O/T Jeremy corbyn

[caytonmiller]

Is there any polititions over all the party's who would be a good pm?. Or are they just there to be shot down? Genuine question as I don't do politics often

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

Is there any polititions over all the party's who would be a good pm?. Or are they just there to be shot down? Genuine question as I don't do politics often

It's hard to assess to be honest because politicians today are so media driven that they end up supporting everything and jump on every bandwagon.

Rarely do they make a stand and oppose something that might start a social media storm

[welovebooth]

Corbyn wants to hold a secound referendum on brexit.

Guessing Rotherham was a brexit town will the people of the town vote for labour knowing he doesnt want to leave the eu and hold a second referendum

[millersrus]

Corbyn wants to hold a secound referendum on brexit.

Guessing Rotherham was a brexit town will the people of the town vote for labour knowing he doesnt want to leave the eu and hold a second referendum

Corbyn wants to leave, most of the Labour Party don’t, that’s his dilemma.
If the brexit situation is not sorted then the people will have a say who they want to elect.
Brexit sorted, healey will get my vote.
Brexit not sorted, healey doesn’t get my vote.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

Corbyn wants to leave, most of the Labour Party don’t, that’s his dilemma.
If the brexit situation is not sorted then the people will have a say who they want to elect.
Brexit sorted, healey will get my vote.
Brexit not sorted, healey doesn’t get my vote.

Do you mean John Healey?

The MP that’s hardly ever seen in his constituency and one that is trying to get us to stay in the EU even though the people in his electoral ward gave a majority leave vote?

He’s the duck with the red rosette.

[animallittle3]

Is there any polititions over all the party's who would be a good pm?. Or are they just there to be shot down? Genuine question as I don't do politics often

Well apparently the less you say and acknowledge in a live debate designed to find out the best candidate to lead the country the more your chances of success are increased .

I think that just about sums up where we are as a nation .

The less the opposition leader says on matters such as brexit the more likely he is to remain in a job too .

Perhaps someone should place The deaf , dumb and blind kid who sure plays a mean pinball into office .

He would be perfect .

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

Many of our standards existed before we joined the EU and some even before the EU existed.

For example many of our Health and Safety regulations and food safety regulations.

Most of the EU regulations were brought in to provide consistency across the EU not necessarily to improve them.

There’s absolutely no real evidence that existing laws will be scrapped in the U.K. if we leave the EU.

[ragingpup]

I’m obsessed with Corbyn? I’ll repeat the point that I made the other day that it isn’t so long since you were trilling away about how people were chanting his name in Grime Clubs. It’s only since you’ve realised that he is a toxic brand that you’ve come all over sceptical about him.

I don’t know whether the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to intelligence briefings. I think it has always been a matter of convention, but I know of no law that requires it. It’s difficult to see how there could be oversight of such an arrangement and I can’t see the security services being too keen to share information about intelligence held on Iran with someone who has taken handsome payments from an arm of the Iranian government. Can you? Do you seriously think it would be a good idea, bearing in mind the intelligence will almost certainly be based in part on human sources and that Iran isn’t known for its tolerance and open and independent judicial system ?

You have to bear in mind that Corbyn is a man of principle and that the principle is ‘anyone who doesn’t like the USA and the West is ok with him’.

It’s a tricky one though isn’t it? Corbyn and by extension you as a Labour voter, want Diane Abbott to be the next Home Secretary - a woman who said of the PIRA "Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed" in charge of the police and security services… I really don’t care how many haircuts she’s had since she said it, I wonder if she would like to explain it to the friends and families of the people who were blown up in Guildford or Birmingham or the parents of the 3-year old and the 12-yr old who were killed in the Warrington bombing.

And you spend days making daft points about how ‘far right’ Farage is for some stupid comment about Romanians whilst getting on the knocker to try to catapult Corbyn, Abbott and the equally extreme McDonnell into power. It beggars belief and you really need to have a word with yourself.

I don't know if a ‘more cynical scrutiny’ of evidence might have prevented the war in Iraq and unnecessary death of soldiers, because I don’t know what the evidence was.

What a shamelessly one dimensional post that was. You can sometimes carry arguments that show some elements of being able to understand nuance and complexity in political ideas. This one was pure 'Daily Express'.

Anger for the victims of abimanable IRA terrorist actions yet no thought at all for the innocent lives lost over the years to the victims of the British state in successive governments. Likewise you repeatedly post about abominable actions of the Palestinians without any acknowledgement of the abominable actions of the Israeli state. You profess to be a reader of The Guardian paper which in fairness generally shows two sides to each narrative. I see no rub off of such sophistication from you here. You'll of course claim to be independent and above such influences. But it honestly would do you good to read both sides of political history, but just the UK imperialist one that you continually spout.

And most offensively of all you claim you "don't know what the evidence was" of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that sent our soldiers to their deaths. Absolute shame on you.

There was none.

We went to war based on knee jerk, erroneous evidence that played, as we always do, to the imperialist gut of our idiot leaders (and followers, shame on us too) And we wandered, blindly into it killing our own and creating circumstances that fuelled terrorist revenge that we still suffer from. Corbyn wanted further evidence of these "weapons of mass destruction", as did most right thinking snowflake libtards. Grist and Fire will be very proud of your post. And for that you should feel quite ashamed.

[KerrAvon]

What a shamelessly one dimensional post that was. You can sometimes carry arguments that show some elements of being able to understand nuance and complexity in political ideas. This one was pure 'Daily Express'.

Anger for the victims of abimanable IRA terrorist actions yet no thought at all for the innocent lives lost over the years to the victims of the British state in successive governments. Likewise you repeatedly post about abominable actions of the Palestinians without any acknowledgement of the abominable actions of the Israeli state. You profess to be a reader of The Guardian paper which in fairness generally shows two sides to each narrative. I see no rub off of such sophistication from you here. You'll of course claim to be independent and above such influences. But it honestly would do you good to read both sides of political history, but just the UK imperialist one that you continually spout.

And most offensively of all you claim you "don't know what the evidence was" of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that sent our soldiers to their deaths. Absolute shame on you.

There was none.

We went to war based on knee jerk, erroneous evidence that played, as we always do, to the imperialist gut of our idiot leaders (and followers, shame on us too) And we wandered, blindly into it killing our own and creating circumstances that fuelled terrorist revenge that we still suffer from. Corbyn wanted further evidence of these "weapons of mass destruction", as did most right thinking snowflake libtards. Grist and Fire will be very proud of your post. And for that you should feel quite ashamed.

So rather than deal with the fact that the leader of your party and his pick for Home Secretary have acted as apologists for terrorists you resort to the - oh so inevitable - whatabouttery and personal attacks that you rely upon to try to distract attention from inconvenient truths.

Quick, get the thread back onto your endless posts about why Farage is far right. That's far more comfortable ground for you. Obviously Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell are preferable to him.

Lol.

[ragingpup]

So rather than deal with the fact that the leader of your party and his pick for Home Secretary have acted as apologists for terrorists you resort to the - oh so inevitable - whatabouttery and personal attacks that you rely upon to try to distract attention from inconvenient truths.

Quick, get the thread back onto your endless posts about why Farage is far right. That's far more comfortable ground for you. Obviously Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell are preferable to him.

Lol.

There is no personal attack in saying that you should be ashamed for not supporting seeking greater evidence before triggering a way that led to our soldiers getting killed.

You persist in your tabloid-esque chest beating about Corbyn et al being apologists for terrorism but refuse to engage in the discussion about their reasons for historically opposing the British State and supporting the cause (though crucially not the terrorism in support of the cause) with the intention of stopping the conflicts and saving human lives. You are as blinkered as a tabloid reader manipulating headlines in favour, unquestioning, in support of the British state. Corbyn is absolutely right to be suspicious of any evidence and request that the evidence provided before international intervention is robust. I don’t trust Palestine leaders and more than I trust Israeli leaders, I don’t trust Russian leaders and more than I trust American leaders and it is wise to always be suspicious of your own leaders, not just Corbyn.

The bottom line is that Corbyn is a genuine pacifist. That will alarm the twitching red faced tabloid fodder that want a twitching finger on our nuclear button and are convinced that foreigners are out to get them, but that is bottom line what he is.
It is ridiculous to think that he would support any actions of violence for a cause, but that mean that the cause itself shouldn't still be supported. He has condemned the IRA and any terrorist organisation for its murderous approach to political troubles (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...ists-1.3091883) I judge a person on their voting record over history and their actions over history. Corbyn has made some stupid errors of judgement in his 50 years of activity that will continue to haunt him (appearing on Iran TV, defending the Mural) but your statement that he apologises for terrorists is just plain ignoring the facts and history, twisting one dimensionally in favour of your own agenda. Just as bad as Grist and Fire. It can never win around people that only take on the side of the State of the country that they live in, but Corbyn’s belief that you have to take evidence and sides as you see them, and talk to your ‘enemies’ is correct if you want to bring about a change from a position of war. It is a shame that unthinking, blinkered people who can’t look beyond the relentless propaganda of their own state immediately call such people ‘apologists’ and ‘terrorist sympathisers’ but we have to be pragmatic and try and stop the conflict. This worked in Ireland to a greater extent. It has far from worked in the middle East and won’t for a long time to come. But the more we acknowledge the history of the problem and the grievances of both sides, not just the Israeli one, and the more you encourage the leaders of both sides to enter a room to talk, the closer peace will come.

I’m perfectly comfortable on this topic but happy to do Farage any time the cynical bigot comes into view. But you’re the one that expresses blinkered, ill researched views so I’m focusing on that. And I repeat, Corbyn would have avoided the Iraq war by asking for clear evidence of Blair’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’, and he would not have sent our troops to their deaths. You appear content that this happened and perfectly happy to make the same mistakes again. Not personal, but again, shame on you for that.