Jeremy Corbyn

Every single member of the shadow cabinet (6 or 7 of them ?) the BBC interviewed at the conference publically disagreed with Corbyn. That's one of form of unity I suppose. They would well understand how that would look so I can only believe they where right royally hacked off about Corbyn dodging a debate on Trident. Far from encouraging democracy in the Labour party he's dodged an issue he knows he will most likely lose on and has tried to impose his will on the party !!

I see the SNP have picked up on yesterday's chaos, hardly surprising

@jhj the UK is the 6th richest country in the world with an economy roughly double that of Russia, whether that means you would be invaded or More likely threatened into submission, the nuclear weapons are a powerful deterrent.

Regarding Corbyn speech and having watched further parts of it he really really looked jaded, stumbling, tired and most of all OLD. Like it or not public persona is essential in politics today and Corbyn looks very much past it, even of a miracle happens and he makes it to 2020 he'll be 67 and an old 67. In "snap interviews" he is coming across as very grumpy indeed whilst trying to send a message about energy in the Labour party, a quality he most definitely does not have.

@dragon, Tom Watson is a pretty astute politician, the Labour Party and Cprbyn don't want to hear about Brown and Blair so he didn't speak about them. The fact is they cannot get used to the idea that Blair and Brown is what it took to get into power for 13 years.

@JY the point is the swing voters that Labour need to reclaim don't like Corbyn and his politics

the cost of Trident replacement is barely even a rounding error.

Funny how it's barely a rounding error when we're talking about buying/building weapons, yet when it's providing enough doctors and nurses, building hospitals or schools, or investing in clean energy or 21st century communications it's a sum that would break the nation's finances.

2.9 billion per year over 50 years would pay for an awful lot that we don't currently have, that would be directly useful and beneficial to everyone in the country.

Tom Watson will have knifed him in the back way before 2020. I don't see JC ever fighting a general election.

Look what that tool Blair got away with while the Tories imploded.

On that note, anyone notice Tom Watson completely 'forgot' to mention Blair and Brown in his speech the other day. Milliband and Smith got mentions, I find this airbrushing of history by certain sections of Labour weird. Are they trying to say Blair and Brown did nothing good for their party at all? In which case why did they support them for so long?

Perhaps like you they think he is a tool?

Its obvious from your every post that attacks labour,no matter what they do [ even agree with you] that you really care about them

Wipes tear from eye

Corbyn speech and having watched further parts of it he really really looked jaded, stumbling, tired and most of all OLD

Jesus Christ Jam - age discrimination now. A new low.

It is what it is. There are many vibrant 62 year olds, Corbyn isn't one of them.

dragon - Member

Tom Watson will have knifed him in the back way before 2020. I don't see JC ever fighting a general election.

He's probably going to have to live and die by the elections next May.

At the moment they can easily explain the popularity of Corbyn as activists who are joining the party, but who don't amount to enough country-wide votes to be of any significance.

jambalaya - Member

It is what it is. There are many vibrant 62 year olds, Corbyn isn't one of them.

I would say the opposite of jambalaya, being in your 40's is far too young to be running a country. In this case there's clearly no real world experience, working as a researcher does not equip one with breadth of experience. Just another non-job for a politician.

It is what it is. There are many vibrant 62 year olds, Corbyn isn't one of them.

You are only 93.94% right, he is 66

[quote=jambalaya opined]It is what it is. There are many vibrant 62 year olds, Corbyn isn't one of them.

Age discrimination and factually wrong.
He is 66 - I think this is where you tell us how well informed you are and how your job requires you to read tons and know loads of stuff

you then say how you are 100% correct and I have never managed to show an error in your thinking

I think the party will struggle to get rid of him when grassroots support is so high. How could they do this?

I think the party will struggle to get rid of him when grassroots support is so high. How could they do this?

Agree, but if he wanted to go he could pick any point of principle and claim to be resigning over that.Trident would be an obvious one.

As the lithuanian ambassador rightly points out, we are in NATO, there's a shedload of nukes within NATO, the UK's puny contribution means bugger all in that context of a defense alliance. They're a status symbol, nothing more.

Ergo, absolutely no need for them.

Saying that though, I'd still rather we spunked our cash on these useless items than spend more money on far more dangerous parts of the military.

On a side note, if not having nukes means you be nuke why haven't all these blue and yellow countries(beside Japan) been nuked?

[img] [/img]

but if he wanted to go he could pick any point of principle and claim to be resigning over that.Trident would be an obvious one.

On a side not, if not having nukes means you be nuke why haven't all these blue and yellow countries been nuked?

All the European countries are covered by NATO. Japan, Australia and Canada by the USA.

Then look how many wars their have been in Africa and the Middle East over the last 30 years.

As the lithuanian ambassador rightly points out, we are in NATO, there's a shedload of nukes within NATO, the UK's puny contribution means bugger all in that context of a defense alliance. They're a status symbol, nothing more.

Ergo, absolutely no need for them.

That's my take on it. Our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent at all. We'd only use it if Nato/USA were onside. In which case let them do it.

dragon - Member
Then look how many wars their have been in Africa and the Middle East over the last 30 years.

I think this is where you tell us how well informed you are and how your job requires you to read tons and know loads of stuff

Yeah Jambo, spout some more Jambabollox. 😀

On a side note, if not having nukes means you be nuke why haven't all these blue and yellow countries(beside Japan) been nuked?

I heard this great phrase on a few years back about doing a "tactical nuclear strike." Until someone pointed out there is nothing tactical about nuclear weapons. Anyone starts lobbing even a few of these around and the whole planet's hosed.

Their only value at the moment is political...top table of the Un- security council.

Age discrimination and factually wrong.

I disagree - it is factually correct that JC is not a 62 year old. I'm sure jamba will count that as part of his 100% record.

I think at this point, the absurdity of this whole discussion can be summed up by [url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/leader-of-uk-must-be-prepared-to-kill-everyone-20151001102480 ]the Daily Mash (as usual)[/url].

why has no-one nuked them?

Because they have mostly been wars between non-nuke states and to be fair their have been a fair amount of illegal chemical weapons used. Pretty sure Iran want nukes to stop Russia, Israel and Iraq starting on them (again).

dragon - Member
why has no-one nuked them?
Because they have mostly been wars between non-nuke states and to be fair their have been a fair amount of illegal chemical weapons used. Pretty sure Iran want nukes to stop Russia, Israel and Iraq starting on them (again).

So who does the UK need to fear?

Anyone who encourages cutting back on the lucrative arms trade?

Surely, it the dominant superpowers cut back on weapons, tensions would decrease, rather than escalate as they do when you have vast military investment, nuclear or otherwise.

When was the last time the UK (or US for that matter) were invaded or attacked by another countries army?

When was the last time the UK (and US) didn't have any active military forces in overseas conflicts?

Who supplied the weapons that sparked and fuelled those conflicts?

Who supplied the weapons that sparked and fuelled those conflicts?

The Queen ?

jivehoneyjive - Member
So who does the UK need to fear?
Anyone who encourages cutting back on the lucrative arms trade?

Surely, it the dominant superpowers cut back on weapons, tensions would decrease, rather than escalate as they do when you have vast military investment, nuclear or otherwise.

When was the last time the UK (or US for that matter) were invaded or attacked by another countries army?

When was the last time the UK (and US) didn't have any active military forces in overseas conflicts?

Who supplied the weapons that sparked and fuelled those conflicts?

I do like that, we need nukes cause we keep selling the world all their weapons! 😆

Because they have mostly been wars between non-nuke states

Except, or course, the Falklands War, where our nukes were of no use whatsoever. "What nuke for liberating Port Stanley?"

Well apparently they were useful in the Falklands, but not in the way you are thinking, see this link

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/22/books.france ]Guardian[/url]

[quote=ernie_lynch said]
The Queen ?

I believe Prince Phillip runs the arms business side of the family.

see this link

[i]"the psychoanalysis of François Mitterrand"[/i]

Yeah OK.

The British public didn't believe that Britain would use nuclear weapons, the Argentine government and people didn't believe that Britain would use nuclear weapons, the US administration, the UN, and the rest of the world didn't believe that Britain would use nuclear weapons.

I doubt very much that François Mitterrand believed that Britain would use nuclear weapons, whatever someone who wants to sell a book likes to claim.

Quite apart from the obvious stupidity of such a move in 1982 the Monroe Doctrine was still very much alive. The Argentine fascist military dictatorship owed its very existence to the US administration - the Monroe Doctrine decreed that Argentina was part of America's Backyard.

There is absolutely no way that the US would have allowed the UK to drop a nuclear device in its Backyard.

And just to prove the US's dominance of its own Backyard over all others, including its allegedly closest ally the UK, a year after the Falklands War Ronald Reagan order the attack, invasion, and occupation, of a British Commonwealth country, Grenada, without even bothering to inform the British government beforehand.

[img] [/img]

Well its a good job Lynch that Great Britain gave the Argie Junta a good conventional ass whipping then isn't it....
I wouldn't trust Corbyn with the responsibilty of defending our country or any other ally we have....
The first obligation of any PM is the defence and security of the UK
Thanks but no thanks Comrade Jez

The first obligation of any PM is the defence and security of the UK

How's that working out with Hameron? Are we more secure now he's busy bombing Iraq and Libya? Or has it created a big danger for us, maybe?

I'd rather surrender completely than be nuked.

Thanks but no thanks Comrade Jez

Yeah but to be fair nora you are a self-confessed UKIP supporter. You can't expect all UKIP supporters to warmly welcome Jeremy Corbyn's victory in the Labour Party leadership election. I would be worried if they did.

Bloody nora is john Wayne and I claim my ass whiping from him.

you are a self-confessed UKIP supporter

Is he 😀 ❓

Oh, I must have missed that! 😆

😆

And a bit more...

😆

Yes Nora has on here urged people to vote UKIP. Although TBF I think he/she leans a bit towards the EDL/BNP.

Maybe just getting a little less racist in his dotage.

Is he against immigration and allowing foreign companies to operate here too?

Amazing where you find UKIPers isn't it?

Oooh, there's the passive aggressive switcheroo. 😀

Can't we just sell some or all of our nuclear deterrent by auction(I'm sure the Yanks would pay top dollar to stop the Ayatollah ,Goldfinger, or god forbid, Richard Branson getting their mits on them) and then use the cash to give drama lessons and buy violins for under privileged kids in the North ?

PayPal Gift?

Slight hijack.

Was watching BBC or Channel 4 documentary last night about migrants ...

Now, I don't know about you lot but I would give that "innovative" bloke who jumped/moved/attached to different family by pretending to be husband, uncle, cousin whatever a citizenship or an Oscar immediately. His acting skill was so good he was able to move around without being caught. This person used his brain so he deserved to be let in.

😛

The scenario that would lead to someone supposedly having to push the button is incomprehensible to anyone, its a really silly and pathetic question, anyone who says that they would is talking absolute pipe.

its a really silly and pathetic question

It is a particularly silly and pathetic question when it is proposed that the yes or no answer, when a microphone is thrust under a person before TV cameras, will determine the effectiveness of Britain's "nuclear deterrent". As if potential nuclear armed enemies base their calculations on such an event and are waiting on the edge of their seats for the answer, ffs.

And it is a particularly silly and pathetic question when asked to a life-long opponent of nuclear weapons. Can you imagine the furore had Corbyn actually said "yes"? ffs

What do those who criticise Corbyn expected him to say ? No was wrong, saying yes would have been wrong. Was he suppose to say nothing, just stare blankly and kept everyone guessing? ffs, seriously, ffs.

Angela Eagle should be ashamed of herself for publicly criticising Corbyn for giving the only answer that he could give. Some Labour MPs need to accept that 60% of Labour Party members and supporters backed Corbyn a couple of weeks ago, and that it's them who are of touch with their own party.

I mean, we really need to examine just how psychotic this guy who's not too keen on pushing a button to kill millions of people actually is. Clearly, he's a massive danger to us all if he doesn't want to do that.

Daily Mash

ANY future prime minister must be willing to guarantee the total destruction of the UK in a nuclear war.

As Jeremy Corbyn pledged never to use nuclear weapons, voters made it clear they will reject anyone who will not cause them to be vaporised.

Donna Sheridan, from Stevenage, said: “We should definitely kill millions of enemy civilians because it might cheer us up a bit before we die.

“Retaliation would ultimately be pointless because widespread destruction would be inevitable and they might just send more missiles to finish us off. So we need to be led by someone who isn’t very good at thinking logically.”

She added: “It would help if they had a total disregard for human life and a fixation with apocalyptic vengeance. It’s a shame they killed Bin Laden because he’d be perfect.”

Tom Booker, from Hatfield, said: “A few people would probably survive so fighting back would boost morale. And morale is vitally important when you’re scavenging in the ruins with your teeth falling out.”

I keep imagining the scenario in the Kremlin had he said "yes"......."President Putin, the BBC have just reported that the leader of the Labour Party has said that he [i]would[/i] press the nuclear button".

Putin responds with, "Bollocks, I thought he was supposed to be a life-long opponent of nuclear weapons?"

"Well yes, but apparently he's changed his mind"

"Well ****it, that changes everything......it's really not the answer I wanted to hear, what an arsehole"

The question 'would you press the nuclear button' and the reaction to the answer must surely be the most ridiculous question ever asked to Jeremy Corbyn, and quite possibly one of the most ridiculous questions ever asked to a politician by a TV interviewer.

Was never going to happen though was it - deep cover agents like him and agent Boot would never go against orders from the Kremlin would they?

Angela Eagle should be ashamed of herself for publicly criticising Corbyn

Compared with her namesake, Maria and the other colleagues in the shadow cabinet, Angela seemed relative restrained in her expression of dismay.

Still Jezza is all about open dialogue and ability to stand up for personal believes even if they clash with the leader. It's the new old order.

What do those who criticise Corbyn expected him to say ? No was wrong, saying yes would have been wrong.

Which is why he was such a bad choice as leader. He has this problem on countless issues.

Well only 6 - 8 really critical ones.

As the NS noted (and linked above) all part of the nirvana fallacy

The nuclear question – perhaps the most serious question of our age - does not yield easily to idealism. To grapple with it, you have to put to one side your wish for a world in which nuclear weapons don’t exist, and think hard about the one in which they do.

Start from the wrong place, and you will generally fail to get to where you want to get to!

All this criticism for Corbyn because he has principles, is honest and sticks to them, yet openly admits that he wants a democratic process to set policy, rather than his own personal agenda, makes me think that the right wingers of this country don't actually want a democratically elected government, they want an autocratic dictator, or a personality cult. Putin would probably fit the bill; don't let the door hit you on the way out...

Which is why he was such a bad choice as leader. He has this problem on countless issues.

re the "Nirvana fallacy" is that what Jesus did or would do THM? Did he accept reality and went with it or did he change it for the better?
It really is possible for principled people to change the world for the better you just need to have a little more faith.
Given the 10 commandments [ you are not meant to kill ] I can only assume you would not be pressing the button either so why are you using this to attack him?

Start from the wrong place, and you will generally fail to get to where you want to get to

I would also contend that believe in the afterlife/god/religion etc is the ultimate nirvana fallacy so its a bit rich for you to lecture us on it.

All this criticism for Corbyn because he has principles, is honest and sticks to them, yet openly admits that he wants a democratic process to set policy, rather than his own personal agenda

That's contradictory. You can't have principles and stick to them *and* set policy with a democratic process unless by fluke the majority of the people in the democratic process agree with your preferred policies. Over multiple issues is not the case in the Labour party today, nor in any other party AFAIK.

Why is this his fault?

It's not.

That's contradictory

Except obviously it's not, as one of his KEY principles is the belief in a true democratic process.

Ok, so one principle outweighs all the others, so the principled thing to do is to drop all the other principles to support the *really* important one.

Except it's not. The principled thing to do where the majority of your principles must be abandoned to fit in with the views of everyone else is to resign.

EDIT: Mind you, is it principled to resign when 60pc of your party have just voted for you? I'd say not.

I don't see a principled way out of his predicament. Whatever he does is wrong.

You can't have principles and stick to them *and* set policy with a democratic process

Agreed - not contradictory. He tells you what HIS principles are, but that he won't dicatate to the party, and the party policy will be arrived at by consensus.

Remarkable that so many people have a problem with that. I'm glad I don't have to work with some of you!

60% of his party voted for him [i]knowing[/i] his principles, whilst not maybe agreeing with every single one. I'm not a vegetarian, but I'm happy to vote for one, and I suspect that although he is a vegetarian, he's not going to insist we all give up meat. He's a democratic leader, NOT a dictator.

outofbreath - Member
Whatever he does is wrong.

We'll put you in the "not the target demographic Labour should be looking at" column, shall we? 😆

Btw the decision whether or not to press the button is only contradictory if the party disagree with it, when he gets the actual power to press the button.

Until then it doesn't matter, and Jeremy obvious thinks he can change party policy before that happens.

This is the good thing about being in opposition, you can have disagreements. They do become a bit more serious when you are in government I'd argue, but currently this is a luxury he has, imo.

How is he going change party policy in the next 5 years? A move towards giving the grassroots the ability to select their own candidates would be a step in the right direction.

There are obvious disagreements within the PLP, but the PLP and PLP opinion isn't a constant.

Agreed - not contradictory. He tells you what HIS principles are, but that he won't dicatate to the party, and the party policy will be arrived at by consensus.

Remarkable that so many people have a problem with that.

Ok I think we've exhausted the 'is it principled' argument without any of us changing our mind.

Next question is let's say you turn up at an election openly acknowledging that you think many (most) of your policies are wrong, but are the policies your party chose for you.

How does that go down with voters? Interviews are going to be a bit farcical. "Mr Corbyn, can you talk us through why you think your policy on [insert policy] is deeply flawed.".

I don't think any credible leader would push it, tbh. If it was going to be pushed it'd have been done during the cold war.

"Mr Corbyn, can you talk us through why you think your policy on [insert policy] is deeply flawed.".

Mr Corbyn, can you talk us through why you think THE PARTY'S policy on [insert policy] is deeply flawed?

Cannot see a problem here. Do you realyl want Blair back?

Next question is let's say you turn up at an election openly acknowledging that you think many (most) of your policies are wrong, but are the policies your party chose for you.

Tbh, I too like to throw out highly improbable hypothetical situations when I'm not sure where my argument is going next. Gives me time to think.

...he won't dicatate to the party, and the party policy will be arrived at by consensus.

Remarkable that so many people have a problem with that.

Not really imo. For too long the opposite was the norm so this new situation quite understandably is weird and unfathomable to some.

After Tony Blair became leader of the Labour Party he did what he called "changed the structures", which basically means that he purged all democracy from the party.

Tony Blair didn't have to worry about the opinions of the party, or the wider public for that matter, he only had to decide how he himself felt about something.

This attitude went unquestioned and it was widely accepted that the party leader had the right to dictate party policy - the party was his personal fiefdom.

Now that the anti-democratic right-wing has lost their stranglehold on the party a radical change has occurred. We have had in effect "regime change" in the Labour Party. It's not entirely surprising if some people don't quite understand the new way of doing things.

We'll put you in the "not the target demographic Labour should be looking at" column, shall we?

Probably best to wait for some policies before deciding that.

I'd sooner listen to Corbyn speaking than most other politicians. No PR scripted hand movements, animated head stuff, and generally there's actual content.

And he's obviously a hit (or was) with the ladies, so we won't have to worry about porcine necrophilia coming to light.

Judging by the latest election results looks like he's falling flat in Scotland though. The Tories may actually supplant Labour in the next Holyrood election.

outofbreath - Member
Next question is let's say you turn up at an election openly acknowledging that you think many (most) of your policies are wrong, but are the policies your party chose for you.

What if consensus is agree, will you vote for it? (bearing in mind we don't know what the policies are at this time.)

You're talking if's and but's. I'm no where near voting labour right now, but I'm more than willing to hear them out with out pre-empting every stage of it.

He's trying something different(tbh is correct, it's not new, but an old idea), lets encourage it and see what happens.

outofbreath - Member
We'll put you in the "not the target demographic Labour should be looking at" column, shall we?
Probably best to wait for some policies before deciding that.

Next question is let's say you turn up at an election openly acknowledging that you think many (most) of your policies are wrong, but are the policies your party chose for you.

You're talking if's and but's. I'm no where near voting labour right now, but I'm more than willing to hear them out with out pre-empting every stage of it.

He's trying something different, lets encourage it and see what happens.

you're tying yourself up in ifs and buts that you can't know the answer to.

Fair point. The discussion was about 'principles' and was pretty much over. Broadening it out with that hot air was a needless invitation for even more hot air.

Next question is let's say you turn up at an election openly acknowledging that you think many (most) of your policies are wrong, but are the policies your party chose for you.

You could do worse than read up on this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_collective_responsibility

Clearly cabinet debate and have different views then they all two the agreed line- though somehow I dont think you will be having a pop at the current cabinet. Its hardly a radical step to debate and go with the majority/consesnsus decision.
People of principle -Cook, Heseltine resign if they cannot abide with the decision made.

Its back to this point that we want honest politicians but as soon as they are we dont like them -happens to them of all hues sadly.

[quote=epicyclo ]looks like he's falling flat in S******d though. The Labour Party aren't allowed to use that word now.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13798664.Labour_MPs_told__don_t_mention__Scotland___talk_about_Scottish_towns_and_cities_instead/

One source explained: "You don’t hear MPs keep on talking about ‘England’ but, rather, the places in England like Manchester and Birmingham".

This is very true, and a valid point imo.

People of principle -Cook, Heseltine resign if they cannot abide with the decision made.

I'll grant you Cook. (Point of Departure is worth a read)

You'll struggle to convince me beyond doubt that Heseltine wasn't just looking for an excuse to resign to further his own career.

I'll grant you Cook.

PS: In the last hour I've changed my mind about Cook. It was conveniently near to the natural end of his high-level political career...

PPS: I'm sure everyone wanted to know that.

It was conveniently near to the natural end of his high-level political career...

What are you talking about ? Have you read something by a pro-war Blair fan ?

Robin Cook was 57 when he resigned as Foreign Secretary. He was Foreign Secretary for just 5 or so years. There is no reason to suppose that he couldn't have remained in high office, other than the fact that he wasn't a warmonger like Blair.

At one time Robin Cook was touted as a possible leader of the party but dismissed the proposal on the grounds that according to him he was "no oil painting".

What makes you think that Robin Cook's career was coming to a close when he resigned ?

other than the fact that he wasn't a warmonger like Blair.

He was one of the main cheerleaders for illegal military intervention in Kosovo, again for military intervention in Sierra Leone.