Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

if there was an election tomorow

    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Both illiberal phenomena. The first I didn't vote for, and the second I will have to hold my nose before voting for.
    Would you be tempted over by a Labour party led by someone like Chukka Umunna?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    This is total whataboutery. Stop changing the subject. Address the issue.

    Fact: Between 2009 and 2012, Jeremy Corbyn received about £20,000 to produce a TV show for imaFilm ltd, a production company which produces television programmes for Press TV and is registered at the same address as Press TV. These programmes were then shown on Press TV.

    Fact: At the time Jeremy Corbyn was making these programmes, Press TV had been banned by Ofcom. It had broadcast a forced confession - through torture - of Maziar Bahari, a NewsWeek journalist and democracy campaigner. Here is what Maziar had to say: People who present programmes for Press TV and get paid for it should be really ashamed of themselves — especially if they call themselves liberals and people who are interested in human rights.

    Fact: Press TV is wholly owned by the Iranian state, a regime which oppresses women and executes gay men.

    Fact: Jeremy Corbyn has said the £20,000 he took was 'not an enormous amount, actually'.

    Please. Defend the man. I look forward to your response. But please, don't change the subject.
    Quite simply, he can't be defended for this.

    The content of the TV show is irrelevant and you can even give him the benefit of the doubt over his early appearances, but the fact he carried on appearing and accepting payment after Ofcom banned them is indefensible.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    This is total whataboutery. Stop changing the subject. Address the issue.

    Fact: Between 2009 and 2012, Jeremy Corbyn received about £20,000 to produce a TV show for imaFilm ltd, a production company which produces television programmes for Press TV and is registered at the same address as Press TV. These programmes were then shown on Press TV.

    Fact: At the time Jeremy Corbyn was making these programmes, Press TV had been banned by Ofcom. It had broadcast a forced confession - through torture - of Maziar Bahari, a NewsWeek journalist and democracy campaigner. Here is what Maziar had to say: People who present programmes for Press TV and get paid for it should be really ashamed of themselves — especially if they call themselves liberals and people who are interested in human rights.

    Fact: Press TV is wholly owned by the Iranian state, a regime which oppresses women and executes gay men.

    Fact: Jeremy Corbyn has said the £20,000 he took was 'not an enormous amount, actually'.

    Please. Defend the man. I look forward to your response. But please, don't change the subject.
    The issue at hand isn't regarding Jeremy Corbyn, it is regarding who you would vote for if there was election tomorrow, in which I put my view forward and have had to defend that view from people like yourself who seem agitated that I would dare to vote for the man. You have asked me questions, I have answered them, and will continue to do so. If you are asking me to apparently "defend the indefensible" then surely I can counter with point about what I feel is indefensible regarding the party you support? This isn't an interrogation, I am not under caution, you are asking me questions and I am asking some back, It's a discussion.

    First off, the TV show in which Jeremy appeared was based in London. There were no human rights breaches at the studio there.

    Secondly Press TV is owned by the Iranian government but is independently managed. Hence the lack of propaganda.

    Thirdly this apparent torture on TV, there was never a torture broadcast live on TV. There were claims made by an individual, but the claims were never proven to be true. If a court of law has not ruled this to be a fact, why do you think you have the authority?

    One thing I find slightly odd is the fact you are a part of an appreciation group, on this very site, of an MP who openly does not agree with same-sex marriage and yet you act like you champion their cause?

    Are you going to answer my questions now or continue with this "interrogation"?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Would you be tempted over by a Labour party led by someone like Chukka Umunna?
    That really depends, tbh. We hardly know anything of his real politics other than some general pronouncements that Labour needed to be trusted on the economy.

    My sense is that he knows the calculus has changed in the Labour Party now. Unless the membership expands dramatically to include moderates (or there's a massive cull of the whackos), he knows he will have to dramatically shift to the left to become leader. And from that point, there's only so much pivoting towards the centre he can do before the membership goes mental. That's probably why, for the first time, I heard him describe himself as a democratic socialist (not social democrat) on Newsnight last night.

    If Umunna turned the party into an economically and socially liberal party, I'd probably vote for him over May. But I don't think - were he even elected to the leadership - he'd do that. And nor should he. The Labour Party is the party to represent labour, and ought therefore to be economically illiberal; it wouldn't be right to deny it its history and identity to appeal to the likes of me.

    By the way - I know we used to have great 'fun' arguing with each other ages ago when I used to use this website frequently! I was wondering - what do you think of Jeremy Corbyn and the state of Labour?
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    That really depends, tbh. We hardly know anything of his real politics other than some general pronouncements that Labour needed to be trusted on the economy.

    My sense is that he knows the calculus has changed in the Labour Party now. Unless the membership expands dramatically to include moderates (or there's a massive cull of the whackos), he knows he will have to dramatically shift to the left to become leader. And from that point, there's only so much pivoting towards the centre he can do before the membership goes mental. That's probably why, for the first time, I heard him describe himself as a democratic socialist (not social democrat) on Newsnight last night.

    If Umunna turned the party into an economically and socially liberal party, I'd probably vote for him over May. But I don't think - were he even elected to the leadership - he'd do that. And nor should he. The Labour Party is the party to represent labour, and ought therefore to be economically illiberal; it wouldn't be right to deny it its history and identity to appeal to the likes of me.

    By the way - I know we used to have great 'fun' arguing with each other ages ago when I used to use this website frequently! I was wondering - what do you think of Jeremy Corbyn and the state of Labour?
    I don't think the Labour party has to be totally illeberal economically, it just needs to reach a balance. Corbyn is certainly too illeberal, Blair wasn't enough.

    I personally am a social democrat. I believe that the private sector and free market brings wonderful benefits and is incredibly creative and dynamic. However, I also believe in many areas the state and public sector can provide a far better service. These include railways, health, education, social care, housing etc. Some areas simply are not suitable for the free market model or private sector firms. It's all about balance. It's actually why I really supported Miliband, I genuinely thought he had this balance.


    As for Corbyn, I think he genuinely is a decent bloke. But he's an awful politician and I voted Smith. Corbyn has no plan for winning, he has no media strategy, he has no idea how to transform his ideology into a policy platform.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    I'll tell you: no, he hasn't. For all his talk of wanting peaceful dialogue and invitations to representatives of Hamas and Hezbollah, Jeremy Corbyn has not once in his career made a pointed attempt at inviting an equally controversial - or even just average - Zionist to talk with him. Not once.

    And the report into anti-Semitism? Not independent at all as Chakrabati immediately joined the party. And then guess what? Jeremy 'I will not appoint any more Labour peers' Corbyn then puts forward exactly one person in Cameron's resignation honours list: a certain S. Chakrabati. And as for the report itself, it seemly cannot mention the specific allegation of antisemitism without subsuming it into a larger issue of racism and then fobbing it off, and seems to use the Labour Party's history of anti-racist policy positions to clear it of present-day racism towards Jew. Needless to say, no Jewish institution or advocacy group has endorsed it in any way.
    I have not done the evidence required to look over every tiny detail of a career spanning over 30 years, I'm glad you have managed to find the time to do so but please forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

    It was an independent enquiry by a well respected woman. As for this conspiracy theory nonsense regarding the apparent bribe of a peerage, you and I both know there is zero evidence for this. This is just you looking at a situation and coming up with your own conclusion. There will be a review of the report, so let's wait and see what happens once the investigations have finished.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slaw92)

    First off, the TV show in which Jeremy appeared was based in London. There were no human rights breaches at the studio there.

    Secondly Press TV is owned by the Iranian government but is independently managed. Hence the lack of propaganda.

    Thirdly this apparent torture on TV, there was never a torture broadcast live on TV. There were claims made by an individual, but the claims were never proven to be true. If a court of law has not ruled this to be a fact, why do you think you have the authority?
    1. Ofcom banned Press TV for airing a forced confession.

    2. You are either being ignorant or incredibly naïve to suggest that Press TV is not a propagandistic outlet for the Iranian state.

    3. This whole comment in general is genuinely upsetting. That a young, left-leaning British person can come out in support of a propaganda channel for the most illiberal, cruel, inhumane regime is, I think, extremely sad.

    One thing I find slightly odd is the fact you are a part of an appreciation group, on this very site, of an MP who openly does not agree with same-sex marriage and yet you act like you champion their cause?

    Are you going to answer my questions now or continue with this "interrogation"?
    More whataboutery. You, surprisingly, find your argument in favour of a TV outlet for totalitarian state pretty thin, so you try and dig up some 'dirt' on me.

    I joined the JRM appreciation group because I find the man to be personally hilarious and quaintly polite. There are many things with his politics that I very much disagree with, including his lack of support for gay marriage and his position on Brexit. But if you though that revelation would be your ad hominem stick to beat me with, it's actually more of a twig.

    And re your questions: fire away. I think your stance regarding Jeremy Corbyn's payments to present a programme on Iranian state television has been made extremely clear for anyone reading, so it's fair that it's my turn.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    Quite simply, he can't be defended for this.

    The content of the TV show is irrelevant and you can even give him the benefit of the doubt over his early appearances, but the fact he carried on appearing and accepting payment after Ofcom banned them is indefensible.
    This x1000
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I couldn't vote for anybody. There is not a party that I believe in. I'm most closely aligned with the Labour party, but well, Labour have well and truly made themselves unelectable for the next twenty years or so.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    John McDonnell is the Chancellor... yes, it scares the **** out me too.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    1. Ofcom banned Press TV for airing a forced confession.

    2. You are either being ignorant or incredibly naïve to suggest that Press TV is not a propagandistic outlet for the Iranian state.

    3. This whole comment in general is genuinely upsetting. That a young, left-leaning British person can come out in support of a propaganda channel for the most illiberal, cruel, inhumane regime is, I think, extremely sad.



    More whataboutery. You, surprisingly, find your argument in favour of a TV outlet for totalitarian state pretty thin, so you try and dig up some 'dirt' on me.

    I joined the JRM appreciation group because I find the man to be personally hilarious and quaintly polite. There are many things with his politics that I very much disagree with, including his lack of support for gay marriage and his position on Brexit. But if you though that revelation would be your ad hominem stick to beat me with, it's actually more of a twig.

    And re your questions: fire away. I think your stance regarding Jeremy Corbyn's payments to present a programme on Iranian state television has been made extremely clear for anyone reading, so it's fair that it's my turn.
    I'm not defending a TV channel I know little about, I have just looked up what you claimed to be facts and found those to be false claims. It wasn't proven, so how can you say for an absolute fact that it happened? Isn't this ignorant and naïve?

    You seem to have little dirt on Jeremy Corbyn and any you think you have seems to be clutching at best. The party you support sells arms to totalitarian regimes, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocents, accepting £3 billion from the Saudis in the past 18 months, far mors than the "inexcusable" £20,000 Jeremy accepted resulting in no deaths, as well as blocking a UN enquiry into accusations of war crimes against Yemen, how do you defend this and follow a party capable of this, if you are disgusted with a man who appears on a television show who you claim is a propagandist tool for a state like this?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Labour of course they have gone more left
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slaw92)
    I'm not defending a TV channel I know little about, I have just looked up what you claimed to be facts and found those to be false claims. It wasn't proven, so how can you say for an absolute fact that it happened? Isn't this ignorant and naïve?
    Uhh, which claims have you found to be false?

    You seem to have little dirt on Jeremy Corbyn and any you think you have seems to be clutching at best.
    But, umm, you'd think that, wouldn't you? Because if you fundamentally think it's actually okay for a British MP to be in pay of a broadcaster which is the propagandistic mouthpiece for a women-oppressing, gay-killing state, you'd think anything is okay. In a way, you're being entirely logical.

    The party you support sells arms to totalitarian regimes, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocents, accepting £3 billion from the Saudis in the past 18 months, far mors than the "inexcusable" £20,000 Jeremy accepted resulting in no deaths, as well as blocking a UN enquiry into accusations of war crimes against Yemen, how do you defend this and follow a party capable of this, if you are disgusted with a man who appears on a television show who you claim is a propagandist tool for a state like this?
    You see, this is the problem. You are trying to compare the actions of a government with the actions of one man.

    Let me tell you something: a sovereign government will almost always need to have sordid friends. It's called Realpolitik. For a variety of reasons - from deplorable ones like our desperate need for stability in the region where we get our oil, to the entirely sensible ones like wanting to maintain good communications with the least-worst player in a geopolitical space - we are friends with Saudi Arabia. For the reasons I've just stated - and many others - our alliance with the Saudis is far from being morally perfect. But it is, in essence, the pragmatic policy a government needs. Just like Nixon reached out to communist China - a serial human-rights abuser - in order to stop it becoming pals with the USSR, we in the West have come to regard Saudi Arabia as a morally-bankrupt but stable nation in the ME. In the name of Realpolitik, then, we have good relations with it.

    Jeremy Corbyn, however, is not a government. He is one man. He doesn't need to think about Realpolitik or stability in the region. He can do what he likes. But he chose to take money from Press TV and therefore, indirectly, the Iranian regime.

    There are some things that governments can just about get away with. I think the government can just about get away with its support for Saudi Arabia (though we seriously need to think about alternatives to oil if we are ever going to be able to become independent of these nations), but Jeremy Corbyn cannot get away with his implicit backing of the Iranian regime. He, unlike the government, has not been forced into it - unless, of course, he needed the money.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slaw92)
    I'm not defending a TV channel I know little about, I have just looked up what you claimed to be facts and found those to be false claims. It wasn't proven, so how can you say for an absolute fact that it happened? Isn't this ignorant and naïve?

    You seem to have little dirt on Jeremy Corbyn and any you think you have seems to be clutching at best. The party you support sells arms to totalitarian regimes, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocents, accepting £3 billion from the Saudis in the past 18 months, far mors than the "inexcusable" £20,000 Jeremy accepted resulting in no deaths, as well as blocking a UN enquiry into accusations of war crimes against Yemen, how do you defend this and follow a party capable of this, if you are disgusted with a man who appears on a television show who you claim is a propagandist tool for a state like this?
    The article I linked you to quotes their source for the payments he received, which is his register of interests and publicly available from the House of Commons. The fact that Ofcom banned that TV channel and the reason why is also publicly available information.

    None of this is a secret, you just have to be willing to look.

    http://uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy...rnalist-2016-6
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Possibly no one. The Tories are basically a bunch of Trump-like, protectionist, populist nationalists (no shred of the free-market rhetoric of the 80s). The Lib Dems have forgotten about the Orange Book and are basically social democrat Labourites. Labour have always been populist statists (move to the centre under Blair but no huge difference in their love of corporatism). UKIP ... lol.

    So none.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Uhh, which claims have you found to be false?



    But, umm, you'd think that, wouldn't you? Because if you fundamentally think it's actually okay for a British MP to be in pay of a broadcaster which is the propagandistic mouthpiece for a women-oppressing, gay-killing state, you'd think anything is okay. In a way, you're being entirely logical.



    You see, this is the problem. You are trying to compare the actions of a government with the actions of one man.

    Let me tell you something: a sovereign government will almost always need to have sordid friends. It's called Realpolitik. For a variety of reasons - from deplorable ones like our desperate need for stability in the region where we get our oil, to the entirely sensible ones like wanting to maintain good communications with the least-worst player in a geopolitical space - we are friends with Saudi Arabia. For the reasons I've just stated - and many others - our alliance with the Saudis is far from being morally perfect. But it is, in essence, the pragmatic policy a government needs. Just like Nixon reached out to communist China - a serial human-rights abuser - in order to stop it becoming pals with the USSR, we in the West have come to regard Saudi Arabia as a morally-bankrupt but stable nation in the ME. In the name of Realpolitik, then, we have good relations with it.

    Jeremy Corbyn, however, is not a government. He is one man. He doesn't need to think about Realpolitik or stability in the region. He can do what he likes. But he chose to take money from Press TV and therefore, indirectly, the Iranian regime.

    There are some things that governments can just about get away with. I think the government can just about get away with its support for Saudi Arabia (though we seriously need to think about alternatives to oil if we are ever going to be able to become independent of these nations), but Jeremy Corbyn cannot get away with his implicit backing of the Iranian regime. He, unlike the government, has not been forced into it - unless, of course, he needed the money.
    If you actually ready the replies I have sent to you, you will find which statements ere false, I am not repeating everything over and over again.

    You can try justifying the real life MURDER of thousands of innocents by your favoured party, but I see no reason that this should be justified. To have good relations with them, I can accept, we need to be in a position to have the opportunity to open dialogues with them regarding the human right of citizens living in their country as well as those in Yemen, who are being murdered also. There is absolutely zero justification for the sale of arms to the Saudis, at least on moral grounds. Only on the grounds of greed, does this make sense. It os disgusting and to try and turn it around so that the decision by the Tories is somehow genius and or the sole move they can make is just mind blowing.

    You almost seem smug about the fact you think you have managed to convincingly justify the murder of innocents basically by our government. We are giving aid to Yemen, its sick, It's like those scenes in mafia movies where you see a mobster beat up some guy then throw a pile of cash on them for the hospital bill. It's like that but on a much bigger, much dirtier and much more horrifying way. What makes us better than the dictators or the terrorists of this world if we are doing the same thing except not for god, but for profit. I feel much more shame for the government for these actions and I think many others would agree. I can guarantee with only a little bit of digging I could come up with far more examples of despicable actions by the Tories on innocent people, and that is just internationally.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Independent if there is one, if not then "I vote for none" would be written on my ballot. None of the parties represent my views, and I don't think any of them have both a) my best interests at heart AND b) the competence to implement anything good.

    My incumbent MP is Labour and she seems quite good, although a slightly shady side is coming through of late.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Labour, of course. The only alternative to a weak, insular and infighting Tory government.
    I sincerely hope you're trolling.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I sincerely hope you're trolling.
    Nope. I'm no great Corbyn fan, but anything he proposed would be moderated by the PLP quite heavily if he wanted it to actually pass - I certainly prefer that to the current government and nobody else has any prospect of coming close to winning.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm suprised that knowledge of Corbyn and his ties to Iran and co are not well known. This is a man who its suspected will allow Galloway back into party (we know of course that Galloway hates Jews and have a weekly slot on Russia Today).

    That said i've seen lefties on here defend Castro because as communist countries go, Cuba turned out mildly delapidated instead of a hellhole.
 
 
 
Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?
Useful resources

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.