Corbyn's days (very) numbered?

[GlennB]

Why?

In a sense I agree with Seismosaurus. If you refuse to use it then it should be scrapped and the money put to good use. Keeping it while refusing to use it is the mark of an idiot

 

[angrysoba]

I'm glad we can all agree that the left wing idealogue Corbyn is ruining things while that nice mild mannered centre-left Theresa May is pulling us out of Europe, clamping down on immigration, spending billions on WMDs and presumably still bombing Syria.

I thought it was funny, a few weeks back, when Len McCluskey was bragging about how the PLP couldn't get rid of him, and said that Corbyn was a "man of steel".

On the left side of the left, that has to conjure up some potent images. It would be frightening if it wasn't so absurd.

 

[angrysoba]

Heh heh! F U John Snow!

Corbyn shows he is a man of steel in this interview where he refuses to be told to say, "I want to be Prime Minister".

This clip is old:



Notice the cheeky title when Corbyn flatly does not say what the title has quoted him as saying.

 

[Giz]

I thought it was funny, a few weeks back, when Len McCluskey was bragging about how the PLP couldn't get rid of him, and said that Corbyn was a "man of steel".

On the left side of the left, that has to conjure up some potent images. It would be frightening if it wasn't so absurd.

Fortunately, it appears that the electorate is his kryptonite.

(I'm assuming he wasn't referencing the other guy... That would be crazy. And a little 1950's)

 

[angrysoba]

Fortunately, it appears that the electorate is his kryptonite.

(I'm assuming he wasn't referencing the other guy... That would be crazy. And a little 1950's)

The thing is I almost think he was referencing that guy.

 

[jimbob]

I take everything back - there is a media blackout against Corbyn and the national media haven't covered this Labour by-election victory.

 

[jimbob]

From the same link and for those interested in completing their 1980's left wing bingo cards

Len McCluskey: MI5 behind ‘dark practices’ against Jeremy Corbyn

 

[Seismosaurus]

Bizarre that this is the issue you choose to draw the line on.

Note that I didn't say it was the ONLY thing that indicated this. Merely that it is one thing that does.

I would say that refusing to take Syrian refugees is worse for example.

To each their own.

Why?

Well for one, it is a monumentally stupid thing to say.

I don't mind him deciding that he would never use Trident. You may know of the "letter of last resort" that Prime Ministers write for the submarines. Whilst a PM can write what he or she likes, there are several options that are generally considered reasonable and one of them is "Sorry, it was all a bluff and we got called. The war is lost. Do not retaliate."

I imagine that there are Prime Ministers who have written that in their letters. Perhaps they all have.

It doesn't really matter, because deterrence still works so long as a potential enemy doesn't know that that's what you would do. Writing that letter and keeping it secret is akin to the famous Dirty Harry "six shots or only five" scene; his gun was a deterrent even though it was unable to kill anybody, because his opponent didn't know it was useless.

Now imagine Harry had said "I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots, or only five. Well to tell you the truth, it was six and my gun is empty. So do you feel lucky, punk?"

Yeah. That would end well.

If you are committed to not using Trident, fine. Lie about it. Or simply say "I decline to comment on what I wrote in my letters."

But only a serious idiot says what Corbyn said. The man is an incompetent fool.

 

[jimbob]

I'm glad we can all agree that the left wing idealogue Corbyn is ruining things while that nice mild mannered centre-left Theresa May is pulling us out of Europe, clamping down on immigration, spending billions on WMDs and presumably still bombing Syria.

My main problem is that Corbyn is completely ineffectual in opposing the government. He let Cameron behave as though the Tories had a rock solid majority instead of one that would generally be considered barely workable.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Note that I didn't say it was the ONLY thing that indicated this. Merely that it is one thing that does.


To each their own.


Well for one, it is a monumentally stupid thing to say.

I don't mind him deciding that he would never use Trident. You may know of the "letter of last resort" that Prime Ministers write for the submarines. Whilst a PM can write what he or she likes, there are several options that are generally considered reasonable and one of them is "Sorry, it was all a bluff and we got called. The war is lost. Do not retaliate."

I imagine that there are Prime Ministers who have written that in their letters. Perhaps they all have.

It doesn't really matter, because deterrence still works so long as a potential enemy doesn't know that that's what you would do. Writing that letter and keeping it secret is akin to the famous Dirty Harry "six shots or only five" scene; his gun was a deterrent even though it was unable to kill anybody, because his opponent didn't know it was useless.

Now imagine Harry had said "I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots, or only five. Well to tell you the truth, it was six and my gun is empty. So do you feel lucky, punk?"

Yeah. That would end well.

If you are committed to not using Trident, fine. Lie about it. Or simply say "I decline to comment on what I wrote in my letters."

But only a serious idiot says what Corbyn said. The man is an incompetent fool.

Or perhaps he is highlighting the stupidity of spending multi-billions on something that 'perhaps' every single person with the authority to use it has told the military not to use?

If we all keep pretending that it's important and we'd use it then people actually start to believe it's important and we'd use it. And start thinking that spending billions on a new one is important too.

But again that this is the one thing you single out as a red line is bizarre. Our current Prime Minister seems to want to abolish the Human Rights Act and that's apparently not a problem. Corbyn says he doesn't want to nuke millions of people and he's unfit to be PM.

That's the current state of our politics it seems.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

My main problem is that Corbyn is completely ineffectual in opposing the government. He let Cameron behave as though the Tories had a rock solid majority instead of one that would generally be considered barely workable.

I agree he hasn't been very effectual but I also provide him with some mitigating circumstances of being thoroughly discredited by the media before he even really got the chance to open his mouth.

It's also hard to effectively oppose the government when you are being undermined by you own MPs who as far as I can see won't be very good at opposing the government either because on many of these important issues they don't actually disagree.

Renewing Trident, reducing immigration, bombing Syria and presumably out means out and a raft of other things are all supported by Labour too.

 

[Darat]

I agree he hasn't been very effectual but I also provide him with some mitigating circumstances of being thoroughly discredited by the media before he even really got the chance to open his mouth.

It's also hard to effectively oppose the government when you are being undermined by you own MPs who as far as I can see won't be very good at opposing the government either because on many of these important issues they don't actually disagree.

Renewing Trident, reducing immigration, bombing Syria and presumably out means out and a raft of other things are all supported by Labour too.

This is what I don't get. There is no talk of new policies, no talk or changing policies so we have to assume that any new leader will continue on with the same messages etc.

The facts we have are 1) When Labour was perceived to move to the left during the last general election it picked up more support 2) Corbyn has systematically been subject to a huge amount of negative media bias.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

This is what I don't get. There is no talk of new policies, no talk or changing policies so we have to assume that any new leader will continue on with the same messages etc.

The facts we have are 1) When Labour was perceived to move to the left during the last general election it picked up more support 2) Corbyn has systematically been subject to a huge amount of negative media bias.

To be honest Labour is in such a mess right now that it's hard to keep track of what it's actual policies on things are but I'm not aware of any great shift in Labour policy under Corbyn or even any notable changes at all.

Most of the complaints seem to be attacks on Corbyn's own personal opinions rather than Labour policy but if anything he's shown that he doesn't force these opinions on the Party by allowing people to vote as they see fit quite often.

Presumably this is more evidence of his poor opposition but I'm not quite sure how he can overcome that.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Or perhaps he is highlighting the stupidity of spending multi-billions on something that 'perhaps' every single person with the authority to use it has told the military not to use?

No. Thats not stupid, and if he thinks it is then he has demonstrated his stupidity.

If we all keep pretending that it's important and we'd use it

The current Prime Minister has stated emphatically that she would use it. Do you have some reason to think she is lying?

then people actually start to believe it's important and we'd use it. And start thinking that spending billions on a new one is important too.

Excellent.

But again that this is the one thing you single out as a red line is bizarre.

And again, it's not the one thing I single out as a red line. It's merely the one I've mentioned here.

Our current Prime Minister seems to want to abolish the Human Rights Act and that's apparently not a problem.

How did you determine that?

Corbyn says he doesn't want to nuke millions of people and he's unfit to be PM.

Rather dishonest strawman. No, Corbyn did not state that he doesn't want to nuke millions of people. I'm sure no sane person wants to nuke millions of people. What he said was that he wasn't willing to under any circumstances. And yes, that makes him unfit to be PM.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Do you have some reason to think she is lying?

She's Theresa May and her lips are moving.

 

[sphenisc]

The current Prime Minister has stated emphatically that she would use it. Do you have some reason to think she is lying?

If you are committed to not using Trident, fine. Lie about it.

Did you not understand your own argument?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

And again, it's not the one thing I single out as a red line. It's merely the one I've mentioned here.

And by mentioning it and only it here you are singling it out.

 

[catsmate]

Why?

It exposes the stupidity of the whole project.

 

[GlennB]

How did you determine that?

'She said that the Human Rights act was “interfering with our ability to fight crime and control immigration”.
.....
“So by 2015 we’ll need a plan for dealing with the European Court of Human Rights. And yes, I want to be clear that all options – including leaving the Convention altogether – should be on the table.”'

 

[Seismosaurus]

She's Theresa May and her lips are moving.

So no, then.