The ones on offer were shit though. I'd rather lose an election under Corbyn than lose under a watered down version of Cameron with no spine and less charisma.
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.
The Telegraph headline is a joke, probably the worst of them all as far as I'm concerned, because it tries to imply that Queen = Country. No it fecking doesn't. The sooner we get rid of this old fashioned shite and start seeing our country as more than just the possession of one family then the better we will all be. Then people can chose whether or not to "serve" the monarchy rather than being forced and bullied into it by royalists.
There is an argument that due to the origins of The Labour Party they should actually have a leader who first and foremost believes in some of the important things that are in line with the core principles of that Party. Most people believe that In Corbyn they now for the first time in about 15 or so years have a leader who does.
Also you could form an argument that due to things like social media (which is overall a very left leaning forum) and the fact that we have now entered a period where people are now more aware than ever about the levels of economic inequality between ordinary working people and the top 1%, that what people view as an un-electable leader in terms of beliefs is actually outdated and people are now more focused on what a leader can do for them on a much more personal level and less on the kind of B.S. criteria that used to be looked at in so much detail.
Eye catching and well thought out ideas that would help with wealth redistribution would IMO at least earn him a greater share of the public vote than David Milliband got during the last election.
It all depends for me whether he can actually get his message to reach the poorer majority in this country, whilst avoiding the B.S. traps that are set for him, evidence of which you can already see with the newspaper headline posted recently.
Last edited:
Well, yes if accept going to lose then yes but i don't accept that.
What lost the last election was the labour party's sheer arrogance that they knew best and wouldnt conform to the views that most people hold. After an embarrassing loss, instead of understanding that most people in this country are centre left and slightly to the right of where labour were, they just thought they needed to go further left!
The public are looking for someone other than the current tory govt to vote for. Labour have just elected someone that will take them further away from that
Exactly. Corbyn, as an atheist republican, probably doesn't particularly care about 'saving the queen' and is unlikely to want an imaginary sky man to do it either.
Surely the debate should be about how woefully out of touch the national anthem is with the nations sensibilities when half don't believe in the first institution in the line 'God save the Queen' and a further quarter don't believe in the second, either.
The debate is whether the opposition should just act to get in power or represent a genuine alternative and let the public decide on whether that alternative is worth trying. After seeing the sheer apathy towards the last election, I think we should give the latter a go.
Random unimportant question: If we ever did get rid of the monarchy, would the name of the country have to change? United Republic? That would be my only opposition to republicanism if so, sounds like a boy band not a country...
This.
The media reporting has been digusting. If the left tried to hijack the commemoration to attack David Cameron there'd be a national outcry from the very papers who're now hijacking the commemoration to attack Corbyn.
This is probably another topic for another thread, but I completely agree with you. I'm not against the monarchy, but I refuse to be told what I should and should not say about it by some old guy sitting in the editor's chair at a newspaper owned by people who love their country sooooo much that they don't pay their taxes here. It's typical elitist behaviour to try and dictate to others what they should and should not do based in your own ideals.
fecking Louise Mensch having a go at him for it when she's wanted to officially declare allegiance to the USA, which includes her having to say:
Hippos gonna crit.
What an absolute spanner. Yet no one will report hypocrisy like this and instead focus on Corbyn holding two lunch bags, which obviously he was going to eat by himself as he cackled loudly in between bites thinking about how some veteran would be starving and crying over his stolen sandwich.I think these real questions from people has worked very well... it's put Corbyn on a very solid footing, Cameron can't slag the questions because they're from voters.
Edit: George Osborne's face
Edit: George Osborne's face
My Jeremy is not a Communist. He may be a traitor, a thief, an idiot, a Communist...but he is NOT a porn star.
Corbyn as really wrong footed parliament with his style of questioning.
Especially since Cameron can't very well pull out the 'under Labour things were worse' line at Corbyn, who played no part in it. Miliband, as someone who served in the Treasury under Brown, was very very easy to hit with the economy argument.
I'm not sure laughing at the fact that Corbyn's giving people a voice in PMQ's is a particularly good sign from our representatives.
Historically, yes, but nowadays thanks to the prevalence of social media, the media are seen as a marginalised entity not necessarily synonymous with public opinion.
Corbyn's own election was testament to that - despite the hounding and fear-mongering from the media (including The Guardian!), the voting base had defied them and opted to elect him with an enormous mandate. If anything, the papers' smearing had only propelled him further to the leadership.
And there you have it, that question on Northern Ireland cuts right through all of the gimmicks from Corbyn.
MPs have been putting questions on behalf of their constituents for hundreds of years, what we've seen today was different only in appearance. What do you imagine has been the motivation of opposition leaders, if not attempting to ask the questions that voters wish for for answers on?
So even as Labour leader, he's going to continue to disassociate himself from his own party whenever he feels like it? I'm not sure that's gonna work.
Last edited:
I suppose you can see whatever you want to see. After what Corbyn brought (real questions from real people or 'a gimmick' as you put it), an ad hominem attack (however valid the criticism) against a member of the shadow cabinet was a little jarring.
Cameron's line for the last five years has been 'this thing Gordon Brown did was bad and Ed Miliband was involved in it'. He can't do the same with Corbyn. It's nothing to do with 'distancing himself from the party'.
Very interesting change of pace to the process - quite a bit long-winded, and if he intends to keep this approach going then he really needs to work-in a way to follow-up the answers from Cameron, but for a first go at such a big change then there's potential here to bring something new to the circus.
Why is there such overwhelming evidence, then, that so many members of the public feel alienated from what they've seen at PMQs?
Corbyn has, effectively, been proven right retrospectively on many of the major issues he rebelled against former party leadership on.
He would consider that he stayed true to his, and what he'd argue were also Labour's, true ideals. I think he'd say the party 'disassociated' itself from it's ideals, not him. If that is now to his enormous political advantage, why shouldn't he gain from it?
Which is not the revolution it is being portrayed as. I just heard someone claim there there is "huge" disquiet amongst the British public about the conduct of PMQs, when in reality it is the haunt of political animals.
PMQs is a high profile occasion, the appointment of McDonnell is a controversial decision for which Corbyn is responsible.
Definitely. He needs to start landing blows, especially in the inevitable situations where a question from the public (as opposed to the point-scoring questions that PMQs has become characterised by) catches Cameron off guard. Good first showing though, he's shown himself capable of setting the agenda from opposition.
edit - as someone on twitter just said 'His style will evolve. His approach will not. And the approach is bloody brilliant.'
It was good in the sense that it seems to have calmed some of the hysteria and got people talking about how he's doing things differently but he will need to pin Cameron down on at least something in the next round.
It's relevant when considering that Stormont is currently in crisis due to arrests relating to possible IRA murders. It's going to be brought up a lot so we should probably get used to it. Speaking of McDonnell, I couldn't see him on the front bench anywhere? Wonder if they kept him away so there wasn't that distraction.
As to PMQs, there were two sides - first, Corbyn's demeanour itself was very good, and asking questions from the public does largely prevent Cameron bringing out Flashman. In that sense, it's a very good defensive tactic that got him through the session without getting attacked himself. Cameron actually answers the questions and it's generally quite a pleasant affair. However that brings us on to the second point, which is that it's Cameron that's supposed to be under pressure from attack, not Corbyn. He found it staggeringly easy today. He could just trot out stuff on the improving economy, mention that Labour will spend unlimited amounts on benefits and give away our nukes. The questions were all worthy of being asked, but they didn't pin him down on any area that the government might find awkward or embarrassing, or that he didn't know the answer to.
My fear is that, unfortunately, he may not have long in the job. He needs to land real blows on Cameron and the Conservatives, and land them fast.
I hope Corbyn sees it as a long-term strategy whereby he will increase the pressure on Cameron in subsequent PMQs but having ensured initial discussion is centred around "doing things differently". I believe a lot of people tuned in today who have never done so before (certainly a couple at my place of work).
Rumours that he will now sing the National Anthem from now on.I really hope he it's not true.
Nope.
Not in the slightest, when members of my family or my friends have needed help, ive helped them (at great personal expense ane sacrifice on two occasions, on one occasion i nearly bankrupted myself to do so) complete strangers problems are not my concern.
well I'm glad other people have more of a social conscience than you. sometimes the people in need don't have friends and family to bail them out, and I'd like to think living in a civilised society, they shouldn't have to rely on them.
Not sure any Labour government is ever going to appeal to you then. In which case further alienating you is no big loss for Corbyn. I think his target audience is people that experience empathy for strangers.
The behaviour of MP's from all parties has at times been disgraceful and anything that can actually stop the tit for tat point scoring in favour of asking and answering real questions can only be a good thing. Whether Corbyn's tactic can do that long term remains to be seen but at least he gave it a go.
As for Corbyn not singing the national anthem I couldn't care less. If he did it would make him a hypocrite, so what's the point. However I do think the line 'he stood in respectful silence' was a bit weak....sure he stood up but I doubt there was any respect involved. I'd have respected him if he was honest and gave the real reason he didn't sing it.
As for Corbyn not singing the national anthem I couldn't care less. If he did it would make him a hypocrite, so what's the point. However I do think the line 'he stood in respectful silence' was a bit weak....sure he stood up but I doubt there was any respect involved. I'd have respected him if he was honest and gave the real reason he didn't sing it.
New leader always gets more people interested but it does tend to fade away when the novelty wears off. Doesn't help that doing it differently is monumentally dull, and it's far more entertaining and watchable (in relative terms anyway) when there's a lot of shouting and bad jokes. Then there's the matter of when he's stating the number of people providing questions, that number is going to drop significantly too, so he'll either have to stop saying it or be open to the comment that people stopped caring. He could do as people mentioned earlier and open the topic with something from the public and then have a written follow up to tie Cameron down, but that potentially allows Cameron the room to be a dick again. Either way, wasn't a bad performance today at all.
You do need to combine that with telling people what you'd do for them individually too, though. Dunno if anybody watched Newsnight yesterday but they were talking to people in Hartlepool, a northern heartland that you'd think would be Corbyn country, and what didn't they like about him? He'll make it too easy for people to live on benefits and let too many immigrants in.
Dont give me that social conscience bullshit, I dont work for your benefit, for next doors benefit, or for Gladys down the road benefit.
Ive lived on nothing in the past, a lot less than a lot of people claiming poverty today, it sucked, boy did it suck.
Not eating 2 or 3 days a week, not able to run the car, buy clothes, or replace things that broke.
It was our problem, not yours, or anyone elses.
All of the negative comments from within Labor really havent helped Corbyn and the way he will be portrayed. He has effectively been set up for failure from the outset.
Not sure i agree with many of his policies but it is good to see a proper grass roots politician rather than another Eton/Oxbridge product.
Not sure i agree with many of his policies but it is good to see a proper grass roots politician rather than another Eton/Oxbridge product.
it's a strange kinda dynamic of supporters. the wave of popularity that has taken Corbyn to the leadership are not the people who stick to the 'immigrants are gonna take over the country' BS. labour has lost these traditional supporters because those supporters have moved more right wing (hence UKIP), and I don't think they're going to be rescued by a very left party. no chance. labour has a better chance of swinging the centre votes who feel the tories are taking things too far.