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

Ubik said:
No, it means that destroying IS (or removing Assad) isn't the end but the beginning of a long period of rebuilding for a state that's been destroyed and lost about half its population.
Click to expand...

I doubt there's any way to reconstruct Syria. The violence will have driven huge wedges through the society, and, even before the uprising, like other Middle Eastern states, it was only held together by an autocratic regime repressing all dissent.

Humpty Dumpty was an easy job by comparison. The idea of the West and comrade Putin collecting all those broken bits and pieces, and gluing them back together into a new democratic egg acceptable to the outside world, is a bit of a fantasy.
 
But if we bomb those pieces repeatedly until they form really tiny pieces that from a distance appear to be a single cohesive mass, then we will have succeeded!
 
Last edited:
Watching the 10 o'clock news wilfully twist their own interview of Corbyn is pretty pathetic
 
Penna said:
Some discomfort for Hilary Benn today as he tries to slightly distance himself from Corbyn's position on shoot-to-kill.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/17/hilary-benn-jeremy-corbyn-shoot-to-kill
Click to expand...

Distancing himself from Corbyns politically naive comments rather than the position I feel.

He could have easily diffused the storm in a tea cup here, quite telling that he choose not to and instead assert Labour's position. Which isn't actually any different yet.
 
What he has an issue with is the possibility of innocent people get gunned down by police in the aftermath of an attack. That kind of thing happens when police are given orders to shoot-to-kill in such a highly charged situation. That's a sensible position which has been twisted by disingenuous media sources into something ridiculous.

As much as I like that he doesn't play the media game, Corbyn needs to be exact with his language and discerning in his choice of platforms. Such issues are probably best not raised ad hoc in an environment when the interviewer and the editor have so much control over the context in which the comments are presented.
 
He'll later be saying that he agrees with it. At least he's correcting mistakes.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
What he has an issue with is the possibility of innocent people get gunned down by police in the aftermath of an attack. That kind of thing happens when police are given orders to shoot-to-kill in such a highly charged situation. That's a sensible position which has been twisted by disingenuous media sources into something ridiculous.

As much as I like that he doesn't play the media game, Corbyn needs to be exact with his language and discerning in his choice of platforms. Such issues are probably best not raised ad hoc in an environment when the interviewer and the editor have so much control over the context in which the comments are presented.
Click to expand...

Indeed, even the Labour supporters in this thread jump on such ambiguities to push an agenda so it's certainly no suprise the media do it.
 
Smores said:
Indeed, even the Labour supporters in this thread jump on such ambiguities to push an agenda so it's certainly no suprise the media do it.
Click to expand...
Corbyn's been fairly incompetent since his election, we've hardly needed to push any agenda. He just said stupid things repeatedly, and no chorus of "context!" from his supporters can alter that.
 
Ubik said:
Corbyn's been fairly incompetent since his election, we've hardly needed to push any agenda. He just said stupid things repeatedly, and no chorus of "context!" from his supporters can alter that.
Click to expand...

Still did though!
 
Ubik said:
He'll later be saying that he agrees with it. At least he's correcting mistakes.
Click to expand...

He's basically making clear what I said he meant all along because he is being deliberately misrepresented.

Huffington Post: Jeremy Corbyn WILL Authorise Lethal Force Against Terrorists If 'Strictly Necessary'

Jeremy Corbyn would authorise the lethal use of force against terrorists in Paris-style attacks if he became Prime Minister, HuffPostUK can reveal.

In his report to Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee today, the Labour leader has made clear that he would approve ‘proportionate and strictly necessary force’ in response to attacks like that by ISIL killers at the Bataclan concert hall.

But Mr Corbyn also stresses that the law must be upheld and that he believes that ‘shoot to kill’ policies are to be avoided, not least because of ‘recent’ incidents, believed to be a reference to the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes and Northern Ireland’s Troubles.
Click to expand...


​
 
Untied said:
He's basically making clear what I said he meant all along because he is being deliberately misrepresented.




​
Click to expand...
He's not being misrepresented, he's just terrible at speaking.
 
Ubik said:
He's not being misrepresented, he's just terrible at speaking.
Click to expand...

It's not as if he was asked a convoluted or trick question. It was simple, but his response was to waffle about without really answering the question. There was no need to over-complicate the issue with rhetoric about the principle of "shoot to kill" in all situations. All it's going to do, justifiably, is make people doubt him even further because he can't handle a simple question. I think it's likely he was just being honest but is correcting himself after being reminded of his position.
 
Sir Matt said:
It's not as if he was asked a convoluted or trick question. It was simple, but his response was to waffle about without really answering the question. There was no need to over-complicate the issue with rhetoric about the principle of "shoot to kill" in all situations. All it's going to do, justifiably, is make people doubt him even further because he can't handle a simple question. I think it's likely he was just being honest but is correcting himself after being reminded of his position.
Click to expand...
He seems to get a jumble of thoughts in his head after a question and feel the need to bumble them off incoherently. Which I can sympathise with as it's probably what I'd do, but then I'm thankfully never going to lead the Labour Party. He structured his answer to the previous question in this interview so badly that he made it sound as if PCSOs would be on the frontline of a terror attack response. His instinct is to retreat to the line of the Campaign group, which is not compatible with the scrutiny required of Leader of the Opposition.
 
I was reading some old articles on Jean Charles de Menezes and they are stunning examples of how inaccurate eyewitness testimony can be. It's genuinely incredible.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm

Mark Whitby said: "I was sitting on the train... I heard a load of noise, people saying, 'Get out, get down'.

"I saw an Asian guy. He ran on to the train, he was hotly pursued by three plain clothes officers, one of them was wielding a black handgun.

"He half tripped... they pushed him to the floor and basically unloaded five shots into him," he told BBC News 24.

"As [the suspect] got onto the train I looked at his face, he looked sort of left and right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, a cornered fox.

"He looked absolutely petrified and then he sort of tripped, but they were hotly pursuing him, [they] couldn't have been any more than two or three feet behind him at this time and he half tripped and was half pushed to the floor and the policeman nearest to me had the black automatic pistol in his left hand.

"He held it down to the guy and unloaded five shots into him.

"He [the suspect] had a baseball cap on and quite a sort of thickish coat - it was a coat you'd wear in winter, sort of like a padded jacket.
o.gif


"He might have had something concealed under there, I don't know. But it looked sort of out of place with the sort of weather we've been having, the sort of hot humid weather.

Commuter Anthony Larkin, who was also on the train at Stockwell station, told 5 Live he saw police chasing a man.

"I saw these police officers in uniform and out of uniform shouting 'get down, get down', and I saw this guy who appeared to have a bomb belt and wires coming out and people were panicking and I heard two shots being fired."
Click to expand...

I mean literally every fact given is/was false. I'm not blaming these people, it's just a failing of human psychology. There's a really interesting TED talk about it

I thought about making a new thread about it, but there's probably not that much to actually discuss. I just found it fascinating.
 
Shamwow said:
No one has a credible solution, I don't think Corbyn should be singled out just because he doesn't want to default to the same "solution" that has been failing for years now just to appease nationalistic fervour and a desire for bloody vengeance.
Click to expand...

Can't be arsed listing the times he has opened his mouth and put his foot firmly in it before being forced by his own party to back track with the latest being being the star of the Stop the War Xmas party. He is an embarrassment that keeps on giving.

There was this in that article that he continues to fail to learn....

"The hardest part of leadership is judging how far to stray from what is ideal for the sake of what is necessary."
 
Marching said:
Can't be arsed listing the times he has opened his mouth and put his foot firmly in it before being forced by his own party to back track with the latest being being the star of the Stop the War Xmas party. He is an embarrassment that keeps on giving.

There was this in that article that he continues to fail to learn....

"The hardest part of leadership is judging how far to stray from what is ideal for the sake of what is necessary."
Click to expand...

The biggest fallacy is that a knee jerk response to launch bombing strikes is necessary if not ideal.

Reflection on our own contribution to these issues is necessary, but not ideal.
 
Shamwow said:
The biggest fallacy is that a knee jerk response to launch bombing strikes is necessary if not ideal.

Reflection on our own contribution to these issues is necessary, but not ideal.
Click to expand...

The mere thought that anything is left to a knee jerk reaction during such serious events is a bit daft.
 
Bunch of new polls around

The drop again comes from previous undecideds making up their mind against him.



There's likely to be more variation between polls this time round given that they're all trying to introduce new adjustments in light of the GE polling fall out. Still, they all point to a sizeable lead for the Tories.
 
The people defending Corbyn on here are just like the people who were defending Moyes, despite being clearly out of his depth.

God help this country if this idealist ever got into power, and like any good socialist, I'm sure he'd soon drop his ideals as soon as he got into Downing Street.
 
Marching said:
Sorry, but I doubt even you seriously believe that the likes of Obama, Putin, Turnball, Trudeau, Hollande, Cameron just decide on a whim to launch jets carrying bombs.
Click to expand...

It pretty much fits the description of a knee jerk to me. Think of the striking of the knee as a terrorist attack and the jerk as intensification of bombing strikes. It seems to be a reflexive response.
 
Marching said:
Sorry, but I doubt even you seriously believe that the likes of Obama, Putin, Turnball, Trudeau, Hollande, Cameron just decide on a whim to launch jets carrying bombs.
Click to expand...

I think they're being reactionary to appease public opinion rather than dealing with the issue logically.

You're a good case in point. Corbyn discusses the problems, but you've attacked him for being 'out of his depth' for not having a decisive action plan.

It's better, apparently, in politics to be seen doing something, even if in 2 years time its shown to be demonstrably wrong, for the sake of being seen to do something.
 
NinjaFletch said:
I think they're being reactionary to appease public opinion rather than dealing with the issue logically.

You're a good case in point. Corbyn discusses the problems, but you've attacked him for being 'out of his depth' for not having a decisive action plan.

It's better, apparently, in politics to be seen doing something, even if in 2 years time its shown to be demonstrably wrong, for the sake of being seen to do something.
Click to expand...

You made my point better than I could, thanks.
 
NinjaFletch said:
I think they're being reactionary to appease public opinion rather than dealing with the issue logically.

You're a good case in point. Corbyn discusses the problems, but you've attacked him for being 'out of his depth' for not having a decisive action plan.

It's better, apparently, in politics to be seen doing something, even if in 2 years time its shown to be demonstrably wrong, for the sake of being seen to do something.
Click to expand...

I dont get this - Syria is not a new issue. Its been over 2 years since Miliband defeated Cameron in the house on bombing raids in Syria. How can something that he been brewing and argued over for 2 years be in any way considered a rush to action? And how can Corbyn take credit for something Miliband did 2 years ago?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.