Brainwashed to dismiss anything Corbyn said.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The point around his manifesto not being radical is one that resonates strongly with me. I find myself in a position where my personal politics, it appears, is now considered extreme against the backdrop of British politics. Public ownership of essential services and redistribution of wealth were not radical concepts in my youth and I still don't see them as being so. However, it appears there's a general consensus, as witnessed in various "Libcafe" threads, that the Caf is very left wing too.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Give it to giggs till conferenceSack Starmer. Bring back Corbyn.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
He really is a top man.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
He explains that they may be able to find out who you are and expel you.Is that just an assertion from a man I don't know in Twitter or is it true? How can a political party ban their members from watching a film that isn't illegal? Or do they mean from watching it together or something?
I don't think they can literally ban people from watching it in their own homes. But if they were to share it or like it or give any indication they've watched it or attention to it on their social media then I imagine that's where the issues come in.Is that just an assertion from a man I don't know in Twitter or is it true? How can a political party ban their members from watching a film that isn't illegal? Or do they mean from watching it together or something?
Yep, nail in the labour coffin.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Time for a new party
I think he'd have a very good chance of winning. I'd be surprised to see him lose, it'll take a great labour candidate.I assume he'll stand as an independent...and may well win. Is it 40 years he's held that seat for?
Exactly what he is likely to do.I assume he'll stand as an independent...and may well win. Is it 40 years he's held that seat for?
Wankers. Impartial my fecking arse.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Damage done. feck you BBC
His lack of principles is the reason for the easy ride.The problem was that the establishment was all against Labour in general and him in particular. Starmer has cosied up to the media barons, just like Blair did, which is why he's getting a relatively easy ride up to now, despite being a political weather vane with little in the way of principles.
Alot of us liked having a left wing leader in the Labour Party.Think I'm the only lefty left on here who strongly dislikes Corbyn and is perfectly happy to see the back of him. No idea why people like or trust him.
You can have a left wing leader who's not a lunatic wanting to blow up foreign policy.Alot of us liked having a left wing leader in the Labour Party.
We don't have one at present. Can you expand on this blowing up foreign policy.You can have a left wing leader who's not a lunatic wanting to blow up foreign policy.
On Ukraine: He's been speaking on Pro Russian media criticizing Western support for Ukraine, saying that he wants to negotiate peace. Lives in fairyland on that one. Thinking that they can negotiate peace then a Russian withdrawal, and that it wouldn't empower Putin further. He's blamed the conflict on NATO since 2014, using direct Kremlin propoganda.We don't have one at present. Can you expand on this blowing up foreign policy.
What is the definition others use?Not sure your definition of left wing is necessarily the same one others use.
So basically because he wants peace instead of conflict, you think thats a problem. Great.On Ukraine: He's been speaking on Pro Russian media criticizing Western support for Ukraine, saying that he wants to negotiate peace. Lives in fairyland on that one. Thinking that they can negotiate peace then a Russian withdrawal, and that it wouldn't empower Putin further. He's blamed the conflict on NATO since 2014, using direct Kremlin propoganda.
On Kosovo: He not only decried intervention, but specifically denied the warcrimes of Slobodan and even supported Pilger in the HoC.
On Northern Ireland: He consistently supported and refused to condemn the IRA and specifically met IRA terrorists. He voted against the precursor to the GFA.
The EU: He was weak pre-referendum, and it's probably been discussed to bits but I believe he and his matey John could have done better.
On NATO: He wants it disbanded
On Aukus: He calls it 'dangerous'
On Israel: I don't even know what his 'solution' is here. He wanted a 2 state solution in 2016, a Palestinian right of return in 2018, and supports various terror and fringe groups. Not that it matters much, the UK is unimportant there
What is the definition others use?
While I think Corbyn's stances are generally very worthy and probably come from a place of some principle, I do think they're naive as was alluded to. Naivety can be just as dangerous in foreign policy as bad intentions unfortunately. You'd like to think his party and public opinion would have led to him supporting Ukraine properly if he were PM but fundamentally his stance on the war is misguided IMO.So basically because he wants peace instead of conflict, you think thats a problem. Great.
He didn't support the IRA, for fups sake. This is like the hatchet job the right wing media did on him. Take a grain of truth and spin a load of lies and exaggeration into it to make him out to be something he isn't. He's got principles that he didn't drop just because Laura Kuenssberg or Andrew Neil goaded him. You can say he should have said "Yes" when asked if he'd retaliate if we were nuked but he was making a point that nobody wins in that scenario. His stances on conflicts is always that there's negotiable settlements and that's why he votes against bombing by the likes of NATO. He then gets portrayed, not as anti-war, but rather anti-GB or anti-NATO or whatever.On Ukraine: He's been speaking on Pro Russian media criticizing Western support for Ukraine, saying that he wants to negotiate peace. Lives in fairyland on that one. Thinking that they can negotiate peace then a Russian withdrawal, and that it wouldn't empower Putin further. He's blamed the conflict on NATO since 2014, using direct Kremlin propoganda.
On Kosovo: He not only decried intervention, but specifically denied the warcrimes of Slobodan and even supported Pilger in the HoC.
On Northern Ireland: He consistently supported and refused to condemn the IRA and specifically met IRA terrorists. He voted against the precursor to the GFA.
The EU: He was weak pre-referendum, and it's probably been discussed to bits but I believe he and his matey John could have done better.
On NATO: He wants it disbanded
On Aukus: He calls it 'dangerous'
On Israel: I don't even know what his 'solution' is here. He wanted a 2 state solution in 2016, a Palestinian right of return in 2018, and supports various terror and fringe groups. Not that it matters much, the UK is unimportant there
What is the definition others use?