Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

What did Owen Smith learn from his years of lobbying for Pfizer and Amgen? Medicines should be cheaper.

I've officially changed my opinion on this election. We can't possibly keep a mind as sharp as his away from the Labour leadership even one day longer.
 
I eagerly await the "FURY AS SMITH WANTS TO NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS" headlines from Sun, Mail, et al.
 
Don't even know if I can be bothered voting at this point.
 
Though JESUS CHRIST how's this for spin

 
Ubik said:
Though JESUS CHRIST how's this for spin

Click to expand...


Haven't actually seen Smith's comments but his camps explanation of his comments are exactly the same as Corbyn's camp has just said Corbyn's posistion is. It's just bizarre constantly trying to paint himself as different to Corbyn by being exactly the same as him.

Massive own goal for Smith.
 
I'm amazed the 'debate' even got going after Owen had said "Good morning" to those in attendannce. At least without him spending the next 10 minutes clarifying that he also hoped they had a good afternoon, evening and night and that, despite his comment using a singular term, he hoped their 'good morning' would not be a one off event. Plus 'good' is a subjective term, so a good morning could possibly be different for each audience member and as such that wish should be taken on a case by case basis.
 
Untied said:
Click to expand...

I fully agree, it's a disqualifying remark for me. Just also shameless from Corbyn's camp, given he's said on TV before that they could be negotiated with.
 
Ubik said:
I fully agree, it's a disqualifying remark for me. Just also shameless from Corbyn's camp, given he's said on TV before that they could be negotiated with.
Click to expand...

Yes the fact Corbyn's camp are bold enough to use it is pretty :lol:
 
I don't think Corbyn talked about sitting down in the negotiating table with ISIS, he was talking about diplomatic back channels which is a completely different thing really and is probably already happening, because why not?
 
Smith showing again how hopeless he is. Said it before...the man is genuinely every bit as incompetent and incapable of being a major political leader as Corbyn is. Comments like his ISIS ones, even if they've been spun since then, further demonstrate that.

Yeah, Corbyn's camp have probably spun it. But that's just preparation for the tearing apart he'd get by the Tories if he was actually Labour leader. Comments like that would be brought up all the way to 2020. If Labour can't present anyone remotely credible to oppose Corbyn then they should just get behind him. Otherwise, they are the ones who're splitting the party and causing division, if they weren't already.
 
You can stick a fork in the Labour party now, it's done.
 
ThierryHenry said:
Fecks sake. How hard was it to get a sensible, intelligent, competent challenger?
Click to expand...

The people who he is challenging on behalf of have not been acting sensibly, intelligently or competently for a year now, what did you expect? This is why I wanted people to get behind Corbyn. They've torn the party in half on the basis of competency and they have none to offer. Now they will say "look what happened" and blame it on the left.
 
Shamwow said:
The people who he is challenging on behalf of have not been acting sensibly, intelligently or competently for a year now, what did you expect? This is why I wanted people to get behind Corbyn. They've torn the party in half on the basis of competency and they have none to offer. Now they will say "look what happened" and blame it on the left.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a bit embarrassing at this stage. The basis of the coup was largely supposed to be incompetent and unelectable...and those behind the coup have responded by presenting a candidate who is perhaps even more incompetent and not showing any signs he'd make the party electable.

If the Labour moderates don't want Corbyn in charge then they have to give a credible candidate. If they refuse to do and don't back him, their claims that Corbyn's destroying the party ring hollow because it's them who are doing it by openly defying their leader whilst presenting no viable alternative to what he's doing.
 
What part of the NATO principle of "collective defence" - where an attack on one member is considered an attack on all members -does Corbyn not get?!

Corbyn replied to the question of a NATO country being attacked by Russia, saying: "I would want to avoid us getting involved militarily by building up the diplomatic relationships and also trying to not isolate any country in Europe to bring them up."

Pushed on whether he would become involved if he had to, he said: "I don't wish to go to war. What I want to do is achieve a world where we don't need to go to war, where there is no need for it. That can be done."

The man is a liability. Heaven help us if WE are attacked and our NATO allies have the same pathetic airy fairy attitude he has to our responsibilities.
 
Marching said:
The man is a liability. Heaven help us if WE are attacked and our NATO allies have the same pathetic airy fairy attitude he has to our responsibilities.
Click to expand...

Don't worry.... if anybody attacks us prime minister Corbyn can retaliate with our nukes... oh wait he has already cnuted up the principal of a nuclear deterant by saying he won't use it (but let's still pay for the subs and stick conventional weapons on them)
 
sun_tzu said:
Don't worry.... if anybody attacks us prime minister Corbyn can retaliate with our nukes... oh wait he has already cnuted up the principal of a nuclear deterant by saying he won't use it (but let's still pay for the subs and stick conventional weapons on them)
Click to expand...

Thank goodness he still has the ability to write a stiff warning letter and wag his finger! The man is a pillock.
 
Stanley Road said:
I want to live in a world where we dont have to go to war too.

Is that so wrong?
Click to expand...

So do I Stan! BUT if we are threatened or worse still attacked we have to stand up for ourselves. Hence the point of NATO. Comrade Corbyn will stand up for us and protect us by writing a very very angry letter. Sorry mate. Not enough.

As for Cameron...he didn't have to give us a vote but chose to. Not his best decision BUT you can't blame him for those muppets that voted to leave the EU.
 
Marching said:
So do I Stan! BUT if we are threatened or worse still attacked we have to stand up for ourselves. Hence the point of NATO. Comrade Corbyn will stand up for us and protect us by writing a very very angry letter. Sorry mate. Not enough.

As for Cameron...he didn't have to give us a vote but chose to. Not his best decision BUT you can't blame him for those muppets that voted to leave the EU.
Click to expand...

I think you're just confused when a Labour leader doesnt as a matter of fact use tough words to try and win votes on security.

No where did Corbyn or has Corbyn said he'd never use force. His first focus is on diplomacy and sees war as a very last resort, do you really think it should be the other way round?

Sure id wish he'd make his message somewhat more palatable to the public but its preferable to continued intervention in unnecessary wars.
 
Stanley Road said:
I want to live in a world where we dont have to go to war too.

Is that so wrong?
Click to expand...
I suppose the main trouble is it sounds like it comes from a Miss America speech. "I want to end war, end poverty, and for everyone to be kind to one another". Okay Jeremy, and what are you doing for your talent?
 
Ubik said:
I suppose the main trouble is it sounds like it comes from a Miss America speech. "I want to end war, end poverty, and for everyone to be kind to one another". Okay Jeremy, and what are you doing for your talent?
Click to expand...

Is that his actual quote? Because if you paraphrase something to sound like your idea of a miss America speech then it's probably going to sound like one.
 
Marching said:
So do I Stan! BUT if we are threatened or worse still attacked we have to stand up for ourselves. Hence the point of NATO. Comrade Corbyn will stand up for us and protect us by writing a very very angry letter. Sorry mate. Not enough.

As for Cameron...he didn't have to give us a vote but chose to. Not his best decision BUT you can't blame him for those muppets that voted to leave the EU.
Click to expand...

Yes you can, totally

Talk of nuclear weapons, have I woken up in the 80's? Is thatch still noshing Reagan

You may not have read the news for 35 years but we are actually being attacked n the streets these days mate, in cities with convential weapons, that's where we're at.
 
Smores said:
I think you're just confused when a Labour leader doesnt as a matter of fact use tough words to try and win votes on security.

No where did Corbyn or has Corbyn said he'd never use force. His first focus is on diplomacy and sees war as a very last resort, do you really think it should be the other way round?

Sure id wish he'd make his message somewhat more palatable to the public but its preferable to continued intervention in unnecessary wars.
Click to expand...

He's said our Nuclear subs would patrol the world without their nuclear warheads which seems more than a little stupid. Sorry but we need a strong leader and it's clear he's not.
 
Smores said:
I think you're just confused when a Labour leader doesnt as a matter of fact use tough words to try and win votes on security.

No where did Corbyn or has Corbyn said he'd never use force. His first focus is on diplomacy and sees war as a very last resort, do you really think it should be the other way round?

Sure id wish he'd make his message somewhat more palatable to the public but its preferable to continued intervention in unnecessary wars.
Click to expand...

When asked my Liz Kendall whether he could think of any circumstances under which British forces would be deployed overseas, Corbyn said: "Any? I am sure there are some. But I can’t think of them at the moment."

That is probably a greater negative against him than those statements he has made about Trident.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
When asked my Liz Kendall whether he could think of any circumstances under which British forces would be deployed overseas, Corbyn said: "Any? I am sure there are some. But I can’t think of them at the moment."

That is probably a greater negative against him than those statements he has made about Trident.
Click to expand...
I'd probably take that view over Liz Kendall's who, if a foreign diplomat farted in a lift, would have the bombers on the way to their country before the smell dissipated.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
When asked my Liz Kendall whether he could think of any circumstances under which British forces would be deployed overseas, Corbyn said: "Any? I am sure there are some. But I can’t think of them at the moment."

That is probably a greater negative against him than those statements he has made about Trident.
Click to expand...

Yeah I just don't see the issue with that. I'm not a pacifist by any means but in this day and age I'd prefer diplomatic channels over aggressive on security mantra. The latter has done nothing to make us or anyone else safer in recent times.

Do we really think with Corbyn in charge we'd sit idly by whilst half of Europe was taken over? Do even forsee that as a likely situation?
 
Does anyone know the context of this?

 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
When asked my Liz Kendall whether he could think of any circumstances under which British forces would be deployed overseas, Corbyn said: "Any? I am sure there are some. But I can’t think of them at the moment."

That is probably a greater negative against him than those statements he has made about Trident.
Click to expand...

Two endless middle eastern wars that crippled the global economy not good enough for you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.