Comrade Corbyn is a commie 'thorn' in the UK's side - discuss.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Kilkrazy**

The anti-ISIS air campaign and Cameron's overnight U turn regarding Syrian refugees show he is rather pliable on issues that attract public and media attention and can be headed off quite easily by by ensuring that something is seen to be done.

**grrrfranky**

As my brother mentioned to me,one of the big drivers behind the UK bombing Syria is us keeping the French on side. With a lot of joint defence projects, sending a few planes to join in is a small price to pay to keep them happy.

**Kilkrazy**

It's a gesture of support, to be sure, but I don't really see the French kicking BAe out of the Airbus consortium because we refused to send some planes to bomb Syria. It isn't their decision alone, anyway.

Remember the amount of resistance the French put up to Gulf War 2 (rightly, IMO) ?

**Da Boss**

I don't recall that the French joined you guys in Iraq after 7/7.

**AlexHolker**

Ketara wrote:
Alexholker raised earlier that 'force' worked on the Nazi's. This is incorrect. 'Force' alone ended WW1, but did little to resolve the social and economic issues raised in the interwar period. What truly eliminated the Nazi's was a combination of prolonged occupation, large amounts of wealth infused into the economy immediately afterwards, an effective cultural genocide undertaken towards the concept of Nazism, and a large enemy (the Soviets) to rally against.

Even before the denazification of Germany started, Hitler himself denounced Nazi Germany as a failure that had forfeited its right to exist as a nation. Hitler. That is what force alone did to Nazism.

**obsidianaura**

The country voted in the election and showed it wanted a more right wing/conservative government.

Labour was accused of being too much like the Tories and gave of an air of incompetence. People would ask Labour MP hopefuls what their manifesto was and they just didn't know.

So the Conservatives won and Labour decides that it needs to be more distinct from the Tories.

They seem to be suffering an identity crisis, they've elected a left wing leader but aren't truly a left wing party.

They aren't coming across as a united party and aren't really able to challenge the Tories. They were happy to claim credit for the tax credits defeat, but it wasn't anything that they did that stopped it. If anything it was the Lib Dems in the House of Lords. I didn't agree with the way the tax credits were handled it was a mistake and deserved to be shut down but I don't really agree with how it was done.

Right now peoples wages are going up, unemployment is coming down, taxes are down but more tax revenue is being received. Things appear to be getting better rather than worse.

People who voted for the Conservative government aren't going to be looking to try Labour any time soon.

I don't think Corbyn is anything to worry about. Labour doesn't have enough seats and a third of those seats don't look like they agree with him. His advantage is that the SNP will most likely side with him on anything against the conservatives but even with the recent vote on Syria and all 55 SNPs against it he wasn't successful

My prediction for the next election is that the Conservatives will win but will have a similar number of seats as it does now.

I think that Labour will definitely lose seats to the Lib Dems and possibly gain 1 or 2 seats from green party voters. But the result will be that Labour has less seats than it has right now.

Corbyn will be made to resign as leader and then Labour will go back to be a more centrist political party.

**Herzlos**

obsidianaura wrote:
The country voted in the election and showed it wanted a more right wing/conservative government.

Bits of it did

Anyway, Labour has always (IMHO) has the air of saying whatever is required to get votes under Milliband; like they'd no idea what they were doing or having any ideals to stick to. Not that the Tories are any better in terms of knowing what to do but they don't seem to change their stance much from the "punish the poor" approach. Last election Labour really suffered from just being "Red Tories".

**Kilkrazy**

The Conservatives scored only about 25% of the electorate, about 36% of votes cast. This is not a ringing mandate.

The reason Cameron is PM is because of the first past the post system.

**Muhr**

Mr. Burning wrote:
Link for all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3351720/Corbyn-s-Christmas-party-speech-lacks-festive-cheer-Labour-leader-stuns-guests-festive-bash-quoting-Albanian-dictator-Enver-Hoxha.html

Jeremy Corbyn quoted the words of a Communist dictator of Albania at Labour's Christmas party last night.
The hard-left Labour leader dismayed attendees at the staff party when he quoted the words of Enver Hoxha, blamed for the deaths, torture and imprisonment of 100,000 Albanians.
The outrage comes just weeks after John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, quoted from Chairman Mao's Little Red Book in the Commons chamber.

Hoxha was chairman of the Democratic Front of Albania and commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces from 1944 until his death in 1985.
In his speech to staff, Mr Corbyn said Hoxha had been a 'tough ruler'.
He went on to use the dictator's phrase that 'this year will be tougher than last year'.

I don't like Corbyn or what he stands for but quoting Hoxha for humorous intent is hardly endorsing the murder of tens of thousands of your own citizens. Ill advised at best. But one thing Corbyn doesnt have is a staff of spin doctors sculpting his every word.

The only outrage here is created by the Daily Mail.

Thanks for the link. I can't facilitate a link to the article because I'm using my Kindle Fire.

**obsidianaura**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The Conservatives scored only about 25% of the electorate, about 36% of votes cast. This is not a ringing mandate.

The reason Cameron is PM is because of the first past the post system.

It'd would have won under either system plus UKIP would be the 3rd largest party... the horror

**notprop**

Which wont be changing, will it?

**Kilkrazy**

obsidianaura wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
The Conservatives scored only about 25% of the electorate, about 36% of votes cast. This is not a ringing mandate.

The reason Cameron is PM is because of the first past the post system.

It'd would have won under either system

Under a more proportional system Cameron would have needed to include a large number of coalition partners in his Cabinet. If unable to form a working coalition, he could have formed a minority government, or called another general election.

**Mozzyfuzzy**

Kilkrazy wrote:
obsidianaura wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
The Conservatives scored only about 25% of the electorate, about 36% of votes cast. This is not a ringing mandate.

The reason Cameron is PM is because of the first past the post system.

It'd would have won under either system

Under a more proportional system Cameron would have needed to include a large number of coalition partners in his Cabinet. If unable to form a working coalition, he could have formed a minority government, or called another general election.

Imagine it, a government where they actually have to work together, the absolute horror, I'm glad we have a system in place that allows for the potential to swap between left/right every 5 years, that on't impact anything at all.

Also sarcasm.

**Ketara**

AlexHolker wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Alexholker raised earlier that 'force' worked on the Nazi's. This is incorrect. 'Force' alone ended WW1, but did little to resolve the social and economic issues raised in the interwar period. What truly eliminated the Nazi's was a combination of prolonged occupation, large amounts of wealth infused into the economy immediately afterwards, an effective cultural genocide undertaken towards the concept of Nazism, and a large enemy (the Soviets) to rally against.

Even before the denazification of Germany started, Hitler himself denounced Nazi Germany as a failure that had forfeited its right to exist as a nation. Hitler. That is what force alone did to Nazism.

If it were that simple, every Nazi would have ceased to be one the minute the German Government surrendered. In reality, the racist and facist tenets that nazism embodied would quite possibly (and probably)have continued to prevail among the German populace regardless if we had done as we did after WW1, and just handed them a bill and left. The same applies for the racist and militaristic cultural tendencies that had taken grip of Japan in that era.

To hammer the point home, America used force to conquer Iraq. All that resulted however, is the situation we see today. Force, whilst capable of dethroning a government and seizing territories, is incapable of killing ideas. To do so requires either physical genocide (killing those who hold them), cultural genocide (brainwashing the descendants of those who follow them whilst suppressing them vigorously in the short-term) , or the passage of time (because ideologies are a bit like fashion, they mutate, grow, and are gradually supplanted as time progresses).

**Silent Puffin?**

AlexHolker wrote:

Even before the denazification of Germany started, Hitler himself denounced Nazi Germany as a failure that had forfeited its right to exist as a nation. Hitler. That is what force alone did to Nazism.

Nazism still exists. All that force does against opposing ideologies, assuming that it is successful in terms of military victory, is drive whatever elements it was combating underground and out to the fringes where it could be potentially more dangerous.

When applied correctly force most certainly has its place against the likes of Daesh but it can only ever be of any meaningful use as part of a coherent and well resourced whole. Chucking a few bombs will never be more than an irritation against an organisation as entrenched and organised as Daesh and it feeds into their 'Us Vs the Infidels' narrative.

**Peregrine**

AlexHolker wrote:
Even before the denazification of Germany started, Hitler himself denounced Nazi Germany as a failure that had forfeited its right to exist as a nation. Hitler. That is what force alone did to Nazism.

{citation needed}

Did Hitler denounce Nazi ideology as a failure and repent of his crimes, or did he merely blame Germany for losing the war and betraying Nazi ideology? Bombing Germany sufficiently that Hitler says "you losers have failed to defend our racial purity, you forfeit your right to exist" is hardly a stunning success.

**AlexHolker**

Silent Puffin? wrote:
Nazism still exists. All that force does against opposing ideologies, assuming that it is successful in terms of military victory, is drive whatever elements it was combating underground and out to the fringes where it could be potentially more dangerous.

How many people did Nazis kill in the six years between 1939 and 1945? How many people did Nazis kill in the sixty years between 1945 and 2005? Tell me, which one do you think was more dangerous?

Peregrine wrote:
AlexHolker wrote:
Even before the denazification of Germany started, Hitler himself denounced Nazi Germany as a failure that had forfeited its right to exist as a nation. Hitler. That is what force alone did to Nazism.

{citation needed}

Look up the Nero Decree. I haven't found an online cite that spells out that this was an act of self-loathing on a national scale and not simply spite, but the act itself is well known.

Did Hitler denounce Nazi ideology as a failure and repent of his crimes, or did he merely blame Germany for losing the war and betraying Nazi ideology? Bombing Germany sufficiently that Hitler says "you losers have failed to defend our racial purity, you forfeit your right to exist" is hardly a stunning success.

Does it matter? Everything the Nazis stood for, Hitler tried to destroy. The Allies' plan to cripple Germany's capacity to act as a nation for a century to come, Hitler tried to do himself. He and dozens of Nazi Party members committed suicide, including dozens of generals and 11 admirals.

If we found out tomorrow that Abu Bakr and his leadership had committed seppuku and detonated the booby traps they have set throughout ISIL territory, I would call that a success, even if they did not first denounce any future attempts to establish the caliphate. If they die believing that they did the right thing, I don't care, they're dead.

**Vaktathi**

It wasn't just raw naked force that did these things. The German nation was basically rebuilt from the ground up and occupied for decades to become an entirely difference society over many years. It wasn't just a "oh, well they lost, now they're different" thing. It took many years of occupation and social engineering. Force was a tool to get things to a point where other tools could enact change, but on its own, force didn't destroy the Nazi ideology.

As for Hitler's statements regarding if Nazi Germany had a right to exist or whatnot, we're talking about someone who likely had several physical and mental health issues and a substance abuse problem coupled with an extreme social darwinist worldview, I wouldn't put too much stock in his late-life rantings.

**Grey Templar**

Of course, we did have a huge vested interest in occupying Germany after the war. If the Cold War hadn't been a thing Germany might not have gotten rebuilt as it did. Really Germany was only rebuilt because we needed to rebuild it in the face of Communism. The fact that it made Germany stable was really secondary in the face of that.

Without the USSR looming over the area, I doubt we would have occupied or put as much effort into rebuilding Germany.

**Vaktathi**

Grey Templar wrote:
Of course, we did have a huge vested interest in occupying Germany after the war. If the Cold War hadn't been a thing Germany might not have gotten rebuilt as it did. Really Germany was only rebuilt because we needed to rebuild it in the face of Communism. The fact that it made Germany stable was really secondary in the face of that.

Without the USSR looming over the area, I doubt we would have occupied or put as much effort into rebuilding Germany.

Germany being prosperous and stable was important for just about everyone. Having a ruined wasteland in the middle of Europe wasn't going to do anyone any good. Everyone wanted that great economic engine back in gear to restart trade and pay reparations. Beyond communism, there were tons of economic reasons for the rebuilding effort. One might make the claim that the "oomph" of foreign aid might not have been quite as extensive in some aspects, but overall, mot everyone wanted Germany rebuilt, if for nothing else than to pay reparations, but really it was (as it is today) the economic center of Europe, not only producing lots of stuff but sitting in the middle of a bunch of trade routes across the continent.

**Silent Puffin?**

AlexHolker wrote:

How many people did Nazis kill in the six years between 1939 and 1945?

They still exist however. Fundamentalist Islam has been under armed attack for decades to varying degrees, including being routinely and comprehensively beaten on the open battlefield. If anything it is stronger now than it ever has been.

Force most certainly has a role, but it is only a part of the much bigger whole that will be required to beat Daesh and which ever group of nutter that will rise from its ashes, and then the next group, and the next etc etc etc..

**Peregrine**

AlexHolker wrote:
Look up the Nero Decree. I haven't found an online cite that spells out that this was an act of self-loathing on a national scale and not simply spite, but the act itself is well known.

Lol what? Since when is "destroy everything as you retreat so that the enemy can not capture it and use it against us" the same as "Hitler denounced Nazi ideology"?

Does it matter? Everything the Nazis stood for, Hitler tried to destroy. The Allies' plan to cripple Germany's capacity to act as a nation for a century to come, Hitler tried to do himself. He and dozens of Nazi Party members committed suicide, including dozens of generals and 11 admirals.

Of course it matters, because your claim was that bombing and invading Germany did anything to stop Nazi ideology. Hitler never, as far as we know, abandoned his racist beliefs. And he committed suicide because the Soviets probably would have tortured him to death once they took Berlin, not because he felt that he deserved to die for his crimes.

If we found out tomorrow that Abu Bakr and his leadership had committed seppuku and detonated the booby traps they have set throughout ISIL territory, I would call that a success, even if they did not first denounce any future attempts to establish the caliphate. If they die believing that they did the right thing, I don't care, they're dead.

Yes, and shortly after they die someone else will take their place. Which is the whole point I'm trying to make, individual people are irrelevant and what matters is the ideology they represent. If we kill a bunch of Bad People and just move ISIS elsewhere under a different name (with plenty of eager recruits thanks to all the people we killed) then we haven't accomplished very much.

**ExNoctemNacimur**

Muhr wrote:
ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Muhr wrote:
I'll start by coming straight out and just saying it: I HATE this man with a passion! He wishes to rid the UK of its nuclear deterrent and his party has a Maoist streak running through it which puts the Grand Canyon thoroughly to shame. His pacifistic proclivities often manifest as terrorist-sympathetic tantrums that strongly condemn the actions of our military and our allies in the war on terror while simultaneously being an apologist for ISIS' murdering of our citizens.

You don't know what Maoism is, do you?

And has the War on Terror been anything but a massive drain on resources and an incomprehensible failure?

I confess that I'm certainly no expert on Maoism, but I know that Corbyn's inner circle have very anti-establishment tendancies. The Socialist Worker Party and Unite's Red Len often say outrageous things that no sane person would agree with. If I'm honest it's numerous sources I've read that have claimed that a Maoist streak runs through Corbyn's party. Upon reading that I heard about Diane Abbott (I think her name is) saying that she thought Chairman Mao did more good than harm. Then there was yet another MP (I think it was a fella named McDonell, though I may be mistaken in the actual name) who threw a copy of Chairman Mao's little red book across the Despatch Box for George Osbourne to pick up. He said that Osbourne could benefit from the wisdom found in its pages.

I've gone out of my way to try and be more reasonable with you guys but you still seem determined to be condescending towards me. If you've read my earlier discussions with certain other contributors you'll see how I/we worked out how not to be as catty with each other. I'd appreciate it if you afforded the same courtesy.

Yes the War on Terror certainly has been a huge drain on resources, I agree with you on that, but does that mean we should just give up? I've no idea how we could best combat the mess we now find ourselves in. ISIS seem to be similar to the Alpha Legion - you cut one head off, two grow back in its place, but we can't NOT fight them because they're hell bent on seeing us destroyed. The ONLY way I can see how we'll stop them is by force of arms carefully applied, which is precisely why Corbyn isn't the man for the top job - he's a pacifist who simply wouldn't ever give the order to fight back. He'd try negotiating and reasoning with ISIS, and I think we all know how far that would get us...

Radical Islam is a cancer that MUST be stopped, but exactly how we could best do that escapes me; however, that doesn't mean we should declare our effort a failure and just give up.

Objectively, Mao did do more good than bad- as a theorist, he developed the concepts of guerilla war that were used in Vietnam, defeated a failed regime and strengthened China after a hundred years of weakness and division. Any leftist should know what Mao wrote as well as what Marx, Lenin, Luxemburg, Kropotkin and Bakunin wrote. It's not surprising that he read it. Doesn't mean he's a Maoist. It was a joke anyway.

Maoism is a form of Marxism-Leninism that emphasises the fact that the peasantary too is a revolutionary class, not just the proletariat. It discusses the third world, anti-Imperialism, permanent revolution and the community. Corbyn's Labour don't want to do that, nor do they want to nationalise the economy or give the means of production to the workers to form workers councils.

The reason why radical Islam is prominent is because other forms of political expression have been crushed, thanks to western intervention crushing the radical left. Couple that with alienation and poor material conditions, you have a recipe for disaster. So you invade IS territory - what then? They're not going to disappear. Most of the top officers are ex baathist anyway, who've been around for 12 years in hiding.

Why not try negotiating? It worked in Northern Ireland with much more popular and better funded organisat ions.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You've also totally misrepresented McDonell's point. You can find the video on YouTube, see for yourself.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
The SWP also isn't associated with Corbyn.

**Ketara**

ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

Objectively, Mao did do more good than bad- as a theorist, he developed the concepts of guerilla war that were used in Vietnam, defeated a failed regime and strengthened China after a hundred years of weakness and division.

You believe these gains are 'objectively' worth more than the lives of 40,000,000 people?

I think you need to look up the meaning of the word 'objective', because morally speaking, the opposite would generally appear to be true, and objectively, neither could be stated to be superior, as the inherent value in any of those achievements is predicated upon the subjective judgement values of the person doing the assessing.

**ExNoctemNacimur**

Ketara wrote:
ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

Objectively, Mao did do more good than bad- as a theorist, he developed the concepts of guerilla war that were used in Vietnam, defeated a failed regime and strengthened China after a hundred years of weakness and division.

You believe these gains are 'objectively' worth more than the lives of 40,000,000 people?

I think you need to look up the meaning of the word 'objective', because morally speaking, the opposite would generally appear to be true, and objectively, neither could be stated to be superior, as the inherent value in any of those achievements is predicated upon the subjective judgement values of the person doing the assessing.

40 million is veering on the higher end on the number of deaths caused by Mao, and anyway, these deaths were arguably caused by mismanagement rather than a Maoist scheme to murder people - the deaths weren't by design. Assume that 40,000,000 is true - how many millions of lives were improved by Maoist policies, especially in comparison to how someone would have lived in Imperial China or under the Nationalist regime, in a country of hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people? Then consider the effect of Maoism elsewhere. Maoist guerilla tactics were used to great effect against both French and American forces in Vietnam and they helped liberate the people of Nepal. Currently, Kurdish forces in Syria are using modified tactics in their attempt to establish an Anarchist, self governing region.

Though it's true that there's no such thing as absolute truth. I suppose it depends on what you prioritise.

**Mr. Burning**

ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Ketara wrote:
ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

Objectively, Mao did do more good than bad- as a theorist, he developed the concepts of guerilla war that were used in Vietnam, defeated a failed regime and strengthened China after a hundred years of weakness and division.

You believe these gains are 'objectively' worth more than the lives of 40,000,000 people?

I think you need to look up the meaning of the word 'objective', because morally speaking, the opposite would generally appear to be true, and objectively, neither could be stated to be superior, as the inherent value in any of those achievements is predicated upon the subjective judgement values of the person doing the assessing.

40 million is veering on the higher end on the number of deaths caused by Mao, and anyway, these deaths were arguably caused by mismanagement rather than a Maoist scheme to murder people - the deaths weren't by design. Assume that 40,000,000 is true - how many millions of lives were improved by Maoist policies, especially in comparison to how someone would have lived in Imperial China or under the Nationalist regime, in a country of hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people? Then consider the effect of Maoism elsewhere. Maoist guerilla tactics were used to great effect against both French and American forces in Vietnam and they helped liberate the people of Nepal. Currently, Kurdish forces in Syria are using modified tactics in their attempt to establish an Anarchist, self governing region.

Though it's true that there's no such thing as absolute truth. I suppose it depends on what you prioritise.

Fanatical adherence to his own tenets and fear of working against Maoist teachings inspite of evidence to the contrary (starvation as an example). Mao and his crony's were responsible for more than mismanagement their ideals caused death by design.
Mao and Stalin are very much in the same vein,

**Kilkrazy**

Which one is Corbyn more like, Mao, Stalin or perhaps Hitler?

Or manbe Ghengis Khan is his role model.

**notprop**

Nah, he's his own brand of fruit cake, just with some of the other nuts thrown in.

**ExNoctemNacimur**

Mr. Burning wrote:
ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Ketara wrote:
ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

Objectively, Mao did do more good than bad- as a theorist, he developed the concepts of guerilla war that were used in Vietnam, defeated a failed regime and strengthened China after a hundred years of weakness and division.

You believe these gains are 'objectively' worth more than the lives of 40,000,000 people?

I think you need to look up the meaning of the word 'objective', because morally speaking, the opposite would generally appear to be true, and objectively, neither could be stated to be superior, as the inherent value in any of those achievements is predicated upon the subjective judgement values of the person doing the assessing.

40 million is veering on the higher end on the number of deaths caused by Mao, and anyway, these deaths were arguably caused by mismanagement rather than a Maoist scheme to murder people - the deaths weren't by design. Assume that 40,000,000 is true - how many millions of lives were improved by Maoist policies, especially in comparison to how someone would have lived in Imperial China or under the Nationalist regime, in a country of hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people? Then consider the effect of Maoism elsewhere. Maoist guerilla tactics were used to great effect against both French and American forces in Vietnam and they helped liberate the people of Nepal. Currently, Kurdish forces in Syria are using modified tactics in their attempt to establish an Anarchist, self governing region.

Though it's true that there's no such thing as absolute truth. I suppose it depends on what you prioritise.

Fanatical adherence to his own tenets and fear of working against Maoist teachings inspite of evidence to the contrary (starvation as an example). Mao and his crony's were responsible for more than mismanagement their ideals caused death by design.
Mao and Stalin are very much in the same vein,

If that's true, then why did the famine only affect one area of China and not the whole country? Regardless, by the time of the Great Leap Forward, Maoism as a distinct ideology from Marxism-Leninism hadn't quite developed. Though some deaths were by design, I highly doubt that Mao and his friends developed a plot to mass murder his own people. Why teach them to read only to kill them?

I would say that Stalin was much more pragmatic by abandoning the idea of world revolution (and therefore the core of a lot of Marxist teachings) as well as entering into the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, as well as pursuing a rather un-Marxist economic policy by nationalising everything.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

notprop wrote:
Nah, he's his own brand of fruit cake, just with some of the other nuts thrown in.

Because selling off the Royal Mail, bombing Syria, introducing legislation that makes it more difficult to stay in a council home and attempting to cut tax credits is certainly better than nationalising the railways and building social housing, isn't it?

**Herzlos**

I certainly don't think Corbyn could do a worse job than Cameron. At least Corbyn seems to genuinely care about, well, anything, beyond just trying to make his Uni buddies rich.