We'll see today. It's the debate about limiting the power of trades unions even more.

Also, the Tories are saying that he’s a threat to national security. Clearly he’s not really, or he’s have been arrested or droned by now, but we’re looking at a situation where the government will not have an opposition who is basically on the same page any more, and they don”t quite know what to make of it.

Labour have been “austerity light” for quite some time, to the point where they’ve even been abstaining because they’ve bought into the whole austerity thing (probably to appear to fit in with the Tore’s notion of what being “responsible with the economy” should look like). The reality is that Labour have been finding it hard to be an effective opposition - any opposition they have offered has been over minutiae of shared ideals.

A friend of mine, who is a hard and fast Tory (always has been) said that I’d know what his thoughts would be on Corbyn (not good, I can tell you, but he does have a keenness for the railways to be renationalised, so there’s hope). But he welcomes him. Why? Because he, like I, want to see the big ideas being debated. I’ve wanted to see a Labour not afraid of the Unions (in the same way that the Tories seem unafraid of big business, media moguls or the super rich), one that takes a different ideological position and who can argue their corner. This is something that the current Tory government have never really had to face, until today. We, the electorate, need to see that happen. We do, I believe quite firmly, feel that we have to have an alternative presented to us because right now, that choice has been denied us for some time.

Is Corbyn electable beyond his recent victory? I don’t know. Cameron seemed unelectable, but there he is. We’ll see how Corbyn handles the Unions debate today, and PMQs on Wednesday. However, the long haul will be the test, and, hopefully, those in the shadows of the Labour party won’t try anything stupid.

Which in the real scale of world history makes him 'moderately left of centre'.


You know, whether Corbyn is right or not, there's a faint whiff of McCarthyism about some of the accusations being made against him. He's not a 'fanatic' in any real sense of the word, he's just got different views to the prevailing opinion. ISIS are fanatics, they're burning people alive, raping people, committing genocide. Calling Corbyn (or McDonnell for that matter) fanatics is an insult to the people being murdered or fleeing for their lives from actual fanatics every single day. Get some sodding perspective.

The right now have to make a choice. Either Corbyn's unelectable in which case he's not a threat to anyone, or he is a threat which he can only be if he's eventually likely to get into power. Which is it going to be?


Quite so. Whether Corbyn has the right policies or not is a valid argument, but at least it means there'll be an argument being had about whether the policies we are currently implementing as a nation/society in a macro sense are the right ones. we'll have five years where the opposition will actually do the job it's supposed to be there to do.

Jon

In which case it's probably just as well that political left and right are not in any way defined by a scale of world history


Firstly, let me see if I've got this right:

1. Corbyn professes to be a socialist
2. Sen. McCarthy hunted down and destroyed the lives of communists
3. Socialism is a bit like communism
4. Public criticism is a little like hunting down and destruction
5. Anybody who criticises Corbyn is comparable to McCarthy

You may wish to look up the term "syllogistic fallacy".

Secondly,



Both Corbyn and McDonnell are, IMO, influenced by an excessive and mistaken, quasi-religious enthusiasm for certain policies e.g. QE for the People, re-nationalising the railways, praising the IRA etc. I am thusly correct in my use of the term "fanaticism". While ISIS are "burning people alive, raping people, committing genocide" and may also be termed "fanatics", you use an "if-by-whiskey" argument to conflate the two. One could equally well say that wearing black pyjamas and sporting a beard is an insult to people running from ISIS.

Thirdly, I seriously doubt that anybody who was really running from ISIS would be in any frame of mind to be insulted by my correct use of the word "fanaticism". Not only do they need to concentrate more fully on the matter at hand but, if they're that easily distracted, they're not likely to last long.

So what are they defined by? What Conservative Central Office or the Daily Mail editorial claims they are? I'd say defining them in terms of the continuum of previous examples is a pretty legitimate way of doing so, what's your better one?



Oh do [LIFTED] off. It's similar to McCarthyism in that it's applying the logic that apparently having a different opinion on how to do certain things now makes you 'a danger to the state', even though you've never threatened or harmed anyone. McCarthyism in this case given the direction of accusation (from the right towards the middle) rather than say what was done in China or Russia, which was a similar action but from the left towards the middle.

Take whatever name you like, the point is this : Jeremy Corbyn is not a threat or danger to the UK in any practical sense.

People who blow things up are a danger to the state and 'threat to your family's welfare'. People who want to get rid of trident or think we should spend more on infrastructure projects are just people who have a different view on stuff.


You actually thought that was a reasonable line of argument? Did you really? Doesn't sound callous at all, that.

Osborne isn't a fanatic in those terms either, but you gleefully describe him as such when it suits you.

The commonest definitions are usually variations on de Keyme's scale of political families, ranging from communist on the left to right-wing extremist.


McCarthyism wasn't caused by anything so cute as a dispute over ideas. It was driven by a frantic fear of the US being violently taken over by communists and thus following in the footsteps of Russia, China, South Korea and Indo-China. There was a real and tangible dread of capitalist governments being toppled by "reds" and being driven to nuclear war.

Not only that but McCathyism should actually be called "Hooverism" as it was J. Edgar who was the driving force behind the arrests, interrogations, split families, suicides and destroyed lives.

The only vague similarity between criticism of Corbyn and McCarthyism is that they are both actions you don't like against a part of the political spectrum you do like.


If one is of the opinion that our national security is provided, at least in part, by our membership of NATO and our possession of nuclear weapons, then anybody who wants to get rid of those is by definition a perceived threat to national security. And his threatening people is inherent in his intention to renationalise certain industries out of the hands of those who have invested.

Moreover, the leader of a major political party flirting with economic ideas that would inevitably cause inflation is most definitely a threat to the UK.


As opposed to accusing me of insulting the victims of ISIS?

Anyway, you seem perfectly happy to use words like "fanatic" and "evil" when you are applying them to George Osborne

A quote

"Dr. Luke March of the School of Social and Political Science at the University of Edinburgh, defines the "far left" in Europe as those that place themselves to the left of social democracy, which they see as insufficiently left-wing"

Since Corbyn defines himself as a social democrat, he's self identifying as not 'far left', therefore not at all 'fanatic' by any reasoned assessment. Of course you can take his opinion of what his own views are, or the opinion of people who very obviously don't agree with his views and have spent the last few weeks simultaneously claiming he's both a threat to national security and an unelectable joke.


Neither of those are a requirement of national security. France is not a member of NATO but is at no risk of invasion. The vast majority of European nations don't have nuclear weapons and equally aren't at apparent risk of invasion.

The only imminent and concrete threats to the population of the UK is islamic terrorism and having nukes hasn't stopped them; not in the UK, not in the USA, not in France, not in Pakistan and not in India. The large weight of evidence suggests nukes and NATO membership do nothing to protect you from the things that are actually likely to kill and injure your population. NATO was a solution to problem that no longer exists and given modern geopolitical reality never will again. I'm not against the idea that the developed nations have a way of acting in concert on military actions around the world as they become necessary but the idea NATO and Trident are all that's stopping Putin from parking a tank in Downing Street is beyond silly.

What will ensure our national security from those kind of threats we do face is a well equipped, well trained police force and conventional armed forces to back them up. Both of which our current administration is in the process of stripping of a large chunk of their funding. So who in fact is more of an actual threat to our national and societal security? The people who wants to get rid of massively expensive weapons we've never used and arguably never could use or the people who are stripping the resources from the ones who are actually out there protecting us from people who intend to do us harm?


'If I define his policy as a threat to national security, then he is a threat to national security'. Well, yes, that's impeccable logic. Just like if I define my aunt as having balls then she's my uncle.


'The value of investments can go down as well as up'. They bought into them knowing they could end up losing out. Unless of course the government sold public assets that were happily generating profit for significantly less than their true market value, thus guaranteeing shareholder return for the foreseeable future at the cost of massive losses to the taxpayer. Now, who on earth would do something as stupid as that?


Oh yeah, because inflation inevitably leads to societal collapse. You know, I remember a time when inflation in the UK hit 10%. That was when Norman Lamont was chancellor. That terrible communist and threat to everyone's security. Obviously at that point we were rioting, society failed and we ended up eating each other. I'm surprised it's slipped your mind. Some inflation is acceptable. Not a lot, but some. There's no compulsive proof 'people's QE' (a term I hate, btw) will cause over-running inflation. Japan is an obvious example - they've been trying to use government infrastructure investment to generate some inflation and it's pretty much failed to happen. And I don't think anyone would claim the Japanese economy is in the state where emergency measures are necessary.

Centralised banks funding infrastructure spending is a mechanism for lightly nudging the economy. It is also a mechanism for generating jobs and improving the general lot of the population. I think the latter is a fair return for a small amount of inflation. You disagree, that's fair enough. But to claim it will somehow tip the entire economy into the toilet and doing it is a threat to us as a society is ludicrous hyperbole. It's back to the 'there is no alternative' rhertoric that wasn't true then and certainly isn't true now. There is always an alternative.


I wouldn't use the word 'fanatic', I would use the word 'ideologue'. I don't think GO is actively fanatical, I just think he's almost entirely uncaring and has a supreme and unfounded confidence in his own abilities. And 'evil', well, I define people by their what I observe of their actions, not by what other people say about them.

Pressure on Labour over EU as union vote sounds alarm | Politics | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... are-eroded

Corbyn seems to have far more courage than most of those around him. He'd be better ignoring the dissenters in the meantime so they only look vague and focusing on building up a rep with the young members and unions while publicly sticking the boot into the Tories at every chance. He should utilise his supporters, it's his main strength.

It’s not like he’s completely surrounded himself with people that share his views. Yes, there are some, but he’s got a pretty broad spectrum of views in his party in his shadow cabinet. Such a bunch of people will clearly argue and disagree, but I’d hope that they’d come to a consensus that Corbyn will work to promote.

We are four days into his tenure as Labour leader, and the press loves a good conflict.

Anyway, PMQs today. He’s crowd sourced his questions.

Why do people keep referring to him as " the left wing MP" isn't everyone in labour meant to be lefties?

Relatively speaking yes however I guess you could say there's left and then there's left.
Corbyn generally speaking has views that are more left wing than a significant proportion of the parliamentary Labour party. For years, even decades, the 'centre' of politics in Britain has been drifting to the right.
That included the Labour party so anyone with genuinely more socialist views has been viewed as increasingly 'very left wing' by main stream political commentators and politicians as well.

Yes, New Labour (the Blair era) was basically Tory-lite, if you'll excuse the americanism.

A former advisor to Bill Clinton was on BBC’s Question Time once, and he said quite emphatically that all British (and indeed European) politics is left wing compared to American politics. It’s all relative.

That was probably true then but as has been said, the centre of British politics has shifted right over the last 20 years or so. I think Cameron in American terms is probably 'centre democrat' material. We still don't have very many actual nutbags like the TPM thank god.