As far as I recall, he very rarely came across as unsure of himself, he just had nuanced views rather than sound bites.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
He's not even a labour member, what are you on about?
I agree with this - he know what he wants to say, but why would Piers want to have a constructive debate? A slanging match with a name like JC will get him lots of media noise.
It was such a childish interview.Saw his interview with Piers. Wow.What a chaotic conversation that was.
"IT'S MY SHOW!!!"
"STOP BULLYING US!"
"THERE'S TWO OF YOU!"
Nobody in the media wants a constructive debate. It's all about sound bites and headlines and "DESTROYING" others.
I love how there is all this furore about the ceasefire vote amongst the political class. It is as if they are trying to convince themselves that the UK is not utterly irrelevant in this matter.
Britain literally created Israel.
Who advised him that signing up for that interview was a good idea? It was only ever going to end up as a car crash with all three of those in a room.
I get your point, but now that Belgium and France are also calling for a ceasefire, the rest of Europe can apply some pressure even if they're pretty impotent geo-politically.
It's too late, no vote is going to save Gaza or protest in the UK going to do anything
So we do nothing? Is that your solution?
This is like saying there's no point in screaming whilst being stabbed to death.
He chose to go on the show. Piers Morgan didn't act in a way that was out of character at all.
And a lot has happened between 1948 and now to British power and influence.
Given that Israel exists based on the notion that it's their homeland because some Jewish lads were there 3000 years ago, I think history should mean at least something.
Over simplistic, and completely irrelevant to today's world even if that were true
Yep that's true.
All the objections are for domestic consumption and who can appeal to the Islamophobic voter the most. I just cannot stand the hypocrisy of those politicians who somehow think calling for a ceasefire undermines Britain's standing and makes us a less serious actor. Brexit took care of that.
Sure. We could also talk about the Romans suppressing the Jewish rebellion in the first century. Italy probably has as much influence as we do in 2023.
Britain has more sway than you guys are suggesting.
Not true at all. Britain are far more relevant on the international stage.
As a nation that provides arms we probably have some leverage, but I'm sure the US undercuts some of that.
UN veto and permanent security council membership etc helps but realistically we're not a big swinging dick like we were in 1920, or like the US are now.
So we should do nothing? We should say nothing?
Just to clarify, even if we can do nothing really, I think it's important we call out injustice.
For no particular reason...is he a Russian shill? If so, does he know it or is he still just banging the peace and love drum?
And if he is a Russian shill, was he when he was leader of the Labour party or has he been "radicalised" afterwards?
I really like the bloke but some of his foreign policy positions are indefensible to me, interested to know what people think.
And if he is a Russian shill, was he when he was leader of the Labour party or has he been "radicalised" afterwards?
I really like the bloke but some of his foreign policy positions are indefensible to me, interested to know what people think.
I always find it peculiar when these accusations come up, especially when it's the Tories who have taken sizeable donations from the Russians and how the Tory right like to cosy up with Trump, a bonafide Russian shill.
Which one of his foreign policy positions do you find bizarre?
He refused to condemn Hamas, said we shouldn't give weapons to Ukraine and I seem to remember appeared on Russia Today? I didn't say the Tories weren't Russian shills, I'd quite happily drop them all out of a plane. It doesn't mean Corbyn is above reproach.
He did describe Hamas as a terror group. If you're referring to the Piers Morgan interview, he did do so but in a very nuanced way which probably did him no favours considering Morgan deliberately laid a trap out for him from the onset and he walked straight into it.
As for Ukraine, well Corbyn has famously always been a pacifist, so I'd argue he was consistent with his principles in not wanting to provide weapons or being involved in a war, indirectly or otherwise. He's also been vocal about not giving the Saudis weapons to carry out their brutal onslaught in Yemen. You could consider that an unfortunate stance but I don't think that necessarily makes him a Russian shill. And he goes on RT I suspect because they're the only ones willing to give him a platform, it's not like he's gotten particularly fair treatment from this country's media who have done a hatchet job on him the moment he reached a position of prominence.
Don't disagree with any of what you're saying but to have reached the age he has and had the career in politics that he has without realising that there are occasional just wars is odd to me. Letting aggression pass unchecked can be wise up to a point, but Ukraine is long past that point I think. Him being hoodwinked by the Russians and to some degree parroting their viewpoint is just so daft to me, makes me wonder whether there really is anything more to the story or whether he is that naive.
He might be a pacifist but if we werent to give Ukraine a means to protect themselves it would be Gaza all over again just closer to home, so you can argue it from his own ideology he would be ok with seeing Russia rampage through Ukraine unchecked.
Well for starters the UK isn't providing arms or unilateral support for Russia like they are with Israel, so there's hardly a need for dissent there. Corbyn hasn't endorsed the Russian offensive either.
So how would he have "helped" Ukraine?
If you're suggesting the only means to help Ukraine is to provide weapons to prolong a war then again it violates his own pacifist principles. You might disagree with it but it doesn't make him a hypocrite nor necessarily a shill either. By the same token he's not suggested arming Hamas either.
I'm not suggesting anything. Since it violates his pacifist principles, how would he have helped Ukraine at the start of the invasion?
From what I understand, his whole stance was the conflict could have been prevented or de-escalated with diplomacy, and post-invasion he advocated sending more humanitarian aid and for the UK to take in more Ukrainian refugees.
Sounds noble but if all countries, including the US, had adopted that policy with no weapon aid, then Ukraine would have been toast eventually.
I'm not saying I necessarily disagree, rather it hardly makes Corbyn a hypocrite or a shill. The same people who are accusing him of such are often begging to provide more arms to the Ukraine while cheerleading Israel's own brutal near-genocidal campaign in Gaza, the humanitarian cost of which is looking to completely dwarf that of Ukraine.