RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I'd even advocate a movement further to the left, and wait while the Tories piss people off. It's only a matter of time.

The Lib Dems would get back into government before Labour were Labour to run with such a policy. Seriously, where do some people think all the staunchly lefty voters are in a country that typically votes centre right?

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I'd even advocate a movement further to the left, and wait while the Tories piss people off. It's only a matter of time.

The Lib Dems would get back into government before Labour were Labour to run with such a policy. Seriously, where do some people think all the staunchly lefty voters are in a country that typically votes centre right?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I'd even advocate a movement further to the left, and wait while the Tories piss people off. It's only a matter of time.

The Lib Dems would get back into government before Labour were Labour to run with such a policy. Seriously, where do some people think all the staunchly lefty voters are in a country that typically votes centre right?

At home. They think there's a big reservoir of people itching to vote for a socilaist party. Even assuming turnout at 100% and those non-voters all being Corbyn supporters - and actually research suggests that they are roughly in the same political distribution as the rest of the population - I'm not sure that the numbers are sufficient and sufficiently evenly dirstributed to compensate for the votes lost elsewhere.

Zhivago wrote:"Trotskyists 'twisting arms' of young Labour members to back Corbyn"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... tom-watson

This canard about Trotskyists being behind Corbyn's support is getting old. The amount of times this propaganda myth has been peddled by the right is ridiculous!

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:"Trotskyists 'twisting arms' of young Labour members to back Corbyn"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... tom-watson

This canard about Trotskyists being behind Corbyn's support is getting old. The amount of times this propaganda myth has been peddled by the right is ridiculous!

a world in which Tom Watson is "The right" is a warped one indeed.

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:"Trotskyists 'twisting arms' of young Labour members to back Corbyn"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... tom-watson

This canard about Trotskyists being behind Corbyn's support is getting old. The amount of times this propaganda myth has been peddled by the right is ridiculous!

a world in which Tom Watson is "The right" is a warped one indeed.

Well he voted for the Iraq war, so the argument that he is right of centre is not so warped. Unless your own politics are so badly skewed that such political views seem left-wing...

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: a world in which Tom Watson is "The right" is a warped one indeed.

Well he voted for the Iraq war, so the argument that he is right of centre is not so warped. Unless your own politics are so badly skewed that such political views seem left-wing...

There's a left wing case to be made for the war in Iraq, just as there's a right wing case for not going near it with a barge pole. That single issue doesn't determine someone's place in the political spectrum.

Sandydragon wrote:Are you suggesting that the use of military force is the sole preserve of the right? History would argue differently. Many on the right would push for a policy of isolation, rather than interventionism. Equally, some on the left would see it their duty to push their ideology by any means necessary.

Extreme pacifism might be seen as a leftish policy, but there is no reason why someone cant be on the left who supports military intervention. Once that hurdle is crossed, the only aspect is when military force is justified.

I would suggest that Hollande is a left of centre politician, but he hasn't flinched from taking military action when necessary.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Are you suggesting that the use of military force is the sole preserve of the right? History would argue differently. Many on the right would push for a policy of isolation, rather than interventionism. Equally, some on the left would see it their duty to push their ideology by any means necessary.

Extreme pacifism might be seen as a leftish policy, but there is no reason why someone cant be on the left who supports military intervention. Once that hurdle is crossed, the only aspect is when military force is justified.

I would suggest that Hollande is a left of centre politician, but he hasn't flinched from taking military action when necessary.

No, I'd argue military intervention that is undertaken for corporate oil interests is not a left wing policy.

The left-right paradigm is anachronistic. A better model is one with four poles - representing the extremes of both social and economic policy. I tend to care more about the economic policy, and that's normally what I refer to when I use the left or right wing labels.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Are you suggesting that the use of military force is the sole preserve of the right? History would argue differently. Many on the right would push for a policy of isolation, rather than interventionism. Equally, some on the left would see it their duty to push their ideology by any means necessary.

Extreme pacifism might be seen as a leftish policy, but there is no reason why someone cant be on the left who supports military intervention. Once that hurdle is crossed, the only aspect is when military force is justified.

I would suggest that Hollande is a left of centre politician, but he hasn't flinched from taking military action when necessary.

No, I'd argue military intervention that is undertaken for corporate oil interests is not a left wing policy.

The left-right paradigm is anachronistic. A better model is one with four poles - representing the extremes of both social and economic policy. I tend to care more about the economic policy, and that's normally what I refer to when I use the left or right wing labels.

Well yes, but you were the one who called watson "The right".

In Britain, old-guard Bennite leftists consider it axiomatic that to be left-wing is to oppose Western military intervention. Yet it was Tony Blair’s Labour government that pioneered liberal interventionism via Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq, while much of the conservative right has reacted against the idea of risking British soldiers’ lives to help foreigners.

David Cameron – Blairite in foreign affairs – could not mobilise enough of his own parliamentary party to win the vote for intervention in Syria. Liberals are more likely to support intervention in defence of human rights and popular revolutions abroad, while conservatives often view dictators like Assad and Mubarak as positive factors of stability.

Sandydragon wrote:http://leftfootforward.org/2013/10/what ... ing-today/

In Britain, old-guard Bennite leftists consider it axiomatic that to be left-wing is to oppose Western military intervention. Yet it was Tony Blair’s Labour government that pioneered liberal interventionism via Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq, while much of the conservative right has reacted against the idea of risking British soldiers’ lives to help foreigners.

David Cameron – Blairite in foreign affairs – could not mobilise enough of his own parliamentary party to win the vote for intervention in Syria. Liberals are more likely to support intervention in defence of human rights and popular revolutions abroad, while conservatives often view dictators like Assad and Mubarak as positive factors of stability.

Mind you, this argument is immediately undermined by the location of the Labour party on their chart. However, I would view their alignment as a bit skewed, particularly the closeness of the Conservatives to UKIP. Parts of both parties might be relatively close, but by no means all.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:http://leftfootforward.org/2013/10/what ... ing-today/

In Britain, old-guard Bennite leftists consider it axiomatic that to be left-wing is to oppose Western military intervention. Yet it was Tony Blair’s Labour government that pioneered liberal interventionism via Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq, while much of the conservative right has reacted against the idea of risking British soldiers’ lives to help foreigners.

David Cameron – Blairite in foreign affairs – could not mobilise enough of his own parliamentary party to win the vote for intervention in Syria. Liberals are more likely to support intervention in defence of human rights and popular revolutions abroad, while conservatives often view dictators like Assad and Mubarak as positive factors of stability.

Mind you, this argument is immediately undermined by the location of the Labour party on their chart. However, I would view their alignment as a bit skewed, particularly the closeness of the Conservatives to UKIP. Parts of both parties might be relatively close, but by no means all.

War is not an economic policy by itself. The purpose of war is what determines where it stands on the political spectrum. The left are more than happy to fight to defeat fascism, for example in the Spanish Civil War.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:http://leftfootforward.org/2013/10/what ... ing-today/



Mind you, this argument is immediately undermined by the location of the Labour party on their chart. However, I would view their alignment as a bit skewed, particularly the closeness of the Conservatives to UKIP. Parts of both parties might be relatively close, but by no means all.

War is not an economic policy by itself. The purpose of war is what determines where it stands on the political spectrum. The left are more than happy to fight to defeat fascism, for example in the Spanish Civil War.

Thus there's a left wing argument to engage in a war in Iraq against Saddam Hussain.

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
War is not an economic policy by itself. The purpose of war is what determines where it stands on the political spectrum. The left are more than happy to fight to defeat fascism, for example in the Spanish Civil War.

Thus there's a left wing argument to engage in a war in Iraq against Saddam Hussain.

Not in the context of Iraq in 2003, crippled by sanctions.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Thus there's a left wing argument to engage in a war in Iraq against Saddam Hussain.

Not in the context of Iraq in 2003, crippled by sanctions.

Devils advocate:

But saddam was a dictator who was perfectly happy to murder his own people. We were also spending millions each year keeping him bottled up, Operations Resinate North and South. An affection for the Iraqi people would be a justification for removing a tyrant.

Obviously the follow on pint is why not dozens of other nations? No argument there as such, but I can easily see an interventionist argument for invading Iraq.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:http://leftfootforward.org/2013/10/what ... ing-today/



Mind you, this argument is immediately undermined by the location of the Labour party on their chart. However, I would view their alignment as a bit skewed, particularly the closeness of the Conservatives to UKIP. Parts of both parties might be relatively close, but by no means all.

War is not an economic policy by itself. The purpose of war is what determines where it stands on the political spectrum. The left are more than happy to fight to defeat fascism, for example in the Spanish Civil War.

Thus there's a left wing argument to engage in a war in Iraq against Saddam Hussain.

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
War is not an economic policy by itself. The purpose of war is what determines where it stands on the political spectrum. The left are more than happy to fight to defeat fascism, for example in the Spanish Civil War.

Thus there's a left wing argument to engage in a war in Iraq against Saddam Hussain.

Not in the context of Iraq in 2003, crippled by sanctions.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Thus there's a left wing argument to engage in a war in Iraq against Saddam Hussain.

Not in the context of Iraq in 2003, crippled by sanctions.

He was a fascist subjugating his people and the peoples of any neighbouring countries he could get his hands on. You may not agree with the left wing argument for invasion, but that's not the same as saying that there isn't one.

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Not in the context of Iraq in 2003, crippled by sanctions.

He was a fascist subjugating his people and the peoples of any neighbouring countries he could get his hands on. You may not agree with the left wing argument for invasion, but that's not the same as saying that there isn't one.

We are talking about 2003, not 1988. No?

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Not in the context of Iraq in 2003, crippled by sanctions.

Devils advocate:

But saddam was a dictator who was perfectly happy to murder his own people. We were also spending millions each year keeping him bottled up, Operations Resinate North and South. An affection for the Iraqi people would be a justification for removing a tyrant.

Obviously the follow on pint is why not dozens of other nations? No argument there as such, but I can easily see an interventionist argument for invading Iraq.

Only someone so inured to the horrors of war would seriously make such an argument. The no fly zone worked, war meant something much much more intense and horrific.