[LeatherTrumpet]

Jeremy Corbyn condemns UK decision to send weapons to Ukraine and the fact
'Russian soldiers are dying' as he calls for a peace deal on pro-Assad Middle
East TV channel

• Jeremy Corbyn gave interview to pro-Assad TV channel over the weekend
• In it, he condemned the UK's decision to send military aid to Ukraine
• Ex-Labour leader said 'Russian soldiers are dying' and called for a peace deal
• He also took a swipe at NATO, saying expanding alliance 'will not bring peace'

Jeremy Corbyn has criticised the UK's decision to send military aid to
Ukraine, accusing the West of 'prolonging and exaggerating' Russia's war.


The ex-Labour leader, who infamously refused to blame Russia for the
Salisbury poisoning in 2018, said leaders should instead force a peace deal
between the pair - turning to the African Union and Arab League, including
Syria, for mediation.

He also bemoaned the fact that 'Ukrainians are dying... and Russian soldiers
are dying' in an interview with a pro-Assad TV channel, whilst condemning
NATO expansion for causing 'greater strain and greater stress.'


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-Ukraine.html

Top comment:And thats why you should never vote Labour

[The Slim Reaper]

When he's nothing to do with power but the mail still lies about him

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

When he's nothing to do with power but the mail still lies about him

he is pro russia

are you?

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

he is pro russia

are you?

He isn't at all and you know this. He's the only UK politician to have pointed out what Putin was from the beginning, whilst Blair had him for state visits, and he now funds tories.

Post the vid of this interview so tibb can see how well the article corresponds with what he actually says, because we both know the video exists, and I've seen it.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

He isn't at all and you know this. He's the only UK politician to have pointed out what Putin was from the beginning, whilst Blair had him for state visits, and he now funds tories.

Post the vid of this interview so tibb can see how well the article corresponds with what he actually says, because we both know the video exists, and I've seen it.

then post it

im not your soviet lackey

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

then post it

im not your soviet lackey

Imagine having the video evidence to nail him and you can't be bothered

Not my thread, so carry on comrade. Oh, oops, can't believe I let that slip out

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

he is pro russia

are you?

i am pro russia


and are you going to do anything about that? i am entitled to my own freedoms of opinion


rather than being told to shut up and jump on the slavi ukraini bull**** bandwagon like a bunch of sheep

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

i am pro russia


and are you going to do anything about that? i am entitled to my own freedoms of opinion


rather than being told to shut up and jump on the slavi ukraini bull**** bandwagon like a bunch of sheep

yeah nicky, if you didn't change your opinion with the wind people would take you more seriously

[joeysteele]

Why should it mean people shouldn't vote Labour.

I'll vote and support Labour thank you very much.

Corbyn isn't even in Labour.

I vote for a Party and support it for its policies, particularly to the NHS and how it sees the poorest, most vulnerable , sick and disabled.
So for me that is still the Labour party as it's been for me since 2012.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Why should it mean people shouldn't vote Labour.

I'll vote and support Labour thank you very much.

Corbyn isn't even in Labour.

I vote for a Party and support it for its policies, particularly to the NHS and how it sees the poorest, most vulnerable , sick and disabled.
So for me that is still the Labour party as it's been for me since 2012.

Labour doesn't have any policies anymore, joey, so what will you base your vote on?

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Labour doesn't have any policies anymore, joey, so what will you base your vote on?

Yes we do Slim.

I know we do.
Obviously detailed policies need to be detailed publicly however the conference will as always be debating them and more detail added.

It's still near 2 years away from the election.
NO opposition party issues detailed policies that far from an election.

I know and wouldn't support a Party that didn't believe in the NHS and would make sure it was invested in and protected.
As to his credit even Blair did from 1997.
There's no way Labour will not protect the NHS.

However, I know Labour under any leader, would never let remain policies like what the coalition brought in which were even degrading and cruel to the sick and disabled.
I know that from the endless cases there has been of wrongful removal of support and benefits to them.

People can moan at Labour and think there's another way but they're fooling themselves.
Anyone who dislikes this Con government, who then in this pathetic voting system we have, don't support Labour then the continuation of an extreme Con government is what they'll get.

So for me the protection of the NHS, and the ending of the humiliating treatment of the sick and disabled is what turned me to Labour in 2012 and has me still supporting Labour in those aims still.

I dislike Starmer and didn't vote for him as leader.
However, when his policies are all finalised ready for the general election.
That protection of the NHS and more compassion to the sick and disabled will still have me strongly for Labour.

Because also in this dinosaur of an electoral system, the ONE and ONLY way to ensure this shambles of a Con govt is out, is to vote Labour.

Any votes to anyone else will only help enable the Cons to continue their vindictiveness and heartlessness.
That's not for me, no way thank you.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Yes we do Slim.

I know we do.
Obviously detailed policies need to be detailed publicly however the conference will as always be debating them and more detail added.

It's still near 2 years away from the election.
NO opposition party issues detailed policies that far from an election.

I know and wouldn't support a Party that didn't believe in the NHS and would make sure it was invested in and protected.
As to his credit even Blair did from 1997.
There's no way Labour will not protect the NHS.

However, I know Labour under any leader, would never let remain policies like what the coalition brought in which were even degrading and cruel to the sick and disabled.
I know that from the endless cases there has been of wrongful removal of support and benefits to them.

People can moan at Labour and think there's another way but they're fooling themselves.
Anyone who dislikes this Con government, who then in this pathetic voting system we have, don't support Labour then the continuation of an extreme Con government is what they'll get.

So for me the protection of the NHS, and the ending of the humiliating treatment of the sick and disabled is what turned me to Labour in 2012 and has me still supporting Labour in those aims still.

I dislike Starmer and didn't vote for him as leader.
However, when his policies are all finalised ready for the general election.
That protection of the NHS and more compassion to the sick and disabled will still have me strongly for Labour.

Because also in this dinosaur of an electoral system, the ONE and ONLY way to ensure this shambles of a Con govt is out, is to vote Labour.

Any votes to anyone else will only help enable the Cons to continue their vindictiveness and heartlessness.
That's not for me, no way thank you.

I agree Joey

But I don't have much faith in labour, but it will help alot if they get a new leader & get rid of Starmer as he might aswell be a Tory .

But I guess we'll see what happens in 2 years time.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Yes we do Slim.

I know we do.
Obviously detailed policies need to be detailed publicly however the conference will as always be debating them and more detail added.

It's still best 2 years away from the election.
NO opposition party issues detailed policies that far from an election.

I know and wouldn't support a Party that didn't believe in the NHS and would make sure it was invested in and protected.
As to his credit even Blair did from 1997.
There's no way Labour will not protect the NHS.

However, I know Labour under any leader, would never let remain policies like what the coalition brought in which were even degrading and cruel to the sick and disabled.
I know that from the endless cases there has been of wrongful removal of support to them.

People can moan at Labour and think there's another way but they're fooling themselves.
Anyone who dislikes this Con government, who then in this pathetic voting system we have, don't support Labour then the continuation of an extreme Con government is what they'll get.

So for me the protection of the NHS, and the ending of the humiliating treatment of the sick and disabled is what turned me to Labour in 2012 and has me still supporting Labour in those aims still.

I dislike Starmer and didn't vote for him as leader.
However, when his policies are all finalised ready for the general election.
That protection of the NHS and more compassion to the sick and disabled will still have me strongly for Labour.

Because also in this dinosaur of an electoral system, the ONE and ONLY way to ensure this shambles of a Con govt is out, is to vote Labour.

Any votes to anyone else will only help enable the Cons to continue their vindictiveness and heartlessness.
That's not for me, no way thank you.

Rachel Reeves has said on more than one occasion that she plans to be tougher on welfare than the tories, which means those sick and disabled folks won't be getting the help you think they will. In fact, the only thing Starmer hasn't changed his mind on policy-wise is lower business taxes.

The tories believe in the NHS, too, doesn't mean they'll do anything to help it, and Streeting has been pushing for more private sector involvement.

If you vote labour to get tories out, I fully support that, but if you vote for them thinking they have any interest in anything but being in power themselves, then I'm afraid you're setting yourself up for a fall.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Rachel Reeves has said on more than one occasion that she plans to be tougher on welfare than the tories, which means those sick and disabled folks won't be getting the help you think they will. In fact, the only thing Starmer hasn't changed his mind on policy-wise is lower business taxes.

The tories believe in the NHS, too, doesn't mean they'll do anything to help it, and Streeting has been pushing for more private sector involvement.

If you vote labour to get tories out, I fully support that, but if you vote for them thinking they have any interest in anything but being in power themselves, then I'm afraid you're setting yourself up for a fall.

Then what is the answer Slim ? .

Because then we'll end up with more people not voting atall which doesn't really help either, people go around saying stuff like " ewww they're all as bad as eachother" , but someone still has to win & get in the office.

At the moment we still have some sort of democracy in place , people get to have a say & feel they've contributed whether they've angry or happy with the outcome . Atleast they can say they've had their voice.

I've always said labour is the best of a bad bunch , they've always cared about the NHS . And I'm talking about labour as a party and NOT Starmer ,as he needs to go. But if he's still The leader of the party in 2 years then I don't have much hope.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Rachel Reeves has said on more than one occasion that she plans to be tougher on welfare than the tories, which means those sick and disabled folks won't be getting the help you think they will. In fact, the only thing Starmer hasn't changed his mind on policy-wise is lower business taxes.

The tories believe in the NHS, too, doesn't mean they'll do anything to help it, and Streeting has been pushing for more private sector involvement.

If you vote labour to get tories out, I fully support that, but if you vote for them thinking they have any interest in anything but being in power themselves, then I'm afraid you're setting yourself up for a fall.

You are not being fair there, sorry.
Plus Rachel Reeves has a long record of wanting farness on welfare.

There is NO way she will make the sick and disabled worse off and not given ALL the help they need.

You just said before Labour had NO policies.
Now you're presenting a distorted view of policy from a statement.

Being tough doesn't mean being cruel as this lot have been.

If you really do think the Cons believe in the NHS after the costly top down re-organisation promised to never happen from 2011.
Those reforms STILL causing issues now.
Well sorry, it's not me that's mistaken.

I don't accept I'm setting myself up for a fall.
I'd love another leader than Starmer.
However in the main he has some really caring and more compassionate minded shadow Ministers.
I'm happy to wholly support them.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Jeremy Corbyn has urged western countries to stop arming Ukraine, and claimed he was
criticised over antisemitism because of his stance on Palestine, in a TV interview likely
to underscore Keir Starmer’s determination not to readmit him to the Labour party.


unity comrades

unity



https://www.theguardian.com/politics...arming-ukraine

[The Slim Reaper]

“Pouring arms in isn’t going to bring about a solution, it’s only going to prolong and exaggerate this war,” Corbyn said. “We might be in for years and years of a war in Ukraine.”

[bitontheslide]

if starmer is following the new labour path, well, Blair was a consummate warmonger so there should be no worries there

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

if starmer is following the new labour path, well, Blair was a consummate warmonger so there should be no worries there

Consummate warmonger ??

How many conflicts have Con leaders got us involved in.

Are you trying to indicate that a Con PM would have actually refused to support George W Bush on the 2nd invasion of Iraq.
Because I'm 100% sure any Con PM would have gone in there again too.
With the same outcomes.

Blair was wrong on his reasoning but nothing would have been different under the Cons as to Iraq.
Which I would never have supported.

Thatcher had the Falklands and the first Iraq invasion carried on by Major.
Which party leader got us involved in Libya and other conflicts too.

[LeatherTrumpet]

The Labour MP Margaret Hodge condemned his remarks. She said: “To suggest our fight
against antisemitism on the left means that we are all part of a conspiracy to smear
Corbyn is frankly absurd and of itself antisemitic. This consistent failure to understand and
distinguish between our Jewish identity and the complex Middle East political issues is at
the heart of why Jeremy continues to be outside the Labour party.”

Guardian

the guy is clearly out of control and mirroring his looney brother now

[LeatherTrumpet]

yes we should let the Russians kill them all and then it would be over

jesus wept

[Liam-]

Starmers entire thing is to do things like the Tories, just a little less crap, he has no true vision or principle

[parmnion]

Was he ever fat

[Oliver_W]

Does it really matter what he says or condemns? He's not even in Labour anymore, let alone their leader

I swear the only people who still care about him are those who want to get annoyed about everything he says...

[Nicky91]

UK should not get involved no, otherwise it'll go into a war


good on Corbyn for not walking along like the rest of the political correct sheep



Ukraine are former soviet-union so only former soviet-union are at risk of being attacked, anyone outside soviet-union zone the russians have no problems with, and we should keep it that way or else we make more enemies than necessary