When did he say he'd refuse to meet trump?
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
When did he say he'd refuse to meet trump?
Corbyn is an irrelevant man, and I'm not surprised Trump has no interest in meeting him. I thought he could have done something a couple of years ago, but he's slipped into the same political power hole they all do. What's he actually standing for? Why would I vote for Labour? The Tories are a bunch of cnuts, that much is clear, but by continuing to drift behind Corbyn, Labour are going to miss this opportunity. Boris will stroll in and wipe his sweaty sack over whats left of the country.
It pisses me off, because I'm fecking sick of this government. He's let a lot of the public down. It's not like Labour had a hard job to do - they just needed to present a clear alternative to the government and (more) people would've gotten behind them. All his sitting on the fence (and of course the way that gets reported in our media)... Politics in the shape of "look at how bad they are" rather than "this is what we'll do". feck him. The Brexit Party has shown how quickly things can change if you are clear with your ideas. There's no excuse for him still having a job.
Because the man is an idiot. By rejecting it when he has met with other controversial groups / men he is just giving the tories ammunition - why do that? It’s incompetence.
If Labour had a decent leader then the tories could be slaughtered right now.
It was trump who rejected the meeting..
Not according to the initial reports and also he went to the protests etc
All ammunition handed to the tories as per my point
Haha. Do you mean the initial reports when he said the following?
" Theresa May should not be rolling out the red carpet for a state visit to honour a President who rips up vital international treaties, backs climate change denial and uses racist and misogynist rhetoric.
“Maintaining an important relationship with the United States does not require the pomp and ceremony of a state visit.
"It is disappointing that the Prime Minister has again opted to kowtow to this US administration.
“I would welcome a meeting with President Trump to discuss all matters of interest.”
There is literally footage of Trump yesterday saying that Corbyn had asked for a meeting but he'd decided 'not to do that'.
Corbyn didn't re-actively decide to attend and speak at the rally, that will have been planned on the expectation Trump would reject a meeting. Why would Trump want to get it to conversation around detail he isn't intellectually capable of discussing with someone he has fundamental disagreements with? It would leave him exposed and it's a courtesy he isn't obliged to extend, so I'm not surprised he's snubbed him.
If it was Labour in Government and Conservatives in opposition, Trump would have met with them regardless of the leader. Trump just doesn't want to get shown up and this doesn't mean Corbyn is incompetent in any way at all. He's got his downfalls but this is reaching.
Trump and Corbyn are both 'marmite men', you either love them or hate them; neither will persuade the other of what day its is, let alone anything else. Both men are only comfortable talking to their adoring followers, or to themselves.
The worry might come if the UK does elect Jeremy and he and Trump are forced to meet as leaders, that will be the end of the special relationship and with Trump's preponderance to weaponize economic issues, and Corbyn's declared intention to borrow like there is no tomorrow the final result for the UK, would make a 'no deal' Brexit look positively, like a walk in the park.
The worry might come if the UK does elect Jeremy and he and Trump are forced to meet as leaders, that will be the end of the special relationship and with Trump's preponderance to weaponize economic issues, and Corbyn's declared intention to borrow like there is no tomorrow the final result for the UK, would make a 'no deal' Brexit look positively, like a walk in the park.
Much as I like dislike Trump, you cannot exclude the US President form the D-Day commemorations, which almost dictates that there must be a state visit. It's inevitable it had to happen. All these people who refused to attend the state banquet etc are as much disrespecting the Queen (and therefore this country) as anything else. It's all rather petty and small minded. Sometimes you have to do things you don't want to do because it's your duty. ffs, the Queen had to have Idi Amin in there once!
The only thing he's sitting on the fence on is Brexit. When you'll lose half of your base by backing Remain, lose half your base by backing No Deal and lose half of your base by backing a deal which is neither here nor there, surely you can see why both Labour and Conservatives are split on this? How do you pick a side when millions of people across towns and cities you represent want both to happen? If there was a simple answer to this, both parties would have done it by now. Lib Dems and Brexit had nobody to lose, only votes to gain, so there success can't be compared to performance of the other major parties in my opinion.
In terms of what does he stand for, I thought Corbyn has always been honest and transparent about this, nothing has changed? Increase taxes on the rich instead of austerity measures which hit the poor. He'd like to re-nationalise Energy and Railways who he thinks make too much money or aren't operating effectively/held to account. He wants to protect workers rights so that full/part time, temporary/permanent, everyone is treated the same and to ban zero hour contracts. He wants to remove any element of privatisation within the NHS.
You either predominantly agree with these ideas and you support Labour, or you disagree (which is fine) and your ideals are more closely aligned with the Conservatives.
If at this point you don't understand what Corbyn stands for or why you would vote Labour then you're not in a position to slate him as irrelevant. I'd assume you pick up bits and pieces of information from outlets that would be fundamentally at odds with the above views and so the picture you have of Corbyn is distorted.
Brexit isn't an issue that will take me away from Labour, neither is perceived antisemitism. Both need to be addressed but I don't suddenly believe that because of those two issues, Farage or Boris Johnson will represent me better.
Times change, quickly. The whole situation flips on it's head if Sanders, for example, was the democratic nominee and won the next US Presidential election. How special would a relationship between Boris and Sanders be?
The issue is that No Deal means we need the US more than ever, but just because the leaders are at odds doesn't mean we should abandon the person fighting for every day citizens. I'd rather someone try and make life better for the many and get it a bit wrong than someone literally write off the many, for the good of the few. (Relatively speaking)
Why did we not have to invite him last year or the year before?
I guess Prince Harry is disrespecting the queen as well.
Last edited:
It would more advantageous to the UK, than a Trump/Corbyn combination, after all Boris is just a Sheep in Wolf's clothing; he will relish his time in the sun at No.10, but as even some of the Tory Grandees now admit he's 'A one Nation Tory.'
Because that wasn't the 75th anniversary.
What happened for the 70th?
Ah right, we're doing the 'he will pivot any day now' thing with Boris too.
I just don't think he would. He wants to lead the country, but he can't lead his party. He'll lose every fecker by doing nothing. If a party that wants to run the country can't get their shit together and make a decision then they aren't going to get any votes. Sure, the conservatives have been just as bad, but so what. They're in power. To make people change you have to the clear choice.
60 million people to choose from, and we get Boris vs Nigel vs Corbyn. It's pathetic. I know it's a decisive subject, but it's a bloody good measuring stick with which to assess people. He's let a lot of folk down with his pissing about. Obviously it's not the only matter needing solved, and all your points are of course totally correct, but in terms of public opinion (which is all that really matters for him right now) nailing down a Brexit stance in the face of the Tory mess would've gone a long way to getting Labour back into power.
I would love to be able to vote for Labour again and who knows, if we get a general election I might, but I just can't see them winning.
Labour voters voted 63% in favour of Remain. In terms of the actual hardcore base, the membership, the figure wanting to Remain was 90% in a recent survey. This myth that Labour is half Leave needs to die a well deserved death.
If that's true, which I'm not disputing, why wouldn't the leadership act on it then? I don't want to write off that inaction as incompetence because they're not complete idiots, they must be looking at data we don't have or factoring something else in surely.
Are there any public stats on the age demographics for the Labour Membership base? I'm going to make an assumption that it's a largely energised young and liberal majority where you would expect that outcome but it's still high regardless. I'm a Remainer, for the record.
Because despite those numbers a majority of Labour constituencies are Leave majority. Even though this doesn’t matter as much as it sounds, because the Labour vote in those constituencies is still majority Remain, the thinking from some is that it would still cost them lots of seats. It may be true, but it implies that not backing Remain isn’t going to cost you even more seats anyway, when your majority Remain supporters aren’t backed.
End of the day though, Corbyn clearly isn’t a Remainer and has no intention of backing Remain with the party. I gave him the benefit of the doubt on this, thinking it could have just been political calculation, but given the situation and the recent election results, that is no longer tenable. He has stated endlessly that he wants to represent the views of membership not just tell the party what to do, and he’s now proven that he’s a liar.
Reaching? Each to their own mate. Corbyn was boycotting a state visit of a foreign leader. I hate Trump. He's everything Sadiq Khan said. But, Corbyn will meet with Hamas and the IRA no problem. Now, I don't for a second think Corbyn is either an anti-semite or a terrorist sympathiser. But Corbyn's handing ammunition to the Tories to fire at him and importantly the Labour Party. The bloke is incompetent.
And he also offered to meet trump and said so over a month ago... Are you willfully ignoring the facts?
I agree with on the conservatives, polling afterwards (Here -
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...eople-voted-labour-or-conservative-2017-gener )the glue that kept the Tory vote at 40% was Brexit and a anti Corbyn/socialist vote but with Labour it was the manifesto. Although if some people did view Labour as the remain party, that to me anyway shows that Remain & Leave vote have very little to do with the EU and more to do with cultural and social views.
I'm not a 100% sure that the Brexit Party will run in a general election. The Brexit Party at the moment is designed to do the old job of UKIP, move the Tory party to the right. Plus if it was to run it would need a manifesto and that manifesto it's going to be alienate a lot of its old white working class voters and come under a ton of media pressure. It wouldn't surprise me if the tory party is the only viable conservative party in the next election.
That's fine mate - you're right about that - my point is about the state dinner that he didn't attend, not the 1:1 meeting with Trump.
But he didn't attend state dinners for Hamas and the IRA either.
On your first paragraph, there is evidence that suggests that if Labour lost 1/4 of their Leave voters across the board they'd lose more seats than if they lost 1/4 of their (much larger) Remain vote. In many of Labour's Remain seats in metropolitan areas they could lose 10,000 - 20,000 votes to the Lib Dems and still win the seat by a country mile, whereas if a few thousand Labour Leavers voted Tory in Leave seats in the North East a lot of safe seats would suddenly be marginals and we'd see the first Tory MPs up here for 30 years or so.
Having said that, I think the lesson from the European elections could be that Remainers who voted Labour in 2017 are far more likely to vote on a single-issue basis than the Leavers who voted Labour in 2017. The evidence I've seen from traditional non-metropolitan Labour areas is that most of the true single-issue Brexiteers jumped ship in 2015 to UKIP and then went to the Tories in 2017. Amongst Labour voters from 2017 who voted Leave in 2016, most are dyed in the wool Labour who will stick with the party regardless of their Brexit position and a minority were happy to vote Labour in 2017 when they supported a soft-Brexit but would take their vote elsewhere if Labour backed a 2nd referendum. The question is whether that second group is large enough to do any significant damage to Labour's electoral prospects; on the basis of the evidence I've seen it probably isn't and it seems like poor strategy to lose huge numbers of Remainers to the Lib Dems in order to keep a small minority of Leavers on side.
I generally support Corbyn but I can't disagree with you on your second paragraph. I think 'the plan' (if it ever was one) to sit on the fence and throw a bone to both Leavers and Remainers worked well in 2017 but his failure to come off the fence since then has been a disaster both in terms of 'optics' for Labour and in terms of his personal credibility as a supporter of greater party democracy. I think he'll come round eventually but he's pissed off so many Remain-inclined people now that it might be too little too late.
It doesn't dictate that in the slightest you've just plucked that out of your arse. We've had many US presidential visits around D-Day ceremonies that have not involved state visits.
I don't know, what did happen on the 70th?
And no doubt you have a complete list of years and Presidents and whether or not they had a state visit.
As if the US president has time for a private sit down with Corbyn.
It was a token gesture, nothing else.
. This does make me wonder if you have the slightest clue what you are taking about or just make it up as you go along.
The Chinese President did. And trump met with Farage among others for fecks sake. Stop talking nonsense.
You didn't answer my question.
I don't need a list as Trump was only the 3rd to get the full pomp, Obama and Bush were the others. It's been plastered over the news all week.
Obama did not get a state visit.
Labour supporters aren't equally split between remain and leave, though, are they? They are losing three times as many remainers as leavers. So continuing to try to please both sides only make sense if they think keeping leavers is more important than losing remainers or they are arrogant enough to think remainers will stay loyal/return.
Were talking about different things, come on.
He was saying that Obama is one of only 3 us presidents to ever get a state visit to the UK.
I'm saying Obama didn't get a state visit for the 70th D-day commemoration in France.
Edit: It still backs up my point funnily enough. Where was the US state visit in 1994 for the 50th anniversary? There wasn't one.
And did that have anything to do with the 70th anniversary of d-day? Probably not seeing as it was in 2011.
It's very frustrating arguing with people who can't or choose not to read.
This is so boring.