Scrutable

Gentleman Jim wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:31 pm f.ck me but just as a minor point - in 40+ years, I have never been called, or called someone, "Comrade"
It was a standing joke (at least in my Union(s)) that using "Comrade" was a surefire way of winding up the UK Tory press

J McDonnell, 2019 Labour Party Conference (https://labour.org.uk/press/john-mcdonn ... onference/):

Comrades – we stand with you and support you all the way in standing up to the bullies.

McCluskey quoted Comrading here, somebody else here, and reference to Abbott's frequent use of it here. Plenty more on Gurgle.

GeenDienst wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:28 pm I can't think of a single politician, certainly on the left, who has supported the long list of egregious people and groups that Corbyn has supported with such apparent enthusiasm. If you can, then name them, and we can rule them out as well.

How is the IRA worse than, say, the British army? I mean really, in terms of what they have actually done?

lpm wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:49 pm Wait, wait, this guy is losing to the worst government in history, and you're debating whether he's rubbish?

This is like discussing whether your side is a bit crap when they're losing 9-0 to Runcorn Town FC.

Corbyn is losing because people think he's rubbish. The question is, why do so many people think he's rubbish?

secret squirrel wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:27 pm

GeenDienst wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:28 pm I can't think of a single politician, certainly on the left, who has supported the long list of egregious people and groups that Corbyn has supported with such apparent enthusiasm. If you can, then name them, and we can rule them out as well.

How is the IRA worse than, say, the British army? I mean really, in terms of what they have actually done?

Look forward to your list of Labour MPs who have provided explicit support to murders or other outrages committed by elements of the army. And be specific. I have, after all.

secret squirrel wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:27 pm

GeenDienst wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:28 pm I can't think of a single politician, certainly on the left, who has supported the long list of egregious people and groups that Corbyn has supported with such apparent enthusiasm. If you can, then name them, and we can rule them out as well.

How is the IRA worse than, say, the British army? I mean really, in terms of what they have actually done?

If you don't know the difference between a military force controlled by a more or less democratic state with elected civilian government, and which is subject to the Geneva Convention and other international law, as well as domestic law implemented by an independent judiciary, and a terrorist group that has repeatedly targeted civilians, then you have nothing at all to say about politics that is worth hearing.

secret squirrel wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:27 pm

GeenDienst wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:28 pm I can't think of a single politician, certainly on the left, who has supported the long list of egregious people and groups that Corbyn has supported with such apparent enthusiasm. If you can, then name them, and we can rule them out as well.

How is the IRA worse than, say, the British army? I mean really, in terms of what they have actually done?

Remember that Corbyn is trying to get elected by the voters of the UK, rather than the voters of the UK Beards, History and Purity Society.

dyqik wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:35 pm If you don't know the difference between a military force controlled by a more or less democratic state, and which is subject to the Geneva Convention and other international law, and a terrorist group, then you have nothing at all to say about politics that is worth hearing.

Can you articulate why the differences feel so significant to you?

GeenDienst wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:32 pm

secret squirrel wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:27 pm How is the IRA worse than, say, the British army? I mean really, in terms of what they have actually done?

Look forward to your list of Labour MPs who have provided explicit support to murders or other outrages committed by elements of the army. And be specific. I have, after all.

The British army kills people as a matter of course in its operations. Why do we have to focus on specific instances extreme enough to be regarded as 'outrages' in the public consciousness? Seems like a double standard. Corbyn didn't support the IRA explicitly for the murders they committed.

secret squirrel wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:44 pm

dyqik wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:35 pm If you don't know the difference between a military force controlled by a more or less democratic state, and which is subject to the Geneva Convention and other international law, and a terrorist group, then you have nothing at all to say about politics that is worth hearing.

Can you articulate why the differences feel so significant to you?

It's called the rule of law and democracy. You might one day realize that it's a good thing, even when pretty imperfectly implemented, and that unaccountable violent extremists murdering people is a bad thing.

secret squirrel wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:49 pm

GeenDienst wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:32 pm

secret squirrel wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:27 pm How is the IRA worse than, say, the British army? I mean really, in terms of what they have actually done?

Look forward to your list of Labour MPs who have provided explicit support to murders or other outrages committed by elements of the army. And be specific. I have, after all.

The British army kills people as a matter of course in its operations. Why do we have to focus on specific instances extreme enough to be regarded as 'outrages' in the public consciousness? Seems like a double standard. Corbyn didn't support the IRA explicitly for the murders they committed.

It's, like, an army. And you continue to misrepresent Corbyn's history.

secret squirrel wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:29 pm

lpm wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:49 pm Wait, wait, this guy is losing to the worst government in history, and you're debating whether he's rubbish?

This is like discussing whether your side is a bit crap when they're losing 9-0 to Runcorn Town FC.

Corbyn is losing because people think he's rubbish. The question is, why do so many people think he's rubbish?

Because he's unable to make people think he's not rubbish. That is a politician's job, especially when they are leader of their party.

I was going to list a load of examples about how he fails to successfully challenge any of the misconceptions (or valid conceptions) about him, due to some weird ideological purity, but you could probably write a similar list yourself.

plodder wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:18 pm

secret squirrel wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:29 pm

lpm wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:49 pm Wait, wait, this guy is losing to the worst government in history, and you're debating whether he's rubbish?

This is like discussing whether your side is a bit crap when they're losing 9-0 to Runcorn Town FC.

Corbyn is losing because people think he's rubbish. The question is, why do so many people think he's rubbish?

Because he's unable to make people think he's not rubbish. That is a politician's job, especially when they are leader of their party.

I was going to list a load of examples about how he fails to successfully challenge any of the misconceptions (or valid conceptions) about him, due to some weird ideological purity, but you could probably write a similar list yourself.

I think 90% of this is down to an unwillingness and/or inability to work with the media to present something. How much of that is down to ludicrous purity tests among his support, and how much is down to his own tendencies, I'm not sure.

dyqik wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:13 pm

Bewildered wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:06 pm Everyone knew at the time that the claims were b.llsh.t, that is really not an excuse.

Did they? You're going to need serious contemporary citations to show that.

Note that dissenting voices is not enough to support this claim. You need to show that the generally accepted consensus of trustworthy institutions at the time of the Parliamentary votes was that the claims were b.llsh.t.

"Everybody knows" a whole lot of things that are false or easily disputable all the time.

If you take what I wrote literally i’d have to do a f.ck load more than what you write above actually. I was speaking (too) loosely, but what I meant is ~ it was clear to me what was going on and it was a widely expressed viewpoint at the time. I *really* don’t want to start rehashing the arguments about what was the correct thing to believe at the time, just to convince about this though. That is too tedious even for me.

What was it, 16 years ago now? And the Labour Party is still hamstrung by it. The Comrades really need to find a way to deal with this that doesn't rip it apart completely. Again.

GeenDienst wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:24 pm

Gentleman Jim wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:31 pm f.ck me but just as a minor point - in 40+ years, I have never been called, or called someone, "Comrade"
It was a standing joke (at least in my Union(s)) that using "Comrade" was a surefire way of winding up the UK Tory press

J McDonnell, 2019 Labour Party Conference (https://labour.org.uk/press/john-mcdonn ... onference/):

Comrades – we stand with you and support you all the way in standing up to the bullies.

McCluskey quoted Comrading here, somebody else here, and reference to Abbott's frequent use of it here. Plenty more on Gurgle.

McDonnell, McCluskey, Abbott.

This helps your claim that you were just using it innocently to say he was a labour member how exactly?





Spoiler:

Just a thought but does anyone else here, personally know a militant/momentum (ex)member?

Bewildered wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:37 pm McDonnell, McCluskey, Abbott.

They were just a few examples to show that Comradeing is common enough among the Comrades. Doesn't matter much which, here's an example by one T Blair.

I'm astounded you haven't heard that usage, and that's probably what has led to your lack of understanding here.

Spoiler:

Gentleman Jim wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:41 pm Just a thought but does anyone else here, personally know a militant/momentum (ex)member?

I at least know militant sympathisers. Whether they were signed up, I’m not sure.

I know someone who dated Corbyn's son, fwiw. She wasn't happy when I said he was f.cking useless. Corbyn senior, that is. No idea about Corbyn junior, she's probably better placed than me to review him.

Bewildered wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:48 pm

Gentleman Jim wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:41 pm Just a thought but does anyone else here, personally know a militant/momentum (ex)member?

I at least know militant sympathisers. Whether they were signed up, I’m not sure.

Apparently you would know if they were signed up as they would be calling everyone "comrade"

Does anyone here seriously think that a Corbyn-led government would be worse for the UK than a Johnson-led government?

While we're fixating on what lefties call each other, here's a quote attributed to McDonnell:

“We’ve got to convert ordinary members and supporters into real cadres who understand and analyse society and who are continually building the ideas,”

Cadres?

Definition of cadre

1 : a nucleus or core group especially of trained personnel able to assume control and to train others broadly : a group of people having some unifying relationship a cadre of lawyers a cadre of technicians
2 : a cell of indoctrinated leaders active in promoting the interests of a revolutionary party
3 : a member of a cadre

I'm sure he meant #1.

dyqik wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:20 pm

plodder wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:18 pm

secret squirrel wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:29 pm

Corbyn is losing because people think he's rubbish. The question is, why do so many people think he's rubbish?

Because he's unable to make people think he's not rubbish. That is a politician's job, especially when they are leader of their party.

I was going to list a load of examples about how he fails to successfully challenge any of the misconceptions (or valid conceptions) about him, due to some weird ideological purity, but you could probably write a similar list yourself.

I think 90% of this is down to an unwillingness and/or inability to work with the media to present something. How much of that is down to ludicrous purity tests among his support, and how much is down to his own tendencies, I'm not sure.

This is mad. He's not losing because people think he's rubbish or because he can't articulate policy to the media.

He's losing because

a) Terrible Brexit strategy, which potential voters are baffled by

b) sh.t manifesto, which potential voters think is chaotic and irresponsible

a) is covered by what I wrote, to a certain degree.

Opti wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:11 pm Does anyone here seriously think that a Corbyn-led government would be worse for the UK than a Johnson-led government?

In some ways it would be. There would be genuine long-lasting damage to the economy if corporation tax was significantly raised and if £Bns were spent on botched nationalisations that ended up locking-in inefficiency.

The underlying problem is that there is a significant amount of "if we spend on things society needs we'll automatically get a payback, therefore it's money well spent" which doesn't take into account the inefficiencies associated with command-economy spending.

Labour's spending plans are enormously ambitious, accelerating at a crazy rate from a standing start, and I just can't see how they'll manage this process effectively.

The other thing is that Labour's Brexit deal would be sh.t, locking us in to some weird dependent relationship.

Johnson is dreadful in many ways, but so is Corbyn.