The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[peterms]

45 minutes ago, blandy said:

And of course Corbyn wasn't Prime Minister, he wasn't acting in any official role (other than as MP for Islington) when he was chummying up to all these Hamas, IRA, Hezbollah types. He was, as ever, just kind of acting out his blinkered and binary "the enemy of your enemy is your friend" worldview.

You're right with South Africa and Apartheid , Corbyn has always been on the right side, always opposed it, and well done to him for that. Genuinely. His absolute opposition to tolerating racism and discrimination against the Black Majority of South Africans, and black people generally is to his immense credit. Funnily enough, he's never seemed to share cosy chats, with White Supremacist and racist "friends and brothers", in the same way he did with the IRA or Hamas etc. Must be just an anomaly., surely.  Just a quirk, right?

When Thatcher as PM dealt with the IRA, it was a difficult calculation for her.  When would it be politically safe to do so?  Too early, and her own side would not support her, and we would see all the usual glib stuff about dealing with killers.

But when she did, it was at a point where both the state and the IRA could see there was a possible way forward.  A lot of work had gone on behind the scenes to get to that point, involving civil servants, intelligence services, and armed forces.

Corbyn's role was quite different (and NB I'm using him as an example for a range of people with similar positions, not suggesting that he was some kind of lone ranger).  That role is to come from a position of very obviously supporting the goal of the people in question, but wanting to explore with them different ways of achieving their aims, or at least an acceptable part of their aims, than the use of violence.

Of course people who oppose dealing with people like the IRA will deny that such discussions played any part in the long road away from conflict.  Some of them may want to maintain that the IRA were defeated and forced to come to the table - perhaps it gives them some mental comfort to think so.  In contrast to that, I think very many people will recognise that for sympathisers of people like Irish Republicans and Palestinians to try to engage with some of the more intransigent members of those groups is helpful, and part of a wider process of moving away from violence.  It's also helpful to others who are closer to the men of violence and who play a bigger role in trying to coax them away from armed struggle, eg Adams, if they can show some wider political support for that.  As we know, it's a long process, involving baby steps, confidence-building, and many setbacks, not a dictation lesson or the simplistic transaction that people like Trump seem to imagine.

I think your characterisation of such a role as "chummying up" is both unfair and unrealistic.  It makes it sound self-centred and self-interested.  Such a description would be better used to describe the fawning approaches to people like Trump, Netanyahu, and similar in the hope of trade deals, arms sales or whatever.

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, Xann said:

To me his view seems to be 'stop the shooting'.

As such his enemy would be the war industry.

That’s fair enough. To me his actions and words seem to be “stop the Israeli shooting” and “stop the unionist / British army shooting” and “yes, the Hamas shooting is a bit unfortunate, you know, these things happen” or perhaps the Arsene Wenger approach “I did not see the incident, so can’t comment “.

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, peterms said:

Corbyn's role was quite different (and NB I'm using him as an example for a range of people with similar positions, not suggesting that he was some kind of lone ranger).  That role is to come from a position of very obviously supporting the goal of the people in question, but wanting to explore with them different ways of achieving their aims, or at least an acceptable part of their aims, than the use of violence.

Corbyn didn’t have a role. He wasn’t part of Thatchers plan to open channels, or John Majors or Tony Blair. He wasn’t another Mo Mowlem. Him, Abbott, McDonnell were sympathetic to the IRA, despite the terrorism. Ditto Corbyn with Hamas, Hezbollah etc. Jeremy Corbyn isn’t trying to bring peace to the Middle East, or much needed life improvement for the Palestinians, he’s just sympathetic to Hamas and Hezbollah and hostile to Israel which leads him to some dark areas and blind eye turning. In a back bencher, maybe that’s tolerable, but not for a prospective PM

[peterms]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

Corbyn didn’t have a role

He didn't have a formal role.  He played a role, and it is for that informal role that you criticise him.

[blandy]

Just now, peterms said:

He didn't have a formal role.  He played a role, and it is for that informal role that you criticise him.

He had an informal role in the same way as Tommy Robinson had an informal role in combatting paedos. Uninvited, one eyed, intolerant of one side and wildly tolerant of the other

[peterms]

I'm trying to recall when I last heard a similarly overstated, inappropriate and inaccurate comparison, but I'm struggling.

[blandy]

18 minutes ago, peterms said:

I'm trying to recall when I last heard a similarly overstated, inappropriate and inaccurate comparison, but I'm struggling.

The comparison is not of them as people, but of the double standards, and the claim Corbyn had a (useful) informal role in somehow bringing about the GFA and resultant peace. After typing it I did wonder if it was OTT, and I accept it's not a great comparison, but there is to my mind an element of similarity in the way that  sympathy with a cause leads to some refusal to acknowledge or recognise appalling behaviour and ultimately a sort of appeasement of it.

[Xann]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

... Jeremy Corbyn isn’t trying to bring peace to the Middle East, or much needed life improvement for the Palestinians...

Yeah - He's really into bloody revolt.

You're not you in this thread.

[peterms]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

The comparison is not of them as people, but of the double standards, and the claim Corbyn had a (useful) informal role in somehow bringing about the GFA and resultant peace. After typing it I did wonder if it was OTT, and I accept it's not a great comparison, but there is to my mind an element of similarity in the way that  sympathy with a cause leads to some refusal to acknowledge or recognise appalling behaviour and ultimately a sort of appeasement of it.

The reason I think such approaches from sympathisers like Corbyn are useful is because it can help to build confidence and create political space.  Extreme groups are likely to feel embattled and beleaguered, and moving away from their current position is dangerous and highly contentious within the group, sometimes to the point of splits which end in some of them killing each other.  We shouldn't underestimate the difficulty of that, nor the need for some external encouragement and support.

The outcome of the Irish process has not been to appease the actions of the murderers - that would have meant countenancing them continuing, much as we are doing in Israel and Yemen - but to get them to stop.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Xann said:

Yeah - He's really into bloody revolt.

You're not you in this thread.

No, I am me. And nowhere have I said he's into bloody revolt - that's just silly, Dave.

He wants it (peace in the ME ) to happen, absolutely. But he's not doing anything constructiuvely to make it happen, other than perhaps unwittingly causing a number of muslim people to feel sympathy and kinship for Jewish people being victimised as a consequence of Corbynite Labours problems with anti-semitism. Perhpas that could one day lead to a wider kinship...

Having meetings on holocaust days comparing Israel actions to auschwitz is not helping peace, it's just a self reverential, cultist back-slapping effort for a bunch of deluded numpties (and no doubt some well meaning people too).

[blandy]

19 minutes ago, peterms said:

The reason I think such approaches from sympathisers like Corbyn are useful is because it can help to build confidence and create political space.  Extreme groups are likely to feel embattled and beleaguered, and moving away from their current position is dangerous and highly contentious within the group, sometimes to the point of splits which end in some of them killing each other.  We shouldn't underestimate the difficulty of that, nor the need for some external encouragement and support.

The outcome of the Irish process has not been to appease the actions of the murderers - that would have meant countenancing them continuing, much as we are doing in Israel and Yemen - but to get them to stop.

Yes, that's something, in terms of a principle or notion I agree with.

Where I differ in this instance is that with the IRA back when, or Hamas/Hezbollah a few years ago, them talking to a sympathetic opponent of the UK governement who calls them a friend or brother or invites them to the HoC or whatever...well it gives them, perhaps a feeling of legitimacy, a notion that some people in the UK support their aims and methods. Unless of course the person (Jezza) was to make it clear to them that when they said something objectionable that he didn't agree with that aspect. But he didn't. It's a common thread from Galloway to Corbyn, from Ireland to the Middle East to Russia, uncritical support and encouragement for the dubious, and criticism aimed more at the UK, or the "conventional" party (e.g. Israel). 

Getting killing to stop is obviously the first aim, or should be, absolutely.

There's a differnece of geography and scale between Ireland, sat a few miles away from the mainland UK, and Yemen and Israel thousands away, and in a much worse mess. It's not simply a matter of the UK countenancing them continuing that is stopping peace in the middle east is it? it's nothing to do with the UKs approach, the lack of peace, there. Whether that be  Corbyn's method, or the vaious governments for the past decades.

[Xann]

58 minutes ago, blandy said:

... Having meetings on holocaust days comparing Israel actions to auschwitz is not helping peace...

What does this smell of to you?

Worrying enough on its own.

Following the relish with which they've been employing lethal munitions against rock throwers?

 

Corbyn was doing his thing when it wasn't fashionable.

Now he's in the big time. Needing to look like a statesman.

Our media's owned offshore, the Tories have whipped, castrated and lobotomised the BBC into submission.

Of course he looks like a c***.

 

He's not the problem with the cult. The cult is, er? A mixed blessing for him

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

 

 

There's a differnece of geography and scale between Ireland, sat a few miles away from the mainland UK, and Yemen and Israel thousands away, and in a much worse mess. It's not simply a matter of the UK countenancing them continuing that is stopping peace in the middle east is it? it's nothing to do with the UKs approach, the lack of peace, there. Whether that be  Corbyn's method, or the vaious governments for the past decades.

The lack of peace has a great deal to do with what we (and the US, and France...) have been doing for a very long time.

Artificially dividing countries, installing client regimes, extracting wealth, playing off tribes and factions against each other, selling vast quantities of arms, invading...

This is not to say that all would have been sweetness and light without us.  But we are directly responsible for unimaginable amounts of devastation and suffering, and still we continue.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Xann said:

What does this smell of to you?

Worrying enough on its own.

Following the relish with which they've been employing lethal munitions against rock throwers?

 

Corbyn was doing his thing when it wasn't fashionable.

Now he's in the big time. Needing to look like a statesman.

Our media's owned offshore, the Tories have whipped, castrated and lobotomised the BBC into submission.

Of course he looks like a c***.

 

He's not the problem with the cult. The cult is, er? A mixed blessing for him

I absolutely detest the line and actions of Israel’s government over a long period wrt Palestinians. The killing, collective punishment, victimisation of fishermen, farmers, children, the destructive bombing and...endless crimes. Most people do. It’s a smear on humanity. Vile. Ditto the votes in the U.N. and vetoes by the US. the list of injustice is deplorably long.

corbyn and many others have been opposed to all that since before I was even aware of it.

The relevance of any of that to my view on Corbyn as a politician is minimal. I’d expect any politician or person to want that to end. Any who don’t, don’t even get on my scale.

My opinion, for the little it’s worth, is that he’s so focused on the injustice that (as I said earlier) “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” to the extent that crimes of summary murder, executions, Antisemitism and more are not treated by him with the right focus. It’s no more the fault of Jewish people in general than are the crimes of Hamas the fault of Palestinians in general.

youre right, he’s been as he is forever. Scott said he’s been consistent in that, and he has.

and you’re right that when his past words and deeds are dragged up, he looks like a word removed, because, well...if the cap fits.

its this aspect that I’m talking about . as a prospective PM he’s got a huge back history of decision making and actions that renders him utterly unsuitable for the role, IMO. As a so called independent thinking back bencher, he was a reasonable one  he got calls right and wrong, he was a thorn in the side of the slicker and more widely involved front Bench on the issues he really cared about, and where his wonky views could be left aside.

i think he’s inflexible, not that bright or mentally agile, strategically poor, has been dire on Brexit, and while a victim of plots has also demonstrated the standard left wing methods of getting rid of dissenters through dirty tricks  he’s handled the Antisemitism business appallingly.

at a time when the country’s need for competent opposition is as great as its been for years, when the need to get the tories out is so high, he’s just fallen so far short, so often and for so long.

perhpas some of my criticism of him is because I so want a credible potential government in opposition, but there just isn’t . I confess to never having rated him as a serious politician . He’s been good at a few narrow things and is at least clearly a member of the human race, unlike a lot of other politicians, but I profoundly don’t rate him at all ( in case you couldn’t tell )

 

[blandy]

2 hours ago, peterms said:

we are directly responsible for unimaginable amounts of devastation and suffering, and still we continue.

Not to my mind. Indirectly, perhaps more so, but even then..

it’s far from so stark to my way of thinking. The UK is hardly if at all involved directly in “continuing unimaginable amounts of suffering.” 

But each to their own view

[peterms]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

 the standard left wing methods of getting rid of dissenters through dirty tricks

As you can imagine, I like the first half of your post and not the second half.

Let me take issue with just one point, that quoted above.

For the last 35 years, in my personal experience, it has been the right wing of the Labour Party that has followed an unrelenting strategy of using positions of power and rulings and panels and the imposition of candidates to remove people on the left of the party, and place people who will do the bidding of the (then) prevailing right wing, aka "moderate", faction.  People like Mann and Hodge were part of that.

In the last couple of years, the left has had the opportunity to return the favour to at least some degree, but has seemed reluctant to do so.

Your analysis, with respect, is 100% wrong.

[snowychap]

29 minutes ago, blandy said:

the standard left wing methods of getting rid of dissenters through dirty tricks

Like Peter, I also disagree with this bit.

Not because I have any personal experience but just that this seems a tad out of place as an observer of politics. They all do that, don't they?

[Xann]

19 minutes ago, blandy said:

The UK is hardly if at all involved directly in “continuing unimaginable amounts of suffering.” 

See, you're at it again!

This thread sends you loopy. 

You think a first aid kit that costs a pound and has travelled halfway around the World comes from a happy place? 

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, Xann said:

See, you're at it again!

This thread sends you loopy. 

You think a first aid kit that costs a pound and has travelled halfway around the World comes from a happy place? 

I’ll take the loopy comment in the spirit I hope it was meant.

lost me on the first aid kit point, though, I confess, Dave. To clarify, like I said, or implied, I directly, there’s much injustice in the world. You, me, sat in safe homes with on tap internets and tv and radio and NHS...we’re incredibly fortunate. Big businesses, multinational corporations..they’re not “we”. I genuinely don’t know of a continuing “we” being responsible for whatever the accusation was - directly causing continuing untold suffering, or whatever, without scrolling back on the iPad to check. Enlighten me.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

In the last couple of years, the left has had the opportunity to return the favour to at least some degree, but has seemed reluctant to do so.

Your analysis, with respect, is 100% wrong.

It isn’t.  There’s a long and often satirised and more seriously commented upon point that the left is so focused on internicine squabbles that renders it incapable of seeing the bigger enemy or point. The people’s front of Judea...militant, momentum.. so much ( in a way as we’re doing) dispute over right and wrong ways to advance that the opponents get the free reign on the wider field. Completely losing sight of the ultimate aim. Splitters!