Corbyn has shown himself utterly out of touch with public sensibilities in his dated handwaving and wrong headedness about terrorism. As well as blaming the victim (didn’t know leftists were allowed to do that), the Coptic Christians murdered in Egypt today were not knowingly involved in a war against Islam. Apocalyptic death cults don’t need parody socialists encouraging them. My family (some of whom were from that way a few generations ago) tell me that the Middle East used to be able to rub along with each other reasonably well for centuries until then rise of militant Islam. It is not my impression that the British working man is prejudiced. In fact the opposite: they work with anyone who mucks in and grafts. But they definitely lack sympathy for terrorism of the kind done by Islamists and the IRA. They also have an enviable short tolerance for middle-class lefty do-gooders preaching at them. they get enough of that at school, work, and on the news. I suspect he has jumped the shark just as he might have been moving on up. OOAA.
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
JustB says
And yet the Tories’ lead has shrunk from +24 to +5 since the election was announced.
I can’t bear Corbyn but Labour’s campaign is (so far) better-run and its manifesto more popular than Team Treeze. They’ll still lose, but some of us might be eating a little bit of crow re. his effect on the electorate.
Moose the Mooche says
This is the first time in at least 25 years that the two main parties have been promising different things. This has got to be more interesting than the usual bald-men-fighting-over-a-comb scenario.
JustB says
Agreed.
Tiggerlion says
I’m not sure what the public thinks. However, I know what I think.
1. I’m unconvinced our participation in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever else have made the UK a safer place. If Corbyn is saying this, I agree with him.
2. Theresa May cut the numbers of police when she was Home Secretary. There are now a thousand fewer police trained in carrying firearms, for example. I note Corbyn is talking about increasing resources for the police.
3. Much is demanded of Muslim families and communities to report their suspicions about radicalisations. They did so for Lee Rigby’s murderer, the Westminster bag-of-knives man who was apprehended before he hurt anyone and the Manchester bomber, among many others. However, the authorities were unable to respond for two of those three on the grounds they don’t have enough staff to monitor everyone reported to them (see point 2).
I laughed at the radio today when the Tories were asked about point 2. They responded purely by berating Corbyn for his wrong-headed approach to terrorism, completely ignoring the question.
dai says
Agree completely (not that I am allowed to vote)
Moose the Mooche says
3. All Muslims know each other, apparently. They all go to the same mosques y’see. Uniformity, that’s their strength – none of that rotten old sectarianism we have in Christianity, oh no!. Just one big happy family. So – let’s carry on talking to one Muslim as if we’re talking to absolutely all of them, as that’s worked so well so far.
ernietothecentreoftheearth says
Falling by best of armed officers may be due to a reduction in officers overall. I suspect it may have as much, it not more, to do with with the response to the shooting of Mark Duggan and other high profile cases. Whether or not those officers would be reassured by the prospect of Diane Abbott as Home Secretary remains to be seen.
I also suspect that Special Branch apart, the issue is less about Police resources, particularly outside of metropolitan areas, than those of MI5 and GCHQ.
I imagine most people are looking for an alternative foreign policy approach. Whilst he k ow what he doesn’t want to do, I don’t believe JC has an alternative strategy of any consequence. If he does, then he had better share it quick with Seumas Milne, who wrote articles for years explaining how what was done was wrong whilst getting decidedly sketchy about what he would have actually done instead.
Native says
Before 9/11, and the UK’s response, how many of these attacks did we suffer from Islamists? None?
Of course what is going on is a direct reaction to our foreign policy – that is how these people are recruited. The West have been attacking Afghanistan, Iraq and other parts of the middle east for many years now. And sometimes, they get it badly wrong, and innocent people die – often children.
I think Corbyn is spot on – we need to rethink the last 15 years. Current policy of supporting the US regardless has heightened tension and hatred, whilst lots of innocent people have died.
paulwright says
The flaw in that argument is of course 9/11 itself.
And before that there was the previous attack on the World Trade Centre car park, attacks on US ships etc. There is a group of Wahabbists who will not stop until the whole world believes their brand of Islam (and Iran is a bigger target for them than we are). They’ve been around for 200 years.
But our response made the situation worse. Imagine if we had invaded Afghanistan, and then spent the money we spent on Iraq and Syria, on rebuilding Afghanistan instead. Would have been a lot harder for the nutters to say “the Crusaders want to destroy us and our religion”. (though what they have against soul groups is another question)
Mike_H says
My opinion of Jeremy Corbyn has changed. I previously dismissed him as ineffectual and wondered how he’d got himself elected leader. I may even have stated here, as I’m sure I stated elsewhere, that I expected him to be dumped by his party before long. I wasn’t a critic of his beliefs because I had no real idea what they were.
He and his team seem to have discovered how to handle the (mainly hostile) media better and how to create a forthright, un-threatening and businesslike approach in his dealings with the public. He is projecting well and is no longer universally regarded as the nutty left-wing bogeyman.
The surprising ineffectiveness of Theresa May as PM is a factor here. She was supposed to be the “safe pair of hands” but does not seem to have any vision or be able to relate to people very well. When challenged on the slightest thing she blusters and loses her cool. Corbyn keeps his cool and engages.
I’m a Labour supporter from a family lineage of trade unionism and socialism and thus want the Labour Party to succeed. My initial doubts about Corbyn are now pretty much assuaged.
I would never, ever have voted Conservative in any case as I know deep down what conservatism stands for and I know it’s not the party standing for the likes of me.
In my constituency I may end up voting for the Liberal Democrat candidate or the Labour candidate. Whichever one stands the best chance of beating the Conservative incumbent.
Leedsboy says
I think Corbyn is making some very valid points.
I think May isn’t making any valid points.
Gatz says
Her ‘valid points’ seem to have been ‘I’m strong and stable’ and ‘I’m not Jeremy Corbyn’. It will probably be enough to get the safe majority she wants, and she would have been daft not to call the election in her position, but she’s run a poor campaign and been rattled much more than she expected.
The way the Consevative campaign set out to emphasise the leader while minimising the party, while the Labour campaign did the reverse, isn’t yielding quite the increasing benefits she (and I) had thought.
paulwright says
Ian Dunt of Politico got it right I think when he wrote “she has called a referendum on Jeremy Corbyn, and will use to as a mandate for anything she fancies after the election”. The Labour Party was supposed to fall apart and half their votes go to UKIP. Seems that the Labour Party has held together, half of UKIP has joined the Tories and a few Tories didn’t like the company and have moved to LibDems. Greens seem to have decided to vote anti-Tory, and of course Sophie Walker has decided to impose herself in my constituency and use the WEP to help Philip Davies get re-elected… a-bloody-gain.
Dodger Lane says
I have been away from the site for a while and anyone who has paid attention to my occasional posts will know that I cannot abide Corbyn (and and the people behind him – the stop the war loons, Andrew Murray, Len McCluskey and the rest of them). Yes, they have run a much better campaign (a 20 point lead was always unrealistic and never going to be sustained), but what he said today is interesting. I fully expected it and on the surface, how can anyone object. We stay out of the middle east, let Yazidi and other Christian communities be slaughtered and that’s all fine. They are ‘Muslim lands’ so these interlopers should never have been there in the first place. England remains safe, no problem. Our interventions in Libya and Iraq have been cack-handed at best but the cult of the Islamist suicide bomber and hatred of the West pre-dated our interventions. The U.K is the West just like Sweden and Germany are and they have had no involvement in wars of aggression in Muslim lands (not my words). Corbyn’s beliefs and those of the Stop the War coalition are dishonest. They will condemn BUT always using the moral relativism argument – “all bombing is bad”: – err, even when it’s a factory manufacturing chemical weapons, or to give the Serbian forces in Kosovo a good kicking ??? (just look back to that tasteful, and swiftly deleted tweet, from Stop the War post Paris 2015 – no words of sympathy, just berating the west for our wars of aggression). One can object to foreign policy in so many ways in the liberal west but standing in the Manchester Arena waiting to bomb teenage girls should not be one of them. Corbyn’s words and those of his fellow travellers feed into the dialogue of Muslims being victimised in the West (they aren’t in large part. If we want to look at victimisation, try expressing non Islam or secular beliefs in Egypt, Iraq, Syria and see where that gets you). No discussion I note about Corbyn’s refusal to support military action in the Bosnian wars (very honourable), although he was not alone in his shame. What really gets my goat though is his role in Northern Ireland, trying to portray himself as a peacemaker – bollocks – he was always at one with Sinn Fein and whether he met any people in black berets is irrelevant, he met McGuinness and Adams and supported them. There is no record of meeting with loyalist or unionist groups (if he had, McGuinness and Adams would have had nothing to do with him). It is the same with his unofficial role as middle east peacemaker, being patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (with their charming little song – “from the mountains to the sea” – er, so where Israel would be. Home to some quite repulsive anti-semites) and meeting & inviting to the houses of parliament the kind of nasty little holocaust deniers who ought to be under lock and key (i.e: Raeed Salah). These are not people interested in peace with anyone, let alone the Jewish race and Israel. Corbyn has a long track record of meeting with and supporting very nasty people and organisations and it is crap to suppose that he was lecturing them about changing their ways. Stalin had a very good term for Labour party apologists in the 1930s – Useful idiots – Corbyn follows in that dishonourable tradition.
It’s a great shame because I have voted Labour more than any other party but I will not support the party as it stands at the moment.
Junglejim says
Splitter!
bricameron says
Judeans people’s Front?!!
Fahk-Off!! We’re the people’s front of Judea!
Junglejim says
If there’s one thing us solid ‘I’ve voted Labour all my life’ folk hate more than the fucking Tories who are happy to shit on the whole population, piss in their ears & tell them it’s raining, it’s the notion of a Labour leader with a manifesto that is vaguely ( ahem) Socialist and seeks something better!
paulwright says
As I said to all those people who left the Labour Party over Iraq (many of whom went to the Greens and have now returned to Labour) – I don’t disagree with your analysis of foreign policy, but is it so important to you that you are prepared to give the country to the Tories and allow them free range to privatise the NHS, Education, and further impoverish the poor rather than go along with it?
If they had not decided that it was Gordon Brown might have won. I ask the same question now. Is foreign policy so important to you that your are prepared to allow the Tories to run your own country?
Black Celebration says
This is the business end, folks – expect a total assault on Corbyn personally over the next 10 days or so. His charisma vacuum is a problem, but luckily for him he is up against someone so cadaverous and terrified that his strengths (and he does have some) are highlighted by the comparison.
May flounders when having to interact in a natural way with people. If, at NATO, Corbyn was at the back of the pack, unseen by the world’s cameras, this would have been headline news. But the genuinely great thing about him is that he doesn’t seem to give a shit about that stuff.
I think he’s making an effort to not look like a weary academic, bored by repetition (but he does). He’s been saying the same things for 35 years, so I don’t expect him to slip up on articulating his views – but he will be ridiculed and abused and the Express, Mail and The Sun will find an image to plant into the minds of the electorate. Perhaps a picture of May power-dressed to the nines next to Corbyn crumpled and ridiculous, sitting on the floor of a train. That’s my prediction for the cover of The Sun.
I heard a BBC radio report when the Labour manifesto was issued. It was reported and all he details were shared, as you’d expect. In the last few lines the tone was set. I will paraphrase :
“The manifesto covers a lot of ground – but – as is often the case with such policies – many will ask …who will pay for it? And can the British public really imagine having Jeremy Corbyn as a credible Primeminister? Time will tell.”
This wasn’t an opinion piece – it was the news.
In my view, this has been the most catastrophic political period in modern times. We seem to lurch from crisis to crisis, with blundering oafs trying to charm their way through to the top of the Conservative Party. Gove! Cameron! Johnson ! Osborne! And many, many more…
There’s nothing worse than a thicko believing they are clever or a total bell end believing they have a winning, popular touch. We’ve had 7 years of this bollocks. They don’t know what they are doing and they don’t know what to do.
Blue Boy says
I urge anyone to read the speech.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/jeremy-corbyns-speech-terrorism-full-transcript/
Not that it’s a brilliant piece of rhetoric or analysis. But for the life of me I can’t see it as the terrorist apologia or unpatriotic claptrap that some are trying to present it as. He doesn’t say that our actions abroad create or excuse terrorism, but he does say that many experts have made a linkage between our actions in the Middle East and elsewhere and terrorism. That’s undeniable. He doesn’t say that he would never put British troops into action, but he does say to them ‘I want to assure you that, under my leadership, you will only be deployed abroad when there is a clear need and only when there is a plan and you have the resources to do your job to secure an outcome that delivers lasting peace.’ Well, frankly, I should bloody well hope so.
There is very little in this speech that I can’t imagine Theresa May saying, and I think much of it would resonate with much of the voting public. That certainly doesn’t make it right, but it does place it pretty much in the mainstream of general public opinion, which is probably what worries the Tories above all.
I am no fan of Corbyn – I think he’s a catastrophic leader For the Labour Party, and I’m pretty sure he’s going to lose the election heavily. But I think this was a well judged and broadly mainstream speech on a subject which isn’t only legitimate to talk about in the wake of this week’s horrors, but actually essential to so.
paulwright says
Well I voted ABC too, but the Tories are putting up a strawman and shouting about that rather than what Corbyn actually says. And the media are of course setting fire to that strawman. Lynton Crosby has told them it doesn’t matter if you lie, evade the question, change the question – that is the way to victory and nothing else matters. So they will continue to try it to make it a referendum on Corbyn, or rather on their portrayal of Corbyn. If May was better than rankly incompetent it would be a walk in the park.
Moose the Mooche says
I’m reporting you people to Laura and Nick. This is so irresponsible. Think of our charter renewal, and our jobs for life!
salwarpe says
@Blueboy has said a lot of what I was going to say, about Corbyn’s speech, but I tried to draw out relevant quotes to show that he makes no apologies for terrorists – repeatedly holding them responsible for their actions, explicitly avoids blaming terrorism exclusively on UK foreign policy and seeks to listen to and work with experts in the field.
Criticize him all you like, but do so based on facts, where possible.
wrong headedness about terrorism? blaming the victim?
“Terrorists and their atrocious acts of cruelty and depravity will never divide us and will never prevail. Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries, such as Libya, and terrorism here at home. That assessment in no way reduces the guilt of those who attack our children. Those terrorists will forever be reviled and implacably held to account for their actions.”
“Protecting this country requires us to be both strong against terrorism and strong against the causes of terrorism. The blame is with the terrorists, but if we are to protect our people we must be honest about what threatens our security”.
“…no rationale based on the actions of any government can remotely excuse, or even adequately explain, outrages like this week’s massacre. But we must be brave enough to admit the war on terror is simply not working. We need a smarter way to reduce the threat from countries that nurture terrorists and generate terrorism”.
“We must support our Armed Services, Foreign Office and International Development professionals, engaging with the world in a way that reduces conflict and builds peace and security”.
Is he an example of middle-class lefty do-gooders preaching?
He clearly states his faith and belief in the goodness of the British people, and doesn’t appear to talk down to them at all:
“It is these people who are the strength and the heart of our society. They are the country we love and the country we seek to serve. That is the solidarity that defines our United Kingdom. That is the country I meet on the streets every day; the human warmth, the basic decency and kindness”.
To respond to a couple of @Dodger-Lane‘s points:
There is no record of meeting with loyalist or unionist groups
The article below would suggest that is not the case:
https://skwawkbox.org/2017/05/25/world-exclusive-corbyn-mowlams-envoy-to-ira-and-loyalists/
his unofficial role as middle east peacemaker
This article answers some of the accusations about associating with anti-semites and holocaust deniers.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-answers-critics-ludicrous-and-wrong-anti-semitism-questions-10460206.html
I wouldn’t claim Corbyn has all the answers to such complex, dangerous and terrible conflict situations, and it may be that in talking to men of violence, the risk of giving them credence and of being associated with their cause outweighs any chance of resolution, but I don’t think he advocates non-intervention in international conflicts. Rather that such interventions should be measured, considered and backed by international law and intergovernmental agreement.
I’d be interested to know why there’s such general hostility towards Corbyn on this site. Is it because he is seen as incompetent, uncharismatic, too left wing? I have heard it said that in some Scandinavian countries, he would be seen as a soft left social democrat. Has the Overton window of British politics been pushed so far to the right by Thatcher and her descendents?
Thegp says
I like Corbyn and largely agree with his views but I wake up in a cold sweat when I see the team behind. Diane Abbott is not fit to run a raffle. McDonnell is not fit to be chancellor
If we had the most competent labour people in Corbyns cabinet I’d feel genuinely optimistic they could deliver his policies but unfortunately he doesnt
BigJimBob says
But a serial liar, incompetent and blagger is fine as current foreign secretary and someone who doesn’t even understand how What’s App works is good as Home Secretary.?
Tiggerlion says
Which of these are competent?
Phil Hammond – Chancellor
Amber Rudd – Home Secretary
Boris Johnson – Foreign Secretary
Michael Fallon – Defence
Elizabeth Truss – Justice
Justin’s Greening – Education
David Davis – Brexit
Liam Fox – Trade
Greg Clark – Business
Jeremy Hunt – Health
Damian Green – Work & Pensions
chiz says
You make a very good point. Imagine what a Labour front bench including Yvette Cooper, Dan Jarvis, Keir Starmer, Chuka Umunna, Angela Eagle, Clive Lewis and Andy Burnham would have done with that lot.
Tiggerlion says
That’s the key for me. Is it possible for many of those to be welcomed back into the cabinet if, and this is a big if, Labour win?
Blue Boy says
It is a shockingly poor cabinet, isn’t it? Old Tory veterans of past governments must just look at it and shake their heads in disbelief. God knows I disagreed with them much of the time but Heseltine, Clarke, Major, Hurd, Howard, Rifkind, Patten et al were giants compared to this shower. There is much more talent in the Labour parliamentary group which is why I am so angry with Corbyn for alienating so many of them. All that said, we have to acknowledge that most of them were around when Milliband was leader and they hardly covered themselves in glory, did they?
BigJimBob says
I rarely post political clips here, but look at this. This guy will be in charge of our negotiations with the EU27. I ask does he look like he will be strong and stable around the bargaining table?
http://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-and-labour-election-chief-andrew-gwynne-in-fiery-spat-10897829
chiz says
Well he’s right isn’t he. Dropping bombs on someone’s family is likely to make them angry and attack you. The hard part – the part that Corbyn, like the rest of us, has always left to handy public enemies like Blair, is deciding if they were going to hate and attack you anyway, and whether your intervention deters, diminishes or destroys their capabilities to do that.
It’s amazing how comprehensively the Tories are fucking this thing up. May is patently useless in the presidential role they’re trying to tout for her, and their Fuck You, Proles agenda (grammar schools, fox hunting, lunch-snatching, grave robbing) just doesn’t look as good on paper as Labour’s surprisingly moderate manifesto. There’s a shitnami of skeletons still to tumble out of Jezza’s cupboard over the next few days, and that and the phrase ‘Home Secretary Diane Abbott’ repeated over and over should see them home, but Christ, what a pig’s ear of a campaign.
Gary says
I’m not in Britain and don’t get a vote, but if I were my main problem would be with Diane Abbott (and, to a slightly lesser extent, John McDonnell). I have always liked Corbyn. He’s the first political leader of my lifetime who speaks a language I can relate to, as it were. But Abbott? She comes across as a moron. (Worse, a very condescending moron).
Junglejim says
I agree that Abbott is the major fly on Corbyn’s ointment, potentially enough to be a deciding factor should it prove close. In University degree terms she’s a Third at best, definitely not the sharpest knife in the draw., but a definite climber.
What damns her more than anything, is that she’s a proven hypocrite. Her stance on education while sending her offspring to public school is precisely the kind of gift Murdoch & co live for & will exploit to the hilt.
Seeing as Jezza & her ‘ had a thing’ back in the day (no, I don’t want to think about it either) makes it understandable on a human level that he might want to keep her close, but shows very poor political nous on his part.
Dave Ross says
Once again @Chiz comments so I don’t have to and mess it all up.
I still believe Teresa May is a best of a bad bunch choice. Somehow though she falls apart on screen while Corbyn is becoming believable and winning the “representing everyone” battle. The way elections have gone in the last few years I am now starting to believe that any result is possible.
bricameron says
C’mon Dave! Vote Labour just for the sheer thrill of it!
BigJimBob says
Dave I am a genuinely confused here. You have been very open about why you supported Brexit. And all the issues you brought up seem to be things JC is saying, whilst TM wants to make real term cuts to education, the NHS, has already cut the number of bobbies on the beat, wants to make more cut in social services, etc…and yet you support her not him?
Dave Ross says
@BigJimBob Fair point, well made. It’s because I am confused too. I’m at heart a Tory, we need big business to work and I have no problem with the innovators and risk takers being rewarded. Where my problem starts is distribution of that wealth. I’m anti unions because they are in my limited experience destroyers of big business they insist on wagging the dog so to speak. My ramblings on Brexit and Trump were attempts to explain why they happened.
So I am still confused, May still makes me feel as though we’re safe in her hands. To my utter astonishment and to your point Corbyn is starting to make sense to me but I cannot trust him fully, nor those around him, nor those pesky unions.
So who is the party that will, encourage big business, reward the innovators and risk takers but stop them stealing pensions and buying 3 yachts? Which one thinks billions of pounds of profits while paying £7.50 and hour and avoiding tax is abhorrent? They also need to keep the unions in place, defend us sensibly, get out of Europe and round up known terrorist sympathisers. They also need to invest in business and infrastructure while ensuring the NHS is properly funded and staffed. Provide structured and managed overseas aid while ensuring those who try and work for a living in this country are better of than those that choose not to. None of our current political parties offer all of this. Of course I’m confused and I am not surprised you are too.
Vulpes Vulpes says
“keep the unions in place”
Exactly what do you think is the place of the unions? Do you think they are not required? Who do you think organises them?
Your opinions on Trade Unions sound as if they are heavily influenced by the rantings of the Tory press.
To countless thousands of people they are the collective mechanism by which the individual can stand up to corporate bullying, whether it’s because of bad management failing to have the skills to negotiate the complex inter-personal dynamic of the workplace (something a pal has to deal with on behalf of the NUT on a constant basis), or because management negligence has led to some other outcome where it is the individual worker who suffers injury or illness.
I once had first hand experience of the latter situation in a pharmaceutical manufacturing context, when it was only the meaningful threat of a complete walk-out, halting the production of an entire factory, that led to compensation being paid to a man badly burned in a chemical processing accident despite warnings and complaints to management about malfunctioning machinery over a period of six months leading up to the event.
There are, as anywhere, tossers in the union movement as well as saints. The way to ensure the idiots don’t get any degree of control is for sensible people (i.e. most people) to be involved, to vote, to participate.
Your antipathy towards unions is misguided in my opinion.
ip33 says
I can only echo the comments above. About 25 years ago the relations between management and workforce where I work had pretty much broken down. We called the union in to see if they could help before the company went under.
Without any threats or dramatics they over the course of three days thrashed out a series of agreements that are still mainly in place today.
I’m still there with many of same people from all those years ago.
Unions are made up people of varied political persuasions, they don’t need ‘keeping in place’
JustB says
Without my union, my illness earlier this year would’ve resulted in unemployment. The fact that my children still live in their family home and can rely on my income is thanks to my union’s help.
Dave Ross says
Oh god, I’ve done it again haven’t I? So the unions of the 70’s are gone forever and under a Corbyn Labour government would be only doers of good? A genuine question, no sarcasm I promise you.
JustB says
I think there’s unions and unions, tbh, Dave.
I could definitely use less of McCluskey’s approach, but given the almost untrammelled power of corporations in 2017, directing your ire against unions of all organisations seems a bit of an odd priority.
Junglejim says
The 70s were an awful long time ago Dave. A huge amount has changed in every aspect of the world pretty much, including the power & role of unions.
We now have the internet, which is a great source of information, but your take on unions seems to be based on Woodrow Wyatt opinion pieces from 1980.
Do try to keep up, just a little.
😀
Dave Ross says
In my defence, which has many holes as always. The unions in my mind are the 70’s ones under old labour which is where Corbyn wants us to be, I think. So governments since Thatcher which includes New Labour have improved union relations, I can see that. The question I ask is under Corbyn would those unions flex their muscles again in a destructive way?
Junglejim says
In reply to Dave:
Whatever you think of Corbyn & despite whatever you may have heard, he does not ‘live in the 70s’ & has no desire to return to those times.
Have a look online at UK union membership in the 1970s & now. There is no comparison. The landscape is utterly different.
Your sentence that ‘governments since Thatcher…have improved union relations’ is hard to comprehend at face value. Unions & their power have been eviscerated in that time as a result of successive legislation most thinking folk would once have expected only in banana republics. Short of making them illegal, the attempt has been made to make them powerless and thus irrelelevant. So the notion that ‘governments have improved union relations’ is laughable. It’s like having a neighbour you don’t care for & breaking his legs, leaving him in a wheelchair. He won’t provide you with much physical threat, but have relations improved?
The vast majority of the unions in the 70s that had industrial muscle don’t even exist today, so there is no possibility of any muscles being flexed.
This is basic stuff, Dave. A far smarter person than me once said that the great thing about ignorance is that it’s a voluntary condition & can be changed. If we all did a wee bit more homework about things that affect us, we’d all be less vulnerable to believing other people’s codswallop & parroting received opinion as if it was factual.
✌
bricameron says
The more I read here the better I’m thinking this would be awesome if he pulled it off. Can you Imagine?
Trump. Putin. Merkel. Corbyn. Xi Jinping.
Rodrigo Duterte. Justin Trudeau. Kim Jong-un. Emmanuel Macron.Hassan Rouhani.
Vulpes Vulpes says
That’s a song by The Beloved isn’t it?
bricameron says
The human race is like a lost child. Forever searching for the perfect Mother and Father.
Disclaimer. Lemon Kush. 😂😂😎
Native says
This kind of sums up the government on defence – attack Labour – no matter.
What a complete dipper Fallon really is…
paulwright says
I expect Fallon to be withdrawn from the front line – taken too many hard shots this campaign. Who replaces him? The genius of that attack is that it possibly neutralises Johnson too.
Hunt is anathema. May is wilting badly at the slightest sign of questioning. Hammond does ok, but may be seen as a threat to May’s PMship if the election is not an overwhelming success.
Problem is that they have set this election as May vs. Corbyn, so they can’t really wheel out the rest of the cabinet without resetting. Which is odd really as Labour really do not have a strong subs bench to call on to influence the game. Making it a head to head actually makes it easier for Corbyn. I mean have you ever heard of Nia Griffith (defence), Jon Ashworth (health) etc.?
fortuneight says
I think we can expect them all (Tories) to be given scripts from Lynton Crosby and go full bore on the personal attacks from here on given just how poorly it’s played out so far and how comprehensively they’ve lost what little debate there’s been on policy.
spider-mans arch enemy says
Jeremy Corbyn’s being ripped apart by the right wing press, and it will probably get worse as it gets closer to the election.
I’m a socialist, Corbyn has a socialist agenda, and he gets my vote. I don’t care what he looks like, and l agree with his foreign policy.
The Tory’s will always look after the rich, and although l am by no means in that category, l would be better off financially voting for them. However, I want a more equal society, and deep down, suspect the Tory’s have nothing but contempt for the lower classes,and the Michael Fallon clip above is excellent.
I do suspect that Diana Abbot will lose Labour a lot of votes, and l can see why (just about every time she speaks). How she has got this far in politics amazes me.
joe robert says
“I’d be interested to know why there’s such general hostility towards Corbyn on this site. Is it because he is seen as incompetent, uncharismatic, too left wing?” @salwarpe
The incompetence part for me, definitely. I do share many of his principles. As someone who is passionately anti-Conservative, yet couldn’t vote for Labour under Blair, I should be a huge fan. But the incompetence makes me angry. To take just one example – his failure, in the Autumn Statement debate, to notice that the Government had just broken a manifesto commitment. This fact was picked up in the same debate by a number of other Labour MPs including Stella Creasy, who, incidentally, once had a brick put through the window of her constituency office by Momentum supporters. Which brings me to the company he keeps – by which I don’t mean the IRA or the holocaust deniers but Abbott, McDonnell, McCluskey and the whole damn shower. The head of Momentum has been quoted as saying that winning is for elites. Well thanks a bunch. Let’s look forward to another 10 years of Tory rule.
JustB says
The incompetence, the insistence on pretending the most electorally successful and socially useful period of government since Attlee was all bad, the stupid pretence that “real Labour” = fringe Marxism rather than centre left social democracy, the happy 30 years of cosying up to awful people because it made him feel like Che Guevara, the career spent undermining his own party whip for the aforementioned Che Guevara reasons, the bro-cialism, McDonnell, Milne, Murray, the fact that he’s a bit of a 20-watt bulb and is way out of his depth.
That’s why I can’t stand him.
But he’s better than Theresa May, and Labour’s manifesto is a good one. The Tories’ manifesto is appalling. So with a slightly heavy heart, despite his being the reason I’m not a Labour member any more, I think I have to vote Labour this time after all.
Gary says
Can you provide any direct quotes? For example, him saying that Blair’s government was “all bad”, or him saying that he undermined the party whip cos it made him “feel like Che Guevara”.
“the fact that he’s a bit of a 20-watt bulb.”
I have no idea what this means, but I’m pretty sure it’s not a “fact”.
JustB says
He’s a bit dim. There’s the academic credentials if you want something concrete, but as we know, intelligence isn’t about exam results. But he’s clearly not a deep thinker, or he might’ve altered some of his positions in the 30 or so years prior to becoming leader. Anyone willing to shill for the Iranian government or call Hamas “friends” is either stupid or bad; I was taking the more lenient view. Plus, in my view, he comes over as rather dim in interviews. Better than May, though.
He voted against his own party’s government 500+ times and has never – to my knowledge – publicly credited Blair with any positive achievements. Happy to be corrected, but his record is of trying to undermine his own party consistently. Maybe you’ll find 1 or 2 instances of him not being entirely dismissive of Blair’s record, but you know as well as I do that he and his surrogates have flung the word “Blairite” around as an insult for years. Blair is the devil, as far as Corbyn’s movement is concerned. Just talk to some of them if you don’t believe me.
As for his motivations for doing those things, of course I can’t know. But if he disagreed so vehemently for what Labour from 1980-2015 stood for, why did he stand as their candidate? Oh yeah. Because in Islington North, a red rosette means 60k a year for life and a chance to protest constantly without ever actually having to do anything constructive or difficult like compromise or work with people you don’t agree with. So it seems to me that the Che motivation isn’t an entirely unreasonable speculation.
dai says
He seems to be trying to be doing something with his life now.
You can disagree with his policies, be skeptical about his motives and past records, but I don’t think you can say he’s stupid. That’s frankly pretty poor and the kind of thing The Sun is no doubt saying.
JustB says
Why can’t I? I believe, for a variety of reasons including personal acquaintance – that he’s intellectually unimpressive. Is that not allowed? Labour people call IDS and other Tories dim all the time.
Gary says
It sure is. I don’t agree though. I certainly find him smarter than May, Cameron or Miliband.
JustB says
Well, agree to disagree. Say what you like about Cameron and Miliband, they’re very bright guys. I liked Ed far more than Corbyn, on every level.
Blue Boy says
Yes, it’s largely the incompetence for me too, although he’s having a better campaign than I expected. I find it hard to countenance him as a credible leader given his persistent record of disloyalty to previous Labour leaderships. And I worry about someone who appears not to have changed his mind about anything at all since the 80s. I also am angry at him for making no attempt to bring together the parliamentary party, and to persuade some of the best of the party – Cooper, Burnham (before he stood down), Creasey, Ummuna, Nandy et al – to come on board. There is talent languishing on the backbenches that could be wiping the floor with a really poor Tory cabinet.
Dogbyte says
I too worry about the fact that he doesn’t seem to have adapted to the world post 1979. People compare him to Michael Foot, but Foot was a genuine intellectual heavyweight where Corbyn simply isn’t.
What also bothers me is his seeming inability to take a strong stance on anything without hedging his bets. When asked if he condemns the IRA for example he can only say he condemns “all bombing” in a weak-kneed, don’t want to offend a particular terrorist group by condemning it more than others, sort of way.
Rob C says
You should worry a little bit more about the Neo Libs/Globalists.
salwarpe says
Stella Creasy? Just checked and Mary Creagh and Angela Eagle had broken windows, but not her.
Rob C says
I named a jeans rash when on the piss for a few days after her.
nogbad says
I worry about the assumed personalisation which underpins much debate.
Corbyn this, May that – much of which plays into the hands of the finger – pointing hate rags with their non-dom owners who are justifiably hot under the collar at the possibility of a Labour government wanting to redress the balance in terms of the massive and worsening inequality which is at the heart of much of our social unrest IMHO.
I’d sooner focus on a Labour programm which looks to improve our social fabric, reintroduce publicly owned utilities – anyone WANT the freedom of choice to select from 150 different energy / water/ train ticket tariffs, or just a few which work.
If we want less of everyting – fewer schools apart from those which are not proven to improve outcomes , a worsening health service, untrammeled press freedom and further flogging of what little family silver there is left, the a vote for the Tories is a clear option.
I want better and different and if it means voting for a party fronted by someone who has been a good constituency MP, on the right side of many arguments – and sometimes the wrong one, then that’s what I’m going to do.
chiz says
Yeah me too. If this works out I’ll hold my hands up and admit I was wrong. But I hope my Momentum friends realise it would be just another of those freak anti-politics democracy moments that we specialise in now, like Brexit and Trump. It’ll be a vote against, not a vote for. But I’ll take it over Mayhem, any day. And Kier Starmer negotiating Brexit rather than Dickie Davies; yes please.
Vulpes Vulpes says
Theresa May, on the other hand, is obviously right on the money as regards being in touch with public sensibilities and being right-headed about terrorism; after all, she’s just done a 100 big-ones deal with those humanitarian champions, those reasonable chappies, those rub-along-with-anyone-in-the-jolly-old-Middle-East fellas, the good old Saudis. You gotta start in Riyadh with a big arms deal if you want to bring peace to the world, you betcha.
Rob C says
She is made of nothing.
Rob C says
I’m getting behind Corbyn. I’m basically a political atheist, but, having taken the time to do my own research, and yes I was very sceptical at first, that’s it. Fuck the Blairites, Fuck the Globalists, Fuck The Neo Liberals.
Hare Krishna
(I will not respond to arguments otherwise because I know my own view and am not remotely interested in arguing the toss of a toss that I don’t give if it’s in stereo)
JustB says
I’m never quite sure what people mean when they say Neo Liberals.
chiz says
If you believe that it’s not a bad idea to have competitive, innovative private companies paying tax and employing people who also pay tax, you’re a blairite neo liberal red Tory . I think that’s how it works.
JustB says
Well it’s just that to me, neo-liberalism is the idea of basically free markets regulated to varying degrees of strength by the state, which is exactly what I want from an economy.
But I don’t think that’s the sense in which people use it these days.
salwarpe says
I think neo-liberalism means free markets with very little if any regulation from the state, limited tax liability, no social contract and the power and freedom to divest and remove capital from a country when conditions are no longer favourable.
JustB says
See, to me, that’s laissez faire free market capitalism. To me, economic neoliberalism is the compromise between statism and unfettered capitalism. I guess these things mean different things to different people, but when people have a pop at “neoliberalism” I always wonder what they’re advocating as an alternative. A planned economy? No regulation at all?
salwarpe says
I sense we are just disagreeing over labels. The first sentence in the Wikipedia entry for neoliberalism refers directly to ‘laissez-faire economic liberalism’.
What you are talking about I’d describe as more the Scandinavian social market model – what I’d ascribe to as well. Neoliberalism is the philosophy of Hayek, Friedman and followed through by Reagan and Thatcher.
JustB says
Yeah, ok, I agree we’re just disagreeing over labels here, but it’s a question of degrees, I think. Looking at the Wiki I see that people do seem to mean different things by the term, but it seems to me just a question of extent. You and I are both neoliberals, as I see it, just at the more statist / regulatory end of the spectrum.
If Hare above is objecting to the Hayek / Thatcher model, I’d agree, but I’m fine with – for example – the Blair model or the Denmark model.
salwarpe says
Well I’ve certainly learned something today, even if that something is that neoliberalism hasn’t always meant what I thought it meant.
I looked up Denmark model and got some lovely images before adding the word ‘economic’, which presented something involving comprehensive social welfare, an open market for businesses and national level collective bargaining. It’s the last of these together with a noted absence of PPPs, that makes this a better model for me than New Labour economics, which seemed happy to hang onto the coattails of a runaway economic bubble ultimately based on unsecured mortgages. Yes, Blair and Brown did good things with the tax receipts, but I don’t think they planned very well for long-term economic stability.
Sewer Robot says
Like regular liberals – but they also know Kung Fu..
JustB says
Arf!
Black Celebration says
I think the policy to stop the student loan system – from this September – is a masterstroke. Hell, even the Young Conservatives Soc president would vote for Labour on that basis.
Black Celebration says
I see Corbyn’s Twitter team is making the most of Arsenal’s FA Cup win – quotes from Wenger, Ferguson, Shankly and a very good short film of Brian Clough in interview. Corbyn seems to be drawing a parallel between himself and Wenger.
Baron Harkonnen says
Corbyn is a twot, a snivelling bullying* twot. He`s also a fecking coward who is full of bullshyte. He has betrayed the working classes and has hijacked* the Labour Party with those bullying tactics. The man is a fecking disgrace. The Tory Party who comprise the weakest government for 45 years are set for a landslide election victory, the fault of this rests on Corbyn`s shoulders.
Vulpes Vulpes says
Have you been at that spice again?
Rob C says
New Labour was the betrayal, as it it turned out, and as the only man standing that has enough morality and intelligence (from my point of view).. so good on him. Much I disagree with some aspects but not the wider scheme of his thinking, excellent manifesto, costed, but, and a long bet for sure… Burnham, he’s just the same kind of political turd that slides up and down whatever leg is the best, in search of his rectal neo lib home. Bullshitter.
Kali Yuga. Fuck it. Time for tea and jazz.
Rob C says
Yes they did, here at home, definitely, but unfortunately etc.
JustB says
Sorry Hare, I deleted my apologia for New Labour, having no wish to disagree.
(In case anyone is confused by Hare’s comment missing its context here!)
Rob C says
No problem at all. Thanks.
JustB says
Shit sorry, I didn’t want to talk out of turn, I thought it had come up in another thread. Apols. Editing now. – Gary would you mind deleting?
Rob C says
By the way Bob, my comment wasn’t aimed at you or anyone in particular. Just venting general spleen. Having watched Dianne Abbot last night, I think my spleen needs a holiday.
JustB says
Oh I know! I didn’t think it was! 🙂
Gary says
Anyone watching the Channel 4 May v Corbyn thingy? I’m a Corbyn supporter, so biased, but I thought he did very well indeed. He appeared both confident and relaxed and at the same time down to earth. Of course he has an easier position than May as he only has to defend his hypothetical plans and policies, while May has to defend the reality of her Government’s work, which hasn’t been a great success by any means. But, perhaps unsurprisingly, she comes across (so far – hasn’t finished as I write) as waffling, sloganeering and somewhat aloof and patronising.
chiz says
Oh my goodness this is really happening isn’t it? Corbin was cool and clear, May waffling and getting laughed at by the audience. Only one looked like a prime minister.
Twitter was hilarious as usual. Paxman harasses Corbyn – he’s biased MSM! Paxman destroys May – he’s the voice of the people!
Blue Boy says
Suspect it won’t have changed many people’s minds. Corbyn generally did better than most people might have expected, because his reputation is so low, May worse because hers is (or at least was) comparatively high. I think an objective observer would struggle to say that May looked any more prime mininsterial than Corbyn. May only started to look confident when talking about Brexit; on everything else she was pretty poor, and Corbyn was probably better.
But what really struck me was that Paxman’s adversarial approach was just irritating and did little to genuinely shed light on things. His questioning of Corbyn on how the manifesto didn’t fully reflect all of his views, and of May on whether she’d changed her mind on Brexit given she’d voted remain were both irrelevant dead ends that he spent far too much time on.
ernietothecentreoftheearth says
For some years I have remarked sadly on the quality of the party leaders on offer. With May, Corbyn and Farron we appear to have reached a new nadir. Is this really the best we can muster ?
Black Celebration says
I don’t know too much about Fallon but – a good aspect to all this is that May and Corbyn are not polished, media-trained-to-the-gills-politicians. For the first time since 1992 we have two very different people in front of us, and two very different sets of policies.
In 1992, the UK opted for John Major’s unexciting but calm leadership style over Kinnock’s emotion-heavy, fist to the sky rhetoric (although in 1992 he tried to tone that down a bit). It was a close election, though – and Major’s effort on the hustings with his campaign appearing to be less stage-managed than Labour’s was a large part of that, I think. Those interactions revealed a certain amount of charm and a light but sincere way of talking to people.
For this election, May should have faced Corbyn in a debate and although he would have probably run rings around her and probably rattled her – it would have been nowhere near as damaging as not appearing at all. I don’t think zingers/burns/put-downs in a TV debate excite the public as much as politicians think. In fact, the “loser” can often turn that to their advantage.
Also, Corbyn is usually filmed either in front of – or walking among – large groups of people. Whereas May is walking around deserted factories shaking hands with people lined up to meet her – and offering Thatcher-like head-tilts and nods – subtext “I am doing this while you are talking for a reasonable amount of time so that I can be seen to be listening”. Compare this to Nicola Sturgeon who seems to roam around, noticing things and seeking some common ground in order to make a joke.
May also appears to be terrified much of the time – watching her makes me anxious.
I think there will be a Conservative government but the thumping majority that seemed inevitable last month is not going to be there. Corbyn deserves a great deal of credit for demonstrating that you don’t have to play the media game. It is also clear now what Labour stands for and how a vote for Labour will change things. That hasn’t always been the case.
So I am enjoying this election more than most. 2015 Cameron vs Milliband was a low point for both parties, I think.
Gatz says
I agree with all,of that, which leads to the possibility that far from returning the thumping great mandate for the Brexit of her choosing May is likely to end up with a parliament broadly similar in composition to the current one, but with her own standing badly damaged.
Blue Boy says
Great post Black
metal mickey says
Nicely put.
Yes, a week is still a long time in politics, so anything can happen between now and the 8th, but as things stand, it really feels as if the result is (to an extent) still in the air…
I admit my instinct tells me that overall the Conservatives can’t lose, but anything other than a landslide for TM will now be seen as failure, an interesting twist…
Kid Dynamite says
I broadly agree with this, but I have my doubts around our electoral system – a rise in support doesn’t necessarily mean a rise in MPs, and I can see a situation where the total Labour vote is much closer to the total Conservative vote than it was last time, but the Tories still have a thumping majority. Plus, Rupert Murdoch probably has pictures of Jeremy Corbyn eating a baby or something ready to use if the polls keep going like they are.
FWIW, as a Corbyn doubter, I think Labour have had a much better campaign than I expected. It’s a pleasant surprise, albeit helped by the fact that the Lib Dems have been atrocious – this could have been a huge opportunity for them to seize the centre ground and they’ve fluffed it.
chiz says
I’ve never in my life wanted to be wrong more than I do now… I never thought Corbyn could get this close, never rated him as a leader. The surge we’re seeing comes as much from the Tories’ awful policies and campaign as it does from Jezza’s transformation into a statesman, but he’s clearly a better candidate for PM than May, not that that’s saying much.
He’s also put aside some of his nuttier principles for the good of the party and brought his rabid dogs in with him. So I really hope he’s done enough to win – I suspect not, for the reasons you say, but full credit to the man. I like him now a lot more than I like his followers.
Marwood says
The narrative was that Corbyn was an unelectable shambles and May ultra competent and unshakable.
But the past couple of weeks have not followed that narrative. Labour’s manifesto has been warmly received (or at least opened people’s eyes to a life beyond austerity). Corbyn’s been shown to be pretty likeable and thoughtful whilst May seems brittle, anxious and uncomfortable in her own skin. And the ‘Dementia Tax’ has taken centre stage in the Tory manifesto.
Having said that – I still expect a Tory win. But May could find herself seriously undermined by her poor campaign performance.
Moose the Mooche says
May had better enjoy this General Election victory. She won’t get another one. By 2022 she’ll be on the backbenches ruefully advising the few people who can still look her in the eye to be careful what they wish for.
The slowest of slomo carcrashes is about to start unfolding.
PS. @chiz – you like JC a lot more than Seumas Milne? Praise fainter than a Low Unplugged session being played on an iPhone speaker in the next street….
bricameron says
How do you inspire a nation?
Black Type says
Practice, son…practice.
Moose the Mooche says
Let the Normans invade.
(one for the architecture buffs there)
anton says