• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Corbyn's days (very) numbered?

sphenisc said:
Did you not understand your own argument?
Click to expand...
Yes I did. Why, are you having trouble with it? Here, I'll summarise :

If you're willing to nuke people, as May is : Say so. Or don't comment. Either is fine.

If you're not willing to nuke people, as Corbyn is : Lie. Or don't comment. Either is fine.

Do not under any circumstances say that you're not willing to nuke people. If you do, you are a dribbling moron.

I know it involves contemplating five different things, so it may be hard for some to understand, but it's a complex world sometimes.
 
GlennB said:
'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.”'
Click to expand...
No, sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant how did you determine that "that's apparently not a problem." I presumed you meant that it apparently wasn't a problem in my opinion. I'm curious how you determined what my opinion was, given that I haven't ever posted on the subject.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
And by mentioning it and only it here you are singling it out.
Click to expand...
I'm singling it out for mention in this thread, yes, and if that's what you meant then fair enough. But if that's what you meant then... well, so what? Yes, I'm talking about one particular issue in this thread. I often talk about only one particular issue at a time.

If you meant I'm singling it out as in you think it's the only issue I think would be a "red line" since it's the only one I'm talking about, then naturally you're being foolish. I'd assumed it was the second one, but happy to be corrected if it wasn't.
 
Seismosaurus said:
No, sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant how did you determine that "that's apparently not a problem." I presumed you meant that it apparently wasn't a problem in my opinion. I'm curious how you determined what my opinion was, given that I haven't ever posted on the subject.
Click to expand...

I think you've just answered your own question there.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
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.
Click to expand...

He might have been, but at least some of his shadow front bench initially supported him.

When he chose battles, they were the wrong ones.

Was it really appropriate to attend a meeting in favour of Cuban Solidarity when a new Prime Minister was being appointed? To me, that looks like the actions of a crank who is obsessed with the wrong political causes.
 
Labour party facing legal action over voting regulations:

Labour's NEC changed the leadership voting rules retrospectively. When I joined some weeks ago the terms stated that membership would allow me to vote.

"Group hires law firm to challenge NEC decision that anyone who joined after 12 January can only vote if they paid £25 fee".

link

Quite *********** right. The NEC's action must surely constitute breach of contract.
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
He might have been, but at least some of his shadow front bench initially supported him.

When he chose battles, they were the wrong ones.

Was it really appropriate to attend a meeting in favour of Cuban Solidarity when a new Prime Minister was being appointed? To me, that looks like the actions of a crank who is obsessed with the wrong political causes.
Click to expand...

Does it really matter where he was when a new PM was being appointed? I couldn't tell you where any Opposition leader has been when any PM was appointed ever. It probably wasn't even reported.
 
his supporters also don't seem to realise that those of us on the centre-left so despise him because we actually care about the left having a decent leader, not because we think the tories are any good. well, I think they are 'good' at what they do, which is serving themselves. anyone else starting to think Cameron (and Osborne, or is that a step too far?) will be the most progressive conservative leader we're likely to see for a while now?

the only hope, and it is a grim sort of hope, is that the tories decide to take the centre and wipe out the left for 'good', rather than focus on shoring up their right flank. doesn't appear likely...
 
DreadNiK said:
his supporters also don't seem to realise that those of us on the centre-left so despise him because we actually care about the left having a decent leader, not because we think the tories are any good. well, I think they are 'good' at what they do, which is serving themselves. anyone else starting to think Cameron (and Osborne, or is that a step too far?) will be the most progressive conservative leader we're likely to see for a while now?

the only hope, and it is a grim sort of hope, is that the tories decide to take the centre and wipe out the left for 'good', rather than focus on shoring up their right flank. doesn't appear likely...
Click to expand...

From a different forum:

Expirate said:
Trinucleus said:
Pity he didn't bother using it against the Conservatives
Click to expand...
That's another aspect of Corbyn's limitations, when faced with a stand up fight he goes all "kinder type of politics", he can only do full on opposition when he's in a room full supporters all saying they'll hold his coat if there's a fist fight - of course it never ever comes to that. He really is an absolute fraud, happy to to use the language of battle to his worshiping claque, and inevitably encouraging any attending sociopaths to legitimise bullying, brick throwing and probably worse, but Corbyn himself is ultimately a coward. And too dishonest to recognise that it's his own language that justifies the thuggery of his followers.
Click to expand...


Username said:
facefirst said:
So, given that he is going to win by an even bigger margin (isn't he, like, 20 points up in the polls or something), what to do? Can't he be 'worked with' at all?

I mean, something must be salvageable.
Click to expand...
I rather doubt it. We be got a bloke who has been throwing peanuts from the backbenches for decades. He *was* fairly liked by his colleagues, but once in the leaders seat he's turned out to be an ineffectual plonker, many of those who liked him before don't like him now. Some of them who thought he was a good guy now think he's an incompetent bullying arse.
GE loss, reselection, shift to the harder left, second GE loss, end of his leadership. that's how I see things going, it's a bit pessimistic,. It you've got another two Tory majorities to look forward to.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to think of something more optimistic.

ETA: Labour's performance in the Council elections was significantly worse than Miliband, and apart from 1982 or 1985 was the only other time since 1974 that the opposition has lost council seats.
 
Last edited:
DreadNiK said:
his supporters also don't seem to realise that those of us on the centre-left so despise him because we actually care about the left having a decent leader, not because we think the tories are any good. well, I think they are 'good' at what they do, which is serving themselves. anyone else starting to think Cameron (and Osborne, or is that a step too far?) will be the most progressive conservative leader we're likely to see for a while now?

the only hope, and it is a grim sort of hope, is that the tories decide to take the centre and wipe out the left for 'good', rather than focus on shoring up their right flank. doesn't appear likely...
Click to expand...

Then they need to come up with better candidates than Smith (former senior lobbyist for Big Pharma) and Eagle (pro Iraq war, anti Iraq war investigation, and pro Trident).

Catch 1) is: the PLP is stuffed with Blairites.

Catch 2) is: the pro-Corbyn campaign isn't about getting him installed as the next PM. It's a protest against the tendency that sees a long series of Labour tossers aiming to fill their boots, Blair-fashion, while professing to be representing the left.

If the Corbynista movement splits the Labour party then I for one welcome it. A devotion to acquiring power when your exercise of that power won't be significantly different from the Tories isn't worth having, imo.
 
Last edited:
i'd agree, but I'd argue that it'd be somewhat hard to make a case that the last time labour were in power they acted as a tory govt would. (less hard to make a case that they were arguably even worse)

I really don't understand why the left can't come up with a decent figurehead, on the right you need to be of the 'right' background and have money etc but the left should be able to pick anyone with the right combination of intelligence, decency and charisma and get behind them. even corbyn is a career politician (of sorts)
 
GlennB said:
Then they need to come up with better candidates than Smith (former senior lobbyist for Big Pharma) and Eagle (pro Iraq war, anti Iraq war investigation, and pro Trident).

Catch 1) is: the PLP is stuffed with Blairites.

Catch 2) is: the pro-Corbyn campaign isn't about getting him installed as the next PM. It's a protest against the tendency that sees a long series of Labour tossers aiming to fill their boots, Blair-fashion, while professing to be representing the left.

If the Corbynista movement splits the Labour party then I for one welcome it. A devotion to acquiring power when your exercise of that power won't be significantly different from the Tories isn't worth having, imo.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that there is little difference between the parties? New labour achieved a fair bit - it might not have been a grand gesture, but Sure Start was effective in reducing poverty, to think of something off the top of my head. Nothing like that would have been on the cards with a Conservative government at that time.
 
DreadNiK said:
his supporters also don't seem to realise that those of us on the centre-left so despise him because we actually care about the left having a decent leader, not because we think the tories are any good. well, I think they are 'good' at what they do, which is serving themselves. anyone else starting to think Cameron (and Osborne, or is that a step too far?) will be the most progressive conservative leader we're likely to see for a while now?

the only hope, and it is a grim sort of hope, is that the tories decide to take the centre and wipe out the left for 'good', rather than focus on shoring up their right flank. doesn't appear likely...
Click to expand...

The parting on the left, is now the parting on the right.
 
jimbob said:
Do you really think that there is little difference between the parties?
Click to expand...

When Labour's preferred anti-Corbyn candidate is a former Pfizer lobbyist? Yes, I really think that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom