Jeremy Corbyn

Good effort drj. To get it spot on you need to channel a frothing Mark Francois a bit and throw in a few more bingo words “Venezuela” “sixth formers” “trident” etc

My eyes would go a bit wonky after sitting on the fence for so long

Since this thread got revived did JC ever confirm/deny walking out the the meeting ‘cos of Chukka?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/20/corbyn-quits-party-leaders-brexit-meeting-over-umunna-invite

Vince Cable says he did and the Labour spokesman didn’t deny it (more confirmed it really). So is it a fact that this happened and if so specifically what was the problem? Was it really just an objecting to a non-party leader being there? If so seems a bit petty given the gravity of the situation. Alternatively if it was just an excuse to avoid the meeting and getting tarnished with some of the blame for this farce it’s a pretty unfortunate issue to have picked.

So has it been denied outright anywhere? My google-fu is weak on this one.

He met may later. Quite right imo. C.U shouldn’t be there.

Whatever his exact reasons were, it was another timewasty May stunt and he gave it more respect than it deserved. Remember what the outcome was…

When she called for actual meaningful talks, he was there and took it a lot more seriously than she did. It’s a strange world if anyone can point the finger at Corbyn as being the problem in May’s inability to change or compromise.

Particularly like this most recent poll. (Sure they change all the time and ultimately mean nothing but if Binners gets to point how they have a mystery 10pt lag – then I can show this.)

https://twitter.com/flaviblePolitic/status/1115964756077289472

+8.6 pt lead.

It’s a depressing state of affairs when the only real Pro Eu party is polling lower than UKIP.
A labour GE win at this stage simply kicks off the process again for a red unicorn brexit and another waste of a year.

Other issues matter Mike?

So I completely disagree.

DrJ

Member

Or maybe his eyes have deteriorated

That can’t be right – it must be because he is a Marxist and an anti-Semite

<insert Life of Brian picture or hilarious reference to “Magic Grandpa”>

(Have I got the hang of this Corbyn-bashing yet? )

very good. Yes thats about it

In this moment of national crisis, which politicians have done most to try to ensure risks of hard Brexit and dealless crashing out are minimised? Has it been the shitest main party leaders I can remember, IDS included? Nope. Cooper and Letwin have been about as effective as they could have been given their roles. How much better would the situation be if cooper was leader of the opposition? An effective and experienced leader, able to make things happen and carry people with her, and turn up the heat on a government so inefective it doesn’t warrant the name? Corbyn is part of the tragedy

Other issues matter Mike?

So I completely disagree.

They do, which is why I’d much rather see Labour in coalition with another party at this stage. I can’t vote for a party who will continue with brexit – I note the poll does not include tig/change

which politicians have done most to try to ensure risks of hard Brexit and dealless crashing out are minimised?

Corbyn? Trying to find the least damaging Brexit? Insisting on May removing some of her red lines while holding his badly split party together? BINO?

You should probably vote for him tj.

rone

Subscriber
Other issues matter Mike?

So I completely disagree

if you think that the next 10 years of Brexit negotiations wont swallow up all of the next 2 parliament’s focus, exactly as it has for the last 3 you are being very very optimistic

the WA is only about 80% of the stuff we need to negotiate

If Cooper had been leader she would have been in the same bind as Corbyn. Dealing with a badly split party. Lage number threatening to walk as he is too brexity and another large part threatening to walk if he is not brexity enough

Also Letwin nor any other Tories will support anything coming from the Labour leader. Do you really think Cooper has not been acting with at least tacit consent from the leadership?

These issues remain no matter who the leader is.

I cannot think of anyone who meets the description but as someone else said what labour need is someone who can energise adn sell an idea. Corbyn is not the man for that but I cannot think of another person in the labour movement who has Blair type salesmans ability – and even he I doubt could do it. Coooper certainly could not. Nor Starmer nor Watson.

mikewsmith

Subscriber

You should probably vote for him tj.

I can’t. I am a long way from Islington.

Another poll.

The Telegraph – Voting Intention and Brexit Poll – April 2019

This one by an actual polling organisation.

“This one by an actual polling organisation.”

The last one posted was from Hanbury Strategy- a registered polling organisation, not to mention political analysis group set up by David Cameron’s advisor Ameet Gill and brexiteer Paul Stephenson.

Pure political propaganda and not be taken seriously, but it made I larf.

https://www.libdems.org.uk/corbyn-farage-quiz

2 out of 6 for me!

seeing as the other thread was closed

Binners

Your favourite for the labour leadership Burnham is / was of the same persuasion as corbyn – ” We must respect the referendum” ” Freedom of movement must end”

around 1/3 of the PLP follow this line.

so if Burnham had been leader as you wanted then labour party policy would be the same or very similar to what it is now.

So why do you slate Corbyn so much but Burnham with the same views would be a great candidate.?

That can’t be right – it must be because he is a Marxist and an anti-Semite

<insert Life of Brian picture or hilarious reference to “Magic Grandpa”>

(Have I got the hang of this Corbyn-bashing yet? )

But Corbyn IS a friend to the IRA and HAMAS, DID hold Venezuela up as an example of a Socialist Utopia, and the Shadow Chancellor DOES believe in Marxist economics. Have a read of the utterly bonkers, incoherent Postcapitalism by Paul Mason, a love letter to Marx and early 20th century Soviet Socialism. But hey, free stuff, owls for everyone.

Well… for the first time in the 23 years I’ve been old enough to vote, I just voted for a Party other than Labour.

Uncle Jezza. Why on earth are you still banging on about Andy Burnham? I thought he’d make a better leader than Corbyn. But that was when? 2-3 years ago?

Its fair to say a lot as happened since then. Andy is now Mayor of Manchester where he’s doing a decent job, and Corbyn is still apparently the leader of the labour party where he’s doing such a bad job its difficult to know how to describe it? Awful? Dismal? Appalling? Impotent? Useless? Clueless? Catastrophic?

As you know I could happily give you chapter and verse about what a truly appalling choice of leader he was, but he’s spent the last few years proving it beyond all reasonable doubt, on a daily basis.

The voters of this country will deliver that verdict yet again today, loud and clear. And really thats the only thing that matters

You had one job……

The reason I keep banging on about this is you thought him the best candidate despite his enthusiastic support for the same position on brexit as Corbyn

I want you to answer why Burnham was a good candidate despite ” respecting the referendum” and “end of FOM” But Corbyn is the antichrist for the same reasons!

Burnham BTW is a foul man – plying the race card in the manchester election.

So go on – why is Burnham a good candidate and Corbyn a bad leader when they share the same views on brexit?

Burnham would have taken labour policy in the same direction

Good effort drj. To get it spot on you need to channel a frothing Mark Francois a bit and throw in a few more bingo words “Venezuela” “sixth formers” “trident” etc

The master shows how it’s done:

But Corbyn IS a friend to the IRA and HAMAS, DID hold Venezuela up as an example of a Socialist Utopia, and the Shadow Chancellor DOES believe in Marxist economics. Have a read of the utterly bonkers, incoherent Postcapitalism by Paul Mason, a love letter to Marx and early 20th century Soviet Socialism. But hey, free stuff, owls for everyone.

So go on – why is Burnham a good candidate and Corbyn a bad leader when they share the same views on brexit?

Yeaaaaars ago I thought Corbyn would be a good choice for Leader (I voted Labour after he became Leader)… and thought that Burnham would be an awful one… I can be wrong about one, and not the other… but why is that at all relevant to the idea that since then Corbyn has gone down so much in my (and I’m far from alone) estimation?

Do you not think this is a bit of a niche cul-de-sac with regards to a present thread about Magic Grandad TJ? An expression of preference from the last leadership election 3 years ago?

I wasn’t aware of Andy Burnhams Brexit position Uncle Jezza. But then he’s not the one setting labour party policy on the issue, so why would I?. Given that his opinions have absolutely no bearing on things as he’s not even an MP

But if it makes you feel better… having googled his opinion on Brexit, he can **** right off as well then.

As for playing the race card in the Manchester election? I’ve absolutely no idea what you’re on about. Google isn’t bringing anything up either, so you’re going to have to enlighten me….

he can **** right off as well then.

Cool – that will do. He made a really nasty speech stoking up anti immigration feeling in the campaign for the mayor

The tragic part of all of this is that the opposition have had probably the biggest open goal to shoot at for decades and have somehow managed to spectacularly scuff the shot in a way that, if it was a real football incident, would be a viral YouTube video clip seen and laughed at by millions. The Tories seem to be doing their level best to wrestle themselves to the ground by the corner flag while everyone just watches on and Vince Cable seems to have disappeared for half time refreshments and not come back. I don’t think I have ever felt this strongly before that it wouldn’t be worst thing in the world if the whole lot of them at Westminster Palace disappeared into a vortex never to be seen again.

Is the story about JC asking to meet Trump true? BBC are reporting it as though it is, but I haven’t heard if it’s been confirmed or denied by Labour.

If it’s true it seems barking. Corbyn’s refusing to attend the state dinner where Trump’s role is a figurehead of his nation, but *is* willing to meet Trump the politician.

I appreciate their have plenty of political common ground – their economic policy is near identical: stimulus on steroids whether it’s the right time in the cycle or not. But I’d have thought a sane stance would be the exact opposite: Meet Trump in his HoS role, but refuse to meet Trump in his political role. And I’d have thought many people would want Corbyn not to meet Trump in either role.

I can’t make sense of it.

“I can’t make sense of it.”

Refuse to have dinner with someone then immediately ask for a meeting. Bonkers. I suspect it is true or else Corbyn would have denied it surely?

“I can’t make sense of it.”

Obviously Jeremy is the only person in the land that is capable of bringing the entire country together, so with refusing and requesting to meet trump will appeal to everyone.

A cunning plan if ever there was one!

Obviously Jeremy is the only person in the land that is capable of bringing the entire country together, so with refusing and requesting to meet trump will appeal to everyone.

A cunning plan if ever there was one!

Jackie Smith said the same about the Brexit strategy. Bringing everyone together by being vague about what the strategy is.

Did you see his happy little face yesterday though? Back in his comfort zone and natural habitat…

“I can’t make sense of it.”

I reckon the angle JC is going for is “happy to meet you in a business role (two politicians discussing potential policy), not happy to meet you in a social role designed to honour you as a visitor to the country (because you’re a ****ty human being)”. Same scenario as if you had to meet with a ****ty client – you’d be polite and businesslike at work, but you wouldn’t socialise with them because they’re a ****.

^ That is how I saw it. Don’t go to a party thrown in their honour, do go to business meeting with them. Makes sense to me if it is someone important who is also a ****

I reckon the angle JC is going for is “happy to meet you in a business role (two politicians discussing potential policy), not happy to meet you in a social role designed to honour you as a visitor to the country (because you’re a ****ty human being)”. Same scenario as if you had to meet with a ****ty client – you’d be polite and businesslike at work, but you wouldn’t socialise with them because they’re a ****.

Not so. State visits are exclusively and by definition for Nations and represented by their Heads of State and are nothing to do with the individual who happens to be the HoS at the time. (Eg the US HoS gets a state visit to every big D-Day commemoration regardless of who the HoS is.)

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

So I think Corbyn’s doing the opposite of what you say. Trying to honour the man/politician with a meeting, but refusing to Honour the Nation via their HoS.

Same scenario as if you had to meet with a ****ty client – you’d be polite and businesslike at work, but you wouldn’t socialise with them because they’re a ****.

The state dinner *is* undeniably work, I very much doubt the Queen and other people attending want to be there, but, it’s their job. Trump and the Queen are attending as Heads of State, if either of them weren’t Heads of State they wouldn’t be there. Meetings outside it might be work, but might not. In Corbyn’s case I’d guess both are work. (Assuming the Leader of the Opposition is supposed to be there, maybe he’s not in which case I’m not sure why it’s significant.)

Don’t go to a party thrown in their honour, do go to business meeting with them.

I think you’ve got it the wrong way round. If not that explains it and it makes sense, but a quick google suggests that’s not the case and it’s mental.

Obviously Jeremy is the only person in the land that is capable of bringing the entire country together, so with refusing and requesting to meet trump will appeal to everyone.

A cunning plan if ever there was one!

Which is EXACTLY the same position as the leader of the Liberal Democrats has. The only difference is that the chattering classes on STW aren’t keen to make petty point-scoring comments aimed at the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

This is the same leader of the Liberal Democrats, now the new hero of the chattering classes on STW, who as Business Secretary in the coalition government of 2010-15, along with LibDem Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander, were among the most vocal supporters of austerity :

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jun/22/budget-taxandspending

A policy which only a couple of weeks ago was denounced by the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights as a clear violation of human rights obligations (and also a policy which btw Jeremy Corbyn has pledged to reverse)

Quote from the UN report :

“Considering the significant resources available in the country and the sustained and widespread cuts to social support, which have resulted in significantly worse outcomes, the policies pursued since 2010 amount to retrogressive measures in clear violation of the country’s human rights obligations”

This is what Vince Cable had to say about Donald Trump’s state visit to the UK :

“There is no problem with doing business with the American government, but, he shouldn’t be honoured in any particular way, most American Presidents are not.”

Vince Cable clearly doesn’t have a problem with talking to Donald Trump, but he did not approve of him being offered a state visit. Which is precisely why Vince Cable refused to attend the state banquet too.

So why no criticism of Vince Cable on STW? I can’t be because of hypocrisy – surely not?

And to give a fuller picture, this was the Green Party’s views on Trump’s state visit when it was first announced:

“It is deeply disappointing that in its desperation to pander to the new US President the Government has ignored almost 2 million British people who made it clear they do not want to give a racist misogynist the highest honour our country has to offer.

“Donald Trump’s presidency has already been marked by an utterly disgraceful travel ban, while his apparent intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement highlights his contempt for environmental protection.

“We should be showing backbone and leadership by taking a stand against the President’s damaging policies – not rolling out a red carpet.”

Jeremy Corbyn has always made it abundantly clear that he willing to talk to people of all political hues, including those with whom he strongly disagrees, especially when it is to promote and advance justice and peace. In fact he has often been criticized for doing precisely that.

It is accepted protocol for the visiting head of state on a state visit to the UK to meet with the Leader of HM opposition. Corbyn decided that it would provide the opportunity to talk on a range of issues including, the climate emergency, threats to peace, and the refugee crises, so an invitation was issued.

That does not in anyway conflict with his decision not to attend a lavish over opulent banquet in Buckingham Palace attended by an elite assortment of self-serving sycophants, and instead talk to tens of thousands of people in Central London deeply concerned with the climate emergency, LGBT rights, global justice, racism, poverty, and misogyny.

Can you imagine the outcry if Corbyn had agreed to attend the state banquet? There are indeed valid reasons to criticise Corbyn, his attitude towards Donald Trump isn’t one of them.