Corbyn on terrorism and UK settings.

Written By: - Date published: 11:44 am, May 27th, 2017 - 26 comments
Categories: International, Jeremy Corbyn, labour, Politics, uk politics - Tags: , ,

Yesterday, Jeremy Corbyn relaunched Labour’s election campaign by addressing terrorism. Some people were expressing reservations about the speech – how it would go down, while others were anticipating it and hoping it would successfully signal a change in UK terrorism policy. (I was of the latter).

So how did he go? Well, if it was baseball, I’d say he neither fluffed it nor succeeded in hitting the ball out the park. He reached first base. Maybe that was all that was necessary. I haven’t looked at any msm yet to see how they’re interpreting it. Off to do that in a mo.

Update –  Well, Theresa may certainly didn’t like it! I’ve linked to The Independent’s article because it has comments enabled and they make for some interesting reading.

26 comments on “Corbyn on terrorism and UK settings. ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. weka 1
    27 May 2017 at 12:01 pm

    I watched it and thought it pretty good. He talked to the people affected, families, police and medical people, soldiers. And he explained clearly what the Labour Party position is and *why. The focus was on keeping Brits safe, which as far as I can tell is what people want, but doing that in a different way. It was strong enough to be convincing at that level, but wasn’t lecturn thumping or too nationalistic.

    • Bill 1.1
      27 May 2017 at 12:09 pm

      Yeah, I thought it was competent and ‘enough’.

      Theresa May telling big fat porkies over what he said could be leading into some interesting debate in coming days. If the comments below the Independent article are anything to go by, she just blew her election campaign.

      Project Fear. When will they ever learn?

      • weka 1.1.1
        27 May 2017 at 12:24 pm

        I thought that article headline was bad, but then the subheader used the word ‘allege’, so maybe there is still a shift happening in the MSM too.

        Comments are good. Plus things like the police cuts and the stress this placed on Manchester, lots of people will be pissed about that. NHS cuts too. Always good to see neolibs hoisted on their own petard.

  2. Heather Grimwood 2
    27 May 2017 at 12:09 pm

    A speech of sincerity, made by a person of obvious sincerity and integrity speaking without notes. I feel I now know who he is. The UK would be indeed fortunate to have him as leader.

    • Bill 2.1
      27 May 2017 at 12:11 pm

      It wasn’t without note. There were teleprompters set off to the left and right of him.

      But yes, an intelligent speech oozing integrity.

    • Anne 2.2
      27 May 2017 at 8:06 pm

      Same here Heather Grimwood. My goodness… what a far cry he is from the picture painted by the tawdry British tabloids and his enemies inside the Labour Party. It is also clear the British establishment has nothing to fear from him. He is an intelligent, rational even handed leader who will not be trying to turn the country upside-down as is happening across the Atlantic.

      A nice antidote to the terrorism of Trumpism.

  3. Adrian Thornton 3
    27 May 2017 at 12:11 pm

    Just finished watching Andrew Neil going extremely hard on Corbyn BBC this morning, especially around the IRA, I thought Corbyn handled it as well as could be expected.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZiHl-HBnuk
    The MSM can’t seem to get their heads around the fact that there is another way to pursue peace, rather than at the end of a gun, but I guess that is to be expected, sitting down and talking issues through wouldn’t get the ratings of a war,violence and tragedy, and in a free market media…ratings are ultimately king, so why we should expect a reasonable response from them on this matter.

    • Bill 3.1
      27 May 2017 at 12:44 pm

      Jesus Christ! I’ve seen some aggressive interviews, but that one’s right up there with the best/worst of them.

      • Adrian Thornton 3.1.1
        27 May 2017 at 1:02 pm

        Yeh it was pretty brutal alright, you have to give it to Corbyn though,he kept his cool and like Sanders, he rarely attacks the opposition for no point, but just stays the course of pointing out and clarifying his and his parties own positions.

        I would have to say on balance he came out looking good, strong and stable under serious pressure, I think Neil has probably done him a service.

        • Bill 3.1.1.1
          27 May 2017 at 1:11 pm

          I’m not going to disagree.

          Had Neil been a commenter here, I think I might have banned him for indulging in ad hom bullshit 🙂

          • Adrian Thornton 3.1.1.1.1
            27 May 2017 at 1:22 pm

            Although I don’t normally recommend The Guardian…
            the comment section of their piece on the Neil/Corbyn is quite extraordinary,
            https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/may/26/general-election-2017-terror-corbyn-may-g7-sicily-politics-live#comments

            23000+ comments, this comment attracting over 1200 likes alone…

            Jeremy Corbyn
            “Britain’s wars abroad risk bringing terror home”

            What is controversial about that?
            Libya is a failed state on the shores of Europe.
            And it is a big problem if Britain doesn’t
            clear up the mess it created.

            There is also nothing wrong about questioning the cuts
            to police & border staff under Theresa Mayhem as Home secretary.

            She told us they were “crying wolf” about the cuts.

            And the Tories described Labour’s plan to increase
            police officers by 10,000 as “ridiculous”.

            It doesn’t look ridiculous now that you require
            the army in the streets.

            There is no doubt that a shift in public opinion has happened.
            When I used to bother with the The Guardian’s comment section on the odd occasion, I was constantly defending Corbyn, now that narrative in the comments section has almost reversed, not scientific I know, but still interesting to observe.

  5. Karen 5
    27 May 2017 at 12:59 pm

    I thought Corbyn did okay and was definitely a lot better than May. But if you want an example of a Tory making a real hash of an interview then have a look at this from Michael Fallon when he tries to criticise Corbyn and ends up attacking Boris Johnson:

    https://www.channel4.com/news/fallon-no-correlation-between-foreign-policy-and-this-appalling-act-of-terrorism

  6. Sanctuary 6
    27 May 2017 at 1:00 pm

    This story from the Guardian greatly interested me, because I think it illustrates that the Tory party is making exactly the same mistakes as Hillary Clinton.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/26/may-puts-manchester-bombing-at-heart-of-election-with-attack-on-corbyn

    The UK Conservatives cynically moved to the hard right post-Brexit in the hope that they could mop up the UKIP base and thus establish an impregnable electoral position (they were ably assisted in this tactic with the failed PLP chicken coup against Corbyn, just BTW). But I think the Conservatives fundamentally misunderstand the reasons Brexit won. I think the Conservatives have seized the Brexit agenda not because they see themselves as the party of popular rebellion against the neo-liberal establishment, but because they want to make sure that post-Brexit Britain is even MORE unequal, unjust, and repressed place for global capitalism, completely unfettered by pesky European rules and regulations to protect human rights and the environment.

    The Conservatives in other words think Brexit won because of popular nationalist rebellion against Europe that was built on a right wing radicalisation of the English working class. My view is Brexit won because of popular discontent at neo-liberal inspired austerity and globalised capitalism’s embracing of the free movement of cheap labour to undercut the living standards of the local workforce, and the hope that voting for Brexit would change these policies by sending such a shock wave through the elites that they’d be forced to adopt different policies. This discontent & anti-establishment sentiment was best articulated by right wing populists like UKIP and Farage AS LONG AS THE TWO MAIN POLITICAL PARTIES REMAINED IN CONSENSUS AROUND THE RADICAL CENTRE.

    Corbyn’s arrival and survival as head of the UK Labour has routed the UK PLP Blairites and disrupted the neoliberal alliance at the heart of the British Oxbridge establishment. His message on this campaign is more accurately atuned to the mood of the electorate because his antidote of change and hope instead of more of the same and more fear is resonating with a war weary public. He is one offering the hope that he can make change that will make things better. May, with her attack on Corbyn over Manchester, is simply telling the voters that all she is offering is more of the same – more repressive laws, more fear, more terrorist bombings, more wars.

    The electorate in the west is in the mood for iconoclastic change, and every time May opens her mouth she is reminding British voters that the candidate who actually offers that is the old bloke wearing a red rossette.

    PS – Even if Labour do win a slim majority I believe Jeremy Corbyn will never get to be PM. The UK establishment simply has to much at stake to allow him to form a radically social democratic government. If Labour wins, expect the Blairites to immediately break away and form a new party that’ll prop up the Tories. They’ll use all the usual bullshit – “responsible government”, “need for economic stability” “prevent a disaster”. Unless the resulting rioting gets to the point that May calls out the troops and the generals tell her they’d rather not issue orders to shoot civilians because they think that British soldiers might not be inclined to obey them (that is when rioting becomes a revolution) they’ll get away with it as well.

    PS it is nice to have a bit of time to put my thoughts down in long form, gotta love a Saturday with nothing to do!

    • Bill 6.1
      27 May 2017 at 1:09 pm

      BREXIT, like Trump, was largely a case of people reckoning – “can’t take any more of this, so I’ll punt on…”

      The routine reaction of political parties mired in the status quo is to run ‘Project Fear’ to head off the punt. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.

      But where there’s an actual positive alternative, ‘Project Fear’ tends to fall over.

      Corbyn will be the next PM of the UK.

      • timeforacupoftea 6.1.1
        27 May 2017 at 7:53 pm

        TAB has Corbyn outright winner for PM of the UK and ‘if so happens’ has Andrew Little’s Labour Party outright winners for general election, no need for Winnot Peters or garbage Greens in the mixing pot.

    • AB 6.2
      27 May 2017 at 3:23 pm

      Sanctuary:
      “…the Conservatives have seized the Brexit agenda … because they want to make sure that post-Brexit Britain is even MORE unequal, unjust, and repressed place for global capitalism, completely unfettered by pesky European rules and regulations to protect human rights and the environment.”

      Nicely put – and agree absolutely. I’m not sure I agree that the Conservatives see Brexit as a “right wing radicalisation of the English working class”. I think they are just determined to control the Brexit process whatever its origins – because it is in their interests to do so and their natural right to do so because of their place in the social hierarchy.

      Sanctuary:
      “Even if Labour do win a slim majority I believe Jeremy Corbyn will never get to be PM. The UK establishment simply has too much at stake ”

      I have been wondering about this too – what form would an establishment usurpation of British democracy take? I’m thinking it would be less dramatic than you suggest – perhaps the tactics used against inconvenient 3rd–world democracies – making the economy ‘scream’

    • Pete 6.3
      31 May 2017 at 10:23 am

      +100 What an awesome contribution!

  7. saveNZ 7
    27 May 2017 at 2:06 pm

    Corbyn’s right. The war on terror has not worked and Britain needs to focus on a different approach. It’s been nearly 16 years since 9/11. There is now a lot more incidence of domestic suicide bombers mostly stemming from the middle east and how the west has failed to keep peace in the area. (in fact made it a lot worse with their interventions).

    Before the Iraq invasion there were not domestic terror attacks linked back to the middle east in the way there is now.

    Not only that but with further British austerity under May, conditions will be set for more local British extremists in the making who have nothing to lose.

    Hope for Britain (and the world) that Corbyn wins. The only one winning from the war on terror is the defence industry profits – all the governments and public are worse off with more terror, more refugees and less thinking going on about climate change and other issues that have the ability to create unstoppable disasters and famine.

  8. saveNZ 8
    27 May 2017 at 2:16 pm

    In short the Iraq war was Vietnam.

    But with globalism, religion and large domestic populations of those effected, it was going to have a much bigger back lash that should have been anticipated in the 21st century.

    Bush and Blair had zero thinking, just Western big boys club networking, short sighted opportunism, and known fake fakes, that caused the Iraq war to go ahead. They were stupid and arrogant and surrounded by enablers.

  9. swordfish 9
    27 May 2017 at 2:16 pm

    YouGov
    _____________________________________________________________________
    7134 UK adults were questioned on 27 May 2017.
    Results are weighted to be representative of the GB population
    ____________________________________________________________________

    Q ……… In a speech today Jeremy Corbyn will address “the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries and terrorism here at home”.

    Do you believe that wars that the UK has supported or fought are. or are not. in part responsible for terror attacks against the UK ?

    ……… TOTAL ……SNP…. Lab …. . LD … UKIP… Con … Male … Female

    ARE …. 53% ……. 71% … 66%… 60% … 48% … 43% … 58% …… 48%

    NOT … 24%….. …14% … 14%…. 23% … 33% … 38% … 25% …… 23%

    Don’t
    know …23% …. . 15% … 20% …. 17% …19% ….19% … 17% …… 29%

    _________________________________________________________________________

    .
    ……… Scotland …… London …… North …… South … Midlands-Wales

    ARE …… 61% ……… . 55% ………… 54% ………… 51% ……… 50%

    NOT ….. 21% ………. 20% ……. …… 21% ………… 26% ……… 27%

    Don’t
    know …. 18% ……… 25% ……. …… 25% ………… 23% ……… 23%

    __________________________________________________________________________

    ……Age ……… 18-24 ……… 25-49 ……… 50-65 ……… 65+

    ARE ……… ……. 51% …….…….…55% .……… 53% ……… 50%

    NOT ……… …… 19% ………….… 18% ……. … 29% ……… 32%

    Don’t
    know ……… …… 30% …………… 27% ……. … 18% ……… 18%

    _________________________________________________________________________

    ……………… ABC1 ……………… C2DE

    ARE ………… 58% ………………… 46%

    NOT ……. … 23% ………………… 25%

    Don’t
    know ……… 19% ………………… 29%

    …

    • Ad 9.1
      27 May 2017 at 4:40 pm

      Sometimes, just sometimes during a campaign, a candidate deserves his luck.

      He still probably won’t win,
      but he’s respectable.

  10. Glenn 10
    27 May 2017 at 2:21 pm

    Jonathon Pie on Corbyn.

  11. Draco T Bastard 11
    27 May 2017 at 2:52 pm

    We cannot be protected and cared for on the cheap.

    And yet that is what NZ has a tendency to do, especially under National and other right-leaning politicians, and then we get surprised when it doesn’t work.

    We have seen this happen time and time again across many different areas and increasingly over the last thirty years. Cuts to policing, cuts to ambulance and health and cuts to education. All of these things have been happening in the cause of efficiency but as if such cuts drive efficiency rather than having the necessary funding in place to drive research into productivity increases.

    The result is that we see a decrease in efficiency as services no longer have the resources necessary to perform at the needed level.