How Much is a Corbyn?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ruggedtoast wrote: »

There are a good many people who are genuinely inspired and excited by his politics who are utterly turned off by the mainstream cardboard cut outs.

Could England be having its SNP moment? Seems to have scared the life out of "Westminster".

A lot of people in Greece were "inspired and excited" by Syriza politicians...

That didn't work out very well for them.:cool:

ruggedtoast

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

A lot of people in Greece were "inspired and excited" by Syriza politicians...

That didn't work out very well for them.:cool:

True, but for all the left wing change they got they may as well have stayed with the original government,.

They twice voted decisively to give the middle finger to the Troika (are you sure? are you really really sure?) and still ended up with Syriza opting to ignore them and carry on with the shafting they were enjoying beforehand.

Corbyn would have stood firm.

MS1950

CLAPTON wrote: »

presumably you are calling for british boots on the ground there to stop the flow of oil?

I'm not sure how you can 'presume' that based on what I've said or the links I posted - among other reasons because those 'boots' would need to be 'on the ground' in Turkey (a western 'ally' and NATO member) which seems to be a significant conduit for the ISIS controlled 'flow of oil' onto world markets.....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ruggedtoast wrote: »

True, but for all the left wing change they got they may as well have stayed with the original government,.

Corbyn would have stood firm.

Syriza were as motivated as anyone possibly could be to make left wing changes, the reason they didn't is that when push came to shove it would have resulted in horrific consequences for the Greek people (in fact more horrific than most Greeks realised), and resultant electoral suicide for themselves.

If you're saying Corbyn would have carried on jumping off that particular cliff, regardless of consequences and just to stay true to left wing ideals, then it's not exactly a good thing.... In fact it's quite terrifying for anyone with an ounce of sense.

ruggedtoast

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Syriza were as motivated as anyone possibly could be to make left wing changes, the reason they didn't is that when push came to shove it would have resulted in horrific consequences for the Greek people (in fact more horrific than most Greeks realised), and resultant electoral suicide for themselves.

If you're saying Corbyn would have carried on jumping off that particular cliff, regardless of consequences and just to stay true to left wing ideals, then it's not exactly a good thing.... In fact it's quite terrifying for anyone with an ounce of sense.

It might have been suicidal, or it might not have been (Greece has been around for a long time and I suspect it will be around for a while longer).

It was however what Syriza promised to do if they were elected, what they were again told to do in a referendum they seemed to be hoping to lose, and what they then didn't do.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ruggedtoast wrote: »

It was however what Syriza promised to do if they were elected, what they were again told to do in a referendum they seemed to be hoping to lose, and what they then didn't do.

I can promise to give everyone in the UK a real live Unicorn if elected.

I can then hold a referendum asking if you're sure.

Doesn't make it possible or achievable though.

That's the problem Syriza faced, they promised the impossible, and couldn't deliver.

And that's the same problem Corbyn would face if the UK electorate were ever dumb enough to vote him into power.

Interesting parties with radical ideas and engaging politicians rarely deliver good governance of an economy or society.

There's a long line of politicians on the left (and to be fair on the right as well) who told the people what they wanted to hear and then failed miserably to achieve what they promised.

MS1950

martinsurrey wrote: »

not guilt by association, guilt by appreciation, nothing wrong with sitting down with terrorists if you need to for the greater good, everything wrong with calling it an honour (which is what I quoted).

Corbyn has been chair of the Stop the War Coalition since 2001, the man who made the comment was Andrew Murray, he was also made a chair of the coalition in 2001, a post he held until 2011.

here is a good run down (from 2004)
http://www.labourfriendsofiraq.org.uk/archives/000147.html

this source has been used for years without been disputed
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-war-in-iraq-was-wrong-but-the-antiwar-movement-has-very-little-to-be-smug-about-8546226.html

and another article from 2005
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2005/03/on_the_justific.html

So what happened was they sent out the statement I quoted by email, which then blew up in their face (pun intended), resulting in an early day motion in the house of commons on the 14th of October 2004

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2003-04/1744

the revised position you quoted was from 24th October 2004, which was put out to try and calm the situation down.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/oct/25/iraq.iraq

so I think we can agree that it happened, and that the man responsible was at the heart of the STWC for a further 6 years, alongside Corbyn, now if what he said was so wrong, and the STWC disagreed with it so much, why did he hold his post for a further 6 years.

Its not just political parties who spin.

I've looked at your links which all seem to be repeating the same thing; even down to what you describe as a “source [that] has been used for years without been disputed” which is another article by James Bloodworth from the Independent in March 2013, who, as I suggested in my previous post, seems to have been your source for the phrase you quoted in your previous post when he repeated the same thing in a Guardian article on August 13th.

You seem to have information that the phrase originated with someone called Andrew Murray who I'm not familiar with (a situation I wouldn't want to change - based on what I've now read about him). You also seem to accept that the phrase was sent out by email on or around the 14th of October 2004 (presumably by Andrew Murray?) and after it was widely condemned led to a very different public statement being published in the Guardian on October 24th 2004.

However, what you don't seem to accept in your desperation to implicate Corbyn is that the 'Stop the War Coalition' is, as it's name implies, a 'coalition' (of various organisations and individuals), and moreover that it's 'officers' (of which Corbyn is one) have “roles primarily revolving around publicising and appearing at events on behalf of the group, as opposed to administering it on a day-to-day basis”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_the_War_Coalition

As I said before neither of us know what role Corbyn as Chair of the Stop the War Coalition had in this change of policy. However, you choose to imply, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, that he must be responsible for the short lived first statement but had no role whatever in it's replacement by the second statement.

Using the same 'logic' you might as well argue that Cameron as Prime Minister (and therefore effectively 'chair' of the recent government coalition – with considerably more day to day power and influence than Corbyn apparently has in the Stop the War Coalition) must be held responsible for all the public statements of Vince Cable throughout the coalition's life.

Thrugelmir

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Regardless of what the cause of the conflict was I can't see any way that the Israelis and their American backers, aren't now responsible for the problems in the region, and a lot of Islamic terrorism to boot.

Then you need to understand your own history better. The UK had a considerable influence on the Middle East to make it as it is today. After the US the UK is next on the list for being disliked. Just as with the Irish issue. The Middle East's memory lingers on too.

martinsurrey

MS1950 wrote: »

Using the same 'logic' you might as well argue that Cameron as Prime Minister (and therefore effectively 'chair' of the recent government coalition – with considerably more day to day power and influence than Corbyn apparently has in the Stop the War Coalition) must be held responsible for all the public statements of Vince Cable throughout the coalition's life.

Yes I would, and if Vince Cable suggested we should kill people, I would have expected Cameron to speak up.

If anyone in Government issued a statement that condoned the killing of British troops (in his own name OR as a member of an organisation) I would expect the following
1) They would be kicked out of the party they represent
2) The party would issue a motion condemning that members statement which is backed by all
3) If 1) or 2) didn't happen I would expect other members of the party to consider if they should remain members

well,
1) didn't happen, he was a member 6 years later
2) didin't happen, Corbyn issued a response to the early day motion, to remove the provocative text, and the STWC issued a revised statement, without referring to the comment in question, either to apologise, or clarify.
3) as we know, didn't happen, he's still chair.

I'm not going to come back to this one, we'll never see eye to eye on it.

ruggedtoast

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Then you need to understand your own history better. The UK had a considerable influence on the Middle East to make it as it is today. After the US the UK is next on the list for being disliked. Just as with the Irish issue. The Middle East's memory lingers on too.

The Balfour Declaration was signed in 1917.

If you are unsure as to how Britain's role in the world has changed in the intervening years between 1917 and now then I would politely suggest it isn't me who requires a history lesson.

The UK lost the ability to project power outside its own borders sometime between the end of the war and the Suez Crisis.

We have had precisely zero influence over the Middle East in most people's living memory.

We could at least join our European neighbours in taking a principled stand against the US to at least show some kind of solidarity with the Palestinians, one of the world's most oppressed people. But that would involve publicly disagreeing with America, something that our current politicians are too spineless to do.

I suspect Corbyn wouldn't be.