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

nickm said:
Well whether he was too loyal or not, he was rightly ridiculed for saying we should send the poison sample back to Russia for their confirmation. I mean, top mind right there.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you. We could go on with examples of foreign policy statements from those four years.

But Labour members could hardly complain. We knew what we were getting in the campaign and election. There was a real visceral feeling after the 2015 GE that the party had slid too far to the right and had to go back to its roots. I think if Labour had the same voting system as the Tories for leader the members would have had to choose between Burnham and Cooper.
 
nickm said:
I wish the maths supported your view. Even with this surge of enthusiasm, biggest vote share in ages etc etc, the Tories still managed to win 55 seats more than labour. Because they were not able to switch the right votes in the right seats.
Click to expand...

Roughly a third of the electorate don't vote. I'd say there's room for improvement there, even if it means a different group no longer feel represented enough to participate.

Also, it wasn't Corbyn who had already lost most of the Scottish seats. Did Milliband destroy the Labour party?
 
Of course part of the 2017 result and turnout could have been attributable to Brexit. I find it odd that only 2019 is referenced.
 
11101 said:
Yes, you don't want a PM who goes after anybody with a relish and vindictiveness. Its not a good trait for a person in a position of power because sooner or later they'll go after somebody you don't want them to, and I never liked the way he tried to create an us vs. them mentality in his campaigning.
Click to expand...
Boris Johnson doesn't exactly have the best track record for giving honest opinions so I wouldn't find him using the same terminology reassuring myself.

In the hypothetical situation he was relishing to go after the wealthy. At least that would be a us v them campign for once rather than the usual us v us but the wealthiest are never to blame.

Any comments on Starmers vindictive treatment of the former leader he once described as a friend?
 
ThehatchetMan said:
Boris Johnson doesn't exactly have the best track record for giving honest opinions so I wouldn't find him using the same terminology reassuring myself.

In the hypothetical situation he was relishing to go after the wealthy. At least that would be a us v them campign for once rather than the usual us v us but the wealthiest are never to blame.

Any comments on Starmers vindictive treatment of the former leader he once described as a friend?
Click to expand...

I didn't know Boris said that, it was my own opinion of him. I never thought he wanted to be PM anyway. He is and was happier being a thorn in somebody's side with no actual risk of having to follow though on what he says. And no PM should ever be openly targeting any groups of citizens.

No comments on Starmer at all. It's a missed opportunity for Labour but he's an empty suit.
 
nickm said:
I wish the maths supported your view. Even with this surge of enthusiasm, biggest vote share in ages etc etc, the Tories still managed to win 55 seats more than labour. Because they were not able to switch the right votes in the right seats.
Click to expand...
It wasn't exactly a level playing field. The reporting was so weirdly unbalanced it was a joke - even the fecking Guardian were out for his blood. It was a very, very obvious smear campaign by the media to delegitimize him by making him seem soft and flowery (makes his own jam, has an allotment. The horror!) and by making spurious connections to terrorism. It's literally the same crap you see posted in here about him and people still gobble it up. However slow Labour might be to cop on, the electorate are just as dense.
 
redcucumber said:
It wasn't exactly a level playing field. The reporting was so weirdly unbalanced it was a joke - even the fecking Guardian were out for his blood. It was a very, very obvious smear campaign by the media to delegitimize him by making him seem soft and flowery (makes his own jam, has an allotment. The horror!) and by making spurious connections to terrorism. It's literally the same crap you see posted in here about him and people still gobble it up. However slow Labour might be to cop on, the electorate are just as dense.
Click to expand...
If only it wasn't for those pesky voters eh!
 
Flying high said:
Roughly a third of the electorate don't vote. I'd say there's room for improvement there, even if it means a different group no longer feel represented enough to participate.
Click to expand...

Pinning your hopes on people who don't vote, doesn't strike me as a good bet.
 
I like how Labour is supposed to win by pitching their offer to the stupid and the absent.
 
The polls are now recording the lowest gap between labour and Conservative since Starmer took over.

feck Sake Jeremy. It's all your fault!!
 
DanH said:
Oh ok. I just took the words as written
Click to expand...
Yeah it was a typo. Meant to say Sunak.

I guess focusing on asbos and graffiti during a nhs and cost of living crisis hasn't went down quite as well as Starmer thought
 
nickm said:
If only it wasn't for those pesky voters eh!
Click to expand...
Obviously it'd be great if everybody had a critical eye and were alert to hyper biased and bait media campaigns, but we don't have an educational system that supports that. As such, the 'pesky voters' fall prey to agenda driven politics and the end result is we have a country that is utterly fecked and politicians that primarily succeed by appealing using gutter level policy and campaigning.
 
Last edited:
Drifter said:


Do it.
Click to expand...


This needs to happen, but only under a PR system. If the party splits under the current system then both new and old parties are looking at a wipeout due to FPTP.

Also, if the unions break from Labour and form a new party then the current Labour party will go bust pretty quickly unless it can get big donors onboard. Then the distinction between Tory and Labour will be nothing more than the colour of the tie they are wearing. They may even merge down the line.
 
He’s really not helping himself is he, at least he’s honest about his views which should help the voters.
 
Drainy said:
Disgraceful.
Click to expand...
From Piers right?

JC literally begins to say ‘I do not condone support or approve of…’ before Piers cuts him off because he’s obsessed with his gotcha moment. It’s an awful way of presenting, and it’s why you can probably dismiss anything with Piers hosting as having any integrity.

All he wants is soundbites and clicks and people talking about it.
 
Pretty much Piers doing exactly what the Pro Palestinian guests that he has had on have been criticising him for. I don't see an issue with Corbyn in that clip, he even starts to condemn Hamas before Peirs cuts him off. Now I doubt we can find a clip of Piers keeping the same energy asking his Israeli guests whether the Israeli settlers are terrorists or whether they condemn the killing of innocent civilians with such ferocity. Those who know how Corbyn is or support him probably will be fine with the way he answered.
 
TheGame said:
Click to expand...


His physical demeanour is also very telling. Starts to out-shout Piers (never a good idea) before resigning back into his chair and going for a defensive arms crossed posture, before deflecting back to the other topic of ceasefires.
 
Corbyn has the intellectual dexterity of a soggy doormat.
 
The Corinthian said:
From Piers right?

JC literally begins to say ‘I do not condone support or approve of…’ before Piers cuts him off because he’s obsessed with his gotcha moment. It’s an awful way of presenting, and it’s why you can probably dismiss anything with Piers hosting as having any integrity.

All he wants is soundbites and clicks and people talking about it.
Click to expand...

Are you the same person who won't vote for labour because the current leader said Israel should follow international law and misspoke when saying 'they have that right' then clarified his position over the next few days.

Corbyn was being pressed because he wouldn't answer the question. It's a classic interview technique when politicians don't answer directly a la 'did you threaten to overrule him'.

The inference being that he sees them as freedom fighters and while the methods being a bit rough 'maybe don't target civilians if you can, lads?' he thinks their position is reasonable.
 
Drainy said:
Are you the same person who won't vote for labour because the current leader said Israel should follow international law and misspoke when saying 'they have that right' then clarified his position over the next few days.

Corbyn was being pressed because he wouldn't answer the question. It's a classic interview technique when politicians don't answer directly a la 'did you threaten to overrule him'.

The inference being that he sees them as freedom fighters and while the methods being a bit rough 'maybe don't target civilians if you can, lads?' he thinks their position is reasonable.
Click to expand...
So what do you think he was going to say when he started saying "I do not condone support or approve of..." before he was cut off by Piers?

And you're misremembering what Keir said - namely, he believed that Israel has the right to withhold aid, fuel, water etc to the Gazan population, intimating that they should all be held responsible for what Hamas did. He's also opposing calling for a ceasefire.

It's a really poor way of interviewing in any case, but it's Piers' MO.
 
The Corinthian said:
So what do you think he was going to say when he started saying "I do not condone support or approve of..." before he was cut off by Piers?

And you're misremembering what Keir said - namely, he believed that Israel has the right to withhold aid, fuel, water etc to the Gazan population, intimating that they should all be held responsible for what Hamas did. He's also opposing calling for a ceasefire.

It's a really poor way of interviewing in any case, but it's Piers' MO.
Click to expand...

Targeting of civilians, like I said, the failure to fully condemn says he generally supports their aim and gives insight into his antisemitism.

Starmer clarified that he meant that siege tactics had to be within international law. I.e. not collective punishment but targeted at progressing strategic military aims. People wanted an apology, which may have been due apart from the bad political timing due to the insane actions of Hamas and the antisemitism of Labour under Corbyn.

A ceasefire without concessions is not on the cards. Humanitarian pauses are the best anyone can achieve unless Hamas do us a favour and surrender, or at least hand back all of the living hostages and the people responsible for planning the terrorist attack. If they do that it would be sensible to call for peace. Otherwise Hamas need defanging.

It was a pale imitation of Paxman but he needed pressing.
 
The British libs and conservatives got what they wanted. Corbyn and his type of left politics is out of any meaningful power yet….they can’t help but want to live 2015 - 2020 all over again.

Very strange
 
Corbyn, in another interview, claimed that he'd only ever mentioned Hamas as 'friends' because he was in a meeting with various Palestinian groups, the Hamas guy left the room and Corbyn said: "Where's our friend gone?"

However he's been on platforms at rallies, describing Hezbollah and Hamas as friends. There's footage. It's not up for debate.

He needed to say something like: it was a different time and that, since he said those words, those groups have done despicable things and he condemns their actions.
 
Drainy said:
Are you the same person who won't vote for labour because the current leader said Israel should follow international law and misspoke when saying 'they have that right' then clarified his position over the next few days.
Click to expand...
Starmer didn’t misspeak, he finished answering his original question, then the interviewer asked if a siege was appropriate, cutting off power and cutting off water. Starmer repeats I think… Israel does have that right it is an ongoing situation.
Any ‘clarification’ after that is due to the rightful backlash received.
Corbyn should rightfully label Hamas a terrorist group, but at least he does denounce them in the clip.
 
Corbyn is probably too decent a man to be a politician.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.