Corbynomics: A Dystopia

cells

Sapphire wrote: »

I have studied the prehistory and history of the Near East, as well as that of Britain, and believe me, the sectarianism was/is much worse in the former.

maybe it just seems that way in this day of the internet and videos

didn't the first crusade result in the crusaders burning all the Muslims and jews in Jerusalem

also were europes wars not just larger tribes fighting each other for power and domination? its evil when a group of 10,000 do it but its ok when a group of 10,000,000 do it

btw I wish everyone would live in peace but its clear pretty much all nations all people are capable of disgusting things on all scales from the individual to the nation and everything in between

Sapphire wrote: »

When it comes to Turkey, I have a Turk in my family and he (and his friends and family) detest Erdogan because of his strong religious views and oppression of people that disagree with him. However, my b-i-l said he wanted him to win the election precisely because he was hard and could hold the country together, suppressing the opposition and thereby ensuring relative peace in the society. I actually remember the first time I went to Turkey. It was about 20 years ago, just after martial law had been imposed. My b-i-l's relatives in Turkey said they were really pleased about the imposition of martial law. Before that the country had been descending into chaos, with leftist groups fighting each other as well as right-wing groups (and vice versa). In the process, many people were being killed on the streets, e.g. a professor would be shot at a bus stop and the gunmen would also take out bystanders nearby in the process. At night, you could hear gunfire throughout the night. Yet I remember that the West condemned Turkey for its 'brutal suppression' of these groups. Again, it appeared to me that it failed to understand what was happening there, and that the people there are different from us, with very different history and religion, factors that do have a very strong bearing on the character of the society. And Turkey is less extreme than other countries in the region (due to Attaturk)…

i cant claim to know a lot about that nation but they have had quite a lot of different parties in power and a few military coups and a woman as prime minister in the early 1990s

My view is the party that got in and has been in power for more than a decade now is riding a wave of economic development and enrichment. even a significant number of kurds voted for the man and the reason is they look at the rapid development which took place during his time. not that they think he is hard and will control everyone

Shakethedisease

Sapphire wrote: »

Yes – I've been thinking about this recently. There are some decent people, like Hilary Benn, apparently, in the labour party. However, a large proportion consists of discredited blairites, and the looney left of the 'politburo' ilk that existed decades ago. (How ludicrous it is that Corbyn constantly states he'll consult 'party members' on policies, rather than considering what voters in Britain actually think.)

Trouble is, labour was founded when there was still a working class, with workers toiling in factories, mines and heavy industry, and often being severely mistreated. There was a definite need for a party such as this at the time – but the traditional needs of part of the population for such a party no longer exist…

Perhaps there is room for a type of social democratic party, which would incorporate some much-needed care for the planet in its policies (not a green party, though)?

The political commentariat is completely out of touch with more than a few areas of the UK. I don't think any of them have any idea what's happening outside London.

Looking forward to the spin on this. A few days ago, I was reading articles about UKIP winning. Anwyay, looks like Corbyn is safe for a bit longer. Bit of a collapse there in the Conservative vote share. Farage is calling 'foul' on the postal vote.

Sapphire

cells wrote: »

btw I wish everyone would live in peace but its clear pretty much all nations all people are capable of disgusting things on all scales from the individual to the nation and everything in between

i cant claim to know a lot about that nation but they have had quite a lot of different parties in power and a few military coups and a woman as prime minister in the early 1990s

My view is the party that got in and has been in power for more than a decade now is riding a wave of economic development and enrichment. even a significant number of kurds voted for the man and the reason is they look at the rapid development which took place during his time. not that they think he is hard and will control everyone

I do think Europeans did some terrible things in the historic period – but many left behind extreme barbarism in the medieval period. In the Near and Middle East, such barbarism has been prominent in the societies since prehistoric times – it's even evident in the archaeology of the place some 5,000 years BC. They simply do not seem capable of living together in relative peace and harmony unless they have a strong, dominant leadership.

Re. Turkey, Erdogan did manage to improve the economy in Turkey, and that is a reason why many people supported him in the past. However, he is also dictatorial and many do not like him – particularly now that the economy is tanking somewhat. Turkey is also quite secular (due to changes brought about by Attaturk), and numerous Turks reject the return to religious fundamentalism that is seeping into society (about 8 per cent of Turks now support daesh). However, as I said, certainly some Turks I've spoken to hold the view that Erdogan is what is needed at the moment precisely because he is hard and will hold the country together, though they do not like him.

cells

Sapphire wrote: »

I do think Europeans did some terrible things in the historic period – but many left behind extreme barbarism in the medieval period. In the Near and Middle East, such barbarism has been prominent in the societies since prehistoric times – it's even evident in the archaeology of the place some 5,000 years BC. They simply do not seem capable of living together in relative peace and harmony unless they have a strong, dominant leadership.

Re. Turkey, Erdogan did manage to improve the economy in Turkey, and that is a reason why many people supported him in the past. However, he is also dictatorial and many do not like him – particularly now that the economy is tanking somewhat. Turkey is also quite secular (due to changes brought about by Attaturk), and numerous Turks reject the return to religious fundamentalism that is seeping into society (about 8 per cent of Turks now support daesh). However, as I said, certainly some Turks I've spoken to hold the view that Erdogan is what is needed at the moment precisely because he is hard and will hold the country together, though they do not like him.

was ww2 any better or less brutal than what is happening in the middle east?

or is the definition of how good or bad something is dependant on the size of the force. The Germans sure had a bad habit of targeting certain groups more than others and some very nasty genocide

maybe one could argue ww2 was about survival, but that is surely the case now in the middle east and Syria too. isis or whatever group x if they put down their guns they don't get forgiven and just go home and herd some sheep happily for the rest of their lives.

when you play the game of thrones you either win or you die. There is no middle ground where everybody forgives and goes home. once on that road there is no turning back


maybe this is the great thing about democracy once it is established for a few generations. you fight it out in elections and then everybody accepts and forgets and goes home to come back in five years time. seems a lot smarter than going to war every five years and losing half your family in the changeover each time which was the case in much of Europe too

cells

Shakethedisease wrote: »

clear proof is any is needed.

if any of you hold the view that corybn is unfit to be PM and would be a disaster be fearful of what could happen. If the SNP can win a super majority....

Moby

Generali wrote: »

I thought you were in favour of Mr Corbyn. Still there is more joy in heaven for the sinner that repenteth and all that...

I think the question really is how do you get rid of him? Mr E Milliband might have broken the Labour Party. The less electable Mr Corbyn and his friends become the more marginalised Labour become. There is no mechanism for the PLP to take back the reins of power. I have a horrible feeling that this all ends with UKIP or worse as HMLO.

I was never in favour of Corbyn within the internal battle. I voted for Burnham and Kendall as second choice.

Moby

Sapphire wrote: »

Yes – I've been thinking about this recently. There are some decent people, like Hilary Benn, apparently, in the labour party. However, a large proportion consists of discredited blairites, and the looney left of the 'politburo' ilk that existed decades ago. (How ludicrous it is that Corbyn constantly states he'll consult 'party members' on policies, rather than considering what voters in Britain actually think.)

Trouble is, labour was founded when there was still a working class, with workers toiling in factories, mines and heavy industry, and often being severely mistreated. There was a definite need for a party such as this at the time – but the traditional needs of part of the population for such a party no longer exist…

Perhaps there is room for a type of social democratic party, which would incorporate some much-needed care for the planet in its policies (not a green party, though)?

This is what Blair was creating (Social Democratic Party) and then Iraq came along!

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

Nominating someone isn't the problem, it's getting them elected.....

Yes, that's what I said. There is a mechanism to remove Corbyn, just as there is a mechanism to remove anyone selected by a democratic process. Unfortunatley, that mechanism will always be subject to the whims of the electorate.

Generali wrote: »

...The longer this farce goes on the more extremists will be elected and the more moderate people will drift away. As a result it will get increasingly hard for Labour to elect someone that can carry enough of the country to get in.

I honestly believe we are watching the death of the Labour party. All that remains is to decide who replaces them.

The Corbynistas will want to prolong the 'farce' for as long as they can, in order to maximise their chances of rebuilding the PLP in their own image.

antrobus

cells wrote: »

....also were europes wars not just larger tribes fighting each other for power and domination? its evil when a group of 10,000 do it but its ok when a group of 10,000,000 do it
....

I'm trying to resist the urge to quote Augustine of Hippo again "Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies?" etc.

cells wrote: »

...when you play the game of thrones you either win or you die....

You die anyway, irrespective of how you play the game.

Valar morghulis.

gadgetmind

cells wrote: »

if any of you hold the view that corybn is unfit to be PM and would be a disaster

Um, "any"? I think "all" is the word you're after, and drop the "if"!

As it happens, I think Oldham is excellent news because, 1) Farage is just marginally less fit to be PM than Corbyn (but not much in it TBH), 2) This win makes it more likely that Labour will have Corbyn around until 2020 (but not 2021!)