Corbyn

[One Day Soon]

:faf::faf: :bye::bye: :bitchy::bitchy: :loser::loser: :fibber::fibber:

I think that's about what he merits, the utter clownfish w**ker.

[marinello59]

He doesn't think he was involved in the wreath laying ceremony. Liar.

[Future17]

I don't usually get involved in these threads as, if I'm honest, the full complexity of the situation is beyond my current understanding.

However, the Israeli Prime Minister criticising the conduct of anyone else in relation to atrocities turns my stomach.

[Pretty Boy]

Being a leader involves being the whole package. You can't say 'just focus on policy' and hope everyone just falls into line.

His handling of the anti semitism row has seen what should have been a relatively easy fix of an internal issue approach full blown crisis level. He has consistenly shown his leadership skills are non existent.

It would be churlish to argue his election performance wasn't decent given the expectations but that has to be tempered with the realisation he still lags behind the worst government in at least 2 generations in the opinion polls and continues to fail to lay a glove on them.

It's been time for him to go for a long while.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Being a leader involves being the whole package. You can't say 'just focus on policy' and hope everyone just falls into line.

His handling of the anti semitism row has seen what should have been a relatively easy fix of an internal issue approach full blown crisis level. He has consistenly shown his leadership skills are non existent.

It would be churlish to argue his election performance wasn't decent given the expectations but that has to be tempered with the realisation he still lags behind the worst government in at least 2 generations in the opinion polls and continues to fail to lay a glove on them.

It's been time for him to go for a long while.

Yeah, regardless of his politics, he has zero leadership abilities, and is completely unfit to be PM - he is dogmatic, idealistic and stubborn and I think completely out of touch with public mood and public issues. As much as any chinless Etonian.

His inability or unwillingness to take the lead and solve what should be a fairly straightforward issue to solve shows how inept and out of his depth he really is.

[Hiber-nation]

Just can't wait to share a platform with the nearest far left nutters. He's a liar, a very weak politician and unfit for the role.

[Sir David Gray]

He's nothing but a hypocrite and, as this issue proves, also a bare faced liar.

He'll say publicly about how much of a pacifist he is and how he wants to respect deaths on all sides in a conflict. That's true as long as the people who have died are on his side.

He is continually seen to align himself with groups that are engaged in armed conflict and seems to be quite happy in supporting them in their "cause" regardless of how extreme they become.

IRA, Hezbollah, Hamas, Castro all count Jeremy Corbyn as an ally.

Whilst he remains as Labour leader, they haven't a hope in hell of being in Government. He is a liability and it's about time he was replaced as leader of the opposition.

[GlesgaeHibby]

What I find beyond staggering in all this is that there is virtually nothing he could do/say that would make his supporters question him. Their loyalty to him is unfailing, it's a cult like following.

The guy is so far out his depth it's unreal, and the country needs a strong opposition to lay into the most hopeless Government I've ever lived to witness.

[G B Young]

This article sums him up perfectly:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/the-myth-of-jeremy-corbyn-a-kind-and-gentle-man/

[Colr]

This article sums him up perfectly:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/the-myth-of-jeremy-corbyn-a-kind-and-gentle-man/

Yeh, but it’s in the Spectator.

[G B Young]

Yeh, but it’s in the Spectator.

True, though you'll find not dissimilar sentiments in plenty of other publications. I just thought this piece was spot-on.

[lyonhibs]

Did Dennis Skinner (or someone) not rather put the cat in amongst the pigeons by saying that the 1972 bombers are buried in Libya, not Tunisia, and that Corbyn was attending a ceremony for some batch of Palestinians that Isreal had craftily blown sky high. Again.

Could be factually wrong of course.

[JimBHibees]

There does seem to have been some sort of campaign against the guy and the slightly odd Jim Murphy stunt of paying for a page in a Jewish newspaper would suggest many in the party are determined to undermine him and his position.

[JeMeSouviens]

Did Dennis Skinner (or someone) not rather put the cat in amongst the pigeons by saying that the 1972 bombers are buried in Libya, not Tunisia, and that Corbyn was attending a ceremony for some batch of Palestinians that Isreal had craftily blown sky high. Again.

Could be factually wrong of course.

It's complicated as you'd expect.

Black September, the group that carried out the 1972 hostage taking was an offshoot of the PLO (not bombing, in brief they kidnapped a bunch of Israeli athletes from the Olympic village, killed 2, tortured some others, then all the kidnappers and hostages were killed in a gun battle with Germans as they tried to escape in a helicopter). The PLO was involved in political/military/terrorist* action for decades and some of its high ranking people were implicated in planning the Munich attack. The PLO had its HQ in exile in Tunisia and it was bombed by Israeli fighter jets, killing some of the aforementioned high ranking people (and a bunch of civilians too). The spot where Corbyn "doesn't think he was involved" in wreath laying has memorials to those killed in that attack but also other PLO dead in other places.

The PLO was eventually legitimised as the representative body of Palestinians and Yasser Arafat, formerly derided as a terrorist, negotiated with the Israelis and others, had the handshake with Clinton/Rabhin and all that ...

So, Corbyn claims he was just talking to the same people as others in Western politics/governments have, and therefore his critics are hypocrites.

It really doesn't wash though. If you transpose this to a situation we're more familiar with, it's the difference between a leader meeting a Sinn Fein delegation with ex-IRA members at Stormont and entering into a meaningful negotiation towards a desired outcome and a leader turning up at an Easter commemoration at Milltown cemetery alongside a bunch of guys in berets and dark glasses. (Of course, Corbyn/McDonnell have a bit of form there too ...)



* delete to taste.

[Beefster]

What I find beyond staggering in all this is that there is virtually nothing he could do/say that would make his supporters question him. Their loyalty to him is unfailing, it's a cult like following.

The guy is so far out his depth it's unreal, and the country needs a strong opposition to lay into the most hopeless Government I've ever lived to witness.

That's politics nowadays. Trump, Corbyn, Sturgeon/SNP and more have a subset of supporters who rationalise everything in a particular way that allows them to continue supporting.

[One Day Soon]

It's complicated as you'd expect.

Black September, the group that carried out the 1972 hostage taking was an offshoot of the PLO (not bombing, in brief they kidnapped a bunch of Israeli athletes from the Olympic village, killed 2, tortured some others, then all the kidnappers and hostages were killed in a gun battle with Germans as they tried to escape in a helicopter). The PLO was involved in political/military/terrorist* action for decades and some of its high ranking people were implicated in planning the Munich attack. The PLO had its HQ in exile in Tunisia and it was bombed by Israeli fighter jets, killing some of the aforementioned high ranking people (and a bunch of civilians too). The spot where Corbyn "doesn't think he was involved" in wreath laying has memorials to those killed in that attack but also other PLO dead in other places.

The PLO was eventually legitimised as the representative body of Palestinians and Yasser Arafat, formerly derided as a terrorist, negotiated with the Israelis and others, had the handshake with Clinton/Rabhin and all that ...

So, Corbyn claims he was just talking to the same people as others in Western politics/governments have, and therefore his critics are hypocrites.

It really doesn't wash though. If you transpose this to a situation we're more familiar with, it's the difference between a leader meeting a Sinn Fein delegation with ex-IRA members at Stormont and entering into a meaningful negotiation towards a desired outcome and a leader turning up at an Easter commemoration at Milltown cemetery alongside a bunch of guys in berets and dark glasses. (Of course, Corbyn/McDonnell have a bit of form there too ...)



* delete to taste.

There isn't any level on almost any issue at which the guy isn't a complete joke. On this latest episode he's been caught out and then at every stage he's given increasingly ludicrous 'a terrorist dog ate my homework' excuses for what happened.

We must have beet an utter set of ****s in a previous existence to deserve this. You couldn't make one complete, competent leader from the best bits (assuming you could find some) of May, Corbyn and Sturgeon.

[JeMeSouviens]

There isn't any level on almost any issue at which the guy isn't a complete joke. On this latest episode he's been caught out and then at every stage he's given increasingly ludicrous 'a terrorist dog ate my homework' excuses for what happened.

We must have beet an utter set of ****s in a previous existence to deserve this. You couldn't make one complete, competent leader from the best bits (assuming you could find some) of May, Corbyn and Sturgeon.

I realise opinion on Sturgeon is mixed but she surely doesn't deserve to be lumped in with those 2? :confused:

The Corbyn thing is weird. The foreign policy stuff seems to have been the main passion of his career but whenever attention is drawn to it he refuses to either make a case for it or row back and distance himself. He must be thanking his lucky stars Netanyahu has got involved. The whataboutery joker seems their only play in this circumstance.

[G B Young]

I realise opinion on Sturgeon is mixed but she surely doesn't deserve to be lumped in with those 2? :confused:

The Corbyn thing is weird. The foreign policy stuff seems to have been the main passion of his career but whenever attention is drawn to it he refuses to either make a case for it or row back and distance himself. He must be thanking his lucky stars Netanyahu has got involved. The whataboutery joker seems their only play in this circumstance.

Indeed. Deflection tactics until they get their story straight seems to be the sum of it. And getting their story straight seems to be beyond them. Corbyn must have made three or four attempts now to come up with a catch-all covering story since the ridicule which followed his 'I was present but I don't think I was involved' witterings. Very much his Bill Clinton 'I didn't inhale' moment!

And you're right, Sturgeon doesn't deserve to be lumped in alongside Corbyn. I don't vote SNP but I have a degree of respect for her as a politician whereas I have none for Corbyn. In fact the leader I'm increasingly reminded of is Trump when you look at Corbyn/Labour's tactics here, alleging 'false/fake' news and the aggressive response to journalists who don't ask the right questions.

[HappyAsHellas]

A tory lord was on the radio yesterday backing Corbyn in this matter as he was at the same conference and of course Maggie herself condemned Israel for it's action in the Tunisia bombing. I know it's the silly season but can't help feeling that this is just part of an orchestrated campaign against Corbyn which makes you wonder what the real news is we should be hearing. All seems a bit strange as I fail to see how Labour will win an election with him at the helm.
Jeremy vs the Blairites and the tory press - wonder who's going to win?

[One Day Soon]

A tory lord was on the radio yesterday backing Corbyn in this matter as he was at the same conference and of course Maggie herself condemned Israel for it's action in the Tunisia bombing. I know it's the silly season but can't help feeling that this is just part of an orchestrated campaign against Corbyn which makes you wonder what the real news is we should be hearing. All seems a bit strange as I fail to see how Labour will win an election with him at the helm.
Jeremy vs the Blairites and the tory press - wonder who's going to win?

More accurately and more succinctly described as Corbyn versus himself. He's drowning beneath whole squadrons of fat, w4nky-politics chickens coming home to roost on his not very bright sanctimonious head. Good.

[G B Young]

Bizarre wee anecdote from Patrick Stewart!

Sir Patrick Stewart, one of Labour’s most high-profile members, has abandoned the party he has supported for 73 years after saying he no longer knows “what it stands for”.
The Star Trek actor, who attended his first Labour event when he was five, said: “It doesn’t feel like my party any more” as he attacked Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.
Sir Patrick recalled a frosty first encounter with the Labour leader a few weeks ago, saying: “He was talking to a group of my friends after a theatre performance and I wandered up to join them.
“Jeremy’s eye caught mine and he said ‘oh you’re looking very well’, and I made some light-hearted riposte along the lines of ‘you can’t judge a book by its cover’.

“For some inexplicable reason, this annoyed him, and he shot back ‘you know, Patrick, you could just have said thank you instead of making a joke out of it'.



“I couldn’t understand how he could take offence at such an utterly innocuous remark, and no one else could, and it made for rather an awkward silence. I just thought ‘oh well, I tried’, and, after a suitable interval, I discreetly headed off home.”
In an interview with The New European, Sir Patrick said: “To be perfectly honest, I find it difficult to understand what Labour really stands for or what it represents right now. It doesn’t feel like my party any more.”


He said he would be switching his allegiance to the Green Party at the next election as it was more in tune with his views on Brexit, as he accused Mr Corbyn of wanting a “disastrous Brexit” because it would “benefit him politically”.
He said: “It seems to me to be just plain wrong to play with the country’s future in this way.”
Sir Patrick, 78, stood with a placard urging support for the Labour candidate for Mirfield in West Yorkshire in 1945 had, until now, been an unswerving supporter of the Party.

[danhibees1875]

It's a strange one with Corbyn; he is criticised for being unpopular - yet Labour are at record membership numbers and he's won 2 leadership contests in a row, so that is a long way off being a unanimous viewpoint.

I'm not hugely into politics, but I read through a selection of manifestos before the last election and felt Labour's was the only one that offered any real idea of what they would actually do/change when in power and what would generate money and how they would spend it seemed clear - compared to Conservative's one which was littered with long boring paragraphs that didn't say anything beyond rhetoric about "make a success off Brexit" and "make Britain great again" (note those words). I thought from those that Labour stood a reasonable chance of appealing to people, but Corbyn on camera doesn't come over as convincing enough and he does tend to take beating after beating from the media - I'll be honest, I don't know enough about the situations he gets himself involved in to comment on what he's actually done being good or bad.

Would a change in leadership actually a bring enough people back to Labour? If so, where are they now?

[matty_f]

Doors the anti Semitism stuff comes from his support of Palestine?

I really struggle to get my head around it, and it's not made easier by the fact that you can't trust who is reporting on it as the definitely appears to be a narrative/agenda around it.

The issue is doing a great job of keeping the Tories' incompetence out of the public's eyes.

[JimBHibees]

Doors the anti Semitism stuff comes from his support of Palestine?

I really struggle to get my head around it, and it's not made easier by the fact that you can't trust who is reporting on it as the definitely appears to be a narrative/agenda around it.

The issue is doing a great job of keeping the Tories' incompetence out of the public's eyes.

Aint that the truth.

[Hibbyradge]

Doors the anti Semitism stuff comes from his support of Palestine?

I really struggle to get my head around it, and it's not made easier by the fact that you can't trust who is reporting on it as the definitely appears to be a narrative/agenda around it.

The issue is doing a great job of keeping the Tories' incompetence out of the public's eyes.

Labour are creeping ahead in a few polls, but they should be well ahead of this Tory bunch.

If Corbyn adopted a pro-Europe/remain position, I think Labour would be miles in front.

Winning the next general election would give Labour the chance to correct some of the wrongs in the UK. Sorting out the EU can come later.

[matty_f]

Labour are creeping ahead in a few polls, but they should be well ahead of this Tory bunch.

If Corbyn adopted a pro-Europe/remain position, I think Labour would be miles in front.

Winning the next general election would give Labour the chance to correct some of the wrongs in the UK. Sorting out the EU can come later.

I tend to agree on the Euro point, if Corbyn was anti-Brexit Labor would be well ahead, imho. Massive own goal supporting Brexit from Corbyn.

[Pete]

Along with millions of others, I can’t wait until he’s prime minister.

...and he most certainly will be :aok:

[Just Jimmy]

Along with millions of others, I can’t wait until he’s prime minister.

...and he most certainly will be :aok:probably by default.

which is sad because he is a clown.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Pete]

probably by default.

which is sad because he is a clown.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Look at the percentage of the Labour vote in the last election and the membership numbers. How anyone can say it would be by default is puzzling.

Are people now simply reduced to opening their mouths and letting their stomachs rumble when it comes to Mr Corbyn?

[G B Young]

Labour are creeping ahead in a few polls, but they should be well ahead of this Tory bunch.

If Corbyn adopted a pro-Europe/remain position, I think Labour would be miles in front.

Winning the next general election would give Labour the chance to correct some of the wrongs in the UK. Sorting out the EU can come later.

Latest YouGov polls show Labour trailing the Tories by a significant margin. They're down 4% from last month, largely one imagines due to their appalling handling of the anti-semtism/wreath-laying fiasco.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/08/10/voting-intention-conservatives-39-labour-35-8-9-au/

Perhaps more tellingly Corbyn himself is down to 22% when it comes to who those polled think would make the best PM. 36% prefer Theresa May.

That Labour have descended into such a shambles at a time when the Tories are at their weakest in many years sums up their total unsuitability for government.

[cabbageandribs1875]

corbyn is one nasty terrorist-loving vile little crote of a man , no wonder theresa may runs rings round him at PMQ's, the late john smith would be utterly disgusted at what the Labour party has become :agree: but i must admit to changing my views on Tom Watson lately, and he doesn't feel the need to yell like that tw@t corbyn does, corbyn/abbot/McCluskey can all ******* do one, good to see sir patrick stewart stop supporting this this vile party as well, having witnessed for himself the nasty classless snidey little scrote that corbyn is :agree:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Indeed. Deflection tactics until they get their story straight seems to be the sum of it. And getting their story straight seems to be beyond them. Corbyn must have made three or four attempts now to come up with a catch-all covering story since the ridicule which followed his 'I was present but I don't think I was involved' witterings. Very much his Bill Clinton 'I didn't inhale' moment!

And you're right, Sturgeon doesn't deserve to be lumped in alongside Corbyn. I don't vote SNP but I have a degree of respect for her as a politician whereas I have none for Corbyn. In fact the leader I'm increasingly reminded of is Trump when you look at Corbyn/Labour's tactics here, alleging 'false/fake' news and the aggressive response to journalists who don't ask the right questions.

Agree with this. Surgeon isn't, imo, as good an FM as Salmond, but id say she is as good as any of the Labour FMs previously. I find her a bit irritating personally, but she is undoubtedly a serious politician and political operator.

Corbyn is none of those things. He is a career rabble rouser and professional outsider (to an incredibly elite club) who won the willy wonka golden ticket through sheer luck and circumstance, and has found himself in a situation that is so far beyond his abilities it is frightening.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Doors the anti Semitism stuff comes from his support of Palestine?

I really struggle to get my head around it, and it's not made easier by the fact that you can't trust who is reporting on it as the definitely appears to be a narrative/agenda around it.

The issue is doing a great job of keeping the Tories' incompetence out of the public's eyes.

I wasn't sure about this either, and I had made the same assumption as you.

But I listened to a podcast/radio programme about it, and apparently it's more of a deep seated suspicion of Jews in the hard left rooted in the sort of Rothschild, Jewish banker stereotype that they secretly hold lots of power and wealth, and are therefore the enemy. The Soviets were always a bit suspicious of Jews, of my history is correct.

I think the Israel thing must have a fair bit to do with it too though.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Along with millions of others, I can’t wait until he’s prime minister.

...and he most certainly will be :aok:

I would bet that he will never be.

[Hibs Class]

I would bet that he will never be.

If the last couple of years have taught me anything it is to not bet on any political outcome based on logic or reason! I could see circumstances where Corbyn could win, e.g. If Johnson became tory leader Corbyn may be seen by a majority as the least worst of a number of ***** options.

[SkintHibby]

The only thing that upsets me on this site is that intelligent people on here believe the lies......controlled by the zionist press.

Im SNP to the core but there is not one piece of me believes Corbyn is anti semite. Truly Pathetic.

cabbageandribs1875 you are in Bathgate like me but your comments are pish. Pish mate pish. Also, you are not young so you should know better than to talk utter pish!

[Pete]

The only thing that upsets me on this site is that intelligent people on here believe the lies......controlled by the zionist press.

Im SNP to the core but there is not one piece of me believes Corbyn is anti semite. Truly Pathetic.

cabbageandribs1875 you are in Bathgate like me but your comments are pish. Pish mate pish. Also, you are not young so you should know better than to talk utter pish!

:agree:

It read like a copy and paste from the Scottish Sun.

[Hibrandenburg]

Margaret Hodge claiming she felt like a holocaust victim hasn't done anyone any favours, least of all herself. Stupid bint.

[One Day Soon]

The only thing that upsets me on this site is that intelligent people on here believe the lies......controlled by the zionist press.

Im SNP to the core but there is not one piece of me believes Corbyn is anti semite. Truly Pathetic.

cabbageandribs1875 you are in Bathgate like me but your comments are pish. Pish mate pish. Also, you are not young so you should know better than to talk utter pish!


"zionist press" aye? FFS.

[Pete]

"zionist press" aye? FFS.

You’ve had the best part of three years to pick out sensationalist statements in Jeremy Corbyn related threads so please don’t start now. 😆

And if you substituted Zionist for Tory or Blairite then he would be spot on.

Not even going to bother mentioning Nationalist press.

[Just Jimmy]

Look at the percentage of the Labour vote in the last election and the membership numbers. How anyone can say it would be by default is puzzling.

Are people now simply reduced to opening their mouths and letting their stomachs rumble when it comes to Mr Corbyn?default because, despite the worst prime minister and government in living memory, he continues to fail to mount any significant challenge. instead all it's about is his current blunders and past mistakes.

I'm not particularly buying the agenda that he's "a terrorist sympathiser", however he's a crap politician.

anyway with any political weight would be miles ahead in the polls. yet somehow Labour continue to struggle. if he somehow wins an election then it'll be simply because may is finished and labour are the other option.

I would doubt very much he'll ever be PM however.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Colr]

default because, despite the worst prime minister and government in living memory, he continues to fail to mount any significant challenge. instead all it's about is his current blunders and past mistakes.

I'm not particularly buying the agenda that he's "a terrorist sympathiser", however he's a crap politician.

anyway with any political weight would be miles ahead in the polls. yet somehow Labour continue to struggle. if he somehow wins an election then it'll be simply because may is finished and labour are the other option.

I would doubt very much he'll ever be PM however.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
May will not fight another election for the Tories and he’s utterly failed to call her to account.

Yvette Cooper wipes the floor with May continually yet she’s a backbencher.

[G B Young]

I wasn't sure about this either, and I had made the same assumption as you.

But I listened to a podcast/radio programme about it, and apparently it's more of a deep seated suspicion of Jews in the hard left rooted in the sort of Rothschild, Jewish banker stereotype that they secretly hold lots of power and wealth, and are therefore the enemy. The Soviets were always a bit suspicious of Jews, of my history is correct.

I think the Israel thing must have a fair bit to do with it too though.

Hence the reason Labour have got themselves in such a mess over their ongoing failure to adopt the IHRA definition of anti-semitism which is essentially the accepted international text and until Corbyn and his vile cronies took power not something that many would have even quibbled with.

In Corbyn's eyes, it appears ANYONE killed by Israel is martyr no matter what the circumstances were. That's why he showed up at the now infamous Tunisia wreath-laying ceremony where respects were paid not (as he initially tried to claim) to the victims of terrorism but to their killers.

[Hibbyradge]

Latest YouGov polls show Labour trailing the Tories by a significant margin. They're down 4% from last month, largely one imagines due to their appalling handling of the anti-semtism/wreath-laying fiasco.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/08/10/voting-intention-conservatives-39-labour-35-8-9-au/

Perhaps more tellingly Corbyn himself is down to 22% when it comes to who those polled think would make the best PM. 36% prefer Theresa May.

That Labour have descended into such a shambles at a time when the Tories are at their weakest in many years sums up their total unsuitability for government.

This is what I saw. It's an interesting article and the poll information is at the bottom.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk

[G B Young]

"zionist press" aye? FFS.

This guy says it's a 'blairite plot' :rolleyes:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-mp-antisemitism-row-scottish-mp-jim-sheridan-suspended-a8497201.html

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

If the last couple of years have taught me anything it is to not bet on any political outcome based on logic or reason! I could see circumstances where Corbyn could win, e.g. If Johnson became tory leader Corbyn may be seen by a majority as the least worst of a number of ***** options.

Yeah, fair points, I take it back.

I'll say it's highly unlikely, but not impossible. Like trump becoming US president...🤤

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

This guy says it's a 'blairite plot' :rolleyes:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-mp-antisemitism-row-scottish-mp-jim-sheridan-suspended-a8497201.html

It's getting more and more like the ramblings of some paranoid Soviet.

Corbyn is a tit, and the weird thing is that he is hindering the left. With the right salesman, they would stand a much better chance.

[One Day Soon]

You’ve had the best part of three years to pick out sensationalist statements in Jeremy Corbyn related threads so please don’t start now. 😆

And if you substituted Zionist for Tory or Blairite then he would be spot on.

Not even going to bother mentioning Nationalist press.


If my auntie had baws she'd be my uncle reasoning there. Zionist press my ar5e.

Three years down, another four to go of this deluded apologist's time as 'Leader'. Nice for him that the poorest will pay the highest price for his w4nky politics giving the Tories another 4 years in charge.

[JeMeSouviens]

Latest YouGov polls show Labour trailing the Tories by a significant margin. They're down 4% from last month, largely one imagines due to their appalling handling of the anti-semtism/wreath-laying fiasco.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/08/10/voting-intention-conservatives-39-labour-35-8-9-au/

Perhaps more tellingly Corbyn himself is down to 22% when it comes to who those polled think would make the best PM. 36% prefer Theresa May.

That Labour have descended into such a shambles at a time when the Tories are at their weakest in many years sums up their total unsuitability for government.

:agree: He's never managed to get a lead in "best PM" type polls even at peak Brexitshambles.

Now he'd rather cling to the purity of the Tooting Popular Front position on Palestine than get elected. :rolleyes:

[JeMeSouviens]

This is what I saw. It's an interesting article and the poll information is at the bottom.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk

The recent Labour leads have been in polls that have seen some Tory support slip back to UKIP because May isn't hardline Brexity enough for the real zealots. However, there's next to no chance May will be allowed to front another Tory election campaign. If there's going to be an early election it'll be with a new more Brexity Tory leader because Tory leadership is decided by their membership these days, a very pro-Leave constituency.

[G B Young]

Yeah, fair points, I take it back.

I'll say it's highly unlikely, but not impossible. Like trump becoming US president...🤤

Becoming Labour leader was Corbyn's Trump moment and even then he only achieved that due to Milliband endorsing the ridiculous one member one vote system which is open to all kinds of abuse. His devotees were initially quite successful in portraying him as a mild-mannered 'man of peace' but that persona has quickly slipped to reveal an evasive, generally unpleasant personality which it's near impossible to imagine will appeal to the majority of the electorate.

[JeMeSouviens]

Oh God*, he believes in homeopathy as well ...

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/10038631361





* non-existent

[RyeSloan]

Oh God*, he believes in homeopathy as well ...

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/10038631361





* non-existent

Well they do work...as well as any placebo does so he’s not entirely wrong ;-)

[Smartie]

Organic matter eh?

[neil7908]

I really don't get the Corbyn hatred. We keep getting told that Corbyn is the problem and someone else would serve the left better - who exactly? We've had Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband who were both savaged by the press (even though they were seasoned politicians with very centralist policies) and rejected thoroughly by the public.

Corbyn has been challenged a couple of times by others in the party who were rubbish - are Owen Smith or Angela Eagle the answer?

The Lib Dems had their shot a couple of years ago and utterly betrayed everything they were supposed to stand for.

Corbyn is a principled, honest man who has been consistent in his beliefs and work all his life. After seeing charlatans like Johnson, Farage, Gove and Rees-Mogg pushing their disastrous far right policies the last few years Corbyn is exactly what this country needs.

[Pretty Boy]

I really don't get the Corbyn hatred. We keep getting told that Corbyn is the problem and someone else would serve the left better - who exactly? We've had Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband who were both savaged by the press (even though they were seasoned politicians with very centralist policies) and rejected thoroughly by the public.

Corbyn has been challenged a couple of times by others in the party who were rubbish - are Owen Smith or Angela Eagle the answer?

The Lib Dems had their shot a couple of years ago and utterly betrayed everything they were supposed to stand for.

Corbyn is a principled, honest man who has been consistent in his beliefs and work all his life. After seeing charlatans like Johnson, Farage, Gove and Rees-Mogg pushing their disastrous far right policies the last few years Corbyn is exactly what this country needs.

Has Corbyn been principled and honest when handling Labours policy on Brexit?

He has spent most of his political career as a vocal critic of the EU. During the campaign he claimed to be anti Brexit yet, even allowing for his wet blanket persona, his performance in supporting Remain was at best
unconvincing. Since then Labours stance, on his watch, has been baffling and inconsistent. If I was a sceptical sort I might suggest he is hoping for a disastrous Brexit to further his own politcal ambitions and actively opposing the process damages the chances of that happening. I could be entirely wrong of course but that brings us back to his total lack of leadership skills because I've not got a clue what he is trying to achieve with his (non) position.

[Smartie]

Corbyn is a useful sort being played out of position.

He's a decent man, and quite a thoughtful one. His opinions aren't as wildly extreme as the right-wing media would have you believe and I agree with some of his stuff but not others.

Brexit is a black and white subject with no room for shades of grey - and for anyone with any amount of common sense, it should involve many grey areas.

Corbyn belongs on the backbenches, spouting left wing ideas that are useful to listen to as an option, as a way of thinking.

He's not a leader of anything or anyone. He is an appalling leader of the opposition, and he is letting an atrocious government get away with murder.

Brexit is one of the most shameful episodes of our time - dishonest politicians and manipulative media coercing our desperate public into scoring an economic own goal that Matt Doherty would wince at.

Sadly, much as he'd want to shrink into the background, Corbyn is as culpable as many of the other architects of this omnishambles - Johnson, Farage, Fox, Cameron, May etc etc etc.

A decent Labour leader would have steered us from Brexit and stamped the Tories into the ground in the process.

[G B Young]

I really don't get the Corbyn hatred. We keep getting told that Corbyn is the problem and someone else would serve the left better - who exactly? We've had Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband who were both savaged by the press (even though they were seasoned politicians with very centralist policies) and rejected thoroughly by the public.

Corbyn has been challenged a couple of times by others in the party who were rubbish - are Owen Smith or Angela Eagle the answer?

The Lib Dems had their shot a couple of years ago and utterly betrayed everything they were supposed to stand for.

Corbyn is a principled, honest man who has been consistent in his beliefs and work all his life. After seeing charlatans like Johnson, Farage, Gove and Rees-Mogg pushing their disastrous far right policies the last few years Corbyn is exactly what this country needs.

Labour went with the wrong Milliband when they elected Ed as leader. Not electing David was a missed opportunity for the party. Of the more recent candidates, I'd suggest Andy Burnham would have been vastly more effective than the hopeless Corbyn as a leader.

Rather than being principled and honest I think it's becoming increasingly clear that Corbyn is stubborn, evasive and cantankerous. The way he shifted his gaze when coming out with the 'present but not involved' line was a real giveaway. He had three or four attempts to get his wreath story right last week and each time failed to do so. He was eventually taken 'off air' and a Labour stooge put in his place for the rest of the week. I wouldn't trust him in the slightest.

[Mibbes Aye]

Labour went with the wrong Milliband when they elected Ed as leader. Not electing David was a missed opportunity for the party. Of the more recent candidates, I'd suggest Andy Burnham would have been vastly more effective than the hopeless Corbyn as a leader.

Rather than being principled and honest I think it's becoming increasingly clear that Corbyn is stubborn, evasive and cantankerous. The way he shifted his gaze when coming out with the 'present but not involved' line was a real giveaway. He had three or four attempts to get his wreath story right last week and each time failed to do so. He was eventually taken 'off air' and a Labour stooge put in his place for the rest of the week. I wouldn't trust him in the slightest.

I don't think Labour did go wrong. DM is a very intelligent, talented man but he had a lot of baggage in relation to his role as Foreign Sec to do with rendition (though nothing like Jack Straw) and that would have been exploited to his cost. He was also a Blairite and a big chunk of the party saw him as sticking the knife into Gordon Brown for his own advancement. Him being leader would have torn the party, in a different way from Corbyn, but nevertheless still the same. Having said that, he could have wooed a centrist vote but I don't believe he would have attracted floating Lib Dems to any great degree.

EM managed the near-impossible task of being a bridge between the TB and GB camps when things were at their worst. While he came through under GB's patronage, the Blairites liked him and gave him the amusing and well-known epithet of 'Ambassador from Planet '****', in acknowledgement that he was the one who would mend fences whilst the rest of the GB camp were notoriously foul-mouthed and disparaging of Blair.

The media did a hatchet job on EM, with the voice and the bacon sandwich and so forth. It ignored the fact he was more left-wing than Blair or Brown and genuinely progressive.

His time as Energy Secretary was probably the most far-reaching of any politician to hold that post. As Leader of the Opposition he defeated the Prime Minister in a vote to go to war - the first time I believe that's happened? He stood up to energy companies in a way that is echoed by both May and Corbyn now, but which no party leader had really done before.

And he stood up to Murdoch and to the Daily Mail. No party leader had done that, quite the opposite, they had courted those papers. Miliband saw the NOTW shut down and a public inquiry into press phone hacking on his watch.

I think he was unfortunate to lose out - I struggle to think of another Leader of the Opposition who had such a fundamental impact.

As for Burnham, he is decent and earnest but he got less than 10% of the vote of MPs, Party members and affiliated members in the first round. He barely saw off Diane Abbott and quickly joined her in the second round. He didn't get the votes because I think he wasn't seeing as having the heft.

[Colr]

How many centrists are responding to the current situation by joining the Labour Party or, even, joining Momentum?

Younvcan only change the balance of the debate through weight of numbers - and that doesn’t mean much of a commitment.

[One Day Soon]

I don't think Labour did go wrong. DM is a very intelligent, talented man but he had a lot of baggage in relation to his role as Foreign Sec to do with rendition (though nothing like Jack Straw) and that would have been exploited to his cost. He was also a Blairite and a big chunk of the party saw him as sticking the knife into Gordon Brown for his own advancement. Him being leader would have torn the party, in a different way from Corbyn, but nevertheless still the same. Having said that, he could have wooed a centrist vote but I don't believe he would have attracted floating Lib Dems to any great degree.

EM managed the near-impossible task of being a bridge between the TB and GB camps when things were at their worst. While he came through under GB's patronage, the Blairites liked him and gave him the amusing and well-known epithet of 'Ambassador from Planet '****', in acknowledgement that he was the one who would mend fences whilst the rest of the GB camp were notoriously foul-mouthed and disparaging of Blair.

The media did a hatchet job on EM, with the voice and the bacon sandwich and so forth. It ignored the fact he was more left-wing than Blair or Brown and genuinely progressive.

His time as Energy Secretary was probably the most far-reaching of any politician to hold that post. As Leader of the Opposition he defeated the Prime Minister in a vote to go to war - the first time I believe that's happened? He stood up to energy companies in a way that is echoed by both May and Corbyn now, but which no party leader had really done before.

And he stood up to Murdoch and to the Daily Mail. No party leader had done that, quite the opposite, they had courted those papers. Miliband saw the NOTW shut down and a public inquiry into press phone hacking on his watch.

I think he was unfortunate to lose out - I struggle to think of another Leader of the Opposition who had such a fundamental impact.

As for Burnham, he is decent and earnest but he got less than 10% of the vote of MPs, Party members and affiliated members in the first round. He barely saw off Diane Abbott and quickly joined her in the second round. He didn't get the votes because I think he wasn't seeing as having the heft.


That's one perspective.

Mine is that he ran for the leadership purely out of sibling rivalry, knowing that he was on every level less fit to lead than his brother but managed to bring just enough association with his New Labour past and his new left posturing to win the leadership by a whisker at the cost of taking the party sufficiently enough off the centre left ground to make winning the election impossible.

He pandered to every w4nky leftist grouping in order to get the votes he needed and was then tied into their various agendas.

He failed to defeat a pretty crap David Cameron government and managed to be bad enough to convert a minority Tory administration that required Lib Dem coalition support into a majority Tory government instead.

He then resigned as Leader but not before carrying out the single greatest act of sabotage in the Labour Party's history by making the entryism of the hard left a matterof party policy and administration with the new 'joins us for peanuts and pick a leader' scheme. This allowed weirdos from as wide a political spectrum as the SWP on one side and the Conservative Party on the other to join Labour for less than a pint of beer, vote for Corbyn as an act of destruction and then sit back and watch the carnage. Thanks Ed.

He was a decent Minister but perhaps best serves as a great example of someone who should stick to what they are good at rather than letting ego and ambition get the better of them. A bit like Gordon Brown becoming Leader when he really wasn't suited to that role. Most of
EMs achievements that you list above I would regard as outcomes that would have happened anyway as a product of their time rather than being delivered by him particularly.

Ed Miliband is the reason we now have Corbyn and that is unforgiveable.

[G B Young]

I don't think Labour did go wrong. DM is a very intelligent, talented man but he had a lot of baggage in relation to his role as Foreign Sec to do with rendition (though nothing like Jack Straw) and that would have been exploited to his cost. He was also a Blairite and a big chunk of the party saw him as sticking the knife into Gordon Brown for his own advancement. Him being leader would have torn the party, in a different way from Corbyn, but nevertheless still the same. Having said that, he could have wooed a centrist vote but I don't believe he would have attracted floating Lib Dems to any great degree.

EM managed the near-impossible task of being a bridge between the TB and GB camps when things were at their worst. While he came through under GB's patronage, the Blairites liked him and gave him the amusing and well-known epithet of 'Ambassador from Planet '****', in acknowledgement that he was the one who would mend fences whilst the rest of the GB camp were notoriously foul-mouthed and disparaging of Blair.

The media did a hatchet job on EM, with the voice and the bacon sandwich and so forth. It ignored the fact he was more left-wing than Blair or Brown and genuinely progressive.

His time as Energy Secretary was probably the most far-reaching of any politician to hold that post. As Leader of the Opposition he defeated the Prime Minister in a vote to go to war - the first time I believe that's happened? He stood up to energy companies in a way that is echoed by both May and Corbyn now, but which no party leader had really done before.

And he stood up to Murdoch and to the Daily Mail. No party leader had done that, quite the opposite, they had courted those papers. Miliband saw the NOTW shut down and a public inquiry into press phone hacking on his watch.

I think he was unfortunate to lose out - I struggle to think of another Leader of the Opposition who had such a fundamental impact.

As for Burnham, he is decent and earnest but he got less than 10% of the vote of MPs, Party members and affiliated members in the first round. He barely saw off Diane Abbott and quickly joined her in the second round. He didn't get the votes because I think he wasn't seeing as having the heft.

I don't disagree he achieved more than he is perhaps given credit for, but for all that Milliband was still humiliated at the ballot box in 2015. Like it or not, it's the public's perception of a politician which shapes the way most of us vote and Ed just didn't have what Cameron had. Whatever one thought of his policies, Cameron SEEMED like a leader in way that Milliband, May and Corbyn have never done. Corbyn in fact is lucky that the unconvincing May is the PM these days because if the EU referendum had gone the other way and Cameron was still in charge he would have continued to wipe the floor with Corbyn. Their PMQ exchanges used to leave Corbyn, as I once saw it memorably put, 'sitting sulking in his seat, resentment rising off him like steam'. Whatever baggage David Milliband would have brought with him he'd have appealed to the wider public more than Ed and would most certainly have given Labour greater respectability that the dreadful Corbyn.

[RyeSloan]

More stories today about Corbyn, his links with convicted terrorists, undeclared trips (in 5 star hotels no less...clearly keeping true to his communist beliefs there) and his forgetfulness on events he himself wrote about. Amazing what you can do for less than £660!!

It does seem that his quest for peacefulness seems to be rather focussed on meeting and greeting unsavoury types from only one side of the conflict.

And to top it all he’s now received a personal endorsement from Hamas. He must be pretty pleased with that.

[G B Young]

More stories today about Corbyn, his links with convicted terrorists, undeclared trips (in 5 star hotels no less...clearly keeping true to his communist beliefs there) and his forgetfulness on events he himself wrote about. Amazing what you can do for less than £660!!

It does seem that his quest for peacefulness seems to be rather focussed on meeting and greeting unsavoury types from only one side of the conflict.

And to top it all he’s now received a personal endorsement from Hamas. He must be pretty pleased with that.

The guy is no pacifist. Just anti all things West.

[Smartie]

I'm no fan of Corbyn, but is there a reason why criticism of him seems to be ramping up a notch now?

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm no fan of Corbyn, but is there a reason why criticism of him seems to be ramping up a notch now?

Call me Mr. Cynic, but it seems clear to me.

Sometimes the Government and the media seem to think that their employers (ie us) can't deal with more than one concept at a time. So.... let's take their minds off Brexit, and get them to fire their guns at someone else for a while.

[RyeSloan]

I'm no fan of Corbyn, but is there a reason why criticism of him seems to be ramping up a notch now?

The more you look the more you find?

[Hibbyradge]

I can't understand how all this stuff about Corbyn has just been uncovered by the Daily Mail.

It's not as if there's been any whispers about a snap election in the next few months.

:rolleyes:

[CropleyWasGod]

I can't understand how all this stuff about Corbyn has just been uncovered by the Daily Mail.

It's not as if there are any whispers about a snap election in the next few months.

:rolleyes:

Oh, are we related?

[Hibbyradge]

Oh, are we related?

Soulmates.

[RyeSloan]

I can't understand how all this stuff about Corbyn has just been uncovered by the Daily Mail.

It's not as if there's been any whispers about a snap election in the next few months.

:rolleyes:

Slightly OT but can anyone seriously consider an election before Brexit?

Why would the Tories look to do that?

IF and when a deal is struck and Brexit turns out to be something more akin to a bump in the road rather than the Armageddon some envisage then surely the Tories want to wait until then?

The best case for them is a post Brexit economic surge as the worst fears are not realised and delayed investment comes to the fore. Combined with record low unemployment, near record employment, a deficit well under control (more good numbers on that today) allowing for a ‘loosening of the purse strings’, wages growing faster than inflation they could go to the nation with a new leader and a pretty solid narrative from their perspective

Of course Brexit could blow up in their face but surely they are better hanging on until they at least get the leave date out of the way rather than trying to fight an election which would simply be dominated by Brexit madness from all sides?

[JeMeSouviens]

Slightly OT but can anyone seriously consider an election before Brexit?

Why would the Tories look to do that?

IF and when a deal is struck and Brexit turns out to be something more akin to a bump in the road rather than the Armageddon some envisage then surely the Tories want to wait until then?

The best case for them is a post Brexit economic surge as the worst fears are not realised and delayed investment comes to the fore. Combined with record low unemployment, near record employment, a deficit well under control (more good numbers on that today) allowing for a ‘loosening of the purse strings’, wages growing faster than inflation they could go to the nation with a new leader and a pretty solid narrative from their perspective

Of course Brexit could blow up in their face but surely they are better hanging on until they at least get the leave date out of the way rather than trying to fight an election which would simply be dominated by Brexit madness from all sides?

If they dump May and the new (inevitably much more Brexity) Tory goes looking for a much more Brexity mandate to be able to push a much more Brexity Brexit through the commons.

[JeMeSouviens]

Slightly OT but can anyone seriously consider an election before Brexit?

Why would the Tories look to do that?

IF and when a deal is struck and Brexit turns out to be something more akin to a bump in the road rather than the Armageddon some envisage then surely the Tories want to wait until then?

The best case for them is a post Brexit economic surge as the worst fears are not realised and delayed investment comes to the fore. Combined with record low unemployment, near record employment, a deficit well under control (more good numbers on that today) allowing for a ‘loosening of the purse strings’, wages growing faster than inflation they could go to the nation with a new leader and a pretty solid narrative from their perspective

Of course Brexit could blow up in their face but surely they are better hanging on until they at least get the leave date out of the way rather than trying to fight an election which would simply be dominated by Brexit madness from all sides?

Certainly can't accuse you of pessimism!

btw, that "well under control" deficit was supposed to have been eliminated 3 years ago.

[Hibbyradge]

If they dump May and the new (inevitably much more Brexity) Tory goes looking for a much more Brexity mandate to be able to push a much more Brexity Brexit through the commons.

I think it's the anti-Brexit Tories who are discussing a snap election.

[Hibbyradge]

May would also like to dump the DUP.

The problem she faces, and this also explains the timing of the Mail's attacks on Corbyn, is that she's behind in some of the polls.

[RyeSloan]

Certainly can't accuse you of pessimism!

btw, that "well under control" deficit was supposed to have been eliminated 3 years ago.

Ha ha always look on the bright side of life [emoji3]

[JeMeSouviens]

I think it's the anti-Brexit Tories who are discussing a snap election.

Everyone at WM's discussing it - it's what they do. But the only person who can call an election is the leader of the Tory party. May's not going to after last year so it would have to be a new one. The Tory membership elects their leader, so a new one will have to be a "true believer" in all things Bexit, the harder the better.

[Moulin Yarns]

Everyone at WM's discussing it - it's what they do. But the only person who can call an election is the leader of the Tory party. May's not going to after last year so it would have to be a new one. The Tory membership elects their leader, so a new one will have to be a "true believer" in all things Bexit, the harder the better.

Tory conference at the beginning of October, can we expect a vote of no confidence?

[G B Young]

Tory conference at the beginning of October, can we expect a vote of no confidence?

Bearing in mind the mess they made of the last snap election, I'd be surprised if anyone within the Tory party would seriously want to risk another one at present. Equally, bearing in mind Corbyn's dismal failure to land a glove on this shaky government, Labour are unlikely to feel confident about winning one either. They admitted before Corbyn's latest token tour of Scotland that they've 'plateau-ed' here since their miniscule revival in 2017 (from a solitary seat to a might seven!) and that Leonard (who?) has failed to register with Scottish voters. Without regaining their long-lost Scottish vote they can't win a UK election.

I'd have thought all parties are going to end up waiting it out until we finally limp over the Brexit line one way or another next March before assessing where they stand. The Tories, as others have suggested, are highly unlikely to trust May to lead them into another election, but with the next one not officially due until 2022 time is on their side if they can hold steady and gain some traction under a more voter-friendly new leader. Labour will probably try to exploit any perceived post-Brexit 'chaos' to agitate for an election but given their own lack of clarity over the issue (we don't even know for sure which way Corbyn voted!) I just don't see the electorate embracing them as a more appetising alternative. Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott...jeez, there's just so little to like there. By 2022, however, Corbyn will be approaching his mid-70s so you wonder how much mileage he has left in him as Labour leader if there's no snap election before then.

[Moulin Yarns]

Just putting this up there for people to make up their minds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SQ7goOFGns&feature=share

[Hibrandenburg]

Just putting this up there for people to make up their minds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SQ7goOFGns&feature=share

"Scottish" Labour in Holyrood are a Trojan Horse. Like their Tory compatriots, if voted in they look towards Westminster for direction and policy.

[G B Young]

"Scottish" Labour in Holyrood are a Trojan Horse. Like their Tory compatriots, if voted in they look towards Westminster for direction and policy.

That video, I must say, is very good. Shows up Corbyn (and Leonard) for the insincere, dim-witted duo they are.

Disagree re the Scottish Tories due to the fact Ruth Davidson is a politician of genuine substance who speaks her own mind and without whom the Tories would never enjoyed such a (relative) revival when it comes to seats at both Holyrood and Scottish MPs at Westminster.

[JeMeSouviens]

That video, I must say, is very good. Shows up Corbyn (and Leonard) for the insincere, dim-witted duo they are.

Disagree re the Scottish Tories due to the fact Ruth Davidson is a politician of genuine substance who speaks her own mind and without whom the Tories would never enjoyed such a (relative) revival when it comes to seats at both Holyrood and Scottish MPs at Westminster.

RD is media friendly for sure, as you'd expect from a former tv journalist but though she might speak her own mind she seems to have considerable difficulty making it up. Her Brexit position changed daily until Theresa told her what to say. Expect it to change again as soon as Boris or whoever replaces TM.

The Tory revival is based on 1 policy alone - opposing independence. Fair enough, they are the Unionist party after all.

[Colr]

I don't disagree he achieved more than he is perhaps given credit for, but for all that Milliband was still humiliated at the ballot box in 2015. Like it or not, it's the public's perception of a politician which shapes the way most of us vote and Ed just didn't have what Cameron had. Whatever one thought of his policies, Cameron SEEMED like a leader in way that Milliband, May and Corbyn have never done. Corbyn in fact is lucky that the unconvincing May is the PM these days because if the EU referendum had gone the other way and Cameron was still in charge he would have continued to wipe the floor with Corbyn. Their PMQ exchanges used to leave Corbyn, as I once saw it memorably put, 'sitting sulking in his seat, resentment rising off him like steam'. Whatever baggage David Milliband would have brought with him he'd have appealed to the wider public more than Ed and would most certainly have given Labour greater respectability that the dreadful Corbyn.

I think we can be fairly sure that Corbyn will not be up against May in the next election.

[Smartie]

RD is media friendly for sure, as you'd expect from a former tv journalist but though she might speak her own mind she seems to have considerable difficulty making it up. Her Brexit position changed daily until Theresa told her what to say. Expect it to change again as soon as Boris or whoever replaces TM.

The Tory revival is based on 1 policy alone - opposing independence. Fair enough, they are the Unionist party after all.

I thought Davidson's Brexit position was fairly consistent - she was dead against it all along, and now it is happening she wants it to be as minimally disruptive as possible.

She is the Tory that has impressed me most throughout Brexit, as she's been fairly consistent and clear, seeming more comfortable than most to openly disagree with people within her own party.

At least she has an opinion, unlike that embarrassing dithering from Corbyn. I don't know whether he doesn't have an opinion or just doesn't want to piss some people off by voicing it.

[ronaldo7]

Just putting this up there for people to make up their minds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SQ7goOFGns&feature=share

I can remember when Jeremy said he wanted a more open and honest politics.

He's been such a disappointment.

[JeMeSouviens]

I thought Davidson's Brexit position was fairly consistent - she was dead against it all along, and now it is happening she wants it to be as minimally disruptive as possible.

She is the Tory that has impressed me most throughout Brexit, as she's been fairly consistent and clear, seeming more comfortable than most to openly disagree with people within her own party.

At least she has an opinion, unlike that embarrassing dithering from Corbyn. I don't know whether he doesn't have an opinion or just doesn't want to piss some people off by voicing it.

Initially post-referendum she supported maintaining single market membership even if it meant maintaining the free movement of labour. She came out in favour of a customs union to solve the Irish border question as well. Both times she rowed back when told to by Tory HQ. Presumably she tries to have an influence behind the scenes but ultimately the Scot Tories (and Scot Lab) will always do what they're told.

[Smartie]

Initially post-referendum she supported maintaining single market membership even if it meant maintaining the free movement of labour. She came out in favour of a customs union to solve the Irish border question as well. Both times she rowed back when told to by Tory HQ. Presumably she tries to have an influence behind the scenes but ultimately the Scot Tories (and Scot Lab) will always do what they're told.

I don't think it's that unreasonable for a fairly staunch remainer to be a bit indecisive about what form of Brexit they'd prefer.

I'll bow to your greater knowledge regarding the reasons behind her change of mind, and I have no reason to doubt you.

[One Day Soon]

"Scottish" Labour in Holyrood are a Trojan Horse. Like their Tory compatriots, if voted in they look towards Westminster for direction and policy.

This has been a party political broadcast on behalf of the SNP.

[One Day Soon]

I can remember when Jeremy said he wanted a more open and honest politics.

He's been such a disappointment.

So has this, though a little more subtle.

[One Day Soon]

Initially post-referendum she supported maintaining single market membership even if it meant maintaining the free movement of labour. She came out in favour of a customs union to solve the Irish border question as well. Both times she rowed back when told to by Tory HQ. Presumably she tries to have an influence behind the scenes but ultimately the Scot Tories (and Scot Lab) will always do what they're told.

And so has this.

At least the SNP isn't a party where their local government groups and backbenchers always do what they're told. :wink:

[marinello59]

And so has this.

At least the SNP isn't a party where their local government groups and backbenchers always do what they're told. :wink:

That’s really not fair. The leadership let them have a wee pretendy rebellion over land reform a year or so back.

[Hibrandenburg]

This has been a party political broadcast on behalf of the SNP.
At least you're not denying it so fair doo. Actually I'm more Green at the moment, I do like to keep a certain continuity between my football and politics.

[One Day Soon]

At least you're not denying it so fair doo. Actually I'm more Green at the moment, I do like to keep a certain continuity between my football and politics.

Green, I think that may actually be worse...each to their own. You're in Germany though, is that right? Is Merkel looking done?

I'm waiting for this new centre party to be launched. Let mayhem follow.

[JeMeSouviens]

I don't think it's that unreasonable for a fairly staunch remainer to be a bit indecisive about what form of Brexit they'd prefer.

I'll bow to your greater knowledge regarding the reasons behind her change of mind, and I have no reason to doubt you.

I'm just observing/guessing, same as you.

[G B Young]

I think we can be fairly sure that Corbyn will not be up against May in the next election.

If it turns out the next election doesn't happen until its scheduled date of 2022 I'd be surprised if either Corbyn or May are in charge of their respective parties.

[JeMeSouviens]

And so has this.

At least the SNP isn't a party where their local government groups and backbenchers always do what they're told. :wink:

I've never been a member of any party but I suppose having a nat outlook is good enough here.

Anyway, to the substantive point: the SNP might maintain rigid party discipline but nobody in the SNP pretends they don't all ultimately belong to the same hierarchy. Labour and the Tories pretend that "Scottish Labour" and "Scottish Conservatives" have some kind of autonomy. Sometimes they even pretend that extends to non-devolved matters. :rolleyes:

[JeMeSouviens]

Green, I think that may actually be worse...each to their own. You're in Germany though, is that right? Is Merkel looking done?

I'm waiting for this new centre party to be launched. Let mayhem follow.

In the UK? I can't see it standing much chance. FPTP kind of buggers any new party unless it can concentrate its votes in certain constituencies only. A new centre party could end up taking anti-Brexit votes from Labour and letting a **** like Boris through the middle. :jamboak:

[G B Young]

RD is media friendly for sure, as you'd expect from a former tv journalist but though she might speak her own mind she seems to have considerable difficulty making it up. Her Brexit position changed daily until Theresa told her what to say. Expect it to change again as soon as Boris or whoever replaces TM.

The Tory revival is based on 1 policy alone - opposing independence. Fair enough, they are the Unionist party after all.

I'd argue there's more to it with Davidson than simply banging the Union drum. She's made it clear that there's only so long Unionists can rely on the (admittedly significant) body of voters who will simply vote against independence whatever. The Scottish elections of 2016 and last year's general election certainly gave the SNP a significant jolt and derailed another referendum indefinitely but she knows it's imperative that more is done to demonstrate to Scots that the merits of the Union outweigh the possible benefits of independence. That's something I imagine she has made very clear behind the scenes to May, who you would imagine might otherwise simply continue to roll out the 'precious historical union' line.

One thing's for sure, she's an invaluable presence north of the border for the Tories, proving herself able not only to dent SNP momentum but reduce Labour to being only the third largest party in the country. Both unthinkable achievements by the Tories not so long ago and May remains in her debt for ensuring the Scottish vote essentially kept them in office last year.

To get back to the thread title, Corbyn and Leonard seem to show no such understanding of the Scottish political scene and while the SNP vote has (frustratingly for them) stalled, it's hard to imagine many of those voters switching to a Corbyn-led Labour any day soon.

[One Day Soon]

I've never been a member of any party but I suppose having a nat outlook is good enough here.

Anyway, to the substantive point: the SNP might maintain rigid party discipline but nobody in the SNP pretends they don't all ultimately belong to the same hierarchy. Labour and the Tories pretend that "Scottish Labour" and "Scottish Conservatives" have some kind of autonomy. Sometimes they even pretend that extends to non-devolved matters. :rolleyes:

They certainly have autonomy. Whether they choose to exercise it is another matter.

[One Day Soon]

In the UK? I can't see it standing much chance. FPTP kind of buggers any new party unless it can concentrate its votes in certain constituencies only. A new centre party could end up taking anti-Brexit votes from Labour and letting a **** like Boris through the middle. :jamboak:


A **** like Boris is coming anyway, regardless of any centre party, providing he/she/it can win the Conservative Party leadership. Corbyn can't stop them.

It's purpose wouldn't be to win an election, it would be to a) damage Corbyn Labour's chances thereby precipitating internal examination of where they are headed inside Labour and b) cause non goose-stepping Tory voters to peel to the middle provoking fear of losing swing seats to Labour. All it has to do is threaten to win enough votes and seats to have chips at the Parliamentary table - and it would likely be more than capable of that.

So in a world where Corbyn's Labour says '**** you, its our sect-like way or the highway' it will be entirely unsurprising if some people say 'No. Actually **** you, we're off and we're taking the centrist electoral votes you claim to despise with us'. And if the Mail reading Tory members want to find out what Rees-Mogg electoral politics looks like with a centre alternative then fine.

In Scotland I wonder what people who can't vote Labour because they're ridiculous, won't vote Tory because 'Tories baaaaaaad' and have had enough of the SNP because ten year old chickens are coming home to roost would do with a new centrist party?

Anyway if it causes sleepless nights, irritation and headaches to the current crop of utterly crap party leaders then so much the better.

'Mon the disruptors'. Did I do that right?

[One Day Soon]

I'd argue there's more to it with Davidson than simply banging the Union drum. She's made it clear that there's only so long Unionists can rely on the (admittedly significant) body of voters who will simply vote against independence whatever. The Scottish elections of 2016 and last year's general election certainly gave the SNP a significant jolt and derailed another referendum indefinitely but she knows it's imperative that more is done to demonstrate to Scots that the merits of the Union outweigh the possible benefits of independence. That's something I imagine she has made very clear behind the scenes to May, who you would imagine might otherwise simply continue to roll out the 'precious historical union' line.

One thing's for sure, she's an invaluable presence north of the border for the Tories, proving herself able not only to dent SNP momentum but reduce Labour to being only the third largest party in the country. Both unthinkable achievements by the Tories not so long ago and May remains in her debt for ensuring the Scottish vote essentially kept them in office last year.

To get back to the thread title, Corbyn and Leonard seem to show no such understanding of the Scottish political scene and while the SNP vote has (frustratingly for them) stalled, it's hard to imagine many of those voters switching to a Corbyn-led Labour any day soon.

Unthinkable achievements are where politics is now at. Mostly ***** ones, but still...

If you'd said just a few years ago that Labour would be led by a swivel-eyed joker with more skeletons in his cupboard than a skeleton cupboard factory, the party deeply, deeply mired in antisemitism and all the while with a membership base in excess of 500,000 (yet with the leader barely able to beat 'don't know' in a contest with Theresa May for who would be best PM) most people would have thought you were nuts. Layer on top of that the sheer economic lunacy of Brexit, the monomania of separatism and its elected proponents, the weakness of a split and minority government - with a split opposition too, the demagoguery of Boris and the insidious, venal, sophistry of the Brexiteer fellow-travellers within both main parties and in the shadows beyond and you have a full cast list for a political disaster movie. Underpinning all of that is a cynical electorate, desperate for change and increasingly giving house room to pound shop impostors who would have been run out of town just a short while ago. It's a toxic recipe.

The next UK election is in 2022, anything could happen between now and then up here and down there. I'm reading Julia Boyd's 'Travellers in the Third Reich' at the moment which details the culture, politics and daily lives of Germans through the period that saw the rise and then dominance of the Nazis. In terms of the parallels to today in degradation of public debate and the relegation of rational thinking and reasoning, it is chilling. There's no forewarning of what is to come until it is too late, just the slow relentless decline of politics and political discourse into 'them and us' and the incremental normalisation of extremism with ordinary folk being pulled into a web of accepting hatred and othering step by step because 'there's no alternative'.

[JeMeSouviens]

Unthinkable achievements are where politics is now at. Mostly ***** ones, but still...

If you'd said just a few years ago that Labour would be led by a swivel-eyed joker with more skeletons in his cupboard than a skeleton cupboard factory, the party deeply, deeply mired in antisemitism and all the while with a membership base in excess of 500,000 (yet with the leader barely able to beat 'don't know' in a contest with Theresa May for who would be best PM) most people would have thought you were nuts. Layer on top of that the sheer economic lunacy of Brexit, the monomania of separatism and its elected proponents, the weakness of a split and minority government - with a split opposition too, the demagoguery of Boris and the insidious, venal, sophistry of the Brexiteer fellow-travellers within both main parties and in the shadows beyond and you have a full cast list for a political disaster movie. Underpinning all of that is a cynical electorate, desperate for change and increasingly giving house room to pound shop impostors who would have been run out of town just a short while ago. It's a toxic recipe.

The next UK election is in 2022, anything could happen between now and then up here and down there. I'm reading Julia Boyd's 'Travellers in the Third Reich' at the moment which details the culture, politics and daily lives of Germans through the period that saw the rise and then dominance of the Nazis. In terms of the parallels to today in degradation of public debate and the relegation of rational thinking and reasoning, it is chilling. There's no forewarning of what is to come until it is too late, just the slow relentless decline of politics and political discourse into 'them and us' and the incremental normalisation of extremism with ordinary folk being pulled into a web of accepting hatred and othering step by step because 'there's no alternative'.

Don't mess with Don't Know - he's pretty good :wink: ...

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/23179/Best%20Prime%20Minister%208-9%20July-01.png

[Hibrandenburg]

Green, I think that may actually be worse...each to their own. You're in Germany though, is that right? Is Merkel looking done?

I'm waiting for this new centre party to be launched. Let mayhem follow.

Her handling of the refugee crisis has put a bit of a stick in her spokes, not because it was the wrong thing to do but more because like in the UK, many of the so called socialist turned out to be national socialists. She's in her last term and will see it out comfortably. It's quite interesting how the centre right in Germany would appear to be further left than the so called UK socialists.

[Tornadoes70]

Her handling of the refugee crisis has put a bit of a stick in her spokes, not because it was the wrong thing to do but more because like in the UK, many of the so called socialist turned out to be national socialists. She's in her last term and will see it out comfortably. It's quite interesting how the centre right in Germany would appear to be further left than the so called UK socialists.

The snp's 'named persons' and their 'spads' intrusions into family life and covering up FOI requests are of east german stasi proportions.

Those who sling mud and all that. The snp are forever attempting to snoop on ordinary folk and trying to cover up their failures in office.

Mon Scottish Labour

[One Day Soon]

The snp's 'named persons' and their 'spads' intrusions into family life and covering up FOI requests are of east german stasi proportions.

Those who sling mud and all that. The snp are forever attempting to snoop on ordinary folk and trying to cover up their failures in office.

Mon Scottish Labour

At some point soon someone is going to salute your indefatigability.

[Hibrandenburg]

At some point soon someone is going to salute your indefatigability.

I'm already applauding him for his contribution to the independence cause.

[Moulin Yarns]

Those who sling mud and all that, such as the Scottish branch of Labour

FTFY :wink:

[Tornadoes70]

I'm already applauding him for his contribution to the independence cause.

What cause?

Your party had its once in a generation opportunity of separatism.

Time to waken up to post 2014.

Stop dreaming and start thinking of getting behind Corbyn's and Leonard's socialist Labour resurgence.

We're the only party that can make a positive difference across the UK and for Scotland.

Mon Scottish Labour

[RyeSloan]

What cause?

Your party had its once in a generation opportunity of separatism.

Time to waken up to post 2014.

Stop dreaming and start thinking of getting behind Corbyn's and Leonard's socialist Labour resurgence.

We're the only party that can make a positive difference across the UK and for Scotland.

Mon Scottish Labour

I salute your indefatigably [emoji23]

And the ‘Leonards’s socialist Labour resurgence’ line...that’s a cracker 🤪

[Hibrandenburg]

We're the only party that can make a positive difference across the UK and for Scotland.

Your parties obviously do a good line in psychotropic substances.

[Moulin Yarns]

your parties obviously do a good line in psychotic supporters.

ftfy

[JeMeSouviens]

I salute your indefatigably [emoji23]

And the ‘Leonards’s socialist Labour resurgence’ line...that’s a cracker 🤪

It's not that great, he's just had new batteries fitted. :wink:

[Hibbyradge]

What cause?

Your party had its once in a generation opportunity of separatism.

Time to waken up to post 2014.

Stop dreaming and start thinking of getting behind Corbyn's and Leonard's socialist Labour resurgence.

We're the only party that can make a positive difference across the UK and for Scotland.

Mon Scottish Labour

You're like those fans of lowly clubs who sing "And it's (name of club), (name of club) FC, We're by far the greatest team the world has ever seen" and actually believe it. :hilarious

[G B Young]

Sounds like Corbyn wowed the Edinburgh Book Festival crowd!


I was willing to give Jeremy Corbyn a chance... and then I saw him in the flesh


The Labour leader is a staggering disappointment in real life

Like many lifelong Labour voters, I have spent the last few years sceptical about the vitriol incessantly aimed at Jeremy Corbyn (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/jeremy-corbyn/) by the British press. It has struck me as suspicious that accusations of racism fill every newspaper when allegations emerge about who Corbyn has shared a platform with, while May’s programme of deporting black Britons to Jamaica has provoked relatively less uproar. So when I heard that Corbyn would be addressing the Edinburgh International Book festival this August, interviewed by the celebrated left-wing economist Yanis Varoufakis, I snapped up a ticket.
I took my teenage son with me to the event, in the hope that he would enjoy sampling the stardust of political celebrity – of being in the same room as a man who may one day run the country.



The opportunity to see him up close, in a non-confrontational arena, seemed like the perfect opportunity to form my own opinion about Corbyn, away from the din of public opprobrium. I desperately wanted to find a man whose presence and words would shatter the parody of him that emerges through the media filter.
But I did not.



Varoufakis’ questioning was as gentle as it is possible to be, the precise opposite of a Humphrys grilling, but it felt like watching a loving father toss balls very gently to a toddler who drops every one. Whatever the topic, Corbyn’s needle fell into the same groove about inequality. When he was asked how he was bearing up under the stress of his job, he talked about inequality. When asked why his party wasn’t ahead in the polls, he talked about inequality.


When a university student in the audience asked him to recommend a reading list that would inspire her politically, he rambled on and on about, yes, inequality, and failed to recommend a single book. (Even though he was on stage at a book festival, being interviewed by a man who was there to publicise his own history of capitalism.)
Inequality may well be the most pressing concern facing our society at the moment (if you have Brexit-blindness) but it is not the only issue. The lack of intellectual agility, eloquence and persuasiveness demonstrated by Corbyn at this event was quite staggering for a man in his elevated position.




Only one question from the audience roused Corbyn from his rote grumblings and produced a flowing, enthusiastic answer. The topic which finally generated a little passion from the leader of the opposition wasn’t Brexit, or the incompetence of the current government, or the accusations of anti-Semitism that are tearing apart his party.
No, it was something slightly lower down the popular agenda. The question was about the role of leftists in 70s Chile. I can’t enlighten you much as to what he had to say on this matter because, by this point, my head was in my hands.



At the end of the event, the packed-out tent mustered a smattering of applause and drifted out quietly. At the exit, a woman patted my son on the shoulder and said, "Don’t despair. You’re too young."

[RyeSloan]

Sounds like Corbyn wowed the Edinburgh Book Festival crowd!


I was willing to give Jeremy Corbyn a chance... and then I saw him in the flesh


The Labour leader is a staggering disappointment in real life

Like many lifelong Labour voters, I have spent the last few years sceptical about the vitriol incessantly aimed at Jeremy Corbyn (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/jeremy-corbyn/) by the British press. It has struck me as suspicious that accusations of racism fill every newspaper when allegations emerge about who Corbyn has shared a platform with, while May’s programme of deporting black Britons to Jamaica has provoked relatively less uproar. So when I heard that Corbyn would be addressing the Edinburgh International Book festival this August, interviewed by the celebrated left-wing economist Yanis Varoufakis, I snapped up a ticket.
I took my teenage son with me to the event, in the hope that he would enjoy sampling the stardust of political celebrity – of being in the same room as a man who may one day run the country.



The opportunity to see him up close, in a non-confrontational arena, seemed like the perfect opportunity to form my own opinion about Corbyn, away from the din of public opprobrium. I desperately wanted to find a man whose presence and words would shatter the parody of him that emerges through the media filter.
But I did not.



Varoufakis’ questioning was as gentle as it is possible to be, the precise opposite of a Humphrys grilling, but it felt like watching a loving father toss balls very gently to a toddler who drops every one. Whatever the topic, Corbyn’s needle fell into the same groove about inequality. When he was asked how he was bearing up under the stress of his job, he talked about inequality. When asked why his party wasn’t ahead in the polls, he talked about inequality.


When a university student in the audience asked him to recommend a reading list that would inspire her politically, he rambled on and on about, yes, inequality, and failed to recommend a single book. (Even though he was on stage at a book festival, being interviewed by a man who was there to publicise his own history of capitalism.)
Inequality may well be the most pressing concern facing our society at the moment (if you have Brexit-blindness) but it is not the only issue. The lack of intellectual agility, eloquence and persuasiveness demonstrated by Corbyn at this event was quite staggering for a man in his elevated position.




Only one question from the audience roused Corbyn from his rote grumblings and produced a flowing, enthusiastic answer. The topic which finally generated a little passion from the leader of the opposition wasn’t Brexit, or the incompetence of the current government, or the accusations of anti-Semitism that are tearing apart his party.
No, it was something slightly lower down the popular agenda. The question was about the role of leftists in 70s Chile. I can’t enlighten you much as to what he had to say on this matter because, by this point, my head was in my hands.



At the end of the event, the packed-out tent mustered a smattering of applause and drifted out quietly. At the exit, a woman patted my son on the shoulder and said, "Don’t despair. You’re too young."




Shame someone didn’t ask him how his admiration of Chavez’s policies in Venezuela and his support of Maduro’s ‘election’ has worked out...

Or indeed why only last year (when inflation was at a paltry 500%...oh how he Venezuelans would love that now) he was still of the belief ‘that there have been effective and serious attempts at reducing poverty, improving literacy and improving the lives of the poorest people’ in the country.

[Pete]

Sounds like Corbyn wowed the Edinburgh Book Festival crowd!


I was willing to give Jeremy Corbyn a chance... and then I saw him in the flesh


The Labour leader is a staggering disappointment in real life

Like many lifelong Labour voters, I have spent the last few years sceptical about the vitriol incessantly aimed at Jeremy Corbyn (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/jeremy-corbyn/) by the British press. It has struck me as suspicious that accusations of racism fill every newspaper when allegations emerge about who Corbyn has shared a platform with, while May’s programme of deporting black Britons to Jamaica has provoked relatively less uproar. So when I heard that Corbyn would be addressing the Edinburgh International Book festival this August, interviewed by the celebrated left-wing economist Yanis Varoufakis, I snapped up a ticket.
I took my teenage son with me to the event, in the hope that he would enjoy sampling the stardust of political celebrity – of being in the same room as a man who may one day run the country.



The opportunity to see him up close, in a non-confrontational arena, seemed like the perfect opportunity to form my own opinion about Corbyn, away from the din of public opprobrium. I desperately wanted to find a man whose presence and words would shatter the parody of him that emerges through the media filter.
But I did not.



Varoufakis’ questioning was as gentle as it is possible to be, the precise opposite of a Humphrys grilling, but it felt like watching a loving father toss balls very gently to a toddler who drops every one. Whatever the topic, Corbyn’s needle fell into the same groove about inequality. When he was asked how he was bearing up under the stress of his job, he talked about inequality. When asked why his party wasn’t ahead in the polls, he talked about inequality.


When a university student in the audience asked him to recommend a reading list that would inspire her politically, he rambled on and on about, yes, inequality, and failed to recommend a single book. (Even though he was on stage at a book festival, being interviewed by a man who was there to publicise his own history of capitalism.)
Inequality may well be the most pressing concern facing our society at the moment (if you have Brexit-blindness) but it is not the only issue. The lack of intellectual agility, eloquence and persuasiveness demonstrated by Corbyn at this event was quite staggering for a man in his elevated position.




Only one question from the audience roused Corbyn from his rote grumblings and produced a flowing, enthusiastic answer. The topic which finally generated a little passion from the leader of the opposition wasn’t Brexit, or the incompetence of the current government, or the accusations of anti-Semitism that are tearing apart his party.
No, it was something slightly lower down the popular agenda. The question was about the role of leftists in 70s Chile. I can’t enlighten you much as to what he had to say on this matter because, by this point, my head was in my hands.



At the end of the event, the packed-out tent mustered a smattering of applause and drifted out quietly. At the exit, a woman patted my son on the shoulder and said, "Don’t despair. You’re too young."




I'm afraid you and this reviewer you quote are totally missing the point. The very thing you criticise him for is his appeal in the eyes of others...the determination to concentrate on inequality.
It's not about wow factor or celebrity and I think the guffaws when it comes to Corbyn are more to do with others twisted concept of "leadership".


Shame someone didn’t ask him how his admiration of Chavez’s policies in Venezuela and his support of Maduro’s ‘election’ has worked out...

Or indeed why only last year (when inflation was at a paltry 500%...oh how he Venezuelans would love that now) he was still of the belief ‘that there have been effective and serious attempts at reducing poverty, improving literacy and improving the lives of the poorest people’ in the country.

I'm sure he would have answers if he was asked. If he was on this board he would probably ask you to talk about it on that "who is America" thread.😂

[Pete]

You're like those fans of lowly clubs who sing "And it's (name of club), (name of club) FC, We're by far the greatest team the world has ever seen" and actually believe it. :hilarious

It's not really. It's more like a well supported club in a global context.

The only ones deluding themselves are the ones who think democratic socialism isn't a real attraction for so many people.

[Hibbyradge]

It's not really. It's more like a well supported club in a global context.

The only ones deluding themselves are the ones who think democratic socialism isn't a real attraction for so many people.

Eh?

[Pete]

Eh?

Try looking at the post you quoted. Maybe the last three lines.

Any clearer?

To lump supporters of Labour and socialism in with deluded football fans is probably understating the plight of and underestimating the amount of people who can't afford the basics like power, food and housing even though they are working hard themselves.

I'm not talking about yourself but its spectacularly easy to be a New Labour/SNP supporter when you're middle aged/middle class/have a nice wee portfolio/University educated or are maybe just trying to act a little bit cleverer than you think you are. You can pretend you're looking out for society in general and hold progressive views but in reality you've always got one hand round your possessions in a guarded stance, laughing at the innocence of those who advocate real change for the good of the majority. Arguments about EU membership that 90% of the population don't understand, including those who are the most vocal, won't make any difference.

Change will come.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Try looking at the post you quoted. Maybe the last three lines.

Any clearer?

To lump supporters of Labour and socialism in with deluded football fans is probably understating the plight of and underestimating the amount of people who can't afford the basics like power, food and housing even though they are working hard themselves.

I'm not talking about yourself but its spectacularly easy to be a New Labour/SNP supporter when you're middle aged/middle class/have a nice wee portfolio/University educated or are maybe just trying to act a little bit cleverer than you think you are. You can pretend you're looking out for society in general and hold progressive views but in reality you've always got one hand round your possessions in a guarded stance, laughing at the innocence of those who advocate real change for the good of the majority. Arguments about EU membership that 90% of the population don't understand, including those who are the most vocal, won't make any difference.

Change will come.

Interesting post - you seem to be referring to middle class guilt, which I DO think exists at times, particularly among these sanctimonious Oxbridge types.

But equally, the phenomenon you identify in your post is exactly why Your bunch won't win - too many people have too much to lose.

I'm uni educated (although I don't have a nice wee portfolio - I think you overstate your case with that One!), and like most other uni graduates I know, I've worked hard, played by the rules, got a decent job and now have to keep working hard to keep my decent house paid. We don't live in luxury by any stretch, but we are comfortable. Why should, or would, I vote to make myself worse off?

That's why the centre will always win. It's what these zealots on the left always fail to understand- is that 'tax the rich' actually means tax the hard working middle classes who make up the bulk of the country.

Also, you say that 90% of the people don't understand Brexit, but yet you expect them to pick up on the finer points of dialectical Marxism, or the subtle theoretical differences between a neo-stalinist approach to socialism or a neo-marxist One, or why the Soviet union doesn't count as socialism because Lenin had to invoke 'war communism early on therefore it's lessons don't count?

People care about money in their pocket above all else, with nationalism / national pride coming second imo.

[RyeSloan]

I'm sure he would have answers if he was asked. If he was on this board he would probably ask you to talk about it on that "who is America" thread.[emoji23]

You are going to have to explain this one to me...

What would his answers have been? That the solution to inequality is to make every person in the country equally poor and hungry that they are all desperate to leave in their millions?

And the relevance of the who is America thread to the destruction of the Venezuela economy first by Chavez then by Madura (all the while cheered on by Corbyn) is a bit lost on me I’m afraid.

[Hibbyradge]

Try looking at the post you quoted. Maybe the last three lines.

Any clearer?

To lump supporters of Labour and socialism in with deluded football fans is probably understating the plight of and underestimating the amount of people who can't afford the basics like power, food and housing even though they are working hard themselves.

I'm not talking about yourself but its spectacularly easy to be a New Labour/SNP supporter when you're middle aged/middle class/have a nice wee portfolio/University educated or are maybe just trying to act a little bit cleverer than you think you are. You can pretend you're looking out for society in general and hold progressive views but in reality you've always got one hand round your possessions in a guarded stance, laughing at the innocence of those who advocate real change for the good of the majority. Arguments about EU membership that 90% of the population don't understand, including those who are the most vocal, won't make any difference.

Change will come.

I was referring to the poster's constant assertions that Leonard was winning over the voters in Scotland and his catchphrase at the end of every post.

Regarding the rest of your post, the majority of people in Scotland support the SNP and or New Labour.

Does they all fall into your insulting demographic?

[G B Young]

I'm afraid you and this reviewer you quote are totally missing the point. The very thing you criticise him for is his appeal in the eyes of others...the determination to concentrate on inequality.
It's not about wow factor or celebrity and I think the guffaws when it comes to Corbyn are more to do with others twisted concept of "leadership".



I'm sure he would have answers if he was asked. If he was on this board he would probably ask you to talk about it on that "who is America" thread.😂

I don't think the reviewer was trying to make a point other than the fact that in the flesh Corbyn came across as a bit of a dim-witted dullard at a relaxed event which afforded him the opportunity to show he has a personable side. It's no crime to be boring but it doesn't make for inspirational leadership. Just look at Theresa May! It certainly sounds as though Corbyn's now well-worn inability to directly answer a question (even one as as simple as can you recommend a good book!!) without droning off into some long-winded, non-committal generalisation or history lesson was all too evident.

[Pete]

I was referring to the poster's constant assertions that Leonard was winning over the voters in Scotland and his catchphrase at the end of every post.

Regarding the rest of your post, the majority of people in Scotland support the SNP and or New Labour.

Does they all fall into your insulting demographic?

Ah, my apologies. A misunderstanding and I didn’t mean for that to sound so insulting.

I still generally agree with the aforementioned poster though.

[Pete]

You are going to have to explain this one to me...

What would his answers have been? That the solution to inequality is to make every person in the country equally poor and hungry that they are all desperate to leave in their millions?

And the relevance of the who is America thread to the destruction of the Venezuela economy first by Chavez then by Madura (all the while cheered on by Corbyn) is a bit lost on me I’m afraid.

The comment was more to do with the factors mentioned whenever anyone discusses the Venezueluan situation. It’s like Chavez and Maduro have been 100% responsible for this crisis with their idiotic policy of nationalisation and wealth distribution. This is held up as a prime example of why socialism simply doesn’t work.

At least the MSM give passing reference to the crippling US economic sanctions and threats.

You know, I wonder what Venezuela, or Cuba for that matter, would be like if the US wasn’t bullying them on ideological grounds.

[Pete]

Interesting post - you seem to be referring to middle class guilt, which I DO think exists at times, particularly among these sanctimonious Oxbridge types.

But equally, the phenomenon you identify in your post is exactly why Your bunch won't win - too many people have too much to lose.

I'm uni educated (although I don't have a nice wee portfolio - I think you overstate your case with that One!), and like most other uni graduates I know, I've worked hard, played by the rules, got a decent job and now have to keep working hard to keep my decent house paid. We don't live in luxury by any stretch, but we are comfortable. Why should, or would, I vote to make myself worse off?

That's why the centre will always win. It's what these zealots on the left always fail to understand- is that 'tax the rich' actually means tax the hard working middle classes who make up the bulk of the country.

Also, you say that 90% of the people don't understand Brexit, but yet you expect them to pick up on the finer points of dialectical Marxism, or the subtle theoretical differences between a neo-stalinist approach to socialism or a neo-marxist One, or why the Soviet union doesn't count as socialism because Lenin had to invoke 'war communism early on therefore it's lessons don't count?

People care about money in their pocket above all else, with nationalism / national pride coming second imo.

You must know by now that my inner revolutionary appears when I’ve had a glass of red. :-)

On reflection, I suppose the centre ground can be appealing and a good position to take in a fairly socially conservative country like the UK. We seem to be a long way off viewing taxation as a contribution to a collective effort and still hold the view that it’s all about taking from peoples pockets.

One thing I hope people start to understand is how wealth is distributed and how it’s actually getting more top heavy as time goes on as neoliberal ideology becomes the norm. They might also realise that the left in this country isn’t as radical as they are made out to be when you consider how other European countries deal with housing, healthcare etc...

Christ, some of the greatest minds in the country don’t understand Brexit so I’m not expecting anyone else to. All I’d really like to see is people maybe open a manifesto or two and look at the bigger picture...then they might find out that the left isn’t as scary as they first thought and doesn’t have to involve gulags and thought police.

[Tornadoes70]

You're like those fans of lowly clubs who sing "And it's (name of club), (name of club) FC, We're by far the greatest team the world has ever seen" and actually believe it. :hilarious

Most pathetic post I've had the misfortune to read :rolleyes:

At least I don't attend xenophobic jingoistic mob stunts waving nationalistic flags unlike the self serving snp separatists. Snp Bnp very similar indeed.

Mon Scottish Labour

[CropleyWasGod]

Most pathetic post I've had the misfortune to read :rolleyes:

At least I don't attend xenophobic jingoistic mob stunts waving nationalistic flags unlike the self serving snp separatists. Snp Bnp very similar indeed.

Mon Scottish Labour

You're new in these parts, aintcha, pardner? :cb

[JeMeSouviens]

Most pathetic post I've had the misfortune to read :rolleyes:

At least I don't attend xenophobic jingoistic mob stunts waving nationalistic flags unlike the self serving snp separatists. Snp Bnp very similar indeed.

Mon Scottish Labour

Jesus ****** wept.

Well I suppose every cloud has a silver lining - you've finally made me figure out how to put someone on ignore.

[RyeSloan]

The comment was more to do with the factors mentioned whenever anyone discusses the Venezueluan situation. It’s like Chavez and Maduro have been 100% responsible for this crisis with their idiotic policy of nationalisation and wealth distribution. This is held up as a prime example of why socialism simply doesn’t work.

At least the MSM give passing reference to the crippling US economic sanctions and threats.

You know, I wonder what Venezuela, or Cuba for that matter, would be like if the US wasn’t bullying them on ideological grounds.

I might be wrong but I don’t think there was any specific sanctions on Venezuela prior to around 2015 and even those that were imposed were not sector specific.

Venezuela has been suffering for coming up to two decades more with specific Bolivarian revolution policies directly responsible. For example Chávez’s direct instruction to his people to occupy land effectively ended the construction of new homes over night. The appropriation of billions of dollars from airlines resulted in swathes of airlines stopping flights into the country, the implementation of price controls were directly responsible for ever increasing food shortages..

The list of destructive policies goes on and on and on and on. Chávez started the madness and my goodness Maduro has taken it to whole new levels.

The BBC has a small synopsis of the timeline into the destruction and devastation of the country. Did the US help? Probably not but the idea that US bullying is the root cause of 90% of Venezuelan’s living in poverty is just nonsense when you take one look at this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19652436

Not that Jeremy ever seems to care what the policies of Chávez and Maduro resulted in, as ever his ‘principles’ were far too important to let reality alter his view point.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Haven't read the full thread, but have to say I'm appalled by the witch hunt against Corbyn in relation to this so called anti-semitism 'controversy'. Even a cursory examination of the issue demonstrates that it is a ploy of the Blairite right in the party, in conjunction with the Tory press, as they attempt to find something, anything, which might cause Corbyn's resignation.

Jeremy Corbyn, whether you agree with his views or not, has spent his life fighting racism and bigotry of all kinds, including anti-semitism. It really is rich of those who have spent decades lamenting the 'loony left politically correct' agenda, which Corbyn is said to epitomise, to now claim people of Corbyn's ilk aren't 'politically correct do gooders' at all, but are, in fact, racist bigots. They can't have it both ways. Corbyn is not, and never has been, anti-Semitic. His support for the Palestinian cause is not antithetical to Jewish people; indeed many Jews around the world also support the Palestinian people and oppose the ILLEGAL occupation. This traducing of his name is a calculated political act; a cynical tactic to destroy him, yet again. It's absolutely shameful and is something Corbyn, a genuinely nice guy, doesn't deserve. I suppose playing the man and not the ball is what the desperate and amoral resort to, when they can't win fair and square. They see this issue as something which might be a weak point of his with public opinion, if they present it cleverly, and thus can be exploited to potentially remove him. It's disgraceful.

Here's a good conversation between George Galloway and the Jewish American academic and middle-east expert Norman Finkelstein (most of whose family were murdered in the Holocaust and whose parents survived Auschwitz) on the issue.


https://youtu.be/CsFhCkb8j6E

[G B Young]

Haven't read the full thread, but have to say I'm appalled by the witch hunt against Corbyn in relation to this so called anti-semitism 'controversy'. Even a cursory examination of the issue demonstrates that it is a ploy of the Blairite right in the party, in conjunction with the Tory press, as they attempt to find something, anything, which might cause Corbyn's resignation.

Jeremy Corbyn, whether you agree with his views or not, has spent his life fighting racism and bigotry of all kinds, including anti-semitism. It really is rich of those who have spent decades lamenting the 'loony left politically correct' agenda, which Corbyn is said to epitomise, to now claim people of Corbyn's ilk aren't 'politically correct do gooders' at all, but are, in fact, racist bigots. They can't have it both ways. Corbyn is not, and never has been, anti-Semitic. His support for the Palestinian cause is not antithetical to Jewish people; indeed many Jews around the world also support the Palestinian people and oppose the ILLEGAL occupation. This traducing of his name is a calculated political act; a cynical tactic to destroy him, yet again. It's absolutely shameful and is something Corbyn, a genuinely nice guy, doesn't deserve. I suppose playing the man and not the ball is what the desperate and amoral resort to, when they can't win fair and square. They see this issue as something which might be a weak point of his with public opinion, if they present it cleverly, and thus can be exploited to potentially remove him. It's disgraceful.

Here's a good conversation between George Galloway and the Jewish American academic and middle-east expert Norman Finkelstein (most of whose family were murdered in the Holocaust and whose parents survived Auschwitz) on the issue.


https://youtu.be/CsFhCkb8j6E

There appear to be a substantial number of Jews who would disagree, and not just those who read the so-called 'Tory press':

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/24/jeremy-corbyn-antisemitism-labour-zionists-2013-speech

As for being a 'nice guy', his calamitous handling of the wreath controversy made me think he's actually just a bit dim. Posted this earlier, and yes it's from the 'Tory press', but I thought it was spot-on:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/the-myth-of-jeremy-corbyn-a-kind-and-gentle-man/

[Hibernia&Alba]

There appear to be a substantial number of Jews who would disagree, and not just those who read the so-called 'Tory press':

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/24/jeremy-corbyn-antisemitism-labour-zionists-2013-speech

As for being a 'nice guy', his calamitous handling of the wreath controversy made me think he's actually just a bit dim. Posted this earlier, and yes it's from the 'Tory press', but I thought it was spot-on:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/the-myth-of-jeremy-corbyn-a-kind-and-gentle-man/

Anyone can disagree with the view that Corbyn is not a racist, but it doesn't stand up to any kind of serious scrutiny. He has spent his life fighting prejudice based upon race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality and everything else; yet now we're meant to believe he has been a racist all along. Sorry, it's total bull****. By all means disagree with his politics, but nobody should tell lies about the man. What exactly has he ever said which is supposedly insulting to Jews? We aren't talking about the Palestinian conflict, but the Jewish race/religion - a very different thing - what has he ever said that is derogatory to them? It's a cynical political 'game' which Corbyn shouldn't be subjected to. There are lots of bigots in the world; Corbyn has done more than most to combat bigotry. If Corbyn were a good neoliberal, we'd hear none of this.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

You must know by now that my inner revolutionary appears when I’ve had a glass of red. :-)

On reflection, I suppose the centre ground can be appealing and a good position to take in a fairly socially conservative country like the UK. We seem to be a long way off viewing taxation as a contribution to a collective effort and still hold the view that it’s all about taking from peoples pockets.

One thing I hope people start to understand is how wealth is distributed and how it’s actually getting more top heavy as time goes on as neoliberal ideology becomes the norm. They might also realise that the left in this country isn’t as radical as they are made out to be when you consider how other European countries deal with housing, healthcare etc...

Christ, some of the greatest minds in the country don’t understand Brexit so I’m not expecting anyone else to. All I’d really like to see is people maybe open a manifesto or two and look at the bigger picture...then they might find out that the left isn’t as scary as they first thought and doesn’t have to involve gulags and thought police.

Don't we all😁

I don't know that your point on taxation is fair - I pay around 1/3rd of my income in various tax, possibly a bit more I absolutely do see that as vital to living in a country that I want to, of paying for health and education etc.

Move that dial by a few % points here or there I can live with. But that will not raise the kind of cash corbyn at al need.

Given we are already running an enormous deficit, corbyn spending plans would require quite significant tax rises.

Another point I've been thinking about with regards inequality. Presuming the hard left are quite internationalist in outlook and not 'narrow minded nationalists', what is the view on global socialism and global inequality? Are we all to give up our western lifestyle to Allow wealth to flow from the global top 10% (I.e. us) to feed and clothe Africans? Genuine question, I'm curious how those that rail against inequality reconcile 're fact that they are part of the global elite?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Anyone can disagree with the view that Corbyn is not a racist, but it doesn't stand up to any kind of serious scrutiny. He has spent his life fighting prejudice based upon race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality and everything else; yet now we're meant to believe he has been a racist all along. Sorry, it's total bull****. By all means disagree with his politics, but nobody should tell lies about the man. What exactly has he ever said which is supposedly insulting to Jews? We aren't talking about the Palestinian conflict, but the Jewish race/religion - a very different thing - what has he ever said that is derogatory to them? It's a cynical political 'game' which Corbyn shouldn't be subjected to. There are lots of bigots in the world; Corbyn has done more than most to combat bigotry. If Corbyn were a good neoliberal, we'd hear none of this.

I don't think he is racist, but I think some of the hard left are suspicious of Jews/ Israel and that a line is crossed sometimes.

The issue with the antisemitism issue isn't that I think he is some sort of holocaust denier, but rather that it demonstrates how terrible a leader he is. He has had months to squash this, and has completely failed to do so.

To me, this shows he is either weak and spineless, really thick, or so blinkered that he cannot see where he is go if wrong and therefore correct it. None of these are things I want in the leader of my country.

The 'terrorist' stuff is being a bit overplayed, but come on, the politics of being seen to cosy up to every 'enemy we have had in the last 40 or so years can't be lost on him?

And I think people are offended by his complete lack of balance. Where is his wreath for Israelis killed by Hamas? Or loyalists killed by the provos? His empathy only seems to extend to those with whom he agrees, which history has shown to be a VERY dangerous trait of socialism everywhere it has been implemented.

[Hibbyradge]

Most pathetic post I've had the misfortune to read :rolleyes:

At least I don't attend xenophobic jingoistic mob stunts waving nationalistic flags unlike the self serving snp separatists. Snp Bnp very similar indeed.

Mon Scottish Labour

:faf:

[Hibernia&Alba]

I don't think he is racist, but I think some of the hard left are suspicious of Jews/ Israel and that a line is crossed sometimes.

The issue with the antisemitism issue isn't that I think he is some sort of holocaust denier, but rather that it demonstrates how terrible a leader he is. He has had months to squash this, and has completely failed to do so.

To me, this shows he is either weak and spineless, really thick, or so blinkered that he cannot see where he is go if wrong and therefore correct it. None of these are things I want in the leader of my country.

The 'terrorist' stuff is being a bit overplayed, but come on, the politics of being seen to cosy up to every 'enemy we have had in the last 40 or so years can't be lost on him?

And I think people are offended by his complete lack of balance. Where is his wreath for Israelis killed by Hamas? Or loyalists killed by the provos? His empathy only seems to extend to those with whom he agrees, which history has shown to be a VERY dangerous trait of socialism everywhere it has been implemented.

This is exactly it: believing he is a terrible leader is fine, but saying he is an anti-Semite is entirely different. I absolutely believe that some who believe he is a terrible leader are creating this anti-Semitic narrative to get rid of him on grounds of racism, which is disgraceful. Corbyn is not a racist by any definition, which is very different from legitimate views on the Israeli occupation. The likes of Netanyahu and Israel's most strident apologists are wont to conflate all criticism of Israel with racism, in order to stifle debate of Israel's illegal and immoral behaviour. Sorry but we aren't having it. It is the likes of Netanyahu who are the racists and racial supremacists, and this attempt to turn the tables 180 degrees, and turn the critics of racism into the racists, is distinctly Orwellian. I will be on Corbyn's side of the fence against the likes of Netanyahu, every day of the week. International law is on Corbyn's side, after all.

Conflating Judaism/Jews with the Israeli occupation is to play into the hands of the pro-Israel lobby. Many of my own heroes/heroines were Jewish, from Spinoza to Marx; from Luxemburg to Einstein, but I assert my right to oppose what Israel is doing in the occupied Palestinian territories, as would they.

[McD]

Try looking at the post you quoted. Maybe the last three lines.

Any clearer?

To lump supporters of Labour and socialism in with deluded football fans is probably understating the plight of and underestimating the amount of people who can't afford the basics like power, food and housing even though they are working hard themselves.

I'm not talking about yourself but its spectacularly easy to be a New Labour/SNP supporter when you're middle aged/middle class/have a nice wee portfolio/University educated or are maybe just trying to act a little bit cleverer than you think you are. You can pretend you're looking out for society in general and hold progressive views but in reality you've always got one hand round your possessions in a guarded stance, laughing at the innocence of those who advocate real change for the good of the majority. Arguments about EU membership that 90% of the population don't understand, including those who are the most vocal, won't make any difference.

Change will come.


i know you’ve said you didn’t intend this to be offensive, which I wholly accept :aok:

i just want to point out, that Corbyn, his MP supporters (and for balance, every other MP also) all live in greater luxury than most of the population in Scotland and the rest of Britain, earn significantly more than the most of the population, are mostly university educated, are mostly middle class or above, and many definitely act cleverer than they are. Zero MPs are struggling to afford the basics you’ve described, although I equally don’t doubt most if not all MPs work hard. I would suggest that most MPs have very little practical idea of the plights people are experiencing.

Im not an SNP supporter myself, but I’d suggest that the span of their supporters goes far beyond the narrow band you’ve described.

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm not a fan of posting links without comment but it's been a long week and I'm tired and when I went on to the Guardian and read this I just lost any will to do, well, just about anything.......

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/24/corbyn-english-irony-video-reignites-antisemitism-row-labour

What an absolute car crash of a would-be leader.

Ineptness, clumsiness and crassness are words I would use if I was being kind.

An out-of-control, freewheeling, careering Government taking us into an absolute unknown on every front because of Brexit and the Leader of the Opposition can't get beyond the finer points of semantics about whether he's anti-Zionist or anti-Israel while indulging in the Little Englander tropes ("...they don't understand English irony") that he would rail against if directed at, I don't know, a Chilean exile circa 1974.

This one can't be blamed on the right-wing press either (though maybe a few resentful Branch Davidians still lurk at the Guardian :wink:)

[Hibernia&Alba]

I'm not a fan of posting links without comment but it's been a long week and I'm tired and when I went on to the Guardian and read this I just lost any will to do, well, just about anything.......

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/24/corbyn-english-irony-video-reignites-antisemitism-row-labour

What an absolute car crash of a would-be leader.

Ineptness, clumsiness and crassness are words I would use if I was being kind.

An out-of-control, freewheeling, careering Government taking us into an absolute unknown on every front because of Brexit and the Leader of the Opposition can't get beyond the finer points of semantics about whether he's anti-Zionist or anti-Israel while indulging in the Little Englander tropes ("...they don't understand English irony") that he would rail against if directed at, I don't know, a Chilean exile circa 1974.

This one can't be blamed on the right-wing press either (though maybe a few resentful Branch Davidians still lurk at the Guardian :wink:)

Of course it can. Since when are The Sun, Telegraph, Express, Times, Mail, Star going to give Corbyn a considered appraisal? He is not a racist; this is a manufactured row. I've yet to see a single anti-Semitic comment Corbyn has made. Corbyn is merely demanding the implementation of international law under U.N. resolution 242 of 1967, yet he's the racist bad guy? Why aren't those who have spent half a century defending the defiance of international law the racists and bad guys? Why aren't they being put on the defensive about their support for illegality and racism, such as state torture and murder during an illegal occupation? Instead we have a situation where those who support international law are the supposed criminals and bigots who have questions to answer! The world is upside down; it's a disgrace.

[Mibbes Aye]

Of course it can. Since when are The Sun, Telegraph, Express, Times, Mail, Star going to give Corbyn a considered appraisal? He is not a racist; this is a manufactured row. I've yet to see a single anti-Semitic comment Corbyn has made. Corbyn is merely demanding the implementation of international law under U.N. resolution 242 of 1967, yet he's the racist bad guy? Why aren't those who have spent half a century defending the defiance of international law the racists and bad guys? Why aren't they being put on the defensive about their support for illegality and racism, such as state torture and murder during an illegal occupation? Instead we have a situation where those who support international are the supposed criminals! The world is upside down; it's a disgrace.

The story is from the Guardian.

[Hibernia&Alba]

The story is from the Guardian.

It doesn't matter where any story is from. The Guardian is no friend of Corbyn; it's a very Blairite paper i.e. more aligned to some of those attempting to smear Corbyn. He is amongst the last group of people who could be called racists, as his record in public life demonstrates. He's a good man who supports universal human rights and non-violence to a far greater degree than those now criticise him; many of whom supported the Iraq war, for example e.g. Margaret Hodge. Why aren't those war criminals, responsible foe deaths of at least 1 million people, the central story? It's a contrived, manufactured injustice which is replete in hypocrisy. Neoliberal/neoconservative champions determined to destroy alternatives by any means necessary, no matter how tawdry.

[Mibbes Aye]

It doesn't matter where any story is from. The Guardian is no friend of Corbyn; it's a very Blairite paper i.e. more aligned to some of those attempting to smear Corbyn. He is amongst the last group of people who could be called racists, as his record in public life demonstrates. He's a good man who supports universal human rights and non-violence to a far greater degree than those now criticise him; many of whom supported the Iraq war, for example e.g. Margaret Hodge. Why aren't those war criminals, responsible foe deaths of at least 1 million people, the central story? It's a contrived, manufactured injustice which is replete in hypocrisy. Neoliberal/neoconservative champions determined to destroy alternatives by any means necessary, no matter how tawdry.

I think you're the only person talking about whether he's racist.

I think the rest of us are saying he's completely feeble and incompetent.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I think you're the only person talking about whether he's racist.

I think the rest of us are saying he's completely feeble and incompetent.

You've missed the whole anti-Semitism 'controversy'?

[Mibbes Aye]

You've missed the whole anti-Semitism 'controversy'?

No, but if you go back on this forum all the way back to his election as leader, you will find countless posts from many posters, me included, saying he simply isn't competent to lead the Opposition let alone anything else.

And the evidence keeps mounting.......

[Hibernia&Alba]

No, but if you go back on this forum all the way back to his election as leader, you will find countless posts from many posters, me included, saying he simply isn't competent to lead the Opposition let alone anything else.

And the evidence keeps mounting.......

And if that's your view, that's fair enough. I also think that, in many ways, he's too nice a guy for frontline politics, much like Michael Foot before him. He doesn't play the game and is too nice for the unpleasantness of it all. But I'm specifically talking about the latest tactic to remove him, which is to portray him as an anti-Jewish racist. That is completely unfair to the guy.

[Mibbes Aye]

And if that's your view, that's fair enough. I also think that, in many ways, he's too nice a guy for frontline politics, much like Michael Foot before him. He doesn't play the game and is too nice for the unpleasantness of it all. But I'm specifically talking about the latest tactic to remove him, which is to portray him as an anti-Jewish racist. That is completely unfair to the guy.

In which case, why isn't he honest enough to say he's not up for it and let somebody more competent lead the Opposition and hold the so-called Government to account?

[Tornadoes70]

And if that's your view, that's fair enough. I also think that, in many ways, he's too nice a guy for frontline politics, much like Michael Foot before him. He doesn't play the game and is too nice for the unpleasantness of it all. But I'm specifically talking about the latest tactic to remove him, which is to portray him as an anti-Jewish racist. That is completely unfair to the guy.

Political maneuvering is part and parcel of being a huge UK party one that has political partners around the world.

The snp's a tiny insignificant narrow minded nationalist tinpot dictatorship and one that is on the downward spiral.

Corbyn and Leonard are decent folk who are strong leaders and are on the up in direct contrast to the nationalistic flag waving snp.

Mon Scottish Labour

[Hibernia&Alba]

In which case, why isn't he honest enough to say he's not up for it and let somebody more competent lead the Opposition and hold the so-called Government to account?

I'm sure he never expected to win the leadership when he initially ran, but he now has a large democratic mandate and feels honour bound to respect the wishes of the party electorate. Millions of people in the country look to him now to challenge neoliberal globalisation. There is much expectation upon him.

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm sure he never expected to win the leadership when he initially ran, but he now has a large democratic mandate and feels honour bound to respect the wishes of the party electorate. Millions of people in the country look to him now to challenge neoliberal globalisation. There is much expectation upon him.

He's done nothing to challenge one of the poorest, weakest, most division-ridden shambles of a Government in my lifetime.

I suspect challenging neoliberal globalisation may be a bit beyond his capacity, don't you?

[Hibernia&Alba]

He's done nothing to challenge one of the poorest, weakest, most division-ridden shambles of a Government in my lifetime.

I suspect challenging neoliberal globalisation may be a bit beyond his capacity, don't you?

Not so sure. he's spent his life in parliament doing just that, albeit from the backbenches for much of the time.

[Mibbes Aye]

Not so sure. he's spent his life in parliament doing just that, albeit from the backbenches for much of the time.

:confused:

You said he was doing all this stuff as leader. I questioned that. You've avoided that and skipped towards what he did as a backbencher.

And all he did as a backbencher was repeatedly vote against his party and leadership, and then criticise others for doing the same when he got the gig :rolleyes:

Getting back to the point, you've said he's not fit for purpose in front-line politics, many of us have being saying the same since he was elected.

So why is he still there?

His language about people having 'no sense of English irony' despite 'having lived in this country for a very long time' is appalling. Swap that for any racial group you like and it sounds like something Nigel Farage may have come out with after a pint or two.

And he's who millions are looking at to challenge 'neoliberal globalisation'? Seriously??

[Hibernia&Alba]

:confused:

You said he was doing all this stuff as leader. I questioned that. You've avoided that and skipped towards what he did as a backbencher.

And all he did as a backbencher was repeatedly vote against his party and leadership, and then criticise others for doing the same when he got the gig :rolleyes:

Getting back to the point, you've said he's not fit for purpose in front-line politics, many of us have being saying the same since he was elected.

So why is he still there?

His language about people having 'no sense of English irony' despite 'having lived in this country for a very long time' is appalling. Swap that for any racial group you like and it sounds like something Nigel Farage may have come out with after a pint or two.

And he's who millions are looking at to challenge 'neoliberal globalisation'? Seriously??

I think that's going too far. I said he's too nice to deal with the gutter attacks of the Tory press and the right wing of his own party, which is something quite different. I think he's too good for the puerile nature of modern politics, as he doesn't play that game. The fact is he is democratically elected by a large margin, yet the Blairites won't accept anything beyond the narrow confines of soundbites and photo opportunities. He has a mandate to remain Labour leader, but IMO, must become more astute and face his enemies head on. I feel he's too passive, too nice, and must be on the front foot more, so setting the agenda, rather than be constantly reacting to an agenda set by others.

By the way, I think he has continued his anti-neoliberal beliefs as leader, which is precisely why the right are trying to destroy him, even if that means creating spurious reasons e.g. alleged anti-Semitism.

[Mibbes Aye]

I think that's going too far. I said he's too nice to deal with the gutter attacks of the Tory press and the right wing of his own party, which is something quite different. I think he's too good for the puerile nature of modern politics, as he doesn't play that game. The fact is he is democratically elected by a large margin, yet the Blairites won't accept anything beyond the narrow confines of soundbites and photo opportunities. He has a mandate to remain Labour leader, but IMO, must become more astute and face his enemies head on. I feel he's too passive, too nice, and must be on the front foot more, so setting the agenda, rather than be constantly reacting to an agenda set by others.

He's had three years to do that and has failed.

Far more Labour members wanted to stay in the EU than ever voted for Corbyn. Now there's a mandate to act upon. But he hasn't.

May's Government goes from mishap to mishap, ultimately at our expense, while Corbyn fumbles around, bogged down in what kind of funeral he went to, and how close he was to the wreath and whether he's anti-Israel, anti-Zionist or anti-Jew.

He could have resolved all these issues with a simple and direct statement months ago.

But that would take leadership, wouldn't it?

And in your own words, setting an agenda rather than following one.

But after three years (and actually a long time before then), it's clear he isn't capable or competent as a leader.

[RyeSloan]

‘Too nice’ ‘too good’

Sounds like he should be on MOTD2 [emoji23]

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I think that's going too far. I said he's too nice to deal with the gutter attacks of the Tory press and the right wing of his own party, which is something quite different. I think he's too good for the puerile nature of modern politics, as he doesn't play that game. The fact is he is democratically elected by a large margin, yet the Blairites won't accept anything beyond the narrow confines of soundbites and photo opportunities. He has a mandate to remain Labour leader, but IMO, must become more astute and face his enemies head on. I feel he's too passive, too nice, and must be on the front foot more, so setting the agenda, rather than be constantly reacting to an agenda set by others.

By the way, I think he has continued his anti-neoliberal beliefs as leader, which is precisely why the right are trying to destroy him, even if that means creating spurious reasons e.g. alleged anti-Semitism.

You talk about the problem with politics, but you imo are displaying the problem with politics - you are so blinkered you won't accept that 'your man' might have flaws and be rubbish, and instead you are turning his faults into vrtues and then blaming his 'enemies' (terrible choice of word given are history of socialism) for HIS flaws.

He is a political dinosaur who played the 'nice guy' because he has had no power and never had to make real decisions. Now he is, and he is drowning under the weight of his own sanctimonious hubris.

[G B Young]

It doesn't matter where any story is from. The Guardian is no friend of Corbyn; it's a very Blairite paper i.e. more aligned to some of those attempting to smear Corbyn. He is amongst the last group of people who could be called racists, as his record in public life demonstrates. He's a good man who supports universal human rights and non-violence to a far greater degree than those now criticise him; many of whom supported the Iraq war, for example e.g. Margaret Hodge. Why aren't those war criminals, responsible foe deaths of at least 1 million people, the central story? It's a contrived, manufactured injustice which is replete in hypocrisy. Neoliberal/neoconservative champions determined to destroy alternatives by any means necessary, no matter how tawdry.

I think the 'British Zionists' not understanding English irony remarks most certainly carry racist connotations. They imply that despite having lived in the UK for most of their lives, the specific group of people he's targeting with his remarks are not properly British. That sort of implication is surely going to offend the vast majority of British Jews. They are remarks that IMHO he should apologise for, rather than trying to put them into 'context' and his failure to do so will only ensure that Labour are dogged by these issues for a long time to come. I actually wonder if the issue could ultimately lead to a split in the party.

This piece in the New Statesman does a better job than me at explaining why many will find the remarks offensive and why on this occasion it's Corbyn in particular who has stoked the flames:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/08/context-jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitism-john-mcdonnell-today-show-labour

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I think the 'British Zionists' not understanding English irony remarks most certainly carry racist connotations. They imply that despite having lived in the UK for most of their lives, the specific group of people he's targeting with his remarks are not properly British. That sort of implication is surely going to offend the vast majority of British Jews. They are remarks that IMHO he should apologise for, rather than trying to put them into 'context' and his failure to do so will only ensure that Labour are dogged by these issues for a long time to come. I actually wonder if the issue could ultimately lead to a split in the party.

This piece in the New Statesman does a better job than me at explaining why many will find the remarks offensive and why on this occasion it's Corbyn in particular who has stoked the flames:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/08/context-jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitism-john-mcdonnell-today-show-labour

Interesting... But he's such a nice man...? 😀

[makaveli1875]

I think the 'British Zionists' not understanding English irony remarks most certainly carry racist connotations. They imply that despite having lived in the UK for most of their lives, the specific group of people he's targeting with his remarks are not properly British. That sort of implication is surely going to offend the vast majority of British Jews. They are remarks that IMHO he should apologise for, rather than trying to put them into 'context' and his failure to do so will only ensure that Labour are dogged by these issues for a long time to come. I actually wonder if the issue could ultimately lead to a split in the party.

This piece in the New Statesman does a better job than me at explaining why many will find the remarks offensive and why on this occasion it's Corbyn in particular who has stoked the flames:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/08/context-jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitism-john-mcdonnell-today-show-labour

If you replaced British Zionists with British Muslims there would be an uproar on every news bulletin for weeks and a 50 page thread on here about how islamophobic that nasty little cretin is

[G B Young]

If you replaced British Zionists with British Muslims there would be an uproar on every news bulletin for weeks and a 50 page thread on here about how islamophobic that nasty little cretin is

It's a fair point. To quote from the New Statesman article I've posted the link to:

"If an employer made these comments about a Jewish employee, I expect the employee would have a strong case for harassment on grounds of race. If you doubt this, try reading the above excerpt and replacing “Zionists” with “blacks” and see whether you see racism."

[Hibernia&Alba]

You talk about the problem with politics, but you imo are displaying the problem with politics - you are so blinkered you won't accept that 'your man' might have flaws and be rubbish, and instead you are turning his faults into vrtues and then blaming his 'enemies' (terrible choice of word given are history of socialism) for HIS flaws.

He is a political dinosaur who played the 'nice guy' because he has had no power and never had to make real decisions. Now he is, and he is drowning under the weight of his own sanctimonious hubris.

I'm not blinkered by anything and Corbyn is not 'my man', as I'm a Green voter. I'm looking at this from the outside and think Corbyn is being greatly maligned by this manufactured anti-Semitism row, pushed by people who have wanted to remove him as Labour leader from day one. It's a tactic to end his leadership. If it wasn't alleged anti-Semitism, the same people would have used something else, anything else. Corbyn has spent his political life fighting bigotry of all forms; he does not hate Jews, he just happens to support the Palestinian cause, in the same way many Jews do themselves. It's the old tactic of the Pro-Israel lobby to conflate anti-occupation politics with anti-Semitism, in order to quash analysis and debate of Israeli illegality. It is Israel that runs an illegal and racist system in the occupied territories, yet somehow it's those who point out this fact who become the racists. Many of those politicians who are calling Corbyn a racist are very happy to sell weapons to Israel; weapons which are used to break international law. They are very happy to support a terrorist state, then have the gall to accuse Corbyn of sympathising with terrorists. The racism the Palestinians suffer every day under occupation is racist, yet we aren't having that debate.

The issue is the occupation; it's the issue the Israel lobby doesn't want to discuss, so they create this sideshow of a false controversy around Corbyn. It's shameful stuff; politics at its shabbiest. I think Professor Finkelstein's analysis of what is at play here is very astute: a combination of (a) people who would never even support Labour and (b) those within Labour who won't accept the mandate Corbyn has as leader, are determined to do whatever is necessary to remove him, because he represents a threat to the neoliberal consensus.

Saying he is a terrible leader is a legitimate opinion; those calling the guy a racist are out of order.

[Beefster]

Oh God*, he believes in homeopathy as well ...

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/10038631361



FFS. Just when I thought his credibility couldn’t take any more of a bashing.

[Hibbyradge]

FFS. Just when I thought his credibility couldn’t take any more of a bashing.

Credibility?

Homeopathy has more credibility.

[One Day Soon]

Credibility?

Homeopathy has more credibility.

It's more effective too - and it doesn't even ****ing work...

[One Day Soon]

I think that's going too far. I said he's too nice to deal with the gutter attacks of the Tory press and the right wing of his own party, which is something quite different. I think he's too good for the puerile nature of modern politics, as he doesn't play that game. The fact is he is democratically elected by a large margin, yet the Blairites won't accept anything beyond the narrow confines of soundbites and photo opportunities. He has a mandate to remain Labour leader, but IMO, must become more astute and face his enemies head on. I feel he's too passive, too nice, and must be on the front foot more, so setting the agenda, rather than be constantly reacting to an agenda set by others.

By the way, I think he has continued his anti-neoliberal beliefs as leader, which is precisely why the right are trying to destroy him, even if that means creating spurious reasons e.g. alleged anti-Semitism.


He's setting exactly the agenda he wants and his own record shows precisely who he thinks the enemy is - as does the pusillanimous nature of his response to the eruption of open anti-semitism within Labour.

He may be the most unpleasant, disingenuous, under-qualified, self-absorbed, irrelevance ever to lead any major British political party. That takes some doing given that Iain Duncan Smith and Tim Farron, to name but two, have been party leaders.

[Hibernia&Alba]

He's setting exactly the agenda he wants and his own record shows precisely who he thinks the enemy is - as does the pusillanimous nature of his response to the eruption of open anti-semitism within Labour.

He may be the most unpleasant, disingenuous, under-qualified, self-absorbed, irrelevance ever to lead any major British political party. That takes some doing given that Iain Duncan Smith and Tim Farron, to name but two, have been party leaders.

What eruption of 'open anti-Semitism within Labour'? Labour governments have done more in terms of legislation to combat all forms of prejudice than any Tory government has: racial equality, gender equality, disability equality etc. I would suggest that the Labour Party isn't a good fit for anyone who holds racist/prejudiced views, yet this is the debate we're having. Why is that? Jeremy Corbyn is elected leader, then, all of a sudden, Labour, of all political parties, is suddenly said to be filled with anti-Jewish racists, when there wasn't a peep about this 'problem' previously. It makes no sense. We've all seen and heard racists; to suggest Jeremy Corbyn is among them is crazy. He's given his political life to equality.

I'm not a Labour member or voter, but this whole episode against Corbyn stinks.

[G B Young]

What eruption of 'open anti-Semitism within Labour'? Labour governments have done more in terms of legislation to combat all forms of prejudice than any Tory government has: racial equality, gender equality, disability equality etc. I would suggest that the Labour Party isn't a good fit for anyone who holds racist/prejudiced views, yet this is the debate we're having. Why is that? Jeremy Corbyn is elected leader, then, all of a sudden, Labour, of all political parties, is suddenly said to be filled with anti-Jewish racists, when there wasn't a peep about this 'problem' previously. It makes no sense. We've all seen and heard racists; to suggest Jeremy Corbyn is among them is crazy. He's given his political life to equality.

I'm not a Labour member or voter, but this whole episode against Corbyn stinks.

Corbyn himself has admitted there is an anti-semitism problem in the Labour party:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-antisemitism-jewish-people-ihra-margaret-hodge-row-israel-a8476711.html

[Hibbyradge]

It's more effective too - and it doesn't even ****ing work...

:tee hee:

[Hibernia&Alba]

Corbyn himself has admitted there is an anti-semitism problem in the Labour party:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-antisemitism-jewish-people-ihra-margaret-hodge-row-israel-a8476711.html

I don't believe for a moment that the Labour Party, with its ethos of anti-discrimination, has more of a problem with anti-Semitism than any other comparable organisation in Britain, political or not. I think Labour has something like 500,000 members; anti-Semitism is something the vast majority won't have encountered, so what is the real scale of the problem and why has it suddenly become such a big issue since Corbyn became leader? We are now meant to believe that a political party which has done more than any other to combat prejudice and discrimination in Britain is actually a hive of racists. I'm very suspicious about this recent narrative; Corbyn is no racist or protector of racists.

It goes without saying that anti-Semitism is totally unacceptable and must be countered everywhere it is found, but it seems incredible that the Labour Party should suddenly have a large scale issue with it. Any party members who are found to be pushing anti-Jewish racism should be expelled, but this isn't the BNP, it's the Labour Party. I'm sure much of the oxygen feeding this story is politically motivated by groups, within and without the Labour Party, who want to destroy Corbyn's leadership, and that, should they succeed, we would then conveniently hear far less about the problem of anti-Semitism within Labour. It's tawdry stuff.

[One Day Soon]

What eruption of 'open anti-Semitism within Labour'? Labour governments have done more in terms of legislation to combat all forms of prejudice than any Tory government has: racial equality, gender equality, disability equality etc. I would suggest that the Labour Party isn't a good fit for anyone who holds racist/prejudiced views, yet this is the debate we're having. Why is that? Jeremy Corbyn is elected leader, then, all of a sudden, Labour, of all political parties, is suddenly said to be filled with anti-Jewish racists, when there wasn't a peep about this 'problem' previously. It makes no sense. We've all seen and heard racists; to suggest Jeremy Corbyn is among them is crazy. He's given his political life to equality.

I'm not a Labour member or voter, but this whole episode against Corbyn stinks.

Pity he keeps doing it to himself then, apart from when his supporters are doing it to/for him.

[Mibbes Aye]

What eruption of 'open anti-Semitism within Labour'? Labour governments have done more in terms of legislation to combat all forms of prejudice than any Tory government has: racial equality, gender equality, disability equality etc. I would suggest that the Labour Party isn't a good fit for anyone who holds racist/prejudiced views, yet this is the debate we're having. Why is that? Jeremy Corbyn is elected leader, then, all of a sudden, Labour, of all political parties, is suddenly said to be filled with anti-Jewish racists, when there wasn't a peep about this 'problem' previously. It makes no sense. We've all seen and heard racists; to suggest Jeremy Corbyn is among them is crazy. He's given his political life to equality.

I'm not a Labour member or voter, but this whole episode against Corbyn stinks.

The history of Labour and anti-semitism, and actually its whole internationalist approach is complex.

Anti-semitism and an association with avarice or financial greed has been around for centuries in this country, you only have to read Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice to recognise that it existed several centuries ago.

There was a particular peak in the boom capitalist years before the Great Recession and even in the aftermath it lingered, with the Rothschild family a particular target of satirists, cartoonists and polemicists spouting the same message of the money-grabbing Jew who pulled political and financial strings.

It's not hard to see why an embryonic Labour movement could fall into the trap of defining its capitalist enemies in crude generalisations, as articulated above.

Then, by contrast, the push towards the creation of an Israeli state would have undoubtedly chimed with some Labour members, keen to shrug off the British history of colonialism and imperialism. There had always been a strong leftist presence in Israeli politics post-WW2 and that eventually led to the creation of the Israeli Labor Party, in the 60s or 70s, which pursued left-of-centre policies which I'm sure didn't differ much from Attlee, Wilson or Callaghan.

And then as we get to more recent history, the Israeli state, bolstered as a strategic ally and a weapons testing ground by the US, found itself able to assert itself and its nationhood aggressively, and has done so. For many this equates to something close to ethnic cleansing or the apartheid of the old South African regime, either of which would be anathema to Labour members.

There is also a particular strand within the movement that likes to highlight and associate themselves with causes foreign, Corbyn's generation perhaps being the most guilty, whether it be the Sandinistas or the Palestinians. That, combined with Israel's aggressive approach that regularly seems to breach international law, makes it easy for Israel to become 'bad' and let's face it, they don't do themselves any favours by acting like they don't give a #*&#.

At the same time, there is a fine tradition within Labour of recognising the oppression Jews have faced, and in particular, quite obviously the horror of the Holocaust. Many great thinkers were lucky enough to escape to our shores and their thinking and writing and that of their descendants is part of our political make-up and evolution.

As I said at the start, Labour and Judaism is a complex thing. Maybe more pertinently, Western civilisation and Judaism is a complex thing. For centuries, the narrative has been a struggle about whether Jews are avaricious and greedy and in conspiracy together for their own benefit. When the hell are we going to get past that?

[G B Young]

I don't believe for a moment that the Labour Party, with its ethos of anti-discrimination, has more of a problem with anti-Semitism than any other comparable organisation in Britain, political or not. I think Labour has something like 500,000 members; anti-Semitism is something the vast majority won't have encountered, so what is the real scale of the problem and why has it suddenly become such a big issue since Corbyn became leader? We are now meant to believe that a political party which has done more than any other to combat prejudice and discrimination in Britain is actually a hive of racists. I'm very suspicious about this recent narrative; Corbyn is no racist or protector of racists.

It goes without saying that anti-Semitism is totally unacceptable and must be countered everywhere it is found, but it seems incredible that the Labour Party should suddenly have a large scale issue with it. Any party members who are found to be pushing anti-Jewish racism should be expelled, but this isn't the BNP, it's the Labour Party. I'm sure much of the oxygen feeding this story is politically motivated by groups, within and without the Labour Party, who want to destroy Corbyn's leadership, and that, should they succeed, we would then conveniently hear far less about the problem of anti-Semitism within Labour. It's tawdry stuff.

It could also be argued that it's Corbyn himself who is providing this story with its primary source of oxygen. An undisguised loathing of Israel, while not equating to a hatred of all things Jewish, is not something any recent Labour leader has brought to the table, and while such views may not have caused too many ructions during his days as a largely harmless back bench eccentric it's understandable why Jewish Labour MPs would feel unsettled by them. As I recall, this saga started to come to the fore as a result of Corbyn's support for a clearly anti-semitic mural which stereotyped the money-grabbing Jew. His excuse that he "didn't look at it properly" was classic Corbyn fudge, subsequently echoed by his "present but not involved" nonsense. A problem which may have long existed (and Labour have admitted it exists) in muted form has arguably been heightened by the profile of man who, while not openly endorsing anti-semitism, gives a good impression of turning a blind eye to it.

[Hibernia&Alba]

It could also be argued that it's Corbyn himself who is providing this story with its primary source of oxygen. An undisguised loathing of Israel, while not equating to a hatred of all things Jewish, is not something any recent Labour leader has brought to the table, and while such views may not have caused too many ructions during his days as a largely harmless back bench eccentric it's understandable why Jewish Labour MPs would feel unsettled by them. As I recall, this saga started to come to the fore as a result of Corbyn's support for a clearly anti-semitic mural which stereotyped the money-grabbing Jew. His excuse that he "didn't look at it properly" was classic Corbyn fudge, subsequently echoed by his "present but not involved" nonsense. A problem which may have long existed (and Labour have admitted it exists) in muted form has arguably been heightened by the profile of man who, while not openly endorsing anti-semitism, gives a good impression of turning a blind eye to it.

I don't think Jeremy Corbyn has said anything which indicates a 'loathing of Israel' or Israeli people. He loathes the illegality and injustice of the occupation of Palestine (and many of us do); I'm guessing he loathes a racist thug like Netanyahu (and many of us do), but that isn't anti-Semitism, any more than loathing Donald Trump is racist. Yet we are in the crazy situation of discussing the alleged racist views of an individual who has fought against prejudice of all kinds throughout his long political life, rather than discussing the substantive issue of his analysis (correct in my view) of the occupation of Palestine. It's classic playing the man and not the ball.

It's disgusting to see the right wing press, such as The Daily Mail and The Sun, trying to take the moral high ground whilst having the audacity to call others racist. And they do so not because of principle but for political advantage. That's what is driving this.

My own gut feeling (not empirically tested) is there are very few dyed in the wool Jew haters in the Labour Party, and I don't believe Corbyn is amongst them. I would bet my last penny there is a higher proportion of racists within the Conservative Party, yet no debate is being had there. All racists should be expelled from their respective party; all anti-Semites within Labour should be expelled, but Jeremy Corbyn isn't facilitating such lunatics. It's nonsense. Those on the right who fear and hate his popularity, along with elements within the Labour Party who won't accept him as elected leader, are now trying to subvert his democratic mandate by other means. It's very shabby stuff, and he hasn't dealt with the accusations well enough; I certainly agree with that. He's been far too meek in dealing with the garbage thrown at him and should come out fighting.

The issue needs putting to bed; Corbyn needs to go on the front foot and be more decisive. However, even putting this row behind him won't deter those who want him out under any circumstances. They will move on to something else they think will have traction and go to town with it, making his life unbearable, in the hope that cumulatively they can achieve death by a thousand cuts.

[G B Young]

I don't think Jeremy Corbyn has said anything which indicates a 'loathing of Israel' or Israeli people. He loathes the illegality and injustice of the occupation of Palestine (and many of us do); I'm guessing he loathes a racist thug like Netanyahu (and many of us do), but that isn't anti-Semitism, any more than loathing Donald Trump is racist. Yet we are in the crazy situation of discussing the alleged racist views of an individual who has fought against prejudice of all kinds throughout his long political life, rather than discussing the substantive issue of his analysis (correct in my view) of the occupation of Palestine. It's classic playing the man and not the ball.

It's disgusting to see the right wing press, such as The Daily Mail and The Sun, trying to take the moral high ground whilst having the audacity to call others racist. And they do so not because of principle but for political advantage. That's what is driving this.

My own gut feeling (not empirically tested) is there are very few dyed in the wool Jew haters in the Labour Party, and I don't believe Corbyn is amongst them. I would bet my last penny there is a higher proportion of racists within the Conservative Party, yet no debate is being had there. All racists should be expelled from their respective party; all anti-Semites within Labour should be expelled, but Jeremy Corbyn isn't facilitating such lunatics. It's nonsense. Those on the right who fear and hate his popularity, along with elements within the Labour Party who won't accept him as elected leader, are now trying to subvert his democratic mandate by other means. It's very shabby stuff, and he hasn't dealt with the accusations well enough; I certainly agree with that. He's been far too meek in dealing with the garbage thrown at him and should come out fighting.The issue needs putting to bed; Corbyn needs to go on the front foot and be more decisive. However, even putting this row behind him won't deter those who want him out under any circumstances. They will move on to something else they think will have traction and go to town with it, making his life unbearable, in the hope that cumulatively they can achieve death by a thousand cuts.

Again, you could argue he hasn't dealt with them well enough not because he's too meek but because he has been in the wrong and stubbornly refuses to acknowledge it. As I said earlier, his comments about "British Zionists" not understanding "English irony" seemed to me to carry unquestionable anti-semitic overtones and have drawn particular flak from left-leaning as well as the more right-wing media.

Mind you the biggest irony of that whole issue, as this piece in the Guardian points out, is that Corbyn himself comes across as the one who doesn't understand irony!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/26/jeremy-corbyn-irony-donald-trump-feminism-zionists-antisemitism

[G B Young]

He's setting exactly the agenda he wants and his own record shows precisely who he thinks the enemy is - as does the pusillanimous nature of his response to the eruption of open anti-semitism within Labour.

He may be the most unpleasant, disingenuous, under-qualified, self-absorbed, irrelevance ever to lead any major British political party. That takes some doing given that Iain Duncan Smith and Tim Farron, to name but two, have been party leaders.

His "British Zionists" comments were the most "most offensive statement by a politician since Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech" according to the former chief rabbi, who says Corbyn has "has legitimised the public expression of hate, and where he leads, others will follow."

​https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/08/corbyn-s-zionist-remarks-were-most-offensive-enoch-powell-says-ex-chief-rabbi

Corbyn must be relieved the Salmond story has given him a wee breather from all this!

[Hibbyradge]

His "British Zionists" comments were the most "most offensive statement by a politician since Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech" according to the former chief rabbi, who says Corbyn has "has legitimised the public expression of hate, and where he leads, others will follow."

​https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/08/corbyn-s-zionist-remarks-were-most-offensive-enoch-powell-says-ex-chief-rabbi

Corbyn must be relieved the Salmond story has given him a wee breather from all this!

He's entitled to his understandable opinion, but there's been many, many offensive statements from politicians since then.

Letter boxes and bank robbers are a couple of recent examples.

[Chic Murray]

Corbyn has had links to the PLO for how many years, and how many years has he been the leader of the Labour Party.

So how come these complaints are only coming out now?

If you want to know who controls you, find out who you are not allowed to criticise.

There are roughly 270,000 Jews in an overall UK population of around 50 million. That's less than 0.5%.

We should be more worried what the Jedi think of Corbyn.

[G B Young]

Corbyn's summer from hell continues:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45359009

[cabbageandribs1875]

get shot of corbyn and get shot of his groupies Momentum, problem solved



#pray for the Real Labour :agree:

[Hibernia&Alba]

get shot of corbyn and get shot of his groupies Momentum, problem solved



#pray for the Real Labour :agree:

Is that the Blairite Tory-lite Labour? Corbyn has a huge mandate from the Labour members, so he is real Labour.

[Pete]

Is that the Blairite Tory-lite Labour? Corbyn has a huge mandate from the Labour members, so he is real Labour.

*Ten out of ten smilie*

[G B Young]

get shot of corbyn and get shot of his groupies Momentum, problem solved



#pray for the Real Labour :agree:

Even Momentum's founder is urging Corbyn to see sense over the IHRA saga.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-definition-antisemitism-row-latest-ihra-definition-jon-lansman-momentum-gmb-a8485281.html

Corbyn's inability to bring this whole shambles to a close sums up his ineptitude as a 'leader'.

[G B Young]

I'm not blinkered by anything and Corbyn is not 'my man', as I'm a Green voter. I'm looking at this from the outside and think Corbyn is being greatly maligned by this manufactured anti-Semitism row, pushed by people who have wanted to remove him as Labour leader from day one. It's a tactic to end his leadership. If it wasn't alleged anti-Semitism, the same people would have used something else, anything else. Corbyn has spent his political life fighting bigotry of all forms; he does not hate Jews, he just happens to support the Palestinian cause, in the same way many Jews do themselves. It's the old tactic of the Pro-Israel lobby to conflate anti-occupation politics with anti-Semitism, in order to quash analysis and debate of Israeli illegality. It is Israel that runs an illegal and racist system in the occupied territories, yet somehow it's those who point out this fact who become the racists. Many of those politicians who are calling Corbyn a racist are very happy to sell weapons to Israel; weapons which are used to break international law. They are very happy to support a terrorist state, then have the gall to accuse Corbyn of sympathising with terrorists. The racism the Palestinians suffer every day under occupation is racist, yet we aren't having that debate.

The issue is the occupation; it's the issue the Israel lobby doesn't want to discuss, so they create this sideshow of a false controversy around Corbyn. It's shameful stuff; politics at its shabbiest. I think Professor Finkelstein's analysis of what is at play here is very astute: a combination of (a) people who would never even support Labour and (b) those within Labour who won't accept the mandate Corbyn has as leader, are determined to do whatever is necessary to remove him, because he represents a threat to the neoliberal consensus.

Saying he is a terrible leader is a legitimate opinion; those calling the guy a racist are out of order.

Corbyn's bumbling approach has turned him into Israel's greatest ally according to this piece. It's a reasonable assertion:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/jeremy-corbyns-bumbling-has-silenced-legitimate-criticism-of-israel/

[IGRIGI]

Corbyn has had links to the PLO for how many years, and how many years has he been the leader of the Labour Party.

So how come these complaints are only coming out now?

If you want to know who controls you, find out who you are not allowed to criticise.

There are roughly 270,000 Jews in an overall UK population of around 50 million. That's less than 0.5%.

We should be more worried what the Jedi think of Corbyn.


Replace Jews with Muslims and this place would be in uproar.

[Chic Murray]

Replace Jews with Muslims and this place would be in uproar.

Why's that?

[G B Young]

Yes he'll be instantly dismissed by the Corbynista as a 'Blairite' and yes, this report is from the Jewish Chronicle, but Gordon Brown makes some valid points about Corbyn's half-hearted reponse to this ongoing issue:

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/gordon-brown-jewish-labour-movement-conference-jeremy-corbyn-1.469167

In particular:

Attacking the failure of Labour’s leadership to consult with the Jewish community over the IHRA definition, Brown added: "Would you produce a document on sexism produced by men only?
“Or would you produce a document on racism without consulting the black community?
“'Would you produce a document on homophobia without consulting the LGBT community?"

[G B Young]

A rare defeat for the blessed Jeremy as he's forced to accept Labour adopting the international anti-Semitism definition in full.

And yet...while his own suggested anti-Israel caveat was apparently rejected, the needless addition of a statement 'protecting free speech' shows he just doesn't get it and ensures this saga will run and run:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45411674

The guy could have shut this whole thing down months ago yet has allowed it to screw up Labour's entire summer. Shambolic 'leadership'.

[Hibbyradge]

The guy could have shut this whole thing down months ago yet has allowed it to screw up Labour's entire summer. Shambolic 'leadership'.

Ahem, "principled" leadership. :rolleyes:

[matty_f]

Replace Jews with Muslims and this place would be in uproar.

There is uproar already and it is about Jews.

If Corbyn has said what you posted he'd be getting labelled anti-Muslim or just plain old racist.

[G B Young]

Ahem, "principled" leadership. :rolleyes:

Good analysis of his unsuitability for leadership:

https://www.ft.com/content/142b8de0-b02b-11e8-99ca-68cf89602132

[Hibs Class]

Good analysis of his unsuitability for leadership:

https://www.ft.com/content/142b8de0-b02b-11e8-99ca-68cf89602132

Article has a paywall - can you paste the text?

[G B Young]

Article has a paywall - can you paste the text?

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach ofFT.com (https://www.ft.com) T&Cs (https://help.ft.com/help/legal-privacy/terms-conditions/) and Copyright Policy (https://help.ft.com/help/legal-privacy/copyright/copyright-policy/). Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here (https://www.ft.com/tour).
https://www.ft.com/content/142b8de0-b02b-11e8-99ca-68cf89602132

Corbyn casts doubt on his ability to lead Britain

If Jeremy Corbyn were not so invested in his self-image as a life-long anti-racist campaigner, and therefore so convinced by his own sanctity, his dispute with Britain’s Jewish community would have been resolved long ago. Instead, surrounded by disciples rather than supporters, he has allowed the Labour party to be shamed by an indifference to anti-Semitism which would have staggered all his predecessors.

This week saw the Labour leader’s latest efforts to escape a mess entirely of his own making. Yet again he fluffed it. Labour’s ruling national executive committee met on Tuesday to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s full definition of anti-Semitism with all its associated examples. His allies had originally blocked moves to adopt the full text, arguing that it would restrict legitimate criticism of Israel. But after months of tension, culminating in Jews protesting over the fears Labour now evokes in their community, Mr Corbyn has been forced to give ground.The party has finally taken the obvious mainstream route by adopting the IHRA text.

This is welcome, albeit long overdue. Even so Mr Corbyn could not bring himself to do so without qualification. A rider, protecting the rights of free speech on Palestine, was added after lengthy rows in which the Labour leader tried to further water down the very examples he had agreed to. The appendix was unnecessary: there is nothing in the IHRA’s definition that curtails legitimate criticism of Israel.His approach will exacerbate the bad faith. It does not instil confidence in the new policy or the opposition leader’s commitment to policing it. Mr Corbyn has framed the debate as an attempt to undermine him for his decades-long support for the Palestinian cause. For the bulk of British Jews, it was about combating the clear and rising tide of anti-Semitism unleashed by Mr Corbyn’s accession and which he has, for too long, refused to tackle.

As an obscure backbench MP, the Labour leader marinated on the leftward fringes of British politics for over four decades. He was steeped in a world view that flirts with anti-Semitism, where criticism of international capitalism and Israel easily spills over into anti-Jewish rhetoric. He was undiscriminating in his choice of allies, too often attending events with Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites. Much of the party’s present travails stem from his own troubling past. Mr Corbyn has always argued that his motivation is to bring peace to the Middle East. But his claim to be a peacemaker rings hollow; he has consistently engaged only with one side of the debate.

More recently his own rhetoric has come back to haunt him. His remark that Zionists “don’t understand English irony” crossed a line for many, raising questions about his own ability to judge anti-Semitism.This speaks to the core of the dispute. A leader whose good faith towards the Jewish community was not in doubt would not have found himself in this position. But Mr Corbyn’s inability to see any failing on his part means there is little trust. Furthermore, his allies treat all criticism as politically motivated.

A leader intent on solving this problem would include a consultation with community leaders and an apology for his insensitive remarks. His failure to offer either leads to the suspicion that he seeks only a political fix. He has shown himself to be inflexible, doctrinaire and lacking in empathy.The issue is intertwined with Mr Corbyn’s suitability for high office. Last year’s election pointed to a mood for change in the UK. His radical policy programme spoke to that. But this row casts doubt on whether he is a suitable leader for the country. Judged on his response to the anti-Semitism crisis, the conclusion must be that he is not.