Corbyn - I don't get it

hungrymark

Myranda said:

Ro_S said:

Myranda said:

You have mentioned ... Transgender toilets twice now. 

You're of course referring to the non-issue that the American press and righ-wing nuts blew out of all proportion yes? 

The rules that mean a Female to Male trans person with a full beard and dressing like a trucker isn't forced to go into the ladys because someone is interested in what's I  his pants more than how comfortable people feel (including those around them)... Where the press decided that sex attacks would happen with men in drag... Forgetting apparently that sex-crimes are still crimes... And also that a straight man in a dress might be doubly embarrassed being arrested... 

Do you really think it's wrong to let people pee where they feel comfortable? Or are you for genital inspection at doorways into toilets? What would you do with a transsexual who looks very manly but has had reassignment surgery? Or the afformentioned FtM who looks like a trucker? 

People commit suicide over abuse from all over the LGBTQI spectrum, so is it unreasonable to try and mitigate that harm even slightly? 

If you don't think it's bad to try and help suicidal people WHY THE FUCK DO YOU KEEP BRINGING IT UP? 

I'm not interested in getting into a debate about transgender toilets.  That was exactly my point!

As long as someone doesn't pee on the toilet seat, I don't care much.

Besides, there already exists a type of transgender public toilet:  it's called the disabled toilet.

Disability access, rights and equality are far more a priority than transgender toilets.  Far more people are disabled than transgender or trans-sexual.

So you DO want to segregate trans people? You want them taking up the one disabled toilet so the disabled have to wait? Why do you dislike trans people so much? 

Are there any other harmless minorities you'd like to oppress? 

Did a one legged trans gypsy gay dwarf touch you once? 

That's funny, but ridiculous, @Myranda. That's clearly not what he wrote, or even insinuated, with the exception of the disabled toilet thing, which does admittedly seem like fudging the issue. 

Ro_S

Heartfeltdawn said:

Ro_S said:

How many British/Western gay men under the age of, say 70, have faced any of those things you listed (other than perhaps social stigma)?    

Answer:  None. 

When homosexuality was decriminalized in 1967, this only applied to England and Wales. Homosexuality wasn't decriminalized in Scotland until 1980 with the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act. Northern Ireland decriminalized homosexual acts in 1982. 

So it's fair to say that there are indeed British homosexuals under the age of 70 who suffered more than social stigma by virtue of the law telling them that they were committing an illegal act if they took it up the arse. 

I therefore conclude that your assertion is a load of shit. 

That doesn't contradict my principle, general point .  

Scotland is a small part of Britain population wise 

N. Ireland isn't part of Gt Britain.

Homosexual acts were little actively prosecuted in Gt Britain prior to 1967.

What about the rest of the West?   I also alluded to the rest of the West.  You don't mention that.  USA,  Canada, Western Europe, Scandinanvia.   When was gay sex decriminalised or no longer prosecuted in those places, uh?

Even if you take early 1980s for decriminalisation or active prosecution for all regions, how many British/Western gay men currently younger than 50 have faced any of those things the other poster listed (other than perhaps social stigma up to about the early 1990s) ?     

How many gay men over 50 get married?

ADMIN EDIT: Breaking a legal injunction puts this site at risk.

hungrymark

thomasw88 said:

hungrymark said:

I'm uncomfortable with the sort of personality cult that's arisen around him, although that's not really his fault. I know a few Corbyn fans and they will accept literally no criticism of him. Websites like The Canary, Another Angry Voice and Momentum, the rallies (he does seem to only like talking to people who agree with him, which is fine but not if you're trying to engage an electorate). The comments at Chakrabati's press conference about the lack of anti-semitism in Labour where he sort of, but not quite, compared Israel to ISIS were beyond parody, and although I accept that criticism of Israel isn't the same as anti-semitism it was a spectacularly misjudged statement under the circimstances. What an opportunity missed to stick the boot into the Tories too, his party makes them look cohesive and united. I find him a bit bizarre.

he didnt compare Israel to ISIS at all. What he said was that Israelis are no more to blame for the actions of Netanyahus government and than Muslims are to blame for ISIS. However the complete media meltdown afterwards didn't quite concentrate on that comparison..

I said 'he sort of, but not quite, compared Israel to ISIS', which is true. Perhaps a better word than 'compared' would have been 'equated'. The insinuation was that ISIS and Israel have both committed atrocities, which is doubtless true, and I agree with the statement taken on its own merits. However, to make that statement in that context - at a press conference aiming to demonstrate the absence of institutional anti-semitism by a party leader who has expressed sympathies with groups whose intention it is to destroy the Israeli state, which was set up, rightly or wrongly, as a Jewish homeland, and criticism of which is often misinterpreted as anti-semitism - was either fucking stupid or a sort of passive-aggressive provocation. 

Can I ask you this, @thomasw88, do you think that there are any actions or policies of Jeremy Corbyn that are worthy of legitimate criticism? 

Ro_S

Cirrus said:

Ro_S said:

Cirrus said:

I suppose if gay rights have now swung unfairly too far compared to hetrosexual rights, it's a small price to pay for all the imprisonment, criminalisation, social stigma, forced castrations and shame that gay people have had to live with for centuries. So I won't begrudge them it too much.

How many British/Western gay men under the age of, say 70, have faced any of those things you listed (other than perhaps social stigma)?    

Answer:  None. 

Are you sure, and is it your place to say?

Eh?     Is it my place to say?   What?   My point was not an opinion.   It was about facts:  the number of imprisonments, prosecutions and forced castrations to have occurred in a particular period in a particular region of the world.

Ro_S

p.s.

Gay sex was decriminalised around the 1960s in England/Wales, Germany, Norway, Canada and most of USA - and elsewhere I doubt it was enforced.   In France it was decriminalised around 1800.

Heartfeltdawn

Ro_S said:

That doesn't contradict my principle, general point .  

Scotland is a small part of Britain population wise 

N. Ireland isn't part of Gt Britain.

Homosexual acts were little actively prosecuted in Gt Britain prior to 1967.

What about the rest of the West?   I also alluded to the rest of the West.  You don't mention that.  USA,  Canada, Western Europe, Scandinanvia.   When was gay sex decriminalised in those places, uh?

1. Northern Ireland returns members to our parliament so she's under our wing in my book.
2. Scotland's size: irrelevant. 
3. Prior to 1967, they were in specific circles. 
4. Go and read about the US laws and when they were repealed. 

Ro_S

Heartfeltdawn said:

Ro_S said:

That doesn't contradict my principle, general point .  

Scotland is a small part of Britain population wise 

N. Ireland isn't part of Gt Britain.

Homosexual acts were little actively prosecuted in Gt Britain prior to 1967.

What about the rest of the West?   I also alluded to the rest of the West.  You don't mention that.  USA,  Canada, Western Europe, Scandinanvia.   When was gay sex decriminalised in those places, uh?

1. Northern Ireland returns members to our parliament so she's under our wing in my book.
2. Scotland's size: irrelevant. 

1.  ''our parliament''  is the UK parliament.   N. Ireland is not part of Great Britain. It's part of the UK.   Fact!  Thus, your original assertion was wrong.   you'll deny black is white.     

2.   Entirely relevant.  My point was about numbers.    Anyway, how many prosecutions were there in Scotland after 1967 ?

axisus

Heartfeltdawn said:

2. Scotland's size: irrelevant. 

They'd like us to think that, but we all know size matters.

jpttaylor

Pete Paphides, a Guardian columnist, posted a thead of tweets last night about how when Pulp started, if you'd have told their fans in the early years that Jarvis Cocker would become one of the greatest frontmen in 90's pop, they'd have told you to do one. It worked because a number of factors shifted into place and, crucially, he seized his moment. Corbyn had to do the same last year after he was elected because he would never have had time to bed himself in or build support. That was the time to strike, built momentum straight away. 

When Corbyn was added to the ballot in September last year, he was the only candidate that was willing to promote new, interesting ideas. His lack of formal political training compared to Burnham, Cooper and Kendall was a big plus to those that were bored of the stale state of British politics, and they promptly stuck two fingers up to the others.

If he'd have acknowledged his lack of experience and surrounded himself with those that knew how to operate against a hostile media, he may well have had a chance. Instead, he appointed John McDonnell and Seamus Milne in the hopes of doing things differently. I respect him for trying to create a "kinder, gentler" politics, but changes like that require both sides to agree, and god knows the Tories don't play fair.

Missing open goals and giving them an easy ride isn't how you change politics, especially when you have the right wing media after you. He could have nailed Cameron to the wall for his tax affairs at the start of the year, and didn't - ditto the issue of Europe, but he himself is a closet Eurosceptic and wouldn't do it. Even little things that suggest professionalism like an announcement on Theresa May yesterday were missed.

The problem now is that the initial criticism has hardened his supporters into borderline acolytes. Anyone now criticising him is automatically "Blairite scum" or in cahoots with the right. They've created a binary approach to left wing/centrist politics that doesn't help anyone and feed the "with us or against us" mentality. I respect the morals of many of them, but politics is about compromise and pragmatism. That's the only way to build a broad coalition of support than the two-party system in British politics demands in order to form a government. Clement Atlee was equally as left-wing as Corbyn yet much more willing to listen.

With respect to the Labour members (and I am one of them), you're supposed to be able to count on them for their support whatever. They number just over 500k, but it's the general public that elected a government, and god knows Corbyn and his supporters aren't popular with them. 

The "Blairite scum", along with the swing voters and the moderate/centrist Tories are the ones that will have to be bought on board to win an election. Corbyn and his team thought they could bring on board the 35% of people that didn't vote last year rather than win over swing voters. Trouble is, those people aren't interested in politics whatsoever and will never vote for anyone.

The Labour Party has to have a credible opposition ready to form a government at the time of an election, and as it stands they're a million miles away, and their problems go far beyond a lack of unity in the PLP. If Labour aren't interested in winning power, as the chair of Momentum suggested the other day, they cease to be the opposition and become a glorified pressure group. If an election was called tomorrow, they'd be obliterated.

tl:dr - he's not a leader, he's missed his moment.

octatonic

ICBM said:

I really wish that all that made him and Labour electable. My sad realisation is that it doesn't.


I felt the same about Bernie Sanders in the US, and he's now had the good sense to endorse Hillary Clinton. I don't like her, but she is capable of winning in November and he isn't, so there's no point in cutting off your nose to spite your face by sticking with him.


I don't think Eagle is the right leader for Labour either, by the way.

I agree 100%.
I admire him but I'm pragmatic about the realities of re-election.
Corbyn could potentially draw me back to Labour, but I also acknowledge that with him at the helm then Labour are sunk.

ICBM

jpttaylor said:

Clement Atlee was equally as left-wing as Corbyn yet much more willing to listen.

I've just been reading a good biography of Attlee - my opinion of him as Britain's greatest peacetime Prime Minister has only grown, seeing how he dealt with a deeply split party and still managed it well enough that it accomplished probably the boldest modernisation programme in British history. A long time ago I thought of him as almost an accidental reformer, more or less in charge of a party of real radicals but not one himself… I was wrong. He had strongly-held socialist principles but knew that compromise was necessary to achieve results, a consensus builder but also decisive when it mattered and although a quiet man, forceful enough to control much apparently stronger personalities. The quote wrongly ascribed to Churchill that he was 'a modest man with much to be modest about' is totally wrong, he was modest in manners but not in achievements.

We could do with someone of his stature now. Corbyn doesn't have anything like it unfortunately - worse, he could end up effectively destroying the Labour Party. The potential split is worse than it was even in 1981.

ToneControl

thomasw88 said:

hungrymark said:

I'm uncomfortable with the sort of personality cult that's arisen around him, although that's not really his fault. I know a few Corbyn fans and they will accept literally no criticism of him. Websites like The Canary, Another Angry Voice and Momentum, the rallies (he does seem to only like talking to people who agree with him, which is fine but not if you're trying to engage an electorate). The comments at Chakrabati's press conference about the lack of anti-semitism in Labour where he sort of, but not quite, compared Israel to ISIS were beyond parody, and although I accept that criticism of Israel isn't the same as anti-semitism it was a spectacularly misjudged statement under the circimstances. What an opportunity missed to stick the boot into the Tories too, his party makes them look cohesive and united. I find him a bit bizarre.

he didnt compare Israel to ISIS at all. What he said was that Israelis are no more to blame for the actions of Netanyahus government and than Muslims are to blame for ISIS. However the complete media meltdown afterwards didn't quite concentrate on that comparison..

if that's what he said,  it's clearly stupid. Israelis aren't responsible for their own government?

fretmeister

On Twitter some are saying that new labour members who joined since January are not eligible to vote!

Heartfeltdawn

fretmeister said:

On Twitter some are saying that new labour members who joined since January are not eligible to vote!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/new-labour-party-members-barred-8408288

Oops.

Ro_S

The NEC ruled in his favour, then.  'Was gonna be a legal challenge either way, imo.

This'll be fun.

Bellycaster

thomasw88 said:

maybe he just gets a bad press?

There's nowt wrong with a Corbyn Trouser Press

richardhomer

Bellycaster said:

thomasw88 said:

maybe he just gets a bad press?

There's nowt wrong with a Corbyn Trouser Press

Agreed - particularly if it's dismantled, as per Alan Partridge....

jpfamps

I have to admit I'm slightly amazed by Jeremy Corbyn's popularity.

He was only in the original leadership contest to make it look like there was a choice as there was little (in my view) to differentiate between the other candidates.

John McDonnell has been trying to take over the Labour Party with a left wing agenda for years (he twice put himself up for leader but failed to gain enough support from MPs), and Corbyn was a "useful idiot".

There is no evidence of any achievements in Jeremy Corbyn's career to date (either academically or politically), and he has never been really part of the Labour Party, but would see himself as of the "left".

He has been one of the most rebellious MPs when it comes to voting against Labour Party policy, and supported Tony Benn in a leadership challenge against Neil Kinnock who had been democratically elected to be leader, thus making it very difficult for him to engender loyalty from the PLP, regardless of his politics.

Interestingly, I've subsequently found out that 3 people I know have worked with / had dealings with Jeremy Corbyn over the years. None of them were particularly complimentary about his organizational skills, nor his critical thinking, and certainly would NOT want him in charge of anything.

There a cabal of left-wingers behind Corbyn (eg McDonnell, Seamus Milne), who want a show down with the PLP so that they can either get the "moderate" MPs to split from the Labour Party or they can deselect them. 

I really doesn't look very good for the Labour Party, and consequently the country as we will have no effective opposition.

ICBM

If Corbyn wins again I think we'll see a split sooner rather than later. The question would be whether the larger part of the PLP try to start a new party or whether they just cut out the 'SDP' step and join the Lib Dems as their predecessor of 35 years ago ended up doing. That would be an interesting result - it would instantly make the Lib Dems the official Opposition.

Whether they could morally do that without standing down and calling by-elections is a good question - technically they don't have to, because you vote for the MP personally and not the party. MPs have changed party without doing so before... none other than Winston Churchill for one - twice!

Heartfeltdawn

Even UKIP are having fun with new rules affecting leaders...

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-07-11/ukip-anger-over-new-rules-to-replace-nigel-farage/

Rumours are going around of unrest in the Green Party too. Someone left the lid off of the humus and it's gone a bit dry.