*

Corbyn is of course just what the doctor ordered, as far as the media are concerned - a gift, in many ways. Some sort of approval rating has just been conducted on his behalf:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po...ever-to-score-negative-debut-poll-rating.html



> Jeremy Corbyn has become the first Labour leader to score a negative poll rating on his debut, Ipsos-MORI has confirmed.
> 
> The left-wing firebrand scored minus three - worse than every other party leader since 1980, including Ed Miliband.
> 
> His rating was also worse than the Conservatives Iain Duncan Smith and William Hague.


I still feel he represents some form of menace, nevertheless. His first victim, however, appears likely to be the Labour Party itself.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po...be-closer-than-any-of-us-really-believed.html



> Is the Labour Party a serious national political party or the parliamentary wing of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Some interesting articles here:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/20/ed-vulliamy-jeremy-corbyn-observer-editorial
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/...xfs&st_refDomain=t.co&st_refQuery=/Pk8pXfYIhM
and here:
https://newsthump.com/2015/09/16/go...e-queen-after-jeremy-corbyn-didnt-ask-nicely/


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

*Jeremy Corbyn: 'I would not use nuclear weapons'*

No surprises there, but just for the avoidance of any doubt:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34399565


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> No surprises there, but just for the avoidance of any doubt:
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34399565


My own view is that any aspiring politician who said that they _*would*_ press the nuclear button is a maniac who should be automatically disqualified as a consequence of saying so!

As far as our supposedly "independent" nuclear deterrent is concerned, I'd be interested to see in what circumstances our members think the nuclear button *should* be pressed that would be for the defence and protection of one's country.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

As long as any potential enemy (of which there are many) has potential access to nuclear weapons, any announcement of the sort Mr Corbyn has made abandons the necessary deterrence and exposes us to nuclear blackmail. In fact it might well give them an incentive to develop such weapons. There has to be a credible retaliatory threat to prevent this.

However, a problem arises with amorphous terrorist organisations like ISIS and the Taliban gaining access to nuclear weapons - the threat of retaliation would be unlikely to deter them.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I wonder, brother Chouan, if you recall the wonderful 1988 television drama 'A Very British Coup'? At the time of broadcast a seemingly fantastical tale of a fictional hard left labour leader, Harry Perkins, becoming prime minister. Well, Harry had the right idea as far as nuclear warheads are concerned. If we don't have them we will never need to decide when to commence slinging them around. 

Anyone who would feel less safe in an England free of nuclear weaponry needs to consider sharpening up their powers of deductive reasoning.

EDIT: Mr Langham and I must have been typing simultaneously, the above comment is decidedly not a direct response to his own opinion.

.
.

.
.
.
.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> I wonder, brother Chouan, if you recall the wonderful 1988 television drama 'A Very British Coup'? At the time of broadcast a seemingly fantastical tale of a fictional hard left labour leader, Harry Perkins, becoming prime minister. Well, Harry had the right idea as far as nuclear warheads are concerned. If we don't have them we will never need to decide when to commence slinging them around.
> 
> Anyone who would feel less safe in an England free of nuclear weaponry needs to consider sharpening up their powers of deductive reasoning.
> 
> ...


I do indeed, it was very, very good, if more than a little disturbing!
There was a very good section on the use, or otherwise, of nuclear weapons in an episode of "Yes, Prime Minister" with Jim Hacker be asked what situation would lead him to press the button. Ultimately the response was, predictably, never.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> I wonder, brother Chouan, if you recall the wonderful 1988 television drama 'A Very British Coup'? At the time of broadcast a seemingly fantastical tale of a fictional hard left labour leader, Harry Perkins, becoming prime minister. Well, Harry had the right idea as far as nuclear warheads are concerned. If we don't have them we will never need to decide when to commence slinging them around.
> 
> Anyone who would feel less safe in an England free of nuclear weaponry needs to consider sharpening up their powers of deductive reasoning.
> 
> ...


This is quite good. https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news...t-be-prepared-to-kill-everyone-20151001102480


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

That rather humorously illustrates one of the many downsides of a thoroughly lose/lose scenario that nukes represent.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I think the issue is less "would he use them" but "would he pay for them." They and the submarines that launch them are very, very expensive. If, as PM, he walked away from the nuke program, that could have all sorts of ramifications for Europe, NATO, France, and the US. I'm worried that he kill off the "special relationship," which in real world terms amounts to an astonishingly high degree of integration with the US in the military and intelligence realms. It could, among other things, prove very expensive to both sides, and the UK would find itself in the dark once the US pulls the plug on all the sharing. NATO would be dead. 

NATO planning, by the way, was based on the idea that the ability of the UK et al to go nuclear was what prevented a war from breaking out. It was never "would he" but "could he"? The UK and France got nukes so that they wouldn't have to rely on the US to protect them, although ultimately the UK program was so lashed up with the US program that it's hard to argue for its real autonomy. If the UK scrapped its nukes, one can argue that it would make it even more reliant on the US--and also France, a possibility that I'm sure wouldn't sit well with a lefty like Corbyn.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ The vast expense of the Trident replacement is a headache for any future government and PM. I would say Mr Corbyn's issue with nukes goes deeper than cost, however. As for the 'special relationship', most of those on the left here would be only too happy to dance on its grave.

Unfortunately, like many politicians, Mr Corbyn has a rather secretive side to his character, he does not always say what he really thinks. Rather than declaring his republican sentiments in an honest and forthright way, for instance, he pretends to have prior engagements to avoid having to kneel before the Queen.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

I perceive Corbyn to be the English Donald Trump; someone who was elected to voice displeasure.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

DCLawyer68 said:


> I perceive Corbyn to be the English Donald Trump; someone who was elected to voice displeasure.


Corbyn is the complete opposite of Donald Trump, apart from saying more or less what he thinks and not some PR waffle that afflicts 95% of politicians.
Unfortunately most of what he thinks is completely wrong and he is on very friendly terms with mass murderers.

On a sartorial note however, this evening he has faced up to the job in hand and has donned white tie for a Royal banquet.
Couldn't pull the same "prior engagement" stunt more than once in a few weeks.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ Is it possible to become a senior politician without being on friendly terms with mass murderers?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Odradek said:


> Corbyn is the complete opposite of Donald Trump, apart from saying more or less what he thinks and not some PR waffle that afflicts 95% of politicians.
> Unfortunately most of what he thinks is completely wrong and _*he is on very friendly terms with mass murderers.*_
> 
> On a sartorial note however, this evening he has faced up to the job in hand and has donned white tie for a Royal banquet.
> Couldn't pull the same "prior engagement" stunt more than once in a few weeks.


Which mass murderers are these?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

There is a theory that Mr Corbyn is secretly in the pay of the Tories, and is quite successfully acting out the role of a crypto-Trotskyite intent on administering the coup de grace to New Labour.

I see no resemblance to Donald Trump.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Chouan said:


> Which mass murderers are these?


Exhibit A


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Odradek said:


> Exhibit A


Sinn Fein are mass murderers?


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

They also go by another name.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Odradek said:


> They also go by another name.


Ah, you mean like David Cameron's friends?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jan/26/david-cameron-unionists-alliance

Here he is with other friends:


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

He does have a soft spot for terrorists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> He does have a soft spot for terrorists.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


David Cameron? Yes indeed.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Oh, Chouan, let's not get into this. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> Oh, Chouan, let's not get into this.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Those who use terror for political ends are terrorists, whatever their political aims are.

In any case, if one accuses a politician, like Corbyn, of associating with terrorists, or of having a "soft spot" for terrorists, one is likely to get a response that one might not like.
Here are more politicians showing a "soft spot" for a terrorist.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Those who use terror for political ends are terrorists, whatever their political aims are.


If we agree on that, can we also agree that Hamas and Hizbullah are terrorist groups?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> If we agree on that, can we also agree that Hamas and Hizbullah are terrorist groups?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Of course they are. As are the various Loyalist "paramilitary" organisations who are represented in Norn Iron by the DUP.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

If you apply your standards basically to anyone who uses violence to achieve an end, so be it. At least that's fair, although it's a form of moral equivalence that I find odd. That said, I find that most who get worked up over Netanyahu seem to have little outrage left over for anyone else who ostensibly, in their eyes, fits that broad category. One decries Netayahu but not other "terrorist" leaders or regards him as somehow greater than others. That's when I become suspicious.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> If you apply your standards basically to anyone who uses violence to achieve an end, so be it. At least that's fair, although it's a form of moral equivalence that I find odd.


There's a difference between the use of violence and the use of terror. They're not synonymous.



tocqueville said:


> That said, I find that most who get worked up over Netanyahu seem to have little outrage left over for anyone else who ostensibly, in their eyes, fits that broad category. One decries Netayahu but not other "terrorist" leaders or regards him as somehow greater than others. That's when I become suspicious.


Because Netanhayu is a terrorist who is running a country, who has control of the armed forces of that country and has massive political and economic support from lots of other countries, which makes him far more powerful, and far more dangerous than any other terrorist I can think of.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan said:


> There's a difference between the use of violence and the use of terror. They're not synonymous.


So what's the difference? And what's the difference between Netanyahu and any other head of state who resorts to armed force? One can be short-sighted, incompetent, a thief, a liar, etc., but what makes a head of state a terrorist?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> So what's the difference? And what's the difference between Netanyahu and any other head of state who resorts to armed force? One can be short-sighted, incompetent, a thief, a liar, etc., but what makes a head of state a terrorist?


The use of terror, that is the use of violence against civilians, rather than against primarily military targets, to achieve a political aim. To create fear such as to create an atmosphere that enables, theoretically, the terrorist can achieve their ends. Indiscriminate IDF attacks on civilians in Gaza, for example, is an example of terrorism, or the extra-legal demolition of suspects houses, as is Hamas firing unguided and unaimed rockets into Israel.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Right, so Corbyn , who has said he is friends with Hamas and Hizbullah, has a soft spot for terrorists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> Right, so Corbyn , who has said he is friends with Hamas and Hizbullah, has a soft spot for terrorists.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Can you explain or show when he said that "he was friends with" Hamas and Hezbollah? You're not taking the populist press in the UK at face value are you?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Can you explain or show when he said that "he was friends with" Hamas and Hezbollah? You're not taking the populist press in the UK at face value are you?


[video]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1198729/Labour-MP-Jeremy-Corbyn-Friends-Hamas-Hezbollah.html[/video]


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

As someone who at least in the US identifies with the Left, I'm always deeply saddened by the tolerance that some in the Left have for movements that are anathema to everything they ostensibly believe in. A good leftist in my eyes is a champion of the Rights of Man, the values of the Enlightenment, and if not secularism than at least anti-clerical. They should have no truck with groups like Hezbollah.

That's a reason why I had a lot of respect for Christopher Hitchens. He was very consistent in his hostility, attacking with equal measure Israeli policies and the movements seeking to destroy Israel and Western values along with them.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> [video]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1198729/Labour-MP-Jeremy-Corbyn-Friends-Hamas-Hezbollah.html[/video]


As I said, the right wing populist press. In this case taking a short extract from a welcoming statement from a person chairing a meeting out of context (hence the 30 seconds rather than the whole speech). In any case, he didn't say that he was "friends with" Hamas or Hezbollah.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

*"...Undereducated, humourless, third-rate..."*

This thread has gone off course slightly - it's supposed to be about Corbyn. This morning's Times has a nice article that puts him in his place:







> *Martin Amis, the outstanding novelist of his generation, pours scorn on Labour's new leader*
> 
> ... for the lion's share of my twenties I found myself close to the epicentre of the Corbyn milieu. For I was on the staff of the New Statesman - attending party conferences, drinking with parliamentary correspondents and playing regular games of cricket and football against Tribune and other loose confederations of the left. There were identikit Corbyns everywhere - right down to the ginger beard, the plump fountain pen in the top pocket and the visible undervest, slightly discoloured in the family wash.
> Weedy, nervy and thrifty (you often saw a little folded purse full of humid coins), with an awkward-squad look about them (as if nursing a well-informed grievance), the Corbyns were in fact honest and good-hearted. Politically, they were the salt of the earth - "those to whom", at some stage and on some level, "the miseries of the world / Are misery, and will not let them rest" (John Keats). What the exponents of the old left were like humanly depended - with mathematical precision - on how doctrinaire they were. You sought the company of Alan Watkins and Mary Holland, among many others; you avoided the company of Corin Redgrave and Kika Markham (as well as the more driven Corbyns).
> ...


https://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1624204.ece


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> This thread has gone off course slightly - it's supposed to be about Corbyn. This morning's Times has a nice article that puts him in his place:
> https://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1624204.ece


Oh look. A rant against Corbyn from a "New Labour" (Tory-Lite) supporter in the Murdoch press. What a surprise.......


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ I don't think you can criticise the article on the basis of who wrote it, or where it was printed. It's all about Corbyn, and I suspect he will only attract a growing volume of such criticism as the underlyingly rather unpleasant nature of the man and his tendencies becomes increasingly apparent.

Personally I am no great fan of Martin Amis - in fact, as a novelist, I think he's highly overrated. However, I'm interested that he has been so swift to skewer Corbyn. I'm not aware that he was particularly close to New Labour, either, but I may be wrong.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> ^ I don't think you can criticise the article on the basis of who wrote it, or where it was printed. It's all about Corbyn, and I suspect he will only attract a growing volume of such criticism as the underlyingly rather unpleasant nature of the man and his tendencies becomes increasingly apparent.
> 
> Personally I am no great fan of Martin Amis - in fact, as a novelist, I think he's highly overrated. However, I'm interested that he has been so swift to skewer Corbyn. I'm not aware that he was particularly close to New Labour, either, but I may be wrong.


The provenance of such an article is of course important. The writer and the newspaper proprietor have their agenda and produced the article to further that agenda. Their bias will obviously have an impact on what they present.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ I think it's quite widely known, even common knowledge, that Rupert Murdoch is the proprietor of The Times. Factor that in if you wish, I think Amis still make some telling points about Corbyn. To say he is 'biased' suggests he is misrepresenting Corbyn in some way, which I do not think is the case. I would say that he is highlighting some aspects of Corbyn's background and general character that Mr Corbyn might have preferred remained hidden.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> ^ I think it's quite widely known, even common knowledge, that Rupert Murdoch is the proprietor of The Times. Factor that in if you wish, I think Amis still make some telling points about Corbyn. To say he is 'biased' suggests he is misrepresenting Corbyn in some way, which I do not think is the case. I would say that he is highlighting some aspects of Corbyn's background and general character that Mr Corbyn might have preferred remained hidden.


Or it might be that both you and Mr.Amis dislike Corbyn and you agree with his views and hence don't read them uncritically.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Or it might be that both you and Mr.Amis dislike Corbyn and you agree with his views and hence don't read them uncritically.


Everything I read and learn about Corbyn (and not just from The Times, and certainly not just Martin Amis) feeds and enriches my dislike for the man. However, the dislike is moderated by the fact that I also feel a degree of pity for him. The Labour Party, by various perverse machinations, has promoted him to a position that lies beyond what any dispassionate observer would recognise as the limits of his intellectual competence.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> *Everything I read and learn about Corbyn (and not just from The Times, and certainly not just Martin Amis) feeds and enriches my dislike for the man.* However, the dislike is moderated by the fact that I also feel a degree of pity for him. The Labour Party, by various perverse machinations, has promoted him to a position that lies beyond what any dispassionate observer would recognise as the limits of his intellectual competence.


The populist as well as the rest of the Murdoch press really dislike him and have relentlessly attacked him from before he was elected to the leadership. The professional political observers don't like him either, as he isn't what they're used to dealing with.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/corbyn-lacks-my-likeability-says-amis-20151026103281
More on Martin amis here: https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news...yable-character-in-mario-kart-8-2013122082198


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

*"Very different from over here, where we consider him a boring, big-headed bastard."*



Chouan said:


> https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/corbyn-lacks-my-likeability-says-amis-20151026103281
> More on Martin amis here: https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news...yable-character-in-mario-kart-8-2013122082198


What's this?? Amis has made himself unpopular with Corbyn's toadies? Perhaps he's touched a raw nerve ...


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> What's this?? Amis has made himself unpopular with Corbyn's toadies? Perhaps he's touched a raw nerve ...


Amis was unpopular long before Corbyn became known popularly! Look at the date on the second post.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Chouan said:


> Sinn Fein are mass murderers?


Corbyn and Livingstone with Adams in 1983, at the height of the IRA murder campaign.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ And the Caliph of Baghdad on the far right, unless I'm mistaken.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

tocqueville said:


> If you apply your standards basically to anyone who uses violence to achieve an end, so be it. At least that's fair, although it's a form of moral equivalence that I find odd. That said, I find that most who get worked up over Netanyahu seem to have little outrage left over for anyone else who ostensibly, in their eyes, fits that broad category. One decries Netayahu but not other "terrorist" leaders or regards him as somehow greater than others. That's when I become suspicious.


You can call Netanyahu a war criminal if you prefer.

Spain has just issued a warrant for his arrest.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...tanyahu-over-2010-gaza-flotilla-a6736436.html

The UK always fails to act in similar situations, for example when Tzipi Livni turned up on our shores a while back.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/13/israel-tzipi-livni-diplomatic-immunity-uk


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Odradek said:


> Corbyn and Livingstone with Adams in 1983, at the height of the IRA murder campaign.


I repeat. Sinn Fein are mass murderers? Some on this forum would argue that the PIRA were nothing more than freedom fighters! (Not me, I hasten to add).


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> I repeat. Sinn Fein are mass murderers? Some on this forum would argue that the PIRA were nothing more than freedom fighters! (Not me, I hasten to add).


Why do you query this? The links between Sinn Fein and the IRA are abundantly clear and extend to the Sinn Fein leadership and IRA ruling council. Just spend some time googling. Many of the terrorist acts of the IRA would qualify as mass murder.

Perhaps the mild-mannered Corbyn should explain why he is so drawn to terrorists, what the link is.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)




----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I like Amis's comparison of the Corbyn left with today's Republican Party. There's something to that. 

Chouan, I think your practice of dismissing sources is too easy. You can do better than that. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

*Further revelations about Corbyn's terrorist links*

The Times carries an article detailing Corbyn's shadow chancellor's shady past when he was certainly not shy in lending support to the IRA and advocating terrorism at every opportunity - even on the very day in 1981 when an IRA bomb in Chelsea drove an eight-inch nail through an old age pensioner's heart and mortally wounded an Irish bystander.

It still seems a stain on British politics that such a man is allowed anywhere near the levers of power, and the fact that he is Corbyn's most trusted acolyte can only be a reflection on Corbyn's warped sense of values.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4625106.ece



> John McDonnell called for the "ballot, the bullet and the bomb" to unite Ireland at the height of the IRA's terrorism campaign against Britain, _The Times can reveal. The shadow chancellor also suggested, with black humour, that Labour councillors who refused to meet the IRA's political wing should have their knee-caps shot off._


McDonnell, who was speaking as part of a tour by Sinn Fein of Labour councils in London that he helped to organise, now claims to have no recollection of the remarks; alternatively, that they have been reported 'out of context', but it seems quite clear that he is basically an odious bully.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> I like Amis's comparison of the Corbyn left with today's Republican Party. There's something to that.
> 
> Chouan, I think your practice of dismissing sources is too easy. You can do better than that.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Amis' opinion is just that, an opinion, nothing more. That he is a fairly famous novelist doesn't make his opinion of any more value than anybody else's.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Amis' opinion is just that, an opinion, nothing more. That he is a fairly famous novelist doesn't make his opinion of any more value than anybody else's.


I would disagree with that - Amis's article was not just opinion, it represented a careful marshalling of facts, and the fact that he is an accomplished novelist added particular cogency and coherence to the article. If I were writing the article myself, I might have found Corbyn harder to pin down, but I would have made use of at least some of the same facts; but Amis skewered him, and the effects of such articles are incalculable. This weekend there is talk of Corbyn being given the shove by the shadow cabinet.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> I would disagree with that - Amis's article was not just opinion, it represented a careful marshalling of facts, and the fact that he is an accomplished novelist added particular cogency and coherence to the article.


Indeed, he is a skillfull writer. However, it still remains that the article is merely the expression of an opinion, nothing more. That he is a writer who doesn't like Corbyn or his politics doesn't make his view any more valid.



Langham said:


> This weekend there is talk of Corbyn being given the shove by the shadow cabinet.


Of course there is. The political establishment, including the news media, can't abide a person who isn't "one of them". The deliberate misrepresenting of his views by the BBC is particularly reprehensible.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Indeed, he is a skillfull writer. However, it still remains that the article is merely the expression of an opinion, nothing more. That he is a writer who doesn't like Corbyn or his politics doesn't make his view any more valid.


I'm not sure why you persist in labelling as 'opinion' facts that are matters of public record - such as Corbyn's attachment to disarmament and pacifism, his past association with terrorists, his 'indifferent' educational record. Clearly Amis has an agenda and has not exactly gone out of his way to make Corbyn a sympathetic character (why should he?), and his merciless drawing of attention to Corbyn's lack of a sense of humour and failure to appreciate the mood of the broader British public might seem to be bordering on opinion, but my case is that he has painted a rather believable picture of the man, one that is based on fact.



> Of course there is. The political establishment, including the news media, can't abide a person who isn't "one of them". The deliberate misrepresenting of his views by the BBC is particularly reprehensible.


Please give some examples of the BBC doing this. It has long been the case that the BBC has been too free by half in pursuing a particular political agenda, one that is generally quite partisan and sympathetic to the left. However, in this instance the media (I read it in The Times, not on the BBC) seems merely to have been reporting what senior shadow cabinet colleagues were freely stating - that they could not support Corbyn and were actively investigating ways to depose him.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> I'm not sure why you persist in labelling as 'opinion' facts that are matters of public record - such as Corbyn's attachment to disarmament and pacifism, his past association with terrorists, his 'indifferent' educational record. Clearly Amis has an agenda and has not exactly gone out of his way to make Corbyn a sympathetic character (why should he?), and his merciless drawing of attention to Corbyn's lack of a sense of humour and failure to appreciate the mood of the broader British public might seem to be bordering on opinion, but my case is that he has painted a rather believable picture of the man, one that is based on fact.


He has used, selectively, some facts, from which he has created an image that some people, such as yourself, agree with. However, just because you agree with his interpretation it doesn't mean that it is an accurate interpretation, or the only interpretation.



Langham said:


> Please give some examples of the BBC doing this. It has long been the case that the BBC has been too free by half in pursuing a particular political agenda, one that is generally quite partisan and sympathetic to the left. However, in this instance the media (I read it in The Times, not on the BBC) seems merely to have been reporting what senior shadow cabinet colleagues were freely stating - that they could not support Corbyn and were actively investigating ways to depose him.


Easy. Over the weekend they consistently reported Corbyn as being "opposed to bombing Syria" and that he would "oppose bombing Syria". This isn't what he said, or has said. He consistently said that he was waiting for Cameron to make a case for bombing Syria, and would be opposed to bombing Syria if it wasn't part of an overall strategy which included a means of bringing stability to the region. This part of his view wasn't reported. That is deliberate misreporting. 
The BBC along with the rest of the populist media is more concerned with what the "New Labour" (Tory Lite) people in Parliament think than what the main stream Labour supporters think. Main Stream Labour (of which I am not one) are fully behind Corbyn, which the BBC and the rest of the "establishment" ignores in favour of listening to the people who lost the leadership vote and their supporters. The news media would far prefer the rather more cosy extant political establishment to relative unknowns like Corbyn.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> The Times carries an article detailing Corbyn's shadow chancellor's shady past when he was certainly not shy in lending support to the IRA and advocating terrorism at every opportunity - even on the very day in 1981 when an IRA bomb in Chelsea drove an eight-inch nail through an old age pensioner's heart and mortally wounded an Irish bystander.
> 
> It still seems a stain on British politics that such a man is allowed anywhere near the levers of power, and the fact that he is Corbyn's most trusted acolyte can only be a reflection on Corbyn's warped sense of values.
> 
> ...


In terms of politician's links with mass murderers, these are interesting. 


















Both have killed far more than any terrorist organisation!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)




----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

I think your own postings reveal a degree of internal inconsistency in your rationalisation of things ...



Chouan said:


> ... just because you agree with his interpretation it doesn't mean that it is an accurate interpretation, or the only interpretation.
> 
> ...
> 
> Both have killed far more than any terrorist organisation!


The latter claim simply being your own interpretation, or rather fabrication, of the unknowable.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Further evidence of the man's fondness for terrorists, and his unsuitability for high office, emerges this morning. Quite funny, but also rather worrying:


> Jeremy Corbyn intervened to secure bail for a con artist accused of stealing money from pensioners in order to raise funds for Isil jihadists in Syria.
> 
> The Labour leader to magistrates in May in a bid to help Mohamed Dahir, 23 secure bail.
> 
> ...


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...-Mohamed-Dahir-to-be-freed-for-Christmas.html


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

*The candlepower of a glow worm*

More news on Corbyn, today, who has been completing a reshuffle of his shadow cabinet. I'm not sure where to begin, as The Telegraph has really gone to town with him. So far today there have been three resignations from his cabinet, and he has been described in Parliament as a 'threat to national security', which seems a fair assessment of someone who would abolish the armed forces, withdraw from NATO and shut down MI5, but I quite liked the following assessment, from someone from Old Labour:



> *Corbyn is 'unsuited to be a minister of any kind.. he has the candlepower of a glow worm'*
> 
> Joe Haines, the press secretary to former prime minister Harold Wilson, has broken his silence with an attack on Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.
> In an article for the New Statesman he urges Labour moderates to act without delay to remove the leader who threatens "impending disaster".
> ...


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po...le-jeremy-corbyn-david-cameron-pmqs-live.html


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> More news on Corbyn, today, who has been completing a reshuffle of his shadow cabinet. I'm not sure where to begin, as The Telegraph has really gone to town with him. So far today there have been three resignations from his cabinet, and he has been described in Parliament as a 'threat to national security', which seems a fair assessment of s*omeone who would abolish the armed forces, withdraw from NATO and shut down MI5,* but I quite liked the following assessment, from someone from Old Labour:


Really? Any evidence for these assertions, apart from Michael Fallon's opinion?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po...le-jeremy-corbyn-david-cameron-pmqs-live.html


You'd rather have a leader who was good at smartarse remarks than one who was concerned about those affected by flooding, you know, the people who the government are supposed to be concerned about? 
The Torygraph is hardly "evidence" for anything but the fact that Tories, both the red and the blue kind, can't stand Corbyn.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> You'd rather have a leader who was good at smartarse remarks than one who was concerned about those affected by flooding, you know, the people who the government are supposed to be concerned about?
> The Torygraph is hardly "evidence" for anything but the fact that Tories, both the red and the blue kind, can't stand Corbyn.


But where _was_ Saint Jeremy when the north was deluged? There were pictures of Cameron in his special wellies, looking deeply concerned, but Jeremy stayed at home, apparently. He said he "didn't want to get in the way", which I think is a perfectly good excuse for staying at home.

I think you may find there is a surprising degree of secret support for Corbyn, both at the DT and among Tories, although not for very straightforward or even particularly honourable reasons.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Really? Any evidence for these assertions, apart from Michael Fallon's opinion?


No, I just made it up as I went along.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

*What Britain's defence policy would have been like under Labour*



> Britain would be safer if its defence policy was to have "cups of tea" with Isil terrorists rather than bomb them, one of Jeremy Corbyn's key allies on Labour's ruling body has said.
> 
> Christine Shawcroft, who sits on the party's National Executive Committee and is a senior figure in Momentum, said that soldiers should "get the teabags out" to solve the Syrian crisis rather than resorting to air strikes.
> 
> ...




https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po...State-terrorists-says-Jeremy-Corbyn-ally.html


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

*Hitler was a Zionist; The coup against Corbyn has begun*

Interesting developments in Labour's ongoing anti-Semitism row. Livingstone rants that "Hitler was a Zionist", and Corbyn prevaricates over suspending his old mate Ken, lending credence to the view that he too harbours similar anti-Semitic sentiments. Meanwhile, George Galloway claims it is all a coup directed against Corbyn.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/ken-livingstone-suspended-labour-party-anti-semitism/


> According to an insider, stressed-out Labour staffers are in tears this afternoon at the state of the party, after Mr Livingstone appeared to defend alleged antisemitic comments made by other Labour members and MPs on live TV and radio this morning.
> 
> 6:01pm*European Jewish Congress calls for urgent Labour action on antisemitism*
> 
> ...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Thank God I live in America.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> Thank God I live in America.


I take it there are no outspoken xenophobes in the land of the free?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> Interesting developments in Labour's ongoing anti-Semitism row. Livingstone rants that "Hitler was a Zionist", and Corbyn prevaricates over suspending his old mate Ken, lending credence to the view that he too harbours similar anti-Semitic sentiments. Meanwhile, George Galloway claims it is all a coup directed against Corbyn.
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/ken-livingstone-suspended-labour-party-anti-semitism/


Of course it is. There are "New Labour" activists beavering away to try to undermine Corbyn, seeking out anything that might discredit or defame him or his supporters.

Rather than asserting that Livingstone "Rants that Hitler was a Zionist", it might be useful to hear for yourself what he actually said https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...-a-Zionist-interview-BBC-London-Vanessa-Feltz . He did no more than state the truth. Hitler met Zionist leaders during the early 1930s to discuss Zionism and to facilitate the migration of German Jews to Israel. No "rant", no factual inaccuracy, no anti-semitism, unless anti-semitism can be defined as saying anything that a Jew might find uncomfortable. More on the Nazi meetings and agreements with Zionist leaders here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement and here https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0008_0_08075.html and here https://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_weber.html
How dare Ken Livingston tell a factual truth!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Langham said:


> I take it there are no outspoken xenophobes in the land of the free?


No one is running around calling anyone a Zionist.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

The Israel lobby flexing its muscles with John Mann as its Shabbos goy enforcer?

You can say whatever you want about Muslims - but mention Israel or Jews in anyway they do not like and the anti semitism card gets played.

So-called Friends of Israel have bought off all the political parties in the UK too. The Peter Oborne documentary on the subject was very interesting.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> No one is running around calling anyone a Zionist.


Oh, that's alright then. On the other hand, people are running around, or standing on podiums, condemning Muslims as terrorists, as if every Muslim is responsible for the actions of individual Muslims. I suppose that policemen running round shooting people because they feel like it, then lying about it don't count?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Of course it is. There are "New Labour" activists beavering away to try to undermine Corbyn, seeking out anything that might discredit or defame him or his supporters.
> 
> Rather than asserting that Livingstone "Rants that Hitler was a Zionist", it might be useful to hear for yourself what he actually said https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...-a-Zionist-interview-BBC-London-Vanessa-Feltz . He did no more than state the truth. Hitler met Zionist leaders during the early 1930s to discuss Zionism and to facilitate the migration of German Jews to Israel. No "rant", no factual inaccuracy, no anti-semitism, unless anti-semitism can be defined as saying anything that a Jew might find uncomfortable. More on the Nazi meetings and agreements with Zionist leaders here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement and here https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0008_0_08075.html and here https://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_weber.html
> How dare Ken Livingston tell a factual truth!


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-slow-to-react-to-anti--semitism-allegations/

As I understand it, the outrage within the warring factions of the Labour party was provoked principally by Livingstone's assertion that it was  "over the top" to "think of anti-Semitism and racism as exactly the same thing".-Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn has apparently been warned off coming near the local election campaign, for fear of scaring the voters.

Labour has got itself into a bit of a mess over this issue, almost without trying, but the perception that the party hates Jews will harm them in the long term.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> The Israel lobby flexing its muscles with John Mann as its Shabbos goy enforcer?
> 
> You can say whatever you want about Muslims - but mention Israel or Jews in anyway they do not like and the anti semitism card gets played.
> 
> So-called Friends of Israel have bought off all the political parties in the UK too. The Peter Oborne documentary on the subject was very interesting.


Indeed. The film of Mann doing *his* rant is so obviously a staged, pre-planned set up. Unfortunately, he isn't a very good actor, and his glances at the camera rather give it away.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> ...
> 
> So-called Friends of Israel have bought off all the political parties in the UK too. ...


If that is so I expect they will be asking for a refund now.



Chouan said:


> Indeed. The film of Mann doing *his* rant is so obviously a staged, pre-planned set up. Unfortunately, he isn't a very good actor, and his glances at the camera rather give it away.


Many aspects of the entire bust-up seem rather stage-managed, which somewhat adds to the interest, to my mind, but naturally Mann was speaking to the camera. He was still speaking to the camera when Livingstone had gone through the revolving door and was out of earshot.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Langham said:


> If that is so I expect they will be asking for a refund now.


Why?

It seems to me that the whole episode plays to the classic Jewish victimhood narrative. As Norman Finklestein points out, that is a more useful position than to be seen as a privileged elite.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> Why?
> 
> It seems to me that the whole episode plays to the classic Jewish victimhood narrative. As Norman Finklestein points out, that is a more useful position than to be seen as a privileged elite.


Are you saying that the Jews are behind the current turmoil in Labour?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> Why?
> 
> It seems to me that the whole episode plays to the classic Jewish victimhood narrative. As Norman Finklestein points out, that is a more useful position than to be seen as a privileged elite.


Indeed. The Chairman of the Board of Deputies this morning was playing that role to the hilt, in a trembling voice he accused Livingstone of saying that Zionists were Nazis! No doubt many people will want to believe that.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> Are you saying that the Jews are behind the current turmoil in Labour?


I would repeat my earlier suggestion that it is the anti-Corbynistas who are orchestrating this, with the help of the usual populist news media, who always relish anything potentially negative about Corbyn and his supporters.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Langham said:


> Are you saying that the Jews are behind the current turmoil in Labour?


Don't you know? The Jews are responsible for everything. Argue otherwise and you're nothing more than a Zionist whose been bought and paid for by the Israeli lobby.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Langham said:


> Are you saying that the Jews are behind the current turmoil in Labour?


John Mann is the head of something called the All Parliamentary Group on Antisemitism. I assume he has to demonstrate a reason for such a body to exist and a reason for him to be its leader.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

We have not seen traditional anti-semitism for many decades now. So those who take it on themselves to fight it have to look very hard indeed to find it.

The Israeli director Yoav Shamir's film 'defamation' was instructive. His old granny was feisty. She could say things that others would get called out on but not get labelled a self hating Jew.

Of course it never got a look in at the Oscars.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Don't you know? The Jews are responsible for everything. Argue otherwise and you're nothing more than a Zionist whose been bought and paid for by the Israeli lobby.


Are you arguing that what was said _*was*_ anti-Semitic?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Are you arguing that what was said _*was*_ anti-Semitic?


I'm not arguing anything. I'm just amazed at the facility with which the terms Zionist is bandied about in your politics.

I'm amazed that in 2016 this sort of thing still goes on.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I'm not arguing anything. I'm just amazed at the facility with which the terms Zionist is bandied about in your politics.
> 
> I'm amazed that in 2016 this sort of thing still goes on.


Are you confusing Judaism and Zionism?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Are you confusing Judaism and Zionism?


Why even use the term? It's rather repugnant.

It's a cop out. It's used when one is out of ideas. Sort of the equivalent of just calling someone a racist, which is what Zionism implies, in order to shut down discussion.

I'm not really sure what Zionism is really. Would you care to describe it to me? And please be candid.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/04/opinions/livingstone-is-wrong-about-zionism-lipstadt/index.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/04/opinions/livingstone-is-wrong-about-zionism-lipstadt/index.html
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Look at the links given in my post No.80. That Zionist leaders made agreements with the Nazis is a fact, a fact acknowledged by Israel. That fact, however, does not mean that Hitler was a Zionist or that Zionists were Nazis. As I showed in the clip of the interview that caused the problem, what he said was very different to what he is accused of having said.
The Left in Europe has a great deal of sympathy, rightly, with the Palestinians, and a great deal of dislike for the heavy handed actions of the Israeli government, and it's support for the illegal occupations of Palestinian's lands by Israeli settlers, against UN resolutions. Dislike of what the Israeli government does, and what some Israeli settlers do is not the same as being anti-semitic, no matter how much the pro-Israel lobby says that it is.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Your point being?


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)




----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

*"Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu Government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organisations."*

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ch-labour-leadership-bid-in-battle-for-the-s/

I have to say, regardless of the above, I quite admire his blithe, other-worldly approach to calls from every other Labour MP (and even Mr Cameron) to stand down.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ch-labour-leadership-bid-in-battle-for-the-s/
> 
> I have to say, regardless of the above, I quite admire his blithe, other-worldly approach to calls from every other Labour MP (and even Mr Cameron) to stand down.


Very well said, I thought. I really can't see how anybody could have taken offence at that.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

This article explains the situation very well.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/05/political-establishment-momentum-jeremy-corbyn


----------

