Jeremy Corbyn -Labour's saviour?

[skyward]

I presume there is a lot of debate about this guy in the UK? Some of our British members might wish to let us know how they feel.



He was democratically elected so why all the hostility?

Cameron has called him 'a threat to national security.'

In relation to the prospect of a Labour government, with Corbyn at the helm, a British General anonymously stated (to the Sunday Times):

"The Army just wouldn’t stand for it. The general staff would not allow a prime minister to jeopardise the security of this country and I think people would use whatever means possible fair or foul, to prevent that. You can’t put a maverick in charge of a country’s security.”

"There would be mass resignations at all levels and you would face the very real prospect of an event which would effectively be a mutiny. "

Reading these various comments the thought struck me: what can happen to a person who is deemed a 'threat to national security'? And "whatever means possible fair or foul", coming from a British Army General, does sound rather ominous. :rofl:

It seems like a long-shot that he would ever get into power... or does it?

So, I hope to hear from some GH Brits. Including the 'shy Tories'.

 

[gb2000ie]

The only way this chap will become prime minister is if he wins an election.

Yes, Britain's first-past-the-post system is DEEPLY flawed, (e.g. the current government only got 37% of the votes in the UK, but that gave them more than half the seats in parliament), but if a party leader can win enough votes to get hundreds of seats in parliament, that gives him a legitimacy no general can ever have!

This kind of anti-democratic outburst does the torries great disservice - it also really helps the new labour leader!

"Do you hate the torries? well, they think I'm the worst possible thing, so why not give David the two fingers and vote for my party!"

B.

 

[gb2000ie]

A self-described democratic socialist, Corbyn is strongly critical of social inequality and poverty in the UK, and has been awarded for his work as an international human rights campaigner. He advocates the renationalisation of public utilities and of the railways, abolishing university tuition fees and restoring student grants, a unilateral policy of nuclear disarmament, "People's Quantitative Easing" to fund infrastructure and renewable energy projects, and reversing cuts to public sector and welfare funding made since 2010; proposing combatting tax evasion and avoidance by corporations and wealthy individuals, and reducing business subsidies, as an alternative to the government's austerity programme.

http://anon.projectarchive.net/?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn

This is the first labour leader who actually sounds like he believes in the principles the labour party was founded on in as long as I can remember!

Agree with him or not, he is providing a real alternative to Tory policies - something I have not seen in decades. Tony Blair turned labour into what could best be described as "Tory Lite" - basically right-wing economics with left-wing morals. This guy is ACTUALLY left wing!

He seems like the UK's Bernie Sanders if you ask me.

An election between this guy's labour party and Cameron's Tories will be a real election, where the parties will disagree enough about actual issues that personalities won't decide the thing. Some actual democracy - bring it on!!!

B.

 

[dargelos]

Quick answer.
A lot of people said politicians are all the same.
Thanks to Jeremy, they can't say that now.

 

[skyward]

Just adding in a question to try and stimulate discussion...

He is not actually in power, but he is the leader of Labour. As the leader of a political party, how does he compare to Alexis Tsipras of Greece? :thinking:

 

[gb2000ie]

He is not actually in power, but he is the leader of Labour. As the leader of a political party, how does he compare to Alexis Tsipras of Greece? :thinking:

I don't think we can know that unless/until he actually gets a true democratic mandate.

Being elected by party members doesn't give you a real mandate, only the electorate can do that.

B.

 

[skyward]

I don't think we can know that unless/until he actually gets a true democratic mandate.

Being elected by party members doesn't give you a real mandate, only the electorate can do that.

B.

Don't you feel they can be compared, or contrasted, to a significant degree on the basic that they are both leaders of political parties? Tsipras became party leader in 2009. So all we need to do is look at his profile as party leader, and compare (or contrast) with that of Corbyn.

They can even be compared on a more personal level, in terms of their stated views and beliefs.

Just because Tsipras gained a mandate, does not rule out all or even most possibility of comparison, surely. All you can say on that front is that they cannot be compared as prime-ministers. But a detailed comparison is still possible -there is a wealth of information available on both.

 

[gb2000ie]

Don't you feel they can be compared, or contrasted, to a significant degree on the basic that they are both leaders of political parties? Tsipras became party leader in 2009. So all we need to do is look at his profile as party leader, and compare (or contrast) with that of Corbyn.

But Corbyn has only been a leader for a wet week! He hasn't had time to actually DO anything!

They can even be compared on a more personal level, in terms of their stated views and beliefs.

I don't feel I've had enough time to get to know Corbyn yet to say anything intelligent, and I think the situation Tsipras is in is so unique that I'm not sure how we can compare him to any politician in a normal country.

I could contrast Tsipras with Irish prime ministers who were in a similar (though not quite as catastrophic) situation, but that's about all I could do with Tsipras.

Just because Tsipras gained a mandate, does not rule out all or even most possibility of comparison, surely. All you can say on that front is that they cannot be compared as prime-ministers. But a detailed comparison is still possible -there is a wealth of information available on both.

I don't think I have anything intelligent to say on the topic yet. Assuming both are around for a while yet, I probably will in the future, but not today.

B.

 

[skyward]

But Corbyn has only been a leader for a wet week!

And yet you already have made a number of quite strong statements in his defense:

This is the first labour leader who actually sounds like he believes in the principles the labour party was founded on in as long as I can remember!

Agree with him or not, he is providing a real alternative to Tory policies - something I have not seen in decades. Tony Blair turned labour into what could best be described as "Tory Lite" - basically right-wing economics with left-wing morals. This guy is ACTUALLY left wing!

He seems like the UK's Bernie Sanders if you ask me.

An election between this guy's labour party and Cameron's Tories will be a real election, where the parties will disagree enough about actual issues that personalities won't decide the thing. Some actual democracy - bring it on!!!

At this rate your flow of opinions should easily expand to including some thoughts on the left-wing politics of Greece in no time at all.:rofl:

 

[bluemount]

At the next General Election he will be 71 - I think it is interesting that in any other job he would have retired but there has been no comment about this.

 

[skyward]

Corbyn, Tsipras, and the Limits of Left Radicalization in Europe

Two major events happened on the left wing of European politics last week – the election of Jeremy Corbyn as the British Labor Party leader and the re-election of Alexis Tsipras in Greece. They are evidence of strong left radicalization in Europe.

In the past, nearly all registered leftwing parties were moving closer to the political center or were joining the political mainstream. No wonder the parties that claim to embrace leftwing politics supported liberal policies, as evidenced by Tony Blair’s short-lived Third Way concept, which tried to reconcile both the right and the left.

The situation has changed dramatically. The victory of Corbyn, the eternal dissenter within his own party and a marginal radical, points to the possible revival of a truly leftwing political agenda in the UK that was laid to rest by Blair, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband.

In Greece, the left Syriza party outperformed the former dominant force – the Panhellenic Socialist Movement or Pasok, despite divergent views on Tsipras’s previous term and accusations of betraying the left’s interests and of colluding with Brussels. Despite all of that, Tsipras’s leftist rhetoric won many more supporters than the election slogans of Pasok, which has long become part of the political mainstream.

The Tsipras “case” also shows the limits of left radicalization in Europe. Tsipras’s opponents from the radical factions of his party, who urged the party to opt for a “true revolutionary” policy, ran for parliament on a separate platform and suffered a crushing defeat. This means that the European voter is not ready for an extreme liberal agenda, considering the closed banks and limits on cash withdrawals in Greece this summer. On the other hand, Tsipras’s victory shows how quickly a left protest leader can join the political mainstream, with only rhetoric to remind voters of his formerly active radicalism.

This scenario, now that it has succeeded in the case of Tsipras, could be applied to Corbyn to restrict the British Labor Party’s movement from the mainstream center to the left periphery.

Anon URL

 

[skyward]

Another though regarding yesterday's discussion: saying no basic for comparison is a bit like saying Corbyn and Tsipras are polar opposites. Another impression to avoid is that because one is a young man, whereas the other is an old man, that their views must be very different.

Similarly pointing out that one is a prime-minister, whereas the other is not, does not rule out comparison. Why not for example compare Corbyn to Tsipras at the point where he had just become leader of Syriza? Or one can point to the fact that both went from being relative unknowns internationally, to being talked about by media across the world.

Some on the left see Tsipras as damaged goods -he went from promising so much, to delivering very little, at least so far? But that doesn't mean pretending that Corbyn and Tsipras are like apples and oranges. Such a strategy would leave an impression of dishonesty.

 

[gb2000ie]

At the next General Election he will be 71 - I think it is interesting that in any other job he would have retired but there has been no comment about this.

I'm really thankful for that - for a few decades it seemed the west had written off everyone over 60 as being over the hill and useless, where as in fact, people with a few more decades of experience have a lot of wisdom to offer the world!

B.

 

[dargelos]

Nobody tells Queen Lizzie she's past it at 89, so Jeremy has a few years to spare.

 

[skyward]

BBC Panorama Compared To Fox News By Jeremy Corbyn Supporters
Anon URL

BBC ‘anti-Corbyn bias’ challenged by 61,000-strong petition
Anon URL

 

[dargelos]

Don't take this sort of thing too seriously. People complain about the BBC because they can. Only our beloved Aunie Beeb has impartiality enshrined in it's constitution. There is no point in complaining about bias on the for-profit stations because that is not what they are there for. It is comical to read the second link, Russia Today is reporting bias in the British media. Ha Ha Ha.
Our tv is pretty good, it's the newspapers that are bad.
Only the Daily Mirror/Sunday People actively supports Labour. The Guardian, Observer and Independent encourage readers to make their own mind up. The Star is for readers who don't have a mind to make up. All the rest, Sun, Sun on Sunday, Mail, Mail on Sunday, Express, Sunday Express, Times, Sunday Times, Evening Standard, Financial Times, and the small regional papers make no attempt at impartiality. They reflect the interests of their billionaire owners.

 

[skyward]

If more believe the BBC (British Brainwashing Corporation) are impartial, then it's actually more, not less important to highlight bias.

Maybe the image of a 'beloved' Auntie Beeb is what allowed Jimmy Saville etc to continue all the abuses.:thinking:

Did you watch the Panorama program yet.



It's a hit piece, 'Hatchet job', or whatever you want to call it. Expect more of the same until Corbyn is relegated to the dust-bin of politics, and replaced with some tory-lite drone.

 

[skyward]

@jazzeven
They tacitly accuse Corbyn of promoting terrorism. How does that constitute "the slightest hint of critcism"? At the very least you should acknowledge they make extremely serious accusations, not to be taken lightly.

And this from the same BBC that worked as hard as it could to convince us there were WMD's in Iraq?

I think you are too forgiving.

 

[skyward]

They trace his actions back into the past. There is no accusation of him supporting terrorism, they just make the connection clear. It is better they do it now and give him plenty of time to position himself than to appear with it shortly before the next election.

The program runs for just under 30mins. At 19 mins 52 secs scary footage of rows of men dressed in black and wearing masks flashes up on the screen. At the same time the narrator says about Corbyn that "he has some unusual friends." This particular line of 'making connections' runs for about 3-4 mins total.

So how, in the space of 3-4 mins can it be argued that they 'just make the connection clear'? They don't make anything clear -they just deliver a slur.

The program aired about 3 days before the election closed! So your point about "give him plenty of time to position himself than to appear with it shortly before the next election" highlights the unfairness of the program.

You can make similar apologies in relation to the whole WMD's debacle if you wish, but I don't buy it.




Now we have both made a number of points so I suggest we let some other people weight in on the argument and see which one of us they agree with. Otherwise we will still be debating one on one for weeks to come and you know as well as I do that we would still be no closer to agreeing on anything.;-)

 

[dargelos]

"Good journalism is like science"
Yes indeed it is. Good journalism isn't the problem. Bad journalism is.
Rupert Murdoch has created an empire on the back of partial reporting. His papers can't make up stories out of pure fresh air but they have always had a talent for creating headline news out of a few specks of dust. The catchphrase that sums up Rupert's career, "It was The Sun wot won it" is not an idle boast.
I still love the BBC. Like any lover, you have to take the bad shit along with the good times. You can tell her off when she's naughty, you can't do that to our awful newspapers.