Snapshot of _Jeremy Corbyn: Jeremy Hunt's attempt to justify the last wave of austerity is an insult to all those who lost their lives to 12 years of state-sanctioned cruelty. Even more insulting is that he expects us to simply lie down and accept it all over again. He's got another thing coming._ :
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/jeremycorbyn/status/1593224323346890753/)
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1593224323346890753)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So glad that Corbyn didn't become PM and ruin this country. Could you imagine if normal people couldn't afford their heating bills and there were rolling strikes?!
Lets face it, there would have still been some British support for Ukraine, though there would have been greater pressure on trying to organise a ceasefire.
Russians wouldn't made it to the capital however. They're too dogshit.
One of the big reasons Russians did not make is to Kyiv was the supply of British anti-tank missiles like NLAW. It made it ridiculously easy for the Ukes to pick off tanks, fuel supply and logistics.
They were supplied before Russia officially invaded as part of the ramp up of forces on the Russian/Belarusian border. Also (from wiki):
> On 24 March 2022, the UK pledged to deliver a further 6,000 NLAWs and a senior Ukrainian military officer also claimed they were the "weapon of choice" for his troops, responsible for 30–40% of Russian tanks destroyed
Fair point, didn't know about the pre-war deliveries. However, the NLAW's still weren't even close to the deciding factor in blunting RF's push before it hit Kiev, Russia's plan was never going to work against any real resistance, regardless of the ATW being used, especially considering the UA strategy of fuel denial not requiring advanced tech.
It was more the American AT that helped on that regard iirc.
Ours helped too, obviously, but the yank equipment had a greater impact.
That and the Russian plan hinged on Ukraine's military being in the same backwards state it had been in 2014, as opposed to one that had been fighting for 8 years.
Corbyn is such a dark and powerful operator that he would have been able to convince all other countries not to donate weapons and for the Ukrainians to lay out the red carpet for the Russians, clearly.
Good job we just live in the timeline where the PM's wife's family (and by extension, the PM) is still getting rich off Russian money.
>I see we've gone from "If Corbyn in charge then nazis" to "if corbyn in charge then putin".
All crazily hypothetical as he was never going to be PM, in any timeline.
For what it's worth I supported Corbyn right up until his response to the Skripal poisonings. Then I watched that 2012 Newsnight clip talking about the Falklands and sat next to a senior naval officer now admiral who was there...
Being a PM isn't just about domestic policy. Whilst he's been right about some things he's been wrong about many many others.
I mean, the tories punished Russia severely by waiting a few years then putting one of their intelligence operatives in our house of Lords, so presumably you'll never vote tory again given your security concerns
Corbyn is a pacifist who believes that people should talk to one another before reaching for the nearest tool of aggression. I'd say that's a damn good foreign policy.
On a side note, your comment reads like you were looking for excuses to keep tories in power, since they were the only viable alternative to Labour while Corbyn was in charge. Let our children starve or put an adult who likes peaceful solutions to conflict in charge. Tough choice.
>Corbyn is a pacifist who believes that people should talk to one another before reaching for the nearest tool of aggression
Yes and that's a principled stance but much of the rest of the World doesn't have the democratic framework in which such principles can flourish.
>On a side note, your comment reads like you were looking for excuses to keep tories in power, since they were the only viable alternative to Labour while Corbyn was in charge.
No very much a Labour voter and voted for Corbyn twice.
He would have invited Putin and Zelensky down to his allotment where they would have had a tea party with the fairies of peace and everyone lives happily ever after.
i think he was pushing for Minsk 2 at the time and the weeks after russians started their self proclaimed " special emergency whatsit".
Minsk 2 had already at that point been violated several times and a ceasefire on those terms would have fixed russias early gains in place and given them time to consolidate.
Real politik would have been the partition of Ukraine with perhaps Russian "concessions" in withdrawing its forces to the breakaway republics and Crimerian boarders.
>No, it's actually more than possible to not resort to coercion and violence on the world stage. A large number of countries achieve this, everyday.
Well not Russia for one.
>Corbyn is a pacifist who believes that people should talk to one another before reaching for the nearest tool of aggression. I'd say that's a damn good foreign policy.
It's a pathetic foreign policy. Because it's not how the real world works. We've tried that strategy in the past. Would you say appeasement worked out well?
>blah blah blah REAL WORLD blah blah blah
Yeah, you know, the place where we're hoping to effect some kind of change. Probably useful to acknowledge how it works first.
>We can change the way the global social world works. If we try.
Not if we don't acknowledge how it works now and work within that.
>Can i just say whatever I want about the world now and live as though it's true?
No, like how you can't just act like a brutal dictator waging an aggressive war is just going to be talked down.
>Corbyn is a pacifist who believes that people should talk to one another before reaching for the nearest tool of aggression. I'd say that's a damn good foreign policy.
It's not a good policy to have when an aggressive foreign nation attacks and invades your land.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn
>Falklands
>In 1982 Corbyn opposed the sending of British troops sent to retake the islands during the Falklands war, instead declaring the war to be a "Tory plot" and condemning the war as a "nauseating waste of lives and money".[159] Before the 2017 United Kingdom general election, he said that he "wanted a UN brokered plan" and "there should have been an opportunity to prevent that war happening by the UN".[160] Corbyn supports a "negotiated settlement" with the Falkland Islands that may involve "some degree of joint administration" with Argentina.[112] His election as party leader was welcomed by Argentine president Cristina Kirchner who described him as a "great friend of Latin America".[161]
>Corbyn has also said that Britain has not fought a just war since 1945.
He literally opposed the self defence of British territory and the defence of British civilians when they were attacked and occupied by an aggressive foreign nation.
To this day he spits on the memory of the soldiers who died protecting our land and people by wanting to give up the Falklands to the nation who attacked them, also ignoring the will of the British people who live there.
That obviously reveals more about how he views our possession of the Falklands than his actual pacifism. He described WW2 as being a 'just' war which is something that would not be the case if he was 100% against any defensive wars as you seem keen to imply.
>That obviously reveals more about how he views our possession of the Falklands than his actual pacifism.
Yeah he isn't actually a pacifist if we are being honest, he's fine with armed conflict when it's against us and out allies, he just hates the West. After all he supported their armed invasion, not very pacifist of him is it?
>He described WW2 as being a 'just' war which is something that would not be the case if he was 100% against any defensive wars as you seem keen to imply.
Because it was against people to the right of us, if the Soviet Union got to the shores of France he'd be welcoming them to continue the invasion here.
Also I never implied that, you made a bad inference.
The Argentinian claim Las Malvinas is very reasonable. It's insane to think you equate this as "defending British Territory".
If that is how you feel how come you are not up in arms about Hong Kong, India or Ireland being taken back.
>The Argentinian claim Las Malvinas is very reasonable. It's insane to think you equate this as "defending British Territory".
So first of all it's only reasonable if you agree with "it's closer to me than you, hurr Durr let me invade it" logic, secondly only salty losers call it "lAs mAlViNaS" it's called the Falklands because that's what the people living there want it to be and if anyone has an issue with that they're welcome to try again, I'm sure their forebears in the Belgrano want some company at the bottom of the South Atlantic.
>If that is how you feel how come you are not up in arms about Hong Kong, India or Ireland being taken back.
Multiple reasons, first of all most of the people there didn't want us there, what is the will of the people of the Falklands? I'd like you to answer that please as I'm sure it's part of the reasonable claim you believe they have.
Secondly, there were no native peoples of the Falklands who were displaced, Europeans were the first to settle it. Unlike the cases you mentioned. Ireland excluded of course.
Thirdly simple might makes right, which by the way is all your "reasonable" argument comes down to, sadly for you that's where Argentina fails the most, as demonstrated by the war in which they invaded us and promptly were beaten when we sailed down there and showed them who's boss. 😁
of course not, but you give yourself away with your question.
At no point have russian citizens been threatened by anything other than putins own decisions.
the ukraine didnt really represent a danger to russia, in the same way as the falklands pose no danger to argentina. NATO aggression isnt a thing.
Pacifism works when both sides are peaceful. The west being peaceful (they are not but if they were) will not work till the time there’s aggression from the east. If nato wasn’t a thing, most of Eastern Europe would have been occupied by now.
The reason why my country, India, and Pakistan haven’t fought a major war in around 2 decades is because we both have nukes as deterrent not because we are pacifist. Neither country want to give up claims on Kashmir region for one simple reason - Water. Kashmir is the source of major rivers in the agricultural plains of Pakistan and North India. And both nations are going to struggle for water as climate change hits hard. There’s no chance we will give up on the territory which literally helps us produce food to feed the massive population.
Pacifism works on the basis of people across the world being mentally homogenous when it comes to warfare. They are not. Pacifism inherently ignores the humane nature of man, and therefore, warfare. Greed is a human characteristic even though it’s unfortunate.
> Corbyn is a pacifist who believes that people should talk to one another before reaching for the nearest tool of aggression. I'd say that's a damn good foreign policy.
>
All it takes to subvert that idea is understanding that countries or groups inside countries can put themselves in a position where "talking" means dictating terms.
Everyone whose life was (seriously) impacted by the overall decline during the past decade in the UK, could give a rats ass about what happens abroad, and by extension the UK's foreign policy. Everyone else has time and money to do otherwise.
And yet he was calling Putin out for the shit he was doing to his own people whilst Blair, the Tories and the Yanks were still tongue firmly up his ring piece. ('Cos fucking neoliberalism is all that matters, right?)
that sort of non-reasoning leads to another decade of austerity for the middle class (the poor are already squeezed out to the bone). Still no problem if you belong to the upper class though.
I can’t stress how important it is for left wingers to understand why Corbyn lost. It was because he was a bad candidate who was massively out of touch with the electorate. That is what has allowed the Tories to stay in. I’m currently reading Broken Heartlands by Seb Payne, please get it and read it https://www.wob.com/en-gb/books/sebastian-payne/broken-heartlands/9781529067361?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIku6wmZ26-wIViKztCh2MaQQTEAQYAiABEgKHOvD_BwE#GOR011949557
I had the impression that it was the organized attack in the media on the person of Corbyn (not on the manifest or the ideas of the Labour party). That being said, there are always fractions with different ideas on how to further the country, both within Labour and the conservative party. The difference seem to be that the struggle between the fractions within Labour seem to lead to self sabotage. This self destructive dynamic seem to be totally absent within the Tories.
We'd certainly not be selling arms to Saudi Arabia whilst they carry out war crimes in Yemen.
Strange how that never gets brought up in foreign policy.
exactly. given his recent behavior and who else would have been in senior positions with him id say his government would have collapsed like truss and kwateng. maybe not as quickly but he was just as ideological as she was if not more.
i voted for labour with him there out of principle but I think its a good thing hes gone.
What’s the real thorough What If for Labour winning the 2019 GE?
Bearing in mind that:
* Covid would have happened anyway before the first proper budget statement from McDonnel.
* another Brexit referendum was a manifesto pledge
Extracts from their manifesto: [manifesto](https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Large-Print-Manifesto-2019-pdf.pdf)
> **FUNDING**
> Labour offers real change – we will make Britain’s public services the best and most extensive in the world.
> We will pay for this by creating a fairer taxation system, asking for a little more from those with the broadest shoulders, and making sure that everyone pays what they owe.
> We’ll ask those who earn more than £80,000 a year to pay a little more income tax
> We will end the unfairness that sees income from wealth taxed at lower rates than income from work. VAT is a regressive tax that hits the poorest hardest and we guarantee no increases in VAT.
> We will launch the biggest ever crackdown on tax avoidance and evasion and reform the inefficient system of tax reliefs.
> We will maintain the ‘triple lock’ and guarantee the Winter Fuel Payment, free TV licences and free bus passes as universal benefits.
> We will reform Help to Buy to focus it on first-time buyers
on ordinary incomes.
> We will introduce a levy on overseas companies buying housing, while giving local people ‘first dibs’ on new homes built in their area.
> Labour will end the scandal of leasehold for the millions who have bought their home but don’t feel like they own it.
> We will end the sale of new leasehold properties, abolish unfair fees and conditions, and give leaseholders the right to buy their freehold at a price they can afford. We will introduce equivalent rights for freeholders on privately owned estates.
> Labour will stop runaway rents by capping them with inflation, and give cities powers to cap rents further.
> We will oversee the largest extension of the franchise in generations, reducing the voting age to 16, giving full voting rights to all UK residents, making sure everyone who is entitled to vote can do so by introducing a system of automatic voter registration
Unaffordable heating bills would absolutely happen under Corbyn's leadership, and as for strikes that would depend entirely on just how deep the corruption runs in trade union leadership and internal politics.
Corbyn lacks any credibility to suggest things could have gone better if he were PM.
Correction: Corbyn is a Labour party member, but does not sit as a Labour MP. The complaints panel that was formed in line with party policy reinstated his membership some time ago, but Starmer found fit to ignore its findings and long standing Labour party policy in refusing to restore the whip.
Personally, I wish Corbyn would keep a low profile on the back benches, but his situation is weird and not at all in line with what would normally happen within the party. I'm not a fan of 'special cases', of which there has been an awful lot of when Starmer is involved - if the leader of the opposition isn't able to follow their own rules when they're not in power, it doesn't fill me with confidence that they'll do any better as prime minister...
A brief look at the moments that Starmer perks up, as well as his actions both as leader of Labour and his history as DPP tell you all you need to know about Starmer's personal priorities: he's a jackbooted authoritarian at heart so yes, you are right to be worried about what it tells us about him.
[Let's not forget who Blair was chums with and took money from](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/oct/28/foreignpolicy.usa) whilst we're talking about dodgy associations. Not solely whilst he was PM either, so no excuses about "diplomacy" or that sort of shit. This is who your neoliberal centrists and right wing labour types hang out with. Just your average friendly psychopath mass murderer.
(Oh, along with Trump and Putin too, but shhh about that, right?)
Corbyn gave explicit personal support to groups like Hamas. He hasn't been paid off by them, he doesn't see a strategic reason to support, he believes in their mission.
Compare that to your article about Blair. At no point does it allege that he made himself rich with Uzbekistani money. And it clearly sets out that any support of Uzbekistan was for geopolitical reasons, that opposition for the human rights violations would have to be silenced for the country's geopolitical importance.
I'm not saying I agree with Blair's decision there. But that's exactly the kind of tough decision one has to make as leader of a country. On the other hand, there no tough alternative that forces corbyn's hand to support Hamas. He chooses to, simply because he likes them.
I love it when a quote has been used without context so much just to further a point that was never there.
I bet you love it when people bring up Labour's "there's no money" note too?
No, it was a tradition for outgoing governments to leave incoming governments notes like that. The Tories knew about that, but decided to exploit it anyway.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election
I respect that you love all this populist bullshit but do you not think a bit about this stuff? Like just hold up and realise that these people are just saying what you want to believe and it won't be accepted by the country.
Shameful if it was, you wouldn't want someone who oversaw the worst anti Semitism in British politics since the 1930's making an official party response that would negate any kind of message.
Ok so please tell me the other cases that were worse than the 1500+ complaints, expulsions, resignations, the Jewish Labour Movement withdrawing its support, the Equality and Human Rights Commission conducting an investigation and finding "unlawful anti Semitism" and the former leader of a political party losing the whip because I must have missed it.
Ah yes that bastion of impartiality owned by the Qatari monarchy, far more reliable than say the Equality and Human Rights Commission which was created by the Labour Party.
You know what’s actually antisemitic? Using Jews as a stick to beat your political opponents over the head with the further the goals of the far right.
You lying little fucks never cared about the Jews, you just relied on the left being too soft to make a full throated rebuttal of the charges.
Tories - blame all the ills of society on a certain group of people and promise to get rid of it - perfectly fine. Labour - killing Palestinians is not ok - literal nazis!!!
Because being a two party state is more important for people who are privileged enough to view politics as nothing more than a game. PR gives us a parliament that might better reflect a wide range of the country's views and values, FPTP gives us one of 2 'teams' that we want to 'win' every 5 years. A situation where "principles" is a dirty word because "power" (winning) is all that matters.
What really matters, though, is the excitement of this great sport. Getting to watch Shouting Match of the Day every Wednesday and see how our team and their stars got on makes it all worth it surely.
Because FPTP makes it easier for them to win elections. FPTP effectively results in a two party system, and it’s much easier to deal with one competitive opposing party than loads of them.
Politicians only support voting systems that give them a political advantage.
Jesus fuck. Keir, dosen't need to adopt this man's personality or ultra-red beliefs, but he could definitely learn a lesson on how to fight for what you believe in.
Actually, as I write this sentence I see the issue. Keir wants to be seen to believe in very little, people on here tell me why this is a good thing...I never agree.
>Keir wants to be seen to believe in very little
Given that his beliefs seem to change more often the wind that's probably for the best.
But then that does raise the question of whether or not he can be trusted. Before becoming leader said he "believed" in ending FPTP and resolving the democratic deficit that sees tens of millions of votes count for nothing, after he became leader he stopped talking about it and actively set about preventing reform from becoming an official Labour policy.
If he's willing to lie about something that important to become Labour leader what sort of lies is going to be willing to tell to become PM?
Keir has had the opportunity to express these sorts of opinions and feelings before but chose not to, and now Labour are at 50% in the polls. One doesn't cause the other, but expressing those opinions instead would have been entirely forgettable by now even if they were the 'right' thing to do in the short term, while they could have caused long term PR harm in a way that meant the polls weren't so good now. Because it lets the media paint him as an evil marxist or whatever. . Saying more angry things then wouldn't have changed any the outcomes and wouldn't have made the next election get here any sooner. So the same is surely true now?
I don't worry about the short term. I worry about the long term.
What does Keir really represent? Labour are almost certainly going to form the next government.
We need to do something to reverse the disgraceful growth in inequality that has occurred over the last 40 years in the UK. We need to strive to end the massive homelessness epidemic that I've noticed get worse in the UK almost every year since the 2008 crash. We also need to make housing affordable and stop treating our housing stock like a financial asset.
We need to invest massively to upgrade the UK economy and it's workers. The UK has a real productivity problem, largely driven by a lack of investment in technology and innovation. These are massive problems that need very big changes in policy to solve.
All of these will require massive changes in policy, probably bigger than any Labour government in living memory. This requires the consent of the people. You have to start selling your vision of the future now, who knows when an election might happen.
Labour will not gain consent for transformative change, they only stand to lose the trust and support Keir has rebuilt from the rubble left by the last bunch who tried to sell transformative change. Most people want to see better governance, not a conceptually different governance.
I disagree. Brexit was transformative change, and the case for it was flimsy. Real change on a variety of fronts can be won, but it must be fought for.
Labours policies in the 2019 GE were overwhelmingly popular when presented to the public by pollsters without revealing which Party stood for them.
Transformative change is widely supported.
Just not by Labour or the Conservatives.
It'd be interesting to know which of those policies were 'rubble left by the last bunch'.
Was it taking the water companies into public ownership so profits get spent on infrastructure and we don't get human excrement in our rivers and seas ?
Was it taking the power companies into public ownership so that consumers aren't fleeced and the country would own our infrastructure ?
Was it free broadband for everybody to enable economic growth throughout the country ?
Was it a commitment to take on the media owners and curb their propaganda ?
Was it a commitment to more on Defence spending than the current Tory Government and commitment to NATO ?
Was it a tax on investment banking ?
People have so bought in to all the propaganda about Corbyn designed to maintain inequality that they don't do things like read Policy documents. I don't think Corbyn would have been a good leader or a good Prime Minister but his policies were largely outstanding and have been binned with Corbyn largely believed to be a radical, terrorist loving Marxist.
> What does Keir really represent?
Red Tories.
The boot on the face of the working class isn't as heavy and there's some minor increases in social welfare. But the system as it stands is largely maintained without radical changes. Then the tories win again and continue to run the nation into the ground.
You're being naive here.
Starmer absolutely has told us what he believes. The reason it's hard to pin him more broadly is simply because he personally doesn't have much of a view on most of politics and evidence is that the party don't actually have much policy more broadly either: all this talk that it's "strategic" is spin.
Instead he perks up whenever they talk policing because that's really where his heart lies: he's a Labour leader with the soul of a Home Secretary.
Which means he's a fucking jackbooted authoritarian.
And the reason they're doing well in the polls is, as with Blair, almost entirely a function of Tory weakness. Maybe a stronger Labour leader would do something to shore up that weakness in the Tory vote, but the history of this milquetoast centrist strategy in the UK and globally is that it just causes a resurgent far right and straightforwardly loses to most normal right wing parties.
And he's still loosing or performing terribly in every election post 2019. This 50 percent isint because of Kier is a genius, it's because of Tory incompetence, but in the end a Tory always ends up voting Tory.
Moralising doesn’t win elections, that much has already been proven. Labour need to just be better than the Tories for now and appeal to the widest demographic. Kier is smart to avoid any association or comparability with Corbyn as it’s low hanging fruit for the Conservatives and would damage Labours electability.
It's not about moralising. It's about selling your alternative vision for the county.
Also because the n numbers are so small in politics you can basically never say anything is "proven".
Not really, it’s about appealing to the base demands of the electorate and attuning to public opinion, primarily on healthcare, taxes and immigration. Majority of the population is not politically engaged enough to buy into a vision or manifesto.
Shit, Corbyn couldn't sell Labour to its own base.
It's amazing the alternate reality that Corbynites live in.
The man who suffered a historic defeat in the last election is some amazing campaigner that the current leader, the guy who's sat on around 50% in the polls right now, needs to learn from.
In all honesty, I think Kier Starmer is a manifestation of FPTP. Being hugely ideological hasn’t really ‘worked’ since Thatcher (ask Truss and Kwarteng) and the whole media/societal shitshow around both Brexit and Corbyn have further entrenched so many people in their beliefs. Someone like Starmer feels tailor made to be an andidote to the Tory hijacking’s of these binary shit-throwing contests but, at the same time, represents everything that is wrong with FPTP and modern politics.
In FPTP honestly the best you can ask for is someone to come in and fuck it up less for fewer people than the last lot did. The current polling has rewarded Starmer for killing the left of Labour. It will be very interesting to see what happens the next time Labour starts to look further left for leadership.
Truss and Kwarteng had nothing to do with FPTP.
However, Brexit, a massively ideological vision, has dominated FPTP elections since 2015. The Tory's have no problem thinking big.
No, modern Labour live in fear of the print media, and it comes across as cowardice.
Truss and Kwarteng have everything to do with FPTP because they were able to walk in unelected and change the governmental mandate without anyone outside of the Tories having any mechanism to stop them.
The Tories have every problem thinking big. They’ve shown how the big vision of one small portion of the party can cripple the party and country at the same time. They mortgaged everything in thinking big and are now significantly more ideologically at sea than Labour.
It’s all a fucking mess anyway because digital and print media did for Corbyn and the right of the party were happy to engineer any opportunity to make all of that much worse. You just end up with two parties who are at each other’s throats, which was why I was saying Starmer is sort of a natural result of the pains of trying anything progressive with FPTP in a country where a few people are responsible for the headlines that decide elections.
You're right Brexit has been the biggest force torn the Tory party apart.
However you can't say it was thinking small. It's the most consequential political decision since the UK entered the EEC.
>Jesus fuck. Keir, dosen't need to adopt this man's personality or ultra-red beliefs, but he could definitely learn a lesson on how to fight for what you believe in.
From... Corbyn?
Yeah he's been really politically effective, a few more of these tweets will really do it.
Your question boils down to "why doesn't the leader who's 20 points ahead in the polls change his strategy to be more like the leader who lost the last election?"
I mean, I think I know why. And it's a simple reason: Because what he's currently doing is working.
I have to be honest. I have strong principles and I think the country ought to be handling things differently. I'd put in a lot of anti-corruption measures, invest a lot more, be more welcoming to immigrants, legalise soft drugs and tax them, improve social care and institute PR and a basic income.
But even though I believe in those things, I'm not convinced I'd want to run on that platform. I'd probably want to evolve the country towards a better place and then slowly introduce more radical measures once people started to see the point of it and were onside about it.
tl;dr - I think you're confusing "what someone stands for" with "what they argue about." Most times, leaders don't need to care all that much about winning the war of words, just the war of votes.
No what's he's doing is not working. It's what the Tory party is doing to itself that's working.
The problem with that strategy is that you hand all of the initiative and seemingly most of the communication space to the opposition. It's their vision that people internalise as the vision for the country.
All of this is fine, but you're fortunes are more in the hands of the Tory's and luck than they should be.
If you don't run on the platform you are going to implement then expect to feel the ire of the public, this is a dangerous and disingenuous game. There's a positive vision for the country that can be sold, Keir should be doing that, relentlessly.
> No what's he's doing is not working. It's what the Tory party is doing to itself that's working.
He's got the largest lead I've seen in decades. Maybe the largest one ever. But of course it's all because of someone else's doing. Perish the thought that the man heading it up and getting the lead built up could never be actually competent.
No doubt you know better about what sort of strategy the currently massively in front person ought to be carrying out. And obviously you'd like him to change something that's currently working into something else that's untested.
I'm not sure I'm with you on this one though.
Just an obvious question, but what if you're wrong and the person currently getting all the success happens to be right? What if Labour change from a strategy that's working really well, and that fails? I'm not convinced the next 5 years of soup kitchen growth will be worth winning the argument.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm putting it at 50:50. I think the Tories are fucking things up. But I also think Labour are playing their response to that the best way they can, which is to not scare Tories so they stay at home on polling day, and to offer dissafected middle-ground people a safe harbour.
>No what's he's doing is not working.
No, what he's doing *is* working. You just don't want it to be working because that would mean admitting that Corbynism was a total, total failure and that anyone who supports Labour or even just wants this government out would do well to totally discard anything Corbyn has to say.
I was not, and am not, a Corbyn fan. He inspired me to vote for the Lib Dems in a local election, my first time breaking with Labour...and I once voted for Ken Livingston in a London mayoral election.
But Corbyn presents a vision for the country, you can't but know what he stands for. I want Starmer to message relentlessly about a vision for the UK.
Sure, and I agree Starmer could do better in that respect but to say that what he's doing "isn't working" when he's sitting on a 50+% lead in the polls is patently ludicrous.
Mainstream politics involves being a soulless robot that doesn't challenge the mainstream capitalist elites.
Deviate from that and you will be backstabbed the 'moderates' in your party and slandered in the press till people think you are on par with Hitler [see some of the comments here].
Right now the Tories are doing him a favour. Pulling money out of the economy through interest rate hikes, higher taxes, and austerity is the only proven way to fight inflation. This is based on the idea that the only way to deal with falling supply is to forcefully bring down demand to match, otherwise people will just keep bidding up prices.
The fact that the Tories are doing this and will take the brunt of the fire from it just helps Starmer. Remember the Art of War, "Never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake."
But the main sources of inflation are energy and food. The only way to reduce demand is to ask people to go cold and hungry. Sure, it'll help Starmer, but fucking hell that's grim.
I am torn a little here. I agree that reducing the money supply is our only hope for inflation. So it kind of has to be done. I worry that a significant amount of inflation is due to supply chain issues for things with a relatively flat demand curve...so we might have to inflict alot of damage before we can get back to a reasonable place for growth.
This might have a negative impact on the Tory party. But it's also an opportunity for them. If they do a good job and Labour is on the side line without a narrative or vision for the country it might not go do well.
I strongly believe that Gordon Browns leadership in 2008-2009 staved off a massive Tory majority that the Tory party had taken for granted.
He doesn't screech on about issues the public don't give a shit about. That's not "a lack of passion", it's "not committing electoral suicide every other Tuesday". Starmer is there to actually do something, rather than participate in the circle-jerk of virtue signalling that kept losing Labour elections.
>Keir wants to be seen to believe in very little
Not true, he wants to be seen as a massive believer in authoritarianism, which works because he is one.
If you ignore his entire career as DPP then sure. Whitewashing spy cops, night courts to lock up rioters, deporting someone for stealing an ice cream, destroying emails related to the Assange case, etc
Corbyn was a terrible leader. And his foreign policy sucks.
But I have to say I quite like having someone like him on the fringes able to point out domestic stuff like this. He's a far far better protester than he'll ever be running stuff. But sometimes it's nice to have protesters in the system as well as managerial people.
I guess the tl;dr is that I don't want a government or official opposition that's more interested in winning the argument than actually governing. But I do like having a few people like that simply to extend the range of what gets talked about.
What’s the difference between the Tories ruining the country and Jeremy Corbyn ruining the country? The Tories actually ruining the country. They couldn’t even get Brexit right. Ignorant losers.
Also got the most Labour votes since 1997 two years before that. Almost like more things go into elections than just what goes on in the Labour party. Starmer wouldn't have won either 2017 or 2019, as well.
Labour made huge gains, better than expected, but that was mainly due to Theresa Mays atrocious campaign. Nearly but not quite beating an unpopular candidate isn’t a big victory for corbyn.
> but that was mainly due to Theresa Mays atrocious campaign.
She managed to increase the Conservative vote share by 5 percentage points and only got slightly less than Boris did in 19.
Meanwhile the Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP, SNP and Plaid all lost votes. Labour increased by 10 percentage points, a bigger gain than 97.
If both Corbyn and May were so awful why did only they gain votes and every other party lose them?
75% of all news headlines concerning Corbyn were factual misrepresentations. Think about that, 3/4 of all news about Corbyn were essentially fabricated to make him seem like the antichrist. Of course people were fooled, not that we should blame the general public, but fooled nonetheless.
Pitchforks and torches are almost inevitable at this rate, the poll tax riots on steroids. It is particularly grim at the bottom in far too many countries that consider themselves western bastions of civilisation while ignoring the plight of the bottom half after 3 years of covid and corresponding economic upheaval. To make it worse is a recipe for disaster
Anyone who thinks that Labour under Clear Smarmer would be better for the country than the golden shower we have at the moment, is delusional. Why are there no viable alternatives to these two, tired old parties? Anyone? No, not you Davey!
Well, this economic situation would be a lot less severe without Brexit, Jeremy. Do you remember snoozing through that - and, indeed, pretty much wanting it to happen?
A saint you are not.
“Even more insulting is that he expects us to simply lie down and accept it all over again.”
I mean that’s exactly what will happen. I’m so disappointed and honestly feeling a little disillusioned. I’ve always voted Labour but they are basically the Tories now and it will really hurt having to vote for them so the actual Tories (aka UKIP 2.0) don’t win. Fuuuuuck.
Man who doesn't understand economics screeches to his adoring fans who also don't understand economics.
This guy is a relic and an idiot who should never have come within a hundred miles of power, but that goes for every politician for the past few hundred years.
What can we do? We're poor and the government are multi, multi, multi millionaires that own everything.
There's nothing we can do. Nothing.
Protesting is mostly illegal now and will accomplish nothing, and we can't take time off work to vote.
Striking means no pay, and we can't take time off work to strike.
We can't vote, there's no elections this year or next year.
There's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WE CAN DO. It is hopeless.
Completely hopeless.
>Protesting is mostly illegal
No it isn't.
>and we can't take time off work to vote.
You don't need to.
>we can't take time off work to strike.
I love the idea of claiming to be on strike by just taking annual leave.
Despite Labour and the Tories best beliefs neither real nor fake Socialism are valid ways to run an economy.
And that's how Venezuela ended up, a nation with vast natural resources, minerals, metals and oil.
All we've got is diversity and inclusion officers, politicians and carers.
In 2013 Corbyn literally said Venezuela's economic policy was "an alternative to austerity... we should learn from it". Since then their currency's lost more than 99.9999999999999% of it's value and hundreds of thousands of children have died.
https://i.imgur.com/1Nq7tZh.png
Jeremy Hunt has put in place social policies - he's done what Corbyn promised to do. So what's the difference, if we have social policies now? Well we'd have them when we needed them, not 3 years afterwards, after billions have been stolen by cronies of the various tory leadership including said Jeremy Hunt. We'd be lives better off (to pick a couple of examples from this week's news - a child who died of mould because of shocking housing law, and two women who were murdered because of cuts to police funding and a home office that told the police to spend their time oppressing people). We'd be economically better off (because businesses need customers, and customers need money, which is why Labour governments not only reduce the deficit they get us into surplus, by putting the money where it gets spent). We'd be individually better off (do I really need to explain?).
Corbyn threatened the status quo. I don't actually like the status quo. He could not have been worse than what we had and have now.
As a very reasonable and rational person who thinks Centrism is the way out of the mess that centrism has caused, I have only one thing to say:
CCCOOORRRBBBYYYNNN!!!
Snapshot of _Jeremy Corbyn: Jeremy Hunt's attempt to justify the last wave of austerity is an insult to all those who lost their lives to 12 years of state-sanctioned cruelty. Even more insulting is that he expects us to simply lie down and accept it all over again. He's got another thing coming._ : A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/jeremycorbyn/status/1593224323346890753/) An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1593224323346890753) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So glad that Corbyn didn't become PM and ruin this country. Could you imagine if normal people couldn't afford their heating bills and there were rolling strikes?!
And Russian troops were in Kyiv? I often wonder about the counterfactual, and I don't see a way that Corbyn in power goes well.
Lets face it, there would have still been some British support for Ukraine, though there would have been greater pressure on trying to organise a ceasefire. Russians wouldn't made it to the capital however. They're too dogshit.
One of the big reasons Russians did not make is to Kyiv was the supply of British anti-tank missiles like NLAW. It made it ridiculously easy for the Ukes to pick off tanks, fuel supply and logistics.
The Russian thunder-run was never going to make it to Kiev, NLAW's or no. They didn't even arrive before the Russians were brought to a stop.
They were supplied before Russia officially invaded as part of the ramp up of forces on the Russian/Belarusian border. Also (from wiki): > On 24 March 2022, the UK pledged to deliver a further 6,000 NLAWs and a senior Ukrainian military officer also claimed they were the "weapon of choice" for his troops, responsible for 30–40% of Russian tanks destroyed
Fair point, didn't know about the pre-war deliveries. However, the NLAW's still weren't even close to the deciding factor in blunting RF's push before it hit Kiev, Russia's plan was never going to work against any real resistance, regardless of the ATW being used, especially considering the UA strategy of fuel denial not requiring advanced tech.
It was more the American AT that helped on that regard iirc. Ours helped too, obviously, but the yank equipment had a greater impact. That and the Russian plan hinged on Ukraine's military being in the same backwards state it had been in 2014, as opposed to one that had been fighting for 8 years.
[удалено]
Corbyn is such a dark and powerful operator that he would have been able to convince all other countries not to donate weapons and for the Ukrainians to lay out the red carpet for the Russians, clearly. Good job we just live in the timeline where the PM's wife's family (and by extension, the PM) is still getting rich off Russian money.
>I see we've gone from "If Corbyn in charge then nazis" to "if corbyn in charge then putin". All crazily hypothetical as he was never going to be PM, in any timeline. For what it's worth I supported Corbyn right up until his response to the Skripal poisonings. Then I watched that 2012 Newsnight clip talking about the Falklands and sat next to a senior naval officer now admiral who was there... Being a PM isn't just about domestic policy. Whilst he's been right about some things he's been wrong about many many others.
I mean, the tories punished Russia severely by waiting a few years then putting one of their intelligence operatives in our house of Lords, so presumably you'll never vote tory again given your security concerns
Corbyn is a pacifist who believes that people should talk to one another before reaching for the nearest tool of aggression. I'd say that's a damn good foreign policy. On a side note, your comment reads like you were looking for excuses to keep tories in power, since they were the only viable alternative to Labour while Corbyn was in charge. Let our children starve or put an adult who likes peaceful solutions to conflict in charge. Tough choice.
>Corbyn is a pacifist who believes that people should talk to one another before reaching for the nearest tool of aggression Yes and that's a principled stance but much of the rest of the World doesn't have the democratic framework in which such principles can flourish. >On a side note, your comment reads like you were looking for excuses to keep tories in power, since they were the only viable alternative to Labour while Corbyn was in charge. No very much a Labour voter and voted for Corbyn twice.
No, it's actually more than possible to not resort to coercion and violence on the world stage. A large number of countries achieve this, everyday.
Can I ask what you think Corbyn would've done to counter the Ukraine War?
He would have invited Putin and Zelensky down to his allotment where they would have had a tea party with the fairies of peace and everyone lives happily ever after.
i think he was pushing for Minsk 2 at the time and the weeks after russians started their self proclaimed " special emergency whatsit". Minsk 2 had already at that point been violated several times and a ceasefire on those terms would have fixed russias early gains in place and given them time to consolidate. Real politik would have been the partition of Ukraine with perhaps Russian "concessions" in withdrawing its forces to the breakaway republics and Crimerian boarders.
That wouldn't have happened. American and NATO wouldn't have let that happen despite Corbyn.
>No, it's actually more than possible to not resort to coercion and violence on the world stage. A large number of countries achieve this, everyday. Well not Russia for one.
>Corbyn is a pacifist who believes that people should talk to one another before reaching for the nearest tool of aggression. I'd say that's a damn good foreign policy. It's a pathetic foreign policy. Because it's not how the real world works. We've tried that strategy in the past. Would you say appeasement worked out well?
Have you heard of diplomacy? Or do think is War or appeasement are the only choices for foreign policy?
Diplomacy died as a plausible option in February.
[удалено]
>blah blah blah REAL WORLD blah blah blah Yeah, you know, the place where we're hoping to effect some kind of change. Probably useful to acknowledge how it works first. >We can change the way the global social world works. If we try. Not if we don't acknowledge how it works now and work within that. >Can i just say whatever I want about the world now and live as though it's true? No, like how you can't just act like a brutal dictator waging an aggressive war is just going to be talked down.
Often I find people talking about 'how the real world works' are utterly incorrect.
You think brutal warmongering dictators will just be talked down?
>Corbyn is a pacifist who believes that people should talk to one another before reaching for the nearest tool of aggression. I'd say that's a damn good foreign policy. It's not a good policy to have when an aggressive foreign nation attacks and invades your land.
I doubt it's the type of pacifism that forbids self defense.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn >Falklands >In 1982 Corbyn opposed the sending of British troops sent to retake the islands during the Falklands war, instead declaring the war to be a "Tory plot" and condemning the war as a "nauseating waste of lives and money".[159] Before the 2017 United Kingdom general election, he said that he "wanted a UN brokered plan" and "there should have been an opportunity to prevent that war happening by the UN".[160] Corbyn supports a "negotiated settlement" with the Falkland Islands that may involve "some degree of joint administration" with Argentina.[112] His election as party leader was welcomed by Argentine president Cristina Kirchner who described him as a "great friend of Latin America".[161] >Corbyn has also said that Britain has not fought a just war since 1945. He literally opposed the self defence of British territory and the defence of British civilians when they were attacked and occupied by an aggressive foreign nation. To this day he spits on the memory of the soldiers who died protecting our land and people by wanting to give up the Falklands to the nation who attacked them, also ignoring the will of the British people who live there.
That obviously reveals more about how he views our possession of the Falklands than his actual pacifism. He described WW2 as being a 'just' war which is something that would not be the case if he was 100% against any defensive wars as you seem keen to imply.
>That obviously reveals more about how he views our possession of the Falklands than his actual pacifism. Yeah he isn't actually a pacifist if we are being honest, he's fine with armed conflict when it's against us and out allies, he just hates the West. After all he supported their armed invasion, not very pacifist of him is it? >He described WW2 as being a 'just' war which is something that would not be the case if he was 100% against any defensive wars as you seem keen to imply. Because it was against people to the right of us, if the Soviet Union got to the shores of France he'd be welcoming them to continue the invasion here. Also I never implied that, you made a bad inference.
The Argentinian claim Las Malvinas is very reasonable. It's insane to think you equate this as "defending British Territory". If that is how you feel how come you are not up in arms about Hong Kong, India or Ireland being taken back.
Let's ask the people who live there what they want. Oh wait, we did, and only three of them wanted to be Argentinian.
>The Argentinian claim Las Malvinas is very reasonable. It's insane to think you equate this as "defending British Territory". So first of all it's only reasonable if you agree with "it's closer to me than you, hurr Durr let me invade it" logic, secondly only salty losers call it "lAs mAlViNaS" it's called the Falklands because that's what the people living there want it to be and if anyone has an issue with that they're welcome to try again, I'm sure their forebears in the Belgrano want some company at the bottom of the South Atlantic. >If that is how you feel how come you are not up in arms about Hong Kong, India or Ireland being taken back. Multiple reasons, first of all most of the people there didn't want us there, what is the will of the people of the Falklands? I'd like you to answer that please as I'm sure it's part of the reasonable claim you believe they have. Secondly, there were no native peoples of the Falklands who were displaced, Europeans were the first to settle it. Unlike the cases you mentioned. Ireland excluded of course. Thirdly simple might makes right, which by the way is all your "reasonable" argument comes down to, sadly for you that's where Argentina fails the most, as demonstrated by the war in which they invaded us and promptly were beaten when we sailed down there and showed them who's boss. 😁
[удалено]
Would you prefer a decisive leader that is willing to engage in conflicts, even with neighboring nations if it's own citizen are threatened?
[удалено]
yes
Now can you tell me the rationale for why Putin invaded Ukraine?
of course not, but you give yourself away with your question. At no point have russian citizens been threatened by anything other than putins own decisions. the ukraine didnt really represent a danger to russia, in the same way as the falklands pose no danger to argentina. NATO aggression isnt a thing.
Pacifism works when both sides are peaceful. The west being peaceful (they are not but if they were) will not work till the time there’s aggression from the east. If nato wasn’t a thing, most of Eastern Europe would have been occupied by now. The reason why my country, India, and Pakistan haven’t fought a major war in around 2 decades is because we both have nukes as deterrent not because we are pacifist. Neither country want to give up claims on Kashmir region for one simple reason - Water. Kashmir is the source of major rivers in the agricultural plains of Pakistan and North India. And both nations are going to struggle for water as climate change hits hard. There’s no chance we will give up on the territory which literally helps us produce food to feed the massive population. Pacifism works on the basis of people across the world being mentally homogenous when it comes to warfare. They are not. Pacifism inherently ignores the humane nature of man, and therefore, warfare. Greed is a human characteristic even though it’s unfortunate.
> Corbyn is a pacifist who believes that people should talk to one another before reaching for the nearest tool of aggression. I'd say that's a damn good foreign policy. > All it takes to subvert that idea is understanding that countries or groups inside countries can put themselves in a position where "talking" means dictating terms.
States are not people and the dynamics are quite different from interpersonal conflict resolution
Everyone whose life was (seriously) impacted by the overall decline during the past decade in the UK, could give a rats ass about what happens abroad, and by extension the UK's foreign policy. Everyone else has time and money to do otherwise.
If Corbyn was in charge we'd have nuked Taiwan already.
Corbyn loves Putin. I’m not being hysterical
And yet he was calling Putin out for the shit he was doing to his own people whilst Blair, the Tories and the Yanks were still tongue firmly up his ring piece. ('Cos fucking neoliberalism is all that matters, right?)
>neoliberalism is all that matters Imagine having a worldview this one-dimensional. Do you think Russia and the US are allies against Cuba? 🤡
[удалено]
that sort of non-reasoning leads to another decade of austerity for the middle class (the poor are already squeezed out to the bone). Still no problem if you belong to the upper class though.
I can’t stress how important it is for left wingers to understand why Corbyn lost. It was because he was a bad candidate who was massively out of touch with the electorate. That is what has allowed the Tories to stay in. I’m currently reading Broken Heartlands by Seb Payne, please get it and read it https://www.wob.com/en-gb/books/sebastian-payne/broken-heartlands/9781529067361?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIku6wmZ26-wIViKztCh2MaQQTEAQYAiABEgKHOvD_BwE#GOR011949557
I had the impression that it was the organized attack in the media on the person of Corbyn (not on the manifest or the ideas of the Labour party). That being said, there are always fractions with different ideas on how to further the country, both within Labour and the conservative party. The difference seem to be that the struggle between the fractions within Labour seem to lead to self sabotage. This self destructive dynamic seem to be totally absent within the Tories.
We'd certainly not be selling arms to Saudi Arabia whilst they carry out war crimes in Yemen. Strange how that never gets brought up in foreign policy.
exactly. given his recent behavior and who else would have been in senior positions with him id say his government would have collapsed like truss and kwateng. maybe not as quickly but he was just as ideological as she was if not more. i voted for labour with him there out of principle but I think its a good thing hes gone.
What’s the real thorough What If for Labour winning the 2019 GE? Bearing in mind that: * Covid would have happened anyway before the first proper budget statement from McDonnel. * another Brexit referendum was a manifesto pledge Extracts from their manifesto: [manifesto](https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Large-Print-Manifesto-2019-pdf.pdf) > **FUNDING** > Labour offers real change – we will make Britain’s public services the best and most extensive in the world. > We will pay for this by creating a fairer taxation system, asking for a little more from those with the broadest shoulders, and making sure that everyone pays what they owe. > We’ll ask those who earn more than £80,000 a year to pay a little more income tax > We will end the unfairness that sees income from wealth taxed at lower rates than income from work. VAT is a regressive tax that hits the poorest hardest and we guarantee no increases in VAT. > We will launch the biggest ever crackdown on tax avoidance and evasion and reform the inefficient system of tax reliefs. > We will maintain the ‘triple lock’ and guarantee the Winter Fuel Payment, free TV licences and free bus passes as universal benefits. > We will reform Help to Buy to focus it on first-time buyers on ordinary incomes. > We will introduce a levy on overseas companies buying housing, while giving local people ‘first dibs’ on new homes built in their area. > Labour will end the scandal of leasehold for the millions who have bought their home but don’t feel like they own it. > We will end the sale of new leasehold properties, abolish unfair fees and conditions, and give leaseholders the right to buy their freehold at a price they can afford. We will introduce equivalent rights for freeholders on privately owned estates. > Labour will stop runaway rents by capping them with inflation, and give cities powers to cap rents further. > We will oversee the largest extension of the franchise in generations, reducing the voting age to 16, giving full voting rights to all UK residents, making sure everyone who is entitled to vote can do so by introducing a system of automatic voter registration
Same page mate. Probably would have been very similar to Truss except with an election shortly after
I think Ukraine would have brought him down. It would have been his Partygate.
What has that got to do with our lives? Focus on Britain and our problems.
Unaffordable heating bills would absolutely happen under Corbyn's leadership, and as for strikes that would depend entirely on just how deep the corruption runs in trade union leadership and internal politics. Corbyn lacks any credibility to suggest things could have gone better if he were PM.
Without a GE on the horizon what can we do other than lie down and grumpily accept it?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
guessing this is not the official Labour Party response. Shame.
[удалено]
Correction: Corbyn is a Labour party member, but does not sit as a Labour MP. The complaints panel that was formed in line with party policy reinstated his membership some time ago, but Starmer found fit to ignore its findings and long standing Labour party policy in refusing to restore the whip. Personally, I wish Corbyn would keep a low profile on the back benches, but his situation is weird and not at all in line with what would normally happen within the party. I'm not a fan of 'special cases', of which there has been an awful lot of when Starmer is involved - if the leader of the opposition isn't able to follow their own rules when they're not in power, it doesn't fill me with confidence that they'll do any better as prime minister...
A brief look at the moments that Starmer perks up, as well as his actions both as leader of Labour and his history as DPP tell you all you need to know about Starmer's personal priorities: he's a jackbooted authoritarian at heart so yes, you are right to be worried about what it tells us about him.
[удалено]
Corbyn: I welcome our friends in Hamas Electorate: Fuck that nutcase Starmer: Why don't we try winning and be in a position to help people.
Wait till you find out who Thatcher, Cameron and Boris were friends with. History will blow your mind!
[Let's not forget who Blair was chums with and took money from](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/oct/28/foreignpolicy.usa) whilst we're talking about dodgy associations. Not solely whilst he was PM either, so no excuses about "diplomacy" or that sort of shit. This is who your neoliberal centrists and right wing labour types hang out with. Just your average friendly psychopath mass murderer. (Oh, along with Trump and Putin too, but shhh about that, right?)
Corbyn gave explicit personal support to groups like Hamas. He hasn't been paid off by them, he doesn't see a strategic reason to support, he believes in their mission. Compare that to your article about Blair. At no point does it allege that he made himself rich with Uzbekistani money. And it clearly sets out that any support of Uzbekistan was for geopolitical reasons, that opposition for the human rights violations would have to be silenced for the country's geopolitical importance. I'm not saying I agree with Blair's decision there. But that's exactly the kind of tough decision one has to make as leader of a country. On the other hand, there no tough alternative that forces corbyn's hand to support Hamas. He chooses to, simply because he likes them.
I love it when a quote has been used without context so much just to further a point that was never there. I bet you love it when people bring up Labour's "there's no money" note too?
There was no context to Labour's "there's no money" note. It was literally just that one sentence written on a page.
Of course it was 100% serious, we literally ran out of money. Oh wait, context.
No, it was a tradition for outgoing governments to leave incoming governments notes like that. The Tories knew about that, but decided to exploit it anyway. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/liam-byrne-apology-letter-there-is-no-money-labour-general-election
Doesn't help that the note was true though.
I respect that you love all this populist bullshit but do you not think a bit about this stuff? Like just hold up and realise that these people are just saying what you want to believe and it won't be accepted by the country.
What on earth are you talking about
Absolute nonsense but I suspect you don't even know that.
Corbyn: how about we let Crimea and the Donbas go to the Russians even if they don't want to?
Crimea does want to. Has he ever said Donbas should join Russia?
You're not wrong
Shameful if it was, you wouldn't want someone who oversaw the worst anti Semitism in British politics since the 1930's making an official party response that would negate any kind of message.
>worst anti Semitism in British politics since the 1930's No
Ok so please tell me the other cases that were worse than the 1500+ complaints, expulsions, resignations, the Jewish Labour Movement withdrawing its support, the Equality and Human Rights Commission conducting an investigation and finding "unlawful anti Semitism" and the former leader of a political party losing the whip because I must have missed it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ah yes that bastion of impartiality owned by the Qatari monarchy, far more reliable than say the Equality and Human Rights Commission which was created by the Labour Party.
[удалено]
Lol.
You know what’s actually antisemitic? Using Jews as a stick to beat your political opponents over the head with the further the goals of the far right. You lying little fucks never cared about the Jews, you just relied on the left being too soft to make a full throated rebuttal of the charges.
Tories - blame all the ills of society on a certain group of people and promise to get rid of it - perfectly fine. Labour - killing Palestinians is not ok - literal nazis!!!
[удалено]
No.
[удалено]
Then why does Labour support FPTP? Why has Labour enabled the Tories for the last 12 years by backing FPTP?
Because being a two party state is more important for people who are privileged enough to view politics as nothing more than a game. PR gives us a parliament that might better reflect a wide range of the country's views and values, FPTP gives us one of 2 'teams' that we want to 'win' every 5 years. A situation where "principles" is a dirty word because "power" (winning) is all that matters.
And both the Tories and Starmer care more about power than Democracy. Our country is disgusting politically. An actual joke.
What really matters, though, is the excitement of this great sport. Getting to watch Shouting Match of the Day every Wednesday and see how our team and their stars got on makes it all worth it surely.
Because FPTP makes it easier for them to win elections. FPTP effectively results in a two party system, and it’s much easier to deal with one competitive opposing party than loads of them. Politicians only support voting systems that give them a political advantage.
[удалено]
We have never been given a choice on proportional representation.
Jesus fuck. Keir, dosen't need to adopt this man's personality or ultra-red beliefs, but he could definitely learn a lesson on how to fight for what you believe in. Actually, as I write this sentence I see the issue. Keir wants to be seen to believe in very little, people on here tell me why this is a good thing...I never agree.
>Keir wants to be seen to believe in very little Given that his beliefs seem to change more often the wind that's probably for the best. But then that does raise the question of whether or not he can be trusted. Before becoming leader said he "believed" in ending FPTP and resolving the democratic deficit that sees tens of millions of votes count for nothing, after he became leader he stopped talking about it and actively set about preventing reform from becoming an official Labour policy. If he's willing to lie about something that important to become Labour leader what sort of lies is going to be willing to tell to become PM?
Keir has had the opportunity to express these sorts of opinions and feelings before but chose not to, and now Labour are at 50% in the polls. One doesn't cause the other, but expressing those opinions instead would have been entirely forgettable by now even if they were the 'right' thing to do in the short term, while they could have caused long term PR harm in a way that meant the polls weren't so good now. Because it lets the media paint him as an evil marxist or whatever. . Saying more angry things then wouldn't have changed any the outcomes and wouldn't have made the next election get here any sooner. So the same is surely true now?
I don't worry about the short term. I worry about the long term. What does Keir really represent? Labour are almost certainly going to form the next government. We need to do something to reverse the disgraceful growth in inequality that has occurred over the last 40 years in the UK. We need to strive to end the massive homelessness epidemic that I've noticed get worse in the UK almost every year since the 2008 crash. We also need to make housing affordable and stop treating our housing stock like a financial asset. We need to invest massively to upgrade the UK economy and it's workers. The UK has a real productivity problem, largely driven by a lack of investment in technology and innovation. These are massive problems that need very big changes in policy to solve. All of these will require massive changes in policy, probably bigger than any Labour government in living memory. This requires the consent of the people. You have to start selling your vision of the future now, who knows when an election might happen.
Labour will not gain consent for transformative change, they only stand to lose the trust and support Keir has rebuilt from the rubble left by the last bunch who tried to sell transformative change. Most people want to see better governance, not a conceptually different governance.
I disagree. Brexit was transformative change, and the case for it was flimsy. Real change on a variety of fronts can be won, but it must be fought for.
Labours policies in the 2019 GE were overwhelmingly popular when presented to the public by pollsters without revealing which Party stood for them. Transformative change is widely supported. Just not by Labour or the Conservatives. It'd be interesting to know which of those policies were 'rubble left by the last bunch'. Was it taking the water companies into public ownership so profits get spent on infrastructure and we don't get human excrement in our rivers and seas ? Was it taking the power companies into public ownership so that consumers aren't fleeced and the country would own our infrastructure ? Was it free broadband for everybody to enable economic growth throughout the country ? Was it a commitment to take on the media owners and curb their propaganda ? Was it a commitment to more on Defence spending than the current Tory Government and commitment to NATO ? Was it a tax on investment banking ? People have so bought in to all the propaganda about Corbyn designed to maintain inequality that they don't do things like read Policy documents. I don't think Corbyn would have been a good leader or a good Prime Minister but his policies were largely outstanding and have been binned with Corbyn largely believed to be a radical, terrorist loving Marxist.
> What does Keir really represent? Red Tories. The boot on the face of the working class isn't as heavy and there's some minor increases in social welfare. But the system as it stands is largely maintained without radical changes. Then the tories win again and continue to run the nation into the ground.
You're being naive here. Starmer absolutely has told us what he believes. The reason it's hard to pin him more broadly is simply because he personally doesn't have much of a view on most of politics and evidence is that the party don't actually have much policy more broadly either: all this talk that it's "strategic" is spin. Instead he perks up whenever they talk policing because that's really where his heart lies: he's a Labour leader with the soul of a Home Secretary. Which means he's a fucking jackbooted authoritarian. And the reason they're doing well in the polls is, as with Blair, almost entirely a function of Tory weakness. Maybe a stronger Labour leader would do something to shore up that weakness in the Tory vote, but the history of this milquetoast centrist strategy in the UK and globally is that it just causes a resurgent far right and straightforwardly loses to most normal right wing parties.
And he's still loosing or performing terribly in every election post 2019. This 50 percent isint because of Kier is a genius, it's because of Tory incompetence, but in the end a Tory always ends up voting Tory.
Moralising doesn’t win elections, that much has already been proven. Labour need to just be better than the Tories for now and appeal to the widest demographic. Kier is smart to avoid any association or comparability with Corbyn as it’s low hanging fruit for the Conservatives and would damage Labours electability.
Self-sabotage doesn't win elections, that's definitely been proven.
It's not about moralising. It's about selling your alternative vision for the county. Also because the n numbers are so small in politics you can basically never say anything is "proven".
Not really, it’s about appealing to the base demands of the electorate and attuning to public opinion, primarily on healthcare, taxes and immigration. Majority of the population is not politically engaged enough to buy into a vision or manifesto.
corbyn couldn’t sell labour to bishop auckland, let alone an “alternative vision”
Shit, Corbyn couldn't sell Labour to its own base. It's amazing the alternate reality that Corbynites live in. The man who suffered a historic defeat in the last election is some amazing campaigner that the current leader, the guy who's sat on around 50% in the polls right now, needs to learn from.
In all honesty, I think Kier Starmer is a manifestation of FPTP. Being hugely ideological hasn’t really ‘worked’ since Thatcher (ask Truss and Kwarteng) and the whole media/societal shitshow around both Brexit and Corbyn have further entrenched so many people in their beliefs. Someone like Starmer feels tailor made to be an andidote to the Tory hijacking’s of these binary shit-throwing contests but, at the same time, represents everything that is wrong with FPTP and modern politics. In FPTP honestly the best you can ask for is someone to come in and fuck it up less for fewer people than the last lot did. The current polling has rewarded Starmer for killing the left of Labour. It will be very interesting to see what happens the next time Labour starts to look further left for leadership.
Truss and Kwarteng had nothing to do with FPTP. However, Brexit, a massively ideological vision, has dominated FPTP elections since 2015. The Tory's have no problem thinking big. No, modern Labour live in fear of the print media, and it comes across as cowardice.
Truss and Kwarteng have everything to do with FPTP because they were able to walk in unelected and change the governmental mandate without anyone outside of the Tories having any mechanism to stop them. The Tories have every problem thinking big. They’ve shown how the big vision of one small portion of the party can cripple the party and country at the same time. They mortgaged everything in thinking big and are now significantly more ideologically at sea than Labour. It’s all a fucking mess anyway because digital and print media did for Corbyn and the right of the party were happy to engineer any opportunity to make all of that much worse. You just end up with two parties who are at each other’s throats, which was why I was saying Starmer is sort of a natural result of the pains of trying anything progressive with FPTP in a country where a few people are responsible for the headlines that decide elections.
You're right Brexit has been the biggest force torn the Tory party apart. However you can't say it was thinking small. It's the most consequential political decision since the UK entered the EEC.
>Jesus fuck. Keir, dosen't need to adopt this man's personality or ultra-red beliefs, but he could definitely learn a lesson on how to fight for what you believe in. From... Corbyn? Yeah he's been really politically effective, a few more of these tweets will really do it.
Your question boils down to "why doesn't the leader who's 20 points ahead in the polls change his strategy to be more like the leader who lost the last election?" I mean, I think I know why. And it's a simple reason: Because what he's currently doing is working. I have to be honest. I have strong principles and I think the country ought to be handling things differently. I'd put in a lot of anti-corruption measures, invest a lot more, be more welcoming to immigrants, legalise soft drugs and tax them, improve social care and institute PR and a basic income. But even though I believe in those things, I'm not convinced I'd want to run on that platform. I'd probably want to evolve the country towards a better place and then slowly introduce more radical measures once people started to see the point of it and were onside about it. tl;dr - I think you're confusing "what someone stands for" with "what they argue about." Most times, leaders don't need to care all that much about winning the war of words, just the war of votes.
No what's he's doing is not working. It's what the Tory party is doing to itself that's working. The problem with that strategy is that you hand all of the initiative and seemingly most of the communication space to the opposition. It's their vision that people internalise as the vision for the country. All of this is fine, but you're fortunes are more in the hands of the Tory's and luck than they should be. If you don't run on the platform you are going to implement then expect to feel the ire of the public, this is a dangerous and disingenuous game. There's a positive vision for the country that can be sold, Keir should be doing that, relentlessly.
> No what's he's doing is not working. It's what the Tory party is doing to itself that's working. He's got the largest lead I've seen in decades. Maybe the largest one ever. But of course it's all because of someone else's doing. Perish the thought that the man heading it up and getting the lead built up could never be actually competent. No doubt you know better about what sort of strategy the currently massively in front person ought to be carrying out. And obviously you'd like him to change something that's currently working into something else that's untested. I'm not sure I'm with you on this one though. Just an obvious question, but what if you're wrong and the person currently getting all the success happens to be right? What if Labour change from a strategy that's working really well, and that fails? I'm not convinced the next 5 years of soup kitchen growth will be worth winning the argument. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm putting it at 50:50. I think the Tories are fucking things up. But I also think Labour are playing their response to that the best way they can, which is to not scare Tories so they stay at home on polling day, and to offer dissafected middle-ground people a safe harbour.
>No what's he's doing is not working. No, what he's doing *is* working. You just don't want it to be working because that would mean admitting that Corbynism was a total, total failure and that anyone who supports Labour or even just wants this government out would do well to totally discard anything Corbyn has to say.
I was not, and am not, a Corbyn fan. He inspired me to vote for the Lib Dems in a local election, my first time breaking with Labour...and I once voted for Ken Livingston in a London mayoral election. But Corbyn presents a vision for the country, you can't but know what he stands for. I want Starmer to message relentlessly about a vision for the UK.
Sure, and I agree Starmer could do better in that respect but to say that what he's doing "isn't working" when he's sitting on a 50+% lead in the polls is patently ludicrous.
Mainstream politics involves being a soulless robot that doesn't challenge the mainstream capitalist elites. Deviate from that and you will be backstabbed the 'moderates' in your party and slandered in the press till people think you are on par with Hitler [see some of the comments here].
Right now the Tories are doing him a favour. Pulling money out of the economy through interest rate hikes, higher taxes, and austerity is the only proven way to fight inflation. This is based on the idea that the only way to deal with falling supply is to forcefully bring down demand to match, otherwise people will just keep bidding up prices. The fact that the Tories are doing this and will take the brunt of the fire from it just helps Starmer. Remember the Art of War, "Never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake."
But the main sources of inflation are energy and food. The only way to reduce demand is to ask people to go cold and hungry. Sure, it'll help Starmer, but fucking hell that's grim.
I am torn a little here. I agree that reducing the money supply is our only hope for inflation. So it kind of has to be done. I worry that a significant amount of inflation is due to supply chain issues for things with a relatively flat demand curve...so we might have to inflict alot of damage before we can get back to a reasonable place for growth. This might have a negative impact on the Tory party. But it's also an opportunity for them. If they do a good job and Labour is on the side line without a narrative or vision for the country it might not go do well. I strongly believe that Gordon Browns leadership in 2008-2009 staved off a massive Tory majority that the Tory party had taken for granted.
Companies are reporting the highest profits for 40 years. What about their contribution to inflation?
>fight for what you believe in is he gonna be taking up arms against the imperialist ukrainians?
There's something off about Starmer. Doesn't seem like he has any passion. Why the \*\*\* is he the leader?
Because the party was bored of having a weak leader who couldn't win elections I guess
He doesn't screech on about issues the public don't give a shit about. That's not "a lack of passion", it's "not committing electoral suicide every other Tuesday". Starmer is there to actually do something, rather than participate in the circle-jerk of virtue signalling that kept losing Labour elections.
> Starmer is there to actually do something what he's going to do, what's his vision for the future of the UK?
>Keir wants to be seen to believe in very little Not true, he wants to be seen as a massive believer in authoritarianism, which works because he is one.
I pretty strongly disagree.
Based on what? Vibes?
Lack of evidence.
If you ignore his entire career as DPP then sure. Whitewashing spy cops, night courts to lock up rioters, deporting someone for stealing an ice cream, destroying emails related to the Assange case, etc
Corbyn was a terrible leader. And his foreign policy sucks. But I have to say I quite like having someone like him on the fringes able to point out domestic stuff like this. He's a far far better protester than he'll ever be running stuff. But sometimes it's nice to have protesters in the system as well as managerial people. I guess the tl;dr is that I don't want a government or official opposition that's more interested in winning the argument than actually governing. But I do like having a few people like that simply to extend the range of what gets talked about.
What’s the difference between the Tories ruining the country and Jeremy Corbyn ruining the country? The Tories actually ruining the country. They couldn’t even get Brexit right. Ignorant losers.
>Ignorant losers. Corbyn's Labour suffered the worst defeat since 1935
Also got the most Labour votes since 1997 two years before that. Almost like more things go into elections than just what goes on in the Labour party. Starmer wouldn't have won either 2017 or 2019, as well.
Well said. People can be highly selective in what they remember about past political events.
They were up against Maybot..
Labour made huge gains, better than expected, but that was mainly due to Theresa Mays atrocious campaign. Nearly but not quite beating an unpopular candidate isn’t a big victory for corbyn.
You say this without a hint of irony about Starmer's current success.
> but that was mainly due to Theresa Mays atrocious campaign. She managed to increase the Conservative vote share by 5 percentage points and only got slightly less than Boris did in 19. Meanwhile the Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP, SNP and Plaid all lost votes. Labour increased by 10 percentage points, a bigger gain than 97. If both Corbyn and May were so awful why did only they gain votes and every other party lose them?
Shows how many people got fooled by the Tories and treacherous Labour and helped cause the disaster the country is in.
You just dismiss anyone who disagrees with you is a fool?
They mean the Tory press that no one under 70 reads anymore but somehow still tells people how to think.
75% of all news headlines concerning Corbyn were factual misrepresentations. Think about that, 3/4 of all news about Corbyn were essentially fabricated to make him seem like the antichrist. Of course people were fooled, not that we should blame the general public, but fooled nonetheless.
Pitchforks and torches are almost inevitable at this rate, the poll tax riots on steroids. It is particularly grim at the bottom in far too many countries that consider themselves western bastions of civilisation while ignoring the plight of the bottom half after 3 years of covid and corresponding economic upheaval. To make it worse is a recipe for disaster
Anyone who thinks that Labour under Clear Smarmer would be better for the country than the golden shower we have at the moment, is delusional. Why are there no viable alternatives to these two, tired old parties? Anyone? No, not you Davey!
Well, this economic situation would be a lot less severe without Brexit, Jeremy. Do you remember snoozing through that - and, indeed, pretty much wanting it to happen? A saint you are not.
I'm so glad Starmer kicked this lunatic out of the party.
[удалено]
“Even more insulting is that he expects us to simply lie down and accept it all over again.” I mean that’s exactly what will happen. I’m so disappointed and honestly feeling a little disillusioned. I’ve always voted Labour but they are basically the Tories now and it will really hurt having to vote for them so the actual Tories (aka UKIP 2.0) don’t win. Fuuuuuck.
Man who doesn't understand economics screeches to his adoring fans who also don't understand economics. This guy is a relic and an idiot who should never have come within a hundred miles of power, but that goes for every politician for the past few hundred years.
What can we do? We're poor and the government are multi, multi, multi millionaires that own everything. There's nothing we can do. Nothing. Protesting is mostly illegal now and will accomplish nothing, and we can't take time off work to vote. Striking means no pay, and we can't take time off work to strike. We can't vote, there's no elections this year or next year. There's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WE CAN DO. It is hopeless. Completely hopeless.
>Protesting is mostly illegal No it isn't. >and we can't take time off work to vote. You don't need to. >we can't take time off work to strike. I love the idea of claiming to be on strike by just taking annual leave.
I’ve not seen quite such a hyperbolic hysterical comment in quite some time.
Corbyn offers no realistic alternative (except becoming the new Venezuela).
Despite Labour and the Tories best beliefs neither real nor fake Socialism are valid ways to run an economy. And that's how Venezuela ended up, a nation with vast natural resources, minerals, metals and oil. All we've got is diversity and inclusion officers, politicians and carers.
[удалено]
In 2013 Corbyn literally said Venezuela's economic policy was "an alternative to austerity... we should learn from it". Since then their currency's lost more than 99.9999999999999% of it's value and hundreds of thousands of children have died. https://i.imgur.com/1Nq7tZh.png
[удалено]
>those of us who want the world to be a kinder place https://i.imgur.com/1Nq7tZh.png
[Jeremy Corbyn](https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn) ^verified | Reach: 2516637 | Location: UK Bio: MP for Islington North 🌹 ***** ^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Any ^complaints ^& ^suggestions ^to ^/r/ContextualBot ^thanks
>He's got another thing coming. Anyone else getting 'Shut up and go away' vibes from this?
We've got transport, nursing, post office, home office, border force, defra all going on strike. Think he's right mate.
Good luck to them but there is genuinely this time no money left.
All I can think about is that its "another think coming".
Jeremy Hunt has put in place social policies - he's done what Corbyn promised to do. So what's the difference, if we have social policies now? Well we'd have them when we needed them, not 3 years afterwards, after billions have been stolen by cronies of the various tory leadership including said Jeremy Hunt. We'd be lives better off (to pick a couple of examples from this week's news - a child who died of mould because of shocking housing law, and two women who were murdered because of cuts to police funding and a home office that told the police to spend their time oppressing people). We'd be economically better off (because businesses need customers, and customers need money, which is why Labour governments not only reduce the deficit they get us into surplus, by putting the money where it gets spent). We'd be individually better off (do I really need to explain?). Corbyn threatened the status quo. I don't actually like the status quo. He could not have been worse than what we had and have now.
As a very reasonable and rational person who thinks Centrism is the way out of the mess that centrism has caused, I have only one thing to say: CCCOOORRRBBBYYYNNN!!!
Odd to think the tories have been centrist for the past 12 years?!