Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Scooby Dudek]

7 minutes ago, A Red said:

I think its much wider than that. How can someone who is often lauded as a man of principle and life long CND member be the man responsible for ordering it? I know he doesnt want to and says he will go with the will of the party, but surely a principle against nuclear weapons cannot be worked around? Or is he lying and wouldnt order it? How could a CND member authorise the purchase  of nuclear weapons, will he leave?

 

Its a tricky one for me and far more relevant to his ability to govern than the anti-Semitic slurs that are thrown at him. His opponents should perhaps spend more time looking at his policies and principles than lying about his being a racist

I would argue when his policies and principles were looked at people seemed to like them, hence the reason they are going after the man. 

 

On trident, I do not think being opposed is as radical as the media/politicians imply, like most of his radical policies.

 

Whilst trying to find polls I found this article; 

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/majority-of-britons-back-keeping-trident-poll-shows/

 

The Majority in favour of renewal is 51%, so not exactly a massive majority. 

Amongst younger people that number goes down to 33%

 

 

The narrative around nationalisation was only left wing lunatics would want to re-nationalise, despite the majority being in favour. I think the same narrative applies to Trident renewal, if you are not in favour you are a left wing, Britain hating lunatic, but the above poll shows the country is divided and the majority of younger people are not in favour of renewal.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Guest]

17 minutes ago, A Red said:

I think its much wider than that. How can someone who is often lauded as a man of principle and life long CND member be the man responsible for ordering it? I know he doesnt want to and says he will go with the will of the party, but surely a principle against nuclear weapons cannot be worked around? Or is he lying and wouldnt order it? How could a CND member authorise the purchase  of nuclear weapons, will he leave?

 

Its a tricky one for me and far more relevant to his ability to govern than the anti-Semitic slurs that are thrown at him. His opponents should perhaps spend more time looking at his policies and principles than lying about his being a racist

It’s quite easy really.  He knows if he doesn’t agree to it then he won’t win an election.  If he doesn’t win the election then he can’t implement the socialist policies he wants to turn the country around.  Just because he’s willing to waste billions ordering it doesn’t mean he would ever have any intention using it.  I doubt he’s lying either because there would be uproar if he refused to renew it after pledging to and a vote of no confidence would be entered if he was in number 10.  Ageneral election would be called which he would subsequently lose.

[A Red]

2 minutes ago, Hank Moody said:

It’s a dilemma, but I think you can personally be against something and still go with the will of parliament and the party. Whether CND has a problem with it or not is not that important to me. 

 

I highly doubt doubt that he is telling lies and would try to cancel it. I agree with your last remarks though, people should be looking at the policies rather than smearing him with clearly ridiculous accusations. If they did that, they’d find he’s.m not all that much of a mental commie Islamic fundamentalist Jew hater after all. 

 

 

 

 

He might not be lying and fully intend to go with Trident if told to, but that raises a big doubt over him being a man of principle. Ditching his principle and being the guy that orders weapons of mass destruction, to me, is hugely different from e.g. ditching a principle of being against private education or for vegetarianism. Remember he is not just a member of CND but vice president.

 

I think he will go on the manifesto that he will order it then, when in government, try to change the party policy so that he doesnt have to. 

 

Perhaps Jeremy is no different to any other politician and will say anything to get into power? 

[The Guest]

Just now, A Red said:

He might not be lying and fully intend to go with Trident if told to, but that raises a big doubt over him being a man of principle. Ditching his principle and being the guy that orders weapons of mass destruction, to me, is hugely different from e.g. ditching a principle of being against private education or for vegetarianism. Remember he is not just a member of CND but vice president.

 

I think he will go on the manifesto that he will order it then, when in government, try to change the party policy so that he doesnt have to. 

 

Perhaps Jeremy is no different to any other politician and will say anything to get into power? 

What’s the alternative though?  Pledge to get rid of it even though the vote would never get through Parliament and subsequently lose any chance of winning a general election off the back of it which would mean it would be renewed anyway and also we would be under Tory rule again for another term?

[A Red]

2 minutes ago, The Guest said:

It’s quite easy really.  He knows if he doesn’t agree to it then he won’t win an election.  If he doesn’t win the election then he can’t implement the socialist policies he wants to turn the country around.  Just because he’s willing to waste billions ordering it doesn’t mean he would ever have any intention using it.  I doubt he’s lying either because there would be uproar if he refused to renew it after pledging to and a vote of no confidence would be entered if he was in number 10.  Ageneral election would be called which he would subsequently lose.

So no more a man/politician of principle than any of the others? 

 

The bit in bold is a good point. I know he would never authorise  the use of it, its a horrible decision to have to make that most of us couldnt. Where he is a bit silly is refusing to lie by saying he would use it if necessary. Thats the type of lie that has to be made otherwise, youre right, theres no point ordering them in the first place.

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, A Red said:

He might not be lying and fully intend to go with Trident if told to, but that raises a big doubt over him being a man of principle. Ditching his principle and being the guy that orders weapons of mass destruction, to me, is hugely different from e.g. ditching a principle of being against private education or for vegetarianism. Remember he is not just a member of CND but vice president.

 

I think he will go on the manifesto that he will order it then, when in government, try to change the party policy so that he doesnt have to. 

 

Perhaps Jeremy is no different to any other politician and will say anything to get into power? 

That’s a lot of maybes. Here’s another... maybe he will just do it and his principle of democracy trump his CND principles.

 

As for being no different... I think that’s a stretch. If he was willing to say anything to get into power, you’d have to question why he chose so many unpopular positions and sat on the sidelines for his entire career. 

[The Guest]

10 minutes ago, A Red said:

So no more a man/politician of principle than any of the others? 

 

The bit in bold is a good point. I know he would never authorise  the use of it, its a horrible decision to have to make that most of us couldnt. Where he is a bit silly is refusing to lie by saying he would use it if necessary. Thats the type of lie that has to be made otherwise, youre right, theres no point ordering them in the first place.

I think it’s being a bit disengenous about him.  He states that he would renew it even though he disagrees with it.  It’s not as if he’s been a member of the CND and then gets in and is some sort of war monger.  Most of our politicians lie or refuse to answer questions about policy or what they would do because they like to keep it vague so they aren’t tied down to things.  It’s part of the game and he obviously has to do that as well sometimes.  I think the difference with Corbyn is that he has nailed his policies to a mast more than any other party leader in recent history.

 

Surely your point about him refusing to lie about whether he would use it tells you enough about the man as a politician rather than some hypothetical theory that he would backtrack on renewing it.

[A Red]

16 minutes ago, Hank Moody said:

That’s a lot of maybes. Here’s another... maybe he will just do it and his principle of democracy trump his CND principles.

 

As for being no different... I think that’s a stretch. If he was willing to say anything to get into power, you’d have to question why he chose so many unpopular positions and sat on the sidelines for his entire career. 

Yeah, good point, he could well do that, ditch one to pursue another.

 

I think he never thought of nor intended to be leader of the party. If he had I dont think he would have done/said some of the things he did. He probably saw a career similar to Dennis Skinner who had no aspirations of being a decision maker.

[Red Phoenix]

Quote

It is worth noting: had Rep. Ilhan Omar been a member of the British Labour Party, she would have been suspended.

Those who rose to her defence — Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris among them — would have risked suspension as well.

One difference between the US context and the UK, is that British political culture is more backwards when it comes to freedom of speech.

Once it was accepted that the Labour Party bureaucracy ought to surveil and police its members’ thoughts, descent into a witch-hunt became very difficult to avoid.

The disciplinarian approach is not just politically self-defeating.

It is a betrayal of the best of the left-liberal tradition.

Whatever happened to full, frequent and fearless discussion?

Whatever happened to, the truth is revolutionary?

Our basic approach in the Labour Party, and on the left, needs a re-think.

It is not the business of a Party bureaucracy to police the thoughts and speech of its members.

Where prejudices are marginal, they can be ignored.

Where they are not marginal, they ought to be subject to full and frank debate.

No speech codes.

No internal trials for causing offence.

No bureaucratic trawling through Facebook posts.

But full, frequent, fearless discussion in the context of a collective struggle, bringing together people from all walks of life, in pursuit of a shared liberation.

 

 

http://normanfinkelstein.com/2019/03/07/the-ilhan-omar-controversy-lessons-for-the-uk/

 

Writer is on twitter here.

[A Red]

7 minutes ago, The Guest said:

I think it’s being a bit disengenous about him.  He states that he would renew it even though he disagrees with it.  It’s not as if he’s been a member of the CND and then gets in and is some sort of war monger.  Most of our politicians lie or refuse to answer questions about policy or what they would do because they like to keep it vague so they aren’t tied down to things.  It’s part of the game and he obviously has to do that as well sometimes.  I think the difference with Corbyn is that he has nailed his policies to a mast more than any other party leader in recent history.

 

Surely your point about him refusing to lie about whether he would use it tells you enough about the man as a politician rather than some hypothetical theory that he would backtrack on renewing it.

War monger, i know it means the same but much better than mongerer.

 

My point with Corbyn on this, is that his perceived attribute of being a man of principle will become a perceived weakness when exposed i.e playing the same game as other politicians to get power. The antisemitism slurs hurt more because of his principled stance on racism.  You might think the method justifies the result if he can get the policies you want, however others will see him perhaps as a fraud and not vote for him in the first place.

 

The bold bit is the burden he carries with him.

[moof]

52 minutes ago, A Red said:

He might not be lying and fully intend to go with Trident if told to, but that raises a big doubt over him being a man of principle. Ditching his principle and being the guy that orders weapons of mass destruction, to me, is hugely different from e.g. ditching a principle of being against private education or for vegetarianism. Remember he is not just a member of CND but vice president.

 

I think he will go on the manifesto that he will order it then, when in government, try to change the party policy so that he doesnt have to. 

 

Perhaps Jeremy is no different to any other politician and will say anything to get into power? 

It doesn’t raise any doubts whatsoever. He’s in favour of democracy. Which is a massive reason that he’s so hated

[Babb'sBurstNad]

Mongerer is a great word. It's not only fun to say, but it annoys people too.

[Strontium]

2 minutes ago, moof said:

It doesn’t raise any doubts whatsoever. He’s in favour of democracy. Which is a massive reason that he’s so hated

 

Does his support for democracy extend to supporting proportional representation?

 

Was he supporting democracy when he was being paid by Russia and Iran to appear on their state propaganda channels?

[Red Phoenix]

3 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

Was he supporting democracy when he was being paid by Russia and Iran to appear on their state propaganda channels?

 

Nothing wrong with a state propaganda channel here and there, I even watch the BBC sometimes.

[moof]

4 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

Does his support for democracy extend to supporting proportional representation?

 

Was he supporting democracy when he was being paid by Russia and Iran to appear on their state propaganda channels?

lol

[moof]

Here’s “gnasherjew” spewing out more racism than Jeremy Corbyn ever has in his entire life 

 

 

[A Red]

44 minutes ago, moof said:

It doesn’t raise any doubts whatsoever. He’s in favour of democracy. Which is a massive reason that he’s so hated

Theres quite a bit wrong with this statement in my opinion.

 

Corbyn is no more in favour of democracy than pretty much any other politician and it is not why anyone might hate him. In fact the word "hate" is the really wrong bit here. Yes, some might hate him, but the reality is that many, mainly those that wont vote for him, dont trust him. You and plenty others on here do, but i suspect like me, the majority, who have doubts, dont trust him.

 

You can sweep it under the carpet and call everyone that say they wont vote for him as uncaring, tory bastards, racists or fascists etc but Corbyns problem is a lack of trust. This thread does nothing to convince the non believers nor does the Labour party to enough of the electorate.

[SasaS]

You don't trust him in what way? To do what?

[Bjornebye]

The whole Trident thing pisses me right fucking off. Just blag everyone and say we have got all sorts of nuclear galactic shit. Its only a deterrent anyway, not like its ever going to be used. What the fuck is wrong with The Vanguard. I saw that massive dildo in dry dock (wahey) down at HMS Drake in Plymouth. Fucking thing is massive. That can hold a few evil bastards and some catherine wheels. People dying of hunger on and off the streets and the government is ploughing billions into something no other cunt is ever going to see and something that is never ever going to be used. Its like me spending 10k on a pair of knuckle dusters for a fight with ED-209. 

[The Guest]

Yeah I don’t get the trust thing.  He’s saying he wants to do things which some people like and some people don’t.  The opposition say loads and loads of shit all the time and literally don’t mean or do any of it.  What is he going to do if he does get in?  Not put more money into the NHS? Not take back control of the railways?  It’s all a bit odd.

[The Guest]

He’s definitely more in favour of democracy than most other politicians I would say.  I think if he had a magic wand he would give us proportional representation tomorrow.  It would never get backed by the vast majority of self serving MP’s though.  That’s obviously just a guess on my part though.  The evidence that he’s more democratic than most other politicians is that he’s in favour or mandatory open reselection.  At the moment we get Labour candidate MP’s forced on us with very little opportunity to hold them to account other than voting for either of the two Tory party’s.

 

It would leave himself open to reselection himself which is why it’s more noble and democratic than anything any other previous leader has wanted to introduce.

[Bjornebye]

7 minutes ago, The Guest said:

He’s definitely more in favour of democracy than most other politicians I would say.  I think if he had a magic wand he would give us proportional representation tomorrow.  It would never get backed by the vast majority of self serving MP’s though.  That’s obviously just a guess on my part though.  The evidence that he’s more democratic than most other politicians is that he’s in favour or mandatory open reselection.  At the moment we get Labour candidate MP’s forced on us with very little opportunity to hold them to account other than voting for either of the two Tory party’s.

 

It would leave himself open to reselection himself which is why it’s more noble and democratic than anything any other previous leader has wanted to introduce.

The rich are terrified of him getting into power which is why it will never ever happen. 

[Jairzinho]

1 hour ago, A Red said:

Theres quite a bit wrong with this statement in my opinion.

 

Corbyn is no more in favour of democracy than pretty much any other politician and it is not why anyone might hate him. In fact the word "hate" is the really wrong bit here. Yes, some might hate him, but the reality is that many, mainly those that wont vote for him, dont trust him. You and plenty others on here do, but i suspect like me, the majority, who have doubts, dont trust him.

 

You can sweep it under the carpet and call everyone that say they wont vote for him as uncaring, tory bastards, racists or fascists etc but Corbyns problem is a lack of trust. This thread does nothing to convince the non believers nor does the Labour party to enough of the electorate.

That's unfair. Lots of people won't vote for him because they're thick as shit.

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Jairzinho said:

That's unfair. Lots of people won't vote for him because they're thick as shit.

Thickist

[A Red]

15 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

That's unfair. Lots of people won't vote for him because they're thick as shit.

This makes you part of the problem