The Student Room Group

Corbyn wins again!

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Snufkin
Yes, you were. You're about to apply to university so you can't be older than 17. You did not live through The Troubles - don't embarrass yourself by arguing otherwise.


As a mature student, not that I have to explain myself to you
Original post by DMcGovern
As a mature student, not that I have to explain myself to you, smartarse.


Original post by DMcGovern
im 16 :P and yourself?


Sure. :rolleyes::rofl:
Theresa May be like:
Original post by Ambitious1999
I don't know where you've heard or what makes you think that Corbyns labour is at all homophobic? The labour left under Corbyn is the most anti-homophobic party in Britain, far more so than new labour, the lib dems or the greens or even the Tories who are also very anti-homophobic.

Can you please explain how Corbyn's Labour is the most anti-homophobic party?
Despite all the right wing media constantly banging on about what a Trot Corbyn is, when questioned properly, he is more moderately leftish than they say. Here is part of the transcript from his interview with the Guardian this morning.


Q: What is your view of capitalism? Is it broadly good, or broadly bad?
Corbyn says he backs a mixed economy. But there is case for the public sector running services. We should produce what people need, not just produce for the sake of greed.
Q: Do you want to nationalise key industries as Labour did in the 1980s?
Corbyn says he is not proposing that.
Q: You have spoken about nationalising the NHS. So what about private firms doing things like medical tests more efficiently than the NHS.
Corbyn says services are best provided by the state.
Q: Always?
Corbyn says services are provided more effectively inhouse.
Q: Would you stop doctors in the NHS doing private work?
Corbyn says most GPs do not do private work. Most GPs are salaried. They prefer it that way.
Q: Do you agree with Tony Blair who has said today that the prosecutions of servicemen over alleged abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan are going too far?
Corbyn says he recognises that servicemen faced very difficult conditions.But we have signed up to international law, he says. He says it must be enforced.
Q: After the crash people decided Labour could not be trusted because it spent too much.
Corbyn says the crash was not caused by Labour overspending. It was caused by a deregulated banking system. Maybe regulation should be tougher.
Q: But people think Labour government’s spent too much. Aren’t you taking a risk reinforcing this view?
Corbyn says, look at the £9.5bn spend on housing benefit. That could be spent much more effectively, he says.

Original post by DMcGovern
I'm sorry, did you just trawl through my shared account over a year? You sad excuse for an individual.


No, I used the search function, it took 30 seconds. You've already embarrassed yourself, quit digging yourself into a deeper hole.
]Why would you need or want a shared account? If the other person* needs one why not create it?

* alter egos don't count
Original post by MildredMalone
So were you lying now or then? I hope you're not a mature student pretending to be 16/17, that's kinda creepy.


That was at least a year or two old, my brother is now 18, he used my account then so I could keep an eye on what he was doing because he's bipolar. He's not allowed to use the computer much now because once he had an episode and went onto Amazon and bought nearly a hundred CDs. I moved out this year anyway.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Despite all the right wing media constantly banging on about what a Trot Corbyn is, when questioned properly, he is more moderately leftish than they say. Here is part of the transcript from his interview with the Guardian this morning.


Honestly the media screams about Trotskyists way too much, they're not the ones to worry about, being too self-obsessed; they're more likely to turn on their own than destroy the Labour Party for malicious reasons and personal gain. The real threat comes from the Gramscian legions of the dull.

The Militant Tendency, now the Socialist Party, was the Trotskyist entryist party in the British Labour Party. Corbyn was not a member of Militant and he does not identify as a Trotsktyite. However, the purge of Militant left Corbyn as one of the most left-wing members of Labour and he routinely found himself voting in opposition to official party policy during the Blair/Brown government. In fact, he defied the Labour whip a total of 428 times during the thirteen years between 1997 and 2010.
Original post by DMcGovern
Honestly the media screams about Trotskyists way too much, they're not the ones to worry about, being too self-obsessed; they're more likely to turn on their own than destroy the Labour Party for malicious reasons and personal gain. The real threat comes from the Gramscian legions of the dull.


Yup, the whole "Judean People's Front" trope is still a pretty accurate trope about Trots. These groups are tiny organisations. The idea that they can somehow command the six-figure numbers of Corbyn supporters is laughable.
Original post by anarchism101
Yup, the whole "Judean People's Front" trope is still a pretty accurate trope about Trots. These groups are tiny organisations. The idea that they can somehow command the six-figure numbers of Corbyn supporters is laughable.


Oh yeah, it's ridiculous. I was in TUSC for a while when I was living in London and they can only muster a few thousand across Britain, including the three largest British Trotskyist parties.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by DMcGovern
Oh yeah, it's ridiculous. I was in TUSC for a while when I was living in London and they can only muster a few thousand across Britain, including the three largest British Trotskyist parties.


I was in AWL circles for quite a while in my misguided youth :P several of the AWLers that were mentioned or appeared on the Dispatches Momentum episode were people I've met - gives you an idea of how small the organisation is.
Original post by anarchism101
I was in AWL circles for quite a while in my misguided youth :P several of the AWLers that were mentioned or appeared on the Dispatches Momentum episode were people I've met - gives you an idea of how small the organisation is.


Yeah AWL are very small, but they're almost encouraged to join Labour I believe, they deregistered as a party to allow its members to do that.

It's remarkable how there's a lot of fragmentation on the left wing but not a lot on the right, maybe because the right are more concentrated on pragmatism than analytical philosophy, like some Trotskyists are anti-immigration because they don't agree with Socialism In One Country, but a lot of right wingers are anti-immigration because of increased economic competition and strain on resources, or so they claim. :tongue:
Original post by DMcGovern
That was at least a year or two old, my brother is now 18, he used my account then so I could keep an eye on what he was doing because he's bipolar. He's not allowed to use the computer much now because once he had an episode and went onto Amazon and bought nearly a hundred CDs. I moved out this year anyway.


You don't seriously expect people to believe that? In April this year you said you were 18. That same day you were posting in the MHoC, so either you lied about your age / living through the Troubles or you're account sharing, which would get you banned from the MHoC. Which is it?

Original post by DMcGovern
30" waist, been like that even after I started going gym.
18.
First-generation Irish.
I'm half mesomorph half endomorph.
Original post by Snufkin
You don't seriously expect people to believe that? In April this year you said you were 18. That same day you were posting in the MHoC, so either you lied about your age / living through the Troubles or you're account sharing, which would get you banned from the MHoC. Which is it?


Why do you care so much about the personal life of a random guy on the internet?
Original post by The_Opinion
Why do you care so much about the personal life of a random guy on the internet?


I don't, I care that he lied about living through the Troubles.
Original post by DMcGovern
That was at least a year or two old, my brother is now 18, he used my account then so I could keep an eye on what he was doing because he's bipolar. He's not allowed to use the computer much now because once he had an episode and went onto Amazon and bought nearly a hundred CDs. I moved out this year anyway.

Well, if that's true you didn't have to share that much detail, but I hope your brother gets the help he needs :smile:
Original post by anarchism101

The Troubles initially grew out of the struggle over civil rights in Northern Ireland, and the institutional discrimination against and disenfranchisement of Northern Irish Catholics. Indeed, the NI civil rights movement didn't even initially demand power sharing, just an end to their hugely unfair treatment. When activists attempted to march peacefully for these demands, they were stoned and beaten by loyalist thugs.


That's why I referred to the Northern Ireland system of government pre-72 as being almost apartheid-like. There were very real and valid grievances in the Catholic community around their civil rights. Once the UK abolished the Northern Ireland parliament and ministry, and took them into direct rule, many of those issues were dealt with as the London government had a very strong interest in resolving those issues.

It should be remembered that when British troops first arrived in significant numbers in Northern Ireland, in 1969, they were for the most part welcomed by the Catholics who felt they would help protect them.

After 1972, there really was no justification for the IRA campaign and it could not seriously be said to be based on the Catholic community's civil rights struggle. The British government in the early 1970s was willing to offer the sort of deal they ended up agreeing to in 1998. That means every IRA-caused death between 1972 and 1998 was fundamentally illegitimate. They weren't seeking an amelioration of the abuse of their rights, they wanted a united Ireland. The two goals are fundamentally distinct.

Also, the people referred to as "combatants" by the IRA were often Catholics who joined the army like many working-class people did, for a better life, and in many cases never served in Northern Ireland. They were police officers, as if every member of the RUC was some kind of evil loyalist murderer, rather than the majority of them being involved in normal law enforcement. They even killed postmen and local magistrates.

The British army was present in Northern Ireland lawfully, with the support of a majority of the community, and necessarily as the result of terrorist campaigns. Therefore there is no justication for the killing of soldiers simply on the basis that they were "combatants", they were 19 and 20 year olds mostly who were sent there and in the legal and moral sense had every right to be there. Also keep in mind that the murder of "British" soldiers (many of whom were from Northern Ireland) necessarily meant the deaths of innocent civilians; many died at the hands of IRA snipers when hit by "stray" bullets.

Every claim the IRA makes for somehow fighting for the rights of the Catholic community are bull ****, they could have agreed a deal back in the 1970s that would have seen powersharing and a fair distribution of resources and power. The fact that the IRA was supported by only a minority of the catholic community speaks volumes about how they were seen by the people for whom they were supposed to be "protectors". I accept Sunningdale collapsed because of unionist action (which in itself shows the British government was genuinely trying to bring about a fair resolution), but the nationalist community did not want that outcome to mean a resumption of bombings and shootings by the IRA. If anything, the British government's mistake was making Sunningdale too pro-Nationalist by having the Council of Ireland where a provincial power-sharing agreement was far more preferable. But the British government's attempts should have seen the IRA attempt to work with the government, not act as unreasonably as the loyalist extremists.

In the end the IRA accepted partition. That shows their campaign was fundamentally unjust.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Snufkin
Sure. :rolleyes::rofl:


image.png

Attachment not found
*

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending