Is Jeremy Corbyn rubbish or not? - split from After Corbyn thread

[GeenDienst]

You're up early. Conscience bothering you about being such a massive centrist?

[dyqik]

You're up early. Conscience bothering you about being such a massive centrist?

More to do with eating beans for dinner Monday and lunch yesterday.

Is it a centrist position to believe that people shouldn't be locked up or punished without some kind of legal process, and that the state should have a monopoly on violence, under a democratically controlled civilian government? That seems to be a position that, say, Corbyn and Johnson would agree on. Even if Johnson doesn't like the courts having a say in it.

[P.J. Denyer]

Ok, f.ck it. In for a penny.

After a decade of austerity, the UK has 320,000 homeless people, a third of them kids; 600k more children in poverty; rising food bank use; spiralling costs of living; a f.cked-up higher education system; a healthcare system at crisis point and on the brink of privatisation; f.cking Brexit; and a human rights record that the UN is reporting to Geneva.

Corbyn is leading amongst young (<40) and Black and Ethnic Minority voters, who are disproportionately affected by austerity. He seems to be losing chiefly amongst groups that are pretty comfortable. He scares the old by threatening to return to society to the level of generosity the old benefited from when they were young. He annoys the disinterested by making stark the values of the opposing forces in British society. People who treat politics like an interesting evening's game either get uncomfortable when you keep reminding them people are dying, or get annoyed if you don't look dazzling doing it.

Corbyn is as uncharismatic as f.ck. His leadership skills are evidently lacking. He's bollocks at public relations. His anally-retentive quest ideological puritanism sends him up so far up his own arse he cannot communicate with people who aren't already persuaded to his point of view. All of these things mean that he is a terrible party leader. Don't blame me - I didn't vote for him.

Nevertheless, the smug criticism of him here makes me uncomfortable, because so much of it is so incredibly superficial. Yeah, he looks like a distant uncle regretting the level of enthusiasm he's chosen for singing happy birthday, or a jovial teacher whose entire class has just left for Christmas without giving him a single card. Fine. The British public may well be such morons that they can't identify their own interests without a flashy showman to sugarcoat it for them. They might be such c.nts that they don't care about anybody else's living conditions without a slick salesperson showing them how they too would benefit. Perhaps, perhaps.

I would just really appreciate it if, from time to time, debates of Corbyn's failings could address why that's important in the grand scheme of things. Pretending to pontificate over whether Corbyn would really be better than Boris - for comedic effect, presumably - really isn't that clever. People are viciously voting to harm each other because they're needlessly afraid for the future, and the atmosphere has become so toxic that somebody presenting a positive vision is pilloried for daring to do so.

Watching you lot freak out over Corbyn's plans for the trains is like watching USians freak out over the idea of a national health service. He's really not suggesting much that is radical in comparison to other, more successful, European economies. So when discussing his policies, leaning heavily on lazy comparisons to Venezuela makes you all look a bit weird (though I think that was more at the old place). Get a grip.

If it helps, mentally substitute out Corbyn for Bernard Cribbins. I really warm to him when I do that.

***Applause***

IMHO you nailed it.

[Bird on a Fire]

To try to bring the "Is the West evil?" derail back into the fold - I think secret squirrel is making a moral argument about supporting various organisations, rather than a purely political one.

The acceptability of supporting various groups changes over time. For example, the Nelson Mandela used to be considered a terrorist, but I don't think anybody these days would have a go at Corbyn for having supported him during the 70s and 80s.

It is not clear to me what moral argument would be against supporting the aims of IRA but happy to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, for example.

[GeenDienst]

And yet YouGov's final MRP poll has Labour losing by 100 seats.

It's no good moaning about oh-think-of-the-chil-dren. It's no good banging on about how obvious it is that all those Tory voters are so wrong.

Labour have put a sh.t product out there, not nearly enough people want it, and all we're seeing here is the inevitable consequence of that playing out. You've known what people think of Corbyn for years. Five days ago, YouGov found that 36% of people think Johnson is a good leader, and 41% a bad leader - the figures for Corbyn were 16% (good leader) and 57% (bad leader). None of this is new.

Even among these young voters, 30% of 18-24 yo think Corbyn is a bad leader, against 27% good. For 25-49 yo, 21% think Corbyn is a good leader, against 49% bad. Many of even those young voters are voting Labour despite Corbyn.

This is what Labour have managed to achieve against a party led by the second most egregious liar in British politics. It isn't f.cking good enough. These ratings show that people know that Johnson is a liar. this election should be a f.cking cakewalk, except for Labour shooting themselves in both feet, and then in the head just to make sure.

So don't blame the rest of us. Change your product.

[GeenDienst]

To try to bring the "Is the West evil?" derail back into the fold - I think secret squirrel is making a moral argument about supporting various organisations, rather than a purely political one.

The acceptability of supporting various groups changes over time. For example, the Nelson Mandela used to be considered a terrorist, but I don't think anybody these days would have a go at Corbyn for having supported him during the 70s and 80s.

It is not clear to me what moral argument would be against supporting the aims of IRA but happy to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, for example.

You accuse people of derailing, and then try to bring in Mandela?

No, Corbyn has been an active supporter of these egregious regimes for decades. That comes bundled with him, and it's an important part of why he's unfit to be PM.

PS: Rafael Behr puts it quite well in today's Graun:

Plenty of Labour supporters (and non-aligned remainers) are weary of this topic. I have seen eyes roll because it is unhelpful to point out the awkward facts about the only anti-Tory candidate for prime minister: that Corbyn has been a comrade to antisemites, Holocaust deniers and people who celebrate violence against Jews; that the claim to oppose all forms of racism rings hollow from a man who saw nothing offensive in a mural depicting caricatured Jews playing Monopoly on the backs of bowed bodies. This is the man who once dismissed “Zionists” for failure to “understand English irony”: despite “having lived in this country a long time, probably all their lives”. Corbyn was the magnet to Labour for Jew-hating cranks and conspiracy theorists who bullied two Jewish MPs out of the party. His peevish, reluctant apology contains no trace of understanding or real contrition.

None of that diminishes Johnson’s prolific record of racially aggravated offences. Outrage does not have to be rationed for one side or the other. Reluctance to see Corbyn in No 10 does not use up a portion of horror that could otherwise be spent on Tories. Both sentiments can coexist. But the intensity of my desire to see Johnson beaten can also fuel my anger that Labour demands support for Corbyn as the means to do it.

There are so many of us out here desperate for a positive way to use a vote, but sickened by what's on offer. It would be so easy for your party to give it to us, and yet...

[Bird on a Fire]

To try to bring the "Is the West evil?" derail back into the fold - I think secret squirrel is making a moral argument about supporting various organisations, rather than a purely political one.

The acceptability of supporting various groups changes over time. For example, the Nelson Mandela used to be considered a terrorist, but I don't think anybody these days would have a go at Corbyn for having supported him during the 70s and 80s.

It is not clear to me what moral argument would be against supporting the aims of IRA but happy to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, for example.

You accuse people of derailing, and then try to bring in Mandela?

No, Corbyn has been an active supporter of these egregious regimes for decades. That comes bundled with him, and it's an important part of why he's unfit to be PM.

I think using recent historical examples is quite helpful for viewing the arguments at arm's length without the distraction of quotidian politics.

I assume the 'egregious regimes' you mean are the IRA and Palestine? The point that I think secret squirrel was making is that the UK government position comes bundled with support for egregious regimes like Saudi Arabia, Pinochet's Chile or apartheid. It's probably not a point I'd have made but I don't think it's a stupid one.

There are so many of us out here desperate for a positive way to use a vote, but sickened by what's on offer. It would be so easy for your party to give it to us, and yet...

That includes me, FWIW. I've never been a Labour member, and I've voted for them at most once. Doesn't alter the fact that Labour is very clearly the better option on the table right now, nor that a lot of the objection to Corbyn has been manufactured - for example that Graun's piece still going on about some ambiguous mural Corbyn liked a photo of on Facebook years ago.

[GeenDienst]

This is the "ambiguous" mural, that Corbyn liked in 2012.

[Stephanie]

Fwiw boaf was attempting to bring it back on topic otherwise it will likely end up split off. So maybe chill a bit eh?

[Bird on a Fire]

This is the "ambiguous" mural, that Corbyn liked in 2012.

Yeah, I've seen it before. When I first saw it I just thought it was a bunch of rich folks gambling while breaking the backs of the poor - standard class struggle stuff. I understand that on closer inspection it has some antisemitic dogwhistles* in it, but at the speed people scroll through facebook I don't think a like confirms that Corbyn cottoned onto them and wanted to express his approval in public; I think it far more likely that he didn't notice, like I didn't.

*according to the article, those dogwhistles are big noses (a common feature of cartoon-style drawing), one of the blokes has a full beard (not limited to Jewish people), money (not limited to Jewish people) and the Illuminati triangle thing (not limited to antisemitic conspiracy theories). The artist may have had vile intentions - the quote from them is quite suggestive - but it's really not that in-your-face at first glance IMHO.

[murmur]

Anyway, and without wishing to repeat too much of what I have said previously about yer man and his ilk, I'm not seeing anything, aside from, to over-simplify, "Yeahbut Johnson is worse!", to suggest that Corbyn isn't a bit useless at best.

As a remainy type, it's a bit hard to vote his way, as he's always wanted out, being a good Bennite; all he's doing now is trying to hide that so as not scare remainers too much and expecting us older ones to forget while allowing Starmer to front the arguing.

FYI, I didn't think the likes of Kinnock or Foot were as useless etc as Corbyn, despite them getting at least as much of a monstering from the right wing (yes, BBC, I include you in that) media and contemporary comedians. Actually, is he even catching as much flak as Miliband Jr? And how much of that was thinly veiled anti-semtism?

[Bird on a Fire]

Anyway, and without wishing to repeat too much of what I have said previously about yer man and his ilk, I'm not seeing anything, aside from, to over-simplify, "Yeahbut Johnson is worse!", to suggest that Corbyn isn't a bit useless at best.

I think that he has some genuinely sensible political proposals to address inequality in Britain.

I also think that an openly socialist voice in British politics is a good thing, to remind people of the structural causes of that inequality rather than just proposing post-hoc measures to try to paper over them while leaving the underlying systems intact.

As a remainy type, it's a bit hard to vote his way, as he's always wanted out, being a good Bennite; all he's doing now is trying to hide that so as not scare remainers too much and expecting us older ones to forget while allowing Starmer to front the arguing.

I think Labour's Brexit policy is the best route out of a very difficult situation. Tory hard Brexit will be a disaster, ignores the wishes of 48% of voters who wanted Remain plus whatever proportion of Leavers wanted something softer, without anyone getting a direct say (other than this election). Lib Dem's "Revoke Article 50" looks very undemocratic. Corbyn wants to try to negotiate his vision of Brexit, then put it to a second referendum. I think his vision is less catastrophic (though I'm not sure what it would look like after negotiations), but the second ref is a good idea.

[Martin Y]

I was struck by the irony of choosing ideological purity over compromise and thereby sinking one's party's chances and handing power to those who choose nationalistic purity over compromise with allies and thereby sink the country.

Britain's dumbest decade.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Anyway, and without wishing to repeat too much of what I have said previously about yer man and his ilk, I'm not seeing anything, aside from, to over-simplify, "Yeahbut Johnson is worse!", to suggest that Corbyn isn't a bit useless at best.

I think that he has some genuinely sensible political proposals to address inequality in Britain.

I also think that an openly socialist voice in British politics is a good thing, to remind people of the structural causes of that inequality rather than just proposing post-hoc measures to try to paper over them while leaving the underlying systems intact.

I agree with you. I like much of the manifesto, and having a socialist voice is good, too.

But he's still a useless prick.

Ken McK said a long time ago that he'd quite like someone who manages to be both a strong socialist voice and a good leader. I agree with him. Corbyn is a shite leader, and unforch that's the kicker for most people.

[GeenDienst]

I think Labour's Brexit policy is the best route out of a very difficult situation. Tory hard Brexit will be a disaster, ignores the wishes of 48% of voters who wanted Remain plus whatever proportion of Leavers wanted something softer, without anyone getting a direct say (other than this election). Lib Dem's "Revoke Article 50" looks very undemocratic. Corbyn wants to try to negotiate his vision of Brexit, then put it to a second referendum. I think his vision is less catastrophic (though I'm not sure what it would look like after negotiations), but the second ref is a good idea.

If Corbyn did ever get the chance to try to negotiate his cunning plan, it would take Barnier 3.487 minutes to point out, very politely as always, that, non, the CU and SM are not divisible, and if you want them, then they come bundled with FoM. Au 'voir, M'sieu. At that point, Labour either adopt FoM, which they never will, or their cunning plan is suddenly exactly the same as Johnson's. Labour's EU proposals are not "soft", they do not address the 48%, they are simply pre-rejected, unicorn-studded, cakeist lies and gaslighting to try and keep his remain-leaning voters on board. They are worthless.

And we disagree on whether these decades-long lexiters would ever risk giving the public a referendum. But Corbyn's recent actions in the HoC have shown clearly that he favours leave-leaning amendments, by the way he has disciplined only those SC members who have broken the whip to support remain-leaning ones, and this is a clear guide for his MPs on how to vote in future. And MCCluskey, Lavery and the others are simply never going to let Corbyn risk the UK staying in the EU. Face it, Labour is a Leave party, nothing more, nothing less, under this leadership. if you believe anything else, I really do have a Thames bridge to sell you.

And let's also remember that Corbyn had to be dragged kicking and screaming to his current second referendum stance. Rawnsley, as ever, put it well:

Among the things he owns is the months of deliberate ambiguity and prevarication about Brexit, all intended to avoid having to commit to the people’s vote. He has finally been compelled to (sort of) support giving the people a fresh say, but he is not getting much credit for the switch because everyone can see that it has been made begrudgingly, cynically and insincerely and without any clear commitment that he wants to be a vigorous campaigner to reverse Brexit. Labour MPs report that their leader made the statement with all the enthusiasm of a hostage reading out a ransom demand.

It's a matter of trust. You may choose to trust a decades-long lexiter on this. He doesn't believe it, why should I?

[GeenDienst]

Ken McK said a long time ago that he'd quite like someone who manages to be both a strong socialist voice and a good leader. I agree with him. Corbyn is a shite leader, and unforch that's the kicker for most people.

We should never forget that all of this was so obvious, for years, and so easily avoidable. But the Labour Party have put us here, and to coin a phrase, it is what it is.

[Gentleman Jim]

Ok, f.ck it. In for a penny.

After a decade of austerity, the UK has 320,000 homeless people, a third of them kids; 600k more children in poverty; rising food bank use; spiralling costs of living; a f.cked-up higher education system; a healthcare system at crisis point and on the brink of privatisation; f.cking Brexit; and a human rights record that the UN is reporting to Geneva.

Corbyn is leading amongst young (<40) and Black and Ethnic Minority voters, who are disproportionately affected by austerity. He seems to be losing chiefly amongst groups that are pretty comfortable. He scares the old by threatening to return to society to the level of generosity the old benefited from when they were young. He annoys the disinterested by making stark the values of the opposing forces in British society. People who treat politics like an interesting evening's game either get uncomfortable when you keep reminding them people are dying, or get annoyed if you don't look dazzling doing it.

Corbyn is as uncharismatic as f.ck. His leadership skills are evidently lacking. He's bollocks at public relations. His anally-retentive quest ideological puritanism sends him up so far up his own arse he cannot communicate with people who aren't already persuaded to his point of view. All of these things mean that he is a terrible party leader. Don't blame me - I didn't vote for him.

Nevertheless, the smug criticism of him here makes me uncomfortable, because so much of it is so incredibly superficial. Yeah, he looks like a distant uncle regretting the level of enthusiasm he's chosen for singing happy birthday, or a jovial teacher whose entire class has just left for Christmas without giving him a single card. Fine. The British public may well be such morons that they can't identify their own interests without a flashy showman to sugarcoat it for them. They might be such c.nts that they don't care about anybody else's living conditions without a slick salesperson showing them how they too would benefit. Perhaps, perhaps.

I would just really appreciate it if, from time to time, debates of Corbyn's failings could address why that's important in the grand scheme of things. Pretending to pontificate over whether Corbyn would really be better than Boris - for comedic effect, presumably - really isn't that clever. People are viciously voting to harm each other because they're needlessly afraid for the future, and the atmosphere has become so toxic that somebody presenting a positive vision is pilloried for daring to do so.

Watching you lot freak out over Corbyn's plans for the trains is like watching USians freak out over the idea of a national health service. He's really not suggesting much that is radical in comparison to other, more successful, European economies. So when discussing his policies, leaning heavily on lazy comparisons to Venezuela makes you all look a bit weird (though I think that was more at the old place). Get a grip.

If it helps, mentally substitute out Corbyn for Bernard Cribbins. I really warm to him when I do that.

***Applause***

IMHO you nailed it.

+1

[El Pollo Diablo]

Ken McK said a long time ago that he'd quite like someone who manages to be both a strong socialist voice and a good leader. I agree with him. Corbyn is a shite leader, and unforch that's the kicker for most people.

We should never forget that all of this was so obvious, for years, and so easily avoidable. But the Labour Party have put us here, and to coin a phrase, it is what it is.

would that it were so simple.

[dyqik]

I'm reporting all this arguing past the point as off-topic, by the way.

[secret squirrel]

My only point is to ask that you please stop defending fascism and terrorists with false equivalency.

My argument is that the equivalence is not false. Obviously you are not really interested in engaging with it, and I've made all the statements I care to for now. Anyone who is curious should read authors such as Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky, particularly the Shock Doctrine and Understanging Power, respectively. Another slightly left-field suggestion is the Doomsday Machine by Daniel Ellsberg, which is focused on nuclear war but has a lot of good insight into the minds of defense analysts. The writing of Jean Ziegler is also worth investigating if you want to understand the sheer callousness of Western policy in Africa. Of course, a lot of the same information is in mainstream history books. A good one I read recently is the Cold War, by Odd Arne Westad.

[dyqik]

My only point is to ask that you please stop defending fascism and terrorists with false equivalency.

My argument is that the equivalence is not false. Obviously you are not really interested in engaging with it, and I've made all the statements I care to for now. Anyone who is curious should read authors such as Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky, particularly the Shock Doctrine and Understanging Power, respectively. Another slightly left-field suggestion is the Doomsday Machine by Daniel Ellsberg, which is focused on nuclear war but has a lot of good insight into the minds of defense analysts. The writing of Jean Ziegler is also worth investigating if you want to understand the sheer callousness of Western policy in Africa. Of course, a lot of the same information is in mainstream history books. A good one I read recently is the Cold War, by Odd Arne Westad.

I have read them, and I have at no point in this conversation defended the foreign policies you accuse me of supporting.

But this is still false equivalence.

[secret squirrel]

I have read them, and I have at no point in this conversation defended the foreign policies you accuse me of supporting.

But this is still false equivalence.

I never said you supported them. I said you viewed them as aberrations. I view them as revealing the true character of the West. This is the crux of our disagreement. You look at this long, long list of atrocities and think the West is still meaningfully better than groups like the IRA. I do not.

[Gentleman Jim]

"The meaning of 'terrorism' has undergone a transformation. During the Reign of Terror, a regime or system of terrorism was used as an instrument of governance, wielded by a recently established revolutionary state against the enemies of the people. Now the term 'terrorism' is commonly used to describe terrorist acts committed by non-state or sub - national entities against a state. (italics in original)"

Williamson, Myra (2009). Terrorism, war and international law: the legality of the use of force against Afghanistan in 2001

[cvb]

It's compicated

"One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter"

People did have to sit down with the IRA to get peace in Northern Ireland after all

[Bird on a Fire]

It's compicated

"One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter"

People did have to sit down with the IRA to get peace in Northern Ireland after all

That's why I mentioned the ANC.