Scrutable

GeenDienst wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:31 am You're up early. Conscience bothering you about being such a massive centrist?

Bird on a Fire wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:00 pm 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.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:00 am 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.

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.

GeenDienst wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:08 am

Bird on a Fire wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:00 am 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.

GeenDienst wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:08 amThere 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...

GeenDienst wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:35 am This is the "ambiguous" mural, that Corbyn liked in 2012.

murmur wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:57 am 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.

murmur wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:57 amAs 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.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:09 pm

murmur wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:57 am 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.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:09 pm 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.

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.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:53 pm 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.

P.J. Denyer wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:44 am

Bird on a Fire wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:00 pm 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.

GeenDienst wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:03 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:53 pm 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.

dyqik wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:16 pm My only point is to ask that you please stop defending fascism and terrorists with false equivalency.

secret squirrel wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:35 pm

dyqik wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:16 pm 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 wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:37 pm 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.

cvb wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:23 pm 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