He is an authoritarian despot trying to win a ‘war’ his country lost three decades ago.

No arguments there.

You're thinking of charities binbins

I see this thread is still banging on about Corbyn :

Did he ever say he would stay in NATO?

And the answer of course is yes, he did.

These are the precise words in the 2019 Labour Party manifesto which he was personally responsible for :

We will maintain our commitment to NATO and our close relationship with our European partners, and we will use our influence at the United Nations to support peace and security worldwide.

For Corbyn to renegade on that manifesto commitment would have required him to circumvent parliament, perhaps force the Queen to sign an Enabling Act and declare himself dictator?

In which case it begs the question why even bother with fighting a general election if he could have simply seized power and ignored parliament?

The hysterical accusations from anti-Corbyn extremists seem to be getting evermore ridiculous, still I guess it takes flack away from Starmer so I guess it serves a purpose.

I think we are in a dangerous place when both sides of the house basically agree on everything.

These are the precise words in the 2019 Labour Party manifesto which he was personally responsible for :

We will maintain our commitment to NATO and our close relationship with our European partners, and we will use our influence at the United Nations to support peace and security worldwide.

For Corbyn to renegade on that manifesto commitment would have required him to circumvent parliament

I can't think why people didn't believe him..... And as we know a parliamentary majority would be able to carry a bill to leave, he could just cite it's aggressive eastwards expansion and that leaving would allow the UK to work constructively for peace......

But at least he's now sent a tweet asking the Russians to leave Eastern Ukraine

LOL BND you've got yourself in a right tangle!

Two separate points:

1) Corbyn has said that the UK should leave NATO, many times, just not as leader. This is one of many reasons voters did not trust him on security.

2) If he was PM, he would never have been able to withdraw the UK from NATO, as parliament would never have let him. This is one of many reasons that the fear of voters about Corbyn were unfounded.

As regards point one… Starmer (and Lammy) have to work hard to make sure no such fear from the voters attaches to them.

As regards point two… parliament (both sides of the house) are right to be broadly aligned as regards Russia right now. If anything, it is the PM and key ministers that are out of line with the rest of the house as regards “Magnitsky Act” style restrictions and sanctions on money and individuals connected to Putin. The government is dragging its heals. Starmer is speaking for most in the house when he focusses on that reluctance to act by the PM and his team.

And as we know a parliamentary majority would be able to cayrry a bill to leave

So now you are changing what you are saying.

Now it's not simply Corbyn who would have ignored the Labour manifesto commitment to remain in NATO, and sent troops to help the Russians in Ukraine, but the Labour Parliamentary majority.

Just as well the Tories won the election eh?

Corbyn has said that the UK should leave NATO, many times, just not as leader

Did he?
Its rather odd then that when you look at even the hard right press the quotes provided dont really match this despite all the times he said it and more neutral factcheckers havent found such a simplistic argument either.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-did-call-for-nato-to-disband-but-its-labour-policy-to-stay-in

Arguing it should have been replaced at the cold war by something better suited to the environment isnt exactly unreasonable.
It seems to be one of those cases where people decided he said something and have then kept shouting "why did he say that" repeatedly until it is taken as fact.

This is one of many reasons voters did not trust him on security.

Yes I am sure they all came to carefully studied and thought through conclusions rather than just listening to the hard right press shout "he wants to leave nato" and then repeating it obediently.

Well, even in your linked article, the material has Corbyn saying that NATO should be disbanded… but that there “isn’t the appetite” for that. If the voters take that as him being suspect of NATO membership, they can’t be blamed can they. But he was right, there isn’t the appetite to abandon NATO, because sadly NATO is still needed, long after it was hoped it would become irrelevant, because… Putin.

Well, even in your linked article, the material has Corbyn saying that NATO should be disbanded… but that there “isn’t the appetite” for that.

And?

I has been suggested on this thread that had Labour won the general election a couple of years ago we would out of NATO by now and possibly helping the Russians on Ukraine.

How does Corbyn allegedly suggesting that NATO should be disbanded but that there isn't the appetite for it back up that ludicrous claim?

has Corbyn saying that NATO should be disbanded… but that there “isn’t the appetite” for that. I

Does it? Since you failed to provide some of the many times he said "UK should leave NATO," lets try an easier one.
Provide where he said "NATO should be disbanded" in that article.
I mean we will skip over your dubious use of "...". Always a bad sign when quoting someone in a bad light even when done properly.

I has been suggested on this thread that had Labour won the general election a couple of years ago we would out of NATO by now

Not by me. I made my points quite clearly. Voters didn’t trust Corbyn on security, but if he was PM we wouldn’t have left NATO. He wouldn’t have the house behind him to make such a move.

Starmer (and Lammy) are taking the right line now on Russia. They need to do more still to distance themselves from the past leader and the other MPs backing the stance that “Stop The War [no, not that war]” has taken as regards Putin expanding Russian held territory by force. They need to keep pushing Johnson and his core team on money connected to Putin as well.

As I posted before there is a deeply ingrained Russian cultural fear of being invaded from the west

Putin's Russia also strategically thinks it's a global super-power that has more rights than the countries on it's borders and that their role is that of a buffer zone against what it perceives as a Euro-Atlantic alliance that it's necessarily "against" in world that it understands tries to limit Russia's "rightful say" in world affairs. if there is a failure of NATO countries to prevent escalation along Russia's borders, there's an equal failure of Putin's regime to understand the rest of the world only as a zero-sum game.

Did he?

Yes, in 2011 he called for "The radical end of Labour's left to campaign against NATO as it's a danger to world peace and security" in 2012 he wrote in the Morning Star that it was "High time for an End to NATO" in 2014 in a anti NATO rally outside of the NATO summit in Cardiff he said that NATO "had been founded in order to promote a cold war with the Soviet Union" he's also called NATO "an engine to deliver oil to the oil companies and the main nations of the world"

It's difficult to reconcile those statements without wanting to leave NATO although he's never used those words. He's often just chosen instead to say that it should be disbanded or it's role severely limited

It's only when he became Leader that he endorsed the official Labour stance of being fully committed to NATO and spending at least 2% GDP on defense. Something he's broadly been against his entire political career.

And the obsession with Corbyn on a thread about Starmer continues.

Voters didn’t trust Corbyn on security

Only because people like yourself, BnD, Starmer, and the Daily Mail, deliberately misrepresented what he supported. In reality they actually agreed with most of what said, even if they didn't realise it.

In fact they were more likely to agree with Corbyn than with the current right-wing cabal running the Labour Party.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/05/30/jeremy-corbyn-right-side-public-opinion-foreign-po

Putting this view to the British public, YouGov found that the majority (53%) agree that wars the UK has supported or fought are responsible, at least in part, for terror attacks against our country. This was more than twice the proportion who think it is not responsible for terror attacks (24%). Voters from across all parties were more likely to side with the Corbyn stance than not.

I voted for Labour at both of the general elections with Corbyn as leader. I wanted him to be PM. I, like most of the country, agree with Corbyn and Stop The War as regards the Iraq war and the escalation in terror attacks in the UK and elsewhere that followed it. All nothing do to with NATO’s role in Europe, or Putin wanting to expand the RF by force.

 A more sensible strategy might have been for the buffer states to remain neutral militarily whilst pursuing other ways of ‘westernising’ if that’s what they wanted.

This isn't possible when Russia is controlled by Putin. He won't accept those states as neutral, he sees them as being part of a Russian influenced zone that he necessarily has a controlling part ( see Belarus for how this works) Both Medvedev and Putin have said that Russia has "privileged interests" that over-ride the needs/wants of the countries that border it, and will seek to control that in the only way they have at their disposal; overwhelming military force.

I don't disagree that eastwards expansion of NATO hasn't been a massive policy success, but at the same time, what alternative has Putin's Russia offered those countries that border it? The example of all the countries in the last 20 years that Russia has invaded along it's borders push those countries Russia has not into the arms of both the EU and NATO

All nothing do to with NATO’s role in Europe, or Putin wanting to expand the RF by force.

But everything to do with whether Corbyn's stance on wars was supported by voters or not.

Yes, in 2011 he called for

This should be fun. Lets see if you are any better than Kelvin at accurate quotations.

“The radical end of Labour’s left to campaign against NATO as it’s a danger to world peace and security”

Source please. Since the one I can see doesnt match that quote and talks about limiting its power and putting it under broader control not disbanding it.
The rest of your quotes arent any better. Its amazing for how often he has said it should be disbanded no one has provided any examples outside of the at the end of the cold war which even then had the caveat of being replaced by something better suited for the changed circumstances.

He’s often just chosen instead to say that it should be disbanded or it’s role severely limited

Ah got it. You need to read what he says in the proper approved manner to see the secret meaning.

But everything to do with whether Corbyn’s stance on wars was supported by voters or not.

I said voters didn’t trust him on security, partly because of his stance on NATO and Russia, not that they didn’t support his past positions on foreign interventions in the Middle East.

But everything to do with whether Corbyn’s stance on wars was supported by voters or not.

Whether Corbyn's stance on some wars was shared by the public. the article you pointed to outlines the time when his stance wasn't supported by the public, and you only need to look at Corbyn's personal ratings after his speech in the HoC after the Skirpal poisonings to see that mostly, the public didn't agree with him then either.

Btw Kelvin Re :

I voted for Labour at both of the general elections with Corbyn as leader.

You do realise that undoubtedly Keir Starmer also did, and quite possibly even Tony Blair?

Despite your repeated claims that you are a bit of a leftie nothing you post on here provides any evidence of that.

You always appear to argue from an anti-left wing perspective.

Ah got it. You need to read what he says in the proper approved manner to see the secret meaning.

I think in the Labour leadership campaign he said that NATO should've been wound up at the end of the cold war. You can't say that and not want to leave it as an organisation. There doesn't need to be any "secret meaning to be read in a approved manner" about that statement, that's about as un-coded as any modern politician is likely to be.

You always appear to argue from an anti-left wing perspective.

If this is about be, I never voted for Labour at a general election before Corbyn was leader, not least because of the Iraq war. I voted for them both times with Corbyn as leader. I’m not anti-left wing. But I am against Russia pushing west further into Europe by military means, and will point out that Stop The War and others blaming NATO for Putin’s actions is wrong headed. Putin is not left wing. RF expansion is not left wing, and it is definitely not peaceful.

You can’t say that and not want to leave it as an organisation.

Oh why not? I could think, for example, NATO should have been disbanded at the end of the cold war and replaced by a organisation designed for the post cold war political environment but since that wasnt done we have no choice but to stick with Nato but get some democratic reforms in place.
Indeed if you do something so boring as actually read the entire quote from him during the leadership campaign and not just the misleading misquotes thats what he pretty much said.

What did Corbyn title his Morning Star essay (referenced in your source)…?

“High Time for an End to NATO”

What message would most people take away from that?

Oh why not?

because through his entire career as a politician Corbyn has had a admirable anti-war stance that includes getting rid of organisations that by their very nature, increase the likelihood of war. he's campaigned relentlessly and earnestly about it  It's only when he became leader that his own beliefs came up hard against established Labour policy, and he adapted to that, and continued to promote that despite the fact that it contradicted his own views.

Corbyn has been proudly anti war and anti NATO his entire life, I don't think you do him any favours by trying to obfuscate that.

What did Corbyn title his Morning Star essay…?

I dont know since I dont know the morning stars editoral practices. You do know dont you that the headlines are often written by subeds and not the actual authors. Hence why they often bear only limited resemblance to the articles in question.
Have you actually read the article? I dont agree with much of it but if you bother to do so its rather specifically challenging the use of Nato for Afghanistan and its changing purpose.

Anyway found this “NATO should be disbanded” in the fact finding piece yet?

I don’t think you do him any favours by trying to obfuscate that.

Wait, what? I thought he was the one obfuscating things using hidden codes but now its me?
Remember this started with Kelvin announcing Corbyn said "UK should leave NATO, many times" and me asking for some actual evidence.
Something neither you or him have actually managed to produce. Just lots of misquoting and general claims.

Corbyn had that Morning Star on his website, with no “correction” to its title. Assuming he was happy with the “High Time for an End to NATO” title seems fair in that context, don’t you think? It didn’t take a “special reading” or any “hunting for sources”. Just referring to the source you posted makes it very clear where Corbyn stood on NATO before being leader. And the last few weeks have made it clear where he stands now. And the Labour front bench, especially Starmer, need to keep making it very clear to the voters that they are not aligned with his views as regards NATO in Europe, RF, Putin, the Ukrainian situation, and support for other independent countries in Eastern Europe.

Corbyn had that Morning Star on his website, with no “correction” to its title

Okay that would somewhat support your new claim although given your habit of misquoting and making claims which arent backed up by evidence I would like to see a link to a reputable source for it.

So you disagree with the idea that Corbyn has been both anti-NATO and anti-War? Something he's campaigned about in the past and continues to campaign about now?

So you disagree with the idea that Corbyn has been both anti-NATO and anti-War?

Right so you fail to answer anything from me and now have gone on to deciding what I think as well.
I will leave you to it.
Byeeeee.

Weird conversation.

I don't think Corbyn campaigning to be anti war, anti the causes of war and anti organisations that promote war is a bad thing, he's been honest about where he stands all his life, he couldn't be clearer. In fact the only time he's ever espoused any view differently is when he became leader and accepted the Labour policy as it stood.

That's a politician being honest and straightforward, something that the current leadership team could learn from frankly

I would like to see a link to a reputable source for it

I have deliberately only referred to the material cited in the Channel4 FactCheck link you provided.

"NATO should have been disbanded at the end of the cold war and replaced by a organisation designed for the post cold war political environment"

The cold war never thawed. If that isn't obvious by now then there's no helping us.

The cold war never thawed.

The reunification of Germany, iron curtain countries toppling dictators, getting rid of their nukes, having actual elections, joining the EU, blimey, meeting the first actual tourists from soviet union countries, going to Prague and East Berlin for the first time when these had all my life been gray and inaccessible countries in spy novels. Optimism in the air. Basically, if you think there wasn't a thaw you're in a different reality of some sort.

I have deliberately only referred to the material cited in the Channel4 FactCheck link you provided.

Okay. So it will be easy enough for you to provide the section from that article stating Corbyn had that article on his website?
You also havent been referring to only to that link since nowhere does it have "NATO should be disbanded" as a quote from Corbyn. Either deliberately or not you have misquoted which makes it rather hard to have a sensible conversation.

The cold war never thawed. If that isn’t obvious by now then there’s no helping us.

There was a few years (at least with Russia) where it was possible it was over. Just that chance got lost and Putin got in.

So it will be easy enough for you to provide the section from that article stating Corbyn had that article on his website?

It's all in there. Click in the link to Corbyn's article on the Channel4 FactCheck page you provided. Are you saying that Corbyn didn't have that article on his website? Or are you just arguing for the sake of it?

You also havent been referring to only to that link since nowhere does it have “NATO should be disbanded” as a quote from Corbyn.

You're just being pointlessly picky. In what way is “High Time for an End to NATO” not close enough to “NATO should be disbanded” to as not really matter? Corbyn was against NATO before being leader, and then took the Labour party line while leader, and is now blaming NATO for Russian advances.

There was a few years (at least with Russia) where it was possible it was over. Just that chance got lost and Putin got in.

Agreed 100%.

So having discussed in length Corbyn's popularity, and what he might have and not have said, any possibility of diverting the thread onto Sir!Keir! Starmer!??

Has anyone got any opinion on how well he's doing as leader of the Opposition?

The latest poll gives his party a 6% lead over the Tories :

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-21-february-2022/

Is this a satisfactory position for Labour to be in and one which reflects the current government's popularity during a period of almost unprecedented international medical, military, diplomatic, and economic, crises?

Should Starmer receive a well-deserved pat on the back for providing inspirational leadership in a time of unprecedented crises and finally giving British voters something which they can truly believe in?

"Basically, if you think there wasn’t a thaw you’re in a different reality of some sort."

That might well be the case. As dissonance points out, there was a brief moment when things looked optimistic, when Medvedev was President. It was a mirage though, in the West we didn't realise that Medvedev was a stooge, simply put there whilst Putin rearranged the chairs behind the scenes.

Mitt Romney was pilloried during the 2012 election when he said that Russia was the biggest threat US security faced. Obama nailed him with the retort, "You've borrowed your foreign policy from the 1980's Mitt, you don't realise the cold war is over". Romney was seen as completely out of touch.

Not everybody saw the falling of the Berlin Wall as 'the end of history'.

It’s all in there. Click in the link to Corbyn’s article on the Channel4 FactCheck page you provided

Its not though. This is the problem. You keep announcing things as fact when its your opinion.
Lets take your claim.
"Corbyn had that Morning Star on his website, with no “correction” to its title"
Whereas if we look at the Channel 4 page we will see several things.
Its an imgur link from an unknown source. Anyone sensible would be wanting the web archive instead.
It looks to be a cutting from the paper rather than a screenshot of his site.
Even if we accept its from his website there is nothing to your secondary claim about no "correction.
Can you not see the problem here?

This isnt being "picky" but wanting a sensible conversation based on facts.
Its fine to claim you think Corbyn (or anyone for that matter) thinks x based on the y and z which they said in the past but why are you simply inventing stuff and claiming it as fact?

That might well be the case. As dissonance points out, there was a brief moment when things looked optimistic, when Medvedev was President

Nah I would go back beyond him. It was right after the fall that there was a chance. Once Putin got it then whilst it might not have gone back to full cold war it was never going to be great.

...why are you simply inventing stuff and claiming it as fact?

Hold on.. if you're not happy with the source you provided... let's look ask the Way Back Machine for some help...

http://web.archive.org/web/20130103035605/http://www.jeremycorbyn.org.uk/?p=1551

Is this a satisfactory position for Labour to be in and one which reflects the current government’s popularity during a period of almost unprecedented international medical, military, diplomatic, and economic, crises??

I'd be very surprised if he can keep the lead in the next few weeks, as the UK is moved to pretending that the international medical crisis is over, and the news becomes dominated by Putin's actions.

Should Starmer receive a well-deserved pat on the back for providing inspirational leadership in a time of unprecedented crises and finally giving British voters something which they can truly believe in?

If he can hold it at +6 through the Ukrainian crisis then he's done well, Boris gets to be statesmanlike which always boosts ratings

Is this a satisfactory position for Labour to be in

No it isn't.

That might well be the case. As dissonance points out, there was a brief moment when things looked optimistic,

It is the case. Though I was thinking of the Gorbachev and early Yeltsin years before Putin emerged to bugger things up. When absolutely multiple opportunities were missed. But if you're polish, Bulgarian, or from a Baltic republic, from East Germany (reunification being the single most successful public health intervention ever amongst other things) etc etc you'll think of these as historical developments you'd prefer not to see reversed.

Nah I would go back beyond him. It was right after the fall that there was a chance

I really don't think there was sadly. The politicians that took over from Gorbachev and Yeltsin were still all ex-communists, because that's all there was, without any sort of opposition parties there was never going to be a flourishing of democracy in Russia in the 1990s  If it wasn't going to be Putin it would've been Primakov, (another former KGB spy) and I don't think Russia would've ended up much different where it is now.

"Should Starmer receive a well-deserved pat on the back for providing inspirational leadership in a time of unprecedented crises and finally giving British voters something which they can truly believe in?"

No. I'm still pretty disappointed with his overall performance but I do think he is pointing Labour in a better direction if they want to get elected next time.

I've conceded that Corbyn managed to muster some energy and offer something people could 'believe in' but it's not just that it didn't work, its that you can only take that approach once a decade or so.

Corbyn's engaging approach reminded me of Red Wedge in the early 80's and of Blair's Cool Britania. The thing is, win or lose, a few years down the line most of the participants felt buyers remorse, embarrassment even.

Labour would find it really hard, impossible even to muster the kind of spirit and energy amongst the public that you're asking for ernie, and post Brexit nobody really knows what the political landscape in the UK is like, other than the fact we are divided between those who like Mrs Brown's Boys and those who like Have I Got News Got You.

Anyone coming out with a 'Vision for Britain' at this moment in time will get it wrong. They always said that Brexit would tear the Tory party apart. Instead, what it did is tear up the contract between progressives and the working class.

In this respect Brexit was always a bigger threat to Labour than to the Conservatives. Just one more thing Corbyn didn't realise..

I'll echo nickc's comments.

Russia was nudging towards being a failed state during the 90's. It appeared to be of little threat to the West at that point and that is what contributed to us thinking the cold war was over.

Likewise with Medvedev. Seemed like a nice bloke...

Hold on.. if you’re not happy with the source you provided

Yes the general source I provided which you then extrapolated from. You see the problem?

let’s look ask the Way Back Machine for some help…

Which is what I suggested was needed. I am glad to see you are finally getting to a reasonable level of evidence for your claims. Hopefully you will manage to apply it in future.
Now unlike you I can say yes he did post it as you claimed. Although be honest. You didnt check that before you made your claim did you? You simply extrapolated from your beliefs.
Since you seem to be getting the hang of supporting your claims with evidence do you care to continue with your other claims?

No. I simply pointed out something in the source you provided. You've now given me the responsibility of fact checking the material used by that FactCheck page that you offered up! Which I have done for you (I shouldn't have had to). Now, please, drop it, and stop making it personal for no good reason.

I really don’t think there was sadly.

The outcome for the former USSR countries is definitely mixed but I do think there was a some chance.
Even if it had been a less than completely democratic regime but sadly though it has ended up as a peculiar mix of dictatorship and mafia state.

No. I simply pointed out something in the source you provided.

No you didnt. Since if you read that article you will note it doesnt made the claim you state it did but hey ho I have a good idea now how to treat any claims you make.

I repeated the title of the article (which was on the FactCheck page you shared). I also said it had appeared on his website with that title (which was stated in the material used on the page you shared). I didn't make it up. I've even gone to the trouble of finding the archived page from his website for you, that shows that your source was correct. Now stop it.

Someone’s pulled up Putins useful idiots…

https://twitter.com/pippacrerar/status/1496917743580454914?s=21

Dictator-placating leftie hissy fit incoming, I’m sure

Dictator-placating leftie hissy fit incoming, I’m sure

Like this?

Russia's assault on Ukraine is a catastrophe that could lead to nuclear war. The peace movement is more important than ever

Burning wreckage from apparent Russian shelling near Kiev, Ukraine today
VLADIMIR PUTIN’S invasion of Ukraine is a catastrophe with horrific consequences for millions in that country and beyond.

The peace movement must press for an immediate withdrawal of Russian troops and challenge the might is right doctrine Putin has picked up from US attacks on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

"The peace movement must press for an immediate withdrawal of Russian troops and challenge the might is right doctrine Putin has picked up from US attacks on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya."

I'm not sure what that even means?

It's pretty self explanatory

It says that Putin 'picked up' the might is right doctrine from the US.

Whilst asking that Putin withdraws from Ukraine it also offers an apology for him invading in the first place.

Stop the War is useful when it comes to holding democracies to account but it is proving to be a liability when it comes to doing the same with dictatorships.

I've wandered into the wrong thread; thought it was about Kier Starmer.

It’s pretty self explanatory

Maybe to those who are fluent in leftese, comrade. For the rest of us…

That's a Morning Star editorial not the Stop the War letter isn't it?

I think binners would prefer to call it a "dictator-placating leftie hissy fit".

I think it’s self-explanatory in pointing out why nobody other than Jeremy Corbyn and apparently you lot read the Morning Star

You’d be hard pushed to distil all the testicles in the world into that bag of old bollocks. I’ve never read such utter horse-shit in my life

You people really do inhabit an alternative universe.

If you’re seriously taking your worldview from utterly nonsensical gibberish like that, and you’ve got the bare-faced front to take the piss out of me for reading the Guardian

Have a word with yourself, comrade

Maybe to those who are fluent in leftese, comrade. For the rest of us…

Posted 2 hours ago

I think it’s self-explanatory in pointing out why nobody other than Jeremy Corbyn and apparently you lot read the Morning Star

You’d be hard pushed to distil all the testicles in the world into that bag of old bollocks.

You people really do inhabit an alternative universe

Posted 2 minutes ago

You thought about it for 2 hours before deciding that your first response wasn't good enough?

I thought Keir was quite good at the despatch box, Dame Angela less so,

He needs to get decent advice on how to create a scorched earth for Russian assets in the UK and hammer clear and loud again and again at them.

It's a soft spot for the conservatives and he needs to exploit

<The peace movement must press for an immediate withdrawal of Russian troops and challenge the might is right doctrine Putin has picked up from US attacks on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

Not sure I see the point in posting garbled and incoherent nonsense like this on the KS thread? US attacks on Yugoslavia = NATO intervention in Kosovo? That's a reason for what Putin's doing? Uh?

That Morning Star editorial reads like some-one who's found out that the sainted uncle that they love turns out to be a child molester.

Not sure I see the point in posting garbled and incoherent nonsense like this on the KS thread?

I thought that was obvious. Binners was talking about a "dictator-placating leftie hissy fit" so I provided him with one.

Are only people like you, binners, and nick, allowed to talk about non-Starmer related issues on the Starmer thread?

Do you want to get back to talking about Corbyn?

like some-one who’s found out that the sainted uncle that they love turns out to be a child molester.

Yeah Putin and the oligarchy that back him have proved to be such commies, which is why they pour money into the Tory coffers and they are blaming the Bolsheviks for the need to invade Ukraine, and obviously why the Morning Star has always supported them.

^^^parsing the above to the best of my limited ability I conclude that Putin is not a commie, and is probably not a natural lib dem either albeit they share a certain opportunism. Probably aligns more to the Baathists and he's definitely got WMD. All it needs is a few more atrocities and his StWC support is guaranteed in perpetuity.

No, Putin is definitely a Lib-dem.

Does that mean we can blame Putin for university fees? Or does this just mean that Putin will get a job at FB when he retires from politics??

I thought he already had a job with FB?

Isn't he in charge of election news?

Lolz at binners. I wandered on to this thread cos I've had enough of the COD strategists on the Ukraine thread and the tory bashers on the Boris one; hoping perhaps for an epiphany from "the second coming" heralded by the new labour outfit.
Nah...just an illustration of how pathetic our chances are of finding a viable alternative worthy of a vote.

I see latest opinion poll has Labour on a reduced 3% lead over the Russian oligarch's favourite party:

Labour 38% (-1)

Other 1% (–)

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-28-february-2022/

Starmer really does seem to have a problem exploiting the difficulties that the Russian bankrolled party keeps finding themselves in.

I still think Labour and the Conservatives will be polling neck and neck by the end of next week.

Starmer really does seem to have a problem exploiting the difficulties that the Russian bankrolled party keeps finding themselves in.

Possible that with KS's desire to get away from the unions and towards big private donors politicising donations might be seen as a bad move longer term. A mutual truce where both parties are getting dirty cash probably suits them both.