Jeremy Corbyn (Vol. 3)

[Burwood]

motco said:

My feeling is that whilst May's deal is a very soft half-exit satisfying no-one, anything JC et al would propose would be "We'll carry on pretty well as we are including paying all that money, but we could just say we've left. Nobody would know would they?"

It puzzles me as to why JC is remotely interested in any form of liaison with the EU given his record of opposition to it over several years. Unless all the talk of Labour's 'deal' is bluff just to make trouble for May.

That's the issue isn't it. His plan is not leaving. Single Market/Customs Union = FOM +ECJ+Budget payments. The leavers in Parliament will shout that down.

Oh and his interest is to then crow 'I delivered Brexit'

I honestly don't think we will leave. We will get stuck for 24 months which is what is threatened then it's a campaigning issue for the next GE

[Bullett]

The proposed leaders Brexit debate showed just how broken politics is at the moment.

A Remain PM debating on the side of exit and a leave opposition leader debating for remain(or peoples vote, or possibly unicorns).

[anonymous-user]

biggbn said:

...He actually interviews well, in comparison to may etc anyway, appears calm and collected...

I'm not impressed by his calm and collected shtick. When he's talking to someone like Andrew Neil about things he knows nothing about, like economics, he should be flustered or preferably pass but he is, evidently, completely unaware of his ignorance and how absurd he sounds. Either he's a textbook example of the Dunning–Kruger effect or, to be charitable, intelligently manipulating those who ''don't do numbers'', or thinking. The whole interview is worth watching, particularly WRT the IRA but this section on debt is plain bizarre and quite frightening. It's not debt, we're issuing bonds that we own! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL0a3QQJIWM&fe...

[Northbloke]

biggbn said:

I actually like corbyn, his personal politics resonate with my world outlook and mirror the politics of the original labour movement. He actually interviews well, in comparison to may etc anyway, appears calm and collected, which the Tories underestimated. He campaigns well. He has proven, again and again, he is not a leader. Now, I dont wanna get in a debate about his/my politics, but I was hopeful/naive enough to believe that we now had a genuine alternative for the first time in my voting life. He kinda proved that with his 'success', for it was a success in the general election. For him and labour not to have capitalised on that momentum, for him and labour to practise 'constructive ambiguity' (jeeesus on a bike), for him to constantly show the intransigence of an ideologue is unforgivable to those, like me, who joined in the hope of a better future. I believe he is a decent man, a principled man, but he has not performed on the stage that matters and I am a pragmatist. The party will no longer get my cash nor my support.

Well biggbn, I don't agree with you but you are a rarity on the internet in that you put your point across very well without aggression or rancour. Bravo, please keep posting.

I have a brother in law who is a raging lefty Corbyn supporter but we manage to have an entertaining evening drinking loads of beer, discussing politics whilst also agreeing to disagree. Somehow the faceless internet has made that all but impossible on line.

I do also agree with you that it is refreshing to see a clear choice between the options rather than them all clamouring to be Blair-lite and hogging the middle ground or at least pretending to until they are elected.

(Corbyn is a dinosaur loon though!)

[Halb]

biggbn said:

I actually like corbyn, his personal politics resonate with my world outlook and mirror the politics of the original labour movement. He actually interviews well, in comparison to may etc anyway, appears calm and collected, which the Tories underestimated. He campaigns well. He has proven, again and again, he is not a leader. Now, I dont wanna get in a debate about his/my politics, but I was hopeful/naive enough to believe that we now had a genuine alternative for the first time in my voting life. He kinda proved that with his 'success', for it was a success in the general election. For him and labour not to have capitalised on that momentum, for him and labour to practise 'constructive ambiguity' (jeeesus on a bike), for him to constantly show the intransigence of an ideologue is unforgivable to those, like me, who joined in the hope of a better future. I believe he is a decent man, a principled man, but he has not performed on the stage that matters and I am a pragmatist. The party will no longer get my cash nor my support.

Same. Great post.

[Fittster]

mcdjl said:

He set up a great campaign around himself and then realised he didn't know what to do with it. '?'

Which leader in the last 30 years has had a vision?

May, Cameron, Brown, Major, Blair?

[andy_s]

Fittster said:

mcdjl said:

He set up a great campaign around himself and then realised he didn't know what to do with it. '?'

Which leader in the last 30 years has had a vision?

May, Cameron, Brown, Major, Blair?

Putin.

[biggbn]

Northbloke said:

Well biggbn, I don't agree with you but you are a rarity on the internet in that you put your point across very well without aggression or rancour. Bravo, please keep posting.

I have a brother in law who is a raging lefty Corbyn supporter but we manage to have an entertaining evening drinking loads of beer, discussing politics whilst also agreeing to disagree. Somehow the faceless internet has made that all but impossible on line.

I do also agree with you that it is refreshing to see a clear choice between the options rather than them all clamouring to be Blair-lite and hogging the middle ground or at least pretending to until they are elected.

(Corbyn is a dinosaur loon though!)

Thank you

[biggbn]

Halb said:

biggbn said:

I actually like corbyn, his personal politics resonate with my world outlook and mirror the politics of the original labour movement. He actually interviews well, in comparison to may etc anyway, appears calm and collected, which the Tories underestimated. He campaigns well. He has proven, again and again, he is not a leader. Now, I dont wanna get in a debate about his/my politics, but I was hopeful/naive enough to believe that we now had a genuine alternative for the first time in my voting life. He kinda proved that with his 'success', for it was a success in the general election. For him and labour not to have capitalised on that momentum, for him and labour to practise 'constructive ambiguity' (jeeesus on a bike), for him to constantly show the intransigence of an ideologue is unforgivable to those, like me, who joined in the hope of a better future. I believe he is a decent man, a principled man, but he has not performed on the stage that matters and I am a pragmatist. The party will no longer get my cash nor my support.

Same. Great post.

Thank you

[Fittster]

andy_s said:

Fittster said:

mcdjl said:

He set up a great campaign around himself and then realised he didn't know what to do with it. '?'

Which leader in the last 30 years has had a vision?

May, Cameron, Brown, Major, Blair?

Putin.

I can see how he would appeal in NP&E

[A Winner Is You]

Halb said:

biggbn said:

I actually like corbyn, his personal politics resonate with my world outlook and mirror the politics of the original labour movement. He actually interviews well, in comparison to may etc anyway, appears calm and collected, which the Tories underestimated. He campaigns well. He has proven, again and again, he is not a leader. Now, I dont wanna get in a debate about his/my politics, but I was hopeful/naive enough to believe that we now had a genuine alternative for the first time in my voting life. He kinda proved that with his 'success', for it was a success in the general election. For him and labour not to have capitalised on that momentum, for him and labour to practise 'constructive ambiguity' (jeeesus on a bike), for him to constantly show the intransigence of an ideologue is unforgivable to those, like me, who joined in the hope of a better future. I believe he is a decent man, a principled man, but he has not performed on the stage that matters and I am a pragmatist. The party will no longer get my cash nor my support.

Same. Great post.

I wouldn't agree he interviews well, he's fine with softball questions but as soon as things aren't going his way you see a different side and he's lost his temper with reporters on a number of occasions. Or when a member of the public had him visibly rattled by pressing on Trident. What he is good at is preaching to the converted, but that's not going to win you an election because you need those floating voters.

It's also very easy to base everything around emotional areas like poverty, austerity, food banks etc, since anyone questioning the narrative is automatically positioned as heartless. Like his commitment to end homelessness, sounds great on paper, but how will that work in practicality? Who will fund it? Where will the houses be built? How will that take into account high levels of alcoholism and mental illness prevalent in the community? How will we prevent fraudulent claims? What about those sleeping rough from other countries? But how could you ask those questions, you obviously don't care about people living in the street!

[Faust66]

Northbloke said:

biggbn said:

I actually like corbyn, his personal politics resonate with my world outlook and mirror the politics of the original labour movement. He actually interviews well, in comparison to may etc anyway, appears calm and collected, which the Tories underestimated. He campaigns well. He has proven, again and again, he is not a leader. Now, I dont wanna get in a debate about his/my politics, but I was hopeful/naive enough to believe that we now had a genuine alternative for the first time in my voting life. He kinda proved that with his 'success', for it was a success in the general election. For him and labour not to have capitalised on that momentum, for him and labour to practise 'constructive ambiguity' (jeeesus on a bike), for him to constantly show the intransigence of an ideologue is unforgivable to those, like me, who joined in the hope of a better future. I believe he is a decent man, a principled man, but he has not performed on the stage that matters and I am a pragmatist. The party will no longer get my cash nor my support.

Well biggbn, I don't agree with you but you are a rarity on the internet in that you put your point across very well without aggression or rancour. Bravo, please keep posting.

I have a brother in law who is a raging lefty Corbyn supporter but we manage to have an entertaining evening drinking loads of beer, discussing politics whilst also agreeing to disagree. Somehow the faceless internet has made that all but impossible on line.

I do also agree with you that it is refreshing to see a clear choice between the options rather than them all clamouring to be Blair-lite and hogging the middle ground or at least pretending to until they are elected.

(Corbyn is a dinosaur loon though!)

Indeed.

Makes a change to read a reasoned post when it comes to Corbyn.

I’ve got a few mates and family members who are raging Corbyn supporters – all the clichés are there: Tories are evil, JC will ‘save’ the country, he’ll help them buy a house/get a pay rise/whatever.

So what though?

Is it really losing a friendship/falling out with family over political differences?

We agree to disagree on the subject and calmly discuss something else. People have different opinions and part of being well balanced individual is accepting that and moving on.

I personally despise Corbyn and all that he stands for. To be fair: if he stood for what he claims to believe in there I’d have a bit of respect for him. Might disagree with his policies but there’s a lot to be said for people who practice what they preach. Sadly JC is merely another foul hypocrite, a liar and bit of a tt. Same as most politicians in other words – irrespective of what party they belong to.

[biggbn]

I often wonder what might have been achieved had his party rallied around rather than continually snipe and undermine. It was, briefly, a populist movement and I remember many saying ah, but, he will have to sacrifice some of his views to get into power.


Here's an idea, if the self serving, comfortable, 'centrist'tory lite Labour mps wanted corbyn and co to compromise their views for power, why didn't THEY compromise their views, get behind his vision for labour, get power THEN deal with things. Seemed like a one way street of suggested compromise to me.

I remember writing this at the time...

Why don't the old/new labour charlatans realise one man is turning this around and get behind him instead of constantly pushing their own agenda and subverting the only decent chance Britain has for real change for decades. They are, I believe, scared of power. They chose to strike out for mediocrity many moons ago and are comfortable in their well paid unacountability. Imagine having to work for their respective constituents from a position of power and therefore magnified responsibility? Strive for mediocrity, achieve it and wallow in its comforting embrace. If you can ignore the word dissapointed once, you can make a lucrative stable career out of it. These gimpatrons have been performing an incredible under the radar/parapet invisibility for decades and live in constant fear of being found out, which is exactly what has been happening under the avuncular inscrutable gaze of bagpuss Jeremy.


My opinion hasn't changed much as I watch the labour party strive for hitherto unplumbed depths of ineptitude and irrelevance

[Fittster]

biggbn said:

I often wonder what might have been achieved had his party rallied around rather than continually snipe and undermine. It was, briefly, a populist movement and I remember many saying ah, but, he will have to sacrifice some of his views to get into power.

And then you get Tony Blair. The party membership decided they wanted a left wing leader and that's what they got. Unlike the Conservative party the Labour party members have influence. If you want a different leader of the Labour party, join the party and become an active member.

The MPs who are to the right of Corbyn and have been undermining him will be deselected as the next election. Some of them have jumped (chuka umunna) and some will either have to toe the line or be deselected (Tom Watson).

[biggbn]

Fittster said:

biggbn said:

I often wonder what might have been achieved had his party rallied around rather than continually snipe and undermine. It was, briefly, a populist movement and I remember many saying ah, but, he will have to sacrifice some of his views to get into power.

And then you get Tony Blair. The party membership decided they wanted a left wing leader and that's what they got. Unlike the Conservative party the Labour party members have influence. If you want a different leader of the Labour party, join the party and become an active member.

The MPs who are to the right of Corbyn and have been undermining him will be deselected as the next election. Some of them have jumped (chuka umunna) and some will either have to toe the line or be deselected (Tom Watson).

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the suggestion brother man, not suggesting it was a good idea. I did join the party to vote corbyn in as leader, but have recently cancelled mbership for reasons detailed in an earlier post. I do not believe the membership have as much influence as some think, or things might be different.

[andy_s]

biggbn said:

I often wonder what might have been achieved had his party rallied around rather than continually snipe and undermine. It was, briefly, a populist movement and I remember many saying ah, but, he will have to sacrifice some of his views to get into power.


Here's an idea, if the self serving, comfortable, 'centrist'tory lite Labour mps wanted corbyn and co to compromise their views for power, why didn't THEY compromise their views, get behind his vision for labour, get power THEN deal with things. Seemed like a one way street of suggested compromise to me.

I remember writing this at the time...

Why don't the old/new labour charlatans realise one man is turning this around and get behind him instead of constantly pushing their own agenda and subverting the only decent chance Britain has for real change for decades. They are, I believe, scared of power. They chose to strike out for mediocrity many moons ago and are comfortable in their well paid unacountability. Imagine having to work for their respective constituents from a position of power and therefore magnified responsibility? Strive for mediocrity, achieve it and wallow in its comforting embrace. If you can ignore the word dissapointed once, you can make a lucrative stable career out of it. These gimpatrons have been performing an incredible under the radar/parapet invisibility for decades and live in constant fear of being found out, which is exactly what has been happening under the avuncular inscrutable gaze of bagpuss Jeremy.


My opinion hasn't changed much as I watch the labour party strive for hitherto impeached levels of ineptitude

I can't say I'm a fan, I have deep misgivings, however while watching our great and good from both sides play out their petty internecine battles against a backdrop of deepening national division and profound imminent change - a 'cacophony of contradictions, bewildering unmanaged outcomes and destabilised national psyche' - it has at least revealed the political class for what they truly are, kings resplendent in new clothes with little interest in the good of the country. A pox on them all say I.

[Fittster]

biggbn said:

Fittster said:

biggbn said:

I often wonder what might have been achieved had his party rallied around rather than continually snipe and undermine. It was, briefly, a populist movement and I remember many saying ah, but, he will have to sacrifice some of his views to get into power.

And then you get Tony Blair. The party membership decided they wanted a left wing leader and that's what they got. Unlike the Conservative party the Labour party members have influence. If you want a different leader of the Labour party, join the party and become an active member.

The MPs who are to the right of Corbyn and have been undermining him will be deselected as the next election. Some of them have jumped (chuka umunna) and some will either have to toe the line or be deselected (Tom Watson).

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the suggestion brother man, not suggesting it was a good idea. I did join the party to vote corbyn in as leader, but have recently cancelled mbership for reasons detailed in an earlier post.

If you're not involved you aren't really in any position to complain that the party isn't going in a direction you are unhappy with. There are endless posts about people complaining they are politically homeless (which is a stupid thing in the first place, do you really think their will be a party that represents your views on all subjects?) and yet are unwilling to get involved in politics.

At least if you join the Labour or Lib Dem parties you can have some small influence on the direction of the party (or join the conservatives and stuff some envelopes).

[biggbn]

andy_s said:

I can't say I'm a fan, I have deep misgivings, however while watching our great and good from both sides play out their petty internecine battles against a backdrop of deepening national division and profound imminent change - a 'cacophony of contradictions, bewildering unmanaged outcomes and destabilised national psyche' - it has at least revealed the political class for what they truly are, kings resplendent in new clothes with little interest in the good of the country. A pox on them all say I.

Good post. Politicians are to self involved, culturally entrenched or in love with a singular ideology. To quote Bruce Lee, All fixed set patterns are incapable of adaptability or pliability. The truth is outside of all fixed patterns.

[biggbn]

Fittster said:

If you're not involved you aren't really in any position to complain that the party isn't going in a direction you are unhappy with. There are endless posts about people complaining they are politically homeless (which is a stupid thing in the first place, do you really think their will be a party that represents your views on all subjects?) and yet are unwilling to get involved in politics.

At least if you join the Labour or Lib Dem parties you can have some small influence on the direction of the party (or join the conservatives and stuff some envelopes).

I found myself banging my head against a brick wall of intractibility man. I am drawn now to the green party, who seem to embrace most of my social and political ethics. I think I AM signalling my displeasure with the party by withdrawing my fiscal support and I think as more people become disenfranchised the party will realise the folly of taking their new found support for granted

Edited by biggbn on Thursday 21st March 17:12

[Halb]

Fittster said:

I can see how he would appeal in NP&E

I think he posts here.

A Winner Is You said:

I wouldn't agree he interviews well, he's fine with softball questions but as soon as things aren't going his way you see a different side and he's lost his temper with reporters on a number of occasions. Or when a member of the public had him visibly rattled by pressing on Trident. What he is good at is preaching to the converted, but that's not going to win you an election because you need those floating voters.

I think he does, or does more than not rather, compared to almost every other MP. He's one of a few whom tend to think about things. I'e watched his interviews and plainly, some reporters don't deserve the name, and I don't mean in regards to interviewing a particular person, but just with the obsession with interruptions and not allowing an answer to come forth,the worst ones are more interested in getting zingers, sometimes modern UK reporting reminds me of The Office/Parks and Rec.