Jeremy Corbyn

the national anthem eh?

is that the one that goes 'God save our gracious queen'....

maybe he really just thinks that someone whos primary residence has 250 bedrooms while the rest of the country grapples with a social housing crisis is an insult to decency

and he doesnt believe in some silly bearded sky fairy nonsense

in which case - High 5 from me Corbs!!!

Well if we insist on having an anthem like "God Save the Queen" you are asking for trouble. And asking a leader of the opposition who knows and speaks his mind to mouth that crap is never going to happen.

I reckon he'll be gone in under a year. Not forced out via a coup but he'll quit due to the scrutiny/aggro he'll be receiving. He seems to have a short fuse and I think he'll find it all too much.

Just my hunch.

Seems that Corbyn managed to forget the words to the National Anthem today

I'm sure he knows the words - that's why he didn't sing them. It really should be renamed the Queen's Anthem as there's no mention of the British Nation or the British people in it.

I'm beginning to like Corbyn.

I reckon he'll be gone in under a year. Not forced out via a coup but he'll quit due to the scrutiny/aggro he'll be receiving. He seems to have a short fuse and I think he'll find it all too much. Just my hunch.

Mine too. He's no spring chicken. He's newly married. His oppo felt he wasn't fit/young enough for the leadership race let alone the chancellor job. They never expected to win. They can't deliver on promises they never expected to have to fullfil. Who the hell wants to spend from 66 to 75 in the non-stop cauldron of high level politics in the 24 hour media age.

They'll pick one of the many compromises of principle they'll need to make and resign over it.

The only reason not to would be the disappointment/anger of their supporters.

media bias...
People presenting stuff that you disagree with

In this country we have the mirror and guardian who are left wing/liberal - vs the daily express, the daily mail, the times, the telegraph, the sun, the star - all right wing, mostly rabidly so. That clearly doesn't just reflect existing public opinion, as if it did we would always have a massive Tory majority. It reflects the fact that the media is largely owned by oligarchs who's papers reflect their own self interest.

The supposedly lefty BBC has now been sufficiently cowed/bullied that they generally just tow the government party line.

Claiming there isn't a general right wing media bias is laughable, frankly.

TBH I don't care much about 'God Save the Queen' but it does show clearly his mindset which seems stuck in 6th Form politics of protest. If he was smart he'd play the game, get in power then he could change it.

I'm with you [b]allthepies[/b] I think he is going to absolutely hate being in the media spotlight 24/7 and if you hit the right buttons he clearly does have a short fuse. I may not be a fan butt for his sake I hope being leader doesn't ruin his health long term.

TBH I don't care much about 'God Save the Queen' but it does show clearly his mindset which seems stuck in 6th Form politics of protest. If he was smart he'd play the game, get in power then he could change it.

What you and many others fail to grasp is that the reason he is popular is for not 'playing the game'. It's not about 6th form politics of protest it's about acting according to your principles. I wouldn't sing that monarchist dirge either.

I may not be a fan butt for his sake

😯

I read that New Yorker article up to this point :

[i]"Kendall, an instinctive modernizer, and thus the person whom the Tories would most have feared at the ballot box, scored four and a half per cent"[/i]

It was a well written article but the suggestion that out of the 4 candidate Liz Kendall was the one that the Tories feared most is ridiculous beyond absurd.

Every man and his dog, plus of course the entire Tory Party, knew that out of the 4 candidates Liz Kendall was by far the least likely to be the next Labour Prime Minister.

Which is of course precisely why she got a derisory and let's be honest hugely embarrassing 4.5% of the vote.

It's nice to read a well written article but unless you want fiction I can't see the point of bothering if it strays so comprehensively from the truth.

it's about acting according to your principles

Which is a luxury denied to Party Leaders and Prime Ministers.

I'd really like to see those studies (and who's behind them).

whom the Tories [b]would most have[/b] feared

I'm surprised you missed that nuance. You often complain about people missing yours.

Bit of a typo that 😆

ernie for once I totally agree. I gave up on that article at the same point for the same reasons.

the reason he is popular is for not 'playing the game'

I gave up on that article at the same point for the same reasons.

How odd.

or even worse getting the China National Nuclear Corporation to build a load of reactors here

he loves them commies, theyll be loving it, probably even offer them some ludicrous fixed tariff

Which is a luxury denied to Party Leaders and Prime Ministers.

Which is one of the things they always get slated for and one of the reasons so many people are switched off by politics.

http://www.crest.ox.ac.uk/papers/p75.pdf

I've read that before and while it concludes that newspapers don't have much influence over election results that's not really the whole story is it. The press set the agenda and the language of debate - and our press is largely small-minded, bigoted, mean-spirited, deliberately misleading, hate-filled propaganda.

The fact that it might not be directly able to influence an election result doesn't mean they don't have a massive pernicious influence, and that isn't really what that study addresses.

with his supports true, but remember he has to get people who voted Tory this year to cross sides to Labour in 2020.

So you admit that his supporters admire his principled stand and lack of spin, whereas Tory voters are morons who lap all that shit up? 😉

i doubt the national anthem thing is as much of an issue as many people (on the right) want it to be.

in the past, if a politician had an affair it would be a huge scandal that would affect their electability. These days most sensible people consider that their policies are more important than their private lives.

It's not the 1950's any more; i think plenty of centrist voters will be able to overlook this, even if they are pro-monarchists.

Mr Woppit - Member

I'd really like to see those studies (and who's behind them).

CREST.OX.AC.UK "http://www.crest.ox.ac.uk/papers/p75.pdf"

"So, over the longer term, newspapers that change their partisanship can, it appears, persuade some of their readers to vote for their party's new allegiance."

"Britain's highly partisan press does have some influence on the way in which their readers vote"

What I don't understand is that it says... "a pro-Labour imbalance in the press in the 1997 election was insufficient to avoid a decline in Labour's overall level of electoral support"
Eh!? That was the landslide Labour victory right?

What I don't understand is that it says... "a pro-Labour imbalance in the press in the 1997 election was insufficient to avoid a decline in Labour's overall level of electoral support"

Eh!? That was the landslide Labour victory right?

based on a very quick scan, it seems to be comparing levels of support for Labour in 1996 vs people who actually voted Labour in 97 after certain papers had switched allegience. And there was a decline overall, but not amongst Sun readers

[img] [/img]

Bias?

At least none of them say 'Corbyn hints that he may be a pedophile'

At least not yet.

Well some of them are a bit dodgy but they all have an element of truth and some such as the Daily Star one about women only carriages or the Mail in working with the SNP are fine.

Also it's a bit silly to think headlines are anything other than adverts for the article. A 6 word headline can never convey any nuanced argument, that's for the body of the article.

It's not the 1950's any more; i think plenty of centrist voters will be able to overlook this,

That's true, but irrelevant since the Labour party aren't after centrist votes, they've repositioned themselves to go after the extreme left.

I wouldn't sing that monarchist dirge either.

me neither

Interesting that political commentators are only now saying that they're not being briefed by spin doctors...and are complaining that he needs to connect with main stream media...Game's changed, and they've not caught up.

Bias?

Nope, they print the same shit about everyone and everything else.

Well some of them are a bit dodgy but they all have an element of truth and some such as the Daily Star one about women only carriages or the Mail in working with the SNP are fine.

Also it's a bit silly to think headlines are anything other than adverts for the article. A 6 word headline can never convey any nuanced argument, that's for the body of the article.

Got any examples of the same thing being done to Burnham, Cooper, or Kendall?

Or Cameron for that matter.

me neither
Interesting that political commentators are only now saying that they're not being briefed by spin doctors...and are complaining that he needs to connect with main stream media...

Good strategy IMHO.

Game's changed, and they've not caught up.

Maybe they'll have to do their jobs and report on actual policy rather than dealing in endless spin.

Plan's working!

Well some of them are a bit dodgy but they all have an element of truth and some such as the Daily Star one about women only carriages or the Mail in working with the SNP are fine.

The one about women only carriages is far from fine. It wasn't even Corbyn's idea. It's dismaying to see how easily people are duped.

Not singing the national anthem is irrelevant in itself. When you put it together with his stance on the IRA it adds up to more of a problem however. He took the oath to join the privy council which as I understand it contains a loyalty pledge which to me shows he has a certain inconsistency.

his stance on the IRA

And what's that?

Maybe they'll have to do their jobs and report on actual policy rather than dealing in endless spin.

If Labour discuss policy then the magic wand will be exposed as fantasy. If by some miracle the magic wand is shown by the cold light of day to be a workable scheme, the current government will just use the magic wand themselves and get the credit.

I predict 3 years of Labour keeping very quiet about their policy, as all opposition parties do.

maybe he really just thinks that someone whos primary residence has 250 bedrooms while the rest of the country grapples with a social housing crisis is an insult to decency

In the old birds defence, 188 of those bedrooms are for staff

"Sandwiches from the mouths of Veterans" 😆

And what's that?

"It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA."

They were clearly offered the sandwiches, FFS.

He seems to have a short fuse and I think he'll find it all too much.

Those Downfall YouTube videos are going to keep coming 😉

Thought that quote was from his deputy oob?

In this country we have the mirror and guardian who are left wing/liberal - vs the daily express, the daily mail, the times, the telegraph, the sun, the star - all right wing, mostly rabidly so. That clearly doesn't just reflect existing public opinion, as if it did we would always have a massive Tory majority. It reflects the fact that the media is largely owned by oligarchs who's papers reflect their own self interest.

I disagree, all it proves is that people with left wing views don't buy newspapers, if They did the Mirror and Guardian would have massive circulations

Thought that quote was from his deputy oob?

As pointed out numerous times. Some people just don't want to listen.

Youre right bigndaft, the Barclay bros, Murdoch, Rothermere and Desmond are all rabid socialists 😉

I disagree, all it proves is that people with left wing views don't buy newspapers, if They did the Mirror and Guardian would have massive circulations

Or most folks who buy newspapers do so for the norks, the TV guide, the celeb gossip and the football and barely notice the political bobbins.

[quote=kimbers said]Thought that quote was from his deputy oob?

It wasn't Tom Watson, it was John McDonnell the shadow chancellor.

But not Corbyn, so oobs just spreading lies ?

Right wingers eh, can't help themselves, even the Tory party have been forced to take down their video because its made up !

"Sandwiches from the mouths of Veterans"

More dodgy reporting from Sky...I don't know how many ambiguities there were in that short excerpt. I'd be pretty ashamed as a reporter if I had to say that kind of stuff on TV. I'd also be a bit embarrassed to be linking to that kind of stuff, but I guess it makes a change from posting pictures of Ed Miliband eating bacon sandwiches for you atp. I'm sure you'll find more stuff for us.

[quote=deadlydarcy said] I'm sure you'll find more stuff for us.

You'll be pleased to know that I'm tumescent at the thought.

John McDonnell was on telly last night explaining why he made that statement. He seemed to make sense, if you're not going to go all JHJ-style OOH! Makes you think!

OOH! Makes you think!

You'll be pleased to know that I'm tumescent at the thought.

Well, I'm not at all surprised. I'm sure Guido will provide you with plenty more.

Interesting that political commentators are only now saying that they're not being briefed by spin doctors...and are complaining that he needs to connect with main stream media...Game's changed, and they've not caught up.

The game doesn't change because he won't get his message out as effectively and surely that is his purpose. His style is refreshing in that he is not a sound bite politician of the modern school, so personally I think he is more in need of help because his message is expressed in more words and therefore will be more difficult to get across in short TV packages, which is how the vast majority of the population consume political news. Professional help will useful to him in achieving this. Hiring a "spin doctor" does not mean you are obsessed with spin, it is just a liaison between you and the press.

I'm sure many in his situation would be busy training to do that ****ing annoying delivery a la Blair and Cameron with the accompanying hands. I'm not sure he's one for that kind of frippery though - his speech to the TUC conference was full of good stuff today (IMO), but I was saddened by the comments (look, this was 5Live, so I accept it's not exactly representative) referring to his delivery meaning that he was utterly useless at everything. In the world.

oobs just spreading lies ?

I hope not. Quote any innacurate post I've made and I'll apologise and retract it.

From the "Threat to national security" thread...

outofbreath - Member - Block User - Quote
If the leader really does condemn IRA violence I trust he'll be sacking his Shadow Chancellor:

"It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA."

(AFAIK, he has explained why he said what he said and accepts that he could have worded it better. I realise that's not good enough for everyone and that a politician must live and die by every single sentence he says, even ones twelve years ago when a peace process was close to collapse.)

And in answer to my question to jambalaya (i.e. what's JC's stance on the IRA) you quote:

outofbreath - Member - Block User - Quote
And what's that?
"It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA."

But, curiously, you don't mention that this is quote is not JC's.

[Apologies for cross thread stalking.]

Cassette boy will educate you....

He's right about Europe too, the rest of the Labour Party need to keep up!

EDIT Cassette boy = brilliant

DD: I apologise for failing to put the attribution, I was posting from my mobile, but I accept I should have. It's a very well known quote now and I doubt anyone thought it was JC's. But, yes, it is the starting point for Labour's stance unless you can find a clearer statement?

I've read his explanation from the time and it was an explanation not a retraction. He's standing by the message AFAIK.

I disagree, all it proves is that people with left wing views don't buy newspapers, if They did the Mirror and Guardian would have massive circulations

Or most folks who buy newspapers do so for the norks, the TV guide, the celeb gossip and the football and barely notice the political bobbins.

One or other. I have no evidence but I can't imagine open minded nice people buying (say) the Mail and the journalistic slant turning them into bigots. Seems far more likely it's either neutral or reinforcing existing prejudice.

But, yes, it is the starting point for Labour's stance unless you can find a clearer statement?

How is a starting point? It's something said by someone 12 years ago, when a peace process was on its knees. How is that now Labour's policy? Has Corbyn said anything to that effect...like "Yep, I'm absolutely on the money with John...we view the IRA bombers as heroes and they should be honoured." That would be a good indicator of Labour's policy (or stance) on the IRA.

How is a starting point? It's something said by someone 12 years ago, when a peace process was on its knees. How is that now Labour's policy?

I assume when the OP said stance he didn't mean policy, the quote is just an indication of how "True Labour" might be thinking. Would they even *need* a policy?

Semantics, shmemantics.

So, anyway...has Corbyn indicated that that's his stance?

Semantics, shmemantics.
So, anyway...has Corbyn indicated that that's his stance?

Jerry Adams was the first Leader to congratulate him and he refused to specifically condemn IRA violence, although he did condemn violence in general. We've all read the view of the first appointment he made.

I have no idea why but the Labour Party do appear to have a liking for these violent people.

I have no idea why, but it seems to me you've come to conclusion, then backfilled it with reasons.

OOB, from a fairly neutral standpoint, it looks like you are DESPERATE to make this JC bloke look like a loony, when actually whenever I see him speak, he comes across as genuine, reasonable and honest. Rather than attributing (miss)quotes to him, I'd appreciate it if anyone could find a single clip of him saying something that would shock me. Because when you look into the 'shocking' quotes more closely (friends of hamas, disband the army, liking sinn fein, etc) taken fully in context they actually seem to be reasonable statements cynically used out of context by a bunch of spiteful, selfish, SCARED Tories.

I haven't voted in a General Election, ever, because I have always despaired at the lack of choice presented. but I will DEFINITELY be voting for the man who comes across consistently as honest, principled and decent that has appeared from the ashes of Pseudo Labour.

outofbreath - Member

he refused to specifically condemn IRA violence, although he did condemn violence in general.

Yep, that was exactly the sort of idiotic bullshit that we have to deal with these days. "I condemn all violence" "But do you condemn IRA violence?" "Well, is it violence? Yes? Do you know what "all" means?" But instead it's CORBYN REFUSES TO CONDEMN IRA VIOLENCE

I have no idea why, but it seems to me you've come to conclusion, then backfilled it with reasons.

Err, because you asked me to.

I am always delighted to share a platform with people like Martin (McGuinness), I make no secret about it – we get along very well personally

That is a quote from Colin Parry, I will await with interest your character assassination.

Jerry Adams was the first Leader to congratulate him

I'm fairly certain that he wasn't, although I'm mystified why it would be an issue.

You yourself describe Gerry Adams as a "Leader". He is president of a political party which is fully legal under UK law and which people are completely free to vote for should they wish to, and they do - it's the second largest party in NI.

Why the **** shouldn't it's leader congratulate the new leader of the Labour Party?

Unless you're some sort of Daily Mail reading right-wing bigot I can't see a problem.

Yep, that was exactly the sort of idiotic bullshit that we have to deal with these days. "I condemn all violence" "But do you condemn IRA violence?" "Well, is it violence? Yes? Do you know what "all" means?"

Didn't you find that odd though? It would have been quicker just to say he condemned IRA violence. Maybe he he was just in a ratty mood but it looked weird to me, like Howard/Paxman.

That is a quote from Colin Parry, I will await with interest your character assignation.

If he meant "people like MM because they murder", then Colin Parry is a ****. If CP meant "people like MM who have renounced violence" then that's ok, in my view.

McD spelled out that he meant the first sense.

Didn't you find that odd though? It would have been quicker just to say he condemned IRA violence. Maybe he he was just in a ratty mood but it looked weird to me, like Howard/Paxman

except for the answering the question bit and the condemning them bit that is a great point

This is pointless , you dont care what he said as you have your view and you are trying to force the facts to conform to your view

They dont and you wont reconsider

But Oob just knows Corbyn is evil as hell has a hard on for terrorists and has the quotes to back it up........ Or is he just

[img] [/img]

I'm sure that Corbyn will **** up plenty in the future, just wait for him to actually do or say something bad

I'm going to give oob the benefit of the doubt and hazard that we wasn't sure who Colin Parry is. I really can't think of anyone who'd call him a **** - well, I can, but y'know, any kind of decent human.

whenever I see him speak, he comes across as genuine, reasonable and honest.

Yep, he's got the likeability factor, he reminds me a bit of Tony Benn in that he forms opinions from a well understood set of principles. I certainly wouldn't dispute that hitherto he's been genuine and honest, but as leader that will have to change and he'll need to start ducking questions and stating views he doesn't agree with - you can't rebel as leader!

Rather than attributing (miss)quotes to him,

I haven't misquoted JC once. Every single negative historic JC quote I've seen has been out of context with bits missing and I haven't repeated them. The only quote I've used was from McD and I've posted in full uncut. (I also read his explanation of it to make sure hasn't retracted it or subsequently changed the meaning or just claimed his mouth overtook his brain any of which would seem reasonable explanations to me.) That's the only quote I recall posting.

I'd appreciate it if anyone could find a single clip of him saying something that would shock me.

It's not a quote but have a read of Mc D's blog about how they're going to gather the money they're going to give us all. It's mental.

SCARED Tories.

Why scared Tories? Labour aren't going after any Tory votes at all, as of Saturday Labour have decided to look elsewhere for votes. They're chasing SNP/Green votes now.

I'm going to give oob the benefit of the doubt and hazard that we wasn't sure who Colin Parry is. I really can't think of anyone who'd call him a **** - well, I can, but y'know, any kind of decent human.

How could anybody so concerned with the relations between British and republican politicians not know? How could anyone with any care for the victims of terrorism not know?

Are you suggesting he is faking his hysterical outrage?

It's not a quote but have a read of Mc D's blog about how they're going to gather the money they're going to give us all. It's mental.

[img] [/img]

Are you suggesting he is faking his hysterical outrage?

[img] [/img]

If he meant "people like MM because they murder", then Colin Parry is a *. If CP meant "people like MM who have renounced violence" then that's ok, in my view.

I'm going to give oob the benefit of the doubt and hazard that we wasn't sure who Colin Parry is. I really can't think of anyone who'd call him a * - well, I can, but y'know, any kind of decent human.

No need to give me the benefit of the doubt. If CP values someone because they murder people he's a ****. If he advocates someone because they are renouncing violence that's totally reasonable.

You haven't even bothered to google who Colin Parry is, you moron.

OOB, might I suggest you look up who Colin Parry OBE is before you dig yourself a deeper hole. I can't imagine a man less likely to value someone because they murder people.