Blairites staging a coup...

[Sandydragon]

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]

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.

Hollande is not left-wing. It's a few years old, but this is pretty accurate. You can see that all of the EU is right-wing currently.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

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".

[Zhivago]

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".

So what, it's short hand for explaining where someone stands.

[Sandydragon]

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]

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]

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.

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

[Sandydragon]

To be fair, the left were more than happy to sanction a number of military interventions by Joseph Stalin and his successors as well.

If there is one thing I do think is a very valid point in that article, its that the left vs right labels are fundamentally flawed in modern politics.

[Zhivago]

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.

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

[Sandydragon]

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.

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.

[Zhivago]

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.

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.

[Digby]

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.

Indeed, and actually we saw the left in Britain was typically in favour of intervention in the former Yugoslavia, and many of the reasons for that would have held for Iraq. There were of course reasons to be wary of the war in Iraq and the reasons given for the action taken, but I'd agree those reasons could be held on the right just as easily as on the left, and I'd agree too that interventionism vs isolationism isn't a left Vs right issue

[Eugene Wrayburn]

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.

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]

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.

We are talking about 2003, not 1988. No?

[Digby]

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?

He was brutal leader across his time in charge. And there are reasons why some on the left would want to intervene in that, even allowing for what's likely a large majority on the left who'd eschew intervention on such as grounds of ulterior motives of being in Iraq, that he was to some degree contained, and that war is simply to be avoided.

[Sandydragon]

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.

Cost a fortune though and is that really a long term solution?

[Zhivago]

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.

Cost a fortune though and is that really a long term solution?

And the Iraq war was a long term solution? Look where it got us...

[Sandydragon]

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.

Cost a fortune though and is that really a long term solution?

And the Iraq war was a long term solution? Look where it got us...

I could argue that was the result of a lack of planning following the invasion. Better planning could have yielded a better result. Other interventions have been more successful.

Regarding your earlier comment, war shouldn't be undertaken lightly, but there are sometimes worse options.

[Digby]

GMB supports Smith, Corbyn's camp claims the GMB is right wing or has right wing elements. The general public will perhaps not consider union men and women to be right wing, and thus the Corbyn camp is making yet another pitch for a resounding Conservative win in the next election, pillocks.

[Sandydragon]

If you are that far around the spectrum, then anyone is right wing. Or its a useful label to throw at anyone who disagrees with you.

I really don't think Corbyn is interested in winning the GE. All is wants is purity of protest and if Labour end up with a handful of MPs who are all ideologically pure then he will regard that as a resounding success. Moderate Labour MPs need to take control of their party again, although with the influx of new members, that chance seems to have gone for good. Either they hope the new members leave following GE humiliation or they move themselves.

Hobson's choice.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

If you are that far around the spectrum, then anyone is right wing. Or its a useful label to throw at anyone who disagrees with you.

I really don't think Corbyn is interested in winning the GE. All is wants is purity of protest and if Labour end up with a handful of MPs who are all ideologically pure then he will regard that as a resounding success. Moderate Labour MPs need to take control of their party again, although with the influx of new members, that chance seems to have gone for good. Either they hope the new members leave following GE humiliation or they move themselves.

Hobson's choice.

I think he does want to win. I think he's a true believer and has been all his life that the public only need hear the unfiltered truth of socialism in order to accept it as the way forward. He's bolstered in that view by performing at large rallies of people who agree with him. I suspect he thinks the polling information is a right wing plot. I also think that he'd rather make the case for what he believes in than trash it to accommodate the losers in his parliamentary party. Let's face it the left has never been particularly good at playing nicely with others and right now he's got the membership to hope that his sect need not try.

One thing he has got right though. The more yougo round and are seen in front of massive crowds, the more the general public will be prepared to at least give you a hearing.

[Sandydragon]

In the latest installment of 'Labour at war with itself, you just couldn't make it up', the Party HQ asked Corbyn and his team to wind its collective necks in. I think a win for him is almost certain, followed by a night of the long knives clear out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/j ... _hp_ref=uk

[Stooo]

In the latest installment of 'Labour at war with itself, you just couldn't make it up', the Party HQ asked Corbyn and his team to wind its collective necks in. I think a win for him is almost certain, followed by a night of the long knives clear out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/j ... _hp_ref=uk

And rightly so.

The PLP are as bad as the fucking tories. Essentially they are saying "STFU and be good little fucking plebs. We know better than you" to the membership.

Fuck them.

[Zhivago]

In the latest installment of 'Labour at war with itself, you just couldn't make it up', the Party HQ asked Corbyn and his team to wind its collective necks in. I think a win for him is almost certain, followed by a night of the long knives clear out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/j ... _hp_ref=uk

Tasteless metaphor to use.

[Sandydragon]

In the latest installment of 'Labour at war with itself, you just couldn't make it up', the Party HQ asked Corbyn and his team to wind its collective necks in. I think a win for him is almost certain, followed by a night of the long knives clear out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/j ... _hp_ref=uk

Tasteless metaphor to use.

Compared to the labelling of opponents by Corbyn et al, its not that out of order.