Features

The Corbynites have only ever cared about foreign politics - they have no idea about Britain

29 October 2015

9:00 AM

29 October 2015

9:00 AM

If Labour is ever to clamber out of its cage on the fringe of politics, it will have to convince the 250,000 supporters who voted for Jeremy Corbyn to turn from far-leftists into social democrats. The necessity of persuading them that they made a terrible mistake is so obvious to Labour MPs that they barely need to talk about it.

In case it is not obvious to you, let me spell it out. Corbyn exacerbates every fault that kept Labour from power in 2015, and then adds some new ones, just for fun. To the failure to convince the voters that Labour can be trusted with control of the borders and the management of public money and the economy, Corbyn and his comrades bring their support for the nationalist and imperialist Putin regime, the theocratic Iranian regime, and the women-, Jew- and gay- haters of radical Islam. Corbyn’s Labour will ask a Britain it seems to despise to give it power. Britain will never do so, and every Labour politician I have spoken to accepts that the Labour party will have to destroy Corbyn before Corbyn destroys the Labour party.

A palace coup is not impossible. The party conference has to endorse Labour’s leader annually. In normal times, the endorsement is a formality. These are not normal times, however, and if the parliamentary party puts forward just one candidate, and refuses to nominate Corbyn or a supporter of Corbyn, the members would have to accept the replacement.

Tony Blair’s former adviser John McTernan has been arguing for weeks that MPs should put the interests of Labour voters before Labour members and dump Corbyn in 2016. The left would go wild; Labour members would scream that MPs were backstabbing bastards who had overridden party democracy. But so what? Politicians are meant to be backstabbing bastards. There are moments of crisis when their party and their country’s interests demand backstabbing bastards. If today’s Labour MPs can’t bring themselves to be backstabbing bastards, they should step aside and make way for proper politicians who can.

Although the McTernan plan is feasible, it raises formidable difficulties. Corbyn and his supporters would call in the lawyers. They would argue that, as leader, Corbyn’s name should be on the ballot paper however few MPs nominated him. No Labour MP I have spoken to wants to take on that fight — not for now, at any rate. Instead, they want to persuade Corbyn’s supporters that he has to go.


The long-term nature of that argument accounts for much of the paranoia in the Labour party. The far left knows that nine out of ten of Corbyn’s colleagues want him out. MPs know that the far left wants to deselect and replace them. In the middle of these manoeuvres sits the puzzled figure of Corbyn himself. Shadow cabinet members tell me that he isn’t a bullying leader. On the contrary, he treats their objections to his policies politely, and lets them follow their consciences. Such is the tension in the Labour party that MPs regard Corbyn’s virtues as a vice and his tolerance as weakness. They say he lacks the authority to stop Momentum, Socialist Organiser, the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and the rest of the far left coming for sitting MPs, even if he wants to.

Corbyn supporters’ screams of ‘Tory!’ at all who disagree with them — their gobbiness and on occasion their gobbing too — suggest it is delusional for Labour MPs to hope that one day they will agree to abandon their hero. On the left at the moment, if you don’t accept Corbyn’s intrinsic goodness and dismiss reports of his alliances with the Russian nationalist right and Islamist religious right as ‘smears’, then you are making a public declaration of your own wickedness.

‘I’m a very low-rung academic in the humanities, and I have learnt the art of holding my tongue 24 hours a day,’ writes a correspondent reporting in from the core Corbyn heartland of higher education. ‘It’s like Invasion of the Body Snatchers here. If I could get out of academia, I would. It’s almost as if they prefer having Tories to shout at than a Labour government to be disappointed in.’

Cultists who damn doubters as not just wrong but wicked are not easily persuaded to change, particularly when beneath the hypocrisy, the utopianism, the posturing and the sickly indulgence of secular and religious tyranny, they have a decent argument. The 2008 banking crash led to the punishment of working- and middle-class people who were not responsible for it. We now have a Conservative government intent on pushing the ‘striving’ poor it purports to support into penury. Surely it is not ‘far left’ to see the immorality in that, and not utopian to believe that a populist political movement can be built to fight it?

Herein lies the Labour membership’s problem, and Labour MPs’ slim hope. The careers of Corbyn and his advisers have been dominated by opposition to Anglo-American wars, and support for the IRA, Chavista Venezuela, Iran, radical Islam and every Russian dictator from Brezhnev to Putin. They have not been interested in domestic politics, and have no idea how to change it.

Corbyn’s shadow chancellor supported George Osborne’s fiscal responsibility charter, only to U-turn when the poor fool finally realised it would stop him opposing austerity. The strongest stand against the government’s cut to tax credits has not come from Corbyn’s supposedly left-wing Labour, but from the supposedly compromised Liberal Democrats.

Several shadow ministers told me that Corbyn’s support would shrink as members realised that he was hopeless at opposing the government. In the long run, his own incompetence would do for him, they said.

Whether Labour has the luxury of waiting years for its members to realise that Corbyn is not the fighter they thought him to be was not a question they either posed or answered. In the long run we are all dead, said Lord Keynes. For Labour, it may be sooner than that.

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Subscribe – Try a month free


Show comments
  • George_Arseborne

    Nick Cohen, you just a piece of shit. This article is so useless. Are you a dreamer just like John Mc Ternan.

    • Man on the Clapham omnibus

      I take it that this is what passes for intellectual debate amongst the Corbynistas.

      • willshome

        No, that is what passes for an impression of a Corbynista by an idiot. This is what passes for intellectual debate amongst the Corbynistas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdb0JXwdHho

        • Paul Robson

          If an idiot is impersonating a Corbynista how do you tell ?

  • David Woolford

    where’s Mongo?

  • Alex J Campbell

    At the most recent PMQs, Corbyn gave a voice to the millions who are really worried about the effects of the forthcoming tax credit cuts on their family finances. You might recall how one Conservative voter broke down in tears on BBC Queston Time over the issue. Seems like Corbyn is doing what he’s meant to be doing and finding his feet in his role. Whatever your political colours, it seems to me like Corbyn is a beath of fresh air. If the right wing consensus established from 1979 to the present day is indeed a consensus then it will surely survive Corbyn’s interrogation. We live in interesting times.

    • Jack Rocks

      It’s a shame Corbyn isn’t giving a voice to the millions of tax payers who have to pay for these tax credits or better, the millions of children who’ll inherit the debt.

      • gavin

        You mean the debt that has risen since the tories have been in power?

        • Paul Robson

          So, you are in favour of more cuts then ?

          Or are you yet another one of those thick lefties who doesn’t understand *why* the debt is going up as it is ?

          • gavin

            The debt is going up because the tories keep borrowing. Despite their claims to the contrary.

          • Paul Robson

            Well, obviously, yes you are.

            I am aware of nowhere where the Tories claim they are not borrowing. It’s unlikely because they obviously are, about £90bn a year.

            What they are claiming (again accurately) is that annual borrowing is going down. They also want to reduce annual borrowing to zero.

            Reducing annual borrowing to zero is the only way to stop the debt going up. If we borrow, the debt goes up, right ?

            So, we have to reduce spending, or increase tax income by £90bn a year, or some combination thereof.

          • gavin

            My apologies, perhaps they haven’t claimed that they aren’t borrowing. They are however lying out their asses as they say they are borrowing less than what Labour would. They do not care about reducing the debt. ONLY filling their pockets while they still can.

          • HJ777

            Labour explicitly said at the last election that they would borrow more, i.e. reduce the deficit more slowly than the Tories, so how are the Tories lying about this?

          • gavin

            Because the tories are lying. They say they are spending minute amounts while sipping down champers that cost over a grand a bottle.

          • HJ777

            So your argument is that they are lying because you say they are lying even though you have no evidence and this is proven because of the supposed price of the champagne you say they are drinking.

            Where did they say they are ‘spending minute amounts’?

          • gavin

            They make it seem as if they are only spending what is necessary in order to drop the debt. But the debt has risen. Please explain this to me?

          • HJ777

            On the contrary, they have made it clear that they must cut spending in order to stop increasing the debt before they can run a surplus to reduce the debt.

            I’m afraid that I can’t explain your ignorance. It is unfathomable.

          • gavin

            http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2013/11/the-tories-have-piled-on-more-debt-than-labour/ Then why increase spending? You are literally making up excuses now. I think you know that as well.

          • Paul Robson

            Because spending can increase without borrowing increasing.

            It’s like, say, you get a better paid job, so you don’t have to borrow money

          • gavin

            Then why has the debt increased rather than decreased?

          • Paul Robson

            … because we are borrowing £90bn a year ?

            The economy is improving, slowly, but has not improved enough to allow us not to borrow to maintain current spending levels, nor is it ever likely to.

          • gavin

            So the tories are chatting shite then? And the cuts to the poorer are absolutely ideological then? Thanks for clearing that up for me! Now i am even more convinced that the tories are wankers!

          • Paul Robson

            HJ777, are these two for real ?

          • HJ777

            I fear ‘gavin’ may be, hard though it is to believe that anyone could be quite so confused and certain of his view simultaneously.

          • Ron Todd

            No I have long known people who are both confused, mistaken and certain.

          • HJ777

            You are terminally confused.

          • Paul Robson

            You don’t understand the difference between the deficit and the debt, that’s why.

            Analogies aren’t great, but sometimes help.

            Suppose you are surviving monthly by borrowing money using a credit card.

            The amount you borrow *monthly* is the “monthly” deficit.
            The total amount you owe is the “debt”.

            To stop the debt – the amount you owe the credit card company – going up, you have to stop the monthly borrowing, and actually pay something back.

            In UK terms, our annual deficit is about £90bn (down from £160bn in 2010) and the actual debt is £1.5tn , roughly.

          • Ron Todd

            By historic standards the proportion of the wealth created by business and working people that is spent by the state is still very high.

          • blandings

            “a grand a bottle.”
            C’mon junior, I spend more than that.

          • Acleron

            Your own money, or does the tax payer buy it for you?

          • blandings

            I steal it from the poor. Widows and orphans mostly

          • Paul Robson

            Given that Labour’s stated policy involves borrowing to invest for growth (which governments are hopeless at) and they challenge every spending cut and have done for five years, it’s somewhat unlikely that Labour would borrow less money.

            I must admit you are the first person I have ever met who argued that the Tories would borrow more than Labour.

            They claim to make up the gap using the “£120bn tax avoidance” (which doesn’t exist) and the “£93bn corporate welfare (which doesn’t exist either).

            If the Tories wanted to fill their pockets the best way to do it would be to engineer a fake boom a la Brown, make money off that and jump off before the inevitable crash came. Reducing the annual deficit is always politically unpopular.

          • Acleron

            Kitchen economics may bring you to the conclusion that we have to reduce spending or increase taxation but it is not necessary. As long as the borrowing is kept within the increase of GDP then it will be reduced by inflation. This is where this government has signally failed, by concentrating on austerity they have been unable to stimulate the economy and impoverished us all. By giving most of this £90b to the banks as quantitative easing or free money they have lost it because the banks have either paid down their debts to foreign banks or just moved the money out of the country. Far better would be to just throw the money onto the pavements, at least it would go through economy at least once.

          • Paul Robson

            The borrowing isn’t within the increase of GDP is it ?

            The idea of stimulating the economy to produce growth is a great idea, but governments have a pretty much unbroken record of being bad at it.

            Governments have a lousy record in picking businesses to support. They tend to indulge in politics too much, hence money goes to support their potential voters, not where it actually might cause growth.

            Most of the money hasn’t gone to the banks. QE doesn’t benefit banks.

            Finally, we haven’t had austerity. Yet.

          • gavin

            Well all i know is i don’t need somebody who claims for their pant’s trying to cut benefits to the poor.

          • edwardowen

            They have borrowed more in 5yrs than labour did in 13yrs and the national debt has doubled,back to the towel folding gidiot.

          • Paul Robson

            Oh, god, another one who can’t understand basic economics.

            You don’t think the “debt doubling” has anything to do with the £160bn deficit that Labour left them with ?

            I mean, to get “no debt increase” you’d have to reduce spending, or increase tax (or some combination of the two) by £160bn ?

            You do know what debt and deficit are, don’t you ? It’s my experience that people who quote this mantra don’t, because if they did they’d realise it was stupid.

          • edwardowen

            Save us the lecture dude,we had to bail out the banks or everything would have come to a standstill,and the cons voted for it as well,you seem to forget the world recession dude.

          • Paul Robson

            I’ll take that as a “no”, as your response has nothing to do with the post.

            We had to bail out some of the banks. RBS probably yes, and we got shares in RBS for that.

            Some we didn’t, Northern Rock immediately springs to mind, that was probably a political decision. Southern Rock based in Sevenoaks would have been allowed to sink.

            Here’s a homework question for you

            1) How much was spent “bailing out the banks” ?
            2) Of that, how much has been recovered ?

            Rough answers will do.

          • edwardowen

            1.162 TRILLION we bailled them out for,not sure how much is paid back.

          • Paul Robson

            Nope, right digits, near enough, but out by a factor of 1,000.

            Where does your figure come from ?

          • edwardowen

            Google,this country is in a worst mess than ever mate.

          • HJ777

            The deficit has nothing to do with the cost of bailing out the banks.

            Bank bailout costs are separately accounted for and mainly took the form of guarantees and acquiring equity in the banks (i.e. the taxpayer gained assets in return). Overall, when the bank shares are sold, the taxpayer may even make a surplus.

          • Neither of which will affect the borrowing level one little bit – because the ‘debt going up’ is caused by people saving.

            If you want to stop it going up you have to stop people saving, or get them to borrow more. That’s how the accounting works.

          • Paul Robson

            No, it isn’t. The debt is caused by excess government expenditure over income. There is a private debt issue but that’s seperate to this.

          • It isn’t. It is caused by people saving more and borrowing less. That is the causal factor – private sector decisions to save and borrow.

            If you try and reduce the deficit then what happens is either we enter a recession, lots of people lose their jobs and therefore borrow more and save less.

            Or nothing changes and you still have a deficit as less spending causes less tax receipts.

            It’s a simple dynamic feedback loop that you seem to be struggling to get your head around.

            My spending is your income. Government spending is lots of businesses income. They don’t get that spending, they don’t need your employment.

          • HJ777

            May I suggest that you don’t go into accounting as a career?

          • I’m qualified in it, and have practiced as an accountant.

            So what does that suggest about your understanding?

          • HJ777

            It suggests that you are not an accountant since you haven’t the faintest idea.

            And you most certainly have no understanding of economics.

          • And your response suggests you are trolling.

          • HJ777

            It suggests merely, and correctly, that you are a fool.

            As does your childish accusation of ‘trolling’.

          • It’s caused by people in the private sector saving more and borrowing less.

            Never understood why Tories are so against that. Is it because you own banks and don’t like the idea of people being able to get by without loans?

          • Paul Robson

            No, it’s a public sector debt. The private sector debt is a seperate issue. I agree with you, people should save more, but most people I know, including some who claim to be really short of money, spend up the moment they get any money and definitely *not* on anything essential.

          • The government deficit is identical *to the penny* to the amount people save from income less the change in their borrowing.

            With the sign changed obviously.

            So it is not a separate issue at all. If you want the public deficit to come down, then what you are saying is that you want people to save less and borrow more.

            Because *by accounting identity (i.e. *they are the same thing*) the government deficit is equal to the non-government surplus. And vice versa.

      • Probably because both those concepts are complete fantasies dreamt up by people who are hard of accounting.

        If the children inherit the debt they also inherit the assets. In other words it is paid to the same set of people.

        And tax credits are spent, which means businesses earn an income from them providing service. If the tax credits are not spent then the business doesn’t provide a service and doesn’t earn an income.

        Which then means they don’t need to hire you as an employee.

        Those ‘taxpayers’ supposedly funding tax credits will find out the hard way that the tax credits were actually funding their job.

        If you cut spending without cutting taxes by more to make the multipliers work, then people start to lose their jobs as businesses and their supply chains lose customers

        • Jack Rocks

          If what you say is true, there’s absolutely no need to reduce the deficit or the debt. We can just let it continue rising, no problem. 100% GDP, 200% GDP, 500% GDP, it doesn’t matter does it Neil.

          Idiot.

          • The ratios don’t really matter that much at all. If you focus upon them, and ignore the unemployment, underemployment, lack of investment, poor productivity, then you are just like an OCD sufferer that spends all their time trapped by thoughts that aren’t real.

            Except that an OCD sufferer knows that what they are worrying about isn’t real.

            There is no mechanism by which the public debt ratio can be a problem.

          • Jack Rocks

            Ahahahaha. Debt ratios don’t matter.

            What a comedian you are.

          • Why would they?

    • HJ777

      She said she was a Conservative voter – we don’t know whether that is true.

      But take a moment to look at her position. She was earning zero herself but was getting the equivalent of a pre-tax income of around £30,000 from the taxpayer. Some of this money she was using to run a lifestyle ‘business’ which loses money but which, because she was supposedly self-employed doing it, meant that she qualified for Working Tax Credits.

      It was crazy and allowed her to avoid entering gainful employment – and only possible because of Tax Credits.

      • Paul Robson

        Actually, my missus is in the same line of work. She did make a bit of money, because there are almost no costs incurred in that line of business other than things like Nail Gel Polish and so on. I do her books ; we reckon she actually does 6-7 hours a week from her quoted figures, which is not “hard work” (which she claims to be doing) by any stretch of the imagination.

        Her £150 was supposed to be spent on “stock” and “advertising” ; this obviously is a lie as well.

        I very much doubt she was a Conservative voter. Anyone that dependent on Benefits, basically 100%, usually votes Labour.

        • NickG

          But the quivering lip is oh so persuasive to the bien pensants.

          • Paul Robson

            She’s also gaming the system ; people on WTC who are self employed but earn nothing don’t have the pressures of the dole e.g. being made to apply for jobs.

    • Ron Todd

      A Tory voter in the Question time audience ?

  • willshome

    Er, has Nick Cohen been “away” somewhere? Is he unaware of what has been happening in Britain – the real one, our one – in his absence? Getting the Government to pull out of a prison contract with the head-lopping Saudis. Defeating the Government on the universally loathed tax credit cuts that even new Tory MPs speak (but dare not vote) against. Getting the Government to taking the tampon tax (sorry Bill Cash “these products tax”) to the EU. Showing Cameron up as a liar and a cheat at every PMQ. In a matter of six weeks, Jeremy Corbyn has transformed British politics for the better and he’s only just getting started. And you can forget about a leadership election. If there were to be one, Jeremy would gracefully decline to stand, the increasingly impressive John McDonnell would sweep in with a massive majority and appoint Jezza as his Home Secretary. Who could withstand this dynamic duo then – busted flush Osborne or buffoon Boris? Don’t make me laugh.

    • alfred5

      Mcdonnell and Corbyn are like the nuts from the fishing trip in ”one flew of the Cukoo’s nest ”
      did one fly over the Corbyn nest ?

    • digiman47

      I think you need to get into the real world and speak to some real people outside the cocoon of far left Labour supporters who you encounter on a daily basis. Ed Miliband could not convince the voters, no-one in their right mind could imagine that Corbyn and his cronies could even do as well as he did.

      • Paul Robson

        I’m sure they’ll love him in Nuneaton, Swindon and Gravesend, but then they don’t need any votes there, so it doesn’t matter. Great for the majorities in Sunderland though.

    • Jack Rocks

      The only problem is most people in the country (you know, the voters) back government cuts to welfare. They’re quite ambivalent about 5% VAT on tampons and although people don’t much like the Saudis, we honestly couldn’t care less if a company is doing business with them.

      So no, you aren’t going to win an election any time soon.

      • Acleron

        The ekectorate back the Tory cuts to welfare? That must be why Cameron lied about his intent.

        • HJ777

          Can you detail exactly what he is supposeed to have lied about?

          Please refer to exactly what he was asked, exactly what he answered and what he has since done that make it a lie.

          • Paul Robson

            Now, be fair, give him a bit of a chance, I have known two (out of god knows how many) who, when faced with the accurate quote, admit it means what it says.

            The most common thing is to quote the audience question, and the the “It’s not going to fall” on it’s own, pretending it’s an answer to it (it isn’t, it’s an answer to Dimbleby’s question) and not quoting anything beyond that phrase.

            Then they say Cameron’s a liar !

          • siphil

            He did say of course that tax credits would remain untouched. I didn’t believe that at the time but he probably didn’t think the Tories would be in power after the GE and in any case, he could have blamed the LibDems for not letting him cut the welfare budget.

          • Paul Robson

            Where did he say “tax credits would remain untouched” ?

            As you say “of course” presumably you can point this out to me ? I have had a look and can’t find it.

            Having had so many people lie to me about the “It’s not going to fall” quote ; some, to be fair, probably copied it without bothering to look, I’m somehwat cynical about what Cameron supposedly said or didn’t say.

            I have a vague memory Michael Gove may have send something along those lines. But then the people who were telling me this were the same ones saying “It’s not going to fall” applies to tax credits.

          • HJ777

            He did not say that Tax Credits would remain untouched.

            He was asked a specific question about Child Tax Credits and Child Benefit – and nothing that has been done since contradicts his answer.

            He was not asked about Working Tax Credit.

        • Paul Robson

          Go on, then, quote his “lies”. In the actual context, with the actual words, not conveniently missing bits out.

        • Jack Rocks

          I don’t think he did lie did he. I seem to remember promises of £12bn of welfare cuts that the Liberal Democrats were very, very unhappy about.

          Note: Cameron won the election and the Liberal Democrats have, what, 8 seats?

          Interesting.

          • Paul Robson

            Well @siphil above says he said tax credits would remain untouched. Strikes me as horribly unlikely ; Child Tax Credits, yes, Child Tax Benefits, yes (most of the “lies” are these which have conveniently lost the “Child” word).

            Given that just about everyone thinks Tax Credits are sh*t anyway, it strikes me as a very odd thing to say.

    • bishblaize

      This is why Corbyn supporters will never change their minds. In their own minds they spin his woeful performance of the last two months into some sort of radical success story.

    • siphil

      Wow, you really believe this tosh don’t you.

    • Unhiddenness

      He’s been locked in his bathroom drinking whiskey since Corbyn got up.

    • Ron Todd

      Is that the IRA supporting John McDonnell who wants to lynch Tory women or is there another one that normal voters could respect.

  • alfred5

    The hapless Corbyn is a modern day Don Quoxte searching for a romanticised bygone era and only managing to tilt at metaphorical windmills …Mcdonnell , or Watson are Sancho

  • WhiteVanMan

    If most of the£3 supporters have joined and most of those backed Corbyn, and the union affiliates mainly voted for him, ,and if labour are on 23% in the polls for the next 2 and a half years,then there could be a coup,with a centre left anyone but Corbyn candidate, Steven Kinnock maybe, but then they’d only get 51% of the vote at best

    Hopefully the EU referndum, will bring out a anti EU centre left candidate for leaders jon cryer possibly

  • Mark Burpham

    Maybe, just maybe, instead of constantly doing him down, people stopped and listened and gave him a chance. Then they might just see he’s a force for good in British politics, something that’s been needed for years, someone that is the polar opposite to the spin politics that downing street, whoever is in there, seems to think that’s good for the country and good for the people. JC election was about rejecting this and getting back to an honest democracy.

    • Paul Robson

      That’s an honest democracy where you can buy as many votes as you like for £3 each ?

      Corbyn’s economic statements on tax evasion and “corporate welfare” tell me one of two things (i) he’s ignorant (ii) he’s dishonest.

      To be fair to Steptoe, it’s probably the former.

      Irrespective of what Corbyn is or isn’t ; the people behind him are thugs and you won’t get any sort of “democracy” out of them.

      • Acleron

        Thugs? All of them? So by that logic, any Tory who is antisocial makes all Tories antisocial.

        • blandings

          “Thugs? All of them?”
          An exaggeration – just most of them

          • Acleron

            So most Tories are antisocial.

            Actually they are not but that is where this argument takes you.

          • blandings

            “So most Tories are antisocial.
            Actually they are not but that is where this argument takes you.”

            No it doesn’t.

        • Paul Robson

          Nothing to do with anti-social. The people behind Corbyn are the old militant tendency mob, and yes, they are thugs. The current move is to pressure the PLP to support Corbyn (most don’t) using the threat of deselection, which is exacerbated by the boundary changes.

    • HJ777

      It is pure spin to pretend that there is £100bn that can be obtained from companies and individuals who are currently engaged in tax avoidance and evasion so that it can be spent on the public sector.

      • “It is pure spin to pretend that there is £100bn that can be obtained from companies and individuals who are currently engaged in tax avoidance and evasion so that it can be spent on the public sector.”

        Is it?

        Perhaps if you understood that the public sector spends first (because its cheques can’t bounce), which then propagates through the spending system to all parts you might understand how it works.

        Government can spend as long as there are real resources spare that it can engage. Simply spending generates the tax and saving necessary to cover the spending *as a matter of accounting*. It can’t, in aggregate, go anywhere else.

        And since there are 23 million people across the EU without work, there is a heck of a surplus of real output that needs spending.

        Corbyn has no need to tax anybody. If you spend £100, you’ll get £90 back in taxation and £10 back in people’s savings (the split depends entirely upon the current savings ratio) .

        Now if Corbyn, on top of that, wants to do some redistribution then there are plenty of people raking in far more than they deserve who can be targeted.

        But never mix up the distribution of the tax take with the total tax take. They operate to different dynamics.

        • HJ777

          Yes it is pure spin – or delusion.

          Speaking of which, that word – delusion – sums up the rest of your post. Why do you waste your time posting your economic lunacy? You forget that some of us have the powers of reasoning that you so obviously lack, which is why we live in the real world, not your fantasy one.

          • And yet you attack ad hominem, without a single argument against what I’ve said.

            And of course that’s because you don’t have an argument grounded in reality.

          • HJ777

            What would you know about reality?

            What you have said is pure deluded twaddle from start to finish. You don’t even present an argument, just a series of specious assertions.

            If you ever manage to present a coherent argument, I will be delighted to respond to it. But I’m not going to hold my breath.

          • Troll response.

          • HJ777

            Do grow up, you silly little man.

            Your posts are based on obvious fallacy that you have convinced yourself are some sort of wisdom and insight. You seem to think that there is something magically different about government spending. It’s nonsense.

          • kowloonbhoy

            er…. you haven’t put forward anything, let alone a coherent argument. Reading your previous posts suggests that you have a very high (& fixed) opinion of yourself. You have a problem. Btw, the guy you attack has a pretty good, well respected blog/forum answering all your attacks. http://www.3spoken.co.uk/…. if you are interested. However, I suspect you believe you know everything already.

          • HJ777

            I wasn’t attempting to put forward an argument, just pointing out a fallacious and deluded one.

            You may think his blog is well respected – that says plenty about you.

          • kowloonbhoy

            Ok. I see it now, you are quite correct. Thanks for pointing this out. His explanations of MMT, Sovereign money, uk statistics (46) government spending (31) private debt
            (23) unemployment (17) rails (11) UK (10) job guarantee (10) central bank (9)
            Bank of England (8) banks (8) quantitative easing (8) underemployment (8)
            deficit (6) EU (5) HM Treasury (5) foreign exchange (5) functional finance (5)
            qe (5) ubuntu (5) Scottish Independence (4) taxation (4) ECB (3) Gilts (3)
            chartalism (3) circuit theory (3) endogenous money (3) eurozone (3) greek (3)
            income guarantee (3) linux (3) parliament (3) Cyprus (2) alternative vote (2)
            corbynomics (2) debt crisis (2) ecomonics (2) election (2) fiscal policy (2)
            funding for lending (2) imf (2) immigration (2) mct (2) money (2) new model
            bank (2) personal (2) saving (2) sectoral balance (2) sovereign debt (2)
            sterling (2) tax (2) uk recession (2) Bernanke (1) Federal Reserve (1) GDP (1)
            Interest (1) Minsky (1) Russia (1) US Treasury (1) argentina (1) bbc (1)
            bonding (1) capistrano (1) capital (1) central bank. etc…. are fallacious and deluded cuz HJ777 says so. Christ, I bet you don’t get many dates.

          • HJ777

            Do grow up.

            He posts nonsense all over the place – as many people have pointed out.

            However, I referred here specifically to the £100bn+ of tax avoidance/evasion claim. HMRC says this is nonsense – and anybody looking at the way this £100bn+ figure was calculated can see the obvious fallacies it uses to construct this figure. But he seems to think it is correct.

            So how about stopping all the flim-flam and giving lists of things he has posted on (as if that made him more credible) and address the issue in question. Do you agree with him on the £100bn figure ? If so, explain why HMRC have got it totally wrong and he is correct.

            I look forward to your explanation.

          • kowloonbhoy

            I couldnt care less about your winning a pedantic point about some 100bn figure. I am more interested in my quest to gain some kind of elementary understanding of the current battle between Neoliberal monetary austerity vs. MMT. I thought you had something to offer on the subject since you are soooooo sure of yourself. All you have done so far is attack someone who has presented several clear & concise positions, and then tried to make out the key issue about some irrelevant stat.

          • HJ777

            The whole point of his post was to defend the supposed £100bn figure! I pointed out that his response is nonsense – and I have HMRC on my side.

            Far from being ‘clear and concise’, neither you nor he have managed to offer any explanation of why HMRC are wrong. If you start with a nonsense position and work from there, you are not going to come up with anything sensible.

            Please enjoy your quest to gain some sort of elementary understanding. You haven’t made a good start, but I wish you luck. Hint: You’re currently headed in the wrong direction.

          • kowloonbhoy

            “Why do you waste your time posting your economic lunacy? You forget that some of us have the powers of reasoning that you so obviously lack, which is why we live in the real world, not your fantasy one.” I have witnessed this kind of venom in arguments concerning economics in many Asian conferences, particularly from our Germanic friends. I have no great preference for any theory…. however, I am noticing a common theme that is occurring across the world. To date, the theories of MMT seem to explain quite accurately what is happening.

    • Pannie

      “JC election was about rejecting this and getting back to an honest democracy.” remind us again please, how many U-turns has he already taken on his honest politics & principles!

  • Paul Robson

    The people who suffered from the “banking” crash are at least partly responsible for it, because they voted en masse for near unlimited borrowing and a deliberate housing boom in the shape of Messrs Brown and Blair.

    • Acleron

      Rewriting history? The banking crisis started in America.

      • siphil

        Yes but don’t underestimate the role of the UK government in making it worse and leaving the economy vulnerable to the crash.

        • extravagantnonsense

          how did they make things worse?

          as for vulnerable to the crash, who wasn’t?

          • HJ777

            They made it worse by feeding the credit boom with big increases in public spending and by putting in place a misguided regulatory regime.

            Vulnerable because they were running a deficit of around 3% of GDP at the height of a credit boom. Had they been running a surplus (as the Tories did prior to the early 90s credit boom), then the deficit wouldn’t have been anywhere near as high after the crash and the government would have much more room for fiscal manoeuvre.

          • extravagantnonsense

            public spending had to increase to deal with the mess that public services were in as a result of years of ideological tory decline. and they improved, hugely, during that time. and, despite the nonsense from the right, spending on social security barely rose – it was investment in schools and hospitals. as always, labour builds things and the tories let them rot.

            also, the 5 comparable countries who had a larger amount of public expenditure than the UK crashed by less and recovered quicker suggesting that this was not the problem. they had smaller banking systems – that was the problem.

            as for the deficit, by 2007 labour had public debt lower than they inherited and less was structural than they inherited. could they have reduced debt by more? if they had not had to undertake investments in the crumbling infrastructure of the economy – which is where the bulk of the spending went, not on benefits and not on the day to day running of the country – perhaps they could. but that was the hand they were dealt by the incompetency of the tories.

            as for regulation, they could have run it differently – they could have got rid of more regulation, like the tories wanted. which would have been worse. we could have had a regulatory and tax system like ireland had at the time, like osbourne wanted, which would have been worse. we could have had no stimulus and no policy to alleviate the problems, like the tories wanted, which would have been worse.

            spin lies and nonsense. as always.

          • HJ777

            Your post was, indeed, spin lies and nonsense, as you correctly said.

            Leaving aside the issue that it is not what you spend that matters, it is what you get for your spending, can you explain which part of my post you dispute? It is factually and indisputably accurate.

          • extravagantnonsense

            you shouldnt use words you do not understand the meaning of.

          • HJ777

            Oh look – a thick person is trying to patronise me because he has no answer.

          • extravagantnonsense

            you do not know what indisputably means, at the very least.

          • HJ777

            The fact that you haven’t been capable of disputing the facts I stated rather suggests otherwise.

          • extravagantnonsense

            countless others have done exactly that. i have no need to tell you the arguments again. you will have heard them and disputed them because, like your position, they are disputable.

            jesus this is hard.

          • HJ777

            Neither you nor anyone else has disputed the facts in my post.

            I explained how government actions made the crash worse, in response to your question. Nothing I said was in the slightest bit controversial and you have been unable to dispute them – instead you came back with a whole lot of irrelevant stuff about how bad Tories (who weren’t the government at the time) supposedly are. Your response to facts, was opinion, unrelated to those facts.

            It is, indeed, hard, dealing with you as you simply cannot deal with facts.

          • extravagantnonsense

            i think this will be revelatory.

            there is this thing called the internet. it really is pretty good. lots of people can write things, give opinions and put up pictures of cats.

            it can all be a little overwhelming, so they have these things called search engines meaning you can ‘ask’ the internet stuff and get answers. a popular one of these is called google.

            ask google ‘did labour spending cause the crisis to be worse’. it will bring up lots of articles for you to read. some of these will tell you it did. others will tell you it didn’t.

            it is almost like it is in dispute.

          • HJ777

            OK – if I state that the moon is not made of cheese, you can dispute that and insist that it is.

            But you cannot credibly dispute it.

            The Labour government’s spending was pro-cyclical and relied on borrowing during a credit boom. That inevitably exacerbated the boom compared to a situation where it either spent less or taxed more. Can you dispute that?

            Labour ran a deficit rather than a surplus during the boom. Had it been running a surplus, then the deficit would have been much smaller after the boom. That is fact – how can you dispute it?

            I note that you don’t actually dispute anything I wrote – you just claim it can be disputed.

          • HJ777

            Incidentally, I suggest that you Google exactly those words: ‘did labour spending cause the crisis to be worse’.

            It doesn’t bring up any articles saying it didn’t. Many claim (correctly) that it wasn’t the cause of the crisis (nobody claimed it was), but none claim that its fiscal policy wasn’t pro-cyclical or didn’t make it worse than if it had been spending (and borrowing) less or running a surplus.

          • extravagantnonsense

            ok, i see where you are going and what you mean.

            the level of spending and borrowing made things worse than if they had been in a different position. i accept that. but that is a little like saying that if the peson in a car crash that was not their fault had not been in the car, then it wouldn’t have happened. that may be the case, but it was not their fault.

            i suppose what i was saying, and something that you must accept as indisputable is that the position that labour was in was neither extreme, excessive, unusual historically or economically inept.

            it was in line with lots of other modern economies, none of which you could describe as crazy or unsustainable.

            i was not any sort of economic incompetence – it was spending and borrowing levels, let us not forget, that the conservatives had backed and promised to match. it was a reasonable position to be in which was exposed by something which they did not cause.

            how does that sound?

          • HJ777

            So you no longer dispute anything I wrote. That is progress, I suppose.

            As I said, I wasn’t stating opinion, I was stating fact. Indisputable fact.

            You, however, are still trying to put your own spin on fact. I made it clear that their borrowing spending was pro-cyclical, which exacerbated the boom and put us in a worse fiscal position both before and after the crash than had it been counter-cyclical (an example of which is the Tory surplus before the early 90s recession).

            Incidentally, the Tories were mistaken, in my opinion to back Brown’s spending plans in 2007. However, he did spend much more than he had planned after 2007.

          • extravagantnonsense

            i do not accept that it was economic incompetence – the acusation always levelled at labour.

            i believe it was a legitimate position, legitimate policy that was found out because of the crises. had the crises not happened then the spending and borrowing positions would have been fine.

            had there been a recession of normal magnitude, the position would have represented no significant problem to the economy.

          • HJ777

            I refer you to the explanation in my original post.

            I limited myself to a technical explanation. I did not say anything about incompetence (which is a matter of opinion).

            By the way, the crisis happened because of what preceded it. What preceded the crash was an unsustainable credit boom. Unsustainable booms are the cause of subsequent crashes. So it is meaningless to say that had the crisis never happened everything would have been OK – everything would have had to be entirely different in the preceding years for there not to have been a crisis.

          • extravagantnonsense

            fair enough. i can see that. however, i do not accept that less regulation would have been better, like you claim. that is not an indisputable fact, that is an opinion.

            with regards the crises happened because of what preceded – it happened because of what proceeded it in many ways in many countries and largely not because of labour party policies.

            and certainly not policies which were seen as extreme or outrageous by the tories who know claim a level of economic competence at odds with the positions they took at the time.

            it is the idea that the position labour had the country in was in some way responsible for the problems – and regardless of the fact that you and i and many other people know that is not the case it is the position peddled by the conservatives and many of their proponents which is a lie that has now become that most dangerous of things, common knowlegde – which i strongly object to.

            like i said, the idea that the position at the time of the crises was inherently bad is what i strongly object to.

          • HJ777

            The position at the time of the crises was inherently bad. Had it not been, we wouldn’t have had the subsequent crisis nor the record deficit. The only issue is who/what was responsible.

            It is a straw man argument from Labour that the Conservatives claim that Labour overspending caused the crisis. I am not aware of any Tory making such a claim. The claim is that it put us in a bad position and exacerbated the crisis, not that it was the cause. I would say that is hard to dispute.

            You may say that hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it is also 20:20.

          • extravagantnonsense

            now, we need to be careful here. the position of what? the economy or of government spending and borrowing?

            the former, well yes, although the unprecedented in modern times impact of the global crises was an unusual position which left no western economy, with a range of different surpluses/deficits and spending levels, untouched.

            the latter? i completely disagree and that is very disputable.

            if we look at the who and what, i do not lay the blame at the door of labour, for a range of reasons.

            i do not buy the regulatory argument and i do not buy the spending argument.

            the idea that we could have been in a better position has been conceeded, but i think that is irrelevant as, like i said, it is like saying that you could have avoided something that was not your fault and that as a result it was your fault for making it worse than it could have been.

            there was no massive mismanagement of the countries finances and this is not some outlandish view.

          • HJ777

            As government was spending nearly 50% of GDP, you cannot separate that effect from the economy as a whole. But as I said, the government didn’t cause the crisis (or at least the UK government didn’t uniquely cause it) – and nobody claims that it did. What is being said – and this is indisputable – is that the government was spending all the unsustainably inflated tax revenues from an unsustainable credit boom and was borrowing more on top. This was pro-cyclical behaviour. Had it either spent less or taxed more this would have been counter-cyclical and would both have constrained the boom (although not prevented it) and left us in a better fiscal position after the crash.

            It was the government’s fault that they overspent. Many people warned them about it. They ran a large deficit than planned/forecast for years and they missed the fact that there was a credit boom in progress.

          • extravagantnonsense

            i disagree. there are some extremely well qualified observers who state that what we now know with hindsight was not known or would not have been easily known at the time. that is not indisputable.

            the fact that there were better positions to be in is indisputable. the idea that this was clearly unsustainable and therefore economic mismanagement is not indisputable.

          • HJ777

            What wasn’t known at the time?

            Wasn’t noticed or understood, or listened to, at the time, perhaps.

            The government was warned by both the EU and the IMF that its borrowing was too high. Many economists pointed to various problems. Some correctly predicted what was likely to happen. How did they do this if the facts weren’t known at the time? The facts weren’t correctly interpreted, or were ignored by, by people making decisions, you mean.

          • extravagantnonsense

            “With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that pre-crisis tax revenues
            from the financial sector, and the trajectory of productivity driving
            taxes from income, were not sustainable. But those key aspects of the
            fiscal challenges we now face could not have been so easily foreseen.”

            David Blanchflower

          • HJ777

            Blanchflower has little credibility as he has been proven wrong on so many things over the last few years (he claimed that Osborne’s policies would result in unemployment of 5M).

            What he means is that HE didn’t foresee that it wasn’t sustainable.

            A number of other economists looked at the data at the time and did foresee that it was unsustainable. Indeed, why do you think the IMF and EU warned Brown about borrowing levels?

          • HJ777

            “i do not accept that less regulation would have been better”

            The problem with regulation is that it relies on regulators getting things right – which they did not. They actually (albeit inadvertently) encouraged/forced banks to behave in a riskier fashion.

            Therefore more regulation (and, contrary to popular myth, there is no doubt that financial regulation increased prior to the crisis – just look at the growth in the number of regulators and the size of compliance departments if you don’t believe me) actually made things worse. Philip Booth has explained this in some detail.

          • extravagantnonsense

            and other dispute that.

          • HJ777

            Who disputes that the regulators got things wrong?

          • extravagantnonsense

            people dispute that less would have been better.

          • HJ777

            How can less bad regulation be anything other than better?

            Everyone who knows anything about what happened accepts that the regulators got things wrong.

          • extravagantnonsense

            of course, less bad regulation would have been better in one way, but the question is would it have led to the system behaving in a better way?

            you are ignoring the system that would have been created by less regulation and are assuming it would have inevitably been better – that is not necessarily the case. at all.

          • HJ777

            I refer you to my original post, which you challenged – I referred to a ‘misguided regulatory regime’.

            How can less misguided regulation be anything other than a good thing? Would more misguided regulation have been better?

          • extravagantnonsense

            less of a bad thing would have been better. agreed.

            less regulation in general not necessarily.

          • HJ777

            Would you have wanted the regulators that screwed up to have regulated more?

          • HJ777

            Even senior Labour politicians of the time have explicitly admitted as much.

            Andy Burnham:

            ““If we are to win back trust we have to start by admitting that we should not have been running a significant deficit in the years before the crash.”

          • extravagantnonsense

            ok, i see where you are going and what you mean.

            the level of spending and borrowing made things worse than if they had been in a different position. i accept that. but that is a little like saying that if the peson in a car crash that was not their fault had not been in the car, then it wouldn’t have happened. that may be the case, but it was not their fault.

            i suppose what i was saying, and something that you must accept as indisputable is that the position that labour was in was neither extreme, excessive, unusual historically or economically inept.

            it was in line with lots of other modern economies, none of which you could describe as crazy or unsustainable.

            i was not any sort of economic incompetence – it was spending and borrowing levels, let us not forget, that the conservatives had backed and promised to match. it was a reasonable position to be in which was exposed by something which they did not cause.

            how does that sound?

          • HJ777

            “by 2007 labour had public debt lower than they inherited and less was structural than they inherited”

            So you think that achieving a level of public debt after years of a credit boom just slightly lower than the level they inherited that had just peaked (and was already falling) after the early 90s recession was an achievement? Remind me what happened after 2007.

            If you want to compare, you have to compare the debt and deficit at the same point in the cycle:

            Before the early 90s crash: Debt 25% of GDP, surplus 2% of GDP
            Before the 2008 crash: Debt 38% of GDP, deficit 3% of GDP.

          • HJ777

            “as for regulation, they could have run it differently – they could have got rid of more regulation, like the tories wanted. “

            Which would have been a good thing. It was the huge increase in regulation – bad regulation – that resulted in the mistakes of the regulators, which were forced on the entire industry, to cause so much damage.

          • HJ777

            “the 5 comparable countries who had a larger amount of public expenditure than the UK crashed by less and recovered quicker suggesting that this was not the problem. they had smaller banking systems – that was the problem.”

            It wasn’t the size of the expenditure that was the big problem, it was the reliance on a credit boom and borrowing to fund it.

            If you tax more to fund high public expenditure that is better – and more honest – than simply borrowing to do so. Despite buoyant tax revenues from an unsustainable credit boom, Labour was still spending far more than it was raising in taxes.

  • Acleron

    Gosh Cohen is really scared that Corbyn is changing the established order. Now that Corbyn has shown that highlighting the Tory’s domestic policy on the poor and vulnerable has induced change, he must be even more worried.

    • blandings

      “Gosh Cohen is really scared that Corbyn is changing the established order.”
      Did you actually read the article? A few middle class headbangers might wreck the Labour Party but that is all they will achieve – Not that I care: I gave up on it a long time ago.

      • Acleron

        Did you? Cohen is scared stiff that the right wing ‘labour’ MPs are not in power. Only by ignoring the changes that Corbyn has already wrought can he claim that Corbyn is the wrong choice.

        • blandings

          Yes I did read it.
          If you did, then you didn’t understand it.

  • Jeremy Hoad

    The sight of Labour in the Lords refusing to support a Libdem motion to oppose the tax credit cuts and instead propose a delay and review with the cuts still going ahead for all new claimants was ridiculous. McDonnell appeared on television effectively supporting the cuts, just faffing around vaguely for the time being.

    Corbyn supporters screamed like banshees when the Labour Party line was to abstain from the vote a few weeks ago on welfare cuts. They called moderate Labour Party people quislings and traitors and Tories. They called for an honest, principled anti-austerity position headed by Corbyn. What do we get? Rather than Labour supporting austerity and welfare cuts we now have… Labour supporting austerity and welfare cuts.

    As for the annual Labour leadership election I think Cohen is wrong about the possibility of Corbyn not getting on to a leadership ballot. The sitting leader is automatically a candidate. An election only happens if there’s a challenger.

  • mickey667

    I think you;re projecting something that isn;t there from your previous relationships in left politics Nick.

    Who are these Corbynites? I know hundreds who voted for him, and are active in Unions or CLPs etc and do not give two hoots for foreign policy.

    • Sunshine Sux

      Our country is full of traitors and parasites.

  • Hippograd

    But is he good for the Human Community? Alas, it appears not.

  • JDrakeify

    “it will have to convince the 250,000 supporters who voted for Jeremy Corbyn to turn from far-leftists into social democrats.”

    But the thing is, they already are social democrats. A social democrat is considered to be someone like Neil Kinnock or John Smith, the leaders between them and Corbyn have not even been that. Corbyn may be a socialist, but his program will likely end up resembling social democracy rather than a socialist one. If a real Social Democrat had turned up, then the party would have voted for them, the trouble is they no longer really exist in the party, and socialists such as Corbyn were left to fill the gap.

    “Corbyn and his comrades bring their support for the nationalist and imperialist Putin regime, the theocratic Iranian regime, and the women-, Jew- and gay- haters of radical Islam.”

    where is the substation on that? Whatever Corbyn has said about those two countries, it does not equate to support, you could say he would be ‘too soft’ or something like that and it would be a bit more respectable as a point. It is also worth remembering that this current government is working with both regimes right now.

    • Paul Robson

      It’s the stuff people like you refuse to accept ; you contrive an explanation for something “he’s conducting discussions” and say any other interpretation is lies, and ignore inconvenient details (like, say, the discussions are only with one side).

      I’d have more respect for Corbyn if he was honest about what he obviously thinks.

      • jeremy Morfey

        Give him time, for goodness sake. He’s still coming to terms with being a front bencher, with all the compromises and negotiating Party unity that involves, when his entire political history has been as a radical purist, to the extent of once throwing out a wife who wanted to send his children to a private school. I doubt Blair would have done that.

        He is no doubt weighing up in his own mind whether he has more influence on events in his present position as Leader of the Opposition than when he was regularly attending protest demos. Debate, please…

        • siphil

          Trouble is he is hopelessly out of his depth as leader of a major political party and all that entails. He has never had to lead and has never been under the type of scrutiny he is now. He has been in the background, wobbling along to protest marches and disappearing back into the shadows.

          The damage he could do the party may be irreparable whilst he “comes to terms” with being leader.

          It doesn’t bother me, I vote Conservative.

          • Neil Saunders

            That’s as neat an admission of cluelessness as I’ve ever come across.

        • Paul Robson

          He’s been an MP for 28 years or something, he should have his positions on (say) Israel and so on worked out by now. I actually think he does and he’s hiding it for the reasons you describe compromises, negotiating etc. McDonnell obviously is as well.

          That doesn’t make him honest, though, does it ?

          I’m not quite sure what you want to debate ? As he had zero influence on events before he became LO ; let’s face it, hardly anyone had heard of him as anything other than an obscure awkward back bencher I don’t know how being LO could be worse.

          I think there is something truthful here though ; I see him as basically a protestor, a demonstrator at heart ; he doesn’t have solutions or ideas, he just protests things he doesn’t like.

      • JDrakeify

        At what point did I say anything about the IRA, Hamas, and Hezbollah? Those are areas where I have less sympathy for Corbyn on. If the writer had drawn attention to that, then I wouldnt call it out, because it would be more up for debate. But to talk as if he outright supports Russia and Iran in particular, where he hasnt done very much other than call for leniency on them to bring peace, is a step too far, and clearly isnt true. There is ammunition enough in other areas of foreign policy which would be more legitimate for the writer to not need to resort to what are basically lies. As for Corbyn saying what he thinks, has it occurred to you he might be saying what he thinks, if you oppose him you might imagine he is more radical than he actually is, but he might know his own mind better than you. It would be like a left wing person saying why doesnt Farage come out and say he is a racist, it might be how they see it, but it probably is not how the man himself does.

        Also, it is often the case that these discussions about Corbyn’s foreign policy dealings are rarely without hypocrisy. Right wing columnists are horrified by his (supposed) “support for women-, Jew- and gay- haters of radical Islam” in Iran whilst simultaneously refusing to offer this same indignation for this government dealings with Saudi Arabia, they are far more supportive of that regime than Corbyn has ever been of Iran.

  • jeremy Morfey

    When I was hitch-hiking, the golden rule was that it was most unlikely that the next car to stop would take you straight to my destination. Rather, I get in and hope that it is going in the right direction, or if not, at least will put me down somewhere I’d have a better chance of getting a lift going the right way next time.

    I don’t think many actually believe Jeremy Corbyn will lead the Party into Government – that mantle will pass to someone else. However, the years of New Labour put Labour down a blind alley, all too painfully apparent at the last election, and anywhere out of there is better than staying put. I actually agree with the wider party that, from what was on offer, Jeremy Corbyn is the best person for the job.

    For all my personal dislike of feminism, a good Labour leader could be a mother hen, a bit like former Speaker Betty Boothroyd or German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Unfortunately, the crop of female front benchers of the Blair/Brown/Miliband era are more like worker bees on a mission to drive the drones out of the hive, and I really don’t like or trust them. Those coming up through the universities are apparently even worse in their sexist supremacist arrogance, but there must be a few good’uns somewhere there – quite possibly among Corbyn’s new crop of recruits, but equally possible under awakening Labour activists who believe the Party can do better.

  • tolpuddle1

    The article is a thinly-disguised plea for a palace coup within Labour, which could only be launched by the PLP.

    If Labour MP’s were so foolish as to attempt such a coup, however, they would find themselves destroyed by another palace coup – from Labour Party members.

    And then the MP’s imitation-Tory Labour Party would indeed be in the dustbin of history, along with the MP’s own worthless selves.

  • tolpuddle1

    Nick Cohen is projecting his own obsession with foreign policy – or, to be more accurate, with Israel – onto the Corbinistas.

    In fact, the Labour Left is far more interested in domestic issues.

  • tolpuddle1

    Whom does Nick Cohen wish to replace Corbyn ?

    We’ve already seen some of the alternatives (Burnham, Cooper and Kendall) and they are beyond ridiculous – and beyond enduring.

    And in the dump of hollow careerists who make up almost all the PLP, there’s certainly nobody any less awful.

    • stag

      Dan Jarvis didn’t run this time for family reasons. Give it a year or so and he might be more willing.

      • Paul Robson

        Doubt it. If Corbyn gets pushed out his replacement will be mud.

    • Kernkraft88

      Kendall was alright really. Chuka could be a good candidate now he’s grown out his beard

    • Paul Robson

      You seriously think Burnham, Cooper and Kendall are more ridiculous than Corbyn ?

      • tolpuddle1

        As leaders of the Labour Party, yes. Not least because they are Tories.

        • john anthony

          Yes, they are Tories that is why the Spectator is so concerned about their demise. If I were them I would be ashamed of the support of people like Nick Cohen.

        • Ron Todd

          If they are Tories why have they not left a party full of people that hate them and joined say the Tory party? As I Tory I would be glad to see Kendall move over but not Cooper-Balls or the Grim reaper.

      • mightymark

        No – they are just not very impressive. Labour has no one really, who is. Which is a bit odd. One would have thought on the law of averages every party would have someone who is impressive.

  • beef encounter

    Jeremy Corbyn simply fails to excite. He will grind this once great nation to a halt, oozing out this peculiar form of post-adulescent boredom disguised as ‘life-experience’ which we see so often in the streets of England when people start complaining about things they themselves are responsible for. Jeremy Corbyn is everywhere.

  • Colin Wood

    “The 2008 banking crash led to the punishment of working- and middle-class people who were not responsible for it. We now have a Conservative government intent on pushing the ‘striving’ poor it purports to support into penury. Surely it is not ‘far left’ to see the immorality in that, and not utopian to believe that a populist political movement can be built to fight it?”

    Quite. And Corbyn is leading it.

    • Paul Robson

      The working class and some of the middle class voted for the goodies that Brown threw out them with borrowed money (and tax from money the bankers made).

      So they are actually significantly responsible for it.

      It’s rather like the cretins in Greece whining about the EU ; it’s their fault for voting for fantasy government. Who then behaved like a fantasy government and got stuffed.

    • fundamentallyflawed

      By the striving poor you mean the welfare dependents? Because that its what they are in reality. They are not making their way, they are not supporting their families – they are making a minimum contribution and justifying their benefit claims as some sort of moral right.

      • Colin Wood

        Better ask Nick Cohen. It’s him I’m quoting.

      • Neil Saunders

        I’m no apologist for Corbyn, but the main beneficiaries of welfare in developed societies are corporate.

  • Snibbo

    Except that indulging secular and religious tyranny is not the exclusive province of the Labour left – the Conservatives turn a blind eye to the radical Islam of the Saudis and repression in China, and Blair has become a PR rep for a string of dictators. Corbyn’s foreign alliances may be dodgy, but really no worse than the rest.

    • Paul Robson

      That may well be absolutely fair comment, but nobody is presenting the Conservatives or Blair as Mr super-honest-guy-new-politics.

      • Snibbo

        Yes I get the point – at least Tories allow internal criticism – e.g. Gove picked (and won) a fight with Cameron over the Saudi prison contract. Any Labour MP trying to challenge Corbyn on his support for Hamas would be subjected to a witchhunt and deselection.

    • hippiepooter

      That’s confusing ‘realpolitic’ with actively supporting terrorists and tyrants.

      • Snibbo

        I’m not sure there’s always a clear distinction. Yes the left is by far the worst offender at indulging tyranny – but the right’s realpolitik easily strays into it too. Chamberlain springs to mind. To take a more recent example, flying the Union Jack at half mast when King Abdullah died was promoted as realpolitik, but to many people the government looked like apologists for one of the vilest countries on earth. Say Putin died – should the government express its mourning, in case Russia took offence and cut off the gas? Would that be realpolitik or active support for a repressive regime?

        • hippiepooter

          We should most certainly observe diplomatic protocol and convey our condolences. In the Saudi case, we have so much national interest tied up in trade that the highest forms of diplomatic hypocrisy were called for. Personally I think that to defeat jihad we need to stick our foot on the Saudi neck as well as other Muslim countries with our allies in the free world, but until that day comes it’s business as usual. Others can engage in moral masturbation, others will face up to the realities of life.

          • Snibbo

            I agree that defeating jihad means eventually chopping off the Saudi head (so to speak). Personally I think the driving force for this will be economics/technology, e.g. shale oil reducing reliance on the Middle East and Russia, robotics and 3D printing eventually replacing cheap Chinese labour. Diplomacy to despots is pretty galling, but you’re right, looked at as a tactic rather than a strategy it has its place.

        • HJ777

          We may not like Saudi Arabia, but we have cordial relations with it.

          Flying the flag at half mast is simply normal diplomatic practice when the head of state of a country with which we have cordial relations dies. It is a mark of respect to the country concerned and is not intended to indicate approval of its government or the head of state who has died.

  • extravagantnonsense

    (warning – long post. TLDR – lets try and meet in the middle – no side is devoid of dicks in this. cohen needs to stop calling corbynites rude idiots – it is rude and idiotic.)

    antagonism again. always antagonism and hatred. i see no positivity in the commentary from the centre or right of the labour party. they scream and shout about how unresonable the corbynites are for screaming and shouting. they insult corbyn supporters by explaining how deluded and naive they are.

    they tell those who voted for corbyn that they must, at all costs, be ignored and marginalised and that it is a disgrace that the superior position of the right is being ignored and marginalised.

    it seems to me that there can and should be a way for this to energise, modernise and gavlanise the labour party. how can a party expect to govern by ignoring the workers of that party? they have to try and bring them along. but this is apparently impossible because those who voted for corbyn are all (and it is always all of them, there is never any nuance or spread of corbyn supporters – we are all communist anti-semites who run around praising the IRA and hating america hating america hating america) naive idiots.

    is it possible, just a tiny little eency weency bit possible to speak with corbyn supporters and sense that there may be, to coin a phrase from a god-like presence that can and did nothing wrong ever, a third way? no, because you cannot speak with corbyn supporters as they will spit at you. all of them.

    look – i love the labour party, i hate the labour party, i am proud and ashamed and mournful and excited by the past and the future. and i am now a member. harness me and people like me – i do not support the IRA, i do not hate america, i do not hate israel. i do think we could take a different position on some foreign policy positions, i do want more public ownership of key industries, i do want reform of education to create a world better for all, i do want a NHS that works, a society where the balance between property and labour is different, i do believe that the state can change things for the better and i do want someone who may actually stand up and make the arguments, the tough arguments, to the left and right of both the party and the country, about the problems with capitalism (not abolishing it – i am not a communist. someone who voted for corbyn who doesn’t believe in the destruction of the capitalist system. shocking) and how, together, we achieve more.

    it is this – the feeling that corbyn will actually say no to power sometimes rather than toady to it, that he will have some principles which are not simply for sale to the biggest media magnate, that he will challenge the assumptions the public now has about things made toxic by a right-wing press and government for the past 5 years (such as those on benefits, immigrants or the poor) rather than accept and try and modify it to sound nicer, that he actually believes that politicians can make arguments and change minds – which drew me and hundreds of thousands to corbyn.

    if there had been a candidate who made me feel like that who did not have some of the baggage that corbyn had, would i have voted for them? probably.

    but cohen and his ilk do not and did not want us to be given that choice. in fact, as is clear from this, the members of the labour party are the last people who should be consulted and listened to. especially not new members like me.

    i expect corbyn to be long gone before the next election. but if that is taken by the right or centre of the party to move even further in that direction rather than listen to the corbyn result, listen to the fact that there are many (the majority in all parts of the party) who want the party to be vocally and spirtually a little left of where it was (even if not necessarily to be led by corbyn) it will represent a missed opportunity and will do the party’s long term goals huge damage.

    but then i am a spitting marxist idiot, so what do i know.

  • Srimanthan Pramodan

    Labour are done for MORE THAN 10 years now. Out. I mean, Milne? Anyone seeing a trend here? Like the Left’s denials about Islam, they’re doubling down on their errors.

  • hippiepooter

    Labour does not need MPs who are ‘backstabbing b***ards’, it needs MPs who are sincere democrats who wish to wrest the party from the Nazi Left that it’s legalised entryism voting system handed it over to. If they can’t salvage the remains of Labour, they need to leave rather than accept the leadership of a patently anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist, left wing extremist.

    • extravagantnonsense

      i can understand the sentiment – but i am not sure how you square the democrat circle with ignoring the result of an election. because you don’t think the people who were allowed to vote should have been allowed to vote? while i am sure lots of politicians would like all elections to be held on that basis, it does not work like that.

      i once heard david blunkett say that democracy is not about the winners, but about the losers. the losers of this democractic election do not seem to agree with that.

      • hippiepooter

        This does not reflect what I’ve said. If there are enough sincere democrats left in Labour they’ll prefer to reconstitute it – maybe by plonking the word ‘Democratic’ in front of it – rather then serve a Labour that is now the party of Britain’s Nazi left. No decent human being would remain in a party that Baroness Tonge joins.

        • extravagantnonsense

          so i am no decent human being? and anyone who remains is essentially a nazi? right.

          • hippiepooter

            Strewth, ‘internetland’ is full of them.

  • sir_graphus

    “It’s almost as if they prefer having Tories to shout at than a Labour government to be disappointed in.”

    You could say the equivalent about UKIP and the Conservative party too.

  • I am very dubious about the utility of quoting John McTernan as a guide to anything. You may have forgotten that he was Jim “Spud” Murphy’s chief of staff in Scottish Labour. In case you have forgotten then it was Spud, presumably with Mental John’s support who said that Labour was not going to lose a single seat in Scotland. That was true, as they went on to lose 40.

    Besides, didn’t you write recently that you had undergone your Reg Prentice moment and were no longer a leftist?

    • Peter Colledge

      I’m glad someone else notices. Thank you, Ken.

  • Oliver

    Corbyn is an old fashioned far lefty anti imperialist (which actually means rabidly anti Western) and Cohen is spot on that he cares and knows more about the plight of his friends in Hamas than he cares about the unemployed of Essex or the workings of the economy.

    Despite his supporters seem far more domestically aware, allbeit, their awareness is shot through with the same “anti imperialist” urge which brings them to care more about ultra conservative Muslims in Tower Hamlets than it does for the unemployed of Essex.

    Whichever way you slice it, Corbyn himself or his supporters, domestically or abroad; the politics of Corbyn and Corbynistas are the politics of the anti Anglosphere and anti white natives.

    • Mo

      The “unemployed of Essex” are at the bottom of the Tories list of priorities as well.

      • Oliver

        Agreed. The difference is the left detest the white working class. The Tories just don’t give a toss

        • Speedy

          True that

    • Abie Vee

      Hamas is the democratically elected government of Gaza. You like democracy, no? Or just when you agree with the outcome. .

      The Carter Foundation monitored the election in Gaza and gave it a clean bill of health. The USA promptly cut off all aid (and the UK poodles too). The Muslim Brotherhood were elected to power in Egypt, and the West supported the military Junta which promptly took over.
      You people, eh?

      Your bilious tirade goes straight back to Goebbels… tell the people they are under attack and condemn the peacemakers as traitors.

      It works every time (for people of a certain age).

      • Oliver

        After winning the election Hamas promptly executed their Fatah opposition thus confirming their status as a thoroughly undemocratic terrorist organization. Of course idiots like Corbyn and other regressive lefties still like to act as if Hamas were a respectable democratically elected political party. You people are idiots.

      • Oliver

        After winning the election Hamas promptly executed their Fatah opposition thus confirming their status as a thoroughly undemocratic terrorist organization. Only you regressive lefties still like to act as if Hamas were a respectable democratically elected political party. You people are idiots

    • victor67

      And the white natives are mad to think the Tories serve their interests. They serve the trans- national super rich and the British elite. Look at their coseying up to the House of Saud. A great many in the defence and military establishment do very nicely out of our dealings with the stone age theocracy.
      Also Osborne has just sold a big chunk of our nuclear industry to the Chinese. Does that make him an enemy of the British people?

  • Zanzi Bar

    Jeremy has solved the real problem Labour had. No one wanted to vote for them.

    Now they do.

  • rtj1211

    The Conservatives don’t believe in the unemployed of Essex either: they believe in 300,000+ immigrants a year. They don’t believe in the struggling poor – they’ve just slashed their tax credits instead of phasing in the shift over a 5-10 year period. They slashed green subsidies instead of phasing them out over a decade and so a lot of jobs have been lost like that. They did it to appease their Chinese masters, who want to dump solar panels on Britain at the expense of the UK solar industry.

    The Conservatives don’t believe in the UK because they are servants to Brussels. They are obsessed with London and the SE and will retain their privileges no matter what. They are utterly beholden to the City of London and who cares about the ‘real economy’?

    I hate the salivating marxists of the Labour Left. Tribal sloganeers the lot of them. But then I hate sloganeers who want privilege for themselves whatever party they are in. I’ve spent my life trying to sort things out efficiently and whenever I succeed a little bit the Establishment comes in to swat me. Reading Clive Driscoll’s book on being a Met copper tells me that I’m not alone in having experienced that……

    • Abie Vee

      NURSE! He’s over here>>>>>

    • samhol

      Comments about solar power subsidy removal are so stupid I could not read on. Sorry.

    • NickG

      they believe in 300,000+ immigrants a year.

      Over 600,000 last year actually. 300,000 is the net figure.

  • Malcolm Knott

    Judged by his policies – and how else do you judge a politician – Corbyn is a nasty piece of work.

  • john

    Nick – it’s your turn, write the anti Corbyn B/S for today. Thanks.

    • Cue Bono

      If it is B/S then you should be able to easily counter his points. Go for it.

      • Abie Vee

        Too easy. Think of something harder.

      • john

        Abie Vee is right, Who could be bothered? Here’s one silly quote -verging on insanity: On the left at the moment, if you don’t accept Corbyn’s intrinsic goodness and dismiss reports of his alliances with the Russian nationalist right and Islamist religious right as ‘smears’, then you are making a public declaration of your own wickedness.

  • Sunshine Sux

    The title of this article, implies that Corbynites have any idea about foreign politics.

  • Sunshine Sux

    There once was a friend of Hamas
    Who was filled with hot air and gas
    When they went *BOOM*
    Turned their place into-a tomb
    He presented his ole’ flabby a$$.

  • new_number_2

    Nick Cohen has only ever cared about Nick Cohen – he has no idea about Britain.

  • Peter Colledge

    Churchill said that jaw-jaw is better than war-war. Isn’t this exactly what JC is saying? Neither man ‘supports’ terrorism, and to purport otherwise is simple mischief-making.

    • Caractacus

      Then why are two of Corbyn’s three leadership Donors supporters, possibly even funders of the IRA and Hamas?

      Jaw Jaw means talking with the enemy if there is even a possibility that doing so will save lives. It does not mean embodying the enemy’s aims and objectives.

      • Abie Vee

        “Possibly”, he slurs. Or possibly not? As an English blue-nose I support a united Ireland. It’s only a matter of when, not if. And, like it or not, Hamas is the democratically elected government of the Gaza strip. You people profess to love democracy, but only when it gives you the results you want.

        • S&A

          ‘As an English blue-nose I support a united Ireland’.

          So do the SDLP, except they don’t believe in violence. Why didn’t Corbyn cosy up to them?

          ‘Hamas is the democratically elected government of the Gaza strip’.

          They were back in 2006, but seem to be remarkably unwilling to test that mandate at the polls nine years on. Your comment about loving democracy when it suits fits you to a tee.

          • Abie Vee

            Mrs Thatcher, Willie Whitelaw, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton all cuddled up to the IRA: it is how peace happened. You talk to your enemies.

            Hamas is the duly elected government in Gaza. Ex-President Carter’s foundation covered the election and gave it a clean bill of health. Those friends of freedom (Israel and the USA and their EU puppets) promptly cut off all funding.

            What would you people do if another election was held and Hamas won it again? Would you invite them for dinner? Yeah right.

            Be very careful what you wish for.

          • S&A

            ‘Mrs Thatcher, Willie Whitelaw, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton all cuddled up to the IRA: it is how peace happened’.

            The Conservative and Labour governments also talked to the Irish government, and also to the Loyalist terrorist groups. As for the PIRA, they did talk to Sinn Fein, but they also put the Army on the streets of NI and kept them there, they sent 22SAS and 14 Int to kill or arrest PIRA terrorists, and they sent the FRU in to recruit the agents who ended up peaching on most of their operations.

            So no, the comparison with Corbyn doesn’t apply. He wasn’t a negotiator, he was an advocate. Why else do you think he voted against the Anglo-Irish Accords.

            ‘Hamas is the duly elected government in Gaza. Ex-President Carter’s foundation covered the election and gave it a clean bill of health’.

            Well Jimmy the Peanut farmer thinks they’re legit. That’s me sold … Shame about all the human rights abuses and the torture and murder of Palestinians reported by that those renowned Zionist shills HRW and Amnesty keep reporting, eh?

            ‘What would you people do if another election was held and Hamas won it again?’

            There is as much chance of me becoming CINC of the Slovak Navy as there is of a free election in Gaza. I see that doesn’t bother you much, despite your ‘pro-Palestinian’ posturing.

          • Peter Colledge

            Corbyn voted, like the unionists and the republicans, against the Anglo-Irish accord of 1985. I worked with a doctor who lived in NI virtually on the border. He was a proud Irish speaker and he had plenty of work on either side of this border. After the signing of the AI Accord he wrote to Stormont in Irish asking for clarification of his position on both sides of the border. Three months later he got a letter in Irish sent from Dublin. He phoned Stormont to protest that he had received a letter from a foreign power. An official apologised and admitted that there was no administration behind the Accord. The doctor was baffled. He asked what this meant, and was told that, basically, the AI Accord was a piece of paper signed by Westminster and Dublin. That was it. No wonder that both sides rejected the Accord, and that Corbyn did likewise. Paisley was right; this was nothing more than a paper exercise and it fooled no one.

          • victor67

            Indeed it was in response to huge global support for the hunger strikers and Thatcher’s catastrophic handling of it.
            She had nothing left to offer apart from SAS executioners and collusion with Loyalist death squads.

          • S&A

            You Republicans are such poor losers.

            Which is surprising, seeing as you have had plenty of practice.

            PS: Loughgall. Corbyn held a minute’s silence. I annually toast the anniversary when those murdering scum from the East Tyrone ‘Brigade’ got their just deserts.

          • victor67

            And Republicans toast Narrow Water where the Para’s got their deserts for Bloody Sunday. For the IRA enduring pain was the flip side of inflicting it. When they killed Mountbatten they said we will rip out your sentimental imperialist hearts.

          • S&A

            ‘For the IRA enduring pain was the flip side of inflicting it’.

            Yeah. That’s why every time one of those murdering filth got the good news their brethren screamed blue murder about it.

            Happy to dish it out at La Mon and Enniskillen, and happy to make McConville and other victims disappear. But when they got it back in spades, it was a different story.

            You lost, so deal with it.

          • victor67

            The IRA had no monopoly on atrocities. MI5 were collaborating with Loyalist murder gangs to execute Catholics. Remember you guys claimed the moral high ground when you were just doing what you did in all you other colonies.

          • S&A

            So now you’re telling me Corbyn was a Loyalist.

          • Peter Colledge

            Loyalish.

        • Caractacus

          A United Ireland is not a matter of when, not if. You may support it, there are plenty of Irishmen who do not.

          Hamas was indeed democratically elected. I don’t suppose you have read the reports since of what they have done to Palestinians who democratically oppose them. No, I didn’t think you had. Here’s a hint. They aren’t alive any more. Hitler was democratically elected too.

  • Cheradenine

    But the same is true of you, is it not, Nick? Your objections to Corbyn are primarily based on foreign, not domestic, policy. In particular, he is considered unfriendly to your ancestral homeland. And your concern for this foreign country seems to trump any consideration for the future of Britain you might have, although I am sure you are able to rationalise the two as being wholly compatible.

    • S&A

      ‘In particular, he is considered unfriendly to your ancestral homeland’.

      I’m sorry – since when has Corbyn had a problem with Stockport?

      • Abie Vee

        Ask him.

    • Abie Vee

      Bingo.

    • Dave Roberts

      And he will keep Labour out of power for a generation.

  • Abie Vee

    I remember Cohen before he was a Zionist shill: indeed, before he was a Jew! That wasn’t too long ago. We KNOW why you’re against the pro-Palestinian Corbyn Nick… maybe you’ll spell it out for us!

    • MacGuffin

      Ooooh nice. We must discount Nick Cohen’s well-founded and well-argued objections to Corbyn on the basis of his Jewish heritage. It’s rare to see such absurd anti-semitic claptrap so openly expressed, so thank you for showing what idiots you bigots can be.

    • S&A

      You know, back in the day it used to be easy to tell the difference between the far-right and the far-left, as it was the former who tended to be filled with anti-Semitic bile.

      Now, it’s practically impossible to tell the difference.

      • Dave Roberts

        Well said.

      • Abie Vee

        Judaism has a long history going back 3000 years or so. Zionism in a 19th century hallucinatory cod-theocratic piece of mumbo-jumbo which imagines God as some form of celestial Estate Agent!

        Unfortunately for the world, many people who should know better have largely bought into this crap. Which is why the Israelis have nowhere to go, no way to move on. Zionist prattle of redeeming the land is a polite-sounding cover for ethnic cleansing and theft. Is it not?

        As Tzipi Livni, a prominent right-wing Zionist, foolishly let slip: the day will come when we will be able to say to them [the Arabs] your place is over there… you do not belong here [Israel].

        Zionism means perpetual war.

        And, er, how can I , a pro-Palestinian, be anti-Semitic when the tarns-Jordanian Arabs are themselves a Semitic people? Anti-Semitism is just another convenient fiction for the Zionists.

        • S&A

          ‘Zionism in a 19th century hallucinatory cod-theocratic piece of mumbo-jumbo which imagines God as some form of celestial Estate Agent!’

          Well that’s us told. PJ and all that.

          ‘Unfortunately for the world, many people who should know better have largely bought into this crap. Which is why the Israelis have nowhere to go, no way to move on. Zionist prattle of redeeming the land is a polite-sounding cover for ethnic cleansing and theft. Is it not?’

          So nothing to do with the Holocaust and the ethnic cleansing of Jews in the Arab world, then? Good to know.

          ‘As Tzipi Livni, a prominent right-wing Zionist, foolishly let slip: the day will come when we will be able to say to them [the Arabs] your place is over there… you do not belong here [Israel]’.

          The ‘quote’ happens to be fake, but never mind.

          ‘And, er, how can I , a pro-Palestinian, be anti-Semitic when the tarns-Jordanian Arabs are themselves a Semitic people?’

          You’ll be telling me that some of your best friends are Jews next.

          • victor67

            You could say then that the Palestinians became the victims of the victims.

          • S&A

            They’ve also been the victims of their own leaders (the gangsters from Fatah versus the fanatics from Hamas), and also their ‘brother’ Arabs.

            To take an obvious example, Yarmouk has been under siege from Syrian forces since 2011, and is an absolute hell-hole. There have been no protest marches in this country by ‘pro-Palestinians’ to protest the plight of its residents.

            Which makes me think that ‘pro-Palestinians’ are anything but, and that the cause gives them the excuse to hate you-know-who.

          • victor67

            Yawn Yawn . By their very survival Palestinians hold a mirror to the ugly face of Zionism and all you can do to counteract is hurl the anti-Semite jibe.

          • S&A

            So where’s the march for Yarmouk being held, then?

            Where’s the sympathy for the Palestinians there?

            You hypocritical scum.

          • victor67

            Maybe Israel should let the residents of Yarmouk and all the other refugee camps return to their homes where their parents and grandparents were ethnically cleansed from.

        • AKUS

          anti-Semitism is a word taken from a German researcher in the 1800’s that only and solely applies to hatred of Jews and has nothing to do with the concept of Semitic tribes of the Middle East except in so far as the Germans believed the Jews were descended from those tribes.

          This tired, hackneyed claim that you cannot be anti-Semitic if you are an Arab is sim[ly an expression of ignorance about the English language and the usage of this term.

          The views you express are anti-Semitic.

        • Pelo Nord

          “anti-Semitic when the tarns-Jordanian Arabs are themselves a Semitic people?”

          Really old hat, that one.

          How does the term ‘anti-Jewish’ work for you?

    • Are You Sure

      I remember when the Labour party wasn’t full of racist anti semites.

      But there you go.

  • The_Average_Joe_UK

    The tory media have a responsibility to keep Corbyn in place until 2020. lay off him for a couple of years and then go for the kill in 2018

  • AKUS

    The wonderful thing about Corbyn, besides being without a doubt the source of some of the most hilarious statements and policies of any politician leading a supposedly major (supposedly) Western party is the way he echoes almost exactly the same ideas as Donald Trump, just arriving at them from round the other other side of the Mountain of Massive Ignorance.

    Most recently, just as Trump believes he will be able to overcome the the Chinese in a form of industrial thumb wrestling, I read that Corbyn believes he will go to China for a nice chat and get them to stop exporting steel to Britain.

    Once could argue that nothing would reinvigorate Churchill’s historic trans-Atlantic brotherhood more than Trump in the White House and Corbyn in Downing Street. A true, if bizarre, meeting of minds – or the mindless.

    Of course, should that happen, we had all better duck for cover.

    • NobblyStick

      From Nick Cohen’s article: https://spectator.com.au/2015/10/how-does-labour-solve-a-problem-like-jeremy-corbyn/

      In case it is not obvious to you, let me spell it out. Corbyn exacerbates every fault that kept Labour from power in 2015, and then adds some new ones, just for fun. To the failure to convince the voters that Labour can be trusted with control of the borders and the management of public money and the economy, Corbyn and his comrades bring their support for the nationalist and imperialist Putin regime, the theocratic Iranian regime, and the women-, Jew- and gay- haters of radical Islam. Corbyn’s Labour will ask a Britain it seems to despise to give it power. Britain will never do so, and every Labour politician I have spoken to accepts that the Labour party will have to destroy Corbyn before Corbyn destroys the Labour party.

  • BrianFromToronto

    I’m honestly curious. With his support for IRA terrorists, will Corbyn be able to win any seats in the next election?

    • Malcolm Stevas

      Yes. A large chunk of Labour’s core vote is as indifferent to the reality of the IRA as it is to economic reality. Look at the continuing high levels of support for Labour, as shown by polls: it really doesn’t vary a lot. Much of it stems from stupidity, and much of the rest is just perverse.

  • Peter

    Now let’s see Corbyn won by a landslide the election as leader, and if that wasn’t enough more people joined Labour since he became elected than exist as members of the Conservative making Labour’s membership bigger than all other parties combined. Cohen might not particularly like Corbyn but he is immensely popular with young and progressive voters. The chance of him being deselected any time soon if at all is near zero as he has an enormous mandate.

    The PLP is only a small part of the Labour Party and the Labour Party from now on will become more democratic and accountable to the membership which has overwhelmingly backed Corbyn and his policies. If the Zionist Cohen has a problem with this then there is nothing he can do about accept get on a plane to Tel Aviv and never come back as Corbyn is also the first Labour leader in modern times who is not a Zionist and and will not suck up to Zionists or despicable regimes such as Saudi Arabia, China where he unapologetically raised human rights issues with the Chinese leader recently when he came to this country.

    He also does not suck up to regimes such as Russia or Iran as Corbyn always opposes any human rights violations no matter what the regime and this he has been consistent on for over 30 years.

    • evad666

      Corbyn consistent?
      Corbyn is indeed consistent in his pursuit of a Pol Pot year zero doctrine.

    • Pelo Nord

      He’s certainly vociferous in his attacks on radical Islam and its nefarious impact on humanity.

      Just kidding.

    • Are You Sure

      Peter, I was under the impression that telling someone of a different religious or cultural background to effectively “go home” was the kind of racism that the left deplored.

      Or does that only apply to non-Jews?

  • evad666

    For a Cornynite, Britain outside the North Circular is a foreign country.

  • Are You Sure

    What I find interesting is that the main criticism of this article by supporters of Corbyn is that it was written by someone who is Jewish and who may or may not think that the existence of the State of Israel is not necessarily a bad thing.

    No actual defence of Corbyn has been put forward, just a good old fashioned bit of Jew bashing (sorry, anti-zionist).

    The new politics folks. Like a mixture between communism and nazism rolled into one. Nice.

  • kitten

    I don’t care about big business, tax dodgers and the EU.

    I do care about Britain which is precisely why I support Corbyn.

    Most Britains are being ripped off and our countries being run down and sold off by EU diktats and the Tories, and before that ‘New Labour’; these are the groups that couldn’t give a toss for the average Britain as we become increasingly poorer, while our country is sold off to the highest bidder.

    • Malcolm Stevas

      You don’t care about wealth creation – par for the Left, so your support for Corbyn is a good fit. And it’s “Britons” not “Britains”.

      • Raz

        “Wealth creation” is a wonderful thing when it creates wealth for everybody. Sadly most wealth creation we’ve had in recent decades has centred on the already wealthy, generally at the expense of everyone else.

        • Malcolm Stevas

          Inaccurate, as generalisations very often are. I get around the country (and others) a lot, and we are really rather prosperous and comfortable: most people are doing ok. That some people are not should be no surprise, since it isn’t possible for everyone to be wealthy or even successful. Lots of people just don’t have it in them. Unfortunately, Leftism is predicated on the notion of enforced egalitarianism, which is not possible, and which has always failed dramatically, depressingly & bloodily in the attempt.

          • Raz

            I’m sorry but your anecdotal evidence is completely at odds with reality. Every serious study I’ve seen has shown a widening wealth gap, with money being sucked up to the top few percent who are living ‘comfortably’, while most people are just getting by. Half the population earn 20K or less, how comfortable are they? Spare me your rightwing claptrap about the evils of ‘leftism’.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            “Widening wealth gap” neither here nor there: it is not the proper function of government to impose wealth equality.
            To deny that this country is remarkably prosperous, with most enjoying a degree of comfort undreamed of by their grandparents, is to fly in the face of reality – a tendency very much at the core of the Left, whether you’re willing to accept it or not.
            Leftism is indeed evil – your word, not mine. The history of the 20thC bears witness to the economic ruination and the human suffering imposed on many millions by Leftists. Leftism is the antithesis of political liberty and wealth creation.

          • Raz

            The governments job, is the job we give it is. We do after all live in a representative democracy. You seem to have no problem with the government redistributing wealth to the wealthy. The left built the middle class in this country through the trade union movement, that’s their legacy, along with the NHS and most of the positive social advances we’ve had. If you want to compare the entire left movement to the worst excesses of Stalinism then that’s your prerogative but it’s intellectually bankrupt.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            It’s intellectually coherent and indeed inevitable: the socialist tyrannies of the 20thC (some of them still current…) were merely the ideas & policies of 1970s UK Labour (+ now Corbyn…) writ large, carried to their logical conclusion. It always happens. Your claim that “the left built the middle class” is manifestly absurd! Do try to remember that most of us have a smidgin of historical knowledge.
            As for redistribution, your assertion is pure straw-man twaddle: I disapprove of “redistribution” for its own sake, whether to rich or poor. A great many working class and middle class people have become very much wealthier through private enterprise and their own efforts – not through State redistribution, and in spite of the malign, economically catastrophic Labour Party.

  • RonnieTimewarp

    250,000 supporters…yesterday I read that more people have joined the Labour Party since Corbyn than belong to the Conservative Party, with a much lower average age. Corbyn is continually referred to as far-left but I don’t see any policies which are much beyond what a social democrat should be – I think it says more about how far right we’re continually told the so-called ‘centre ground’ should be. I’m sorry but I just can’t see this commie devil, just a kindly old guy who’s a bit more nuanced in his politics than “your family’s security” Cameron.

  • john

    Of course, Jeremy doesn’t understand Britain. He has not attended Eton, didn’t go to Oxford and has no titled family members. The man is a pleb, hardly knows the Queen and has not been admitted to the Establishment. How can he be trusted?

    • Bertie

      Whilst he hasnt gone to Eton,or Oxford, he’s hardly a pleb either having lived a similarly “privileged upbringing”

      Corbyn was educated at Castle House Preparatory School, an independent school near Newport, Shropshire, before attending Adams’ Grammar School as a day student……

      Yew Tree Manor – the abode of the pleb apparently
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11818744/Jeremy-Corbyn-the-boy-to-the-manor-born.html

      You might need to do some research John!

      • john

        Wrong!
        Other than Old Etonians, titled punters, royals and some Oxbridge – EVERYONE in the UK is a pleb. To think otherwise is to miss the real point.

        • Bertie

          Have you not heard of the “Middle Class” or the “Upper Middle Class, neither of whom are considered Plebs.

          One of course expects that you are also are that many attendees of public schools , such as Eton, Harrow, Winchester are not from the Aristocracy but Middle Classes.

          You’re not another Class warfare crackpot are you?

          Only ask because you clearly miss the point. Corbyn has had a privileged upbringing.

          • john

            Your comments underscore why Britain has the most rigid social structure in the developed world.
            There’s none so blind as them that cannot see.

          • Bertie

            How so?

            I know for a fact that many who attend the top public schools come from Middle Classes – with a smattering from the working class. Not everyone who goes to Eto, Harrow, Winchester are Upper Class you know so your initial claim that anyone who didn’t attend such establishments were plebs wsa both incorrect,and based on a false premise.

            And quite how you don’t think Corbyn had a privileged background intrigues. Perhaps you could elucidate in that regard? There evidence he went to a decent school, lived in a far luxurious detached house(See Telegraph article I linked prior) are ample enough in themselves.

            The only short sighted individual in these here parts happens to be you – but then that’s no surprise as I suspect you have a Class chip on your shoulder.

          • john

            Bertie: Britain adheres to an antiquated social class structure which continues to award political power to a tiny minority. Corbyn comes from the middle of the pile but my contention is that this puts him ( and 99% of us) outside the privileged elite. If you don’t believe this, you haven’t noticed that 2 out of three ruling bodies – Commons, Lords and Monarchy are non-democratic. Even the HofC is very biased in favour of elites.

          • Bertie

            I’m well aware of the class system thanks – unlike you I don’t have an issue with it as it’s unimportant in the big scheme of things.And “Class” certainly isnt as overbearing as it used to be – much has changed in that regard..

            Corbyn comes from the middle of the pile – ergo he isnt a pleb. Thanks for finally agreeing with me! Your initial remark was incorrect.

            Have you seen the dross in the HoC – most of them are most definitely not “Elite” in any sense of the word.

          • john

            Your comments are weak, try taking a broader view.

          • Bertie

            If my comments are weak where does your vacuous unintelligible drivel stand then?

Close