FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Corbyn
Corbyn
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Surprised that this topic is not yet being discussed. Part of me disagrees with the motion to stop him standing as a Labour MP as it comes across as somewhat petty. On the other hand his core beliefs have proven to be toxic electorally so what is the point of flogging the same old message. ex party leaders are often an irritation to the current leader but most leaders just ignore & put up with it. Corbin has often been out of step with the party leader over the years but has been popular with his constituents & has been very honest about his own views . Should he fight the seat as an independent or retire & spend more time on his allotment? Overall I think that this is not a good look for the Labour Party irrespective of how wrong Corbyn’s policies and beliefs might be." | |||
| |||
"Surprised that this topic is not yet being discussed. Part of me disagrees with the motion to stop him standing as a Labour MP as it comes across as somewhat petty. On the other hand his core beliefs have proven to be toxic electorally so what is the point of flogging the same old message. Overall I think that this is not a good look for the Labour Party irrespective of how wrong Corbyn’s policies and beliefs might be." His policies views, beliefs and opinions have often been proved correct (and popular). Provided a real challenge to political authority in this country, why do you think the backlash against him was so severe ? | |||
"Surprised that this topic is not yet being discussed. Part of me disagrees with the motion to stop him standing as a Labour MP as it comes across as somewhat petty. On the other hand his core beliefs have proven to be toxic electorally so what is the point of flogging the same old message. Overall I think that this is not a good look for the Labour Party irrespective of how wrong Corbyn’s policies and beliefs might be. His policies views, beliefs and opinions have often been proved correct (and popular). Provided a real challenge to political authority in this country, why do you think the backlash against him was so severe ? " He'll stand as an independent and win. I don't like him but I'm not in his constituency | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Surprised that this topic is not yet being discussed. Part of me disagrees with the motion to stop him standing as a Labour MP as it comes across as somewhat petty. On the other hand his core beliefs have proven to be toxic electorally so what is the point of flogging the same old message. Overall I think that this is not a good look for the Labour Party irrespective of how wrong Corbyn’s policies and beliefs might be. His policies views, beliefs and opinions have often been proved correct (and popular). Provided a real challenge to political authority in this country, why do you think the backlash against him was so severe ? " Because he is a clown without a ring or even a circus... | |||
"Surprised that this topic is not yet being discussed. Part of me disagrees with the motion to stop him standing as a Labour MP as it comes across as somewhat petty. On the other hand his core beliefs have proven to be toxic electorally so what is the point of flogging the same old message. Overall I think that this is not a good look for the Labour Party irrespective of how wrong Corbyn’s policies and beliefs might be. His policies views, beliefs and opinions have often been proved correct (and popular). Provided a real challenge to political authority in this country, why do you think the backlash against him was so severe ? Because he is a clown without a ring or even a circus..." …if you say so !!! | |||
"Surprised that this topic is not yet being discussed. Part of me disagrees with the motion to stop him standing as a Labour MP as it comes across as somewhat petty. On the other hand his core beliefs have proven to be toxic electorally so what is the point of flogging the same old message. Overall I think that this is not a good look for the Labour Party irrespective of how wrong Corbyn’s policies and beliefs might be. His policies views, beliefs and opinions have often been proved correct (and popular). Provided a real challenge to political authority in this country, why do you think the backlash against him was so severe ? Because he is a clown without a ring or even a circus... …if you say so !!!" It's not me who said so...it was the voting nation who spurned him.. Mind you...he said he won the debate.. | |||
| |||
"Surprised that this topic is not yet being discussed. Part of me disagrees with the motion to stop him standing as a Labour MP as it comes across as somewhat petty. On the other hand his core beliefs have proven to be toxic electorally so what is the point of flogging the same old message. Overall I think that this is not a good look for the Labour Party irrespective of how wrong Corbyn’s policies and beliefs might be." You think the labour party should turn a blind eye to Corybn's beliefs? A quote of note: "A report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission published in October 2020 found that under Mr Corbyn’s leadership, the Labour Party breached the Equality Act when it failed to effectively address antisemitism within it. It identified cases of harassment, political interference into complaints, and inadequate training to deal with antisemitism". Can you explain why you feel this should be ignored under Starmer's leadership of the labour party, and why you feel Corbyn was right to not address the issues outlined by the Equality and Human Rights Commission? | |||
| |||
"Surprised that this topic is not yet being discussed. Part of me disagrees with the motion to stop him standing as a Labour MP as it comes across as somewhat petty. On the other hand his core beliefs have proven to be toxic electorally so what is the point of flogging the same old message. Overall I think that this is not a good look for the Labour Party irrespective of how wrong Corbyn’s policies and beliefs might be." From the interviews I saw today his constituents will vote for him as an independent. | |||
| |||
"As much as I dislike his policies and the vile antisemitism that marked his tenure as Labour leader, I think Starmer has got this wrong. Corbyn will now go independent and romp home. " And yet if Starmer had done the opposite you would have criticised him for allowing Corbyn to continue. We SEE you Cheshire. You are posting increasingly direct attacks on Starmer. You are continually gaslighting “narrowing of the polls”. Continually posting various unconnected criticisms of Starmer regardless of the topic bring discussed. Another poster has pointed out on one of the threads that you are starting to appear desperate and are playing the man not the ball. Really is starting to feel a bit desperate! | |||
| |||
"As much as I dislike his policies and the vile antisemitism that marked his tenure as Labour leader, I think Starmer has got this wrong. Corbyn will now go independent and romp home. And yet if Starmer had done the opposite you would have criticised him for allowing Corbyn to continue. We SEE you Cheshire. You are posting increasingly direct attacks on Starmer. You are continually gaslighting “narrowing of the polls”. Continually posting various unconnected criticisms of Starmer regardless of the topic bring discussed. Another poster has pointed out on one of the threads that you are starting to appear desperate and are playing the man not the ball. Really is starting to feel a bit desperate!" To be fair, Starmer removed Corbyn because of exactly what you are calling out, he is damned if he does and damned if he does not. Corbyn was a thorn that needed to be removed. | |||
"As much as I dislike his policies and the vile antisemitism that marked his tenure as Labour leader, I think Starmer has got this wrong. Corbyn will now go independent and romp home. And yet if Starmer had done the opposite you would have criticised him for allowing Corbyn to continue. We SEE you Cheshire. You are posting increasingly direct attacks on Starmer. You are continually gaslighting “narrowing of the polls”. Continually posting various unconnected criticisms of Starmer regardless of the topic bring discussed. Another poster has pointed out on one of the threads that you are starting to appear desperate and are playing the man not the ball. Really is starting to feel a bit desperate! To be fair, Starmer removed Corbyn because of exactly what you are calling out, he is damned if he does and damned if he does not. Corbyn was a thorn that needed to be removed." Precisely. I welcome the decision. It might precipitate the creation of a new fully Socialist party behind Corbyn and supported by Momentum thus allowing Labour to focus on the centre or centre-left ground. Hopefully the same happens with the Conservatives and the ERG right wingers set up their own party allowing the Tories to ho back to the centre-right ground. Then we need PR (doubt it will happen) for true democratic representation. | |||
"As much as I dislike his policies and the vile antisemitism that marked his tenure as Labour leader, I think Starmer has got this wrong. Corbyn will now go independent and romp home. And yet if Starmer had done the opposite you would have criticised him for allowing Corbyn to continue. We SEE you Cheshire. You are posting increasingly direct attacks on Starmer. You are continually gaslighting “narrowing of the polls”. Continually posting various unconnected criticisms of Starmer regardless of the topic bring discussed. Another poster has pointed out on one of the threads that you are starting to appear desperate and are playing the man not the ball. Really is starting to feel a bit desperate! To be fair, Starmer removed Corbyn because of exactly what you are calling out, he is damned if he does and damned if he does not. Corbyn was a thorn that needed to be removed. Precisely. I welcome the decision. It might precipitate the creation of a new fully Socialist party behind Corbyn and supported by Momentum thus allowing Labour to focus on the centre or centre-left ground. Hopefully the same happens with the Conservatives and the ERG right wingers set up their own party allowing the Tories to ho back to the centre-right ground. Then we need PR (doubt it will happen) for true democratic representation." I'm not sure PR is a good idea, it sounds great to the progressive liberals, and I like to hear how people say they know it will give a voice to the more right and left wingers, however I can't see it myself! I can imagine nothing ever being agreed, arguments and fallings out at every step. | |||
 | |||
"As much as I dislike his policies and the vile antisemitism that marked his tenure as Labour leader, I think Starmer has got this wrong. Corbyn will now go independent and romp home. And yet if Starmer had done the opposite you would have criticised him for allowing Corbyn to continue. We SEE you Cheshire. You are posting increasingly direct attacks on Starmer. You are continually gaslighting “narrowing of the polls”. Continually posting various unconnected criticisms of Starmer regardless of the topic bring discussed. Another poster has pointed out on one of the threads that you are starting to appear desperate and are playing the man not the ball. Really is starting to feel a bit desperate! To be fair, Starmer removed Corbyn because of exactly what you are calling out, he is damned if he does and damned if he does not. Corbyn was a thorn that needed to be removed. Precisely. I welcome the decision. It might precipitate the creation of a new fully Socialist party behind Corbyn and supported by Momentum thus allowing Labour to focus on the centre or centre-left ground. Hopefully the same happens with the Conservatives and the ERG right wingers set up their own party allowing the Tories to ho back to the centre-right ground. Then we need PR (doubt it will happen) for true democratic representation." I couldn't agree more here. If ERG and Corbyn/Momentum break off and form they're own shithouses then it would allow Labour to focus centre-left and conservatives to focus centre-right. We may actually see 2 parties worthy of listening to. | |||
"When I say Like to hear, I mean it puts a smile on my face that the very same people who spend most of their time criticising every party or political view that is opposing theirs, raise their hands for PR. I think it would break the country, we can't compromise at the best of times and a coalition in today's UK, oh the thought of it "I believe (sure someone will correct me and I could look it up) that the Scandinavian countries have PR and they are lauded for stability and good governance. People who are anti PR cite countries like Italy. I think for every failure there are examples of success (I will look it up at some point). Much as I would abhor hearing fascist or communist rhetoric regularly espoused in Parliament, it is surely the only truly democratic representation. If (made up number) X million people in the UK are truly supportive of facist ideology, and if another (made up number) Y million people in the UK truly support a communist ideology, them surely they need representation and a voice in British politics? Personally I would rather it was all out in the open unlike now/recent past where you have the ERG and Momentum hijacking mainstream parties and earning a veneer of respectability in the process. | |||
"When I say Like to hear, I mean it puts a smile on my face that the very same people who spend most of their time criticising every party or political view that is opposing theirs, raise their hands for PR. I think it would break the country, we can't compromise at the best of times and a coalition in today's UK, oh the thought of it
I believe (sure someone will correct me and I could look it up) that the Scandinavian countries have PR and they are lauded for stability and good governance. People who are anti PR cite countries like Italy. I think for every failure there are examples of success (I will look it up at some point).
Much as I would abhor hearing fascist or communist rhetoric regularly espoused in Parliament, it is surely the only truly democratic representation.
If (made up number) X million people in the UK are truly supportive of facist ideology, and if another (made up number) Y million people in the UK truly support a communist ideology, them surely they need representation and a voice in British politics?
Personally I would rather it was all out in the open unlike now/recent past where you have the ERG and Momentum hijacking mainstream parties and earning a veneer of respectability in the process. "I understand your view but the minorities would have the ability to derail and stop policy or progress. I can see compromises being made that then spark another group / groups and nothing gets done. I do not mind FPTP, we might not have voted for the governing party but they have been elected with a majority and in theory can get things done, as was the will of the people. The thought of all the lobbying sends a shudder down my spine | |||
"When I say Like to hear, I mean it puts a smile on my face that the very same people who spend most of their time criticising every party or political view that is opposing theirs, raise their hands for PR. I think it would break the country, we can't compromise at the best of times and a coalition in today's UK, oh the thought of it
I believe (sure someone will correct me and I could look it up) that the Scandinavian countries have PR and they are lauded for stability and good governance. People who are anti PR cite countries like Italy. I think for every failure there are examples of success (I will look it up at some point).
Much as I would abhor hearing fascist or communist rhetoric regularly espoused in Parliament, it is surely the only truly democratic representation.
If (made up number) X million people in the UK are truly supportive of facist ideology, and if another (made up number) Y million people in the UK truly support a communist ideology, them surely they need representation and a voice in British politics?
Personally I would rather it was all out in the open unlike now/recent past where you have the ERG and Momentum hijacking mainstream parties and earning a veneer of respectability in the process.
I understand your view but the minorities would have the ability to derail and stop policy or progress. I can see compromises being made that then spark another group / groups and nothing gets done.
I do not mind FPTP, we might not have voted for the governing party but they have been elected with a majority and in theory can get things done, as was the will of the people.
The thought of all the lobbying sends a shudder down my spine "I think (as demonstrated by ERG and Momentum) that the lobbying is highly active but hidden from plain sight within party business. I would prefer that was exposed. Both Conservatives and Labour are forever compromising, we just don’t really get to see it as it is all behind closed doors. | |||
"As much as I dislike his policies and the vile antisemitism that marked his tenure as Labour leader, I think Starmer has got this wrong. Corbyn will now go independent and romp home. " Agreed he’s a paradoxical loser. He got walloped by Boris but wins his local election with ease. He will always cast a shadow over Labour and any leaders tenure until he retires from politics. Starmer can’t really win with this one. | |||
"As much as I dislike his policies and the vile antisemitism that marked his tenure as Labour leader, I think Starmer has got this wrong. Corbyn will now go independent and romp home. Agreed he’s a paradoxical loser. He got walloped by Boris but wins his local election with ease. He will always cast a shadow over Labour and any leaders tenure until he retires from politics. Starmer can’t really win with this one. " I think he has won. Dropping Corbyn may lose Labour the Islington seat but unless it splits the party and a new Socialist party is set up behind Corbyn that fields other candidates in other seats, then it actually attracts moderates and centrists to Labour and brings back people who were offended by Corbyn for various reasons including his inaction on anti-semitism claims. | |||
"As much as I dislike his policies and the vile antisemitism that marked his tenure as Labour leader, I think Starmer has got this wrong. Corbyn will now go independent and romp home. And yet if Starmer had done the opposite you would have criticised him for allowing Corbyn to continue. We SEE you Cheshire. You are posting increasingly direct attacks on Starmer. You are continually gaslighting “narrowing of the polls”. Continually posting various unconnected criticisms of Starmer regardless of the topic bring discussed. Another poster has pointed out on one of the threads that you are starting to appear desperate and are playing the man not the ball. Really is starting to feel a bit desperate!" Not at all. An apology from Corbyn, retraining and measures to try to prevent it happening again would have sufficed. You know I'm a liberal Tory! Labour should be a broad church and that should include near-communists. Why, you've virtually said as much here! I also SEE you Brighton. You are always posting direct attacks on Tories. You are continually gaslighting “Johnson is a fucking liar”. Continually posting various unconnected criticisms of him regardless of the topic bring discussed. Why's that OK for you, but not me? If Starmer is increasingly embroiled in controversy, why wouldn't I highlight that in like fashion? You talk incessantly about the 'footballisation' of politics. When it's not against team Tory, you don't like it! Johnson is gone, yet you're always still playing the man not the ball. Really been feeling a bit desperate for some time now  | |||
"As much as I dislike his policies and the vile antisemitism that marked his tenure as Labour leader, I think Starmer has got this wrong. Corbyn will now go independent and romp home. Agreed he’s a paradoxical loser. He got walloped by Boris but wins his local election with ease. He will always cast a shadow over Labour and any leaders tenure until he retires from politics. Starmer can’t really win with this one. I think he has won. Dropping Corbyn may lose Labour the Islington seat but unless it splits the party and a new Socialist party is set up behind Corbyn that fields other candidates in other seats, then it actually attracts moderates and centrists to Labour and brings back people who were offended by Corbyn for various reasons including his inaction on anti-semitism claims." We will see. Last year, btw Starmer was found to have seriously breached the MPs’ code of conduct by completely failing to register on time eight interests, including gifts from football teams and the sale of land. Speaking as the Inquiry was underway by Katherine Stone, Starmer said he was “absolutely confident” he had not broken the MPs’ code of conduct. He's getting into the habit of saying one thing and then being caught out fibbing, but I'd be interested to know what you make of this example and why I should be banned from highlighting it? | |||
"As much as I dislike his policies and the vile antisemitism that marked his tenure as Labour leader, I think Starmer has got this wrong. Corbyn will now go independent and romp home. And yet if Starmer had done the opposite you would have criticised him for allowing Corbyn to continue. We SEE you Cheshire. You are posting increasingly direct attacks on Starmer. You are continually gaslighting “narrowing of the polls”. Continually posting various unconnected criticisms of Starmer regardless of the topic bring discussed. Another poster has pointed out on one of the threads that you are starting to appear desperate and are playing the man not the ball. Really is starting to feel a bit desperate! Not at all. An apology from Corbyn, retraining and measures to try to prevent it happening again would have sufficed. You know I'm a liberal Tory! Labour should be a broad church and that should include near-communists. Why, you've virtually said as much here! I also SEE you Brighton. You are always posting direct attacks on Tories. You are continually gaslighting “Johnson is a fucking liar”. Continually posting various unconnected criticisms of him regardless of the topic bring discussed. Why's that OK for you, but not me? If Starmer is increasingly embroiled in controversy, why wouldn't I highlight that in like fashion? You talk incessantly about the 'footballisation' of politics. When it's not against team Tory, you don't like it! Johnson is gone, yet you're always still playing the man not the ball. Really been feeling a bit desperate for some time now "Except that isn’t actually true. I have not been continually critical of the Conservatives. I have been critical of the Johnson and Truss led governments. Far less so of the Sunak led govt. I have also been absolutely clear on many occasions that I do not believe the last three govts are really Tories. They were hijacked by the ERG and right wing elements of the party. I have said this repeatedly and stand by it. And Johnson is not “gone” he is very much still around and trying to cause trouble for Sunak. His actions while PM were unforgivable and on a wholly different scale to anything Starmer of others have done. | |||
"As much as I dislike his policies and the vile antisemitism that marked his tenure as Labour leader, I think Starmer has got this wrong. Corbyn will now go independent and romp home. And yet if Starmer had done the opposite you would have criticised him for allowing Corbyn to continue. We SEE you Cheshire. You are posting increasingly direct attacks on Starmer. You are continually gaslighting “narrowing of the polls”. Continually posting various unconnected criticisms of Starmer regardless of the topic bring discussed. Another poster has pointed out on one of the threads that you are starting to appear desperate and are playing the man not the ball. Really is starting to feel a bit desperate! Not at all. An apology from Corbyn, retraining and measures to try to prevent it happening again would have sufficed. You know I'm a liberal Tory! Labour should be a broad church and that should include near-communists. Why, you've virtually said as much here! I also SEE you Brighton. You are always posting direct attacks on Tories. You are continually gaslighting “Johnson is a fucking liar”. Continually posting various unconnected criticisms of him regardless of the topic bring discussed. Why's that OK for you, but not me? If Starmer is increasingly embroiled in controversy, why wouldn't I highlight that in like fashion? You talk incessantly about the 'footballisation' of politics. When it's not against team Tory, you don't like it! Johnson is gone, yet you're always still playing the man not the ball. Really been feeling a bit desperate for some time now
Except that isn’t actually true. I have not been continually critical of the Conservatives. I have been critical of the Johnson and Truss led governments. Far less so of the Sunak led govt. I have also been absolutely clear on many occasions that I do not believe the last three govts are really Tories. They were hijacked by the ERG and right wing elements of the party. I have said this repeatedly and stand by it.
And Johnson is not “gone” he is very much still around and trying to cause trouble for Sunak. His actions while PM were unforgivable and on a wholly different scale to anything Starmer of others have done."P.S. “Gaslighting” means truth twisting or misrepresenting something, often, to confuse people and make them question their own thinking. Johnson is inarguably a d demonstrably a liar. So I cannot be gaslighting! | |||
 . He didn't like corbyns socialist and left wing idea, so bought him down. He will just run independant. Love him!!    | |||
"As much as I dislike his policies and the vile antisemitism that marked his tenure as Labour leader, I think Starmer has got this wrong. Corbyn will now go independent and romp home. And yet if Starmer had done the opposite you would have criticised him for allowing Corbyn to continue. We SEE you Cheshire. You are posting increasingly direct attacks on Starmer. You are continually gaslighting “narrowing of the polls”. Continually posting various unconnected criticisms of Starmer regardless of the topic bring discussed. Another poster has pointed out on one of the threads that you are starting to appear desperate and are playing the man not the ball. Really is starting to feel a bit desperate! To be fair, Starmer removed Corbyn because of exactly what you are calling out, he is damned if he does and damned if he does not. Corbyn was a thorn that needed to be removed. Precisely. I welcome the decision. It might precipitate the creation of a new fully Socialist party behind Corbyn and supported by Momentum thus allowing Labour to focus on the centre or centre-left ground. Hopefully the same happens with the Conservatives and the ERG right wingers set up their own party allowing the Tories to ho back to the centre-right ground. Then we need PR (doubt it will happen) for true democratic representation. I'm not sure PR is a good idea, it sounds great to the progressive liberals, and I like to hear how people say they know it will give a voice to the more right and left wingers, however I can't see it myself! I can imagine nothing ever being agreed, arguments and fallings out at every step." The pace of Government will be slower with PR because it will rely on consensus. Instead of going four steps forward at every term, it might only manage three steps, but then again there won’t be two steps backwards at each election as the incumbent Government wastes time and energy undoing the things that the previous Govt did wrong. There is nothing “liberal” about PR unless you think that people being fairly represented is just pinks and righteous. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Corbyn like him or not has always stood by what he believes in. Starmer on the other hand has broken his 10 pledges & stabed Corbyn in the back. 100% FACT Corbyn inherited Antisemitism & well let's face it - he got hung for it I would trust Corbyn over Starmer every day of the week Starmer is a Tory Rat " This!!!!
Corbyn has never backed down and always has stood by what he believes and his people  | |||
| |||
| |||
"I don't think people realize how dangerous Jeremy Corbyn is or could of been had he become Prime Minister 4 years ago" Just how dangerous would this bugger have been....? | |||
"I don't think people realize how dangerous Jeremy Corbyn is or could of been had he become Prime Minister 4 years ago" What was his ‘master plan’ ? | |||
| |||
"Its a known fact his friends with terrorist groups for one, Hamas and Hezbollah" Ok, so what would he have done ? | |||
| |||
"That would of put the national security of country at risk" How? Do you think he would have slipped his security and met an ex KGB Russian agent? | |||
| |||
"That would of put the national security of country at risk, for you know he could of been spying for them " Yes, he could? He ‘might’ have declared war on Israel ? | |||
| |||
"Thats just one point, also he promised a lot of free stuff to people during his campaign at the time, free broadband, free travel, free water etc Thing is people if someone promises you something for free, you be mad enough to believe its free" Nightmare, crazy man offering broadband for everyone | |||
| |||
"Also during 2019, for him to had become Prime Minister, it was highly likely considering his stance with the IRA and his historic stance with Scottish Independance that he would've cut a deal with Nicola Sturgeon and assure her of support of another Scottish Referendum if the SNP backed his bid to become Prime Minister in the House Of Commons. So think about it in this way, if thats the kind horse trading Jeremy Corbyn engages in to secure himself as Prime Minister by cutting a deal with the SNP who promise them another Referendum in Scotland if they were to do so? If you thoughtt 6 and a half years of wrangling over the deal the UK can get with the EU to Brexit was bad, if you thought 6 and a half years of playing Russian Roulete with our constitution over Brexit was bad, if you thought 6 and a half years division, of rancour, of confusion and disunity over Brexit was bad? You wait, had Scotland had its referendum and you'll see how bad that would of been if, especially if on a hypethetical scenario (and Im not saying this would of happened) but on a hypethetical scenario had they won? What do you think SCEXIT would look like? What would be the deal between Scotland would want with England would look like? And if you thought that 6 and a half years took a long time to work out a deal, just imagine the chaos, the disunity, confusion and rancour would of been caused with Scotland trying to break away from England and potentially losing Northern Ireland. Imagine the break up of the United Kingdom and how hard that would be to arrive at the correct deal for trade and would Scoland revert to WTO rules? What would be the terms of border movement between Scotland and England? Would there be a hard border between Scotland and England?? All of that potential chaos could of come about if Jeremy Corbyn had become Prime Minister because he be likely to cut a deal with the SNP." Maybe Could have Highly likely Likely You do realise all these ‘ideas’ would have had to pass through parliament ? | |||
| |||
"Also during 2019, for him to had become Prime Minister, it was highly likely considering his stance with the IRA and his historic stance with Scottish Independance that he would've cut a deal with Nicola Sturgeon and assure her of support of another Scottish Referendum if the SNP backed his bid to become Prime Minister in the House Of Commons. So think about it in this way, if thats the kind horse trading Jeremy Corbyn engages in to secure himself as Prime Minister by cutting a deal with the SNP who promise them another Referendum in Scotland if they were to do so? If you thoughtt 6 and a half years of wrangling over the deal the UK can get with the EU to Brexit was bad, if you thought 6 and a half years of playing Russian Roulete with our constitution over Brexit was bad, if you thought 6 and a half years division, of rancour, of confusion and disunity over Brexit was bad? You wait, had Scotland had its referendum and you'll see how bad that would of been if, especially if on a hypethetical scenario (and Im not saying this would of happened) but on a hypethetical scenario had they won? What do you think SCEXIT would look like? What would be the deal between Scotland would want with England would look like? And if you thought that 6 and a half years took a long time to work out a deal, just imagine the chaos, the disunity, confusion and rancour would of been caused with Scotland trying to break away from England and potentially losing Northern Ireland. Imagine the break up of the United Kingdom and how hard that would be to arrive at the correct deal for trade and would Scoland revert to WTO rules? What would be the terms of border movement between Scotland and England? Would there be a hard border between Scotland and England?? All of that potential chaos could of come about if Jeremy Corbyn had become Prime Minister because he be likely to cut a deal with the SNP. Maybe Could have Highly likely Likely You do realise all these ‘ideas’ would have had to pass through parliament ? " Yes your right it would of pass parliament but had Labour and SNP been in power, wouldnt the numbers be big enough to gone through even if the Tories and for agument sakes the Lib Dems opposed it?? | |||
| |||
"The anti Corbyn movement bought and paid for by those 1% in society who own 90% of the wealth Never let that slip out your heads. I never trust anyone or any organisation that puts in vicious personal attacks on individuals or groups of people to make themselves look better - it's the underdog all day long for me Like him or not no one can accuse him of his principles and loyalty " Agreed .. Corbyn was a man of principle who stood alongside many minority groups.. sadly many of those were armed.. | |||
"Also during 2019, for him to had become Prime Minister, it was highly likely considering his stance with the IRA and his historic stance with Scottish Independance that he would've cut a deal with Nicola Sturgeon and assure her of support of another Scottish Referendum if the SNP backed his bid to become Prime Minister in the House Of Commons. So think about it in this way, if thats the kind horse trading Jeremy Corbyn engages in to secure himself as Prime Minister by cutting a deal with the SNP who promise them another Referendum in Scotland if they were to do so? If you thoughtt 6 and a half years of wrangling over the deal the UK can get with the EU to Brexit was bad, if you thought 6 and a half years of playing Russian Roulete with our constitution over Brexit was bad, if you thought 6 and a half years division, of rancour, of confusion and disunity over Brexit was bad? You wait, had Scotland had its referendum and you'll see how bad that would of been if, especially if on a hypethetical scenario (and Im not saying this would of happened) but on a hypethetical scenario had they won? What do you think SCEXIT would look like? What would be the deal between Scotland would want with England would look like? And if you thought that 6 and a half years took a long time to work out a deal, just imagine the chaos, the disunity, confusion and rancour would of been caused with Scotland trying to break away from England and potentially losing Northern Ireland. Imagine the break up of the United Kingdom and how hard that would be to arrive at the correct deal for trade and would Scoland revert to WTO rules? What would be the terms of border movement between Scotland and England? Would there be a hard border between Scotland and England?? All of that potential chaos could of come about if Jeremy Corbyn had become Prime Minister because he be likely to cut a deal with the SNP." I don't disagree ... But I also suspect and Scotland gain independence the first time, we'd still have have a brexit referendum, we'd still have left, and we'd be facing down these issues. So that would make Cameron as complicit in this game of what ifs. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Lol stance on the IRA you really do get fed bollacks by the main stream media. Quote from Thatcher - we do not talk to terrorists Who it turns out spoke to terrorists in private Corbyn on the other hand spoke to them in open key in public with with the dates in his diary Who do you feel is the better person the one that does things out in the open or the one in secret? Ps those thalks did bring a peace deal " Its no secret that the Jeremy Corbyn has long supported the end of British rule in Ulster | |||
"Lol stance on the IRA you really do get fed bollacks by the main stream media. Quote from Thatcher - we do not talk to terrorists Who it turns out spoke to terrorists in private Corbyn on the other hand spoke to them in open key in public with with the dates in his diary Who do you feel is the better person the one that does things out in the open or the one in secret? Ps those thalks did bring a peace deal Its no secret that the Jeremy Corbyn has long supported the end of British rule in Ulster" He was also heavily involved in the peace process & gained was it 2 awards for his work I believe Thatcher said that she would not talk to terrorists (but turns out she did in secret) Corbyn has always openly talked to terrorists on peace - all wars end in dialog | |||
"Corbyn would not have sent Leopard tanks to Ukraine.. Fact" Yes, if you say so. Can I have this weeks lottery numbers since your so good at telling the future. | |||
"Corbyn would not have sent Leopard tanks to Ukraine.. Fact Yes, if you say so. Can I have this weeks lottery numbers since your so good at telling the future." They can only predict the future in hypothetical situations. If Mr Blobby was PM, he'd be dropping gunge on Putin. | |||
"Corbyn would not have sent Leopard tanks to Ukraine.. Fact Yes, if you say so. Can I have this weeks lottery numbers since your so good at telling the future. They can only predict the future in hypothetical situations. If Mr Blobby was PM, he'd be dropping gunge on Putin. " Corbyn would have negotiated peace ...  | |||
"Corbyn would not have sent Leopard tanks to Ukraine.. Fact Yes, if you say so. Can I have this weeks lottery numbers since your so good at telling the future. They can only predict the future in hypothetical situations. If Mr Blobby was PM, he'd be dropping gunge on Putin. " The thing is, I don't think the UK have Leopard tanks. | |||
| |||
"As much as I dislike his policies and the vile antisemitism that marked his tenure as Labour leader, I think Starmer has got this wrong. Corbyn will now go independent and romp home. And yet if Starmer had done the opposite you would have criticised him for allowing Corbyn to continue. We SEE you Cheshire. You are posting increasingly direct attacks on Starmer. You are continually gaslighting “narrowing of the polls”. Continually posting various unconnected criticisms of Starmer regardless of the topic bring discussed. Another poster has pointed out on one of the threads that you are starting to appear desperate and are playing the man not the ball. Really is starting to feel a bit desperate! Not at all. An apology from Corbyn, retraining and measures to try to prevent it happening again would have sufficed. You know I'm a liberal Tory! Labour should be a broad church and that should include near-communists. Why, you've virtually said as much here! I also SEE you Brighton. You are always posting direct attacks on Tories. You are continually gaslighting “Johnson is a fucking liar”. Continually posting various unconnected criticisms of him regardless of the topic bring discussed. Why's that OK for you, but not me? If Starmer is increasingly embroiled in controversy, why wouldn't I highlight that in like fashion? You talk incessantly about the 'footballisation' of politics. When it's not against team Tory, you don't like it! Johnson is gone, yet you're always still playing the man not the ball. Really been feeling a bit desperate for some time now "Can I ask what apology from Corbyn you are referring too.. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"It seems his colleague Diane Abbott has stoked the fire again with a letter to the observer about Jews not suffering from racism. She has lost the whip while it's investigated. She has now said it was a mistake and she wants to disassociate herself with the comments. Quite how you disassociate yourself from your own words, I've no idea. " I was reading about this. What a fucking idiotic thing to say. I see she lost the whip. I certainly wouldn't be voting for her if I was in her constituency. | |||
"But Jewish MPs quit the Labour Party under Jereny Corbyn, just ask Luciana Berger for example" more people have left the labor party under Starmer than under Corbin | |||
"But Jewish MPs quit the Labour Party under Jereny Corbyn, just ask Luciana Berger for example more people have left the labor party under Starmer than under Corbin " To think she could of been Home Secretary.. | |||
| |||
"It seems his colleague Diane Abbott has stoked the fire again with a letter to the observer about Jews not suffering from racism. She has lost the whip while it's investigated. She has now said it was a mistake and she wants to disassociate herself with the comments. Quite how you disassociate yourself from your own words, I've no idea. I was reading about this. What a fucking idiotic thing to say. I see she lost the whip. I certainly wouldn't be voting for her if I was in her constituency. " She should resign as an MP, I can’t see her being allowed back in the Labour Party now | |||
"It seems his colleague Diane Abbott has stoked the fire again with a letter to the observer about Jews not suffering from racism. She has lost the whip while it's investigated. She has now said it was a mistake and she wants to disassociate herself with the comments. Quite how you disassociate yourself from your own words, I've no idea. I was reading about this. What a fucking idiotic thing to say. I see she lost the whip. I certainly wouldn't be voting for her if I was in her constituency. She should resign as an MP, I can’t see her being allowed back in the Labour Party now " Tom would not let her organise a party at McDonalds... | |||
"Ok name me a few MPs who left the Labour Party since Keir Starmer took over who didnt lose the whip? Maybe the people who you reffering to who left the Labour Party are people who are heavily associated with Jeremy Corbyn like the people from Momentum" He said people, not just MPs. People includes members. | |||
"Ok name me a few MPs who left the Labour Party since Keir Starmer took over who didnt lose the whip? Maybe the people who you reffering to who left the Labour Party are people who are heavily associated with Jeremy Corbyn like the people from Momentum He said people, not just MPs. People includes members." yeah I know | |||
"It seems his colleague Diane Abbott has stoked the fire again with a letter to the observer about Jews not suffering from racism. She has lost the whip while it's investigated. She has now said it was a mistake and she wants to disassociate herself with the comments. Quite how you disassociate yourself from your own words, I've no idea. " She was Jeremy Corbyn's right hand who everyone knows was Antisemetic where the the Jewish people in the country refused to vote for the Labour Party. Her position is now untenable, no way she can stay as an MP after her stupid comments | |||
"It seems his colleague Diane Abbott has stoked the fire again with a letter to the observer about Jews not suffering from racism. She has lost the whip while it's investigated. She has now said it was a mistake and she wants to disassociate herself with the comments. Quite how you disassociate yourself from your own words, I've no idea. She was Jeremy Corbyn's right hand who everyone knows was Antisemetic where the the Jewish people in the country refused to vote for the Labour Party. Her position is now untenable, no way she can stay as an MP after her stupid comments" And people say the media doesn't play a role in how people think. Lol | |||
| |||
| |||
"She has had one of the worst times for racism, horrible memes & fat munkey gestures..." There's a gesture that means "fat monkey"? I really am out of touch with the youth these days. | |||
