Re-nationalisation of industries - Corbyn

[BashfulAnthony]

"This is the man who sympathised with violent Irish Republicanism in the 1980s, invited IRA representatives to the Commons a fortnight after the Brighton bombing in 1984 and, at a Troops Out meeting in 1987, stood for a minute’s silence to “honour” eight IRA terrorists killed in an SAS ambush.   I wonder how many people are aware of his sympathies in this regard?  I wonder how many have ever bothered to find out any of his political stances, and not just his leadership hype.  In an interview on Channel 4 last month he said,  "I spoke at a meeting about the Middle East crisis in Parliament and there were people there from Hezbollah and I said I welcomed our friends."
Is this the man we want to have influence over our dealings with murderous terrorist."

Not so nice, perhaps!

I've not seen him comment on the IRA situation, so anything I add will be conjecture.

His commentary on Hezbollah and Hamas is as I suspected it would be. He disagrees with their methods - openly - but rightly suggests that unless all sides are talking there will never be a peace.

Whether he thinks in a similar fashion of the IRA situation who knows, but perhaps he was merely ahead of his time. People openly stand with the likes of Gerry Adams these days, and whilst there are occasional splinter groups making problems for people, in general the peace is holding.

Do I want someone who is willing to talk to hostile forces rather than either bombing them or sending weapons to unstable regimes so that they can bomb people for us in the hope they'll forget how to use them when it comes to bombing our allies or civilians... you know what, yes, I think that is the sort of person I'd like in control.

Is he good enough in the other areas... that's questionable.

O.

O.

I'm sure we all want to talk to ISIS, the biggest terrorist threat, though we'd need to be careful they don't lob your head off.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

Good post, an openness to talk, communication, I will remind our Bashers that he is a student of the New Testament, we have given up, eye for an eye.

Gonnagle.

[wigginhall]

Assuming he doesn't perform a rapid U-turn on virtually all his policies (which I wouldn't totally rule out, he is a politician after all)- a Corbyn leadership would make the Labour party unelectable and probably cause a split.

That might not finish Labour forever, but it would be a long hard recovery.

It isn't and never was going to win next time unless the Tories split. I disagree that it's a simple equation to say Corbyn would make it uneleable - I think it would be possible in certain conditions as I don't think the position that a left party cannot win is that clear. I think his election will cause a split, but in part due to the behaviour of some opposing him, I think the election of anyone will cause a split.

In one sense the election itself is a mere symptom of the problem and whoever is elected is a footnote in history

Yes, I think Corbyn is an accidental figure, who is acting as a catalyst for the 'conversation' which is necessary for Labour.   Every political party, which has been in power a long time, and then loses, has a nervous breakdown, but this can also lead to new ideas.   The Blairites look about as capable of this as a tank full of goldfish, but then they are mourning their philosopher king, (sarcasm smilie).  I think a lot of them will drift away.

I do think that Labour under Cooper or Burnham would be turgid and deeply tedious, because Blairism is a spent force.   Whether or not Labour can become interesting and electable, and find a new synthesis of ideas - dunno.  At least, Corbyn has sparked some interest, I was watching them all with my wife, and she (not left-wing at all), said 'obviously, he is the one with some cojones and a certain degree of articulate charisma'.   So it goes.   But I doubt he will be the leader in five years.  Il faut reculer pour mieux sauter.

[Outrider]

I'm sure we all want to talk to ISIS, the biggest terrorist threat, though we'd need to be careful they don't lob your head off.

Of course we need to be careful, but ultimately what are the other options? For all that we disagree on many things, BA, you don't strike me as a 'kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out' kind of person. If we don't talk to people then we've already failed, whether you think we've failed a god/Jesus or just ourselves.

They're hell-bent on a war of annihilation, it seems - we can either endanger everybody by accepting that or we can try to be something better.

O.

[wigginhall]

I think talks have gone on with the Taliban at different times.   It's possible that eventually the West will talk with one faction of Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria, if it might lead to a truce.   In fact, it did/does happen with various Shia militias, to encourage them to join with Sunni tribes against IS.  It also happens with Sunni tribes who currently support IS, to pull them away.   I think the US also used to give them a lot of money.  'They are bastards but they're our bastards'. 

[BashfulAnthony]

I'm sure we all want to talk to ISIS, the biggest terrorist threat, though we'd need to be careful they don't lob your head off.

Of course we need to be careful, but ultimately what are the other options? For all that we disagree on many things, BA, you don't strike me as a 'kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out' kind of person. If we don't talk to people then we've already failed, whether you think we've failed a god/Jesus or just ourselves.

They're hell-bent on a war of annihilation, it seems - we can either endanger everybody by accepting that or we can try to be something better.

O.

We have to be realistic.  Did we learn nothing from history, our failure to realise what Hitler was doing, whilst talking to him?  You cannot reason with psychopaths and committed murderers.  Isis are something else:  they torture, rape, murder, crucify, lie and steal:  there is no sin they do not, or will not, commit.  It is their goal to radicalise and to dominate other countries, to kill "non-believers," to destroy Western culture.  So, what do you talk about?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

so let me get this straight, Lapsed.....The list of Prime ministers of Great Britain 1945-2025 is as follows.

WS Churchill
A Eden
H MacMillan
A Douglas Home
M Thatcher
J Major
D Cameron
G Osborne ( Prime Minister Emeritus )

with C.Atlee, H Wilson, E Heath, J Callaghan, A Blair also resident at No 10 in an unknown capacity during that period.

[Hope]

so let me get this straight, Lapsed.....The list of Prime ministers of Great Britain 1945-2025 is as follows.

Can't find a Lapsed post that this could possibly be in response to!!

[Outrider]

We have to be realistic.  Did we learn nothing from history, our failure to realise what Hitler was doing, whilst talking to him?  You cannot reason with psychopaths and committed murderers.  Isis are something else:  they torture, rape, murder, crucify, lie and steal:  there is no sin they do not, or will not, commit.  It is their goal to radicalise and to dominate other countries, to kill "non-believers," to destroy Western culture.  So, what do you talk about?

Except that, of course, they aren't committing sins, they are doing gods work, just as Hitler was. Nothing scares us so much as devoted nutters, I know. How do we defeat them?

We either get drawn into the long, protracted barbarism of wars and skirmishes that they want, which guarantees that they have generation after generation of recruits who see themselves as victims. Or we can make a show of talking to them, make a show of being the 'purveyors of peace' whilst showing them a culture that isn't barbaric, cruel, degrading, regressive, repressive and demoralising.

We won't win a shooting war against a Jihad unless we commit genocide, but if we fight with free speech, burger bars, Hollywood films, emancipation, equal rights, universal education and modern amenities then support for the nutters will remain a fringe.

There will always be idiots, responding to them with idiocy only fuels the fire, justifies their idiocy and gives them the means to recruit more ignorant people to their savagery.

Yes we have to be alert, there are lines to draw in the sand, but once they are pushed back over the line you have to put the sword down and pick up the pen or you are no better than they.

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

We have to be realistic.  Did we learn nothing from history, our failure to realise what Hitler was doing, whilst talking to him?  You cannot reason with psychopaths and committed murderers.  Isis are something else:  they torture, rape, murder, crucify, lie and steal:  there is no sin they do not, or will not, commit.  It is their goal to radicalise and to dominate other countries, to kill "non-believers," to destroy Western culture.  So, what do you talk about?

Except that, of course, they aren't committing sins, they are doing gods work, just as Hitler was. Nothing scares us so much as devoted nutters, I know. How do we defeat them?

We either get drawn into the long, protracted barbarism of wars and skirmishes that they want, which guarantees that they have generation after generation of recruits who see themselves as victims. Or we can make a show of talking to them, make a show of being the 'purveyors of peace' whilst showing them a culture that isn't barbaric, cruel, degrading, regressive, repressive and demoralising.

We won't win a shooting war against a Jihad unless we commit genocide, but if we fight with free speech, burger bars, Hollywood films, emancipation, equal rights, universal education and modern amenities then support for the nutters will remain a fringe.

There will always be idiots, responding to them with idiocy only fuels the fire, justifies their idiocy and gives them the means to recruit more ignorant people to their savagery.

Yes we have to be alert, there are lines to draw in the sand, but once they are pushed back over the line you have to put the sword down and pick up the pen or you are no better than they.

O.

Firstly, Hitler was not even pretending to do God's work:  he was doing his work.  How can you conceivably equate Hitler's dedication to destroying God's CHOSEN people Jewry, as the OT has it, with doing God's work?

Secondly, you are staggeringly unrealistic in suggesting we talk to Isis, as they are now. To whom do we talk, and what do we talk about?  Do you not look at the news?  We are dealing with homicidal maniacs of the worst kind, to rival Hitler in intent, if not yet at his appalling level.  To suggest we are no better than they because we are standing up to their murderous activities, is to put it mildly, naive.  Put your asinine view that we fight Isis with Hollywood films and burger bars, etc, to any sensible analyst and see the reaction, unless you remark is intended to be a joke, because that's what it is. Those who have been radicalised here, for example, already have those Western amenities, and it hasn't influenced them, has it?  You need to join the real world.  Isis has declared war on the West, and we have to face that fact.

[Jack Knave]

Picking up on the discussion on whether there is enough of a left vote to win , I see that UKIP are being counted here as 'right' . I would suggest that this isn't really that true. A lot of the UKIP voters are people who used to vote Labour. Even if we take Jack Knave, our own resident Kipper, much of what he espouses is what would be regarded as left wing, particularly in regards to business. The whole left right thing is an overdone simplicity.

Wow, you really do read my posts!!!!

The thing is the Neo-Liberal project is about an elite running the rest of us and that is what Soviet Russia was about. It doesn't work because there are far less people inputting into the system, creating fewer ideas, and those that have control have been brainwashed into their sterile ways because of their success in taking power. It's natural selection in human affairs.

I agree the left/right thing has been turned on its head. They may say Corbyn is yesteryear but what goes around comes around and by 2020, with a few modern adjustments, he could be in vogue again.

[Jack Knave]

As for UKIP votees, my guess is that about the same number of them would support nationalisation as Labour voters

UKIP has attracted people from the left into their party and some of the spats are due to this. Patrick O'Flynn is more left and he has had some of Farage's dragon breath sent his way.

I'm for some form of renationalization because privatization has been a con by the elites to get rich of the people.

[Jack Knave]

UKIP and Tory are fairly authoritarian, though - typically considered right-wing as they've often gone hand in hand - with Labour fairly central on that score and the Greens and Lib Dems fairly libertarian.

politicalcompass.org tracks that sort of thing quite well.

O.

O, I'd put Labour firmly in the authoritarian segment, since they want the state to oversee most things.  Tory would - with their free enterprise, free market approach - would seem to be less authoritarian.  UKIP - I'm not sure.  Farage seems to me to be very much a free-marketeer yet other things he says seem to put him firmly into the authoritarian group.

The Tories are also authoritarian but in a Neo-Liberal way as the EU is, that is, by stealth by gradually taking the wealth and controlling the people over generations so they don't really see it and just accept what they are born into. Keeping them happy the way adults keep children happy by just supplying enough sweets to shut them up.

Difficult to say where UKIP is on this as there is an internal struggle going on, if not actively as such but definitely in ideas. Basically it is still forming its final 'shape'.

[Jack Knave]

Apparently for as little as three quid you can do your bit to assigning the Labour Party to the scrapheap.

Or save it dependent on one's viewpoint. Given that none of the candiadtes will do that in my opinion, the overdramatisation of Corbyn's effect is of questionable worth. The real problem they face now is that even should another candidate win, the mutterings from MPs like Simon Danczuk have created an atmosphere that almost guarantees some form of split.

People have been asking, here, what Labour are for? I don't think the party members and MPs know the answer to this - they are a ship without a rudder. And it will be this void of ideas, vision and purpose that will cause them to fall apart as they flap about as fishes on a beach - the realization that at their centre is a vacuous black hole and they will be blown away in a political supernova.

[Hope]

People have been asking, here, what Labour are for?

Seem to remeber seeing a very interesting article (Spectator? New Statesman?) questioning whether Labour actually works when it 'policies' itself out of existence?  In other words, when it lifts people out of poverty, ensures that everyone has workplace and other representation, enacts business-related policies that ensure far wages, pensions, equality of aspiration, etc., does it then mean that those 'workers' then begin to look beyond them to other parties that they feel can better deliver their 'improved/heightened' aspirations?

[Outrider]

Firstly, Hitler was not even pretending to do God's work:  he was doing his work.  How can you conceivably equate Hitler's dedication to destroying God's CHOSEN people Jewry, as the OT has it, with doing God's work?

In the absence of any reliable test of who's interpretation of scripture is 'right', any work done genuinely in the belief that it's Holy is 'god's work' - they're indistinguishable. Hitler believed his cause was God's work, in his own words. The majority Catholic German populace went along with it. It might not be your take on what a god wants, but until and unless god makes it clear, Christianity is simply the sum total of the work done by people pertaining to be Christians because of their religious affiliation.

Secondly, you are staggeringly unrealistic in suggesting we talk to Isis, as they are now. To whom do we talk, and what do we talk about?  Do you not look at the news?  We are dealing with homicidal maniacs of the worst kind, to rival Hitler in intent, if not yet at his appalling level.  To suggest we are no better than they because we are standing up to their murderous activities, is to put it mildly, naive.  Put your asinine view that we fight Isis with Hollywood films and burger bars, etc, to any sensible analyst and see the reaction, unless you remark is intended to be a joke, because that's what it is. Those who have been radicalised here, for example, already have those Western amenities, and it hasn't influenced them, has it?  You need to join the real world.  Isis has declared war on the West, and we have to face that fact.

How do we find out who to talk to unless we make the offer? How do we let anyone in the organisations know that we're willing to talk? How do we encourage the more diplomatically minded?

If we shoot them and wait for them to offer dialogue, and they shoot us and wait for us to offer dialogue, how does conversation break out over the sound of bullets?

Yes, I look at the news, I see the horrors, I see the abrogation of humanity that fervent religion can bring to the world. Shooting religious people makes them martyrs and their followers more religious, because religion has no foundation in reason or logic. Talking to them, though, educating them, being seen to be better... Revenge is easy, hate is simple, but an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth just leaves a world of half-blind people fighting each other for access to the soup.

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

Firstly, Hitler was not even pretending to do God's work:  he was doing his work.  How can you conceivably equate Hitler's dedication to destroying God's CHOSEN people Jewry, as the OT has it, with doing God's work?

In the absence of any reliable test of who's interpretation of scripture is 'right', any work done genuinely in the belief that it's Holy is 'god's work' - they're indistinguishable. Hitler believed his cause was God's work, in his own words. The majority Catholic German populace went along with it. It might not be your take on what a god wants, but until and unless god makes it clear, Christianity is simply the sum total of the work done by people pertaining to be Christians because of their religious affiliation.

Secondly, you are staggeringly unrealistic in suggesting we talk to Isis, as they are now. To whom do we talk, and what do we talk about?  Do you not look at the news?  We are dealing with homicidal maniacs of the worst kind, to rival Hitler in intent, if not yet at his appalling level.  To suggest we are no better than they because we are standing up to their murderous activities, is to put it mildly, naive.  Put your asinine view that we fight Isis with Hollywood films and burger bars, etc, to any sensible analyst and see the reaction, unless you remark is intended to be a joke, because that's what it is. Those who have been radicalised here, for example, already have those Western amenities, and it hasn't influenced them, has it?  You need to join the real world.  Isis has declared war on the West, and we have to face that fact.

How do we find out who to talk to unless we make the offer? How do we let anyone in the organisations know that we're willing to talk? How do we encourage the more diplomatically minded?

If we shoot them and wait for them to offer dialogue, and they shoot us and wait for us to offer dialogue, how does conversation break out over the sound of bullets?

Yes, I look at the news, I see the horrors, I see the abrogation of humanity that fervent religion can bring to the world. Shooting religious people makes them martyrs and their followers more religious, because religion has no foundation in reason or logic. Talking to them, though, educating them, being seen to be better... Revenge is easy, hate is simple, but an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth just leaves a world of half-blind people fighting each other for access to the soup.

O.

The above post is so far from either truth, or sensible argument and reality, that I thought it was a wind-up.  Then I realised who was posting, and I know it is removed from good reasoning and reality.

[Outrider]

The above post is so far from either truth, or sensible argument and reality, that I thought it was a wind-up.  Then I realised who was posting, and I know it is removed from good reasoning and reality.

If it's that far from truth you'll be able to substantiate your argument, somehow, no doubt, rather than just dismissing it without any justification.

Hitler declared, in his own writings and speeches, that he was doing as he did out of Christian duty. The German people, predominantly Catholic, followed and accepted the reasoning. It's not a brand of Christianity that I find anything of value in, but it's as justifiable as any other as a Christian philosophy given that the ONLY source of any unquestionable validity within that philosophy is the New Testament, which is so vague as to be open to any sort of interpretation.

I'm not suggesting Hitler's Christianity is 'right' - I'm saying that in the absence of any independent means of testing there is no way to say which, if any, version is 'right'.

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

The above post is so far from either truth, or sensible argument and reality, that I thought it was a wind-up.  Then I realised who was posting, and I know it is removed from good reasoning and reality.

If it's that far from truth you'll be able to substantiate your argument, somehow, no doubt, rather than just dismissing it without any justification.

Hitler declared, in his own writings and speeches, that he was doing as he did out of Christian duty. The German people, predominantly Catholic, followed and accepted the reasoning. It's not a brand of Christianity that I find anything of value in, but it's as justifiable as any other as a Christian philosophy given that the ONLY source of any unquestionable validity within that philosophy is the New Testament, which is so vague as to be open to any sort of interpretation.

I'm not suggesting Hitler's Christianity is 'right' - I'm saying that in the absence of any independent means of testing there is no way to say which, if any, version is 'right'.

O.

There have been a number of thread about this absurd notion that Hitler was Christian, and most sensible people are well aware that hitler lied about everything to achieve his ends.  Anyone who equates Hitler, with his mass murder, torture, lying, brutality and total lack of morality, with Jesus and His teaching on love and forgiveness, is barking.

[BeRational]

The above post is so far from either truth, or sensible argument and reality, that I thought it was a wind-up.  Then I realised who was posting, and I know it is removed from good reasoning and reality.

If it's that far from truth you'll be able to substantiate your argument, somehow, no doubt, rather than just dismissing it without any justification.

Hitler declared, in his own writings and speeches, that he was doing as he did out of Christian duty. The German people, predominantly Catholic, followed and accepted the reasoning. It's not a brand of Christianity that I find anything of value in, but it's as justifiable as any other as a Christian philosophy given that the ONLY source of any unquestionable validity within that philosophy is the New Testament, which is so vague as to be open to any sort of interpretation.

I'm not suggesting Hitler's Christianity is 'right' - I'm saying that in the absence of any independent means of testing there is no way to say which, if any, version is 'right'.

O.

There have been a number of thread about this absurd notion that Hitler was Christian, and most sensible people are well aware that hitler lied about everything to achieve his ends.  Anyone who equates Hitler, with his mass murder, torture, lying, brutality and total lack of morality, with Jesus and His teaching on love and forgiveness, is barking.

He was a Christian of some stripe as I understand it.
Of course he did not kill anywhere near as many people as your God.

[Rhiannon]

I'm no biased cheerleader for Christianity and I don't give a flying fig if Hitler was a Christian or not. But aside from playing the Christian card when it suited him he really doesn't seem to have been one at all. Can we put that one to bed now?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon,

What!!! Kill another atheist argument.

Visions of little atheists sitting on the sidelines, once we were heroes.

Gonnagle.

[BeRational]

I'm no biased cheerleader for Christianity and I don't give a flying fig if Hitler was a Christian or not. But aside from playing the Christian card when it suited him he really doesn't seem to have been one at all. Can we put that one to bed now?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

Depends what you mean put it to bed.
He was a Christian of sorts and had links with Catholicism.

That's all there is to it really.

I understand why Christians want to chuck him out of the club, but that's not up to them.

[Rhiannon]

He tried to annihilate Catholicsm. Is that what you mean by a link? Or are you saying that anyone born to a Christian faith remains a Christian even if they don't believe any of it?

I don't much care what Christians think about Hitler. Historians don't think there is any basis for the 'Hitler was a Christian' position though. Sure, he knew how to play the Christian card to gain influence, but that doesn't make him a believer and there's plenty of evidence just in the wiki link I gave earlier to the contrary.

[Nearly Sane]

http://news.sky.com/story/1536004/voters-more-likely-to-choose-corbyn-led-labour