-
• #1801
William.
-
A measured and thorough appraisal of the sitution from Corbyn here, most of which I agree with
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/15/salisbury-attack-conflict-britain-cold-war
Apart from this
"However, that does not mean we should resign ourselves to a “new cold war” of escalating arms spending,"
Defence spending has been cut under the tories. Army and Navy are as small as they have ever been.No, it's perfectly OK to point out that there are probably certain people who would want defence spending to rise again. Just because it's currently at a low (obviously still much too high all over the world) doesn't mean that it can't escalate again.
I also think it's absurd hyperbole to talk about Mcarthyism in this context.
The definition of McCarthyism, according to the Wikipedia article, is:
McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
Clearly, this hasn't happened at all in the recent past, to anyone, least of all to Jeremy Corbyn.
Besides, I know for an absolute fact that @mmccarthy would very much welcome a new Cold War.
-
In the McCarthy era, people were actually put on trial by the state for possible connections to the communist party. In Britain today, we have a communist party who are able to function freely, in fact I know some of them. I can see how it would feel at the moment from Corbyn's end, though.
-
Next you're going to say you want the weather to always come from the East. :)
It got up to 15 degrees in London the other day, it was horrible!
I'm sure it can't have been as bad as being forced to go through a winter with the heating on in your first flatshare.
-
We weren't talking about the 'McCarthy era', and I can't remember seeing it referenced recently. We were talking about what 'McCarthyism' has come to mean. A further quote from further down in the same article:
Since the time of McCarthy, the word McCarthyism has entered American speech as a general term for a variety of practices: aggressively questioning a person's patriotism, making poorly supported accusations, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to adhere to conformist politics or to discredit an opponent, subverting civil and political rights in the name of national security, and the use of demagoguery are all often referred to as McCarthyism. McCarthyism can also be synonymous with the term witch-hunt, both referring to mass hysteria and moral panic.
All of these things have recently been tried on Corbyn, which is why the reference is accurate, pertinent, and justified. It's not a question of how it 'would feel' to Corbyn, either, but what his political opponents clearly aim to achieve by smearing him in this way.
-
• #1812
In the McCarthy era, people were actually put on trial by the state for possible connections to the communist party.
When one thinks of the McCarthy era, they think about public hearings which were used to "out" people as being communists/having communist sympathies (which in itself was not illegal), which then resulted in the real loss of livelihood for which there was no legal recourse. It was the power of insinuation mixed with moral scare and a public willing to go along with (or, in many cases, afraid to go against) the narrative of "us vs them" which the era is infamous for. Not actual laws or trials.
-
• #1813
Interestingly, there actually is (as in, still is!) a law making the Communist Party and membership of it illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954
It has, apparently, never been enforced. Largely, I guess, because it didn't need to be and it would likely be overturned.
"However, the Supreme Court of the United States has not ruled on the act's constitutionality. Despite that, no administration has tried to enforce it. The provisions of the act outlawing the party have not been repealed. Nevertheless, the Communist Party USA continues to exist in the 21st century."
-
You might not agree with this, but I think it makes some interesting points;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/18/jeremy-corbyn-sergei-skripal-attack-putin
-
We weren't talking about the 'McCarthy era', and I can't remember seeing it referenced recently. We were talking about what 'McCarthyism' has come to mean
An important distinction. I was thinking about the public hearings that @blackbucket mentions above. We have open dissent against the slurs against Corbyn, and successful legal action against it. It's a long way from that climate. Regarding how it 'feels', there is a question of perception: the climate seems more opressive to those on the recieving end, more trivial to those on the outside watching.
-
• #1817
Cheers. The meandering into Corbyn as a Soveit apologist romantically riding his motorcycle through East Germany is a bit much, but overall it's at least trying to deal in facts. But I think it's ignoring them? Please correct me where I'm wrong.
Three of Britain’s closest allies – the US, France and Germany – agree with the British government that the assassination attempt represents an “assault on UK sovereignty” and that there is “no plausible alternative explanation” to Russian involvement.
In his first parliamentary performance, and in subsequent interventions, Mr Corbyn refused to blame the Putin regime while raising a spray of questions that undermine the case for coordinated western action.
So he has ended up saying that Britain should not “rush” into retaliatory action while at the same time endorsing Mrs May’s expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats identified as intelligence officials.
You would think from this (and much else in the article) that Corbyn has refused to attribute any blame to Russia, and that instead he's been trying to undermine claims that there is any responsibility with them. But, first, I think much of this is demonstrably wrong, and second, even if we're talking about nuance in response, this isn't how I've read Corbyn. Conveniently it's linked to in the article:
Theresa May was right on Monday to identify two possibilities for the source of the attack in Salisbury, given that the nerve agent used has been identified as of original Russian manufacture. Either this was a crime authored by the Russian state; or that state has allowed these deadly toxins to slip out of the control it has an obligation to exercise. If the latter, a connection to Russian mafia-like groups that have been allowed to gain a toehold in Britain cannot be excluded.
On Wednesday the prime minister ruled out neither option. Which of these ultimately prove to be the case is a matter for police and security professionals to determine. Hopefully the next step will be the arrest of those responsible.
As I said in parliament, the Russian authorities must be held to account on the basis of the evidence, and our response must be both decisive and proportionate. But let us not manufacture a division over Russia where none exists. Labour is of course no supporter of the Putin regime, its conservative authoritarianism, abuse of human rights or political and economic corruption. And we pay tribute to Russia’s many campaigners for social justice and human rights, including for LGBT rights.
However, that does not mean we should resign ourselves to a “new cold war” of escalating arms spending, proxy conflicts across the globe and a McCarthyite intolerance of dissent. Instead, Britain needs to uphold its laws and its values without reservation. And those should be allied to a foreign policy that uses every opportunity to reduce tensions and conflict wherever possible.
I don't see anything "cross-eyed" about this. He's agreed with May on the two possibilities. He's rebuked Putin's Russia. He accepts that a response is necessary, and the first steps taken by parliament are part of this response. He also offers further responses which aim to directly hurt those with power in Russia (legal and illegal).
I really don't want to be a Corbyn cheerleader, but I don't see the gulf here that others do.
-
Privilege?
-
Other than being a bit too long, I find it hard to find fault with that article.
The tl:dr hits the nail on the head:
Some of these questions might seem reasonable, but collectively, they make him sound like a man searching for any possible reason not to assign responsibility to the Kremlin.
A better route would have been to just nail Tory links to London oligarchs, and create a subtext that they were effectively responsible for the attacks.
His PR team need a slap.
-
from the bbc
Dear moocher
Thank you for contacting us concerning Newsnight, which was broadcast on Thursday 15 March. We understand you’re unhappy about the studio backdrop featuring Jeremy Corbyn alongside Russian imagery. To allow us to reply promptly, and to ensure we use our licence fee resources as efficiently as possible, we’re sending this response to everyone. We’re sorry we can’t reply individually, but we hope this will address most of the points raised.
The backdrop ran during a report on the relationship between sections of the British Left and Russia, prompted by the debate within the Labour party about how Jeremy Corbyn had reacted to government sanctions against Russia.
Newsnight is a late night current affairs programme with a distinctive style and the picture sat firmly within its long-running tradition of arresting graphics, applied to all types of stories. The backdrop was used earlier in the year, when the Defence Secretary, Gavin Williamson, was similarly superimposed. Mr Corbyn has been photographed wearing this particular hat and coat many times, and they were not in any way altered or ‘photoshopped’ to appear ‘more Russian.’
The report on the Left’s relationship with Russia was an entirely serious analysis of the issues concerned, with a discussion that featured a key ally of the Labour leader.
Please be assured your complaint has been made available through our daily reports to News staff and senior colleagues. This ensures the right people receive feedback promptly. We appreciate the time you’ve taken to raise this with us.
Kind Regards
BBC Complaints Team
-
The gif of the two images of Corbyn (original and NN) still doesn't convince me that his hat wasnt altered beyond a change in lighting making it look more Russian. In many ways it's become a distraction. The BBC does, I believe, have a bias towards the Tory party, directly and/or its own leanings towards middle/upper class being part of the establishment.
mespilus
Oliver Schick
h2o
mmccarthy
andyp
miro_o
snottyotter
hugo7
moocher
deleted
-
Post a reply
About
That Corbyn fella...
Posted by
@pdlouche
