advertisement


Corbyn sceptics, what do you think of him now (part II)?

I don't place much faith in any current political party. It is a matter of degrees of awfulness. In my opinion the conservatives are, most particularly following the wing-clipping that they received in the election, markedly less awful a prospect than the newly emboldened Labour party under Corbyn, McConnell and Abbott. However, and that apart, this thread is about Jeremy Corbyn.

It is this basing of support on hypothetical and emotionally charged speculation about the future.. rather than on the much more substantial FACTS of what the Tories have deliberately and cynically done in the recent past, which causes me to seriously doubt the judgement of those who persist in supporting them.

Mull
 
Well we know he was 7 out of 10 in favor of EU membership which for a guy with strongly held views isn't an endorsement. He ignored Alan Johnson and the Labour Remain campaign . He and his team just not interested .

Suggest you listen to the radio or watch the television more closely.

Corbyn made a couple of speeches about the EU in the last two weeks before the Referendum. In these he specifically outlined the reasons to stay in.

Why should he have teamed up with Johnson, who was trying to stab him in the back every chance he could?

It makes me laugh that the right-wing of Labour are hooking up with Remain Tories to blame Corbyn and the socialists for Brexit. It's pathetic. They should get their facts right.

Corbyn shouldn't bend to the wishes of the Blairites in the coming months. They are the people who ruined the Labour Party. If they don't agree with his policy ideas, they can leave.

Jack
 
You can be quite extraordinarily supercilious, self-satisfied and smug at times, Merlin

Indeed. That's because I can back up my argument with facts EV.

If you then try to argue with just, "yes but. No but! He didn't mean that. They don't mean that. That's not what they really think" WITHOUT backing such statements up with facts, I am likely to be even more self satisfied and (you missed this one out) dismissive.
 
Indeed. That's because I can back up my argument with facts EV.

No you don't. You very occasionally back up your argument with selective facts, as you did back there. As I said, you should take care of facts. They often disguise truths - as they did back there.

However, you normally simply express an opinion, which would fine but for the fact that your opinions are absolutist, which means that you brook no other, and you sneer at the opinions expressed by other people simply because you don't happen to share them.

You often claim that your opinions are humble (as in IMHO). They are not, because you believe that your opinions are the only ones that count.

They are not.
 
Corbyn shouldn't bend to the wishes of the Blairites in the coming months. They are the people who ruined the Labour Party. If they don't agree with his policy ideas, they can leave.

Jack

Can't the Blairites just follow their principles and defy the whip as and when their conscience dictates, just like Corbyn did many times in the past, or is such a principled position not allowed now Corbyn is leader.
 
If you then try to argue with just, "yes but. No but! He didn't mean that. They don't mean that. That's not what they really think" WITHOUT backing such statements up with facts, I am likely to be even more self satisfied and (you missed this one out) dismissive.

PS, I didn't. No 'yes but', or 'no, but', I gave you facts. The relevant facts on Corbyn's history, his voting record, his affiliations, and the fact that he deleted his internet archive.

And re, dismissive. I didn't, I just didn't need to write it, as it was self-evident.
 
Can one of the right wingers answer one question for me please - What's more Important than your health?
 
Corbyn shouldn't bend to the wishes of the Blairites in the coming months. They are the people who ruined the Labour Party. If they don't agree with his policy ideas, they can leave.

Jack
Exactly Jack. They're a bunch of political prostitutes with right-wing leanings who are more interested in serving the wealthy special interest groups and their agenda than they are the people that voted Labour the other week.

Let them fu** off to the Conservative party if they're not happy!
 
Exactly Jack. They're a bunch of political prostitutes with right-wing leanings who are more interested in serving the wealthy special interest groups and their agenda than they are the people that voted Labour the other.

In Thailand at least they are open about the corruption and "being given a mandate" is referred to as "our time for feeding".

Politics needs less "representatives" with those views and more people like Corbyn who will genuinely seek to put the interests of the public before their own.

I've said this before but there needs to be, if anything, a financial disincentive to becoming a Member of Parliament.
 
Can't the Blairites just follow their principles and defy the whip as and when their conscience dictates, just like Corbyn did many times in the past, or is such a principled position not allowed now Corbyn is leader.

Heh!
 
I've said this before but there needs to be, if anything, a financial disincentive to becoming a Member of Parliament.

Indeed, politics should be the preserve of wealthy philanthropists, we need to keep the riffraff out :D
 
Can't the Blairites just follow their principles and defy the whip as and when their conscience dictates, just like Corbyn did many times in the past, or is such a principled position not allowed now Corbyn is leader.

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others ;)
 
Merlin, we have all seen these articles, and are fully aware of the JC's official stance during the referendum. However I have pointed out that Corbyn is instinctively and historically anti-EU. He comes from the left wing of the Labour party which was traditionally anti-EU, and was extremely close to Tony Benn, whom he is said to have regarded as his mentor. Tony Benn saw the EU as fundamentally undemocratic, and believed that it would destroy our parliamentary democracy and turn the UK into a vassal state. More privately he saw the EU as the anvil upon which what we now identify as the neolibs would build their new world order. Corbyn did vote against membership in 1975, he did vote against Masstricht, and he did vote against Lisbon.

Since becoming leader of the Labour party, rather than having the courage of his much vaunted convictions, he rolled over to the demands of the now die-hard pro-EU modern Labour Party, a conversion itself cynically undertaken by NuLab when Blair recognised the opportunities that it offered to exploit then as now euro-factionalised Tories. Whilst on the subject of cynical, Corbyn then deleted all of the archives of his speeches and other material, the better to conceal from the world his somewhat unsuitable past, and to facilitate his reinvention as the weirdly shiny new Jesus 'cuddly' Corbyn that people like you are falling over themselves in their contortions to convince the more sceptical amongst us that he is the new messiah.

All of which conveniently disguises the fact that the Labour party is torn asunder by Brexit. Whilst in sheer numbers Labour voters were, as you point out from Ashcroft's research, 62:38 in favour of remain (YouGov finds 65:35, so even more), in constituency terms, a significant proportion of Labour regions outside of London and the major cities voted in equal or greater proportions to leave, and the reasons cited were control of immigration and repatriation of law-making from Brussels. This included swathes of the traditional industrial regions of the NW, NE and Midlands. Against this the parliamentary Labour party (and metropolitan Labour) were overwhelmingly for remain, which has faced the Labour policymakers with a conundrum, and forced their hand on Brexit. Labour is therefore officially pro-Brexit and pro-immigration control, which basically means they are pro-'hard' Brexit.
.
I agree with your first and last paragraphs, especially the conclusion. Labour is struggling to square the circle on Brexit. It has so far been spared scrutiny by the complete chaos in the Conservative party (those in glass houses, etc.) and by the talent of Keir Starmer, but that doesn't mean Labour has anything that comes close to a realistic policy.
 
Indeed, politics should be the preserve of wealthy philanthropists, we need to keep the riffraff out :D

Again I've said it before. Old money has class. New money does not IME.

Old money understands social responsibilities. New money just wants to consume.

I'd be happier having laws passed by the very wealthy than I am by the tax dodgers currently buying seats in Westminster.

PsB, the whole United Kingdom is torn apart by Brexit. Families are torn apart by Brexit. It is a natural reflection of society that Political Parties will be.

If you were to take a national poll today, in light of the lies being exposed and claims being unraveled, I suspect the result would be closer to the Labour Party's position than it would be to the Conservative/UKIP one. That is just a supposition though - no more.

Regardless, it is an issue that has split the nation down the middle and parties should be reflect that and encourage continued discussion and debate within their ranks.
 
No unfortunately, it isn't an option.

What do you mean?

This is the 1st line:

'Labour accepts the referendum result'

And this is in the 3rd paragraph:

'We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain.'
 


advertisement


Back
Top