Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

wonderpup

The Peculiar Mr Corbyn

Recommended Posts

Having listened to Jeremy Corbyn's interventions in the Brxit debate I was struck by a really odd feature of his world view. As I understand it his somewhat grudging support for Remain is predicted on the idea that the EU is a bastion of worker's rights and protections, some of which the nasty Tories are even now plotting to get rid of should a Brexit occur.

However, stripped of it's ideological dressing this proposition amounts to the following assertion- that we should remain in the EU because it has the power to prevent the democraticlly elected government of the UK from implementing policies that it might otherwise wish to implement.

But hang on a moment- I thought Corbyn was a democrat, a believer in parliamentary democracy- what am I missing here? Why is a guy who claims to believe in parliamentary democracy advocating a course of action based explicitly on it's anti democratic advantages?

In effect Corbyn is arguing that we should remain in the EU not in spite of it's ability to override our democratic system but because it has the power to override our democratic system.

God knows I am no supporter of the Tory party but it seems to me that you can't cherry pick democratic outcomes- even if you beleive that the EU happens to currently serve your own political interests this cannot be a reason to support it's ability to override the will of the British parliament.

So at the heart of Corbyn's support for remain is this really pecuilar incoherance- he seems to be trying to argue that democracy is to be defined not in terms of the sovereignty of parliament but in terms of a higher moral principle in which that parliament can and should be overruled should it's behaviour deviate from the values of one Jeremy Corbin esquire.

Almost as strange is his failure to realise that just because the eight hundred pound gorilla of the EU might serve your interests today, there is no ultimate reason to assume that it might not turn against you tommorow- so a large and uncontrollable simian enforcer is a dangerous ally to have- and to argue that we should make use of it to overthrow the power of Parliament is a really strange argument for a democrat to make- especially given that he draws his own legitimacy as a leader of the opposition from precisely that same parliament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrea Leadsom (leave) called out Nicola Sturgeon (remain) on this exact point in the ITV EU debate: basically you don't like the party the people elected so you prefer that the electorate is ignored in favour of your own views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid you have to accept the outcome of democracy, if you believe in it. It might not go your way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the odd things I have notived about this debate is the idea that the EU is solely responsible for our implementation of things like workers rights, Data Protection regulations, working time directives, Human Rights etc etc.

As if we were some kind of third world dictatorship that needs the benign EU to protect us from ourselves.

Yes...there have been significant advances in the last 30/40 years and most of these have been implementations of higher EU laws and directives...by necessity. But my own understanding is we have often implemented them more thoroughly and effectively...perhaps even with a greater degree of protection...than other member states. Who says we would not have enacted similar protections without requirement by the EU?

Seems there have been cases where we were lumbered with laws which seemed unwieldy and overdone (bureacratic) at times, without necessarily being more protective.

It's a strange one...to me incredible that this line has been so universally accepted.

P

Before I give a view on this, I'm completely brexit. But, I don't trust our homegrown politicians either. When I started work in the 70s, there were regulations around every occupation. These laid out pay for every grade, condition, holidays, breaks etc. These had to be pinned up in the rest room (yes they had to provide one). This was in hairdressing but other occupations had the same thing. These were regulated by some government type body, the name of which escapes me.

I slowly saw these rights eroded. Now anything seems to go in or de-unionised and deregulated workplaces and the manager is king. I do remember the EU kind of stepping in and shoring up worker rights to some extent. However, I think both are part of the same conspiracy (if that is not too stong and emotive term) to drive down the cost of labour so as to maximise profit.

The result is that I don't trust any politician, wherever they reside, to do their job of working in the best interests of those they serve and who elected them. I don't think it will be a bed of roses on an out vote. What it will do is remove the option of our own elected politicians of being able to point 'over there, not our fault' and we are slightly more able to hold them to account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are over analysing Corbyn's motives.

Hes just a thick, self righteous rich kid playing at being poor (but hes not).

He beleivesin democracy as long as you votefor what he wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are over analysing Corbyn's motives.

Hes just a thick, self righteous rich kid playing at being poor (but hes not).

He beleivesin democracy as long as you votefor what he wants.

Don't agree. He is principled and has the best intentions towards others. Unfortunately. Along woth much of the Labour Party, he has gone down the international socialist dead end and forgotten the core roots of the Labour Party, the working class. Unfortunately, there is no party representing who the Labour Party should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't agree. He is principled and has the best intentions towards others. Unfortunately. Along woth much of the Labour Party, he has gone down the international socialist dead end and forgotten the core roots of the Labour Party, the working class. Unfortunately, there is no party representing who the Labour Party should.

I reckon so! :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand natural cynicism, bit how do you explain the fact that UK workers tend to have better conditions, including pay than a lot of our European counterparts? Alright wages are suppressed but we still have a high minimun wage and standard of living.

In Data Protection we led the way...so much so there is still concern in passing data overseas, even within the EU.

Some other member states are ahead of us in other areas...probably working hours I would say.

The laws and directives are one thing...but just a baseline. The trick is how you implement and enforce them. We do so pretty fairly, on balance.

No?

P

Have we? Really? The French have been recently taking industrial action to stop the working week moving up from something around 35 hours. The Greeks (yeah I know) can retire in their 50s and seem to be fighting a rearguard action to maintain this. Today, I have been chatting to a collegue in Stockholm who, in a similar role to me is just preparing to go off for six weeks annual leave. I'll be lucky to get two or three weeks. Other colleagues I talk to in other European countries seem to have far better working conditions than we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have we? Really? The French have been recently taking industrial action to stop the working week moving up from something around 35 hours. The Greeks (yeah I know) can retire in their 50s and seem to be fighting a rearguard action to maintain this. Today, I have been chatting to a collegue in Stockholm who, in a similar role to me is just preparing to go off for six weeks annual leave. I'll be lucky to get two or three weeks. Other colleagues I talk to in other European countries seem to have far better working conditions than we do.

The French situation is the important one in Europe. France has historically convulsed itself whenever social changes are in the air. If they ever had to face what we do work rights wise there would be a revolution- absolutely literally. They are protected from the Eastern European under cutting natives aspect by straightforward French chauvinism. They won't employ them over French workers. This is the root of why we are being inundated with EEs. We are more accepting/tolerant than the rest if the EU. Therein lies the irony of accusing the Brexit campaign as being racist. The problem is that the rest of the EU is racist. In summary - they need us more than we need them....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steptoe has spent the past 25 years trying to educate us all on why the EU is undemocratic. There are plenty of videos of his speeches from the 80s/90s on YouTube against the EU.

Now that he's seen a smidgen of power, he's forgotten his principles, or at least made a few mumbling noises when questioned on them. I can't see the man ever becoming PM if he's swayed so easily and forced to toe the party line, it just shows how weak he is. Plus, his bursts of anger are going to be problematic for him if he can't reign them in. Those who have watched a few videos on youtube will know what I mean, he cannot handle the press at all.

His main selling point was that he was principled and not part of the establishment - all shot to pieces over the past few months. Even the Grauniad bores have conveniently forgotten they thought he was the Second Coming last summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are over analysing Corbyn's motives.

Hes just a thick, self righteous rich kid playing at being poor (but hes not).

He beleivesin democracy as long as you votefor what he wants.

I'm not questioning his motives I'm questioning his methods.

I have no doubt that he is sincere in his desire to protect workers rights ect- but to argue that we should remain in the EU specifically to frustrate the ability of opposing politicans to legislate to change those rights- should they be elected- is an anti democratic position.

So while styling himself a democrat he is in fact a closet authoritarian who ultimately belives not in Parlimentary democracy but the force majure of the EU collective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrea Leadsom (leave) called out Nicola Sturgeon (remain) on this exact point in the ITV EU debate: basically you don't like the party the people elected so you prefer that the electorate is ignored in favour of your own views.

Except that that argument only really cuts ice if you're already a British Unionist. From Sturgeon's point of view, the Tories certainly weren't the party the Scottish people elected, therefore deserves to be 'ignored' in Scotland, with or without the involvement of the EU.

Could someone provide some insight as to why SNP grandee Jim Sillars is calling on ScotNats to vote for Brexit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The French situation is the important one in Europe. France has historically convulsed itself whenever social changes are in the air. If they ever had to face what we do work rights wise there would be a revolution- absolutely literally. They are protected from the Eastern European under cutting natives aspect by straightforward French chauvinism. They won't employ them over French workers. This is the root of why we are being inundated with EEs. We are more accepting/tolerant than the rest if the EU. Therein lies the irony of accusing the Brexit campaign as being racist. The problem is that the rest of the EU is racist. In summary - they need us more than we need them....

I agree- the attempt of the remain camp to brand those wanting to leave as racist is itself a form of descrimination- and lets be honest here, were the boot on the other foot and hundreds of thousands of Brits were heading for Romania in search of work would they be welcomed with open arms?

Hardly- the former soviet block countries are among the most xenophobic nations in the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens when Corbyn is faced (assuming he becomes PM) with implementing poilicies from an extreme right-wing EU who could conceivably have right-wing presidents in France, Germany, Austrian (saved by the postal vote...), all the Eastern Europe states and the Batic states. Still I guess he will do what he has done since he became leader and just change his views.

It's not lost on me. They see the EU as a left wing (controlled) right wing mincing machine, what happens when it's a right wing (controlled) left wing mincing machine. All bloody hell breaks lose that's what!

Aw, it's so unfair! It's undemocratic! Strikes, riots and protests. Poor me, blah blah blah!

If you don't fear the EU now, you will do soon. Don't worry! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Corbyn is pro-EU at all. But I think he see's it as the lesser of two evils (for now). You can ascribe whatever you want to him, but ultimately he's a politician, and that means he knows what's best for us and needs to make sure he is around to make it happen.

It's pure pragmatism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having listened to Jeremy Corbyn's interventions in the Brxit debate I was struck by a really odd feature of his world view. As I understand it his somewhat grudging support for Remain is predicted on the idea that the EU is a bastion of worker's rights and protections, some of which the nasty Tories are even now plotting to get rid of should a Brexit occur.

However, stripped of it's ideological dressing this proposition amounts to the following assertion- that we should remain in the EU because it has the power to prevent the democraticlly elected government of the UK from implementing policies that it might otherwise wish to implement.

But hang on a moment- I thought Corbyn was a democrat, a believer in parliamentary democracy- what am I missing here? Why is a guy who claims to believe in parliamentary democracy advocating a course of action based explicitly on it's anti democratic advantages?

In effect Corbyn is arguing that we should remain in the EU not in spite of it's ability to override our democratic system but because it has the power to override our democratic system.

it's not incoherent at all, it is natural socilaism/imperialism.

run by a supreme elite(or emperor) issuing infallible diktat from on high for all the little people to obey...and they will pay homage to the great leader.

as to the trappings of power, we see throughout history EXACTLY what the structure will be.

1)emperors/the fuhrer/leader and cronies living lavishly and as corrupt as hell

2)everybody else living under poverty and state oppression

been done by:

1) roman emperors circa 300bc to 400 ad

2)the pope circa 400 ad to 1400ad

3)the reductions in paraguay and south america

3)napoleon

4)lenin

4)stalin

5)hitler,mussollini and franco

6)honecker/tito/ceaucescu+ a myriad of other eastern european despots

7)mao

8)mugabe

+many,many more.

we have over 2000 years of history to fall back on,and it always ends the same way.Some people just never learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeremy Corbyn is a purposely engineered joke opposition leader designed to prop up an unpopular Prime Minister of the day. See Michael Foot for details of an earlier version. The playbook is well thumbed and has been the same for a long time if you look carefully.

The problem is, it didn't used to matter, as back then previous 'news' was chip paper not readily available, at everyone's fingertips, to be pored over for inconsistencies and logic fails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeremy Corbyn is a purposely engineered joke opposition leader designed to prop up an unpopular Prime Minister of the day. See Michael Foot for details of an earlier version. The playbook is well thumbed and has been the same for a long time if you look carefully.

The problem is, it didn't used to matter, as back then previous 'news' was chip paper not readily available, at everyone's fingertips, to be pored over for inconsistencies and logic fails.

Bit too tin-foil hatted.

Corbyn is the dregs left when Brown has bribed, bullied and blackmailed anyone he thought might challened him to his '1000 years of leadership'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit too tin-foil hatted.

Corbyn is the dregs left when Brown has bribed, bullied and blackmailed anyone he thought might challened him to his '1000 years of leadership'.

Who chooses the Labour party leader generally?

Answer: The unions

Who has a well documented track record of infiltrating the unions?

People think they have something resembling democracy but the narrative is totally news media driven. Gordon Brown called Mrs Duffy a bigot, and he was probably right, it's certainly what everyone in the media would normally say privately too but instead they used it to make sure exactly the sort of toff they generally hate got elected.

David Miliband was only swapped for the gawkier Ed because there was too much of a risk he might unseat the Conservatives after a single term same for Alan Johnson. You'll know when Labour's due in again because someone electable will magically appear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who chooses the Labour party leader generally?

Answer: The unions

Who has a well documented track record of infiltrating the unions?

People think they have something resembling democracy but the narrative is totally news media driven. Gordon Brown called Mrs Duffy a bigot, and he was probably right, it's certainly what everyone in the media would normally say privately too but instead they used it to make sure exactly the sort of toff they generally hate got elected.

David Miliband was only swapped for the gawkier Ed because there was too much of a risk he might unseat the Conservatives after a single term same for Alan Johnson. You'll know when Labour's due in again because someone electable will magically appear.

Cynical - but I love it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who chooses the Labour party leader generally?

Answer: The unions

Who has a well documented track record of infiltrating the unions?

People think they have something resembling democracy but the narrative is totally news media driven. Gordon Brown called Mrs Duffy a bigot, and he was probably right, it's certainly what everyone in the media would normally say privately too but instead they used it to make sure exactly the sort of toff they generally hate got elected.

David Miliband was only swapped for the gawkier Ed because there was too much of a risk he might unseat the Conservatives after a single term same for Alan Johnson. You'll know when Labour's due in again because someone electable will magically appear.

Sort of.

They have a large voting block but the unions are not aligned.

The leader has to shove his or her name in the hat. Very few MPs bothered.

Mrs Duffy was speaking the truth, in her words.

The fact Brown could not comprehend and understand shows how detached he + Labour are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't forget that we are CURRENTLY in the EU, and many of these laws are British exports, negotiated and agreed upon by British representatives in Brussels. Personally I like getting the same minimum standard of workplace protection whenever I'm working at my London desk or in Germany (German protections are miles better though).


It was first past the post gave the Conservatives a 12 seat majority, not the British electorate. A democratic system wouldn't allow the Conservatives to do what they like, and as they say in the US, the more checks and balances we can build into the system the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having listened to Jeremy Corbyn's interventions in the Brxit debate I was struck by a really odd feature of his world view. As I understand it his somewhat grudging support for Remain is predicted on the idea that the EU is a bastion of worker's rights and protections, some of which the nasty Tories are even now plotting to get rid of should a Brexit occur.

However, stripped of it's ideological dressing this proposition amounts to the following assertion- that we should remain in the EU because it has the power to prevent the democraticlly elected government of the UK from implementing policies that it might otherwise wish to implement.

But hang on a moment- I thought Corbyn was a democrat, a believer in parliamentary democracy- what am I missing here? Why is a guy who claims to believe in parliamentary democracy advocating a course of action based explicitly on it's anti democratic advantages?

In effect Corbyn is arguing that we should remain in the EU not in spite of it's ability to override our democratic system but because it has the power to override our democratic system.

God knows I am no supporter of the Tory party but it seems to me that you can't cherry pick democratic outcomes- even if you beleive that the EU happens to currently serve your own political interests this cannot be a reason to support it's ability to override the will of the British parliament.

So at the heart of Corbyn's support for remain is this really pecuilar incoherance- he seems to be trying to argue that democracy is to be defined not in terms of the sovereignty of parliament but in terms of a higher moral principle in which that parliament can and should be overruled should it's behaviour deviate from the values of one Jeremy Corbin esquire.

Almost as strange is his failure to realise that just because the eight hundred pound gorilla of the EU might serve your interests today, there is no ultimate reason to assume that it might not turn against you tommorow- so a large and uncontrollable simian enforcer is a dangerous ally to have- and to argue that we should make use of it to overthrow the power of Parliament is a really strange argument for a democrat to make- especially given that he draws his own legitimacy as a leader of the opposition from precisely that same parliament.

"that we should remain in the EU because it has the power to prevent the democraticlly elected government of the UK from implementing policies that it might otherwise wish to implement."

or another way of thinking about it is that in fact the UK government was elected under a flawed system whereby most voters do not want them - I believe only 36% of people, who voted, voted for the Tories. The other 64% might well wish to ask the more left wing EU to save them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we now claiming greater democratic legitimacy for the EU?

It would seem so :)

I've asked a couple of people what happens when they get a UK government they do support being curtailed by the EU. The penny doesn't seem to drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   14 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.