Jeremy Corbyn

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 would 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 feckit, 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.

The problem being that those who would never vote fr him will use any answer with which to criticise him?
Why is this his fault?

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

Indeed
This thread has really just become right wing folk going you know what I still dont like Corbyn even when he does something I would as I dont personally believe you would press the button either.

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. I’d rather have a leader who is honest about his personal beliefs even if they don’t always exactly align with the majority of the electorate than either a) someone who lies about his true beliefs to get elected (see; most recent Tories, or worse b) imposes his beliefs on an electorate against the majority of opinion (see; Blair et al).

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 knowing 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.

I’m glad you get 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.

I much prefer it where they turn up like this but pretend they support the entire manifesto without any dissent.

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.

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.