By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Do you agree with GB that Corbyn will retain the leader job on June 9th?
I don't think that Momentum will let him go without a struggle, and if they did, they'll be seeking to parachute in the equally incompetent McDonnell. Frankly, if the Labour hard left had any kind of competence about them they'd look to someone who isn't damaged goods like Clive Lewis. Although he's probably now a Red Tory for daring to actually vote with his conscience against the Dear Leader in the Brexit bill.
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
Do you agree with GB that Corbyn will retain the leader job on June 9th?
mcdonnell will be desperate for him not to resign before the september conference. there will be a battle of mcdonnell v. corbyn's conscience. a leader who has been crushed in the polls clinging on just so that they can fiddle the leadership election rules at the party conference will not be a pretty sight.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
influenced yes. influenced by the none press media as well. but people's views are not determined by either. the problem with corbyn is not the press.
I would say it's a combination of both.
I do agree with J2 though, many people who would be better served by Corbyn's policies probably haven't even considered voting Labour, whatever the cause.
I'll have to do some further research but I think so yes. I'll have to check his support for the IRA from an independent source.
You don't think a lifelong member of the labour party is an independent source?
What source do you need to believe that:
He voted against the peace process and the Anglo-Irish Agreement in Parliament, as he believed republican nationalists shouldn’t have to compromise?
He attended and spoke at annual pro-IRA commemorations for terrorists between 1986 and 1992.
That he was general secretary of the editorial board of the hard-left journal Labour Briefing which supported IRA violence and explicitly backed the Brighton Hotel Bombing, which killed 5 people and maimed 31 others.
That he stood for a minute's silence in tribute to IRA bombers who had murdered British civilians in pubs and shopping centres.
All of the above are a matter of public record.
And that is before we even discuss his "paid" appearances on Iranian state TV and his association with hate preachers and anti Semites.
Do you need an independent source to confirm any of this?
I'm sure Lowhouse, who has also been a lifelong member of the Labour party, and who will have been aware of Jeremy Corbyn before 2015, will confirm everything in that article.
I don't think that Momentum will let him go without a struggle, and if they did, they'll be seeking to parachute in the equally incompetent McDonnell. Frankly, if the Labour hard left had any kind of competence about them they'd look to someone who isn't damaged goods like Clive Lewis. Although he's probably now a Red Tory for daring to actually vote with his conscience against the Dear Leader in the Brexit bill.
They can't parachute another hard left candidate into position as they will still need nominations from what will be left of the PLP.
He is there until McDonnell get's his rule change through conference.
You don't think a lifelong member of the labour party is an independent source?
What source do you need to believe that:
He voted against the peace process and the Anglo-Irish Agreement in Parliament, as he believed republican nationalists shouldn’t have to compromise?
He attended and spoke at annual pro-IRA commemorations for terrorists between 1986 and 1992.
That he was general secretary of the editorial board of the hard-left journal Labour Briefing which supported IRA violence and explicitly backed the Brighton Hotel Bombing, which killed 5 people and maimed 31 others.
That he stood for a minute's silence in tribute to IRA bombers who had murdered British civilians in pubs and shopping centres.
All of the above are a matter of public record.
And that is before we even discuss his "paid" appearances on Iranian state TV and his association with hate preachers and anti Semites.
Do you need an independent source to confirm any of this?
I'm sure Lowhouse, who has also been a lifelong member of the Labour party, and who will have been aware of Jeremy Corbyn before 2015, will confirm everything in that article.
what i would add is that if you look into the Stop The War Coalition (ie the organisation which corbyn chaired rather than any broader grouping of people who opposed the Iraq war) then in terms of some the groups and people there and the things that were written and promoted under his chairmanship you'll find a lot of pretty unsavoury stuff.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
what i would add is that if you look into the Stop The War Coalition (ie the organisation which corbyn chaired rather than any broader grouping of people who opposed the Iraq war) then in terms of some the groups and people there and the things that were written and promoted under his chairmanship you'll find a lot of pretty unsavoury stuff.
Didn't Stop the War, under Corbyn's chairmanship, advocate armed violence by Iraqi insurgents against British troops?
No doubt J2 will want this independently verified.
edit. This one from Stop the War is a doozy:
"Socialists should unconditionally stand with the oppressed against the oppressor, even if the people who run the oppressed country are undemocratic and persecute minorities, like Saddam Hussein."
Is there literally anything this man can do that won't somehow be used as ammo to smear him?
This is even more stupid than Milliband not being able to eat a bacon sandwich (which, may I add, the same newspaper that ran that story hailed Cameron a hero for eating a hotdog with a knife and fork like a f*cking weirdo at a BBQ).
I cannot believe that you support him with all his history. The fact that he wants to leave our Nation defenceless and won't harm terrorists.
what i would add is that if you look into the Stop The War Coalition (ie the organisation which corbyn chaired rather than any broader grouping of people who opposed the Iraq war) then in terms of some the groups and people there and the things that were written and promoted under his chairmanship you'll find a lot of pretty unsavoury stuff.
Genuinely makes me like him more. He actually cares about the people there and they aren't just a prop for a propaganda advert.
Too honest and too principled to be a success at the top end of politics. Too many working people on lower incomes have fallen for the BS. They can't vote for Corbyn but most can't explain why.
When Corbyn is replaced by someone we know is Labour because he's the one wearing the red tie and all of the two party cheerleaders on here are happy I might not bother voting.
I concur that there is something refreshing about that.....
But....and it is a big but..... don't fall into the trap of thinking that because he is different from the identikit politicians of recent time he is 'principled' and 'honest. I can assure you that he is neither. He is an unpleasant chancer who just happens to have found himself at the head of a legitimate anti-establishment movement.
I concur that there is something refreshing about that.....
But....and it is a big but..... don't fall into the trap of thinking that because he is different from the identikit politicians of recent time he is 'principled' and 'honest. I can assure you that he is neither. He is an unpleasant chancer who just happens to have found himself at the head of a legitimate anti-establishment movement.
He's a politician... of course he's not principled and honest.
He reads things out that other people write for him and he answers questions by talking complete nonsense around the subject.
He's a buffoon, along with the rest of them, which makes the whole spectrum much like watching wrestling, the only difference being that we can't turn this off.
He was asked at the weekend that if the spooks walked into Number 10 and told him they had the head of IS in their sights and could take him out with a drone, would he give the order. He wouldn't give an answer. He then started flapping.
If his aid hadn't turned him around he'd have delivered his who speech with his back to the camera.
Yes, I can see that , but so what. He was about to deliver it to the people standing in front of him, his aid turned him round to where the camera was. Why is this worth comment?
Genuinely makes me like him more. He actually cares about the people there and they aren't just a prop for a propaganda advert.
Too honest and too principled to be a success at the top end of politics. Too many working people on lower incomes have fallen for the BS. They can't vote for Corbyn but most can't explain why.
When Corbyn is replaced by someone we know is Labour because he's the one wearing the red tie and all of the two party cheerleaders on here are happy I might not bother voting.
He was asked at the weekend that if the spooks walked into Number 10 and told him they had the head of IS in their sights and could take him out with a drone, would he give the order. He wouldn't give an answer. He then started flapping.
"Jeremy Corbyn today refused to say if he would sanction a drone strike on the leader of so-called Islamic State if he became Prime Minister".
The soundbite of the question he was actually asked and the answer he actually gave were drastically different from the question you claim he was answered and the answer you claim he gave.
Amazing what you can make of a situation when you remove context. Or in this case, make something up.
The soundbite of the question he was actually asked and the answer he actually gave were drastically different from the question you claim he was answered and the answer you claim he gave.
Amazing what you can make of a situation when you remove context. Or in this case, make something up.
He refused to say whether he would take out the head of IS. It's in your blinking article Callis.
He refused to say whether he would take out the head of IS. It's in your blinking article Callis.
It is true that he didn't answer they hypothetical question. Instead he said he wanted a political solution, it would help if the ISIS leader wasn't there, was no supporter of ISIS and that bombing caused civilian casualties which had to be considered.
So from me that's a well done for not giving a cheap answer and instead putting some thought and consideration into it.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
