Labour Party Conference

[subvert47]

I can't be bothered to bang on about this all night. What did you - or others - make of the conference?

I've not seen much of it. I'm a bit busy at the moment. I was surprised by the massive show of hands from CLP delegates in favour of the "neutral" Brexit position though. I expected the vote to be closer than that.

 

[subvert47]

Can you name a British politician in living memory who has this sort of public?


If that's not a personality cult then I don't know what is.

That chant is just funny. It's an affectionate cry of his name and it embarrasses him enormously. While also being a big fuck off to the media and all his other detractors, not least in the PLP.

Otherwise, yes, we do tend to be very protective of Corbyn. That's because he's the foot in the door which gives us the hope of real change for the first time in a generation or more. Anyone who stands in the way of that inevitably gets short shrift and questioned seriously about their motives.

But it's not actually about Corbyn himself. Someone else could be in the leadership for all that matters. It wouldn't make any difference. Whoever it was would then be relentlessly hounded instead. Because the target isn't Corbyn at all, it's the resurgent Labour movement and the prospect of a reforming socialist government.

 

[subvert47]

Subvert with the most dominant debate club performance since Vimothy gave hmg a Bitcoin lesson.

thanks

 

[Mr. Tea]

That chant is just funny. It's an affectionate cry of his name and it embarrasses him enormously. While also being a big fuck off to the media and all his other detractors, not least in the PLP.

Otherwise, yes, we do tend to be very protective of Corbyn. That's because he's the foot in the door which gives us the hope of real change for the first time in a generation or more. Anyone who stands in the way of that inevitably gets short shrift and questioned seriously about their motives.

But it's not actually about Corbyn himself. Someone else could be in the leadership for all that matters. It wouldn't make any difference. Whoever it was would then be relentlessly hounded instead. Because the target isn't Corbyn at all, it's the resurgent Labour movement and the prospect of a reforming socialist government.

I would certainly call Brexit "real change for the first time in a generation or more", so in a sense I totally agree with you!

But come on, Labour's chances of winning the next GE on the party's current trajectory are fucking negative. Corbyn's approval rating in opinion polls has consistently centred around -50% since the start of the year.

I find your insistence that it wouldn't make any difference who was in charge bizarre, when all the evidence points to an extremely widespread public antipathy to Corbyn himself. I'm pretty sure that if someone with exactly the same economic policies as Corbyn but who was unequivocally anti-Brexit and didn't come with offputting baggage such as the vile Milne was in charge then Labour would be stomping this disastrous Tory government into the dust - and in fact may already have done so in 2017.

 

[subvert47]

I find your insistence that it wouldn't make any difference who was in charge bizarre, when all the evidence points to an extremely widespread public antipathy to Corbyn himself.

Given that the "widespread public antipathy" is almost entirely created by endless biased negative coverage, changing the leader probably would make a difference to polling, for a short while anyway. That is until the media machine got rolling on whoever replaced him. It's not about Corbyn for them - or us. Ed Miliband was attacked for eating a sandwich wrong ffs. It's difficult to explain why Corbyn would be so unpopular otherwise. As a person he's pretty much your average kindly senior geography teacher.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Well if the media is such an insuperable obstacle then Labour should just call it a day and let the Tories rule forever.

 

[sufi]

Given that the "widespread public antipathy" is almost entirely created by endless biased negative coverage, changing the leader probably would make a difference to polling, for a short while anyway. That is until the media machine got rolling on whoever replaced him. It's not about Corbyn for them - or us. Ed Miliband was attacked for eating a sandwich wrong ffs. It's difficult to explain why Corbyn would be so unpopular otherwise. As a person he's pretty much your average kindly senior geography teacher.

Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock were similarly treated, but people have short memories

Blair broke that mould by getting in bed with Murdoch

 

[Mr. Tea]

Well if the media is such an insuperable obstacle then Labour should just call it a day and let the Tories rule forever.

^obviously flippant answer

Less flippant answer: Labour under Corbyn is fucked for as long as the grand battle plan remains "1: Whinge about the horrid unfair MSM. 2: See point 1." Corbyn is unpopular for tangible reasons. Labour has won general elections in the past and is capable of doing so again. Tony "Literally Satan" Blair won three on the trot because his policies appealed to a broad enough cross-section of the public to win a majority of seats in the Commons. It's that simple. Yes, the Sun supported him the first time around, it's true, but the honeymoon period didn't last long and he won another two elections after that.

Now obviously I'm not saying everything would be fine if we just had a Blair 2.0 in charge, but clearly Corbyn isn't doing much to inspire the general public, either.

 

[DannyL]

It's difficult to explain why Corbyn would be so unpopular otherwise.

There's the whole career long siding with the UK's enemies thing? Hamas, Hezbollah, the IRA, Iran, Russia .... Rights and wrongs of these issues aside, he has an instinctive bias against US and UK interests. I genuinely think he'd be a security risk if in the top job. The Skirpal poisoning is a case in point. Corbyn wanted to send the guys who did it a sample of the weapon they'd used! I foresee Trump-like briefing against his security service officials, should Labour succeed in getting in.

Re. the case shown in the clip I posted above. I don't think it's just worth me rehashing the same points over and over with increasing animosity. But 1400 died in that attack. The Russian misinformation campaign in its wake was huge. Corbyn plays a role in this strategy (unintentional, I'll grant) in helping launder the misinformation, giving it a veneer of credibility. You'd be outraged if someone from the govt benches was doing the same with say, the Saudis in Yemen. It's not a neutral fairhanded position, it's one taken as a counter to the interests of the UK.

 

[DannyL]

Just to pick up on this for earlier:

That Putin tells lies all over the place doesn't mean we can therefore implicitly trust US/UK intelligence and act accordingly.

This is absolutely key. Most of the propaganda I've seen around Syria and Russian interests therein (though not confined to that sphere of course) leverages this suspicion hugely and builds on our basic doubt and suspicions, the cynicism that exists towards our governments in a relative open democracy. It rests on amplifying these moments and creating a climate of complete distrust where the most inane conspiracies get airtime, rather than believe what's in "lying MSM". Idk what the solution is here, other than being generally better informed. I think open source intelligence data gathering techniques as practiced by Bellingcat Forensic Architecture and a growing number of others are the way forwards, though they'll do very little to take apart conspiracies once the fundamental belief is there, as it's essentially a faith-based position.

 

[DannyL]

I'm not convinced a bunch of the people who make noise about that actually care tbh. If it was genuinely about being too familiar and compliant with hostile groups and nations then they'd also be ripping the Tories for selling weapons to Saudi Arabia and the Russian money flowing through the party. There are even people on the right who criticise Corbyn for meeting Gerry Adams whilst giving Trump a free pass for attending a Sinn Féin fundraiser in '95.

There's no logical consistency anymore, if there ever was to begin with.

Good points. I didn't about Trump and Sinn Fein? Was he a supporter?

Though I'd counter - in Corbyn - you have all of these interests gathered in one person, and he's likely (? who fucking knows right now) to be PM.

The Russian money thing is very interesting I think but murky as well, and there's a difference between buying houses and sending your kids to school here and murdering your enemies - though the two seem to get intertwined. It's like a Pynchon novel. I imagine the money and the harm done working in apparently contradictory ways.

 

[DannyL]

Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock were similarly treated, but people have short memories

Blair broke that mould by getting in bed with Murdoch

Yeah, Gordon Brown ddin't exactly have a rosy time either did he? After the infamous "Brown bounce" (sounds disgusting). Technology has changed a lot since then though. I guess direct communication with your followers and a degree of siloing that follows is possible in a way that it wasn't then.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Yeah, Gordon Brown ddin't exactly have a rosy time either did he? After the infamous "Brown bounce" (sounds disgusting). Technology has changed a lot since then though. I guess direct communication with your followers and a degree of siloing that follows is possible in a way that it wasn't then.

Brown's fault was being a serious politician in an era when people have become used to media personalities in senior political roles. (He also wasn't much cop as PM, to be fair, but I think his downfall probably had at least as much to do with his obvious discomfort at being expected to behave like a game show host and curry the favour of the ignorant as it did with the reception of his actual policies. Obviously the media's role in this can't be overstated.)

 

[subvert47]

Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock were similarly treated, but people have short memories

Yes, but the level of sustained abuse Corbyn has faced is at another level entirely.

Tony "Literally Satan" Blair won three on the trot because his policies appealed to a broad enough cross-section of the public to win a majority of seats in the Commons. It's that simple.

Not really. Most current Labour policies are hugely popular. Blair won because a lot of the MSM abandoned the Tories as a corrupt shambles, and Blair wasn't so much of a threat to their interests. The vagaries of the electoral system also helped substantially. Labour's 40% in 2017 is only 0.7% below the 2001 result and 4.8% ahead of 2005.

There's the whole career long siding with the UK's enemies thing? Hamas, Hezbollah, the IRA, Iran, Russia .... Rights and wrongs of these issues aside, he has an instinctive bias against US and UK interests. I genuinely think he'd be a security risk if in the top job.

Bollocks. The fact that you name all those as "enemies" is already a distinctly partisan position. You don't get anywhere in diplomacy without talking to people. How do you think the Good Friday agreement came about?

It rests on amplifying these moments and creating a climate of complete distrust where the most inane conspiracies get airtime, rather than believe what's in "lying MSM".

Yes, but it's not quite so much about the MSM in this instance. The arena of distrust comes from the top, with politicians blatantly lying to further their own ends. Yes, politicians have always lied, but now they don't even bother to hide the fact. Trump and Johnson just lie and lie and lie. The fault of the MSM in this country is in not calling them to account, amplifying their lies (in the partisan press) or (in the case of the BBC) taking those lies as "one side" of an argument, when in fact they're just lies and should be exposed as such. Blair has had ample criticism of his own lies of course, but only in retrospect when it was far too late.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Surely it's hardly controversial to describe the IRA as "enemies of the UK"? I expect they'd happily describe themselves as such. Russia and Britain have been geopolitical rivals since the 19th century. And Iran has every reason to feel enmity towards the UK, given what happened in the 1950s. All of this is plain fact rather than a moral judgement.

Obviously Hamas and Hezbollah are more focused towards opposition to Israel but yeah, they probably don't have too rosy a view of the UK, all things considered.

 

[subvert47]

Surely it's hardly controversial to describe the IRA as "enemies of the UK"? I expect they'd happily describe themselves as such. Russia and Britain have been geopolitical rivals since the 19th century. And Iran has every reason to feel enmity towards the UK, given what happened in the 1950s. All of this is plain fact rather than a moral judgement.

Obviously Hamas and Hezbollah are more focused towards opposition to Israel but yeah, they probably don't have too rosy a view of the UK, all things considered.

No, "enemies" implies an adversarial position, those who must be opposed rather than those who can be talked to. That Corbyn would always rather do the latter makes him unsafe, a "security risk", someone who "sides with the enemy". This is playground politics.

Even the IRA, who were indeed adversaries, eventually came to an accord, once we'd abandoned (albeit only in private to begin with) the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" bullshit rhetoric. Yes, Corbyn was (and probably still is) in favour of a united Ireland, but that's a political viewpoint. Holding it is not the same as "treachery", "giving comfort to the enemy" and supporting bombing campaigns.

 

[DannyL]

Bollocks. The fact that you name all those as "enemies" is already a distinctly partisan position. You don't get anywhere in diplomacy without talking to people. How do you think the Good Friday agreement came about?

I think it's absolutely fine to call a state our enemy when that's what their actions show. Murdering British citizens with nerve agents, undermining democracy with continuous trolling.... yeah, those guys are the enemy. Someone who's shown career long sympathy for "their side" and whose instinct still appears to accept their lies, might not be the best person to have in No 10. And yes, diplomacy is absolutely about talking to people - but Corbyn was never a diplomat, he was a constituency MP so his views on the IRA and others were strictly personal, nothing to do with negotiating strategies or the UK's best interests.


My contention in this thread has been that the reason "the establishment" dislikes him isn't for any redistributive intentions, it's down to the geopolitical stances. I don't know if this is "true" absolutely but it's a suspicion I have.

To skip back a bit, you know that my position would be totally blown out the water if we'd had that one Tweet that Andrew Fisher is alleged to have resigned over? Speaking out on Russian bombing in Idlib. But still we wait.

 

[DannyL]

Incidentally, 'cos her name has been invoked by the worst PM in history, Jo Cox represented a strand of thinking in the Labour Party that I wish we saw more of. She was someone who was able to look at the horrors of Syria square on, not blinded or censored by ideology. Diana Abbott laid into her but I can't recall the exact quote off the top of my head.

Old but worth a read: https://www.newstatesman.com/world/...party-or-chris-williamson-s-it-cannot-be-both

 

[Mr. Tea]

No, "enemies" implies an adversarial position, those who must be opposed rather than those who can be talked to. That Corbyn would always rather do the latter makes him unsafe, a "security risk", someone who "sides with the enemy". This is playground politics.

You think Putin could be talked into not bombing Syrian hospitals if we, you know, asked him nicely enough?

You really think that?

To be honest I find it totally bemusing that Western progressives are prepared to look at Russia in any way that's not adversarial.

 

[DannyL]

The only way that this will stop that is the credible threat of military action. You will never get this while Trump is in power, theatrics of bombing empty airbases aside. Obvs a Corbyn govt would never back that under any circumstances. I have no idea what would help best out there at the moment. Cessation of bombing via the imposition of a No Fly Zone maybe but totally a pipe dream rn

Would be happy if anyone wanted to move the conversation onto Labour policies coming out of the conference. The Brexit thing seems a huge fudge but that aside - backing a green new deal? This is big news, surely? Was reading that to decarbonise the UK by 2030 is gonna be a huge task though. Wouldn't this mean a suspension of the 3rd runway at Heathrow, surely?

https://www.labourgnd.uk/