London-based writer. Often climbing.
- 133 Posts
- 468 Comments
2·4 hours agoFair enough. I look forward to aggressively agreeing with you again in the future.
No, because there’s no conflict between being rational and radically leftwing. Quite the opposite, I would argue! We have unprecedented crises to deal with, and the correct (rational) response to an unprecedented crisis may well be radical.
‘Hello, I’m a left wing person. We have lots of social and economic problems and actual crises, and we need radical action to fix them, in the form of left wing politics. My key dispute with the current Labour party is that its policies are insufficient to fix the problems and what I mean by that, specifically, is that they’re neither radical enough nor left wing enough’.
^This bit, I’m on board with. This bit is basically me, give or take an Ed Miliband here and there.
‘… and that’s why I’m going to spend a lot of time getting offended if people on the internet refer to me, the politicians I like or, indeed, the radical, left wing action I’m proposing as “radical left”’.
^This bit I am baffled by.
They do address energy storage in the full plan e.g.:
- The Government is therefore committed to a fundamental and urgent reform of the connections process, as set out in the Clean Power Action Plan. The Plan included connections capacity allocations for onshore wind for 2030 and 2035
- The Strategic Spatial Energy Plan (SSEP) will support a more actively planned approach to energy infrastructure […]. It will do this by assessing and identifying the optimal locations, quantities and types of energy infrastructure required for generation and storage, including onshore wind, to meet our future energy demand with the clean, affordable and secure supply that we need
Exactly the sort of arrant nonsense I expect from GCs. I can’t see this case succeeding.
The issue is not that you don’t understand the arguments but that you don’t appear to understand the sentences! Respectfully, I think you can probably understand why I’m not interested in reading my comments back to you, which is what the discussion would entail at this point.
UPDATE:
Well, they lost the appeal and from midnight it will be illegal to be a member. Maximum sentence 14 years in prison, so I strongly suggest you don’t choose this moment to join.
I don’t think you read or understood my comment if this is your response.
Just for anyone still following this odd developing story, Corbyn has now issued a statement in which he says ‘discussions are still ongoing’ about a ‘real alternative’, but does not say he’s going to be co-leader of anything. This seems to me to match what Jessica Elgot and Gabriel Pogrund were reporting yesterday: that, contra Zarah Sultana’s statement, there’s not (yet) a new party and Corbyn is not co-leader.
No. You’ve taken one thing - the BBC pressurises their journalists to cover Israel positively, which I agree is true - and assumed it means a second thing - that (1) the BBC (2) smeared Corbyn (3) as an antisemite (numbers here because these are three separate claims that you haven’t justified, within the broader claim you also haven’t justified). You’ve then additionally taken that bundle of unproven claims as evidence of another different claim: that ‘the media’ as a whole, i.e., not just the BBC, ‘smeared Corbyn’ because he ‘opposed Israel’.
With respect, this is exactly what I meant about conspiracist thinking: you’re taking loosely related ideas (some of them true, some of them not) and bundled them together to claim a vaguely defined malevolent entity (‘the media’) is out to get someone. This is conspiracist thinking! That’s what that is!
Yes, it’s fair - and indeed, good and right - to be sceptical. But we have to temper the scepticism with realism, which is the tricky bit!
Not about Corbyn!
This is not inconsistent with anything I said yesterday or, indeed, this morning.
There was not an organised media smear campaign against Corbyn. ‘The media’ is not in any sense a group of people who said ‘Let’s all agree to tell lies about Corbyn’, which is what an organised smear campaign would have to look like. The media has always been persistently unfair, to the level of insanity, about everyone to the left of the Conservatives, but there’s nothing organised about it, it’s just powerful people representing their own interests.
I always call out this conspiracist stuff when the right do it, so I’ll do exactly the same when it come from the left.
As @flamingos-cant@feddit.uk put it, ‘either those reports are true or Corbyn went radio silent on the announcement of his new party and let there be room for this speculation.’ In fact, both sides are true: the party has been ‘launched’ without a coherent structure, leadership or even a name (if I’m wrong about this, just… tell me the name), and Corbyn has chosen to say nothing about it. These are facts. There’s no smear involved.
Accidentally launching a party co-lead by someone who doesn’t want to lead it is something only the British left could’ve accomplished.
-There have long been significant divisions between senior figures close to Corbyn over how such a movement on the left should operate - some keen to begin as a new party and others less so. Sources adamant tonight Corbyn not agreed to any joint leadership of a new party.
I don’t think R2B’s ever worked that way, it’s always been tenants only!
Corbyn’s already said he’s not joining, amazing stuff.
the actual tenants who want to buy the homes they’ve raised kids in will simply not be able to afford the homes
But only they will be eligible to buy them. So, either they get to buy them or they just get to stay. Win-win?
Absolutely!