Digby wrote:Stom wrote:Digby wrote:There are some falsehoods about a lot of politicians in the press, though the left probably has it worse in a majority of major national newspapers. But a lot of Corbyn's problems aren't falsehoods, for a lot of people the problem with Corbyn isn't what's in the press, it's what Corbyn says, does and how he thinks about society and the world.
Like what? What things he does, says, has confirmed he believes in are a problem for our society? Other that they may challenge certain negative parts of our society?
Yes, he holds some ideas that are a little too theoretical, but that's what his cabinet are there for.
Support the IRA, the EU is an imperialist capitalist machine out to thwart the will of the people, his magic money tree and bizarre plans for people's QE, trident subs without trident, plans for nationalisation we cannot afford or nationalisation that steals private assets (he's not clear which), he's pro coal... do we really have to do this? The only way to not think Corbyn is a prat who isn't fit to be leader, and frankly there are better minds than his on the far left of the party (not hard to find in fairness), is if you buy into the cult of Corbyn and are such a fanboy you ignore the problems.
There's a lot of questionable things in that list. I won't do the IRA one as that's been done to death and isn't really arguable to a conclusion. He is right that the EU is heavily pro-capitalist and, while I don't agree with him that we shouldn't be in it, I don't regard it as an abhorrent position to hold. The "Magic Money Tree" was a Conservative fiction, given that the 2017 manifesto was costed (unlike the Conservative one) and a great deal less profligate than a) the economic damage that austerity policies caused and b) the promises that Johnson is currently flinging about.
"People's QE" wasn't bizarre, it was printing money to do investment in infrastructure through a National Investment Bank, which is actually a lot more economically sound than doing so to buy gilts and assets to prop up the stock market. Are you confusing it with helicopter money (which has never been proposed by Corbyn)?
Trident can be argued and I won't go down the rabbit hole here, but being against it isn't problematic in and of itself. 49% of the population were against full renewal (29% agreeing specifically with Corbyn's compromise policy), so it's against hardly an outrageous and abhorrent position to hold.
On nationalisation, the CBI figures are bunk. They take the most expensive possible assumptions, as well as ignoring that, if the government buys assets, then the money isn't frittered away, there will be the value and the profit from the assets also on the balance sheet. There's been no suggestion of "stealing" assets from Corbyn at any point - that's just come from political opponents.
Pro-coal is a weird one - I've just had to search to see where that's come from, as it seems out-of-character for his public statements on fracking, environment, an 2017 manifesto that back phasing out coal-fired power stations, etc. I eventually tracked it down to an interview with Greenpeace during the 2015 leadership election, where he said that he "wanted to keep fossil fuels in the ground" and pushed for solar and wind energy, but then answered a question about energy security and his 1980s support for coal and miners by saying that, in a hypothetical where coal prices rose, there might be a case for reopening a mine in Wales and operating carbon capture on coal plants. This comment was then turned into a full article in the Telegraph which was headlined, "Corbyn's Britain: Reopening coal mines and nationalising energy companies". I think that's more of a comment on the state of the media than it is problems with Corbyn.
Puja
