How Much is a Corbyn?

antrobus

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I see cepheus is still ignoring this inconvenient fact....

Cepheus has been ignoring inconvenient facts since at least 2005.:)

MS1950

martinsurrey wrote: »

you see, its not the fact that he sits down with bad people, I accept that its part of the job, its the glorifying encouragement of it.

If David Cameron told Saudi Arabia that they should do what ever they needed to do, to achieve something, and that included blowing up schools, he would be rightly run out of town. How is Corbyn's encouragement of "what ever means necessary" different?

So you've abandoned your previous 'guilt by association' quotes from the Hamas and Hezbollah Charters and are now concentrating on what you call Corbyn's encouragement of "what ever means necessary" to end the allied occupation of Iraq?

I'm not a member or in any way associated with the Stop the War Coalition so I've had to do some digging to try and answer your question. A search of the Stop the War Coalition website revealed no such statement so I'm guessing that your source for the phrase comes from a 'Comment' piece by one James Bloodworth in the Guardian on August 13th?:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/13/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-foreign-policy-antisemitism

I'm pleased to say that I'm also not privy to the arcane policy making process that may have gone on the early days of the Stop the War Coalition. However, the following left wing source, that claims to know, says that the phrase you quote was from an “an early draft” of a 2004 STWC statement that it seems was quickly abandoned in favour of “Our position, which is the same as that adopted at the TUC conference, is that an early date be set for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq”.

http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/550/crisis-demands-end-to-fudge/

Now I don't know, and neither do you, whether Jeremy Corbyn as Chair of the Stop the War Coalition had a hand in this rapid change of policy. Personally, I doubt he had any hand in producing the original objectionable draft.

So for James Bloodworth and now you to continue asserting 11 years later on the basis of what seems to have been a short lived draft that Corbyn 'gave encouragement' of "what ever means necessary" to end the allied occupation of Iraq, is pretty shabby and insubstantial to the extent that it raises questions about your motives.

cepheus

It shows how corrupt Britain has become when an honest politician throws the establishment into paroxysms of panic.

cepheus

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I see cepheus is still ignoring this inconvenient fact....

Well there's no overwhelming support for the last two so called radical right wing ideas, despite the immigrant hysteria being milked to death by the right wing media, I'm sure you will agree.

I thought you already had to take a job if it was offered to retain benefits? In fact something similar was in force a quarter of a century ago. You were expected to at least try to get a job to get 'dole money', perhaps it wasn't enforced to the same extent. The murder sentence is more of an authoritarian view, and therefore not inconsistent with some left thinkers.

You also left some out

The Public Are More Left-Wing Than Ed Miliband On These 11 Policies

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jonstone/the-public-are-more-left-wing-than-ed-miliband-on-these-11-p#.ptBX0DZbv

However it's you who are claiming the public are right wing, or have moved to the right. After all the vitriol poured on Ed Miliband and the Scottish Nationalists, there is little proof of this, especially since Labour increased it's share despite this.

CLAPTON

cepheus wrote: »

It shows how corrupt Britain has become when an honest politician throws the establishment into paroxysms of panic.

bizarre

the establishment is rejoicing but in cepheus' doublespeak, alice in wonderland world, all words are meaningless

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

cepheus wrote: »

Well there's no overwhelming support for

More people support a total ban on immigration for the next 2 years than support a rise in income tax to 60% for those earning more than 150K a year.

But putting that aside for a moment, lets take a look at where the electorate is on a variety of positions compared to Labour party voters in 2015, and in 2010 and 2005.

On deficit reduction, the overall electorate is well to the right of the 2015 Labour party...



On benefits, again, the overall electorate is well to the right of Labour in 2015...



And the same result with the privatisation of public services...



And with personal financial interests, again, the electorate well to the right of Labour.



And before you jump on your usual ad hominem bandwagon, the source for all these facts, is none other than the Labour party's very own review of it's 2015 defeat, as published on that bastion of the right wing media, LabourList.

The report goes on to note that...

Labour attracts voters who want to see redistribution of wealth from rich to poor but who also hold views that are out of step with the wider electorate.

This reinforces the Inquiry’s finding of a growing cultural divide between the socially liberal, progressive Labour Party and its 2015 voters, and large parts of the electorate who either vote pragmatically or who are socially conservative.

This divide is growing and it is evident across a number of areas that are fundamental to the Party’s electoral prospects: the deficit, the welfare system, public services, personal financial interest, and business.

http://labourlist.org/2015/08/labour-stands-on-the-brink-of-becoming-irrelevant-to-the-majority-of-working-people/


Labour lost the election thanks to left wing policies that were out of step with the electorate, and that's not my conclusion, it's the Labour party's conclusion..... those towards the centre did not support Labour this time around, and as a result the Tories have a majority.

Labour has only been electable into a majority government under one leader in the last 4 decades. That leader was the most centrist Labour leader ever.

Perhaps that should be a clue for you....;)

chewmylegoff

cepheus wrote: »

Well there's no overwhelming support for the last two so called radical right wing ideas, despite the immigrant hysteria being milked to death by the right wing media, I'm sure you will agree.

I thought you already had to take a job if it was offered to retain benefits? In fact something similar was in force a quarter of a century ago. You were expected to at least try to get a job to get 'dole money', perhaps it wasn't enforced to the same extent. The murder sentence is more of an authoritarian view, and therefore not inconsistent with some left thinkers.

You also left some out

The Public Are More Left-Wing Than Ed Miliband On These 11 Policies

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jonstone/the-public-are-more-left-wing-than-ed-miliband-on-these-11-p#.ptBX0DZbv

However it's you who are claiming the public are right wing, or have moved to the right. After all the vitriol poured on Ed Miliband and the Scottish Nationalists, there is little proof of this, especially since Labour increased it's share despite this.

You can go on and on as much as you like - unfortunately for you and your theories there was a general election in May in which the british public and particularly the English public comprehensively rejected the left wing options. It doesn't matter how many links you find with Google, it won't change the General election result.

Presumably not even you can possibly believe that people who voted Tory would vote labour if only labour shifted radically to the left.

Your best hope is to move to scotland and vote yes at the next independence referendum I think.

Thrugelmir

cepheus wrote: »

It shows how corrupt Britain has become when an honest politician throws the Labour party [STRIKE]establishment[/STRIKE] into paroxysms of panic.

Corrected for you. It's the "Labour party" who are steering media coverage.

Thrugelmir

cepheus wrote: »

It's the Tories who seem to like giving away public assets for less than they are worth.

Best not to follow the party line on this topic. As shows the complete lack of understanding as to what RBS now is. 8 years of restructuring has resulted in a far smaller business. That the regulators both sides of the Atlantic don't appear to have stopped fining even now.

Generali

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Best not to follow the party line on this topic. As shows the complete lack of understanding as to what RBS now is. 8 years of restructuring has resulted in a far smaller business. That the regulators both sides of the Atlantic don't appear to have stopped fining even now.

Especially given that the whole point of the Government buying RBS was to overpay for shares that the market wouldn't buy.