Corbyn & Cabinet in the Media

[killer b]

Take what I say and argue against it. I'm not arguing from authority - that's a position taken by those not confident or open to change.

You aren't even a member are you?

 

[belboid]

Guess away

I just did. Why are you refusing to tell us?

Are you actually a member at all?

 

[MarkyMarrk]

I just did. Why are you refusing to tell us?

Are you actually a member at all?

You can't argue with what someone says so you argue with who they are.

I've no interest in sharing personal details that would identify me locally.

 

[existentialist]

Take what I say and argue against it. I'm not arguing from authority - that's a position taken by those not confident or open to change.

That'd be a "No", then.

Glad we've cleared that up, anyway.

 

[existentialist]

You can't argue with what someone says so you argue with who they are.

I've no interest in sharing personal details that would identify me locally.

There is plenty to argue with in what you have said. So far as any of it is anything beyond complete platitudinous drivel that isn't worth arguing with, anyway...

 

[MarkyMarrk]

There is plenty to argue with in what you have said. So far as any of it is anything beyond complete platitudinous drivel that isn't worth arguing with, anyway...

Proving my point

 

[killer b]

Take what I say and argue against it.

I've tried that, you weren't interested.

 

[existentialist]

Anyone else get the feeling that friend MarkyMarrk is as happy as Larry just to be keeping this discussion away from anything meaningful or useful in relation to the thread title?

 

[teqniq]

Pretty much.

 

[killer b]

yeah, i don't know why you're still bothering. It's been obvious for weeks.

 

[J Ed]

When I saw The Scum frontpage I assumed that the bit about ISIS was untrue but he really did say we should open back channels with ISIS. Not v smart.

 

[MarkyMarrk]

When I saw The Scum frontpage I assumed that the bit about ISIS was untrue but he really did say we should open back channels with ISIS. Not v smart.

Exactly. But No one on this thread wants to talk about the very large number of things he does that make us unelectable.

 

[J Ed]

Exactly. But No one on this thread wants to talk about the very large number of things he does that make us unelectable.

Us? Are you a member of the Labour Party?

 

[belboid]

You can't argue with what someone says so you argue with who they are.

I've no interest in sharing personal details that would identify me locally.

Stating how long you've been a member would hardly help identify you locally. And you are the one slagging people off for having an opinion despite their recent membership, so it is incumbent upon you show us why your (supposedly longstanding) opinion is relevant.

 

[Pickman's model]

Us? Are you a member of the Labour Party?

no, several people share his login

 

[existentialist]

When I saw The Scum frontpage I assumed that the bit about ISIS was untrue but he really did say we should open back channels with ISIS. Not v smart.

I think he's only saying what happens anyway: when the IRA was bombing its way around the place, channels of communication were open, and, if not negotiations, then at least discussions aimed at keeping the way open to negotiations were going on. Of course, it was considered politically unwise to acknowledge that, so Thatcher was happy to keep on banging on about "no negotiations with terrorists", but it's ultimately what brought us to the various agreements that have led to a considerable reduction in Irish nationalist terrorist activity.

Whether he's wise or foolhardy in saying what he's saying is another question...

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not arguing from authority

that's because you're pig-ignorant

 

[J Ed]

I think he's only saying what happens anyway: when the IRA was bombing its way around the place, channels of communication were open, and, if not negotiations, then at least discussions aimed at keeping the way open to negotiations were going on. Of course, it was considered politically unwise to acknowledge that, so Thatcher was happy to keep on banging on about "no negotiations with terrorists", but it's ultimately what brought us to the various agreements that have led to a considerable reduction in Irish nationalist terrorist activity.

Whether he's wise or foolhardy in saying what he's saying is another question...

I'm not even saying they shouldn't exist, in some capacity they are inevitable unless ISIS collapses but it is a stupid thing to say. Who the fuck is it supposed to appeal to? StWC conveners?

 

[teqniq]

When I saw The Scum frontpage I assumed that the bit about ISIS was untrue but he really did say we should open back channels with ISIS. Not v smart.

Yeah I thought that was ill-considered, to me it seems that these are not people you can negotiate with. Here though for a bit of a change is an upbeat article about him.

Jeremy Corbyn has finally brought left wing ideas in from the cold

 

[irf520]

In this area i'm 'realistically pessimistic'. Labour UK incorporated are unlikely to be able to buck the international free markets - flights of capital, investment strikes, the big beasts who really own and control the world will not sit idly back and allow Jeremy to reform too much without a damaging economic and political response.

I think that's the real issue. Any attempt to break from the neoliberal agenda would be punished savagely by the international financiers. The pound would drop like a stone and, given how reliant we are on imports, the average person's cost of living would shoot through the roof. To do anything really ambitious you need to be a lot more self sufficient than we are.

 

[MarkyMarrk]

I'm not even saying they shouldn't exist, in some capacity they are inevitable unless ISIS collapses but it is a stupid thing to say. Who the fuck is it supposed to appeal to? StWC conveners?

Exactly. No thought that those that don't already agree need to vote for us.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Why do you want to know?

Because you have been criticising people on the grounds of the length of their membership of the Labour Party.

For the record I am not a member and haven't been since the early 1990s.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[redcogs]

I think that's the real issue. Any attempt to break from the neoliberal agenda would be punished savagely by the international financiers. The pound would drop like a stone and, given how reliant we are on imports, the average person's cost of living would shoot through the roof. To do anything really ambitious you need to be a lot more self sufficient than we are.

There are perhaps some grounds for optimism in the sense that a Europe wide challenge to the awful government addiction to austerity formula doesn't seem to be out of the question? A further recession may yet produce a left shift across several nation states. god knows we need some class struggle to stem the rising tide of anti Muslim racism and far right stirrings.

 

[ViolentPanda]

When I saw The Scum frontpage I assumed that the bit about ISIS was untrue but he really did say we should open back channels with ISIS. Not v smart.

Except that it's something the government will already be doing - through intermediaries. Of course, Rupert's rag will be chary about noising off about that particular piece of realpolitik.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Because you have been criticising people on the grounds of the length of their membership of the Labour Party.

For the record I am not a member and haven't been since the early 1990s.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

I was a member for 13 years, right up until Blair's "clause 4 moment", when the final sliver of mask over his neoliberal project slipped off.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Exactly. No thought that those that don't already agree need to vote for us.

Do you think the British state is talking to or will talk to ISIS?

Are you smart enough to see why this is or will be happening (through intermediaries)?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[newbie]

i trust the new influx of radicals into Labour will have many novel ideas about alternatives to producing WOMD and associated delivery systems and hardware. The obvious choice (for me) in this regard is the green option, large scale production of technology linked to renewables etc. i've absolutely no expertise in this area, but it is plain that continuing to rely upon fossil fuel for energy is stoking ever more ecological problems. i agree that Corbyn does have to present the electorate (including those at the 'sharper end' with trade union considerations to take into account) with a cogently persuasive set of options if Labour want to win. Ultimately, Labour's real problems will begin after they have achieved office.

In this area i'm 'realistically pessimistic'. Labour UK incorporated are unlikely to be able to buck the international free markets - flights of capital, investment strikes, the big beasts who really own and control the world will not sit idly back and allow Jeremy to reform too much without a damaging economic and political response. But that's another question i suppose. in the meantime, i'm not in favour of dampening the new wave of enthusiasm for socialist politics within Labour.

that's fair enough, nor am I.

That said I don't see that skipping over very real problems is helpful. On a day when there's a very depressed sounding bloke on the radio saying he sees no future for his steelmaking community in South Wales it feels necessary to be hardheaded about jobs and communities.

The need is clearly there, but to some extent it's being satisfied. There are plenty of wind turbines and solar panel manufacturers about, lots of medieval tide mills that could be harnessed and so on. The issue there isn't that the technology doesn't exist, it's that the government won't fund the installation. There are already people elsewhere in the world building the kit, almost certainly cheaper than it could be built in Barrow, so it's going to take a lot of political nous to find a basis the LP can campaign on that isn't just an easy target for the tories.

That said, the tory adapt or die mantra can be applied to the destruction of jobs in the case of change of political will just as much as gamechanging cheap Chinese imports. So clever (if unpleasant) politicians could argue it, but in terms of practical politics, the LP picking a fight with its main financial and ideological backers isn't that smart.

I don't pretend to have any answers. If it comes to it I'll go for unilateralism over jobs, but as the Blairites keep saying, they won't win an election on that basis.

 

[stethoscope]

You can't argue with what someone says so you argue with who they are.

I've no interest in sharing personal details that would identify me locally.

How would stating how long you've been with the Labour Party (if you even are) identify you in anyway?


Oh, it wouldn't.

 

[redcogs]

that's fair enough, nor am I.

That said I don't see that skipping over very real problems is helpful. On a day when there's a very depressed sounding bloke on the radio saying he sees no future for his steelmaking community in South Wales it feels necessary to be hardheaded about jobs and communities.

The need is clearly there, but to some extent it's being satisfied. There are plenty of wind turbines and solar panel manufacturers about, lots of medieval tide mills that could be harnessed and so on. The issue there isn't that the technology doesn't exist, it's that the government won't fund the installation. There are already people elsewhere in the world building the kit, almost certainly cheaper than it could be built in Barrow, so it's going to take a lot of political nous to find a basis the LP can campaign on that isn't just an easy target for the tories.

That said, the tory adapt or die mantra can be applied to the destruction of jobs in the case of change of political will just as much as gamechanging cheap Chinese imports. So clever (if unpleasant) politicians could argue it, but in terms of practical politics, the LP picking a fight with its main financial and ideological backers isn't that smart.

I don't pretend to have any answers. If it comes to it I'll go for unilateralism over jobs, but as the Blairites keep saying, they won't win an election on that basis.

It would be excellent if some type of intelligent re-industrialisation come begin to fuel our collective imagination don't you think newbie? Maybe based on clean coal carbon capture? maybe steel production/fabrication to service this area would be a job creation scheme worth consideration. i read somewhere that CCCC remains in undeveloped infancy, but could become seriously important given appropriate investment. Course, the rich will continue to push gas and nuclear energy provision (provided they get enough public subsidy!).. But leaving all that indigenous coal underground and untapped seems bonkers.

i'm sure virtually everyone here would
agree with your point about the need being there - in every area we could consider. If Corbyn releases the imagination that has enabled Labour to develop so much in such a short period we could see an explosion of potential projects offering careers and jobs in communities that have been kicked almost to death over decades.

 

[newbie]

It would be excellent if some type of intelligent re-industrialisation come begin to fuel our collective imagination don't you think newbie?

well yes, and I've no desire to come over all Daily Telegraph where's the money coming from? I guess my imagination has been ground down from far too much uninspired, rotten government.

In any case I can't see anyone else with any desire to bridge the gap between imaginative proposals and putting food on tables, so I guess our hopes have to rest on Corbyn, and those who inspire him and those he inspires.