Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Labour leadership: Owen Smith wants 'new industrial revolution' Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    The trick is to reward Condottieri for conquering your enemies with title to their lands. That is how we conquered India and it is how the Conqueror conquered England.
    Except that often that policy simply meant the installation of a former condottiere who would adopt the same aggressive policy toward you of their predecessor; condottieres were inherently greedy and expansionist. That is what happened with Milan when La Serenissima engaged condottiere to deal with the issue.

    If we rewarded Blackwater with title to Iraq then not only would we have won in Iraq but Iraq would have much better quality of government than the contemptible natives are capable of.
    I'm genuinely not trying to be provocative, but I'm sure even you realise how idiotic that proposal is. Blackwater doesn't even come close to having the manpower to provide 150,000 troops for occupation duties. They don't have anything close to the intelligence apparatus that allowed the United States to hunt down and destroy Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They don't have the expertise or logistical train that would permit them to act as the primary military force in that environment.

    And that's not even getting into how such a blatant colonial venture would mean the US could not rely on any of its allies to support it, that the fact of "awarding" (something the US did not have the legal power to do anyway) Iraq to Blackwater would make the insurgency that did occur seem like a mild irritant compared to the mass uprising that would eventuate in those circumstances.

    As for the "contemptible natives", I know this is meant to be a sort of shocking Milo Yiannopolous type provocation, but it just comes across as a little puerile. I have Iraqi and Kurdish friends who supported the US invasion of Iraq and whose families have suffered in the subsequent ethnic civil war and ISIS uprising. To refer to them as contemptible is itself contemptible.

    If you can't see how ludicrous that proposal is, then surely you can't be considered a serious interlocutor for geopolitical disputation?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Except that often that policy simply meant the installation of a former condottiere who would adopt the same aggressive policy toward you of their predecessor; condottieres were inherently greedy and expansionist. That is what happened with Milan when La Serenissima engaged condottiere to deal with the issue.
    Clive never threatened to march on London.

    I'm genuinely not trying to be provocative, but I'm sure even you realise how idiotic that proposal is. Blackwater doesn't even come close to having the manpower to provide 150,000 troops for occupation duties. They don't have anything close to the intelligence apparatus that allowed the United States to hunt down and destroy Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They don't have the expertise or logistical train that would permit them to act as the primary military force in that environment.

    And that's not even getting into how such a blatant colonial venture would mean the US could not rely on any of its allies to support it, that the fact of "awarding" (something the US did not have the legal power to do anyway) Iraq to Blackwater would make the insurgency that did occur seem like a mild irritant compared to the mass uprising that would eventuate in those circumstances.

    If you can't see how ludicrous that proposal is, then surely you can't be considered a serious interlocutor for geopolitical disputation?
    You don't need 150,000 troops to occupy Iraq. We didn't even need that many to occupy India which had a population ten times as large. That the US government is unable to hold Iraq with any reasonable level of manpower is kind of why the US government sucks so much in this situation.

    Colonial ventures worked. Post-colonial interventions don't.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Ha! Clive Lewis is a flake, he is incredibly narcissistic and widely disliked even on the Corbynite left. The mere fact he was in the Territorial Army and did a short (what was it, three month?) deployment in Afghanistan doesn't put him in the same league as Dan Jarvis
    I guess you have killed 10 ISIS soldiers in hand to hand combat.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Owen Smith has only gone up in my estimation over the course of this leadership election; he comes across as very fluent on the details, persuasive and a general, all-around nice guy.
    I might share a dislike of Corbyn's leadership style with you, but Owen Smith is categorically not the person to take Labour forward. He would be a PR disaster as this whole second referendum policy has shown. He also lacks any charisma which is vital for winning elections. Nonetheless, I suspect other members of the Labour Party know this.

    My guess is that Owen Smith is a decoy - the true contender for leadership would not tarnish their reputation against Corbyn. They must have somebody else waiting in the shadows. This next election is not for Smith to win; the aim for the PLP must be to get at least close to toppling Corbyn. They might not even achieve that, but providing a challenge to him is a start. The narrative right now is clearly one of the PLP establishment trying to oust a humble, polite man. Whether that narrative sustains itself through Corbyn-stubbornness remains to be seen.

    One thing we can agree on is that Corbyn is utterly weak - I hope supporters of Corbyn can agree on this in time. Theresa May rips him apart every time he's in parliament, although that isn't very difficult let's be honest. Corbyn's supporters will see it as pantomime politics. Everyone else sees it as someone who isn't able to articulate themselves and fight the priminister for what he, apparently, believes in.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I guess you have killed 10 ISIS soldiers in hand to hand combat.
    I see you're positing the usual puerile, superficial leftist tactic of asserting that unless someone has been a soldier themselves then they have no right to have an opinion on military operations and intervention policy. Of course, to be consistent with that we would have to disregard the opinions of the vast majority of the far left; no great loss in reality, but surely an obstacle to substantive political disputation
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paraphilos)
    I might share a dislike of Corbyn's leadership style with you, but Owen Smith is categorically not the person to take Labour forward. He would be a PR disaster as this whole second referendum policy has shown. He also lacks any charisma which is vital for winning elections. Nonetheless, I suspect other members of the Labour Party know this.
    We will have to agree to disagree on that. I don't agree with everything Owen Smith says, but he is fundamentally sound; in ordinary times he would make a reasonable cabinet minister or equivalent shadow. Unfortunately none of the "quality" (like Yvette Cooper, Dan Jarvis or Keir Starmer) are standing for election so we have to work with what we have.

    I know two people who are now former Corbynites who were won over by Owen Smith's general fluency with policy details, his ability to come across reasonably well in interviews, etc. As I said, he's not the perfect candidate but he is head and shoulders above Jezbollah

    My guess is that Owen Smith is a decoy - the true contender for leadership would not tarnish their reputation against Corbyn.
    How does it tarnish one's reputation to run against Corbyn? As someone who is fairly well-plugged in to Labour circles (both as a member, former branch treasurer and living only a mile from Westminster with many friends who work in MPs offices), the sense I get is that Owen Smith ran because (1) someone has to do it; Corbyn simply cannot be permitted to blithely continue his destruction of the Labour Party; even if the odds are slim one must try and take a stand, (2) he felt he had a better shot than Angela Eagle. He didn't rate his chances highly, he knew it was a long shot, but he was willing to do this for the good of the party,.

    As for the general proposition though, there is something in it to say that in some ways he could be a stalking horse; they don't expect him to win but they expect him to wound Corbyn politically. My view is that the panic in Corbyn's office when they realised they basically have done nothing in the last 9 months in terms of policy development led them to take up that silly train stunt which did great damage to Corbyn. Being caught red-handed as an incompetent liar is the image many non-political people I've spoken to have taken away from this leadership campaign. I think it could be Corbyn's donkey jacket moment

    They must have somebody else waiting in the shadows. This next election is not for Smith to win; the aim for the PLP must be to get at least close to toppling Corbyn. They might not even achieve that, but providing a challenge to him is a start.
    That's the plan. The moderates intend to run a leadership challenge against him each year until 2020. He has to win every time, they only have to win once. He might win this one, and the next one, but each time it will take something out of him, he'll bounce back but each time he will be weakened a little more. Remember that Owen Smith was/is on the left of the party, he is not in cahoots with the moderates like Yvette Cooper, except and insofar as they both agree Corbyn is a danger to the long-term viability of the Labour Party and to social democratic politics in this country. There is no puppet master pulling the strings thinking, "Well, I'll run Owen Smith against him this time but a 'true' candidate next time".

    The narrative right now is clearly one of the PLP establishment trying to oust a humble, polite man. Whether that narrative sustains itself through Corbyn-stubbornness remains to be seen.
    That's certainly the narrative on websites like The Canary. In the broader population people generally see Corbyn as an incompetent boob. Those who are politically engaged find him highly sinister and amoral (given the Iran cash, his close friendships with homophobic killers etc). Insofar as that narrative of poor little Corbyn being bullied by the evil neoliberal establishment / Red Tories / Jews / lizard people (delete as appropriate), the people who subscribe to it are already full-blown members of the cult anyway.

    One thing we can agree on is that Corbyn is utterly weak - I hope supporters of Corbyn can agree on this in time. Theresa May rips him apart every time he's in parliament, although that isn't very difficult let's be honest. Corbyn's supporters will see it as pantomime politics. Everyone else sees it as someone who isn't able to articulate themselves and fight the priminister for what he, apparently, believes in.
    Precisely; well said. I don't view PMQ as a pantomime; it's a contest of intelligence, wit, policy knowledge and the ability to forcefully put one's case in a very intimidating and rowdy atmosphere. If someone can do well in PMQs that tells you that they at least have some of the qualities necessary for a leader of this country.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Of course, to be consistent with that we would have to disregard the opinions of the vast majority of the far left
    Except Clive Lewis. Which is why I brought him up. Labour always gets destroyed by the press on grounds of patriotism and foreign policy. A Labour leader who has been an actual soldier and fought in Irag or Afghanistan etc helps nullify that somewhat. Whether it is Darvis (or whatever he is called) or Clive Lewis.

    I also didn't say you had to have actuality killed an ISIS soldier to have a valid opinion. You playing top trumps with who has been to war more was a bit silly. Clive Lewis has served, came back, has post traumatic stress, is now a labour MP on the left.

    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    We will have to agree to disagree on that. I don't agree with everything Owen Smith says, but he is fundamentally sound;
    The dude who said he wants to hold talks with ISIS is sound? :lolwut:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Also chill out. You'll live longer.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Except Clive Lewis. Which is why I
    You have to stop at "why I". You have confirmed that you hold to the hard left rhetorical position that unless you have military service you may not have a view on military policy and intervention (or at least, you can't have an opinion that is contrary to the far left one).

    On the other hand, I believe that as the most fundamental matters of high policy for any state, military and foreign affairs are within the competence of all citizens to have an opinion on, and to make consequent representations to their MP.

    The dude who said he wants to hold talks with ISIS is sound?
    The hard left's hypocrisy on that subject would be hilarious if it wasn't so craven. You and Corbyn oppose all policies designed to take out ISIS, policies that have been shown to be correct in hindsight. You attack any policy that has assisted the Kurds to free themselves from the Wahhabi yoke. Your position is that we should fold our arms and do nothing.

    But then you also say there should not be a diplomatic effort either. In other words you're stuck in a neverland of complete impotence and irrelevance.

    Owen Smith was wrong to vote against airstrikes on ISIS in Syria, as Corbyn did (though he correctly voted in favour of providing air support to the Iraqis; Corbyn's No vote on that motion is a nauseating stain on his record, but entirely consistent with his utterly dogmatic hatred of Western military action no matter what its objectives or context). But his comments about negotiations were not referring to the ISIS leadership of war criminals and terrorists, people like Baghdadi and Adnani. As you probably don't know, since the Western coalition has clipped over 40,000 ISIS terrorists, they have had to fill up their ranks with conscripts; boys of 15 and old men of 60. There are many who are unwilling participants. There are other Sunni grievances that will also require diplomacy to ensure the Anbari Sunnis can return to the Iraqi federal fold. That seems to me a perfectly justifiable position.

    As I said above, I don't agree with everything he says. But he is fundamentally sound in not proposing to betray our alliances and walk away from NATO, to abandon our nuclear deterrent (but still build the submarines to sail around in circles carrying no ballistic missiles). He is sound in never having taken £20,000 from a regime that murders gay people. And he possesses basic competence, basic likeability and basic electability, having not spent the last thirty years associating with various anti-semitic fringe groups.

    Also chill out. You'll live longer
    People typically say that when they're upset. What did I say that upset you?

    KingBradly RF_PineMarten
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    You have to stop at "why I". You have confirmed that you hold to the hard left rhetorical position that unless you have military service you may not have a view on military policy and intervention (or at least, you can't have an opinion that is contrary to the far left one).
    *Raises hand*

    I here by allow AlexanderHam to have any opinion on foreign military policy even though he has never been in the army.

    What the feck are you on about?

    I thought the far left position on foreign policy was supposed to be that they are strongly against any form of interventionism and you certainly don't join the army :laugh:

    Personally I think we should be providing military support for the far left Kurds fighting ISIS. Some proper leftist internationalism.

    Owen Smith said he wanted talks with ISIS. That is what he said. He most likely said it because he was just trying to triangulate to his target audience and he though they would like to hear that (weather that is or not the case is :dontknow:).. I don't think he actually believes that. But he was stupid enough to say it. How does this help labour get elected? Not only that it allowed Corbyn to look like the sensible one.

    I told you to chill out because you come across as very angry. I could get annoyed by your aggressive in your face posting I suppose. Or insisting you know what I think. See you obsessing over me like this

    " hard left rhetorical position that unless you have military service you may not have a view on military policy and intervention"
    "
    I don't know where you got that from and I even stated I don't think that which you then completely ignored. I don't even know why that is a hard left position. It seems more patriotic right position to me anyway.

    So yeah, that's annoying. I;m getting better at not letting angry internet people get to me though. Somewhere in this exchange there is probably a constructive discussion taking place.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    That's certainly the narrative on websites like The Canary. In the broader population people generally see Corbyn as an incompetent boob. Those who are politically engaged find him highly sinister and amoral (given the Iran cash, his close friendships with homophobic killers etc). Insofar as that narrative of poor little Corbyn being bullied by the evil neoliberal establishment / Red Tories / Jews / lizard people (delete as appropriate), the people who subscribe to it are already full-blown members of the cult anyway.
    Actually the majority of the public think the media is biased against JC. So the public do think the establishment is biased against him insofar as the media being part of the establishment.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Actually the majority of the public think the media is biased against JC. So the public do think the establishment is biased against him insofar as the media being part of the establishment.
    That claim seems rather dubious in light of Corbyn's terrible unpopularity. He is the most unpopular opposition leader we've had since they began measuring these things (not just most unpopular, but most unpopular by far; Michael Foot was minus 28, Corbyn is minus 41, in approval rating). He comes third in "Most Preferred Prime Minister" after Theresa May and "Don't Know". In fact, one-third of Labour voters prefer Theresa May as Prime Minister.

    With numbers that dire, the idea that there is this major groundswell of support for Corbyn by the population, viewing him as some kind of poor little victim, seems implausible.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    That claim seems rather dubious in light of Corbyn's terrible unpopularity.
    Agreeing the media is biased against him doesn't mean they have to like him or be willing to vote for him.

    It could mean they think the media is biased but they agree with that bias.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7225031.html

    "
    Just 29 per cent of British adults disagreed that the “mainstream media as a whole has been deliberately biasing coverage to portray Jeremy Corbyn in a negative manner” when asked by pollsters YouGov. "

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.ne...electorate.pdf

    Unless you are just going to dismiss a poll like a corbynista?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Personally I think we should be providing military support for the far left Kurds fighting ISIS. Some proper leftist internationalism.
    I'm certainly pleased to see that you understand and intuit basic considerations of solidarity for fellow socialists and for oppressed peoples. Corbyn does not. In this conflict the United States and Britain have been supporting the YPG with weapons, training and air support. Corbyn opposes all of that.

    I don't think he actually believes that. But he was stupid enough to say it. How does this help labour get elected?
    The basis on which it is claimed he said we should negotiate with ISIS (in the sense of the current ISIS leadership) is very thin. I've spoken to a friend who works in the office of one of his allies, his position is as I stated above.

    In terms of getting Labour elected, the polls show that the general population massively favours Owen Smith over Corbyn, which makes sense given how unpopular Corbyn is and how much he is viewed as a complete joke by ordinary people.

    John McDonald is even more dogmatic but I'd actually prefer him as leader over Corbyn because at least he has a degree of intelligence and wit about him, and doesn't possess that pathetic martyr/victimhood mentality Corbyn has that makes him so obnoxious.

    Not only that it allowed Corbyn to look like the sensible one.
    Nothing can make a man who took £20,000 from a regime that murders gay people look sensible.

    I told you to chill out because you come across as very angry. I could get annoyed by your aggressive in your face posting I suppose. Or insisting you know what I think. See you obsessing over me like this
    I think I will let that comment, with all its manic energy and paranoia, speak for itself.

    I don't know where you got that from and I even stated I don't think that which you then completely ignored.
    Hard leftists regularly respond to any statement in favour of intervention by saying, "So why don't you go join the military now, if you're so keen to fight?". It's a puerile and weak rhetorical device that collapses under the weight of its own ludicrousness; the idea that a citizen of this democracy may not express an opinion on military policy unless they have been a soldier is laughable. Of course the hard left don't say "Why don't you go join up now?" if you express a view against intervention, which means that apparently you can have a view on these things without having served in the armed forces only insofar as you oppose all military interventions
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Agreeing the media is biased against him doesn't mean they have to like him or be willing to vote for him.

    It could mean they think the media is biased but they agree with that bias
    Precisely, I couldn't have said it better myself.

    In which case, how does that poll help Corbyn? It tells you that many people find him so irritating and obnoxious that they think the media is biased against him and it doesn't change their position one iota.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Actually the majority of the public think the media is biased against JC. So the public do think the establishment is biased against him insofar as the media being part of the establishment.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7225031.html

    "
    Just 29 per cent of British adults disagreed that the “mainstream media as a whole has been deliberately biasing coverage to portray Jeremy Corbyn in a negative manner” when asked by pollsters YouGov. "

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.ne...e lectorate.pdf
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Precisely, I couldn't have said it better myself.

    In which case, how does that poll help Corbyn? It tells you that many people find him so irritating and obnoxious that they think the media is biased against him and it doesn't change their position one iota.
    It means people think the media is biased.

    The statements:

    1. Media is biased and acts in it's own classes' interests.
    2. JC is a bad leader for labour.

    Both of those can be true at the same time. It isn't either or.

    Just because JC is bad does not mean there is no truth in what his supporters say about the media.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    It means people think the media is biased.

    The statements:

    1. Media is biased and acts in it's owners class interests.
    2. JC is a bad leader for labour.

    Both of those can be true at the same time. It isn't either or.
    I agree. I'm just not sure how the allegation of media bias, if true, would advance Corbyn's case for remaining Labour leader.

    I would also be interested in seeing some examples of this media bias; often I see claims of media bias being pointed at opinion pieces, which are justifiably coming from a particular point of view. Or the mere fact of the media not uncritically reporting the Momentum line (the Corbyn train stunt being a good example; the facts shown by the CCTV image contradicted his statements on the day, and led to numerous contradictory excuses after the fact... the media reporting on this was claimed as "bias").

    It seems to me that Corbyn supporters are so deeply invested in the leadership, and inside such an airtight bubble, that anything that is not consistent with the Momentum/Corbyn office line is accused of bias.

    Perhaps you could provide three examples of media bias, one each from the BBC, Guardian and Independent?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Smith arguing that the AWL are apparently bringing anti-semites into Labour. That's a first, given that the AWL is easily the most pro-Israel of the various far-left sects.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.