He's not been good at finding them? Ok

He's not been good at finding them? Ok

It's pretty obvious that a lot of the original appointments were made up on the fly. Easy to argue that that was because Corbyn didn't expect to win, but he was the favourite from at least a month out.

Corbyn has made a career out of not following the party line. He is no position to criticise others for doing the same. Leadership skills I suggest are jot his forte - what evidence is there that he has ever had any? In which case he needs advice from those who do know what to do. He appears to be listening to similarly Ill-skilled and minded people....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35281203

 

took shorter than I expected!

Sounds like an episode of Eastenders in the Labour camp at the moment.

ha ha ha ha ha. oh my word, Jeremy Corbyn never ceases to drag down Labour into the realms of ridicule.

 

Get rid of Trident but keep the cost exactly the same by having subs with no purpose. (Not in favour of war BTW)

 

Hand the Falklands over to Argentina, after the UK has been to war over them comfortably within living memory (I wasn't in favour of this war BTW)

 

Right to strike in sympathy (this was massively unpopular even when it was going on). (I have been on strike many times)

 

Trying to force private firms to pay whatever he regards as a decent wage by withholding shareholder profits - am I being stupid here or could he just not make it law that no-one pays less than the minimum wage - and then set that wage?

 

So, all in all, avoiding most of the real issues that need sorting, pushing illogical idiot ideas as big policies. Not a clue....

 

 

Why was he asked about Las Malvinas?!

Why was he asked about Las Malvinas?!

Why did he answer?

Seemed a strange question to ask - i listened to it this morning - he also gave a reasonable answer even if it was against the consensus of the british government!

And the people who, y'know, actually live there. The only people who think it should be called Las Malvinas and owned by Argentina are either from a country that has had nothing to do with the islands aside from a six month period 200 years ago, and people who default to the anti-Western position regardless of its merits who happen to be trying too hard. Self-determination is kind of a thing?

Of course the people who actually live there should have a say on who should run their affairs. But it makes you think about the bigger picture - how and why did these english speaking people actually end up in a small island in the south atlantic - just another result of hundreds of years of right wing colonialism.

 

Ireland knows alot about that sort of thing - plenty of people live on this island too who want to remain run by Britain and when they were in the minority they diveded the island up so they would get their way - Western hypocrisy once again!

 

I dont know how you can say i am being anti-western - i will always take things from the right vs wrong point of view. I avidly support free healthcare/NHS which was created by Bevan in the Atlee government(a western democratic government) but happily oppose hypocritical foreign policy as put forward by Western governments esp since 9/11.

Edited January 19, 20169 yr by Steve201

That would be the same principle of self-determination which both sides agreed to as part of the Belfast Agreement - that once the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to live under Irish rule, Northern Ireland will become a part of the Republic. Hardly hypocritical.

 

And it's clear you don't actually think the people who live on that island should 'have a say' (at least in any meaningful sense) given you refer to them as 'Las Malvinas', a pretty loaded reference which implies sovereignty should be decided by an accident of geography rather than the will of the people who live there and have lived there for two centuries now. It's not exactly 'right wing oppressive colonialism' given there wasn't a native population that was driven off in order to allow these English speaking people to live there.

 

I also don't think many people who default to anti-Western government positions particularly make a point of criticising the NHS, so it's a bit of a straw man irrelevant to the point.

Since we are blending the Irish and Falklands arguements here then yes I agree with the principle of consent within the GFA but we got to that position through unionists and conservative politican coercion and even using threats against democracy to get there way and artificially divide the island in a sectarian way to create one sided states on both sides of the border.

 

That is the reality of colonialism/imperialism.

 

With the utmost respect I can call the islands whatever I want and can still believe in consultation with those who live there.

 

I don't think the NHS example is a straw man because it shows that people can be opposed to western foreign policy and yet not be 'anti-west' which is a lazy term that people try and call people of the same opinion as say Corbynites in the current Labour Party.

 

I agree (with Qassandra) about the Falklands, actually - there was no-one there, so it can hardly be claimed as invasion. Unlike Argentina, where the native inhabitants were taken over by the Spanish. If anyone has a claim it's the French and the British (both settled around the same time), but they were first discovered and claimed by the British. From a totally unbiased perspective, you have one colonial power claiming an uninhabited island versus another colonial power-cum-independent-nation moving in well over a century later briefly.

 

The whole of South America, by the way, is the result of European imperialism. And North America. Central America.

 

Europe is the result of waves of invasion (albeit non-political) from Africa, so is the Middle East and Far East and Australasia (pre-British) and then waves of inter-invasions amongst themselves (political).

 

Let's face it, everyone alive is a descendant of an invader, the only issue is how far back in time your most-recent invading descendants were. That doesn't mean anyone who hasn't personally invaded currently alive should take the blame for anything their descendants did. The sooner everyone just accepts things are as they are and deals with best solutions in a civilised way...err well, never will happen, some people are always happy to walk over someone else. Human nature.

With the utmost respect I can call the islands whatever I want and can still believe in consultation with those who live there.

Hardly consultation worth the name, if your position is that the islands should be 'given back' at any point (which is the implication of calling them that name), regardless of the wishes of 98% of the population inhabiting those islands.

 

It's not akin to the Northern Ireland situation where there is evolving demography which makes it a realistic, democratic, self-determinative and fair option that it should be under Argentinean control - literally just pure ideology that the West is in the wrong because 'colonialism/imperialism', regardless of whether it has the characteristics of colonialism that makes the concept a stain on humanity's history. To invoke the Falklands as 'colonial oppression' is almost an insult to the billions who suffered and the millions murdered under actual colonialism - and, yes, the sign of what I would strongly argue is an anti-Western mindset: the idea that the foreign policy of a Western nation is de facto in the wrong in any given situation (and for real, using being pro-NHS as a reason for being anti-Western is just reductive pedantry. The term is clearly used with regards to foreign policy discussion. The likes of Russia Today don't exactly go to town on the NHS being a bad idea, just as me being in favour of the idea of David Cameron legislating for gay marriage doesn't suddenly mean I'm not anti-Tory).

 

There are plenty of situations where the West is in the wrong. The idea that a few thousand people living on an island 2,000 miles away from a country which makes loud claim to it every time its domestic politics hit the buffers should be forced to live under them despite not having any cultural similarities or any preference for that government is emphatically not one of them by any measure of social freedom-respecting left-wing opinion.

Well I didnt actually say what my alternative would be - you jumped down my throat for calling it by a name you dont like it being called. I would say considering how far away it is some kind of shared responsibility would be best with Britain as the ultimate gauranteer of their identity since they are english speaking peoples (that somehow ended uo in the far south atlantic :P ).

 

Its not akin to the Irish situation exactly but there are similarities. I also once again wouldnt say I am 'anti-western' as such I make my opinions up from the rights and wrongs of each situation and dont just have a default pro/anti western position. Generally though western foreign policy has been of the interventionist neo-conservative type in my lifetime and i will always opppose this self interested conflict driven form of policy and will not apologise for that stance.

It's been a while, but Ken Livingstone has set the ball rolling trying to head off any chance of a challenge, to start the ball rolling on ousting Corbyn, from Dan Jarvis. Apparently accepting money from wealthy individuals (regardless of their motives) is like Jimmy Savile grooming youngsters. Always thought any political party that turned down cash would have a rough time of having a go at spending money on politicking...

 

How sweet, Ken, worried much?

That would be the same principle of self-determination which both sides agreed to as part of the Belfast Agreement - that once the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to live under Irish rule, Northern Ireland will become a part of the Republic. Hardly hypocritical.

 

And it's clear you don't actually think the people who live on that island should 'have a say' (at least in any meaningful sense) given you refer to them as 'Las Malvinas', a pretty loaded reference which implies sovereignty should be decided by an accident of geography rather than the will of the people who live there and have lived there for two centuries now. It's not exactly 'right wing oppressive colonialism' given there wasn't a native population that was driven off in order to allow these English speaking people to live there.

 

I also don't think many people who default to anti-Western government positions particularly make a point of criticising the NHS, so it's a bit of a straw man irrelevant to the point.

 

Bravo!!

 

The PEOPLE make the place.

 

There was a referendum on the issue of sovereignty and the people voted to remain part of the Uk with more than 99%. Furthermore, given past Argentinian aggression and an actual invasion these islanders suffered under in recent memory, plus their cultural links to the mainland, all demonstrate conclusively that these islands are not Las Malvinas and Argentina';s claim is tenuous and actually IMPERIAL in and of itself. The expanding aggressor Empire here is Argentina.

Well I didnt actually say what my alternative would be - you jumped down my throat for calling it by a name you dont like it being called. I would say considering how far away it is some kind of shared responsibility would be best with Britain as the ultimate gauranteer of their identity since they are english speaking peoples (that somehow ended uo in the far south atlantic :P ).

 

Its not akin to the Irish situation exactly but there are similarities. I also once again wouldnt say I am 'anti-western' as such I make my opinions up from the rights and wrongs of each situation and dont just have a default pro/anti western position. Generally though western foreign policy has been of the interventionist neo-conservative type in my lifetime and i will always opppose this self interested conflict driven form of policy and will not apologise for that stance.

 

Shared responsibility was a very real possibility pre-aggression.

 

Post-invasion, the people there are NOT interested and their will is to be respected.

 

 

It's been a while, but Ken Livingstone has set the ball rolling trying to head off any chance of a challenge, to start the ball rolling on ousting Corbyn, from Dan Jarvis. Apparently accepting money from wealthy individuals (regardless of their motives) is like Jimmy Savile grooming youngsters. Always thought any political party that turned down cash would have a rough time of having a go at spending money on politicking...

 

How sweet, Ken, worried much?

 

And in a wonderful twist of hypocrisy, it turns out that Ken Livingstone himself accepted £8k to give a talk to a hedge fund in 2008.