Too much of a peace lover? He wouldn't have gone down well with the US
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
That's probably connected to the fact that Labour are lacking detailed policies and a positive vision for the country beyond managed decline. Every time Corbyn pops up the strategists are happy as their focus groups in the Red Wall are reminded that Starmer is the opposite of Corbyn.
I mean, look at what nuclear disarmament got Ukraine. His reluctance to criticise Russian aggression would have been dangerous had he been PM.
Hamas have now also shown him up. No 2 state solution was ever possible with them and he's a fool for thinking otherwise.
It will be interesting to see if the Tory electioneers try and refer to Corbyn along the lines of Vote Starmer and get Corbynism, the tried and tested Reds Under the Bed routine. They might but I'm not sure if it would work for them or against them this time, as Labour might be happy to have their change in leadership highlighted. Then again I wouldn't have guessed Vote Labour and get Scottish Nationalists would have worked but many say it did.
I mean no two state solution would have been possible from the Israeli side either considering their inclination towards backing settler activity, and thats independent of Hamas. Does that make the UK and US' unrelenting support for Israel also foolish?
Yep very true. I think I’m just surprised they are still doing it. They really have no alternative other than decline.
Given their complete balls up of the economy, I doubt it will have the same effect, especially as the government's offering is to fight a culture war. still, like you said they shouldn't be counted out.
I can see both sides - Ukraine was always going to be in the firing line so it hasn't benefitted them at all, though maybe it's benefitted the rest of us - if both sides had nuclear weapons, who knows what would have happened. Obviously Russia might not have invaded, but we can't be sure of that. I'd be quite happy for us to become a neutral country. Sick of being involved in whatever war happens.
A 2 state solution was never happening because of the settlements. Irrespective of Hamas or Corbyn. And those settlements have been happening under the watch of multiple consecutive Labour/Tory, Democrat/Republican governments who have done nothing beyond the repetitive statements of "expressing concern"...
Genuine question (don't follow uk politics too much).
When he was going for PM, I only saw bits and pieces but he seemed like he was saying the right things but then David Cameron won.
Why did people not like this dude?
When he was going for PM, I only saw bits and pieces but he seemed like he was saying the right things but then David Cameron won.
Why did people not like this dude?
You mean borris?
He was ultra ultra left. Also said stupid shit like "our friends in Hamas". Didn't age well.
Also he has no charisma. Borris was a loveable bumbling idiot to the ageing voting oopulation in the UK.
He wasn't though, I see terms like that and 'radical' being used far too liberally, when in fact a lot of his projected policies were considered popular by the British public. What let him down were the antisemitic allegations, his supposed affinity to groups like the IRA, and he was also subjected to a vicious media hit job that's almost unprecedented in its fervour for any opposition leader. The looming Brexit situation was also an albatross that quite frankly would have doomed any Labour opposition leader.
Yeah well put, shouldn't have said ultra
If you think us giving up our nukes would amount to a similar situation as Ukraine then I want what you're smoking.
All that, but also I think our country is deeply conservative in it's character. Small c used deliberately.
The majority of our people like things to remain the same, and are not radical in nature. Cameron was a people pleaser and that's why he did well. That's why Starmer is doing well. That's why nothing will ever truly change.
He doesn’t help himself. Very simple question. Yes, Hamas are a terrorist group but…
The UK media did a monumental character assassination on him. Also he’s a man of integrity, the men behind the curtain would never let him become PM.
Exactly. Came across meek and unsure of himself. He might be morally better than most politicians but if you're getting bullied by piers fecking Morgan, it's time to step up your game.
This is broadly true I think, but strangely the Conservative governments of late have not been conservative with a small c in practice. They may be perceived so, but the level of change to the status quo and the institutions of this country have been profound.
The IRA were 'terrorists', the Suffragetes were 'terrorists'. It shouldn't be too hard to understand why people would be reluctant to call them that though and trivialise the issue.
It's what the media has done to Corbyn for the last 8 years, just dumb, clickbait style questions with no room for any nuance or reasonable discussion.
It's what the media has done to Corbyn for the last 8 years, just dumb, clickbait style questions with no room for any nuance or reasonable discussion.
That's because the last two leaders weren't even properly elected, they had no mandate from the population to proceed how they have.
Cameron / Boris / May all won elections. Cameron appealed due to being statesmanlike and a clean, safe option. Boris and May because they were up against a genuine radical. Boris also held mass appeal due to his 'relatability'. That relatability masked a lot of his true intentions and hard right views.
Our last two Prime Ministers weren't even elected, and Rishi will get trounced in the next election because the tories have exposed themselves for who they truly are these past few years rather than playing it safe like Cameron.
If he says yes to the terrorist thing, then the next point for morgan is to say 'you don;t negotiate with terrorists'
So a call for a ceasefire is then described as negotiating with terrorists.
I would have thought that even the most outraged would not be so silly as to think morgan was ever aguing in good faith. About anything.
So a call for a ceasefire is then described as negotiating with terrorists.
I would have thought that even the most outraged would not be so silly as to think morgan was ever aguing in good faith. About anything.
No room if you can't get past the first question asked.
Not really. We saw this playing out with that Egyptian John Steward fella, and it went pretty good. It shouldn't be hard to call Hamas a terrorist organization while at the same time being completely against what Israel is doing.
It was a very simple question to answer. His friend did that quite easily and was not pressed into 'you do not negotiate with terrorists'.
I don't think you can keep saying that after he took Putin's money and went on Russia Today.
How much Russian money do you think has infiltrated Keir's Labour and BoJo's Tories?
He had a stab at it in 2017 and did well, with huge momentum behind and chants of "Oh Jeremy Corbyn", then his lack of charisma, issues with his background associations, stubbornness, and easy targeting by the media (terrorist sympathizer/anti-semitic) made it impossible for him to win. He went to the ballot again and basically gifted the election and a massive majority to that spoilt jar of mayonnaise, Johnson.
The more I see of Corbyn, the more I swear someone needs to push him way at the back of the bus by Labour. That interview with Piers Morgan was pathetic when everyone and the dog know that you have to fight fire with fire against Piers.
That sure makes me appreciate Bernie Sanders a hell lot more on this side of the pond, even at age 82 (damn, time flies!).
It was, but it was also enough for the media and his opponents to cling to, and it stuck.
God I just saw his interview with Piers Morgan. Blimey.
He also had internal sabotage from the centre/right in the party.
He's no longer part of the Labour Party.
Oh, I must have been out of touch with his case for a very long time then.
Peace lover? Back in the day, peace lovers in favour of a united ireland supported the SDLP not Sinn Fein since they advocated peaceful change. Peace lovers are honest brokers and talk to both sides, trying to find common ground. What consistent record has Corbyn got of doing that? His reputation in some quarters far far exceeds his accomplishments in this area.
Last edited:
In my opinion, Bernie is without question the only politician I have ever truly believed in in my entire life. Sadly America was never ready for him and the corporate Democratic engine ultimately conspired against him to stop him getting to the White House.
Given the absolutely batshit way US politics work it's a big probability that he wouldn't have been able to achieve everything he wanted anyway. But just imagine he was allowed and did... I think even after heavy resistance that ultimately the vast majority would come round and I think he would have made a marked difference to make America better. It's just so fecking sad he wasn't given the chance.
I've always said I wished he was British so he could have ran for PM here. Sadly we just have Starmer who is definitely Tony Blair lite and yet another posing people pleaser and I'd gladly swap him for Bernie every day of the week.
Can’t we just let Corbyn die (not literally)? Why does he have to be dragged out again, it’s hardly relevant anymore. Maybe after the next GE we’ll stop going back to his weaknesses
He's a still a totem for many on the left, unfortunately. Half of the rancor in the starmer thread is because starmer isnt more like Corbyn.
I dont think he 'supported' Sinn Fein as much as recognised the need to engage with them and the Provos.
And didnt the Queen and/or Charles meet Gerry Adams?
Saw his interview with Piers. Wow. 
What a chaotic conversation that was.
What a chaotic conversation that was.