How stupid is Corbyn getting

IS don't negotiate. Bombing Syria will achieve nothing.

To make real progress in dialogue with bodies such as the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah, and with dictators like Putin, it is necessary to start from a position of strength. Sinn Fein came to the table because it realised that the IRA could not win militarily on he ground. Walking out of NATO and abandoning the nuclear deterrent is not a basis for constructive talks with people whoa re not as nice as we are and will stop at nothing to achieve their aims.

Difficult to negotiate anything with such a heels dug in position that they have been used to take.

You are not going to persuade them by not talking to them though, are you Iam64?

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/04/david-cameron-abandon-syria-airstrikes-vote-jeremy-corbyn-wins

A good reason to vote for Corbyn.

I seem to recall that the IRA were always insistent that they would never recognise the legitimacy of Northern Ireland and their stated aim was to force the British out of Northern Ireland. It was not through dubbing the voice of Gerry Adams and refusing to talk to the IRA that a settlement was reached but through recognising that, however abhorrent a group's methods may be, it is only when you bring all the parties together that meaningful negotiations for a peaceful settlement can take place.

I believe it is unrealistic to expect to commence a negotiation between parties by demanding a declaration be made that would require one party to yield to the other before the process of negotiation has even begun.

That's one of my worries thatbags and one of the reasons JC didn't get my vote in the leadership election.

Has Hamas accepted the state of Israel yet? Difficult to negotiate anything with such a heels dug in position that they have been used to take.

There is a big difference between the BNP, which represents the views of very few people in the UK and which has seen its support virtually fade away, and Hamas which - like it or not - represents the views of thousands of people. It is necessary to negotiate with every group that is involved in a conflict and whose co-operation must be obtained in order to achieve peace. There isn't much point in gathering together only the people with whom you are in broad agreement and then conclude that you can do nothing about achieving peace because not all the relevant parties are present.

POGS there is a difference between talking to others from different cultures and societies who have been denied the right of elected representation and sharing a platform with parties you are diametrically opposed to. The former you may find some common ground you can work with, the latter you will not. Seems perfectly logical to me.

We live in interesting times. At the moment, although he seems, on the whole, to be the archetypal nice bloke, I don't think JC will make a good leader of the Labour Party. If he gets the vote, we'll know soon enough (he might surprise me), and if he isn't voted in we may never know.

Well said that Gracesgran. I also like what Corbyn is saying and I accept politicians have to share platforms with people they don't necessarily totally agree with but his willingness to share with some groups does bother me - a bit. If he's elected leader, I'll accept the will of the majority and support him until or unless I have reason not to. Nothing he's said during this campaign has alienated me. I'm a bit pro maintaining Trident, none of my close friends or family agree with me, so there you go.

I like what Corbyn is saying POGS but I don't believe he walks on water. I think people are a less naïve than that.

Gracesgran

There is an alternative view though isn't there.

Those who lionise Corbyn refuse to accept anything that doesn't keep him on a pedestal.

I will be asked to give an example so here goes.

I couldn't help but note there has been a wide defence of Corbyn sharing platforms with some shady characters and his friendship toward Hamas and Hezbolla. They have defended him by saying his stance is to have dialogue with those you don't agree with. When asked if that means he would adhere to that principle and share a platform with the BNP he said of course not. It might be a minor comment but it implies his logic and reasoning is not what it seems when discussing his connections .

I rather liked the way during the Sky debate he had applause by the audience when he said 'I don't buy the Sun newspaper'. They soon kept quiet when it was pointed out he had written an article in the Sun newspaper. I know what that small point says to me but I dare say you will not agree.

To those who lionise Corbyn they will repeatedly use the age old excuse that anything that does state a truthful fact that they don't like it must be right wing propaganda because then they don't have to accept something that lowers the pedestal somewhat.

Very interesting days ahead.

'Anti-labour voters' is a very loose description. Many may be so at the moment, but may not be in the future.

Do quote the whole point Ana:

the anti-Labour voters will delight in anything that attacks him. As they are never going to vote Labour whoever leads the party, we have little need to pay attention to their views.

If you have or would vote Labour then I wasn't referring to you as you can see.

As they are never going to vote Labour whoever leads the party, we have little need to pay attention to their views.

What a strange attitude, Gracesgran. As one who has voted for each of the three major parties at one or another time in the past, I would certainly consider voting Labour in the future. Not every voter is as determinedly partisan as you seem to think.

I guess Rafael Behr doesn't like Jeremy Corbyn very much. He's not alone there. He doesn't add much to the debate though, does he?

If JC does nothing more than kill New Labour and its message stone dead, then that is a great achievement and a legacy anyone should be proud of. If he does no more than return the party to its core values and inspire a generation that has no experience of socialist principles in politics then he has done a great thing. Sneering at what he has already done and is doing is the stock in trade of a columnist who doesn't have to propose any alternative.

Another of your very reasoned posts Eloethan. Obviously the man writing the article is very anti the idea of conviction politics . Your comment:

My feeling is that a party should truthfully represent what it believes in and hope that the arguments it puts forward are convincing enough to maintain its own committed supporters and to attract voters from other parties. I don't believe that a party should turn itself inside out to accommodate the wishes of people who have a diametrically different political stance.

... seems to me to sum up the attraction of what Jeremy Corbyn says rather more than the article. Obviously, now we are beginning to see more articles about why it is possible for a Jeremy Corbyn led party to win a GE the anti-Labour voters will delight in anything that attacks him. As they are never going to vote Labour whoever leads the party, we have little need to pay attention to their views.

and who can live up to that?

exactly Ana, that is it in a nutshell.

I didn't think the writer did imply that JC was taking the moral high ground - rather that his supporters do see him as the messiah of the Labour Party and in their eyes he can do no wrong and is therefore 'immune from criticism'.

He suggests that listening to Corbyn and his supporters is like watching a relegated football team find excuses for the causes of defeat and concluding they has spent too much time on the opponent's half of the patch." It's funny how commentators and politicians are so keen on domestic or sporting analogies - perhaps because the images are misleading in their simplicity. The general election turnout was 66% - so not a magnificent representation of participative democracy. The gap between potential and actual voters suggests that some voters saw no point in supporting any of the parties, as they perceived them to be proposing a very similar agenda.

The writer says that "the case for listening to people who voted Conservative and thinking of ways to change their minds has been crushed. This was the ethos of New Labour" My feeling is that a party should truthfully represent what it believes in and hope that the arguments it puts forward are convincing enough to maintain its own committed supporters and to attract voters from other parties. I don't believe that a party should turn itself inside out to accommodate the wishes of people who have a diametrically different political stance. My feeling is that Blair's cosying up to Murdoch, Mandelson's smug statement that he was "intensely relaxed about the super rich", the continuation of the PFI agenda, the loosening of bank regulation and, finally, the reckless and questionable way in which Blair drew the UK into an illegal war made many voters question whether there was any point in voting Labour.

The writer then says Labour would need to marry political reality with moral authority and then goes on to list deficit reduction, reforming social security and immigration - very much the priorities of the Conservative Party.

He characterises Jeremy Corbyn as someone unfairly representing himself as taking the moral high ground and sneeringly refers to him as "the anointed one". The implication is that JC has carefully cultivated a saintly image. JC has been an MP for 30+ years and has never sought the limelight. He has loyally represented his constituency whilst at the same time campaigning for non-violent solutions to national and international conflicts. He has not been part of the Westminster "gravy train" and has, I think, the record for making the lowest expenses claim.

The suggestion that Corbyn is "immune from criticism" is laughable. Not a day goes by without something being dragged up in the mainstream media to try and ridicule or discredit him. If certain individuals and organisations wish to demonise him, it is perhaps natural that those sympathetic to Corbyn's views tend to go the other way and lionise him.

In a way, I feel sorry for the man, because so many left wing/ greens/ etc plus some ordinary Labour voters have made him the ' personification' of all the things they would like most....it's a dream for dreamers.

Yes, just read it and think it should be required reading for all on this forum who think Corbyn is the best thing since sliced bread.

What an intelligent and perceptive article, thatbags, thanks for that link.