Corbyn fanboys are quiet tonight. I guess The Canary and Skwakbox haven’t told them what to think yet.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
I'm not so sure. We saw the party state was in, in the aftermath of Corbyn winning the first contest. There's nothing to say it won't happen again regardless if it's won by a centrist or someone on the left. A party in that state has no chance of being relevant. Also, there's no guarantee the next leader would oppose brexit.
Well, that might be the case but there is no GE and I don't think there's a prospect of one. Labour's job right now is to ensure the Tories aren't successful in driving us off a cliff.
I would be interested to know what business it is of Corbyn to be laying wreaths at the graves of people who lost their lives 25 years before in a conflict that had nothing to do with Britain.
The memorial is for the country and the relatives of the deceased. It has nothing to do with a random, largely irrelevant at the time, British back bench MP.
The memorial is for the country and the relatives of the deceased. It has nothing to do with a random, largely irrelevant at the time, British back bench MP.
Miliband was seen as more centrist and failed badly in the polls.
In the original leadership election, centrists were exposed by Corbyn for having literally no ideas and failing to oppose austerity. He repeated this with Owen Smith.
It’s remarkable how quickly people have forgotten these things and believe that a Labour Party running on a centrist platform would do well.
It wouldn’t necessarily. What has changed is that many centrist, so called ‘Blairites’ have seized on Brexit as an opportunity. Corbyn has been, in my view unfairly, blamed entirely for it and Umuna and Woodcock et al are positioning themselves to run as anti-Brexit campaigners.
It will be interesting to see how this all ends. Momentum are now opposing Brexit and this may force Corbyn to find a new position on it.
Whoever is the leader of the Labour Party has the massive problem of keeping their pro and anti Brexit factions happy.
Brexit, along with so much else, has been weaponised against Corbyn by the likes of Jess Philips who, I fear, underestimate the fact that many traditional labour voters would vote Leave again.
Boris is clearly positioning himself to challenge May and sell himself as the hard Brexit leader.
Regardless of who their leader is, if Labour called for a second referendum they’d lose voters to UKIP and possibly even the Conservatives.
I find it infuriating that this still leaves the likes of Umuna and Jess Philips able to attack Corbyn relentlessly over Brexit. What could anyone do differently and continue to hold Labour’s position in the polls?
In the original leadership election, centrists were exposed by Corbyn for having literally no ideas and failing to oppose austerity. He repeated this with Owen Smith.
It’s remarkable how quickly people have forgotten these things and believe that a Labour Party running on a centrist platform would do well.
It wouldn’t necessarily. What has changed is that many centrist, so called ‘Blairites’ have seized on Brexit as an opportunity. Corbyn has been, in my view unfairly, blamed entirely for it and Umuna and Woodcock et al are positioning themselves to run as anti-Brexit campaigners.
It will be interesting to see how this all ends. Momentum are now opposing Brexit and this may force Corbyn to find a new position on it.
Whoever is the leader of the Labour Party has the massive problem of keeping their pro and anti Brexit factions happy.
Brexit, along with so much else, has been weaponised against Corbyn by the likes of Jess Philips who, I fear, underestimate the fact that many traditional labour voters would vote Leave again.
Boris is clearly positioning himself to challenge May and sell himself as the hard Brexit leader.
Regardless of who their leader is, if Labour called for a second referendum they’d lose voters to UKIP and possibly even the Conservatives.
I find it infuriating that this still leaves the likes of Umuna and Jess Philips able to attack Corbyn relentlessly over Brexit. What could anyone do differently and continue to hold Labour’s position in the polls?
What do you think he was doing?
spot on
I like Jeremy Corbyn. He's a man who sees things as they are, not how we would necessarily like them to be. He recognises some of the reasons terrorism exists and isn't a GB apologist. Whether it can work in politics or not remains to be seen but I think he's basically honest and a man of peace. And I think the right are afraid of him. As for him not being electable - well he came pretty damn close in the GE
Very much agree with you. As for his electability, I think he'd have won if the party had united behind him. Explains why people are so angry with his Labour opponents, that they were prepared to put their dislike for him over voter's interests
Feels like mostly old news now considering how much has changed in British politics in the past few years - she's generally done fairly well as Shadow FS, not turning on Corbyn at any opportunity but also perceived as a voice of reason. She can come across as quite smarmy and dismissive though, also got a decent bit of criticism for claiming sexism when she wasn't able to answer some foreign policy related questions in an interview, albeit they were fairly silly questions.
He’s a terrorist apologist. He commemorated the deaths of IRA terrorists and can’t really deny that he was there commemorating terrorists who brutally murdered athletes. Not soldiers or any other justification you can find, but literally athletes in the Olympic village.
I wonder if you’d feel the same if he was standing near (which is literally best case scenario here) a commemoration of 7/7 or 9/11 terrorists?
There were a lot of different factors that brought down Ed. He was seen as quite 'awkward' and meek - whoever was marketing him should've been trying to play up his general quirky humour instead of trying to mould him into another slick Blair clone. He's been funny since leaving office but never let that show beforehand. He had some solid left-wing policies but never got past the image problem.
He was also in that weird position where he sort of disavowed Blairism, but also didn't really disavow it...so he was never left-wing enough for a lot of people demanding genuine change, and sort of tacitly accepted the flawed narrative that Labour destroyed the economy, instead of fighting back against it.
Plus there were other problems like Scotland, and some fairly crappy prominent cabinet members - much as he's since reinvented himself as a more cuddly Boris, Balls came across as a bit of a joke back then. Jim Murphy's entire tenure as Scottish Labour leader was also an utter trainwreck.
I can see it from both sides - in his first year or so as leader he made a lot of needless gaffes and genuinely didn't come across well at all, but he also had prominent party figures working to depose him from the moment he stepped into office. A well-run party would've sought to cover his flaws instead of helping accentuate them. Especially when it wasn't a close contest but instead a landslide where the membership had made clear their desire to shift to the left.
Once you elect someone who hasn't been in charge of so much as market stall for the last thirty years, what do you expect?
never had the scrutiny because he was never a serious politician, chickens coming home to roost.
never had the scrutiny because he was never a serious politician, chickens coming home to roost.
I don't see how anyone can see the response to this mess from his cheerleaders both on social media and on here and still be offended when people liken them to members of a cult.
Video could emerge him shitting onto your corn flakes, he'd release a statement saying he was at breakfast but doesn't think he took part, and the response will be weird, gushing poetry from on Twitter accompanied with #WeStandWithJez, accusation that his anus was a Blairite trying to smear him and we shouldn't believe the video of him shitting on your corn flakes because it was on the Daily Mail website and swkakbox has found an unnamed defecating on corn flakes expert that says the whole thing is made up.
But despite all that people are still offended when others call this behaviour a bit odd.
Video could emerge him shitting onto your corn flakes, he'd release a statement saying he was at breakfast but doesn't think he took part, and the response will be weird, gushing poetry from on Twitter accompanied with #WeStandWithJez, accusation that his anus was a Blairite trying to smear him and we shouldn't believe the video of him shitting on your corn flakes because it was on the Daily Mail website and swkakbox has found an unnamed defecating on corn flakes expert that says the whole thing is made up.
But despite all that people are still offended when others call this behaviour a bit odd.
Last edited:
Terrorism will never be defeated until we start looking at the root causes, recognise our own contribution, and stop being over-nationalistic by just assuming we are right. We don’t have to condone it, but should start understanding it. Not that all terrorist groups have justification though I believe in the main that recruits are radicalised/brainwashed and their leaders are crooks/cowards
If what he did was for all victims of terrorism, will he now lay a wreath at the graves of the 11 athletes?
Okay, it has become absolutely clear now. Corbyn is anti Semitic. Laying a wreath for the militants that killed Israeli athletes at the Munich Games is despicable.
We can all work out the answer for this question. Most likely not!
Labour in particular and Europe in general has a huge anti Semitism problem. There have been targeted killings of Jews in France in recent years. Many attacks on Jews in public places as well. Many of the perpetrators of these hate crimes come from countries in which the society is anti Semitic and quite intolerant.
Perhaps not in the party as a whole but we're talking about the leadership of the party and the faction ideologically aligned to his politics.
Because the allegedly ‘qualified’ jesters we currently have in the cabinet are doing a stellar job at the moment.
He wasn't laying a wreath for the militants. It was for Palestinians killed in an air attack. The militants were in the same graveyard. That's his version and is there anything to prove otherwise?
It's so obviously a right wing ploy - whatever the truth - to deflect from Boris's Islamaphobia.
If Thornberry became leader and got rid of McDonnell she'd be odds on for the next PM IMO
Both aspire to be the Prime Minister of the UK
If it is true Liv, and the signs are that he did know the Munich lot were in there, then for me this is different order of magnitude to Boris's comments.
I would prefer a Prime Minister who doesn't automatically think that we are right all the time. Corbyn is different in that he doesn't. The facts are that the Tories are trying to malign Jeremy Corbyn with lies and half-truths, especially since they had such a shock in the last GE. He may have known the militants were buried there - the question is, whether he was laying a wreath for them, or for innocent civilians killed in air strikes.
If we are ever going to have peace in the ME - and a subsequent end to terrorism - we can't keep behaving as though we hold the moral high ground. I don't know if anything can make this country safer - I tend to believe that Jeremy Corbyn is more likely to do that than May, Johnson or Mogg...
It seems clear enough that the photos of Corbyn holding the wreath and joining in the prayer were taken at the Black September memorial:
I still think I must be living in some sort of alternate reality. This isn't that hard. The graveyard where Corbyn was is small, the canopied bit even smaller. The entirety of it is displayed in the available photographs. There is literally only one place he could possibly have been standing while he was photographed handling the wreath and offering prayer. That place is by the plaque at the foot of the graves containing the remains of the founder of Black September and his associates.
I've no doubt his primary motive in going to this place was to honour the dead killed by Israeli air attack, but there is equally no doubt in my mind that he was intimately involved in honouring these terrorists. The only question I have is whether or not he knew who these people were. Personally I doubt he did.
I've no doubt his primary motive in going to this place was to honour the dead killed by Israeli air attack, but there is equally no doubt in my mind that he was intimately involved in honouring these terrorists. The only question I have is whether or not he knew who these people were. Personally I doubt he did.
Trouble with Corbyn is that he thinks that we are wrong almost all of the time. I do agree that you sometimes need to talk to your enemies to get progress with highly contentious issues. But Corbyn takes a very bias position - unlike people like Mo Molem.
A shocking state of things when the most likeable and human-like person in either of the two main parties has a penchant for terrorists.
His relationships with these people, whether its Hamas or the IRA, are because he supports their cause. It's false to pretend that it was all a push to secure peace. You don't help secure peace by exclusively showing support to one side.
Even if he did, I think Jeremy Corbyn believes in dialogue in order to prevent terrorism - if that means showing understanding for the root cause of the problem, he'll do it. Of course there was no justification for the murder of the athletes but it's not a black and white situation is it and Israel's actions haven't exactly been innocent in the past decade. They can't always play the victim card. Does it make someone anti-semitic for not supporting Israel, no matter what?
I think our history is very doubtful, if not shameful. We are wrong most of the time!
He's just a typical radical lefty. He'll back any side railing against a perceived oppressor regardless of the merits of the argument. His opposition to the operations in Bosnia is a prime example of this.
He has poor judgement and time and time again he's proven to be a 'useful idiot' to these groups and that if you give him the benefit of the doubt on these alignments.
He wrote afterwards about the wreath laid for “others killed by Mossad agents in Paris in 1991“, so the only way he wouldn’t have known is by being completely uninterested in who these ‘others’ were, and by being completely ignorant of the episode in question - not something I find credible for someone with his level of involvement in activism in this conflict.
It’s definitely possible he didn’t know initially that the Black September guys were buried there, and subsequently he felt pressured into this situation, not wanting to offend his hosts. It would also explain why he felt the need to join in ‘prayer’ with them, despite being an atheist apparently. However, this is not the explanation he’s chosen to provide.
I find it more likely that Corbyn doesn’t really consider these people ‘terrorists’ but rather part of a legitimate struggle whose more violent tendencies ought to be seen as a consequence of the brutality of Israel and the West. And that there was nothing about his career up to 2014 which would have suggested to him that such a visit may not have been a wise move.
Well of course not and I reckon much of the criticism Israeli policies receive is justified. There is a difference, though, between offering honest criticism, desiring dialogue, demonstrating understanding, and offering up prayers at the feet of notorious terrorists. It's indefensible in my view that one does this and then lies about it - which is what Corbyn is doing.
We currently have a government that is Saudi Arabia’s biggest arms dealer. The same weapons are being used to carry out atrocities on the people of Yemen, and the Saudi regime itself is linked to the most heinous Terrorist groups on the planet, as well being the bankrollers for schools in this country that have propagated the most hateful form of Islam, serving as the ideological backbone that’s radicalised the same terrorists responsible for carrying out attacks on British soil. Very little is being made of this and the only real vocal condemnation has come from - wait for it - Jeremy Corbyn.
Say what you want about Corbyn but he’s been on the right side of history more often than not. His insistence on diplomacy and talks with factions initially deemed unthinkable has led to strides in peace as we saw in Northern Ireland. He’s also never advocated violence as a means to achieving peace. So to simply accuse him of having a penchant for terrorism is pretty obtuse to put it generously.
What do you mean with this bit? What “strides in peace” have been made thanks to Corbyn? Genuinely curious because I don’t actually know a lot about him.