Originally posted by Ushgarak
He's considerably to the left of Attlee. who took an aggressive stance on international relations. Corbyn is a pacifist and pro-Russian (once pro-Soviet). Attlee, an anti-communist, was big on re-interpreting socialist principles in a British flavour, whilst Corbyn openly sings Marx's praises.Corbyn's brand of left-wing politics is of a strength that there has never been a point in British politics where he would not have been seen as radical. Outside of Sinn Fein (also radical), he is about as left wing an MP as there has ever been. His is precisely the sort of politics that doomed the Labour party in the 70s and 80s- not because of some right-shifting conspiracy by your vague 'powers that be', but because the public always hated it.
Basically, if Corbyn is not radical, the term no longer has any meaning.
Everyone should sing Marx praises, that said Marxism in it's true form has never been tried it's always been subverted by someone in the system e.g. Lenin and Stalin.
No, he is no more left than Skinner, Benn or a million others. CND was pervasive in the 70's and 80's and who's to say it was wrong, in those days many M.P.'s would visit Greenham Common. As for my vague shifting theories, Owen Jones book "The Establishment", explains it all far more clearly than I could. IDS would never have got away with his radical, murdering policies in the 70's, 80's or even 90's and to be fair they are far more radical than anything Corbyn propagates. Those policies didn't doom the Labour party, Thatchers greed first ideology doomed the Labour party.
If you want to sing Marx's praises, fine- but don't pretend that's not radical.
He's significantly more left than Benn and Skinner (who you will note will not serve with Corbyn). The left-wing of the Labour party pretty much had him last on the list of candidates they wanted to stand as leader (then just for demonstrative purposes rather than thinking they could win) because Corbyn was considered too extreme.
Thatcher only got in because Labour destroyed itself in the 70s via its struggle with is far left- you have a hefty historical ignorance there if you don't think that is true (just look up winter of discontent). That's why Kinnock- hardly a moderate- had to spend the 80s destroying that wing of his party to make Labour an even vaguely practical party. You can't blame Thatcher for what Labour did to itself- nor can you blame her for the public rejecting that Labour policy. She didn't have mind control.
That part Kinnock destroyed is the part Corbyn represents (and is one of the last few remnants of)- the genuinely radical part.
Originally posted by UshgarakActually the Tories believed Socialism had won in the seventies sadly Think Tanks and groups like The Taxpayers Alliance, The Adam Smith Institute and the centre for policy studies fooled the public by posing successfully as non-partisan grassroots organisations that actually had and have an agenda to push right wing policies. They receive funding from and contain many members with links to the Conservative Party. Thatcher was a big part of this driven change in ideology that led to huge links between politicians and big business. This led to the revolving door between politicians in the UK and big business, quoting for example, that 46% of the most profitable companies in Britain have an MP on their board of directors or as a shareholder. 40 MP's 40 MPs stood to gain financially from changes made in privatising the NHS.
If you want to sing Marx's praises, fine- but don't pretend that's not radical.He's significantly more left than Benn and Skinner (who you will note will not serve with Corbyn). The left-wing of the Labour party pretty much had him last on the list of candidates they wanted to stand as leader (then just for demonstrative purposes rather than thinking they could win) because Corbyn was considered too extreme.
Thatcher only got in because Labour destroyed itself in the 70s via its struggle with is far left- you have a hefty historical ignorance there if you don't think that is true (just look up winter of discontent). That's why Kinnock- hardly a moderate- had to spend the 80s destroying that wing of his party to make Labour an even vaguely practical party. You can't blame Thatcher for what Labour did to itself- nor can you blame her for the public rejecting that Labour policy. She didn't have mind control.
That part Kinnock destroyed is the part Corbyn represents (and is one of the last few remnants of)- the genuinely radical part.
The links with big business have not only grown stronger since Thatcher the vilification of the left is a direct result of the fact, the wealthy people that control much of the press have interests closely aligned with the establishment, and therefore tend to promote the establishments views, rather than the views of their readers, to quote Owen Jones “The British people are not being served by a media that exists to inform them, to educate them, to understand the realities of the country they live in and the world around them. Instead, much of the media is a political machine, lobbying for the often personal objectives of their owners. The media and political elites are frequently deeply intertwined, sharing as they do many of the same assumptions about how society should be run and organized.”
The Police have been used subsequent to Thatcher to enforce the ideology of the rich in the U.K. and furthermore recent political changes which effectively privatise and incentivize areas of the police force “Britain faces the prospect of police forces policing by consent of their shareholders rather than their communities.” Chief Constables Assc. recent governments have been privatizing previously public services, including the NHS, by following free-market ideologies, whilst at the same time, the establishment demonises benefits fraud and makes cut-backs and imposes austerity measures on those at the bottom of the financial pyramid. There is a contradiction in this position, where big business rely on the state to provide infrastructure, education to their workers, and also to subsidise their low wages with income and housing benefit relief.
Thanks to Thatcher companies who have complex systems set up to avoid tax, and it discusses how the big accounting firms give advice to the government on the drafting of their tax laws and then use this information to advise their clients on how to avoid paying tax. Whilst these practices are legal but cost the country huge amounts of money. It contrasts this with the other end of the financial scale where people on low income convicted of benefits fraud are jailed, despite the amounts in question being a fraction of those lost to big businesses avoiding tax.
The biggest threat to the U.K. is not redistribution of wealth and a move to the left, thanks to Corbyn but,the financial sector, this is an implicit threat to U.K. democracy. The role of the City has changed over the years particularly since the bailout of the banks in 2008 and the subsequent quantitative easing employed to revitalise the financial sector at the expense of taxpayers. This has been spun by the PR companies that represent the financial sector and their close relationship with politicians and the media has been glossed over. For example, the top financial publicity firm the Brunswick Group, “When Brunswick founder Alan Parker got married in 2007, his wedding guests included then Prime Minister Gordon Brown – whose wife Sarah was a Brunswick partner – and David Cameron. Brown is godfather to Parker’s son, while Parker and Cameron holidayed with each other in South Africa in March the following year. At the beginning of 2008 – just months before financial calamity struck – Brown appointed Brunswick’s CEO Stephen Carter as his Chief of Staff. Parker’s sister, Lucy Parker, is a Brunswick partner who, after David Cameron entered Number 10, headed up the government’s taskforce on Talent and Enterprise. Brunswick has gone fishing for talent in the Murdoch empire, too: one senior partner is David Yelland, former editor of The Sun.” :/
I will never claim what happened with Thatcher and since was an organised conspiracy to destroy the left and dumb down and control the sedated populace, it is more that all the ideas I outlined and had highlighted to me by Owen Jones in his book share common interests.
Corbyn is challenging this status quo, which could be construed as radical I suppose and I concede that much. Hopefully what we are seeing is the start of an awakening and the beginning of a democratic revolution. Where people, the people are at the centre and no names and numbers just to make the rich richer.
Yeah, you're pretty much just paraphrasing your hero there aren't you? And, again, you;re rather missing the point that it was the people that rejected left-wing Labour policy; it was no tactic by Thatcher that made that magically happen.
Regardless, this leaves Corbyn as a hefty radical and you're wasting your breath trying to say otherwise.
TI- seems a nice enough guy (plenty of allegations about his personal life, but that likely applies to everyone) but his policies would be a disaster.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yeah, you're pretty much just paraphrasing your hero there aren't you? And, again, you;re rather missing the point that it was the people that rejected left-wing Labour policy; it was no tactic by Thatcher that made that magically happen.Regardless, this leaves Corbyn as a hefty radical and you're wasting your breath trying to say otherwise.
TI- seems a nice enough guy (plenty of allegations about his personal life, but that likely applies to everyone) but is policies would be a disaster.
In simplest terms the Falklands saved Thatcher and allowed her to push her agenda on.
Originally posted by Knife
In simplest terms the Falklands saved Thatcher and allowed her to push her agenda on.
As for Corbyn being radical, he has to my knowledge never given a speech like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VRRWuryb4k
or hung out with Pinochet, knighted a paedophile (Savile). Been pals with Pinochet etc.
Originally posted by Knife
As for Corbyn being radical, he has to my knowledge never given a speech like this.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VRRWuryb4k
or hung out with Pinochet, knighted a paedophile (Savile). Been pals with Pinochet etc.
Horrible though this is, I think you have to understand here that being anti-gay in the 1980s was not radical. By the late 80s, gay rights had got a pretty good grip and being anti-gay enough to legislate against it in this way was certainly not centre politics (it was certainly one of the worse things Thatcher did) but it was well supported publicly. It was not extreme policy. Radical on the right in the 80s was the BNP.
Basically, any policy that actually became law since WWII in the UK has not been radical- radical politics keeps losing in the UK because the system draws everything towards (though not necessarily within) the centre. Even before the war, the UK was noticeably free of the communist vs fascist splits that tore Europe apart
Corbyn as leader is the first break from that in decades- though if, as predicted, he fails, then it's business as usual.
Originally posted by UshgarakThe anti guy agenda in the eighties was incredibly radical it's why people marched against it and stopped the many policies like the section. THE truth is in large parts of the u.k. the right have always been unelectable and socialist values never died. Hence the north south divide and the Scotland issue. To believe Corbyn's policies are more radical than a atos assessments etc. Is pretty strange we have a government killing the most vulnerable. What could be worse for the UK than that. With a mandate from under 30% of those eligible to vote. The truth is all Corbyn has to do is tap into those that don't vote now in actually quite small numbers.
Horrible though this is, I think you have to understand here that being anti-gay in the 1980s was [b]not radical. By the late 80s, gay rights had got a pretty good grip and being anti-gay enough to legislate against it in this way was certainly not centre politics (it was certainly one of the worse things Thatcher did) but it was well supported publicly. It was not extreme policy. Radical on the right in the 80s was the BNP.Basically, any policy that actually became law since WWII in the UK has not been radical- radical politics keeps losing in the UK because the system draws everything towards (though not necessarily within) the centre. Even before the war, the UK was noticeably free of the communist vs fascist splits that tore Europe apart
Corbyn as leader is the first break from that in decades- though if, as predicted, he fails, then it's business as usual. [/B]
No, people protesting does not make something radical- not even vaguely. If anything, it was the gay rights movement that was rooted in radicalism, and gay rights were in no way particularly popular in left wing voting areas (it was never a working class cause). Anti-gay rights in the 80s was close to the mainstream. Even into the 90s, opposing gay rights wasn't radical (it had a lot of support), it was just losing the argument. Incidentally, do check your facts- Section 28 was not stopped. It wasn't repealed until the 21st century. The fact that it was passed as law fairly much demonstrates it was within the mainstream. It had the support of all major religions and many mainstream newspapers. It was not even remotely radical. Don't confuse 'radical' with 'things I do not like'.
The mandate of the current government is actually pretty solid as far as governments go- there's no particular issue there. That tapping you imagine will never happen. Corbyn is never going to command any significant voting strength- everyone knows it.