I am no Corbyn fan and agree that he has crossed the line in many of his statements. Beyond that, there is something worrying about the issue in this thread.
It seems these days people complain constantly that empty suit politicians come off the PPE production line with no past (like Milliband, Cameron and Farron) and then react and embrace 'colourful' extreme politicians (like Corbyn and Farage).
Wouldn't it be rather nice if we could ditch both? Wouldn't it be great if we had politicians with a normal past, who could enter politics without fear of expose, nor need to play up to the mob. People with a dare I say it, a life?
Corbyn has had no life other than politics. He is an example of exactly the problem you are describing not an antidote to it.
I know, that was my point.
Apologies: I agree with your general point.
I don't think that Corbyn has just crossed the line in what he has said. He has crossed the line in what he thinks - it is his world view which is repellent not just his words.
The Conservatives who voted for him on here for partisan reasons should bow their head in shame. I have done my bit to at least try to keep an opposition that is required to hold any goverment to account. My vote is 1 YC 2 AB 3 LK
I'd very much like to know exactly why Nick Palmer an ex MP who knows the way of politics has voted for Corbyn. It does not make any sense to me , and as sure as eggs are eggs he would not have done had he still been an MP.. Is it being out of politics and not caring any more?>
Mr. Jonathan, are you suggesting we clone John Major?
Are you suggesting that the few beautiful, tender moments he shared with Edwina Currie is enough to qualify as a life?
I can understand why lefties dislike Major: he was just one of the many Conservatives that have been PM since a Labour leader last won a general election in 1976.
Because Blair is now, apparently, a Conservative ...
We had an election in '76 ?
Ahem. Yes, 1974. I forgot Callaghan wasn't elected PM.
@stodge All very true, and of course for hundreds of years British politics has had a set of mad foghorns on all sides, and traditionally been very good at keeping them within the mainstream process and not giving them any real power to do any lasting damage (F. E. Smith, shunted off to the Woolsack at a young age in what was probably an ultimately successful bid to make sure he could never be PM where his slightly eccentric views and speeches might have been a problem).
But Labour handing the keys of real responsibility, if not power, to this man? How could they? It's bemusing.
(Incidentally, I must say the quality of debate on all sides is very high this morning.)
What was it Lord Salisbury said about another Tory Chancellor Iain Macleod - "too clever by half". That fits Osborne to a T, although Macleod by every all account was an infinitely more decent human being.
Osborne believes he can obtain a quick political trick against the SNP and a Corbyn led Labour Party by pre-announcing Trident expenditure before the Parliamentary vote.
In fact he will further energise the SNP who march to an entirely different drumbeat and, at UK level, expose himself to taunts that he places party politics above all else - defense of the realm, social security budget for the poor and vulnerable etc.
Osborne like Macleod will never be Prime Minister.
Interesting this has yet to make the BBC website. Top political story is Brown warning that the union is in mortal danger. [Wonder why that would be...].
Perhaps unfair BBC reporting but it's his standard mo: it's all the evil Conservatives fault. Zero self-awareness. He and Milliband have really screwed Labour, haven't they.
@stodge All very true, and of course for hundreds of years British politics has had a set of mad foghorns on all sides, and traditionally been very good at keeping them within the mainstream process and not giving them any real power to do any lasting damage (F. E. Smith, shunted off to the Woolsack at a young age in what was probably an ultimately successful bid to make sure he could never be PM where his slightly eccentric views and speeches might have been a problem).
But Labour handing the keys of real responsibility, if not power, to this man? How could they? It's bemusing.
(Incidentally, I must say the quality of debate on all sides is very high this morning.)
ydoethur
"But Labour handing the keys of real responsibility, if not power, to this man? How could they? It's bemusing."
Yes to me they have given up on holding power and even holding the goverment of the day to account. Moving the Overton window in debate seems to be the priority, which could be a generational task.
What was it Lord Salisbury said about another Tory Chancellor Iain Macleod - "too clever by half". That fits Osborne to a T, although Macleod by every all account was an infinitely more decent human being.
Osborne believes he can obtain a quick political trick against the SNP and a Corbyn led Labour Party by pre-announcing Trident expenditure before the Parliamentary vote.
In fact he will further energise the SNP who march to an entirely different drumbeat and, at UK level, expose himself to taunts that he places party politics above all else - defense of the realm, social security budget for the poor and vulnerable etc.
Osborne like Macleod will never be Prime Minister.
Interesting comparison. Of course, another comparison is that Macleod was no good at economics (which is why, when he died, it wasn't his economic skill but his political skill that was considered the great loss to Heath's government).
Thing is though, I don't think Osborne has Macleod's skill at observing and understanding the currents of politics.
Osborne believes he can obtain a quick political trick against the SNP and a Corbyn led Labour Party by pre-announcing Trident expenditure before the Parliamentary vote.
In fact he will further energise the SNP who march to an entirely different drumbeat and, at UK level, expose himself to taunts that he places party politics above all else - defense of the realm, social security budget for the poor and vulnerable etc.
Osborne like Macleod will never be Prime Minister.
I would be very surprised if Osborne gave a second thought to the SNP. He knows they will oppose government policy on principle, there is therefore no real point in engaging with them, they will do what they will do, which on the opposition benches with Labour imploding next to them, isn't much.
The SNP should stop worrying about the Tories, and start worrying about Labour, without a functioning Labour party to solicit for votes in the Commons, they are not going to achieve anything. 56 SNP votes and an unwhipped unfocused Corbite Labour Party is not the stuff of Tory nightmares.
When the SNP come back in to focus in just under 5 years time Osborne will look at Labour and wonder if they are in a state to back up the SNP demands and make enough votes to worry the government, if not, it's back out of focus again for the foreseeable future. There is precious little point in trying to damage the SNP as a Tory anyway, the seat would almost certainly go back to Labour if anything happened, and where is the point in that.
I am no Corbyn fan and agree that he has crossed the line in many of his statements. Beyond that, there is something worrying about the issue in this thread.
It seems these days people complain constantly that empty suit politicians come off the PPE production line with no past (like Milliband, Cameron and Farron) and then react and embrace 'colourful' extreme politicians (like Corbyn and Farage).
Wouldn't it be rather nice if we could ditch both? Wouldn't it be great if we had politicians with a normal past, who could enter politics without fear of expose, nor need to play up to the mob. People with a dare I say it, a life?
Corbyn has had no life other than politics. He is an example of exactly the problem you are describing not an antidote to it.
Didn't his second wife divorce him because he was insisting on sending their son to a failing state school?
Fortunately looks as though his sons still get on with their father.....
I wonder if Corbyn has any publicly expressed musings on 9/11 conspiracy theories...?
Jeremy Corbyn was embroiled in controversy today for defending a vicar who posted a link to conspiracy theories that Israel was responsible for 9/11.
The Labour leadership contender reportedly stepped in after the Reverend Stephen Sizer was disciplined by church authorities in February for posting the link on his Facebook page and saying it raised “many questions”. Mr Corbyn wrote a letter during the controversy suggesting the Rev Sizer was “under attack” because he had “dared to speak out against Zionism”.
@Jonathan UKIP have an egomaniac at the helm, and are seen as only about whether Britain is in the EU or not. Those are the two main internal reasons why they do relatively badly at General Elections. There are other reasons to do with what is going on in the actual election of course but those two things by themselves are a huge handicap to UKIP.
As for Mr Corbyn, what makes me worry is the absolute rigidity of his views. Four legs good, two legs bad. Little room for humanness (not sure if that is a word, but I don't mean humanity, I mean "having the qualities of a human being which allow you to understand other people").
Mr. Jonathan, not sure that's needed. UKIP did what they've done for the last half dozen elections. They campaign stupidly, spreading support wide and shallow. It's as if they either don't care or don't understand how FPTP works.
If they'd focused on 6-12 seats, they'd have multiple MPs. Instead, they've got 1.
That said, if Labour collapses [still think Labour will not disintegrate entirely], they'd placed to sweep the north, with many second places.
UKIP were concentrating on a narrow range of seats, but my impression is that they relied too much on unfocused "human wave" types of campaigning, rather than the excellent targeting that the Conservatives used. When I went down to Rochester & Strood, I thought the campaign was shambolic. Lots of people were just milling around, or serving as the backdrop to photoshoots, or handing out leaflets in the town centre, but not enough proper canvassing. And, when we did do some canvassing much of the data was plain wrong. And canvassers should have been told the purpose of canvassing is to identify supporters, not to win converts.
That, and fear of Labour/SNP led people to conclude voting UKIP was too much of a risk.
@Jonathan UKIP have an egomaniac at the helm, and are seen as only about whether Britain is in the EU or not. Those are the two main internal reasons why they do relatively badly at General Elections. There are other reasons to do with what is going on in the actual election of course but those two things by themselves are a huge handicap to UKIP.
As for Mr Corbyn, what makes me worry is the absolute rigidity of his views. Four legs good, two legs bad. Little room for humanness (not sure if that is a word, but I don't mean humanity, I mean "having the qualities of a human being which allow you to understand other people").
I think that's what "humanity" means. There is a word "humaneness", the quality of being humane (to either people or warm-blooded animals), which is perhaps what you're thinking of.
Several reasons. First, the collapse of solidarity, whether in terms of mass Trade Unionism or "owes more to Methodism than to Marxism" - an individualistic society such as we now live in simply doesn't need "centre left" politics in the way the 20th century did.
Second, even in their heyday those politics were never particularly effective. Remember, the only Labour leader ever to win a working majority more than once was - is - a closet Tory - remember his second preference vote in the first London Mayoral election. (Weren't the Tories saying "oh why oh why isn't he one of us" back in John Major's day?)
Third, politics are now more about identity than economics - the London Mayoralty again, next time shaping up to be a Jew versus a Muslim, or Bradford politics, or "white flight" from the cities - the list goes on and on.
Finally, the concentration of capital is creating individuals who can get elected on their personal wealth, without the need for a Party machine. Not yet in the UK, I grant you, but we often follow where the USA leads.
Of course, the highly individualist society we have today is a large part down to a multicultural diverse society breaking down civic society and the sense of social solidarity. The globalised professional class that sees themselves flicking between international cities as "citizens of the world" has little interest in participating in rotary clubs or neighbourhood watches. Poorer people immigrating from places like Pakistan and Somalia would prefer to engage in their ethnic groups' civic society, creating a segregated society where people lose faith in the state to redistribute funds, as they don't see why they should subsidise people that they don't feel they have anything to do with. And most young people these days have been brought up with a mentality focused on their own material enjoyment rather than an orientation around family and patriotism of personal sacrifice to create something beyond one's own utility.
The reality is that the 20th Century model of democratic nation states with a sense of common collective values and duties, which we serve beyond ourselves, was the most successful model in world history. The Left sought to destroy that model, and now it is reaping the whirlwind.
Cocking up by making a bad choice at least means the organisation is in place to make a different choice. Disorganised chaotic campaigning sounds harder to re-direct in a more sensible way.
I think that's what "humanity" means. There is a word "humaneness", the quality of being humane (to either people or warm-blooded animals), which is perhaps what you're thinking of.
Humanity has one shade of meaning which is to do with being humane, which is what I was trying to avoid. What I was trying to convey is that because he is a man who has such rigid views it is very difficult to see how he can understand the need to compromise or negotiate, as that would involve accepting in part other people's positions and views. As compromise and negotiation are what the art of politics is all about - building consensus, first within your own party and then with others, in order to bring change - it is hard to see how he could succeed as Labour leader. He is a man for revolution, not evolution.
What was it Lord Salisbury said about another Tory Chancellor Iain Macleod - "too clever by half". That fits Osborne to a T, although Macleod by every all account was an infinitely more decent human being.
Osborne believes he can obtain a quick political trick against the SNP and a Corbyn led Labour Party by pre-announcing Trident expenditure before the Parliamentary vote.
In fact he will further energise the SNP who march to an entirely different drumbeat and, at UK level, expose himself to taunts that he places party politics above all else - defense of the realm, social security budget for the poor and vulnerable etc.
Osborne like Macleod will never be Prime Minister.
Maybe Osborne will "further energise the SNP". Maybe not.
But with 56MPs they have little more to gain. And as they are already resolutely anti Government.. and vote against it,, short of persistent filibusters they can do nowt..
It's rather like saying don't upset the wolves as they will howl more. Lots of noise to little effect..
The SNP's problem is the Tories have little to lose in Scotland.
The Conservatives who voted for him on here for partisan reasons should bow their head in shame. I have done my bit to at least try to keep an opposition that is required to hold any goverment to account. My vote is 1 YC 2 AB 3 LK
Have not filled in number 4 , hope my £3 helps.
If one thinks back to 2001 I don't remember many Labour supporters wanting to sabotage the Tory election - or anything like this happening in the past. Of course Blair and his cronies dreamed of a one party state but not their supporters.
Cocking up by making a bad choice at least means the organisation is in place to make a different choice. Disorganised chaotic campaigning sounds harder to re-direct in a more sensible way.
But, if people had known that Labour would do so badly, I'm sure that UKIP would have won Thanet South, Boston, Thurrock, Castle Point.
On the substance, it looks pretty astute in hindsight, doesn't it? The US assassinated the Al Qaeda leadership and Al Qaeda got replaced by people less moderate than them. Then they took out the Libyan government too, and that didn't work out as well as they'd hoped. Tragedy after tragedy, each one creating the next tragedy.
What was it Lord Salisbury said about another Tory Chancellor Iain Macleod - "too clever by half". That fits Osborne to a T, although Macleod by every all account was an infinitely more decent human being.
Osborne believes he can obtain a quick political trick against the SNP and a Corbyn led Labour Party by pre-announcing Trident expenditure before the Parliamentary vote.
(snip)
It's not just about Trident: the UK government want to bade all their submarines from Faslane, which will be a boon for the west of Scotland, whilst costing Devonport heavily.
Now, the SNP can complain about the move and investment as much as they want, but are they really saying they don't want the Trafalgar class subs and the consequent investment?
@stodge All very true, and of course for hundreds of years British politics has had a set of mad foghorns on all sides, and traditionally been very good at keeping them within the mainstream process and not giving them any real power to do any lasting damage (F. E. Smith, shunted off to the Woolsack at a young age in what was probably an ultimately successful bid to make sure he could never be PM where his slightly eccentric views and speeches might have been a problem).
But Labour handing the keys of real responsibility, if not power, to this man? How could they? It's bemusing.
(Incidentally, I must say the quality of debate on all sides is very high this morning.)
ydoethur
"But Labour handing the keys of real responsibility, if not power, to this man? How could they? It's bemusing."
Yes to me they have given up on holding power and even holding the goverment of the day to account. Moving the Overton window in debate seems to be the priority, which could be a generational task.
Good morning all. I'll confess that I had to look up 'Overton window' (all these big-city folk with their high falutin' talk on here, baffles poor provincial me ).
The three biggest shifts in my lifetime have been the attitudes to homosexuality, drinking and smoking. When I did a bit of fact checking, I was also surprised to note that lesbianism has never been illegal.
On topic: Labour, please don't do this to yourselves.
Several reasons. First, the collapse of solidarity, whether in terms of mass Trade Unionism or "owes more to Methodism than to Marxism" - an individualistic society such as we now live in simply doesn't need "centre left" politics in the way the 20th century did.
Second, even in their heyday those politics were never particularly effective. Remember, the only Labour leader ever to win a working majority more than once was - is - a closet Tory - remember his second preference vote in the first London Mayoral election. (Weren't the Tories saying "oh why oh why isn't he one of us" back in John Major's day?)
Third, politics are now more about identity than economics - the London Mayoralty again, next time shaping up to be a Jew versus a Muslim, or Bradford politics, or "white flight" from the cities - the list goes on and on.
Finally, the concentration of capital is creating individuals who can get elected on their personal wealth, without the need for a Party machine. Not yet in the UK, I grant you, but we often follow where the USA leads.
Of course, the highly individualist society we have today is a large part down to a multicultural diverse society breaking down civic society and the sense of social solidarity. The globalised professional class that sees themselves flicking between international cities as "citizens of the world" has little interest in participating in rotary clubs or neighbourhood watches. Poorer people immigrating from places like Pakistan and Somalia would prefer to engage in their ethnic groups' civic society, creating a segregated society where people lose faith in the state to redistribute funds, as they don't see why they should subsidise people that they don't feel they have anything to do with. And most young people these days have been brought up with a mentality focused on their own material enjoyment rather than an orientation around family and patriotism of personal sacrifice to create something beyond one's own utility.
The reality is that the 20th Century model of democratic nation states with a sense of common collective values and duties, which we serve beyond ourselves, was the most successful model in world history. The Left sought to destroy that model, and now it is reaping the whirlwind.
There is such a thing as being careful what you wish for.
Several reasons. First, the collapse of solidarity, whether in terms of mass Trade Unionism or "owes more to Methodism than to Marxism" - an individualistic society such as we now live in simply doesn't need "centre left" politics in the way the 20th century did.
Second, even in their heyday those politics were never particularly effective. Remember, the only Labour leader ever to win a working majority more than once was - is - a closet Tory - remember his second preference vote in the first London Mayoral election. (Weren't the Tories saying "oh why oh why isn't he one of us" back in John Major's day?)
Third, politics are now more about identity than economics - the London Mayoralty again, next time shaping up to be a Jew versus a Muslim, or Bradford politics, or "white flight" from the cities - the list goes on and on.
Finally, the concentration of capital is creating individuals who can get elected on their personal wealth, without the need for a Party machine. Not yet in the UK, I grant you, but we often follow where the USA leads.
Of course, the highly individualist society we have today is a large part down to a multicultural diverse society breaking down civic society and the sense of social solidarity. The globalised professional class that sees themselves flicking between international cities as "citizens of the world" has little interest in participating in rotary clubs or neighbourhood watches. Poorer people immigrating from places like Pakistan and Somalia would prefer to engage in their ethnic groups' civic society, creating a segregated society where people lose faith in the state to redistribute funds, as they don't see why they should subsidise people that they don't feel they have anything to do with. And most young people these days have been brought up with a mentality focused on their own material enjoyment rather than an orientation around family and patriotism of personal sacrifice to create something beyond one's own utility.
The reality is that the 20th Century model of democratic nation states with a sense of common collective values and duties, which we serve beyond ourselves, was the most successful model in world history. The Left sought to destroy that model, and now it is reaping the whirlwind.
In what way did "the Left" seek to destroy that model? Nor do I think that an Eastern European would necessarily agree with your assessment of its success as a model.
There is a deeper issue, as David Herdson and I have debated on here before. It's natural in me to prefer my children to yours, but it's also profoundly wicked. Left-wing politics are one attempt (spirituality is another) to replace narural with moral behaviour. It will always, I fear, be a mimority taste.
What was it Lord Salisbury said about another Tory Chancellor Iain Macleod - "too clever by half". That fits Osborne to a T, although Macleod by every all account was an infinitely more decent human being.
Osborne believes he can obtain a quick political trick against the SNP and a Corbyn led Labour Party by pre-announcing Trident expenditure before the Parliamentary vote.
In fact he will further energise the SNP who march to an entirely different drumbeat and, at UK level, expose himself to taunts that he places party politics above all else - defense of the realm, social security budget for the poor and vulnerable etc.
Osborne like Macleod will never be Prime Minister.
Maybe Osborne will "further energise the SNP". Maybe not.
But with 56MPs they have little more to gain. And as they are already resolutely anti Government.. and vote against it,, short of persistent filibusters they can do nowt..
It's rather like saying don't upset the wolves as they will howl more. Lots of noise to little effect..
The SNP's problem is the Tories have little to lose in Scotland.
So it’s written off for the next generation (at least)?
Several reasons. First, the collapse of solidarity, whether in terms of mass Trade Unionism or "owes more to Methodism than to Marxism" - an individualistic society such as we now live in simply doesn't need "centre left" politics in the way the 20th century did.
Second, even in their heyday those politics were never particularly effective. Remember, the only Labour leader ever to win a working majority more than once was - is - a closet Tory - remember his second preference vote in the first London Mayoral election. (Weren't the Tories saying "oh why oh why isn't he one of us" back in John Major's day?)
Third, politics are now more about identity than economics - the London Mayoralty again, next time shaping up to be a Jew versus a Muslim, or Bradford politics, or "white flight" from the cities - the list goes on and on.
Finally, the concentration of capital is creating individuals who can get elected on their personal wealth, without the need for a Party machine. Not yet in the UK, I grant you, but we often follow where the USA leads.
Of course, the highly individualist society we have today is a large part down to a multicultural diverse society breaking down civic society and the sense of social solidarity. The globalised professional class that sees themselves flicking between international cities as "citizens of the world" has little interest in participating in rotary clubs or neighbourhood watches. Poorer people immigrating from places like Pakistan and Somalia would prefer to engage in their ethnic groups' civic society, creating a segregated society where people lose faith in the state to redistribute funds, as they don't see why they should subsidise people that they don't feel they have anything to do with. And most young people these days have been brought up with a mentality focused on their own material enjoyment rather than an orientation around family and patriotism of personal sacrifice to create something beyond one's own utility.
The reality is that the 20th Century model of democratic nation states with a sense of common collective values and duties, which we serve beyond ourselves, was the most successful model in world history. The Left sought to destroy that model, and now it is reaping the whirlwind.
It is due to globalisation and capitalism yes, our modern society where people look after themselves and their own and large unionised jobs for life industries have been dismantled. But it would have happened without multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is another side effect of globalisation, not a cause.
I'd also say the right are more responsible for this rise in individualism. It was Thatcher who spoke about individuals rather than society.
Several reasons. First, the collapse of solidarity, whether in terms of mass Trade Unionism or "owes more to Methodism than to Marxism" - an individualistic society such as we now live in simply doesn't need "centre left" politics in the way the 20th century did.
Second, even in their heyday those politics were never particularly effective. Remember, the only Labour leader ever to win a working majority more than once was - is - a closet Tory - remember his second preference vote in the first London Mayoral election. (Weren't the Tories saying "oh why oh why isn't he one of us" back in John Major's day?)
Third, politics are now more about identity than economics - the London Mayoralty again, next time shaping up to be a Jew versus a Muslim, or Bradford politics, or "white flight" from the cities - the list goes on and on.
Finally, the concentration of capital is creating individuals who can get elected on their personal wealth, without the need for a Party machine. Not yet in the UK, I grant you, but we often follow where the USA leads.
All excellent points.
Whereas the Conservative Party has survived the the decline of the Church of England, the Labour Party has been hit hard by the decline of Nonconformism. The growth of Islam is only a partial replacement.
It's also worth pointing out (and I agree Innocent Abroad's post was excellent) that Nonconformism has declined to a much greater extent than Anglicanism despite in practice starting from probably a very slightly higher base, and is particularly antithetic to the individualistic society.
Moreover, of course, the other base of the Labour left - a large, unionised industrial workforce, mostly under the control of the state - has largely gone, in a way that small and medium-sized private enterprises (the lifeblood of the Tories' electoral appeal) have not.
We live in Staffordshire Moorlands - and across the valley is Mow Cop - the birthplace of Primitive Methodism. The Methodist Church is facing total collapse within the next 30 years and chapels are closing and being sold off. The union dominated mines and fabric mills have long gone. The remaining Labour supporters have halved in numbers in the past 30 years .
Corbyn supporters do not care about winning elections - being pure is enough.
Lolza for everyone else though - what a nasty little bigot he is.
It takes one to know one. I suppose you prefer the exercise of power to behaving ethically - Thomas Jefferson was right to own slaves and Harriet Beecher Stowe was wrong to write Uncle Tom's Cabin, eh?
JC and I have viscerally disliked each other since the 1970s, but it's not true that my enemy's enemy is my friend. That's just a Jeffersonian excuse.
What a weird post. Just how rattled are you by the prospect of the election of Jeremy Corbyn?
Not at all. I was writing on here that the Labour Party is an idea whose time has gone before he announced his candidacy.
There's a lot of Tories would agree. The blank sheet of paper on their economic offering in the last manifesto was ample evidence of that.
But there are plenty of Tories who are bemused that there isn't a half-way decent alternative offered from the centre-left to keep the Government on its toes. Apart from the Bat-shit Crazy Leftist toss offered by Corbyn (how is that buyer's remorse coming along, hey guys?) none of the other three candidates has shown how they would run a country where there is no option to borrow to fund a public sector, and a very limited scope to tax without reducing existing tax revenues and ending up killing the NHS....
C'mon, centre-left - get your shit together....
So why don't they?
Several reasons. First, the collapse of solidarity, whether in terms of mass Trade Unionism or
Third, politics are now more about identity than economics - the London Mayoralty again, next time shaping up to be a Jew versus a Muslim, or Bradford politics, or "white flight" from the cities - the list goes on and on.
Finally, the concentration of capital is creating individuals who can get elected on their personal wealth, without the need for a Party machine. Not yet in the UK, I grant you, but we often follow where the USA leads.
Wilson won 3 elections and the largest party in 1 and Attlee won 2 indeed arguably Major and Cameron failed to win working majorities either. As for rich individuals the U.S. has yet to elect a billionaire president even with the rise of Trump while Europe has already had Berlusconi
"A Corbyn’s victory means LAB will spend next 4½ years explaining the "context" of controversial past statements by its leader"
So, it's controversial to be against extra-judicial execution. Are there any liberals left?
You can be against that and not describe his death as a tragedy. Not ideal perhaps, if they wanted him on trial. Tragedy makes it seem he is saddened by the final outcome not merely dislikes the method to get there.
Regardless, the point is as OGH says, he'll have to spend his leadership clarifying these things.
Given he is supposed to be a good communicator, he cannot fall back on saying he is misinterpreted over and over again. Also, given how his supporters condemn things without caveats all the time, it's not as though taking a nuanced position on a difficukt issue is something he would permit in someone else.
The Conservatives who voted for him on here for partisan reasons should bow their head in shame. I have done my bit to at least try to keep an opposition that is required to hold any goverment to account. My vote is 1 YC 2 AB 3 LK
Have not filled in number 4 , hope my £3 helps.
If one thinks back to 2001 I don't remember many Labour supporters wanting to sabotage the Tory election - or anything like this happening in the past. Of course Blair and his cronies dreamed of a one party state but not their supporters.
They weren't able to do so in the same way - full members only, not just us £3ers.
On the substance, it looks pretty astute in hindsight, doesn't it? The US assassinated the Al Qaeda leadership and Al Qaeda got replaced by people less moderate than them.
(snip)
That's rubbish. The arguments between Al Qaeda and the less 'moderate' groups have been ongoing for many years. It seems that many young devout followers prefer the hard-line to the 'softer' (*) Al Qaeda line.
In practice, it's all about power. Would-be leaders want power over people, and Al Qaeda already existed and had a leadership. The way to get power was to differentiate themselves from Al Qaeda by being more extreme.
It's basically a bunch of asshats using religion and the religiously devout for their own ends.
(*) I can't believe I called them 'softer', but they are, relatively at least.
Re ordinary people in politics, I don't see how we get there. We've rewarded identikit party robots for ages, and only odd radicals break the mould,new punish other types electorally.
Yes but the "too clever by half" Chancellor didn't pitch his argument this morning on Trafalger class submerines but on Trident. He seemed unprepared when the BBC Scotland interviewer pointed out that the specifically Trident component of the base provides but 520 civilian jobs, on the MODs own figures!
He wanted to make the political point and was found out - that is his problem.
Re ordinary people in politics, I don't see how we get there. We've rewarded identikit party robots for ages, and only odd radicals break the mould,new punish other types electorally.
There are a few, Tory MP Mike Penning used to be a fireman, Patrick Mcloughlin was a miner, as was Dennis Skinner, and there are some former teachers and nurses and police officers and small businessmen too
Bid Laden might be an extreme example but it's time the so called civilized world decided whether it is acceptable for secret services to assasinate anyone they deem to be an enemy.
Israel under the protection of the US have been doing it for years. Now the Russians have adopted the practice and no one can cry foul......
There are many things about the behaviour of the powerful that need questioning. I look forward to a politician with the courage to do it
If Al Qaida had been a state then targeting senior government personnel would be fair game. It should be no different when a terrorist group is effectively at war with a country, and particularly so when it is engaged in those actions with the support of actual states.
The one point I would agree with is that there needs to be a legal framework for this. The laws of war are outdated, stemming from a time when war was state-on-state and need amending to take account of modern realities.
Second, even in their heyday those politics were never particularly effective. Remember, the only Labour leader ever to win a working
Third, politics are now more about identity than economics - the London Mayoralty again, next time shaping up to be a Jew versus a Muslim, or Bradford politics, or "white flight" from the cities - the list goes on and on.
Finally, the concentration of capital is creating individuals who can get elected on their personal wealth, without the need for a Party machine. Not yet in the UK, I grant you, but we often follow where the USA leads.
Of course, the highly individualist society we have today is a large part down to a multicultural diverse society breaking down civic society and the sense of social solidarity. The globalised professional class that sees themselves flicking between international cities as "citizens of the world" has little interest in participating in rotary clubs or neighbourhood watches. Poorer people immigrating from places like Pakistan and Somalia would prefer to engage in their ethnic groups' civic society, creating a segregated society where people lose faith in the state to redistribute funds, as they don't see why they should subsidise people that they don't feel they have anything to do with. And most young people these days have been brought up with a mentality focused on their own material enjoyment rather than an orientation around family and patriotism of personal sacrifice to create something beyond one's own utility.
The reality is that the 20th Century model of democratic nation states with a sense of common collective values and duties, which we serve beyond ourselves, was the most successful model in world history. The Left sought to destroy that model, and now it is reaping the whirlwind.
It is due to globalisation and capitalism yes, our modern society where people look after themselves and their own and large unionised jobs for life industries have been dismantled. But it would have happened without multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is another side effect of globalisation, not a cause.
I'd also say the right are more responsible for this rise in individualism. It was Thatcher who spoke about individuals rather than society.
Thatcher's "no such thing as society" comment was based on individuals taking responsibility for their actions, rather than blaming society.
There will always be collectivism. Where I think Western societies are moving is away from the model of class solidarity, plus a common patriotism, towards political solidarity with one's own ethnic group, which I doubt is healthy.
In fairness to Mr Corbyn we are talking about a man who got 2 E grade A levels without any mitigating circumstances and whose further education was a brief, unsuccessful, period in North London Polytechnic.
The poor man is obviously just more than a bit thick and it is wrong to mock him for that or even his understandably simplistic view of the world. Of course it does raise questions of his suitability for a major role but that is up to the Labour party.
Hard to make sense of the Tory press logic here.Their story goes Corbyn is unelectable,which must be a good thing from the Murdoch/Dacre/Barclay Bros point of view,so why spend every day trashing him? The Sun goes the same way as Blair,Mandelson and the rest of the gang maybe out of old times sake and godparently love but everyone is cocking a deaf un.
I think that's what "humanity" means. There is a word "humaneness", the quality of being humane (to either people or warm-blooded animals), which is perhaps what you're thinking of.
Humanity has one shade of meaning which is to do with being humane, which is what I was trying to avoid. What I was trying to convey is that because he is a man who has such rigid views it is very difficult to see how he can understand the need to compromise or negotiate, as that would involve accepting in part other people's positions and views. As compromise and negotiation are what the art of politics is all about - building consensus, first within your own party and then with others, in order to bring change - it is hard to see how he could succeed as Labour leader. He is a man for revolution, not evolution.
I'm with @SouthamObserver on this, and I think, with respect, that one or two people who are questioning the premise of this thread are somewhat missing the point. It's the way Corbyn does things, as much as what he does, that's going to cause a problem, viz:
1) You can criticise the UDV/UFF and Loyalist organisations, and consider that in principle a united Ireland is the best solution for all people of that Ireland, and talk to people who agree with that aim, to try and achieve it. That's fine, even laudable. It can be done very easily without openly supporting a terrorist organisation openly responsible for the murder of numerous British subjects and trying to rationalise their crimes.
2) You can be a fierce critic of Israel's heavy-handed militarist policies, and believe that Palestinians both need and deserve a better deal than they're getting, without needing to call Hamas (a group which was for a long time bankrolled by the theocratic dictatorship of Iran) your 'friends' or openly share a platform with neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers (views which I would point out are not merely wrong and grossly offensive to Jews, but also to Austrians, Germans, Czechs, Poles and Russians).
3) You can think that America's tactics over Osama bin Laden - the illegal invasion of a theoretically allied country, destabilising it further, what appears to have been a 'shoot on sight' policy, a severe risk to non-combatants in the operation - were unedifying and even criminally irresponsible, without describing the death of one of the 21st century's worst mass murderers as 'a tragedy'.
Well put. Corbyn just seems so inflexible and narrowly focused. Good guys and bad guys, as you say, and if someone disagrees they are supposedly swallowing American lies or some imperial western attitude, even if they broadly think similar things like you describe.
It really is his foreign policy views which the biggest problem, some of his other stuff is popular or not as easy for his opponents to get people worked up about.
"I am no Corbyn fan and agree that he has crossed the line in many of his statements. Beyond that, there is something worrying about the issue in this thread. "
I think you've hit the nail on the head. There's so much to dislike about Corbyn and so much that really irritates but reading these threads where 98% of posters are opponents also points up those things that make him such an appealing prospect.
Obviously the biggest one is not being Cooper Kendall or Burnham but there's more than that. When I got my first job as an assistant to a well known photographer one of the most useful bits of advice she gave me was 'to zig when everyone else zags'.
Corbyn's been doing that for years and it's quite an asset
We live in Staffordshire Moorlands - and across the valley is Mow Cop - the birthplace of Primitive Methodism. The Methodist Church is facing total collapse within the next 30 years and chapels are closing and being sold off. The union dominated mines and fabric mills have long gone. The remaining Labour supporters have halved in numbers in the past 30 years .
both my sets of grandparents were methodists round there. Lifelong tories all! perhpas they were unpopular at the socials...
Hard to make sense of the Tory press logic here.Their story goes Corbyn is unelectable,which must be a good thing from the Murdoch/Dacre/Barclay Bros point of view,so why spend every day trashing him? The Sun goes the same way as Blair,Mandelson and the rest of the gang maybe out of old times sake and godparently love but everyone is cocking a deaf un.
Until this past week it seemed the Tory press was keeping fairly quiet, so the old ' don't interrupt your enemy while making a mistake' line was out, maybe they think Corbyn's done enough to win already so they can release their scoops now?
Corbyn's problem here is not describing extra-judicial execution as wrong, but describing the death of a mass murderer as a "tragedy" - the same term one would apply to, well, something like the deaths of 3000 innocent people on 11 September 2001.
Part of Corbyn's appeal to certain people is that he doesn't talk like somebody who has been tutored in the extremely careful choice of words... but careful choice of words does have its advantages!
Incidentally, I think his choice to go on Press TV was also unwise. This is a Iranian Government propaganda channel that was ultimately taken off air (jumped before being pushed) after a range of problems culminating in broadcasting an interview with a prisoner given under duress. Useful idiots like Corbyn shouldn't get involved in lending legitimacy to the highly dubious mouthpiece of a repressive regime.
Re ordinary people in politics, I don't see how we get there. We've rewarded identikit party robots for ages, and only odd radicals break the mould,new punish other types electorally.
There are a few, Tory MP Mike Penning used to be a fireman, Patrick Mcloughlin was a miner, as was Dennis Skinner, and there are some former teachers and nurses and police officers and small businessmen too
How normal are they now, or if they reach the top? The political culture demands certain things which shape them.
Yes but the "too clever by half" Chancellor didn't pitch his argument this morning on Trafalger class submerines but on Trident. He seemed unprepared when the BBC Scotland interviewer pointed out that the specifically Trident component of the base provides but 520 civilian jobs, on the MODs own figures!
He wanted to make the political point and was found out - that is his problem.
Yes, but you failed to mention it as well. It's almost as if you weren't aware of the move ...
Hard to make sense of the Tory press logic here.Their story goes Corbyn is unelectable,which must be a good thing from the Murdoch/Dacre/Barclay Bros point of view,so why spend every day trashing him? The Sun goes the same way as Blair,Mandelson and the rest of the gang maybe out of old times sake and godparently love but everyone is cocking a deaf un.
Because the only thing better for the Tories (and arguably the press) would be a panic after electing Corbyn resulting in his defenestration, followed by civil war, another leadership competition with four more months of merriment, and then in all likelihood Corbyn re-elected in the face of the PLP.
Yes but the "too clever by half" Chancellor didn't pitch his argument this morning on Trafalger class submerines but on Trident. He seemed unprepared when the BBC Scotland interviewer pointed out that the specifically Trident component of the base provides but 520 civilian jobs, on the MODs own figures!
He wanted to make the political point and was found out - that is his problem.
In the interests of accuracy, Macleod was Colonial Secretary in the early 1960s when Lord Salisbury made those remarks. I appreciate that many SNP supporters view Osborne (or any Tory) as holding that portfolio today.
Thatcher's "no such thing as society" comment was based on individuals taking responsibility for their actions, rather than blaming society.
Up to a point, Lord Copper. Mrs Thatcher did expect the well-off to put their hands in their pockets, and would have been disappointed that so few have established philanthropic foundations like their American peers or Victorian predecessors. Her point was that the Good Samaritan needed first to have wealth, not that he should have left the traveller to his own devices.
Corbyn supporters do not care about winning elections - being pure is enough.
Lolza for everyone else though - what a nasty little bigot he is.
It takes one to know one. I suppose you prefer the exercise of power to behaving ethically - Thomas Jefferson was right to own slaves and Harriet Beecher Stowe was wrong to write Uncle Tom's Cabin, eh?
JC and I have viscerally disliked each other since the 1970s, but it's not true that my enemy's enemy is my friend. That's just a Jeffersonian excuse.
What a strange thing to say. Jefferson was well aware of the iniquity of slavery and penned one of the more potent statements against it. At the same time, he had to live in the world around him, not some ideal alternative - as we all do. Leaders who would ignore social, political and economic reality are not merely misguided but are frequently harmful to their own cause; their actions result in those opinions being labelled as extreme, their parties being consigned to opposition and government placed in the hands of those who would do precisely the opposite of what they argue for.
There is certainly a place for those who argue for radical solutions, and sometimes those solutions are right. But it is not for practical politicians to get involved until public opinion has been brought round to at least consider them.
Several reasons. First, the collapse of solidarity, whether in terms of mass Trade Unionism or "owes more to Methodism than to Marxism" - an individualistic society such as we now live in simply doesn't need "centre left" politics in the way the 20th century did.
Of course, the highly individualist society we have today is a large part down to a multicultural diverse society breaking down civic society and the sense of social solidarity. The globalised professional class that sees themselves flicking between international cities as "citizens of the world" has little interest in participating in rotary clubs or neighbourhood watches. Poorer people immigrating from places like Pakistan and Somalia would prefer to engage in their ethnic groups' civic society, creating a segregated society where people lose faith in the state to redistribute funds, as they don't see why they should subsidise people that they don't feel they have anything to do with. And most young people these days have been brought up with a mentality focused on their own material enjoyment rather than an orientation around family and patriotism of personal sacrifice to create something beyond one's own utility.
The reality is that the 20th Century model of democratic nation states with a sense of common collective values and duties, which we serve beyond ourselves, was the most successful model in world history. The Left sought to destroy that model, and now it is reaping the whirlwind.
In what way did "the Left" seek to destroy that model? Nor do I think that an Eastern European would necessarily agree with your assessment of its success as a model.
There is a deeper issue, as David Herdson and I have debated on here before. It's natural in me to prefer my children to yours, but it's also profoundly wicked. Left-wing politics are one attempt (spirituality is another) to replace narural with moral behaviour. It will always, I fear, be a mimority taste.
There is nothing profoundly wicked about preferring my children to others. What is wicked is suggesting that caring for those whom you love and are closest to is somehow a bad thing which should be stopped or against which measures should be taken.
"I am no Corbyn fan and agree that he has crossed the line in many of his statements. Beyond that, there is something worrying about the issue in this thread. "
I think you've hit the nail on the head. There's so much to dislike about Corbyn and so much that really irritates but reading these threads where 98% of posters are opponents also points up those things that make him such an appealing prospect.
You don't think 98% of voters will be opponents of Corbyn's views on Osama bin Laden?
Second, even in their heyday those politics were never particularly effective. Remember, the only Labour leader ever to win a working
Third, politics are now more about identity than economics - the London Mayoralty again, next time shaping up to be a Jew versus a Muslim, or Bradford politics, or "white flight" from the cities - the list goes on and on.
Finally, the concentration of capital is creating individuals who can get elected on their personal wealth, without the need for a Party machine. Not yet in the UK, I grant you, but we often follow where the USA leads.
The reality is that the 20th Century model of democratic nation states with a sense of common collective values and duties, which we serve beyond ourselves, was the most successful model in world history. The Left sought to destroy that model, and now it is reaping the whirlwind.
It is due to globalisation and capitalism yes, our modern society where people look after themselves and their own and large unionised jobs for life industries have been dismantled. But it would have happened without multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is another side effect of globalisation, not a cause.
I'd also say the right are more responsible for this rise in individualism. It was Thatcher who spoke about individuals rather than society.
Thatcher's "no such thing as society" comment was based on individuals taking responsibility for their actions, rather than blaming society.
There will always be collectivism. Where I think Western societies are moving is away from the model of class solidarity, plus a common patriotism, towards political solidarity with one's own ethnic group, which I doubt is healthy.
I always have to post the full quote, sorry!
"And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first"
Re ordinary people in politics, I don't see how we get there. We've rewarded identikit party robots for ages, and only odd radicals break the mould,new punish other types electorally.
There are a few, Tory MP Mike Penning used to be a fireman, Patrick Mcloughlin was a miner, as was Dennis Skinner, and there are some former teachers and nurses and police officers and small businessmen too
How normal are they now, or if they reach the top? The political culture demands certain things which shape them.
Well on that definition no MP can ever be normal, as by virtue of being in Parliament they become different automatically, but still they make a change from the PPE spadocracy and McLoughlin, for example, has managed to become Transport Secretary
I think that's what "humanity" means. There is a word "humaneness", the quality of being humane (to either people or warm-blooded animals), which is perhaps what you're thinking of.
Humanity has one shade of meaning which is to do with being humane, which is what I was trying to avoid. What I was trying to convey is that because he is a man who has such rigid views it is very difficult to see how he can understand the need to compromise or negotiate, as that would involve accepting in part other people's positions and views. As compromise and negotiation are what the art of politics is all about - building consensus, first within your own party and then with others, in order to bring change - it is hard to see how he could succeed as Labour leader. He is a man for revolution, not evolution.
I agree. The rigidity and inflexibility of Corbyn means that he cannot be an effective negotiator, either internally within the Labour party or externally with a troubled world.
Corbyn's problem here is not describing extra-judicial execution as wrong, but describing the death of a mass murderer as a "tragedy" - the same term one would apply to, well, something like the deaths of 3000 innocent people on 11 September 2001.
Part of Corbyn's appeal to certain people is that he doesn't talk like somebody who has been tutored in the extremely careful choice of words... but careful choice of words does have its advantages!
Incidentally, I think his choice to go on Press TV was also unwise. This is a Iranian Government propaganda channel that was ultimately taken off air (jumped before being pushed) after a range of problems culminating in broadcasting an interview with a prisoner given under duress. Useful idiots like Corbyn shouldn't get involved in lending legitimacy to the highly dubious mouthpiece of a repressive regime.
I don't want someone who makes a careful choice of words. I want someone who understands that Bin Laden was evil and that his death was not a tragedy. It is the sentiments which are wrong not the words.
Corbyn gives the impression that he does not understand the difference between good and evil and that, if he did, he would choose evil.
Yes but the "too clever by half" Chancellor didn't pitch his argument this morning on Trafalger class submerines but on Trident. He seemed unprepared when the BBC Scotland interviewer pointed out that the specifically Trident component of the base provides but 520 civilian jobs, on the MODs own figures!
He wanted to make the political point and was found out - that is his problem.
Trafalgars will retire in HMNB Devonport; you mean Astute. £50-million p.a. on breakwaters and piers a nuclear-deterrant do not make.
Fascinating that the Left destroyed collectivism. There was me thinking it was rising living standards, more choice and new forms of communication that were largely responsible. I should have known it was multiculturalism.
"I am no Corbyn fan and agree that he has crossed the line in many of his statements. Beyond that, there is something worrying about the issue in this thread. "
I think you've hit the nail on the head. There's so much to dislike about Corbyn and so much that really irritates but reading these threads where 98% of posters are opponents also points up those things that make him such an appealing prospect.
Obviously the biggest one is not being Cooper Kendall or Burnham but there's more than that. When I got my first job as an assistant to a well known photographer one of the most useful bits of advice she gave me was 'to zig when everyone else zags'.
Corbyn's been doing that for years and it's quite an asset
Corbyn, will be disastrous, you know it, I know it, the only unknown is how disastrous. He is utterly unsuited to be a politician in the modern age. As much as people bang on about identikit politicians, they will always choose them over Cornyn because they demand competence as a minimum requirement. Corbyn is blatantly, full fat, chewing the carpets incompetent. It's not even his policies, it's his ineptness that is the real killer.
Yes but the "too clever by half" Chancellor didn't pitch his argument this morning on Trafalger class submerines but on Trident. He seemed unprepared when the BBC Scotland interviewer pointed out that the specifically Trident component of the base provides but 520 civilian jobs, on the MODs own figures!
He wanted to make the political point and was found out - that is his problem.
In the interests of accuracy, Macleod was Colonial Secretary in the early 1960s when Lord Salisbury made those remarks. I appreciate that many SNP supporters view Osborne (or any Tory) as holding that portfolio today.
Those were the days! We were less mealy mouthed then. We had a Minister for War not a poxy Minister of Defence...
Second, even in their heyday those politics were never particularly effective. Remember, the only Labour leader ever to win a working
Third, politics are now more about identity than economics - the London Mayoralty again, next time shaping up to be a Jew versus a Muslim, or Bradford politics, or "white flight" from the cities - the list goes on and on.
Finally, the concentration of capital is creating individuals who can get elected on their personal wealth, without the need for a Party machine. Not yet in the UK, I grant you, but we often follow where the USA leads.
The reality is that the 20th Century model of democratic nation states with a sense of common collective values and duties, which we serve beyond ourselves, was the most successful model in world history. The Left sought to destroy that model, and now it is reaping the whirlwind.
It is due to globalisation and capitalism yes, our modern society where people look after themselves and their own and large unionised jobs for life industries have been dismantled. But it would have happened without multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is another side effect of globalisation, not a cause.
I'd also say the right are more responsible for this rise in individualism. It was Thatcher who spoke about individuals rather than society.
Thatcher's "no such thing as society" comment was based on individuals taking responsibility for their actions, rather than blaming society.
There will always be collectivism. Where I think Western societies are moving is away from the model of class solidarity, plus a common patriotism, towards political solidarity with one's own ethnic group, which I doubt is healthy.
I always have to post the full quote, sorry!
"And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first"
She was a wise woman.
You cut it off too early: It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour ...
"I am no Corbyn fan and agree that he has crossed the line in many of his statements. Beyond that, there is something worrying about the issue in this thread. "
I think you've hit the nail on the head. There's so much to dislike about Corbyn and so much that really irritates but reading these threads where 98% of posters are opponents also points up those things that make him such an appealing prospect.
Obviously the biggest one is not being Cooper Kendall or Burnham but there's more than that. When I got my first job as an assistant to a well known photographer one of the most useful bits of advice she gave me was 'to zig when everyone else zags'.
Corbyn's been doing that for years and it's quite an asset
Corbyn, will be disastrous, you know it, I know it, the only unknown is how disastrous. He is utterly unsuited to be a politician in the modern age. As much as people bang on about identikit politicians, they will always choose them over Cornyn because they demand competence as a minimum requirement. Corbyn is blatantly, full fat, chewing the carpets incompetent. It's not even his policies, it's his ineptness that is the real killer.
Indeed, and next to competence comes not scaring the horses, and Corbyn does that every time he opens his mouth.
It takes one to know one. I suppose you prefer the exercise of power to behaving ethically - Thomas Jefferson was right to own slaves and Harriet Beecher Stowe was wrong to write Uncle Tom's Cabin, eh?
JC and I have viscerally disliked each other since the 1970s, but it's not true that my enemy's enemy is my friend. That's just a Jeffersonian excuse.
What a weird post. Just how rattled are you by the prospect of the election of Jeremy Corbyn?
Not at all. I was writing on here that the Labour Party is an idea whose time has gone before he announced his candidacy.
There's a lot of Tories would agree. The blank sheet of paper on their economic offering in the last manifesto was ample evidence of that.
But there are plenty of Tories who are bemused that there isn't a half-way decent alternative offered from the centre-left to keep the Government on its toes. Apart from the Bat-shit Crazy Leftist toss offered by Corbyn (how is that buyer's remorse coming along, hey guys?) none of the other three candidates has shown how they would run a country where there is no option to borrow to fund a public sector, and a very limited scope to tax without reducing existing tax revenues and ending up killing the NHS....
C'mon, centre-left - get your shit together....
So why don't they?
Several reasons. First, the collapse of solidarity, whether in terms of mass Trade Unionism or "owes more to Methodism than to Marxism" - an individualistic society such as we now live in simply doesn't need "centre left" politics in the way the 20th century did.
Second, even in their heyday those politics were never particularly effective. Remember, the only Labour leader ever to win a working majority more than once was - is - a closet Tory - remember his second preference vote in the first London Mayoral election. (Weren't the Tories saying "oh why oh why isn't he one of us" back in John Major's day?)
Third, politics are now more about identity than economics - the London Mayoralty again, next time shaping up to be a Jew versus a Muslim, or Bradford politics, or "white flight" from the cities - the list goes on and on.
Finally, the concentration of capital is creating individuals who can get elected on their personal wealth, without the need for a Party machine. Not yet in the UK, I grant you, but we often follow where the USA leads.
That is a very good post. And a depressing one. All countries need a credible centre-left party and a credible centre-right alternative.
Yes but the "too clever by half" Chancellor didn't pitch his argument this morning on Trafalger class submerines but on Trident. He seemed unprepared when the BBC Scotland interviewer pointed out that the specifically Trident component of the base provides but 520 civilian jobs, on the MODs own figures!
He wanted to make the political point and was found out - that is his problem.
In the interests of accuracy, Macleod was Colonial Secretary in the early 1960s when Lord Salisbury made those remarks. I appreciate that many SNP supporters view Osborne (or any Tory) as holding that portfolio today.
Those were the days! We were less mealy mouthed then. We had a Minister for War not a poxy Minister of Defence...
Several reasons. First, the collapse of solidarity, whether in terms of mass Trade Unionism or "owes more to Methodism than to Marxism" - an individualistic society such as we now live in simply doesn't need "centre left" politics in the way the 20th century did.
Of course, the highly individualist society we have today is a large part down to a multicultural diverse society breaking down civic society and the sense of social solidarity. The globalised professional class that sees themselves flicking between international cities as "citizens of the world" has little interest in participating in rotary clubs or neighbourhood watches. Poorer people immigrating from places like Pakistan and Somalia would prefer to engage in their ethnic groups' civic society, creating a segregated society where people lose faith in the state to redistribute funds, as they don't see why they should subsidise people that they don't feel they have anything to do with. And most young people these days have been brought up with a mentality focused on their own material enjoyment rather than an orientation around family and patriotism of personal sacrifice to create something beyond one's own utility.
The reality is that the 20th Century model of democratic nation states with a sense of common collective values and duties, which we serve beyond ourselves, was the most successful model in world history. The Left sought to destroy that model, and now it is reaping the whirlwind.
In what way did "the Left" seek to destroy that model? Nor do I think that an Eastern European would necessarily agree with your assessment of its success as a model.
There is a deeper issue, as David Herdson and I have debated on here before. It's natural in me to prefer my children to yours, but it's also profoundly wicked. Left-wing politics are one attempt (spirituality is another) to replace narural with moral behaviour. It will always, I fear, be a mimority taste.
There is nothing profoundly wicked about preferring my children to others. What is wicked is suggesting that caring for those whom you love and are closest to is somehow a bad thing which should be stopped or against which measures should be taken.
When this was discussed at the time, I commented that such a society would be like Pol Pot's Cambodia.
I think that's what "humanity" means. There is a word "humaneness", the quality of being humane (to either people or warm-blooded animals), which is perhaps what you're thinking of.
Humanity has one shade of meaning which is to do with being humane, which is what I was trying to avoid. What I was trying to convey is that because he is a man who has such rigid views it is very difficult to see how he can understand the need to compromise or negotiate, as that would involve accepting in part other people's positions and views. As compromise and negotiation are what the art of politics is all about - building consensus, first within your own party and then with others, in order to bring change - it is hard to see how he could succeed as Labour leader. He is a man for revolution, not evolution.
I agree. The rigidity and inflexibility of Corbyn means that he cannot be an effective negotiator, either internally within the Labour party or externally with a troubled world.
It really is one of the biggest problems. We don't want politicians to be mere weather vanes, but there's going too far in the other direction. I suspect it is that rigidity that leads him to make, if we are to assume the best, such inelegant remarks as has been reported on this incident. He's used to being forthright and bluntly condemning or approving of something, and his language reflects that, meaning even if all he wanted was to make a point about extra judicial killing, his default immovable setting meant he described it in the way he did, unable to make a subtle point. Corbyn is a hammer, so every problem he sees is, to him, a nail.
Yes but the "too clever by half" Chancellor didn't pitch his argument this morning on Trafalger class submerines but on Trident. He seemed unprepared when the BBC Scotland interviewer pointed out that the specifically Trident component of the base provides but 520 civilian jobs, on the MODs own figures!
He wanted to make the political point and was found out - that is his problem.
Trafalgars will retire in HMNB Devonport; you mean Astute. £50-million p.a. on breakwaters and piers a nuclear-deterrant do not make.
Also, now it looks like it's too late - its the optimal time to make a right dog's breakfast of the decision/sow seeds of doubt and pit Labourites against each other.
We're about 3 weeks until conference season - so plenty of time to let it sink in/have a few more up their sleeves to drop during the main event too. With 30yrs of muck to rake through - we all know there's a lot to exhume.
Hard to make sense of the Tory press logic here.Their story goes Corbyn is unelectable,which must be a good thing from the Murdoch/Dacre/Barclay Bros point of view,so why spend every day trashing him? The Sun goes the same way as Blair,Mandelson and the rest of the gang maybe out of old times sake and godparently love but everyone is cocking a deaf un.
Until this past week it seemed the Tory press was keeping fairly quiet, so the old ' don't interrupt your enemy while making a mistake' line was out, maybe they think Corbyn's done enough to win already so they can release their scoops now?
The Conservatives who voted for him on here for partisan reasons should bow their head in shame.
Perhaps a little list of those types could be compiled so any hypocritical prating from them on the disastrous, malign influence that Corbyn will have on British politics can be instantly dismissed.
"Yes there are and they are repelled by Corbyn. The U.S. asked Afghanistan to give up Bin Laden after 9/11. They didn't. Nor did Pakistan. Hence the action they took. Second, the U.S. has put others involved with 9/11 on trial"
This doesn't sound like a rule most liberals would find very liberal. Would you extend the same extradition rules to Hamas who want to put Netanyahu amongst others on trial for war crimes? Rules for the most powerful that don't apply to anyone else isn't very liberal.
As an aside those who spent decades in Guantanamo Bay wouldn't have your unquestioning faith in US justice
Your logic of "the US isn't perfect therefore everyone else is no worse" is the kind of nonsense that Corbyn has trotted out for years and is why he will lead Labour to their biggest crisis since 1931 should he be elected and still be in place come the election.
It is simply absurd to argue that just because money is too powerful in US justice (and the US in general), then the American political, judicial and economic systems are at least as bad as a terrorist dictatorship.
Fascinating that the Left destroyed collectivism. There was me thinking it was rising living standards, more choice and new forms of communication that were largely responsible. I should have known it was multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism frays the bonds of social solidarity, as David Goodhart has observed. People will pay taxes to provide welfare for an unemployed miner who, in the last analysis, will fight for you. They are less inclined to do so for some hate preacher from a far away country who makes it clear he will fight against you.
The Left's embrace of identity politics has undermined a wider sense of collective purpose.
Fascinating that the Left destroyed collectivism. There was me thinking it was rising living standards, more choice and new forms of communication that were largely responsible. I should have known it was multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism frays the bonds of social solidarity, as David Goodhart has observed. People will pay taxes to provide welfare for an unemployed miner who, in the last analysis, will fight for you. They are less inclined to do so for some hate preacher from a far away country who makes it clear he will fight against you.
The Left's embrace of identity politics has undermined a wider sense of collective purpose.
So how does that explain similar developments in countries where immigration is low or non-existent?
The Conservatives who voted for him on here for partisan reasons should bow their head in shame.
Perhaps a little list of those types could be compiled so any hypocritical prating from them on the disastrous, malign influence that Corbyn will have on British politics can be instantly dismissed.
Oh codswallop, the only people who behaved idiotically was the PLP that put him on the ballot, in contravention of the whole point of the way their system was designed, relying on the MPs to keep out nutters and anyone they couldn't work with. Once the nutters get on the ballot you and they can hardly blame people for acting in their own interests, for the Tories to try and saddle Labour with an unelectable leader, and the far left for trying to get their man into power.
Second on the blame list is obviously which ever genius (EdM ?) thought it was a good idea to let people sign up to vote after the list of candidates had been announced. Restricting voting to members and affiliates of good standing at the time of the GE would have been both understandable and sensible, and saved all the current heartache.
Incidentally, I am suffering my first stinking cold and sore throat of the autumn - and it is still August! It is barely a month since recovering from a prolonged bout of bronchitis. What I want for Xmas is a new pair of lungs.
Is this the first intervention he has made in the labour contest? Seems like the LDs have been waiting it out like the Tories.
Presumably everybody was waiting until enough Lab people had cast their votes - they don't want to release the attack stuff too soon and risk Corbyn losing.
It's revealing that none of the other Labour candidates seem to have had the presence of mind to look for this stuff, though.
The Conservatives who voted for him on here for partisan reasons should bow their head in shame.
Perhaps a little list of those types could be compiled so any hypocritical prating from them on the disastrous, malign influence that Corbyn will have on British politics can be instantly dismissed.
Perhaps, although Tory infiltrators and hard left entryists surely won't have swung it for Corbyn if he wins by a large margin, they don't have the numbers. If he wins and if he is a disaster, infiltrators and entryists may have done nothing but add to his win, not made it.
"Yes there are and they are repelled by Corbyn. The U.S. asked Afghanistan to give up Bin Laden after 9/11. They didn't. Nor did Pakistan. Hence the action they took. Second, the U.S. has put others involved with 9/11 on trial"
This doesn't sound like a rule most liberals would find very liberal. Would you extend the same extradition rules to Hamas who want to put Netanyahu amongst others on trial for war crimes? Rules for the most powerful that don't apply to anyone else isn't very liberal.
As an aside those who spent decades in Guantanamo Bay wouldn't have your unquestioning faith in US justice
Your logic of "the US isn't perfect therefore everyone else is no worse" is the kind of nonsense that Corbyn has trotted out for years and is why he will lead Labour to their biggest crisis since 1931 should he be elected and still be in place come the election.
It is simply absurd to argue that just because money is too powerful in US justice (and the US in general), then the American political, judicial and economic systems are at least as bad as a terrorist dictatorship.
I admire your optimism David. This is looking more like Labour's worst crisis since the split of 1914. With hindsight, it wasn't fully repaired until the 1940s.
And at least in 1931 and 1914, they had the excuse of fairly important outside events as the proximate cause for their internal catastrophe. Even allowing for the uselessness of the other three candidates, nobody is forcing Labour to elect Corbyn!
Is this the first intervention he has made in the labour contest? Seems like the LDs have been waiting it out like the Tories.
Presumably everybody was waiting until enough Lab people had cast their votes - they don't want to release the attack stuff too soon and risk Corbyn losing.
It's revealing that none of the other Labour candidates seem to have had the presence of mind to look for this stuff, though.
They were complacent and, of course, they need the transferred votes. Corbyn's rise only highlights how useless the other three are.
Just watched the Corbyn interview, he wanted Bin Laden on trial - I think this is the last thing the US and it's Allies wanted as the scope for embarrassing disclosures would've been legion.
Interestingly at the end of the segment he said Gaddafi was next and this would cause further problems in the region.
Fascinating that the Left destroyed collectivism. There was me thinking it was rising living standards, more choice and new forms of communication that were largely responsible. I should have known it was multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism frays the bonds of social solidarity, as David Goodhart has observed. People will pay taxes to provide welfare for an unemployed miner who, in the last analysis, will fight for you. They are less inclined to do so for some hate preacher from a far away country who makes it clear he will fight against you.
The Left's embrace of identity politics has undermined a wider sense of collective purpose.
So how does that explain similar developments in countries where immigration is low or non-existent?
I agree with you that the rise of individual choice is a key factor but I'm not sure that I understand your question. What similar developments are you talking about?
The Conservatives who voted for him on here for partisan reasons should bow their head in shame.
Perhaps a little list of those types could be compiled so any hypocritical prating from them on the disastrous, malign influence that Corbyn will have on British politics can be instantly dismissed.
Oh codswallop, the only people who behaved idiotically was the PLP that put him on the ballot, in contravention of the whole point of the way their system was designed, relying on the MPs to keep out nutters and anyone they couldn't work with. Once the nutters get on the ballot you and they can hardly blame people for acting in their own interests, for the Tories to try and saddle Labour with an unelectable leader, and the far left for trying to get their man into power.
Is it in the Tories' interests that the rest of the world registers that an anti-Western, anti-capitalist class warrior is the leader of the opposition in the UK and draw wider conclusions about us as a result? Corbyn's election will be welcomed by entities across the globe who wish the UK ill. All those who voted for him, for whatever reason, share responsibility for that.
Comments
I don't think that Corbyn has just crossed the line in what he has said. He has crossed the line in what he thinks - it is his world view which is repellent not just his words.
I have done my bit to at least try to keep an opposition that is required to hold any goverment to account.
My vote is
1 YC
2 AB
3 LK
Have not filled in number 4 , hope my £3 helps.
To quote:
In my defence, I was only three at the time.
But Labour handing the keys of real responsibility, if not power, to this man? How could they? It's bemusing.
(Incidentally, I must say the quality of debate on all sides is very high this morning.)
Osborne believes he can obtain a quick political trick against the SNP and a Corbyn led Labour Party by pre-announcing Trident expenditure before the Parliamentary vote.
In fact he will further energise the SNP who march to an entirely different drumbeat and, at UK level, expose himself to taunts that he places party politics above all else - defense of the realm, social security budget for the poor and vulnerable etc.
Osborne like Macleod will never be Prime Minister.
The SNP will always moan about that, regardless of timing.
"But Labour handing the keys of real responsibility, if not power, to this man? How could they? It's bemusing."
Yes to me they have given up on holding power and even holding the goverment of the day to account.
Moving the Overton window in debate seems to be the priority, which could be a generational task.
Thing is though, I don't think Osborne has Macleod's skill at observing and understanding the currents of politics.
The SNP should stop worrying about the Tories, and start worrying about Labour, without a functioning Labour party to solicit for votes in the Commons, they are not going to achieve anything. 56 SNP votes and an unwhipped unfocused Corbite Labour Party is not the stuff of Tory nightmares.
When the SNP come back in to focus in just under 5 years time Osborne will look at Labour and wonder if they are in a state to back up the SNP demands and make enough votes to worry the government, if not, it's back out of focus again for the foreseeable future. There is precious little point in trying to damage the SNP as a Tory anyway, the seat would almost certainly go back to Labour if anything happened, and where is the point in that.
Fortunately looks as though his sons still get on with their father.....
Jeremy Corbyn was embroiled in controversy today for defending a vicar who posted a link to conspiracy theories that Israel was responsible for 9/11.
The Labour leadership contender reportedly stepped in after the Reverend Stephen Sizer was disciplined by church authorities in February for posting the link on his Facebook page and saying it raised “many questions”. Mr Corbyn wrote a letter during the controversy suggesting the Rev Sizer was “under attack” because he had “dared to speak out against Zionism”.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-caught-up-in-row-over-911-conspiracy-vicar-a2414491.html
As for Mr Corbyn, what makes me worry is the absolute rigidity of his views. Four legs good, two legs bad. Little room for humanness (not sure if that is a word, but I don't mean humanity, I mean "having the qualities of a human being which allow you to understand other people").
Got bored and found this thread: http://www.politic.co.uk/threads/30060-How-to-solve-the-Malvinas-issue-between-Argentina-and-the-UK
Looking for a pop-corn morning...?
That, and fear of Labour/SNP led people to conclude voting UKIP was too much of a risk.
Interesting graphic; though doesn't say how far behind.
The reality is that the 20th Century model of democratic nation states with a sense of common collective values and duties, which we serve beyond ourselves, was the most successful model in world history. The Left sought to destroy that model, and now it is reaping the whirlwind.
Cocking up by making a bad choice at least means the organisation is in place to make a different choice. Disorganised chaotic campaigning sounds harder to re-direct in a more sensible way.
But with 56MPs they have little more to gain. And as they are already resolutely anti Government.. and vote against it,, short of persistent filibusters they can do nowt..
It's rather like saying don't upset the wolves as they will howl more.
Lots of noise to little effect..
The SNP's problem is the Tories have little to lose in Scotland.
On the substance, it looks pretty astute in hindsight, doesn't it? The US assassinated the Al Qaeda leadership and Al Qaeda got replaced by people less moderate than them. Then they took out the Libyan government too, and that didn't work out as well as they'd hoped. Tragedy after tragedy, each one creating the next tragedy.
Now, the SNP can complain about the move and investment as much as they want, but are they really saying they don't want the Trafalgar class subs and the consequent investment?
The three biggest shifts in my lifetime have been the attitudes to homosexuality, drinking and smoking. When I did a bit of fact checking, I was also surprised to note that lesbianism has never been illegal.
On topic: Labour, please don't do this to yourselves.
There is a deeper issue, as David Herdson and I have debated on here before. It's natural in me to prefer my children to yours, but it's also profoundly wicked. Left-wing politics are one attempt (spirituality is another) to replace narural with moral behaviour. It will always, I fear, be a mimority taste.
I'd also say the right are more responsible for this rise in individualism. It was Thatcher who spoke about individuals rather than society.
But if you're explaining, you're losing.
Regardless, the point is as OGH says, he'll have to spend his leadership clarifying these things.
Given he is supposed to be a good communicator, he cannot fall back on saying he is misinterpreted over and over again. Also, given how his supporters condemn things without caveats all the time, it's not as though taking a nuanced position on a difficukt issue is something he would permit in someone else.
In practice, it's all about power. Would-be leaders want power over people, and Al Qaeda already existed and had a leadership. The way to get power was to differentiate themselves from Al Qaeda by being more extreme.
It's basically a bunch of asshats using religion and the religiously devout for their own ends.
(*) I can't believe I called them 'softer', but they are, relatively at least.
Yes but the "too clever by half" Chancellor didn't pitch his argument this morning on Trafalger class submerines but on Trident. He seemed unprepared when the BBC Scotland interviewer pointed out that the specifically Trident component of the base provides but 520 civilian jobs, on the MODs own figures!
He wanted to make the political point and was found out - that is his problem.
I see Telegraph is reporting that Corbyn plans to start assembling his shadow cabinet "within days". Bit premature me thinks.
The one point I would agree with is that there needs to be a legal framework for this. The laws of war are outdated, stemming from a time when war was state-on-state and need amending to take account of modern realities.
There will always be collectivism. Where I think Western societies are moving is away from the model of class solidarity, plus a common patriotism, towards political solidarity with one's own ethnic group, which I doubt is healthy.
The poor man is obviously just more than a bit thick and it is wrong to mock him for that or even his understandably simplistic view of the world. Of course it does raise questions of his suitability for a major role but that is up to the Labour party.
The Sun goes the same way as Blair,Mandelson and the rest of the gang maybe out of old times sake and godparently love but everyone is cocking a deaf un.
It really is his foreign policy views which the biggest problem, some of his other stuff is popular or not as easy for his opponents to get people worked up about.
"I am no Corbyn fan and agree that he has crossed the line in many of his statements. Beyond that, there is something worrying about the issue in this thread. "
I think you've hit the nail on the head. There's so much to dislike about Corbyn and so much that really irritates but reading these threads where 98% of posters are opponents also points up those things that make him such an appealing prospect.
Obviously the biggest one is not being Cooper Kendall or Burnham but there's more than that. When I got my first job as an assistant to a well known photographer one of the most useful bits of advice she gave me was 'to zig when everyone else zags'.
Corbyn's been doing that for years and it's quite an asset
Con-UKIP constituencies
Lab-Con & Con-Lab
Lab-UKIP
I think those 4 would be quite useful.
Part of Corbyn's appeal to certain people is that he doesn't talk like somebody who has been tutored in the extremely careful choice of words... but careful choice of words does have its advantages!
Incidentally, I think his choice to go on Press TV was also unwise. This is a Iranian Government propaganda channel that was ultimately taken off air (jumped before being pushed) after a range of problems culminating in broadcasting an interview with a prisoner given under duress. Useful idiots like Corbyn shouldn't get involved in lending legitimacy to the highly dubious mouthpiece of a repressive regime.
There is certainly a place for those who argue for radical solutions, and sometimes those solutions are right. But it is not for practical politicians to get involved until public opinion has been brought round to at least consider them.
"And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first"
She was a wise woman.
Corbyn gives the impression that he does not understand the difference between good and evil and that, if he did, he would choose evil.
"But the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron, said Corbyn was “utterly wrong”. “Bin Laden’s death was not a tragedy. The tragedy was the 2,977 who died during that awful day. We remember them,” he said."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/31/jeremy-corbyn-said-osama-bin-laden-should-have-been-tried-not-killed?CMP=twt_a-politics_b-gdnukpolitics
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/300918-two-trafalgar-class-submarines-to-be-based-at-faslane-by-2020/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-30184864
Also, now it looks like it's too late - its the optimal time to make a right dog's breakfast of the decision/sow seeds of doubt and pit Labourites against each other.
We're about 3 weeks until conference season - so plenty of time to let it sink in/have a few more up their sleeves to drop during the main event too. With 30yrs of muck to rake through - we all know there's a lot to exhume.
It is simply absurd to argue that just because money is too powerful in US justice (and the US in general), then the American political, judicial and economic systems are at least as bad as a terrorist dictatorship.
The Left's embrace of identity politics has undermined a wider sense of collective purpose.
Second on the blame list is obviously which ever genius (EdM ?) thought it was a good idea to let people sign up to vote after the list of candidates had been announced. Restricting voting to members and affiliates of good standing at the time of the GE would have been both understandable and sensible, and saved all the current heartache.
It's revealing that none of the other Labour candidates seem to have had the presence of mind to look for this stuff, though.
And at least in 1931 and 1914, they had the excuse of fairly important outside events as the proximate cause for their internal catastrophe. Even allowing for the uselessness of the other three candidates, nobody is forcing Labour to elect Corbyn!
Interestingly at the end of the segment he said Gaddafi was next and this would cause further problems in the region.
Always worth looking beyond the headlines !!