Scrutable

Is he as dangerous as page 48 of the Tory manifesto?

dyqik wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:46 pm a) is covered by what I wrote, to a certain degree.

it's partly covered, but you failed to mention the "Labour's actual Brexit strategy is sh.t, no matter what the press make of it".

two things:

1) how are you supposed to have a strong negotiating stance if the other side knows you won't even support your deal in a 2nd ref?
2) what on earth is good about relinquishing our votes in Europe in return for having to abide by their rules? It's a rubbish half-way house.

Opti wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:54 pm Is he as dangerous as page 48 of the Tory manifesto?

Is that the "we'll do what we want" bit?

Every government has that power.

plodder wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:57 pm

dyqik wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:46 pm a) is covered by what I wrote, to a certain degree.

it's partly covered, but you failed to mention the "Labour's actual Brexit strategy is sh.t, no matter what the press make of it".

two things:

1) how are you supposed to have a strong negotiating stance if the other side knows you won't even support your deal in a 2nd ref?
2) what on earth is good about relinquishing our votes in Europe in return for having to abide by their rules? It's a rubbish half-way house.

I think there's a feedback loop/two way street here to do with Labour's incompetence with the press - if they were getting their aims across well, and thought the press was giving them a fair shot, then it's quite probable that their stance would have evolved enough to be less rubbish. As it is, Labour can use the press's perceived antipathy to them to excuse going with weird policy stances that don't connect to voters.

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?

Honestly baffling to me, mate

Also f.ck it, I think I get what secret squirrel is driving at, and it's brave saying that kind of sh.t here evidently.

plodder wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:50 pm The other thing is that Labour's Brexit deal would be sh.t, locking us in to some weird dependent relationship.

Labour's Brexit plan, as put forward by Mr Newkindofpolitics is dishonest. It calls for "a CU", which doesn't exist, and "a strong single market relationship", which doesn't exist. f.cking hell, haven't we at least learned over this 3 year clusterf.ck that these things are not divisible? This means that Corbyn's "plan" is no different from May's or Johnson's, in any important respect, as it would be driven by the same red lines on the EU side, and it adds up to no more than a transparent attempt to gaslight his Remain-supporting membership and (most) voters. Meanwhile, trying to face all ways on this has fed directly into the lack of trust issue:

Mr Corbyn’s latest line, delivered during the leaders’ Question Time on Friday night, is that he would adopt a “neutral stance”. I thought he was running for prime minister, not Queen. He presents himself as a conviction politician and yet is incapable of saying, or unwilling to reveal, where he stands on such a defining question. This is clearly a vulnerability, an exposed bruise that both the Tories and Lib Dems keep thumping because they know it makes the Labour leader look weak and furtive.

And look at the surrounding mood music. Jez's little helpers, especially Len and Ian, will never allow a policy of supporting free movement, because they are in thrall to their northern xenophobes racists salt of the earth working class core voters. And look at how Corbyn has sacked Shadow Cabinet members who backed remain-leaning HoC amendments, while looking the other way when others broke ranks to support Leave-leaning ones. If you believe that Corbyn, a lexiter for decades, wouldn't find some way out of enabling a second referendum, then frankly I have a Thames bridge to sell you. It would be easy enough to do. His MPs know what he really thinks, as per above, and would turn up to "rebel" in enough numbers.

Stephanie wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 5:14 pm...and it's brave saying that kind of sh.t here evidently.

Has anyone thrown insults at him here? People have argued against him.. It's our Hoomin Rite.

GeenDienst wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 5:22 pm

Stephanie wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 5:14 pm...and it's brave saying that kind of sh.t here evidently.

Has anyone thrown insults at him here? People have argued against him.. It's our Hoomin Rite.

Point to where I said insults

So why does he need to be brave? Everyone's argued pretty nicely.

GeenDienst wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 5:25 pm So why does he need to be brave? Everyone's argued pretty nicely.

Because thinking anything other than Corbyn is the absolute worst is a minority view here

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?

No, but if Corbyn gets into Number 10, it's almost certain it'll be without a majority. He then gets hit by the Brexit impossibilities, f.cks everything up, govt collapses and another General Election in 2020 - which Johnson wins by a landslide and rules supreme until the next general election (2078 after the National Patriotic Government gets overthrown by the populace demanding an increase in the rat ration).

The fantasy outcome is a hung parliament where Johnson clings on, 2nd Ref, Corbyn resigns and Labour win power for 13 years. About as likely as my fantasy of duck-billed platypii agreeing to deliver daily creme eggs to my front door.

Stephanie wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 5:28 pm

GeenDienst wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 5:25 pm So why does he need to be brave? Everyone's argued pretty nicely.

Because thinking anything other than Corbyn is the absolute worst is a minority view here

I don't think he's "the worst" by any stretch...

However, I have a long memory and I don't need the current right wing meejah portrayal of him to think he's not that bright and a bit useless really: he's managed to convince me of that all by himself since the '80s by what he said and what he did (or didn't).

Oh, man, we've been over a whole lot of this several times in The Old Place, so I don't intend to do so again.

I just hope for rather better from a Labour leader...

the funny thing is, I'm not even a huge fan of corbyn

Stephanie wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 5:28 pm

GeenDienst wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 5:25 pm So why does he need to be brave? Everyone's argued pretty nicely.

Because thinking anything other than Corbyn is the absolute worst is a minority view here

No one has expressed that view that I've seen.

Stephanie wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:20 pm the funny thing is, I'm not even a huge fan of corbyn

Me neither. I've even been known sling sh.t at him ... but I made a promise to myself not to bad-mouth him during the election period, because reasons. And I'm sticking to it.

dyqik wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:27 pm

Stephanie wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 5:28 pm

GeenDienst wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 5:25 pm So why does he need to be brave? Everyone's argued pretty nicely.

Because thinking anything other than Corbyn is the absolute worst is a minority view here

No one has expressed that view that I've seen.

I'm also taking into account views I've seen expressed previously.

What do you mean? That no-one thinks Corbyn is the absolute worst? Surely most of us do indeed think he's the absolute worst?

There has been no other party leader worse in my lifetime, even:

- Foot, who handed Thatcher her first handslide
- Theresa May, who wrecked her party
- Boris Johnson, who lies, cheats and lies some more
- David Cameron, who f.cked a pig

This is it, I thought it was pretty well accepted that most of you think he's the absolute worst. I'm aware of it, I admire anyone trying to defend the "he's not that sh.t" position.

Stephanie wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:41 pm This is it, I thought it was pretty well accepted that most of you think he's the absolute worst. I'm aware of it, I admire anyone trying to defend the "he's not that sh.t" position.

It really depends on what you're measuring him on. As an effective party leader trying to lead a party into an election, I think he's the worst one we've got right now, and probably the worst in the past couple of decades, although it's a close run thing with a Lib Dem or two. As a potential prime minister, he's clearly better than at least 7 other party leaders of the past two decades (however many Tories there have been, plus Farage, plus a couple of others).

ETA: This is all before comparing the actual party leaders to other potential or hypothetical party leaders, as well.

lpm wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 6:39 pm There has been no other party leader worse in my lifetime, even:

- Foot, who handed Thatcher her first handslide

Hands off, er, Foot. Thanks to him in no small way that there was a Labour Party after 1983. Great parliamentarian and firebrand orator in his prime, which admittedly was decades before 1983.

secret squirrel wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:48 am


Why is Corbyn considered sh.t anyway? I had an impression of him as being useless for a long time, but when I came to think about it, that impression was based entirely on people and organizations I've come to distrust talking as if him being sh.t was common knowledge. I mean, he is obviously unsuccessful as a political operator in many ways, and has done things which allow his opponents to make largely spurious but effective criticisms of him, but the fact that these criticisms have been so effective also speaks for a preexisting desire to see him as useless and stupid. I'm worried that anyone who is seen to question the validity of some of our national institutions and ideals is going to be portrayed in this way. Which is unfortunate, because many of our institutions and ideals are horrendous. If any Labour leader has to either go along with them or be portrayed as useless in the manner of Corbyn (with specific details changed as necessary), then this is surely a poor state of affairs.

The one that springs to mind is after the December 2015 floods where Cameron was widely criticised for his handling of the response.

Did Corbyn go for the open goal - or did he raise the issue of something completely unrelated, where his views are highly unpopular, like suggesting the UK and Argentina could have joint sovereignty over the Falklands?


I'd also say those are wrong, given the inhabitants' views and the fact they're one of the few islands settled by Europeans who didn't displace native inhabitants.

He strikes me as the sort of person who knows what to say to appeal to a sixth-form politics group from the 1980s and indeed has similar instincts, but lacks pragmatism.

And a non-too-bright 6th form group at that: there's a good number of the bods who did history in my year who wouls have made utter mince of him.

He's another argument for why we should get shot of public schools - didn't do a great job with him or Piers.

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

Honest question - which bits of the UK media do you think would be open to fair and balanced coverage of a left-wing Labour leader?

My opinion: the levels of dishonesty that are apparent in most of the press suggest that an awful lot of controversy can and would be created out of nothing.

plodder wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:50 pm

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.

I thought's Labour's planned corporation tax was 26%? Which is hardly unusual for Europe or the USA (where it varies by state). I think you need some evidence that normal corporation tax levels would do long-lasting damage, especially if you're trying to draw equivalence with the damage from BoJo's Brexit.

plodder wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:50 pmThe 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.

Nationalising stuff that's nationalised in a lot of Europe (especially the rich bits) doesn't seem that mad to me. I don't see why you assume it has to be botched.

Botched privatisations have also introduced inefficiencies into stuff, and you can't pretend there won't be a lot more of that under Johnson.

plodder wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:50 pmThe other thing is that Labour's Brexit deal would be sh.t, locking us in to some weird dependent relationship.

Johnson's Brexit deal is also sh.t, locking us out of the weird dependent relationship that's helped support the country's economy over the last few decades, along with other less tangible benefits.

plodder wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:50 pmJohnson is dreadful in many ways, but so is Corbyn.

This is a very enlightened centrist way of not answering the question at all. Do you really, honestly think the difference between Johnson and Corbyn is miniscule and unimportant?