CyclopsRock
Member
And this, from David Cowling:
That's why everyone wants Blair back!
That's why everyone wants Blair back!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK Labour Leadership Crisis: Corbyn retained as leader by strong margin
- Thread starter Hazzuh
- Start date
- Status
Sir_Crocodile
Member
I'm surprised at John Smith's net satisfaction ratings. Best leader Labour has had in my lifetime imo.
PJV3
Member
He was very cautious which a lot of people found frustrating, I agree with you though.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
He was seen as bungling the '92 opposition budget, and that would have been pretty fresh in the mind.
Fernando Fernandez
Member
I think I read it's £2.5k for every train that doesn't run, once you go over the limit of how many you're allowed before you get fined. However and this proves your point, the government earlier this year increased the allowance of cancelled trains they were allowed til fining - so who knows the cost!
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Ah, May 1993, you're right. I'd have thought the ERM farce would have helped, but maybe there was still resentment towards him that there was a tory government at all.
PJV3
Member
I forgot about the tax bombshell, I remember people moaning about the 'one more heave' stuff but that was perhaps more an internal Labour party complaint than general sentiment in the country.
worth quoting in full, because fucking hell
so many lies and mis-direction it makes me yearn for the integrity of vote leave
Sir_Crocodile
Member
I always just remember kinnock's "we're alright" and seaside escapades.
CyclopsRock
Member
I think my favourite is...
"The old way of doing politics has failed triangulation and electioneering without a serious strategy to win power cost Labour the last two General elections."
Uhuh.
PJV3
Member
The problem I had with triangulation was the constant shift rightwards as the party reinforced that view in the country, instead of using compromise to shift the debate eventuallyleftwards.
Like the Libdems pretending to be conservative during the coalition, it just rots away the base of the party.
i enjoy the suggestion that the blair years were really an electoral failure because three million votes were lost over time, whereas that serial winner corbyn has won by-election after by-election (in safe seats)
JonathanEx
Member
NEC's won the appeal to stop new members voting in the election. On the plus side for Labour, they now won't have to repay millions in £25 membership. On the negative side, if Corbyn loses, it'll look like a fix which won't help at all.
He won't
Memento Mori
Member
Exactly. Lodging an appeal to exclude those extra members just looks desperate.
JonathanEx
Member
Yes to be fair I did leave out that factor, which is the most important
RE: the NEC's dates freeze. While I agree it's a shambles it's my impression that a) the NEC had a small pro-Corbyn majority so they could have blocked it if they wanted to, b) there is no basis to suggest that pro-Corbyn members were unaware that it would be discussed. Ann Black (who was just re-elected after being endorsed by Momentum) said as such:
So the Corbynista attacks on the NEC are misguided imo.
So the Corbynista attacks on the NEC are misguided imo.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, I think triangulation in the long term did some real damage. Blair always tried to stay between the Labour Party average and the Conservatives, but the Conservatives remained constant 'til Cameron while Labour drifted in Blair direction, so the overall spectrum just got pushed to the right permanently. That shapes how national discourse happens in turn, and I think overall hurt Labour more than it helped. Focus groups and constituency targeting have their purpose, as does knowing how to compromise, by triangulation purely for the purpose of selling yourself as a "the truth lies in the middle" kind of guy was not a (long term) winner.
Despite my praise for Blair's electability earlier, I think there's definite merit in the argument that by the half way point he had moved too far to the right as a constant reaction against the Labour Party. Reading throw the various diaries, and it seems that by the time of the Iraq war decision he had reached the point where if the Labour Party base supported something, he was automatically against it - and visa versa. So all the protests against Iraq convinced him he was right because to him it was all clause 4 again.
Of course, as crab outlines, in reality the labour base had moved right with him. But he never got out of the mindset that he was always at risk from the far left base.
Of course, as crab outlines, in reality the labour base had moved right with him. But he never got out of the mindset that he was always at risk from the far left base.
Ladies and gentlemen. Presenting Labour's Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry.
https://twitter.com/rhodri_jones/status/764795970227937280
https://twitter.com/rhodri_jones/status/764795970227937280
Jezbollah
Member
Also, presenting Corbyn's costing of the rail re nationalization
https://twitter.com/5_News/status/765484306797953028
https://twitter.com/5_News/status/765484306797953028
What is Owen Smith's electability in comparison?
CyclopsRock
Member
His argument is that you don't renew contracts thus cost = 0.
Neglecting the cost of the rolling stock etc that is all privately owned. It would cost billions. To say it would cost nothing is being wilfully disingenuous.
Owen Smith on ISIS:
Calling this man a clown barely scratches the surface.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPGW9tjeWF0
Calling this man a clown barely scratches the surface.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPGW9tjeWF0
Calling him a clown is sullying the name of all other clowns out there. This guy is something else
What has he said here that is wrong? Name a single war that has not ended in negotiations. (Just talking about the bit you quoted)
Whilst it's probably a dumb thing to be saying right now - he is right. Unless we are planning to genocide part of the Middle East, at some point we will have to negotiate with some of these people. That's not to say we don't fight them now. That's not to say they aren't held accountable for their crimes, and punished appropriately. That's not to say there isn't justice and freedom for their victims.
But ultimately, ultimately, we will have to talk. Same as we did in Northern Ireland, despite the murders and bombings and targeting of civilians they engaged in. Because in the end that's the only way to bring peace - you can't kill every single person who opposes you.
ultratruman
Banned
He's out of his depth, this is clear to everyone except him. Why the fuck were Eagle and Smith the only challengers?
What's the alternative? Are you honestly planning to kill thousands of people, some of whom will have been serving out of fear and terror?
I'm not saying go give them a hug. Right now they need crushing as soon as possible, to protect the people they are enslaving and murdering. But at some point we will have to sit on the other side of the negotiating table with people who are criminals and who were part of ISIS. That's just how this will end - it's how it always ends.
ultratruman
Banned
In the Hague, maybe.
Coriolanus
Banned
Only ones stupid enough to do it.
We might (fiercely) disagree on many matters, but this is quite likely true. Not very diferent from recognizing that there will be no long term Afghan solution that doesnt involve the Taliban.
Those people aren't in charge and wouldn't be around a negotiating table so that idea falls apart.
Boom.
But they would be. If the fanatical leaders are taken out, ultimately you will be left talking to someone.
Look at the fall of Nazi Germany, despite the leaders being execute/fleeing/dying, the remaining Nazis eventually had to be engaged with in Talks.
i'm also not saying its a good move to be talking about this now. It isn't, politically - it's dumb. Its part of a silly swerve to the left he feels he has to do to compete with Jeremy but will make him totally unelectable to the greater population.
But even when the current leaders are killed, or put on trial at the Hague, in the end you *will* have to negotiate with people who were part of the regime. We had to do the same with Nazi Germany. We did it with Japan. It's not an ideological question - either you commit to 100% murdering of every person ever involve with the regime, or you at some point have to sit down opposite them. It sucks but that's how peace is achieved. Every conflict of the modern era has taught us that.
But even when the current leaders are killed, or put on trial at the Hague, in the end you *will* have to negotiate with people who were part of the regime. We had to do the same with Nazi Germany. We did it with Japan. It's not an ideological question - either you commit to 100% murdering of every person ever involve with the regime, or you at some point have to sit down opposite them. It sucks but that's how peace is achieved. Every conflict of the modern era has taught us that.
To be fair, arguing that it's ever appropriate to fully dismiss the *possibility* of diplomatic solution to a problem is pretty moronic.
Smith drew an analogy to the NI peace process so that's not what he meant. The only "negotiating" we'd be doing with ISIS would be after completely dismantling them as an organisation and a military force. We'd be negotiating their surrender.
The left has no appetite for negotiating with ISIS. He's finished.
CyclopsRock
Member
Yup. Or, rather, the guys at the top (so that the ones serving out of fear and terror don't have to serve any more). I don't think it's really, genuinely, possible to have meaningful dialogue with people who steal children so they can sell them as sex slaves. This isn't the IRA, this isn't even Hezbollah or the PLO. These guys have a goal which goes beyond "nothing" and that's too much to give them - so where do you negotiate from there? There need to be two things happening to stop Isil, IMO:
1) Stop their funding, whether that's Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Dark Net drug trafficking, child sex slave markets, whatever. Some of this will have around-the-table, negotiating aspects to it.
2) A lot of bullets in a lot of heads. I don't really care if it's from a Kurdish SVD, an American A10, British special forces or self immolation. Their goals are fundamentally incompatible with any form of justice that exists, both here and in the middle east. Like Corbyn, those motherfuckers have to go. Leave it so there's no one left to negotiate with.
Point #1 is a purely preventative measure to try to stop it happening again in the future.
That's what people said too when the serbs were destroying sarajevo and kosovo. It led to massacre after culminating in the serbrenica massacre.
I am not suprised some people think negotiating with killers is good to go. There are some within GAF who think we should negotiate with bashar al assad inspite of this guy killing more arabs than israel itself.
Then again we all so how some folks wanted to negotiate with hitler too while he was busy gassing jews
CyclopsRock
Member
Assad is a monster, but at least he's a rational state actor, for the most part. If you can make the alternative to whatever concessions and demands you're making worse than the concessions and demands, he'll bow (we just haven't done that). With Isil, any such worsening of conditions would make no difference, given their religious fervour and desire to literally die in the name of their faith. There are no circumstances in which reliable peace can be brought about so long as they're still alive (unlike Assad).
Yes. So?
Yes. So?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked