I really hate this whole 'unelectable' thing being thrown around..

[JoshBB]

like, I've seen so many people say 'I like him but hes unelectable!' it's unreal.

Makes you wonder, is he really unelectable? Maybe if people stopped throwing that around the misperception generated by the media would die down a bit and we could have an honest and principled leader for once.

[Ashley.]

if he was unelectable

then how did people vote to elect him

:o

something to consider.

[arista]

like, I've seen so many people say 'I like him but hes unelectable!' it's unreal.

Makes you wonder, is he really unelectable? Maybe if people stopped throwing that around the misperception generated by the media would die down a bit and we could have an honest and principled leader for once.


Ignore It

Its far to Early

A Broad Range must be brought forward
for 2020

[bots]

its not far to early to tell, he is unelectable, and i don't like him at all

[Jack_]

At this point in time, I too consider him unelectable. However, five years is a very long time in politics (a lot can change in a week let alone that long) and given the chance to build upon the movement he has already established, there is every chance that at long last he can shift the political direction and appetite towards true socialist, left wing ideals and policies. Rather than seeking divide and rule answers in parties like UKIP that blame immigrants, those on welfare and Europe for societal issues, he can hopefully address people's very real and very important concerns with other ideas regarding social housing, anti-austerity, tax avoidance, the list goes on.

It will not be easy, and he is going to face a barrage of abuse and smearing from the right wing press that has already begun, plus too a fear mongering narrative of economic and defence insecurity from the Conservatives that will be peddled day in, day out throughout his tenure, but I believe it can potentially be done, he just needs to address the issues that are important to the electorate whether we like it or not with alternative visions that don't revolve around blaming and shaming certain groups of people. Concrete policies that are attractive to working class and middle income people, and small business owners, rebutting the idea that Labour's economic management is unstable and pointing out that the Tories backed their spending plans pound for pound until 2008. If he and the rest of the party members can join together to create workable policies that address the mood of the electorate and offer a viable alternative and point out the flaws of the Tories, all whilst refraining from mud slinging, abuse and theatrical politics inside the commons, he may just be able to show Cameron and co up for what they are.

If an election were called now, he would lose catastrophically because Britain is a society that rests in the centre ground/ever so slightly to the right. But the reason I voted for him and the reason why I'm so excited and delighted at his victory is that at last genuine socialist, left of centre politics are about to be given a national platform for the first time in a very long time. Even if Corbyn steps down or is outsted before the next election, which at present I also think is a possibility, the hope is that Labour will learn that their traditional values is what they need to stick with. That is what the resounding message from their members and supporters is, and the career politicians who are dissenting at the moment need to either put up or get out. If people want the Tories, they can vote for the Tories. An opposition that is a watered down version of the party in government is not good for democracy, it disillusions thousands of people, makes politics and politicians look 'all the same' and is ultimately pointless.

[Livia]

if he was unelectable

then how did people vote to elect him

:o

something to consider.

Because the people who elected him leader are all paid up members of the Labour party. People voting in a general election... aren't.

[smudgie]

At this point in time, I too consider him unelectable. However, five years is a very long time in politics (a lot can change in a week let alone that long) and given the chance to build upon the movement he has already established, there is every chance that at long last he can shift the political direction and appetite towards true socialist, left wing ideals and policies. Rather than seeking divide and rule answers in parties like UKIP that blame immigrants, those on welfare and Europe for societal issues, he can hopefully address people's very real and very important concerns with other ideas regarding social housing, anti-austerity, tax avoidance, the list goes on.

It will not be easy, and he is going to face a barrage of abuse and smearing from the right wing press that has already begun, plus too a fear mongering narrative of economic and defence insecurity from the Conservatives that will be peddled day in, day out throughout his tenure, but I believe it can potentially be done, he just needs to address the issues that are important to the electorate whether we like it or not with alternative visions that don't revolve around blaming and shaming certain groups of people. Concrete policies that are attractive to working class and middle income people, and small business owners, rebutting the idea that Labour's economic management is unstable and pointing out that the Tories backed their spending plans pound for pound until 2008. If he and the rest of the party members can join together to create workable policies that address the mood of the electorate and offer a viable alternative and point out the flaws of the Tories, all whilst refraining from mud slinging, abuse and theatrical politics inside the commons, he may just be able to show Cameron and co up for what they are.

If an election were called now, he would lose catastrophically because Britain is a society that rests in the centre ground/ever so slightly to the right. But the reason I voted for him and the reason why I'm so excited and delighted at his victory is that at last genuine socialist, left of centre politics are about to be given a national platform for the first time in a very long time. Even if Corbyn steps down or is outsted before the next election, which at present I also think is a possibility, the hope is that Labour will learn that their traditional values is what they need to stick with. That is what the resounding message from their members and supporters is, and the career politicians who are dissenting at the moment need to either put up or get out. If people want the Tories, they can vote for the Tories. An opposition that is a watered down version of the party in government is not good for democracy, it disillusions thousands of people, makes politics and politicians look 'all the same' and is ultimately pointless.

Great post Jack.
We really do need different parties that have different opinions and ideas.
I am all for old style Labour Party, not too far left but left enough to be an alternative to the Tory right.
We appear to have lost the lLib/Dems for now so no middle ground either.

[user104658]

It really all hinges on how successful the Tories are over the next 5 years, to be honest. If things actually improve in our society due to Tory policies, or if things stay pretty much the same / only get a bit worse and the Tories manage to spin-spin-spin-spin it into positives like they somehow did this year, then yes he is unelectable.

If Tory cuts and austerity policies are proven to be an absolute disaster and they don't manage to successfully cover up the damage they've done, then no, he is not unelectable. I honestly feel that if, after 10 years in government, the Tories haven't proven the worth of their economic policy to the extent that the country / towns / lives start to improve, then people will be ready for a change.

Of course, like I said, the probable outcome is that nothing at all will get any better but the Tory press will once again employ a 6 month campaign of smoke, mirrors and figure-fiddling to make it look like things are super awesome :joker:.

[Tom4784]

If he was unelectable I doubt the Tories would have felt the need to create and release those attack vids.

[Shaun]

The whole concept of 'electable' irks me - it just plays into the hands of the bland, policy-less Blair clone that the media are desperate to whittle anyone down to.

**** image. **** winning over idiot middle ground voters. The fact he stands for something is enough to put him leagues ahead of the rest.

[MTVN]

Well he's already refusing to engage with the media and his shadow cabinet appointment has been chaotic so its not a good start. The unelectable thing is not purely media scaremongering, it's based on - amongst other things - his inexperience, the fact the vast majority of the PLP disagrees with him, his controversial views particularly over foreign policy, the history of the left in the last few decades etc.

The flip side of this is of course that if we rewind to June there is not a single person who would have predicted the outcome of the leadership election that we got, least of all Corbyn himself. So yes, if our predictions can be turned upside down in just a couple of months then there is no point making cast iron forecasts about the election that is nearly five years away. We are just going to have to wait and see.

[kirklancaster]

When 'The Media' report something which Tibbie Lefties agree with it is 'Genuine Reportage', but when 'The Media' report something which Tibbie Lefties do not agree with, it is 'Media Scaremongering/Manipulation or Character Assasssination/Lies.... Yawn, zzzzz. :sleep:

No one - Journalist or other - has invented Corbyn's controversial statements on terrorist organisations past and present, or paid look-alikes to fake his meetings and dealings with these 'enemies of the UK', and his words and deeds thus far concerning these terrorists borders on treason.

The above is fact - like it or not - and yet this 'virtual' fifth columnist is now leader of the Labour Party and a contender for the most powerful political office in the UK.

Corbyn supporters have a very real problem when it comes to crowing about him winning future power and forming the first Labour Government since 2010, because in order for this to be achieved, one of two momentous 'sea changes' will HAVE to occur;

1) The Labour Party will have to convince the great majority of the British public that by some 'miraculous epiphany', Corbyn has completely changed nearly all his views - particularly his anti-patriotic (treasonous) views on Foreign Policy.

Alas, up to now Corbyn - having only been elected for a few days - has attended a 'Welcome Refugee' rally and did not sing our National Anthem during a WW2 Memorial Service for our fallen heroes. Hardly a great start.

2) By some greater miracle, the Labour Party will have to change the mindset of the great majority of the British Public who currently number IS and other terror organisations, and unfettered Immigration as their greatest concerns.

With a world increasingly fractured by bloodletting, chaos and destruction at the hands of IS, and an ever swelling sea of legitimate refugeees requiring entry into the economically fragile UK, along with hundreds of thousands of 'economic' illegal immigrants demanding entry, changing the mindset of the great majority of the British Public and allaying their fears will be difficult - if not impossible.

I do not worry about Corbyn for I believe that this man - like ALL political extremists, cloaked or otherwise - will continue arrogantly to comit one 'faux pas' after another over the coming months, and his '15 minutes of fame' will be short-lived.

[user104658]

Hmmmm... When was the last time the mainstream media reported anything that wasn't heavily right-biased? :shrug:. Regardless, if I'm being lumped in with those who "call things I agree with genuine reportage", I'd challenge you to find one example of me insisting this.

The media / press is trash. It's trash whether it's slamming Miliband / Corbyn, Farage, or any of the Tory ghouls. It's just a fact that it tends not to ever do the last of those. But I can assure you I'm 100% equal opportunities when it comes to my disdain for the idiotic, sneering old foghorn of British "reportage" on every single topic.


The only other thing I'll pick up on, is the "national" anthem and refusal to sing it being somehow anti-patriotic. You can love this country and believe it shouldn't have a monarchy. No, more than that, you can believe that the monarchy should be dismantled BECAUSE you love this country. He's not refusing to sing the song because it's the national anthem, he's refusing to sing it for the same reason that I wouldn't sing it: because he doesn't want to sing a song of worship for a bunch of elitist, murderous villains.

[Mystic Mock]

The whole concept of 'electable' irks me - it just plays into the hands of the bland, policy-less Blair clone that the media are desperate to whittle anyone down to.

**** image. **** winning over idiot middle ground voters. The fact he stands for something is enough to put him leagues ahead of the rest.

That's why I thought that Ed Milliband was good because he actually had policies (even if he didn't put them across brilliantly) I could understand what he was trying to say.

Every other democratic country has opposition values to the main party in their country, yet in the UK we all have to be Tory lite to be able to get anywhere because the Media won't accept anything else, it's a disgrace.

[kirklancaster]

Hmmmm... When was the last time the mainstream media reported anything that wasn't heavily right-biased? :shrug:. Regardless, if I'm being lumped in with those who "call things I agree with genuine reportage", I'd challenge you to find one example of me insisting this.

The media / press is trash. It's trash whether it's slamming Miliband / Corbyn, Farage, or any of the Tory ghouls. It's just a fact that it tends not to ever do the last of those. But I can assure you I'm 100% equal opportunities when it comes to my disdain for the idiotic, sneering old foghorn of British "reportage" on every single topic.


The only other thing I'll pick up on, is the "national" anthem and refusal to sing it being somehow anti-patriotic. You can love this country and believe it shouldn't have a monarchy. No, more than that, you can believe that the monarchy should be dismantled BECAUSE you love this country. He's not refusing to sing the song because it's the national anthem, he's refusing to sing it for the same reason that I wouldn't sing it: because he doesn't want to sing a song of worship for a bunch of elitist, murderous villains.

"I'd challenge you to find one example of me insisting this" - Your post confuses me somewhat; where did I mention you personally?

"The media / press is trash. It's trash whether it's slamming Miliband / Corbyn, Farage, or any of the Tory ghouls. It's just a fact that it tends not to ever do the last of those." -- LOL :laugh: What planet are you on? Farage has been villified and crucified in the press.

"The only other thing I'll pick up on, is the "national" anthem and refusal to sing it being somehow anti-patriotic." -- Under the Constitutional Laws of this country, The Queen is the Head of State, and Corbyn is now Leader of The Labour Party - one of Her Majesy's two main political parties. As such he has a PUBLIC DUTY to follow lawful protocol and procedure in a STATESMANLIKE manner. Singing our National Anthem at 'THE' Memorial Service to our fallen heroes is part of that protocol and this treasonous pig should have complied.

By NOT singing our National anthem at such a public place on such an emotional occasion, Corbyn is arrogantly 'cocking' yet another 'snook' at the UK and it's people, but that's fine, because it is yet one more 'faux pas' that this terrorist-loving, anti-British, anti-Democratic extremist has made, and his arrogant lack of moderation will be his undoing.

[bots]

That's why I thought that Ed Milliband was good because he actually had policies (even if he didn't put them across brilliantly) I could understand what he was trying to say.

Every other democratic country has opposition values to the main party in their country, yet in the UK we all have to be Tory lite to be able to get anywhere because the Media won't accept anything else, it's a disgrace.

That just plain wrong. The political balance of a country is generally proportional to its peoples wealth. As the general wealth of the UK people has increased since the second world war, the need and desire for left wing politics has diminished. It no longer serves the needs of the majority of the population. The press simply reflects the consensus of the people at the time.

[kirklancaster]

That just plain wrong. The political balance of a country is generally proportional to its peoples wealth. As the general wealth of the UK people has increased since the second world war, the need and desire for left wing politics has diminished. It no longer serves the needs of the majority of the population. The press simply reflects the consensus of the people at the time.

Another good post - excellent points.

[user104658]

"I'd challenge you to find one example of me insisting this" - Your post confuses me somewhat; where did I mention you personally?

"The media / press is trash. It's trash whether it's slamming Miliband / Corbyn, Farage, or any of the Tory ghouls. It's just a fact that it tends not to ever do the last of those." -- LOL [emoji23] What planet are you on? Farage has been villified and crucified in the press.

I naturally assume you include me in it because I have a large ego. Deal with it.

And Yes kirk I was saying it's always trash, whether it's Farage, Corbyn or Simon Cowell... I was acknowledging that Farage gets plenty of it. Just because my own opinions of the man are not good (because of his policies and manner, not because of the press) doesn't mean I don't know when the press is jabbering ****.

Though the focus now seems to have switched to Corbyn in general.

"The only other thing I'll pick up on, is the "national" anthem and refusal to sing it being somehow anti-patriotic." -- Under the Constitutional Laws of this country, The Queen is the Head of State, and Corbyn is now Leader of The Labour Party - one of Her Majesy's two main political parties. As such he has a PUBLIC DUTY to follow lawful protocol and procedure in a STATESMANLIKE manner. Singing our National Anthem at 'THE' Memorial Service to our fallen heroes is part of that protocol and this treasonous pig should have complied.

By NOT singing our National anthem at such a public place on such an emotional occasion, Corbyn is arrogantly 'cocking' yet another 'snook' at the UK and it's people, but that's fine, because it is yet one more 'faux pas' that this terrorist-loving, anti-British, anti-Democratic extremist has made, and his arrogant lack of moderation will be his undoing.

Now see, this I just can't get on board with. It's a political catch 22... A monarchy monopoly. Essentially it's saying that you can't be properly engaged in UK politics if you refuse to acknowledge the monarchy as a valid political system. And so if you believe there shouldn't be one? Tough. Because then you're not a proper politician and so will never be in a position to try to change it. No. It's 2015 and major political factions should be able to (and just SHOULD, in my opinion) openly reject the monarchy.

I mean just look at the national anthem if you want to know why I will never sing it. It's about precisely three things. Elitism, War-mongering, and a fictional man in the sky. Not for me, thanks, not any of it. I get that some people love the cuddly old Queen, are "proud" of our country's history as bloodthirsty conquerors, and believe in said men in the sky... And that's fine... But kindly don't force your prayers upon others with the caveat that they're "treasonous" or "anti-patriotic" if they won't comply.

[bots]

Now see, this I just can't get on board with. It's a political catch 22... A monarchy monopoly. Essentially it's saying that you can't be properly engaged in UK politics if you refuse to acknowledge the monarchy as a valid political system. And so if you believe there shouldn't be one? Tough. Because then you're not a proper politician and so will never be in a position to try to change it. No. It's 2015 and major political factions should be able to (and just SHOULD, in my opinion) openly reject the monarchy.



Can't agree with this. At the present time, the UK constitution is based around a monarchy. The queen opens parliament. The leader of the governing party goes to see the queen prior to starting government and resigns to the queen when finishing.

Every country has an anthem. It is a song to celebrate the nation. I am not a royalist, I will be much happier when we become a republic, but until that time, that is the fundamental basis of our constitution. Corbyn's refusal to sing the anthem is him sticking 2 fingers up at the people of this country, as it is THEIR constitution until THEY decide its time for change.

[kirklancaster]

I naturally assume you include me in it because I have a large ego. Deal with it.

And Yes kirk I was saying it's always trash, whether it's Farage, Corbyn or Simon Cowell... I was acknowledging that Farage gets plenty of it. Just because my own opinions of the man are not good (because of his policies and manner, not because of the press) doesn't mean I don't know when the press is jabbering ****.

Though the focus now seems to have switched to Corbyn in general.



Now see, this I just can't get on board with. It's a political catch 22... A monarchy monopoly. Essentially it's saying that you can't be properly engaged in UK politics if you refuse to acknowledge the monarchy as a valid political system. And so if you believe there shouldn't be one? Tough. Because then you're not a proper politician and so will never be in a position to try to change it. No. It's 2015 and major political factions should be able to (and just SHOULD, in my opinion) openly reject the monarchy.

I mean just look at the national anthem if you want to know why I will never sing it. It's about precisely three things. Elitism, War-mongering, and a fictional man in the sky. Not for me, thanks, not any of it. I get that some people love the cuddly old Queen, are "proud" of our country's history as bloodthirsty conquerors, and believe in said men in the sky... And that's fine... But kindly don't force your prayers upon others with the caveat that they're "treasonous" or "anti-patriotic" if they won't comply.

You are missing the whole point T.S. - I am not saying that as a private individual Corbyn should support the monarchy, but that as a STATESMAN and Leader of one of Her Majesty's political parties he should comply with protocol -- especially on such a public and very solemn occasion.

The idiot will hoist himself on his own petard - you will see.

[user104658]

Right but if all statesmen must fall in line with protocol - legitimising the monarchy - then how does one make a (meaningful) political stand against that monarchy?

I for one have had enough of cardboard cut-out politicians playing along with these outdated charades.

[kirklancaster]

Right but if all statesmen must fall in line with protocol - legitimising the monarchy - then how does one make a (meaningful) political stand against that monarchy?

I for one have had enough of cardboard cut-out politicians playing along with these outdated charades.

By lawfully CHANGING the constitution - in Corbyn's case ONCE he has attained the office of PRIME MINISTER.

Wait: I hear music.... Someone singing. I can see two figures on horseback approaching....

"To dream, the impossible dream..."

:laugh:

[user104658]

By lawfully CHANGING the constitution - in Corbyn's case ONCE he has attained the office of PRIME MINISTER.


But then you're fighting to change something that you have already legitimised by playing along with it to get into that position, massively weakening the argument against it and all but ensuring that your campaign will fail.

I'm sure that's the point, of course. A nefarious and self-sustaining system of privilege and control.

[kirklancaster]

Can't agree with this. At the present time, the UK constitution is based around a monarchy. The queen opens parliament. The leader of the governing party goes to see the queen prior to starting government and resigns to the queen when finishing.

Every country has an anthem. It is a song to celebrate the nation. I am not a royalist, I will be much happier when we become a republic, but until that time, that is the fundamental basis of our constitution. Corbyn's refusal to sing the anthem is him sticking 2 fingers up at the people of this country, as it is THEIR constitution until THEY decide its time for change.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

Your stance is identical to mine - I am not a Royalist and will feel glad when this anachronism is gone for good, but as you so eloquentky put it: "But until that time, that is the fundamental basis of our constitution."

We are also in full agreement of JUST WHY Corbyn did not sing the National Anthem.

[Tom4784]

The whole national Anthem point is stupid, how many people actually know the words to it without googling them? Not ****ing many.

It's easy to act offended but most people don't even know the actual words to the first verse, never mind the song itself. It's just a very desperate stick to beat him with.

[Kizzy]

When 'The Media' report something which Tibbie Lefties agree with it is 'Genuine Reportage', but when 'The Media' report something which Tibbie Lefties do not agree with, it is 'Media Scaremongering/Manipulation or Character Assasssination/Lies.... Yawn, zzzzz. :sleep:

No one - Journalist or other - has invented Corbyn's controversial statements on terrorist organisations past and present, or paid look-alikes to fake his meetings and dealings with these 'enemies of the UK', and his words and deeds thus far concerning these terrorists borders on treason.

The above is fact - like it or not - and yet this 'virtual' fifth columnist is now leader of the Labour Party and a contender for the most powerful political office in the UK.

Corbyn supporters have a very real problem when it comes to crowing about him winning future power and forming the first Labour Government since 2010, because in order for this to be achieved, one of two momentous 'sea changes' will HAVE to occur;

1) The Labour Party will have to convince the great majority of the British public that by some 'miraculous epiphany', Corbyn has completely changed nearly all his views - particularly his anti-patriotic (treasonous) views on Foreign Policy.

Alas, up to now Corbyn - having only been elected for a few days - has attended a 'Welcome Refugee' rally and did not sing our National Anthem during a WW2 Memorial Service for our fallen heroes. Hardly a great start.

2) By some greater miracle, the Labour Party will have to change the mindset of the great majority of the British Public who currently number IS and other terror organisations, and unfettered Immigration as their greatest concerns.

With a world increasingly fractured by bloodletting, chaos and destruction at the hands of IS, and an ever swelling sea of legitimate refugeees requiring entry into the economically fragile UK, along with hundreds of thousands of 'economic' illegal immigrants demanding entry, changing the mindset of the great majority of the British Public and allaying their fears will be difficult - if not impossible.

I do not worry about Corbyn for I believe that this man - like ALL political extremists, cloaked or otherwise - will continue arrogantly to comit one 'faux pas' after another over the coming months, and his '15 minutes of fame' will be short-lived.

How about you post what you think on any given subject and let others have an opinion without any sideswipe or mockery?

[Kizzy]

The whole concept of 'electable' irks me - it just plays into the hands of the bland, policy-less Blair clone that the media are desperate to whittle anyone down to.

**** image. **** winning over idiot middle ground voters. The fact he stands for something is enough to put him leagues ahead of the rest.

:love:

[joeysteele]

That's why I thought that Ed Milliband was good because he actually had policies (even if he didn't put them across brilliantly) I could understand what he was trying to say.

Every other democratic country has opposition values to the main party in their country, yet in the UK we all have to be Tory lite to be able to get anywhere because the Media won't accept anything else, it's a disgrace.

Excellent points, spot on Mock.

[kirklancaster]

How about you post what you think on any given subject and let others have an opinion without any sideswipe or mockery?

How about NOT causing PERSONAL argument where there is none by making patently false allegations?

"When 'The Media' report something which Tibbie Lefties agree with it is 'Genuine Reportage', but when 'The Media' report something which Tibbie Lefties do not agree with, it is 'Media Scaremongering/Manipulation or Character Assasssination/Lies.... Yawn, zzzzz."

The above by me is fair comment based upon my previous experience on this Forum. It is NO MORE "sideswipe" or "mockery" than a lot of YOUR and other members comments on various posts.

Do not deflect from being exposed as having no argument in the debate by creating a personal argument - keep it on topic please.

[Kizzy]

How about NOT causing PERSONAL argument where there is none by making patently false allegations?

"When 'The Media' report something which Tibbie Lefties agree with it is 'Genuine Reportage', but when 'The Media' report something which Tibbie Lefties do not agree with, it is 'Media Scaremongering/Manipulation or Character Assasssination/Lies.... Yawn, zzzzz."

The above by me is fair comment based upon my previous experience on this Forum. It is NO MORE "sideswipe" or "mockery" than a lot of YOUR and other members comments on various posts.

Do not deflect from being exposed as having no argument in the debate by creating a personal argument - keep it on topic please.

You don't see this as putting a section of the forums views down, I do and it's not necessary is it?
Before I even pass comment on a thread I feel my opinion has been considered and rejected as hypocrisy...Instead of judging and preempting others concentrate on your own views please.

[Livia]

He IS unelectable and I exercise my right to say to. If it's unpalatable to some, tough. That seems to be the way discussions go on this forum now.

[Livia]

Well he's already refusing to engage with the media and his shadow cabinet appointment has been chaotic so its not a good start. The unelectable thing is not purely media scaremongering, it's based on - amongst other things - his inexperience, the fact the vast majority of the PLP disagrees with him, his controversial views particularly over foreign policy, the history of the left in the last few decades etc.

The flip side of this is of course that if we rewind to June there is not a single person who would have predicted the outcome of the leadership election that we got, least of all Corbyn himself. So yes, if our predictions can be turned upside down in just a couple of months then there is no point making cast iron forecasts about the election that is nearly five years away. We are just going to have to wait and see.

All excellent points. It's a long time till the next election. He's a novelty right now but let's not forget this time last year UKIP were a novelty and plenty of people thought they were going to dominate the general election and look what happened there.

[JoshBB]

He IS unelectable and I exercise my right to say to. If it's unpalatable to some, tough. That seems to be the way discussions go on this forum now.

Nobody ever questioned your freedom of speech.

You can think he's unelectable and I can say that I don't like the use of that word for reasons I've already mentioned. Seems like you've completely ignored the point if I'm being completely honest.. just throwing your arms up in the air yelling 'i have a right to say this!!' instead of putting some explanation to your points.

[Livia]

Nobody ever questioned your freedom of speech.

You can think he's unelectable and I can say that I don't like the use of that word for reasons I've already mentioned. Seems like you've completely ignored the point if I'm being completely honest.. just throwing your arms up in the air yelling 'i have a right to say this!!' instead of putting some explanation to your points.

The point is you hate it when people say he's unelectable. But in many people's opinion, he is. He's like Farage: a novelty. And the two of them are at opposite ends of the same scale.

[kirklancaster]

Nobody ever questioned your freedom of speech.

You can think he's unelectable and I can say that I don't like the use of that word for reasons I've already mentioned. Seems like you've completely ignored the point if I'm being completely honest.. just throwing your arms up in the air yelling 'i have a right to say this!!' instead of putting some explanation to your points.

:laugh: Are you really being serious with Liv Josh?

[kirklancaster]

The point is you hate it when people say he's unelectable. But in many people's opinion, he is. He's like Farage: a novelty. And the two of them are at opposite ends of the same scale.

There IS one fundamental but collossal difference Liv - Farage is a patriot.

[Tom4784]

Meh, the Media and the Tories wouldn't be ****ting themselves like they currently are if he was unelectable. They'll try their hardest to convince the easily led that he is with their desperate little smear campaigns though.

All Corbyn has to do is wait, the Tories aren't going to be lucky enough to have the anti-tory vote split between three parties in the next election.

[bots]

Meh, the Media and the Tories wouldn't be ****ting themselves like they currently are if he was unelectable. They'll try their hardest to convince the easily led that he is with their desperate little smear campaigns though.

All Corbyn has to do is wait, the Tories aren't going to be lucky enough to have the anti-tory vote split between three parties in the next election.

The anti tory vote will have all but disappeared, so they will have no worries on that score. No one is ****ting themselves, pissing themselves laughing is more accurate.

[Tom4784]

The anti tory vote will have all but disappeared, so they will have no worries on that score. No one is ****ting themselves, pissing themselves laughing is more accurate.

Then why are the Tories putting out desperate attack videos? Not exactly the sign of a confident party is it?

We've only had a few months of a Tory majority and they've already gone back to their old tricks. With UKIP dead in the water after Farage's 'attempt' at resigning and the SNP looking like a damp squib if they can't get another Referendum rolling, there's not going to be anyone else to split the vote.

The smear tactics are a sign of a desperation, the Tories know that Corbyn could very well spell the end of their reign.

[bots]

Then why are the Tories putting out desperate attack videos? Not exactly the sign of a confident party is it?

We've only had a few months of a Tory majority and they've already gone back to their old tricks. With UKIP dead in the water after Farage's 'attempt' at resigning and the SNP looking like a damp squib if they can't get another Referendum rolling, there's not going to be anyone else to split the vote.

The smear tactics are a sign of a desperation, the Tories know that Corbyn could very well spell the end of their reign.

they are not smear tactics, they are highlighting the person that labour has chosen to be their new leader and informing the voting public. There is no false information being spread, just factual information highlighting the behaviour of Corbyn over his political life.

[Jack_]

They are absolutely smear tactics and fear mongering. The video the Conservatives posted on the Twitter account is both incredibly embarrassing and ****ing hilarious.

They have taken all of his quotes completely out of context and underlaid the video with a sinister bed. It looks like it's been made on Windows Movie Maker and just about sums up the state of politics in this country, fear and smear, divide and rule, etc etc. The Russian Embassy was right to point out that if Putin were calling opposition parties a 'threat to national security' and making such videos, there would be outrage in both the UK and the US, and rightly so. If Jeremy Corbyn or the Labour Party were genuinely a threat to national security they would have been arrested and would be being interrogated right now.

It's like a Nazi propaganda video and it would be disturbing if it wasn't so shambolically produced.

[kirklancaster]

They are absolutely smear tactics and fear mongering. The video the Conservatives posted on the Twitter account is both incredibly embarrassing and ****ing hilarious.

They have taken all of his quotes completely out of context and underlaid the video with a sinister bed. It looks like it's been made on Windows Movie Maker and just about sums up the state of politics in this country, fear and smear, divide and rule, etc etc. The Russian Embassy was right to point out that if Putin were calling opposition parties a 'threat to national security' and making such videos, there would be outrage in both the UK and the US, and rightly so. If Jeremy Corbyn or the Labour Party were genuinely a threat to national security they would have been arrested and would be being interrogated right now.

It's like a Nazi propaganda video and it would be disturbing if it wasn't so shambolically produced.

Then perhaps you could post in their entirety, the speeches Corbyn made from which all these 'smears' were ' taken out of context'?

[kirklancaster]

they are not smear tactics, they are highlighting the person that labour has chosen to be their new leader and informing the voting public. There is no false information being spread, just factual information highlighting the behaviour of Corbyn over his political life.

Absolutely accurately said BitOnTheSlide. Facts are facts. I'm afraid we are are swimming against a tide of blindness in a sea of delusionists.

[user104658]

Absolutely accurately said BitOnTheSlide. Facts are facts. I'm afraid we are are swimming against a tide of blindness in a sea of delusionists.

This from the same people who, a few months ago, were bawling about Princess Farage being the "victim" of smear campaigns and that his quotes were being taken out of context. :joker: you couldn't write it.

[kirklancaster]

This from the same people who, a few months ago, were bawling about Princess Farage being the "victim" of smear campaigns and that his quotes were being taken out of context. :joker: you couldn't write it.

You think what you like and post all the crap you want, but the two issues are poles apart. Farage is a patriot who CARES about Britain and the British. Corbyn is a terrorist loving anti-British traitor in waiting. Farage WAS being smeared AND quoted out of context AND castigated for what lesser light loose cannons in his party were saying. Corbyn SAID the things he is reported as saying and HAS supported and stood shoulder to shoulder with terrorist bastards.

Dream on self-delusioned one.

[user104658]

The point is you hate it when people say he's unelectable. But in many people's opinion, he is. He's like Farage: a novelty. And the two of them are at opposite ends of the same scale.

You think what you like and post all the crap you want, but the two issues are poles apart. Farage is a patriot who CARES about Britain and the British. Corbyn is a terrorist loving anti-British traitor in waiting. Farage WAS being smeared AND quoted out of context AND castigated for what lesser light loose cannons in his party were saying. Corbyn SAID the things he is reported as saying and HAS supported and stood shoulder to shoulder with terrorist bastards.

Dream on self-delusioned one.

Yet you have little to say about it when Livia points out that they're flipsides of the same coin. Funny, that.

[Jack_]

Then perhaps you could post in their entirety, the speeches Corbyn made from which all these 'smears' were ' taken out of context'?

"Bin Laden's death was a 'tragedy'", the rest of the sentence that preceded that remark:

y6ixqJey5q8

i.e., it was a tragedy he did not face trial for the crimes he had committed. Which is correct.

'Claims Hamas and Hezbollah are friends'

pGj1PheWiFQ

Invited them to a forum to discuss peace. If you're inviting people up for a civilised, mature debate (something this forum seems to be lacking of late, how ironic) you describe and introduce the participants in a respectful manner. He was hardly going to say 'and I've invited the ****ing ******** from Hamas' was he? :rolleyes:

The quotes about trident are the only ones that stand true, and that's a political issue that different people disagree on. Nothing wrong with that.

The Conservatives video they tweeted was nothing more than a disturbingly hilarious, shoddy piece of propaganda that has more place in 1940's Germany than in a Western democracy. This is precisely the reason why people are so turned off of politics. Fact.

But sadly we are swimming against a tide of sensationalism, smearing and propaganda in a sea of reactionary, hysterical, Daily Mail reading, immigrant fearing, poverty bashing, narrow minded, heartless, backwards, borderline racists that are scared to leave the house cause of those 'hoodies, gays and blacks down the road'. I'm doing it right aren't I? This is how political discussions are supposed to work, right?

[joeysteele]

Well it may be true that he is unlikely to win an election bit it rather odd to say anyone is unelectable,no matter what party they are from.

What he has already done is made Labour the bigger party as to membership,he has also attracted people who paid a small sort of donation to be able to vote for a party leader and also has attracted many young people too.

I cannot bear George Osborne or Theresa May or Boris Johnson for that matter,however no way do I see, even with their heartless and severe extreme views as unelectable.
To say here and now almost 5 years from a general election that anyone is unelectable is rather a clouded view.
We, I certainly haven't, have no idea what voters will be looking for in 5 years time,or indeed what state the UK will be in.
Will we be coming out of the EU, will there be another vote,maybe already held, as to Scottish independence.

Just because someone is not liked by some does not in anyway mean they are unelectable, Winston Churchill and Conservative supporters may well have thought that of Attlee and labour in 1945, which they got a massive shock on in the end.

I have already come to expect the unexpected in politics,anything can happen and if an idea is plausible and the message conveyed right then really no one,especially as to the main parties is unelectable.
So overall on here I am more with JoshBB who for someone also really young, has good, strong and healthy open views as to politics.
Not seeing the political process as the possession of only the extreme hardline far right politicians and voters,as to the rights of winning elections.

[smudgie]

The Labour MP's that put his name forward thought he was unelectable...and look where that has got them:joker:

[joeysteele]

The Labour MP's that put his name forward thought he was unelectable...and look where that has got them:joker:

Exactly and he has pulled in new members of the party to vote for him so he appealed to those who had become really disenchanted as well as those who had stayed in the party too.

As well as pulling in many young people too.

[DemolitionRed]

One thing that's baffling me is Corbyn's decision to keep Charlie frigging Forkbender. This toff reeks appallingly of Blairite past and just looks and acts like an odious sleaze bag. Why not Helena Kennedy? does anyone know if she turned the position down?

[empire]

labour are living in a time warp bubble, the factory worker, the ship builder, the coal miners, all voted for them, but today they clam that they still get voted by these people, inturn it is pure pigs in the sky talk from them, the truth is that minority groups is where they get a good amount of core base votes from, because under labour they gave special dispensation and favoritism to minority groups, this is something that the new leader will dare not admit to,

[Benjamin]

I can't believe I got tetter totters and tata tots mixed up. :laugh:

At least I know what both are now.

[Benjamin]

Oh dear God I'm in a political thread, how did I end up in here? :omgno:

[MB.]

Let's hope you know the national anthem

[kirklancaster]

"Bin Laden's death was a 'tragedy'", the rest of the sentence that preceded that remark:

y6ixqJey5q8

i.e., it was a tragedy he did not face trial for the crimes he had committed. Which is correct.

'Claims Hamas and Hezbollah are friends'

pGj1PheWiFQ

Invited them to a forum to discuss peace. If you're inviting people up for a civilised, mature debate (something this forum seems to be lacking of late, how ironic) you describe and introduce the participants in a respectful manner. He was hardly going to say 'and I've invited the ****ing ******** from Hamas' was he? :rolleyes:

The quotes about trident are the only ones that stand true, and that's a political issue that different people disagree on. Nothing wrong with that.

The Conservatives video they tweeted was nothing more than a disturbingly hilarious, shoddy piece of propaganda that has more place in 1940's Germany than in a Western democracy. This is precisely the reason why people are so turned off of politics. Fact.

But sadly we are swimming against a tide of sensationalism, smearing and propaganda in a sea of reactionary, hysterical, Daily Mail reading, immigrant fearing, poverty bashing, narrow minded, heartless, backwards, borderline racists that are scared to leave the house cause of those 'hoodies, gays and blacks down the road'. I'm doing it right aren't I? This is how political discussions are supposed to work, right?

Thanks for responding. I am 'full on' at work today and would not want to respond to this Jack without carrying out extensive research, so I will reply later.

[MTVN]

The graphics are pretty corny and it is overdramatic but it's not that misleading really. The Bin Laden quote is the main one which has been misrepresented. Yes I've heard why he called Hamas and Hezbollah friends but I don't think his explanation is very satisfactory really. He says 'you don't achieve peace unless you talk to all sides' but Corbyn never speaks to 'the other side'. If you do have to be civil to all sides in these conflicts then why has he never associated with loyalists in Northern Ireland or pro-Israeli campaigners and politicians? He doesn't, yet time and time again he has broken bread with extreme Islamists, anti-semites and hardline republicans. In fact he has called for Israel's leader, Netanyahu, to be tried for war crimes and he has opposed the Israeli football team playing a match in Cardiff. Hamas and Hezbollah are worthy of associating with and calling 'friends' yet professional sportsmen shouldn't even be allowed to partake in a non-political event? The army abolition comments is not that far wide of the mark either seeing as he has heralded the example of Costa Rica who gave up their army and considers it something to emulate.

Ultimately people can rage about the Conservatives and the media's smearing all their like but if you're in the position that Corbyn now is then you can't give them the ammo. He will never have been subject to this much scrutiny before and he seems completely unprepared for it. He needs to get himself a spin doctor, and a good one.

[Kizzy]

“Jeremy Corbyn’s tradition of the far left has tended to be anti-Israel and supportive of boycotts and delegitimisation. The language is often inflammatory. If that radical anti-Israel, anti-Zionist tendency becomes more mainstream, what is the impact on policies such as faith schools and antisemitism?”

What's next, Jeremy Corbyn ate my hamster? :laugh:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/17/britain-jewish-leaders-seek-clarification-jeremy-corbyn-policies

[kirklancaster]

Yet you have little to say about it when Livia points out that they're flipsides of the same coin. Funny, that.

Another fake argument T.S?

Livia stated:

Originally Posted by Livia View Post
"The point is you hate it when people say he's unelectable. But in many people's opinion, he is. He's like Farage: a novelty. And the two of them are at opposite ends of the same scale."

To which I pointed out:

"There IS one fundamental but collossal difference Liv - Farage is a patriot."

As Corbyn and Farage ARE at "opposite ends of the same scale", what else is there for me to disagree with other than the point I made?

[kirklancaster]

“Jeremy Corbyn’s tradition of the far left has tended to be anti-Israel and supportive of boycotts and delegitimisation. The language is often inflammatory. If that radical anti-Israel, anti-Zionist tendency becomes more mainstream, what is the impact on policies such as faith schools and antisemitism?”

What's next, Jeremy Corbyn ate my hamster? :laugh:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/17/britain-jewish-leaders-seek-clarification-jeremy-corbyn-policies

I see nothing to mock in this excellent article.

Based on Corbyn's undeniable past anti-semitic views and actions, and his highly questionable support and 'friendships' with anti-Jewish terrorist groups, I believe that Jonathan Arkush and other British Jewish leaders have every right to have some concerns now that Corbyn is the leader of the Labour Party and a potential future Prime Minister (no matter how remote that possibility is to some of us).

What is more, I applaud the fact that Arkush is being very fair to Corbyn:

“It’s unfair to pre-judge before we have spoken. [Corbyn] may be considering afresh some of his views now he’s in such a senior and responsible position. He no longer has the luxury of being a lone dissenting backbencher. But that doesn’t mean I’m naive or prepared to be soft on concerns and issues raised by the Jewish community.”


Given the unfathomable and disturbing wave of Anti-Semitism which has been increasingly sweeping through Europe - and the UK - over the past few years, these concerns are understandable.

[kirklancaster]

The graphics are pretty corny and it is overdramatic but it's not that misleading really. The Bin Laden quote is the main one which has been misrepresented. Yes I've heard why he called Hamas and Hezbollah friends but I don't think his explanation is very satisfactory really. He says 'you don't achieve peace unless you talk to all sides' but Corbyn never speaks to 'the other side'. If you do have to be civil to all sides in these conflicts then why has he never associated with loyalists in Northern Ireland or pro-Israeli campaigners and politicians? He doesn't, yet time and time again he has broken bread with extreme Islamists, anti-semites and hardline republicans. In fact he has called for Israel's leader, Netanyahu, to be tried for war crimes and he has opposed the Israeli football team playing a match in Cardiff. Hamas and Hezbollah are worthy of associating with and calling 'friends' yet professional sportsmen shouldn't even be allowed to partake in a non-political event? The army abolition comments is not that far wide of the mark either seeing as he has heralded the example of Costa Rica who gave up their army and considers it something to emulate.

Ultimately people can rage about the Conservatives and the media's smearing all their like but if you're in the position that Corbyn now is then you can't give them the ammo. He will never have been subject to this much scrutiny before and he seems completely unprepared for it. He needs to get himself a spin doctor, and a good one.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

[user104658]

Ahh fair enough, I didn't actually see that you had replied to that.

Much more politely than when I dare compare the two, to be fair. Sexist.

[kirklancaster]

Ahh fair enough, I didn't actually see that you had replied to that.

Much more politely than when I dare compare the two, to be fair. Sexist.

No prob T.S - I'm shet scared of Livia too. :laugh:

[user104658]

No prob T.S - I'm shet scared of Livia too. [emoji23]
Livia is a kitten!

[kirklancaster]

Livia is a kitten!

:unsure:

[bots]

The graphics are pretty corny and it is overdramatic but it's not that misleading really. The Bin Laden quote is the main one which has been misrepresented. Yes I've heard why he called Hamas and Hezbollah friends but I don't think his explanation is very satisfactory really. He says 'you don't achieve peace unless you talk to all sides' but Corbyn never speaks to 'the other side'. If you do have to be civil to all sides in these conflicts then why has he never associated with loyalists in Northern Ireland or pro-Israeli campaigners and politicians? He doesn't, yet time and time again he has broken bread with extreme Islamists, anti-semites and hardline republicans. In fact he has called for Israel's leader, Netanyahu, to be tried for war crimes and he has opposed the Israeli football team playing a match in Cardiff. Hamas and Hezbollah are worthy of associating with and calling 'friends' yet professional sportsmen shouldn't even be allowed to partake in a non-political event? The army abolition comments is not that far wide of the mark either seeing as he has heralded the example of Costa Rica who gave up their army and considers it something to emulate.

Ultimately people can rage about the Conservatives and the media's smearing all their like but if you're in the position that Corbyn now is then you can't give them the ammo. He will never have been subject to this much scrutiny before and he seems completely unprepared for it. He needs to get himself a spin doctor, and a good one.

I think its right that his views are questioned. This man could do all sorts, if by some complete fluke he does get in to power. Thing is, its only just started, so Corbyn will need to get used to it pretty quickly. Michael Foot and to a lesser extent, William Hague, were subjected to media scrutiny for years, not days.

[user104658]

:unsure:

Underneath that gold exterior beats a heart of cold.

... That's how the phrase goes, right?

[Kizzy]

Another fake argument T.S?

Livia stated:

Originally Posted by Livia View Post
"The point is you hate it when people say he's unelectable. But in many people's opinion, he is. He's like Farage: a novelty. And the two of them are at opposite ends of the same scale."

To which I pointed out:

"There IS one fundamental but collossal difference Liv - Farage is a patriot."

As Corbyn and Farage ARE at "opposite ends of the same scale", what else is there for me to disagree with other than the point I made?

Is that how you measure patriotism the willingness to pay lip service to an out dated out moded dirge?....

[DemolitionRed]

He says 'you don't achieve peace unless you talk to all sides' but Corbyn never speaks to 'the other side'. If you do have to be civil to all sides in these conflicts then why has he never associated with loyalists in Northern Ireland

Sorry I heavily edited your post but this is the relevant bit I wanted to try and answer.

The Tory party were the ones who started the peace talks with NI. When Labour got elected in 1997 Corbyn was asked (on behalf of the government) to act as 'go between'. The big sticking point was the release of political prisoners because without that, there would be no peace talks. Corbyn and his staff, under direct government instruction, spent months talking to both prisoners and their reps regarding the proposed 'prisoner release scheme'

This was his key role in getting the Good Friday agreement. Without talking to the Sinn Fein the IRA could not of agreed to any peace agreement.

Corbyn is being used as the strawman here. Corbyn was just one of many who played a crucial part under the instruction of the British elected government at the time, to bring about peace in Northern Ireland.

[Kizzy]

I see nothing to mock in this excellent article.

Based on Corbyn's undeniable past anti-semitic views and actions, and his highly questionable support and 'friendships' with anti-Jewish terrorist groups, I believe that Jonathan Arkush and other British Jewish leaders have every right to have some concerns now that Corbyn is the leader of the Labour Party and a potential future Prime Minister (no matter how remote that possibility is to some of us).

What is more, I applaud the fact that Arkush is being very fair to Corbyn:

“It’s unfair to pre-judge before we have spoken. [Corbyn] may be considering afresh some of his views now he’s in such a senior and responsible position. He no longer has the luxury of being a lone dissenting backbencher. But that doesn’t mean I’m naive or prepared to be soft on concerns and issues raised by the Jewish community.”


Given the unfathomable and disturbing wave of Anti-Semitism which has been increasingly sweeping through Europe - and the UK - over the past few years, these concerns are understandable.

I'm mocking it as it appears to be an article based on what may, might or could possibly happen....
Maybe to go with the hundreds that warn if, when or the consequences of things he hasn't said or done yet :/

[DemolitionRed]

I see nothing to mock in this excellent article.

Based on Corbyn's undeniable past anti-semitic views and actions, and his highly questionable support and 'friendships' with anti-Jewish terrorist groups, I believe that Jonathan Arkush and other British Jewish leaders have every right to have some concerns now that Corbyn is the leader of the Labour Party and a potential future Prime Minister (no matter how remote that possibility is to some of us).

What is more, I applaud the fact that Arkush is being very fair to Corbyn:

“It’s unfair to pre-judge before we have spoken. [Corbyn] may be considering afresh some of his views now he’s in such a senior and responsible position. He no longer has the luxury of being a lone dissenting backbencher. But that doesn’t mean I’m naive or prepared to be soft on concerns and issues raised by the Jewish community.”


Given the unfathomable and disturbing wave of Anti-Semitism which has been increasingly sweeping through Europe - and the UK - over the past few years, these concerns are understandable.

But your only reading the right wing side of this story and it simply isn't truth.

http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/07/reactionary-and-dishonest-a-reply-to-bicoms-alan-johnson-on-jeremy-corbyn/

The violent and often racist nature of Hamas and Hezbollah’s role in the region’s conflict apparently make their invitation to parliament unconscionable, whereas representatives of the (just as) violent and often (just as) racist Israeli state can be invited without so much as anyone batting an eyelid.

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/4-reasons-anti-semitism-attacks-jeremy-corbyn-are-dishonest

[kirklancaster]

"Bin Laden's death was a 'tragedy'", the rest of the sentence that preceded that remark:

y6ixqJey5q8

i.e., it was a tragedy he did not face trial for the crimes he had committed. Which is correct.

'Claims Hamas and Hezbollah are friends'

pGj1PheWiFQ

Invited them to a forum to discuss peace. If you're inviting people up for a civilised, mature debate (something this forum seems to be lacking of late, how ironic) you describe and introduce the participants in a respectful manner. He was hardly going to say 'and I've invited the ****ing ******** from Hamas' was he? :rolleyes:

The quotes about trident are the only ones that stand true, and that's a political issue that different people disagree on. Nothing wrong with that.

The Conservatives video they tweeted was nothing more than a disturbingly hilarious, shoddy piece of propaganda that has more place in 1940's Germany than in a Western democracy. This is precisely the reason why people are so turned off of politics. Fact.

But sadly we are swimming against a tide of sensationalism, smearing and propaganda in a sea of reactionary, hysterical, Daily Mail reading, immigrant fearing, poverty bashing, narrow minded, heartless, backwards, borderline racists that are scared to leave the house cause of those 'hoodies, gays and blacks down the road'. I'm doing it right aren't I? This is how political discussions are supposed to work, right?

I do not anticipate that this response will please you, convince you or even make you think a little, but out of courtesy, here it is:

OK, I have spent hours last night into the wee small hours, researching and reading and watching just about all the articles and videos on this subject that I could find - from both pro-Corbyn and anti-Corbyn sources - and I'm afraid, that I can find nothing which changes my opinion of Corbyn or which allays my fears should he ever become Prime Minister.

I was not referring specifically or exclusively to the so-called; 'Tory Tape, when I made my adverse posts about Corbyn, but whilst I agree that it is piss-poor regarding production quality, and whilst I concede that the 'Osama Bin Laden' clip WAS taken out of context - like MTVN - I do not feel that such minor 'cheating' actually alters the truth about Corbyn's highly questionable pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, leanings.

Regardless of the 'Tory Tape' and any reason behind its production, Corbyn HAS said the things he's said and DONE the things he's done, and as I stated in my earlier post, no-one FAKED the newsreel footage and videos of him, so talk of smearing is pure baloney.

"..Invited them to a forum to discuss peace. If you're inviting people up for a civilised, mature debate (something this forum seems to be lacking of late, how ironic) you describe and introduce the participants in a respectful manner. He was hardly going to say 'and I've invited the ****ing ******** from Hamas' was he?"

No, he wasn't, but there are better words to use which would not have offended people - especially all the victims of the many Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist atrocities and their families.

He COULD and SHOULD have said 'Representatives', but I believe that he deliberately used the words 'our friends' because THAT is how he GENUINELY regards these terrorist scum and he was deliberately, arrogantly, and contemptuously using that phrase to 'cock-a-snook' at anyone who is offended or who disagrees with him.

Indeed, he uses the word 'FRIENDS' to describe Hamas and Hezbollah THREE times in such a short clip and the relevance of this is highlighted by the fact that he refrains from using such a descriptor when mentioning the Israelis, being content to use just that phrase; "The Israelis"

Further; he actually and skilfully uses the 'cold' term 'The Israelis' in a clever subliminally prejudicial manner by stating that: "..but The ISRAELIS wouldn't allow them to travel" - thereby conjuring up images of the Israelis as repressors stopping 'OUR/HIS FRIENDS' from travelling to such an innocent and worthy function.

Further corroboration of Corbyn's cleverness can be evidenced from his opening lines; "...my PLEASURE and my HONOUR" to host an event in Parliament..."

Now; Did he mean that HOSTING the event was the reason for his PLEASURE and HONOUR? Or because his FRIENDS Hamas and Hezbollah were attending?

I think the last part of the VT will settle any doubts for any impartial, honest, reasonably intelligent viewer, because only an out and out unbalanced terrorist sympathiser would describe these murdering bastards as: "..dedicated to bringing long-term PEACE and SOCIAL justice and POLITICAL justice...." .

Finally; To criticise the British Government fot "labelling" Hamas and Hezbollah as "terrorist organiations" and actually pleading with them to "..think again", shows what the UK is in for if this dangerous idiot ever becomes PM.

God forbid it.

[kirklancaster]

But your only reading the right wing side of this story and it simply isn't truth.

http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/07/reactionary-and-dishonest-a-reply-to-bicoms-alan-johnson-on-jeremy-corbyn/

The violent and often racist nature of Hamas and Hezbollah’s role in the region’s conflict apparently make their inas you vitation to parliament unconscionable, whereas representatives of the (just as) violent and often (just as) racist Israeli state can be invited without so much as anyone batting an eyelid.

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/4-reasons-anti-semitism-attacks-jeremy-corbyn-are-dishonest

Not so Red. I read as much as I can from all perspectives, but I find nothing which will change my mind - as the Left Wingers on here will never change theirs no matter how persuasive an argument is and no matter how much evidence is presented which justifies such a persuasion.

I guess that's just the way it is, the way it has always been, and the way it will stay, and that we'll just have to agree to differ until time has elapsed and events prove one right and the other wrong.

[Kizzy]

Not so Red. I read as much as I can from all perspectives, but I find nothing which will change my mind - as the Left Wingers on here will never change theirs no matter how persuasive an argument is and no matter how much evidence is presented which justifies such a persuasion.

I guess that's just the way it is, the way it has always been, and the way it will stay, and that we'll just have to agree to differ until time has elapsed and events prove one right and the other wrong.

Here you are again getting all presumptuous, stick to defining your own stance and leave others to establish theirs.

[kirklancaster]

Here you are again getting all presumptuous, stick to defining your own stance and leave others to establish theirs.

I was exchanging views with Red and being civil about it. Why do YOU ALWAYS have to be so caustic and aggressive. Whoa -- scrub that I don't want another warning or infraction.

[Northern Monkey]

The graphics are pretty corny and it is overdramatic but it's not that misleading really. The Bin Laden quote is the main one which has been misrepresented. Yes I've heard why he called Hamas and Hezbollah friends but I don't think his explanation is very satisfactory really. He says 'you don't achieve peace unless you talk to all sides' but Corbyn never speaks to 'the other side'. If you do have to be civil to all sides in these conflicts then why has he never associated with loyalists in Northern Ireland or pro-Israeli campaigners and politicians? He doesn't, yet time and time again he has broken bread with extreme Islamists, anti-semites and hardline republicans. In fact he has called for Israel's leader, Netanyahu, to be tried for war crimes and he has opposed the Israeli football team playing a match in Cardiff. Hamas and Hezbollah are worthy of associating with and calling 'friends' yet professional sportsmen shouldn't even be allowed to partake in a non-political event? The army abolition comments is not that far wide of the mark either seeing as he has heralded the example of Costa Rica who gave up their army and considers it something to emulate.

Ultimately people can rage about the Conservatives and the media's smearing all their like but if you're in the position that Corbyn now is then you can't give them the ammo. He will never have been subject to this much scrutiny before and he seems completely unprepared for it. He needs to get himself a spin doctor, and a good one.A very good post!:thumbs:

[Kizzy]

I was exchanging views with Red and being civil about it. Why do YOU ALWAYS have to be so caustic and aggressive. Whoa -- scrub that I don't want another warning or infraction.

I simply ask you not preempt how other members on the left think, I consider myself one therefore I ask you politely not to label, presume or make judgments on my views.

[kirklancaster]

I simply ask you not preempt how other members on the left think, I consider myself one therefore I ask you politely not to label, presume or make judgments on my views.

In other words - "Do as I say, Not as I do"?

[Northern Monkey]

I do not anticipate that this response will please you, convince you or even make you think a little, but out of courtesy, here it is:

OK, I have spent hours last night into the wee small hours, researching and reading and watching just about all the articles and videos on this subject that I could find - from both pro-Corbyn and anti-Corbyn sources - and I'm afraid, that I can find nothing which changes my opinion of Corbyn or which allays my fears should he ever become Prime Minister.

I was not referring specifically or exclusively to the so-called; 'Tory Tape, when I made my adverse posts about Corbyn, but whilst I agree that it is piss-poor regarding production quality, and whilst I concede that the 'Osama Bin Laden' clip WAS taken out of context - like MTVN - I do not feel that such minor 'cheating' actually alters the truth about Corbyn's highly questionable pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, leanings.

Regardless of the 'Tory Tape' and any reason behind its production, Corbyn HAS said the things he's said and DONE the things he's done, and as I stated in my earlier post, no-one FAKED the newsreel footage and videos of him, so talk of smearing is pure baloney.

"..Invited them to a forum to discuss peace. If you're inviting people up for a civilised, mature debate (something this forum seems to be lacking of late, how ironic) you describe and introduce the participants in a respectful manner. He was hardly going to say 'and I've invited the ****ing ******** from Hamas' was he?"

No, he wasn't, but there are better words to use which would not have offended people - especially all the victims of the many Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist atrocities and their families.

He COULD and SHOULD have said 'Representatives', but I believe that he deliberately used the words 'our friends' because THAT is how he GENUINELY regards these terrorist scum and he was deliberately, arrogantly, and contemptuously using that phrase to 'cock-a-snook' at anyone who is offended or who disagrees with him.

Indeed, he uses the word 'FRIENDS' to describe Hamas and Hezbollah THREE times in such a short clip and the relevance of this is highlighted by the fact that he refrains from using such a descriptor when mentioning the Israelis, being content to use just that phrase; "The Israelis"

Further; he actually and skilfully uses the 'cold' term 'The Israelis' in a clever subliminally prejudicial manner by stating that: "..but The ISRAELIS wouldn't allow them to travel" - thereby conjuring up images of the Israelis as repressors stopping 'OUR/HIS FRIENDS' from travelling to such an innocent and worthy function.

Further corroboration of Corbyn's cleverness can be evidenced from his opening lines; "...my PLEASURE and my HONOUR" to host an event in Parliament..."

Now; Did he mean that HOSTING the event was the reason for his PLEASURE and HONOUR? Or because his FRIENDS Hamas and Hezbollah were attending?

I think the last part of the VT will settle any doubts for any impartial, honest, reasonably intelligent viewer, because only an out and out unbalanced terrorist sympathiser would describe these murdering bastards as: "..dedicated to bringing long-term PEACE and SOCIAL justice and POLITICAL justice...." .

Finally; To criticise the British Government fot "labelling" Hamas and Hezbollah as "terrorist organiations" and actually pleading with them to "..think again", shows what the UK is in for if this dangerous idiot ever becomes PM.

God forbid it.I agree with this.When the feck did any serious politician ever describe terrorists as 'friends'?
I never heard Thatcher or Major say 'our friends from the IRA'.
Or Blair ever say 'our friends from Al Qaeda'.
Corbyn at best chose his words drastically wrong or at worst actually has some sympathy with these terrorists.

[Kizzy]

The graphics are pretty corny and it is overdramatic but it's not that misleading really. The Bin Laden quote is the main one which has been misrepresented. Yes I've heard why he called Hamas and Hezbollah friends but I don't think his explanation is very satisfactory really. He says 'you don't achieve peace unless you talk to all sides' but Corbyn never speaks to 'the other side'. If you do have to be civil to all sides in these conflicts then why has he never associated with loyalists in Northern Ireland or pro-Israeli campaigners and politicians? He doesn't, yet time and time again he has broken bread with extreme Islamists, anti-semites and hardline republicans. In fact he has called for Israel's leader, Netanyahu, to be tried for war crimes and he has opposed the Israeli football team playing a match in Cardiff. Hamas and Hezbollah are worthy of associating with and calling 'friends' yet professional sportsmen shouldn't even be allowed to partake in a non-political event? The army abolition comments is not that far wide of the mark either seeing as he has heralded the example of Costa Rica who gave up their army and considers it something to emulate.

Ultimately people can rage about the Conservatives and the media's smearing all their like but if you're in the position that Corbyn now is then you can't give them the ammo. He will never have been subject to this much scrutiny before and he seems completely unprepared for it. He needs to get himself a spin doctor, and a good one.

I've read many things today that suggest Mr Corbyn was instrumental in the peace process and was chosen to have dialogue with Gerry Adams as far back as 1984, due to his obvious skills in diplomacy this makes his job as party leader a plus I would have thought... why then is it being used as a stick to beat him with?

[kirklancaster]

I've read many things today that suggest Mr Corbyn was instrumental in the peace process and was chosen to have dialogue with Gerry Adams as far back as 1984, due to his obvious skills in diplomacy this makes his job as party leader a plus I would have thought... why then is it being used as a stick to beat him with?

Because as MTVN points out, it is only with the IRA and with Hamas and Hezbollah that Mr Corbyn seems to side and only their terrorist causes he seems to defend and support and align himself with.

Where is the equity?

[Johnnyuk123]

The conservative party are so happy that Corbyn is the new labour leader. They now have another 10 years in power. :clap1::clap1::clap1:

[JoshBB]

The conservative party are so happy that Corbyn is the new labour leader. They now have another 10 years in power. :clap1::clap1::clap1:

Except that people seem to like Corbyn's policies more than they do the conservatives, so dont rule him out yet.

[Johnnyuk123]

Except that people seem to like Corbyn's policies more than they do the conservatives, so dont rule him out yet.

Who is in charge of the Country?

[DemolitionRed]

The conservative party are so happy that Corbyn is the new labour leader. They now have another 10 years in power. :clap1::clap1::clap1:

Some, not all but this could be misplaced glee and remember, there is nothing more dull than a complacent government. I would say that the majority of Tories are very worried by Corbyn; why else would they have set their Tory-media attack dogs on him?

[JoshBB]

Who is in charge of the Country?

The conservatives. With only 24% of the country voting for them.

[Kizzy]

Who is in charge of the Country?

Mr Murdock.

[Johnnyuk123]

Cams the man!
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02590/Cam_2590936b.jpg

[Kizzy]

Cams in the ham?...... not again! :hehe:

[Kizzy]

Because as MTVN points out, it is only with the IRA and with Hamas and Hezbollah that Mr Corbyn seems to side and only their terrorist causes he seems to defend and support and align himself with.

Where is the equity?

Support and align himself? the role of a diplomat is to meet people and there be some dialogue in the hope of resolving conflict peacefully.

What is the alternative to this, Warmongering..
Stomping about the globe showing countries your huge warhead?

[James]

Interesting article in The Guardian I think Corbyn supporters should read - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/08/hate-tories-conservatives-dominance-pointless-protest

[Kizzy]

a quest to steal political concepts like fairness, social justice and even equality from the left and “fill them with Conservative meaning”.

So he knows the conservatives want to redefine the meaning of social justice? :laugh:

Ask Nye what next... we keep hating the tories for the past, the present and the future.

[MTVN]

We all hate Corbyn

[JoshBB]

We all hate Corbyn

:laugh:

Do we though??

[Kizzy]

As an elected leader no, that would be like saying we all hate Cameron.
And for reasons I can't explain, we don't... yet.

[DemolitionRed]

We all hate Corbyn

Nope but there are a few on here that do!

[bots]

Nope but there are a few on here that do!

Everyone hates Corbyn, its just some don't realise it yet :hmph:

[Kizzy]

You have been told you do.... but you have no reason to do you?
Fight the mind control please.

[arista]

The conservative party are so happy that Corbyn is the new labour leader. They now have another 10 years in power. :clap1::clap1::clap1:


Sadly By the start of the 2020 Election
Corybn will be gone
as he refuses to ever push the Nuke button if PM

[arista]

We all hate Corbyn


If Only he would say
he would push the Nuke Button

[DemolitionRed]

Everyone hates Corbyn, its just some don't realise it yet :hmph:

Funnily enough I feel the same way about the Tory followers. Fact is, we are a mere a statistic on the Emory Study http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060131092225.htm and nothing is going to change our mind :spin: