Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

Silas Loom said:
He compensated for this quite effectively when Labour leader by surrounding himself with sinister devious moral vacuums like Seumas Milne, Andrew Fisher and Karie Murphy, though.
Click to expand...
Two of the people you cite there, Seumas Milne, and Karie Murphy, were pursued through the courts against legal advice to the tune of £1.4m of Labour funds for leaking the Forde report which to absolutely no-one's surprise was sat on by the Labour leadership because it didn't say what they wanted it to. The Labour leadership's actions were imo pretty vinictiveness whereas the leakers was far more likely to be honesty.
 
Last edited:
kebabking said:
Is this Jeremy Corbyn the lifelong, respected student of, and commentator on, Iraq, who upon agonised reflection decided that while the world would undoubtedly be a better place if Hussein and his ilk fell off it, the unknowables and dangers of Iraq falling apart, and others getting involved for their own ends, as well as wider, negative outcomes in terms of world politics, meant that Iraq was a sleeping dog that should be let lie?

Or is this Jeremy Corbyn who goes on the propaganda arm of an openly anti-semitic regime that hangs gays from cranes in football stadiums and (unbidden) talks about 'the hidden hand of Israel', who for many years denied the nature and actions of the of the Serb and Bosnian Serb governments during the Balkan wars of the 90's - including Screbrenicia - who formed a still extant lifelong political association witht Assad apologists and war crimes deniers, who impugnes the OPCW when it finds against against his friends, who claims to be all about negotiations in conflicts, but who only meets with one side in those conflicts (NI, Falklands, Israel/Palestine...) and calls them friends, and who's 'collegiate' approach to leading the Labour party consisted of agreeing a position with the shadow Defence secretary he appointed, and then having his people rewrite on the autocue, and completely change, the policy agreed in the five minutes between it being agreed, and Lewis getting up in conference to deliver the speech?

Because, you know, I wouldn't want to criticise the wrong person...
Click to expand...

What unknowables on Iraq? Short resigned as soon it was clear Rumsfeld had binned all the planning FCI and US State had done...Should have walked then...

Do respect UK armed services...but if we had walked away then think Saddam would have fallen in same time frame
 
freshapple said:
They don’t say that on their website
Click to expand...
They do say it in response to questions in the i.

He added that the methodology he used “is good at making estimates based on the demographic characteristics of each individual constituency. But it’s not so good at picking up very unique political, local dynamics.”

“We make some efforts in areas where we know there are high-profile independents, we've made some changes to the approach to take that into account a bit more, but even so, that's not going to pick up the full picture of everything.
Click to expand...

Nigel Farage and Lee Anderson set to win seats in new Ipsos MRP poll

A quick google finds a range of predictions for North Islington, from a Labour landslide to a Corbyn victory, all in the last day. It's almost as if nobody has reliable data to make a guess.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
They do say it in response to questions in the i.



Nigel Farage and Lee Anderson set to win seats in new Ipsos MRP poll

A quick google finds a range of predictions for North Islington, from a Labour landslide to a Corbyn victory, all in the last day. It's almost as if nobody has reliable data to make a guess.
Click to expand...
Sack Ipsos for being disloyal
DbyhepwWkAEc-hl.jpg
 
kebabking said:
who claims to be all about negotiations in conflicts, but who only meets with one side in those conflicts (NI, Falklands, Israel/Palestine...)
Click to expand...

kebabking said:
Yeah, problem is that there's some ambiguity over allies and enemies in Corbyns politics...

See, I don't think Corbyn wants a mutually beneficial/acceptable outcome, he wants one side to win. If he wanted a negotiated settlement, he'd be talking to all sides, finding out where their flexibilities are, what their red lines are, and what their real red lines are - which you'd only get by spending time with them. Would you like to take a guess at how many times - in his 30+ years of *peace seeking * in the South Atlantic - Corbyn has visited the Falklands for example, to find out what the people who live their think?

You could apply the same to unionism/Loyalism in NI, or Israelis - he can't realistically claim to be looking to be urging negotiation when he has absolutely no idea where any kind of flexibility might be because he won't talk to one of the sides of the conflict.

It would be akin to me trying to negotiate with the Met Police on behalf London's young black men despite being a middle aged white bloke from Worcestershire who has only the most fleeting contact with young black kids from London - you would rightly describe me as delusional, egotistical, ignorant, a crank, and probably with some unsavoury opinions under the veneer of 'peacemaking'.

The amusing thing, is that despite being a middle aged white bloke from Worcestershire who has only the most fleeting and, to my shame, the shallowest conversations with young black, working class kids from London, I have greater contact with them than The Great Peacemaker has had with Falkland Islanders, or Zionist Israelis, or Unionist/Loyalists - and I am laughably unqualified to stick my nose in their business.
Click to expand...
The thing is, right, the thing with this is, you seem to be basing this all on the idea that, for instance, Northern Ireland was a conflict between nationalists and unionists, and the Falklands was a conflict between the islanders and the Argentinean state, with the British state as a neutral third party in both instances. But I reckon most people would probably identify the UK as being an active participant in both those conflicts. And I reckon Corbyn has a decent amount of knowledge of the British state, and has met with British politicians on multiple occasions, and some would even say that being an MP makes you a representative of the British state in its own right, so once you take that into account the idea that he's only met with one side of the conflict starts to look a bit wobbly. And even treating unionists as being totally independent from the UK, which is questionable, it is still the case that Corbyn has spent a fair amount of time in Parliament, which usually has a few representatives from parties such as the DUP and UUP, so it's not like he's so totally cut off from them as all that.
kebabking said:
Because I don't think he was 'right' - simply because his position was never based on a careful consideration of knowns, unknowns, risks, potential benefits, known and potential costs, and then eventually coming down on one side or another based on years of learning and experience.

It was a simple gut reaction.

It's very much like equivalencing the opinion of a qualified dietician on the risks and benefits of a keto diet (whatever the fuck that is) and a toddler who throws vegetables off their plate and onto the floor in a tantrum.

They might give you the same answer, but for very different reasons.

There were lots of very switched on people with great experience and knowledge of Iraq who thought it was a catastrophically bad idea because their knowledge, and the reasonable supposition based on that knowledge and experience told them it was a bad idea - particularly given the abject lack of interest in the White House about What Happens Next - but Corbyn was never one of those people. He'd got a placard, and that was the end of his thought process.
Click to expand...
I mean, in this metaphor Corbyn's a screaming toddler, and maybe that's fair, maybe that is what he's like. But the problem with this is, that screaming toddler still managed to give the right answer on one of the major geopolitical questions of the 2000s, whereas the sensible Blairite mainstream got it so murderously, disasterously wrong that a decade or so later, a lot of people were still willing to go "well, maybe I don't agree with that screaming toddler (who I guess is an adolescent now? I dunno, not my metaphor) about everything, but at least he was right about Iraq, and he's not directly responsible for the rise of ISIS." So that still doesn't look great for the sensible Labour mainstream, if their judgement is disastrously, catastrophically worse than that of a toddler having a tantrum.
 
hitmouse said:
The thing is, right, the thing with this is, you seem to be basing this all on the idea that, for instance, Northern Ireland was a conflict between nationalists and unionists, and the Falklands was a conflict between the islanders and the Argentinean state, with the British state as a neutral third party in both instances. But I reckon most people would probably identify the UK as being an active participant in both those conflicts. And I reckon Corbyn has a decent amount of knowledge of the British state, and has met with British politicians on multiple occasions, and some would even say that being an MP makes you a representative of the British state in its own right, so once you take that into account the idea that he's only met with one side of the conflict starts to look a bit wobbly. And even treating unionists as being totally independent from the UK, which is questionable, it is still the case that Corbyn has spent a fair amount of time in Parliament, which usually has a few representatives from parties such as the DUP and UUP, so it's not like he's so totally cut off from them as all that.

I mean, in this metaphor Corbyn's a screaming toddler, and maybe that's fair, maybe that is what he's like. But the problem with this is, that screaming toddler still managed to give the right answer on one of the major geopolitical questions of the 2000s, whereas the sensible Blairite mainstream got it so murderously, disasterously wrong that a decade or so later, a lot of people were still willing to go "well, maybe I don't agree with that screaming toddler (who I guess is an adolescent now? I dunno, not my metaphor) about everything, but at least he was right about Iraq, and he's not directly responsible for the rise of ISIS." So that still doesn't look great for the sensible Labour mainstream, if their judgement is disastrously, catastrophically worse than that of a toddler having a tantrum.
Click to expand...
It's really weird the visceral hatred kk has for jc, based on some peculiar caricature of the man.
 
Kid_Eternity said:
Also one of the reasons idiots like Corbyn are deified, it's all vibe and not rational understanding of just how dangerous and dimwitted he really is....
Click to expand...
Are the anti-Corbynistas ever going to come to terms with the reality that he was very popular amongst demographics who had previously been ignored by both parties because he was a politician who actually listened to them for once? In particular private renters and young people priced out of the housing market constituted the main pillar of his support.

He was not deified, he was popular for policy not personality.
 
Kid_Eternity said:
Also one of the reasons idiots like Corbyn are deified, it's all vibe and not rational understanding of just how dangerous and dimwitted he really is....
Click to expand...

The idea that Corbyn is dangerous on foreign policy may have a ring of truth to it. I don't agree but I can see why you would think that. HOWEVER on emergency/decision making matters like Covid response or climate change, the ordinary-middle-of-the-road-grown-ups-in-the-room-centrists and those to their right have recently proven themselves very dangerous indeed. Tens of thousands of British subjects died unnecessarily because of these jokers. And if you are worried about Corbyn in this context at worst he would have been chummy with Iran and Russia. OK bad, and yes the left should be doing better but SO FUCKING WHAT? OK Britain would be chummier with Iran/less chummy with Saudi Arabia. We would have something more like the foreign policy of Lula in Brazil. What a moral calamity. Meanwhile we have just watched family members die because of the mainstream political class. And let's remember that on Covid BORIS FUCKING JOHNSON WAS MORE WILLING TO ACT AND LESS WILLING TO DEFY THE UNION SAFETY CONCERNS THAN KEIR STARMER.

How are these people going to deal with the climate crisis? With mass climate refugees? With future pandemics? With other unpredictable crises? We know because past behaviour predicts future behaviour. They will try to continue on as if nothing is happening as long as they can. We're about to elect a government that will try to kill us, and you're worried about Corbyn.
 
Last edited:
Pickman's model said:
Jeremy Corbyn is a patriot – he would never have waged the illegal war that killed my son | Reg Keys reg keys speaking up for jc in 2015
Click to expand...

This reminds me of a security guard I used to chat to. He was getting on a bit. He had served in military for many years. During the Cold War and was stationed in Germany.

For him a countries defence forces were to defend the country. And work with others to defend western Europe.

Not to do in his words a war against Iraq. Which had nothing in his eyes to do with defending this country.

I suppose he could be criticised for not having great knowledge of Iraq or the region to base his views on.

It was more the gut reaction of an ex squaddie that people should not be sent off to fight and be killed when its not directly about defense.

It's not what he joined the army to do.

I supposed he could be derided as the squaddie equivalent of a placard waving Corbyn.
 
Damn, that sounds really damaging for Corbyn, if the chair of Islington North CLP was out campaigning for him. That's definitely a really good sign for Labour and terrible for Corbyn, if the chair of Islington North CLP was out campaigning for him. Epic pwn lol!!!
 
So what we're saying is the private healthcare guy can't rely on the local CLP even at chair level. This reflects well on him does it? Because to me it looks like the parachuted in hustings avoider is having to rely on equally bussed in people as the local party think he's a massive wanker. Again, is this a good look for the private healthcare nepo lad?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

krtek a houby
King William’s time is up
Replies
7
Views
513
PR1Berske
PR1Berske
Kid_Eternity
David Lammy’s time is up
Replies
10
Views
492
Karl Masks
K
Larry O'Hara
Chancellor Rachel Reeves: Her Time Is Up!
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
3K
Larry O'Hara
Larry O'Hara
JimW
Jon Benjamin's time is up
Replies
6
Views
528
Chz
Chz
steveseagull
Luke Akehurst's time is up
2 3 4 5
Replies
134
Views
7K
Larry O'Hara
Larry O'Hara
Back
Top Bottom