Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Disgraceful.
He’s really not helping himself is he, at least he’s honest about his views which should help the voters.
This is the thing about Corbyn, of course the media was biased against him during his time as Leader but he never really helped himself at all in the majority of the situations.
From Piers right?
JC literally begins to say ‘I do not condone support or approve of…’ before Piers cuts him off because he’s obsessed with his gotcha moment. It’s an awful way of presenting, and it’s why you can probably dismiss anything with Piers hosting as having any integrity.
All he wants is soundbites and clicks and people talking about it.
Pretty much Piers doing exactly what the Pro Palestinian guests that he has had on have been criticising him for. I don't see an issue with Corbyn in that clip, he even starts to condemn Hamas before Peirs cuts him off. Now I doubt we can find a clip of Piers keeping the same energy asking his Israeli guests whether the Israeli settlers are terrorists or whether they condemn the killing of innocent civilians with such ferocity. Those who know how Corbyn is or support him probably will be fine with the way he answered.
His physical demeanour is also very telling. Starts to out-shout Piers (never a good idea) before resigning back into his chair and going for a defensive arms crossed posture, before deflecting back to the other topic of ceasefires.
Corbyn has the intellectual dexterity of a soggy doormat.
Are you the same person who won't vote for labour because the current leader said Israel should follow international law and misspoke when saying 'they have that right' then clarified his position over the next few days.
Corbyn was being pressed because he wouldn't answer the question. It's a classic interview technique when politicians don't answer directly a la 'did you threaten to overrule him'.
The inference being that he sees them as freedom fighters and while the methods being a bit rough 'maybe don't target civilians if you can, lads?' he thinks their position is reasonable.
So what do you think he was going to say when he started saying "I do not condone support or approve of..." before he was cut off by Piers?
And you're misremembering what Keir said - namely, he believed that Israel has the right to withhold aid, fuel, water etc to the Gazan population, intimating that they should all be held responsible for what Hamas did. He's also opposing calling for a ceasefire.
It's a really poor way of interviewing in any case, but it's Piers' MO.
Targeting of civilians, like I said, the failure to fully condemn says he generally supports their aim and gives insight into his antisemitism.
Starmer clarified that he meant that siege tactics had to be within international law. I.e. not collective punishment but targeted at progressing strategic military aims. People wanted an apology, which may have been due apart from the bad political timing due to the insane actions of Hamas and the antisemitism of Labour under Corbyn.
A ceasefire without concessions is not on the cards. Humanitarian pauses are the best anyone can achieve unless Hamas do us a favour and surrender, or at least hand back all of the living hostages and the people responsible for planning the terrorist attack. If they do that it would be sensible to call for peace. Otherwise Hamas need defanging.
It was a pale imitation of Paxman but he needed pressing.
The British libs and conservatives got what they wanted. Corbyn and his type of left politics is out of any meaningful power yet….they can’t help but want to live 2015 - 2020 all over again.
Very strange
Very strange
Corbyn, in another interview, claimed that he'd only ever mentioned Hamas as 'friends' because he was in a meeting with various Palestinian groups, the Hamas guy left the room and Corbyn said: "Where's our friend gone?"
However he's been on platforms at rallies, describing Hezbollah and Hamas as friends. There's footage. It's not up for debate.
He needed to say something like: it was a different time and that, since he said those words, those groups have done despicable things and he condemns their actions.
However he's been on platforms at rallies, describing Hezbollah and Hamas as friends. There's footage. It's not up for debate.
He needed to say something like: it was a different time and that, since he said those words, those groups have done despicable things and he condemns their actions.
Starmer didn’t misspeak, he finished answering his original question, then the interviewer asked if a siege was appropriate, cutting off power and cutting off water. Starmer repeats I think… Israel does have that right it is an ongoing situation.
Any ‘clarification’ after that is due to the rightful backlash received.
Corbyn should rightfully label Hamas a terrorist group, but at least he does denounce them in the clip.
Corbyn is probably too decent a man to be a politician.
He's certainly got an honesty that's not normal for a politician.
His domestic policies are some of the most interesting to be proposed in decades, however his international politics are inadequate and have proven foolish over the last few years.
Too much of a peace lover? He wouldn't have gone down well with the US
That's probably connected to the fact that Labour are lacking detailed policies and a positive vision for the country beyond managed decline. Every time Corbyn pops up the strategists are happy as their focus groups in the Red Wall are reminded that Starmer is the opposite of Corbyn.
I mean, look at what nuclear disarmament got Ukraine. His reluctance to criticise Russian aggression would have been dangerous had he been PM.
Hamas have now also shown him up. No 2 state solution was ever possible with them and he's a fool for thinking otherwise.
It will be interesting to see if the Tory electioneers try and refer to Corbyn along the lines of Vote Starmer and get Corbynism, the tried and tested Reds Under the Bed routine. They might but I'm not sure if it would work for them or against them this time, as Labour might be happy to have their change in leadership highlighted. Then again I wouldn't have guessed Vote Labour and get Scottish Nationalists would have worked but many say it did.
I mean no two state solution would have been possible from the Israeli side either considering their inclination towards backing settler activity, and thats independent of Hamas. Does that make the UK and US' unrelenting support for Israel also foolish?
Yep very true. I think I’m just surprised they are still doing it. They really have no alternative other than decline.
Given their complete balls up of the economy, I doubt it will have the same effect, especially as the government's offering is to fight a culture war. still, like you said they shouldn't be counted out.
I can see both sides - Ukraine was always going to be in the firing line so it hasn't benefitted them at all, though maybe it's benefitted the rest of us - if both sides had nuclear weapons, who knows what would have happened. Obviously Russia might not have invaded, but we can't be sure of that. I'd be quite happy for us to become a neutral country. Sick of being involved in whatever war happens.
A 2 state solution was never happening because of the settlements. Irrespective of Hamas or Corbyn. And those settlements have been happening under the watch of multiple consecutive Labour/Tory, Democrat/Republican governments who have done nothing beyond the repetitive statements of "expressing concern"...
Genuine question (don't follow uk politics too much).
When he was going for PM, I only saw bits and pieces but he seemed like he was saying the right things but then David Cameron won.
Why did people not like this dude?
When he was going for PM, I only saw bits and pieces but he seemed like he was saying the right things but then David Cameron won.
Why did people not like this dude?
You mean borris?
He was ultra ultra left. Also said stupid shit like "our friends in Hamas". Didn't age well.
Also he has no charisma. Borris was a loveable bumbling idiot to the ageing voting oopulation in the UK.
He wasn't though, I see terms like that and 'radical' being used far too liberally, when in fact a lot of his projected policies were considered popular by the British public. What let him down were the antisemitic allegations, his supposed affinity to groups like the IRA, and he was also subjected to a vicious media hit job that's almost unprecedented in its fervour for any opposition leader. The looming Brexit situation was also an albatross that quite frankly would have doomed any Labour opposition leader.
Yeah well put, shouldn't have said ultra
If you think us giving up our nukes would amount to a similar situation as Ukraine then I want what you're smoking.
All that, but also I think our country is deeply conservative in it's character. Small c used deliberately.
The majority of our people like things to remain the same, and are not radical in nature. Cameron was a people pleaser and that's why he did well. That's why Starmer is doing well. That's why nothing will ever truly change.
He doesn’t help himself. Very simple question. Yes, Hamas are a terrorist group but…
The UK media did a monumental character assassination on him. Also he’s a man of integrity, the men behind the curtain would never let him become PM.
Exactly. Came across meek and unsure of himself. He might be morally better than most politicians but if you're getting bullied by piers fecking Morgan, it's time to step up your game.
This is broadly true I think, but strangely the Conservative governments of late have not been conservative with a small c in practice. They may be perceived so, but the level of change to the status quo and the institutions of this country have been profound.
The IRA were 'terrorists', the Suffragetes were 'terrorists'. It shouldn't be too hard to understand why people would be reluctant to call them that though and trivialise the issue.
It's what the media has done to Corbyn for the last 8 years, just dumb, clickbait style questions with no room for any nuance or reasonable discussion.
It's what the media has done to Corbyn for the last 8 years, just dumb, clickbait style questions with no room for any nuance or reasonable discussion.
That's because the last two leaders weren't even properly elected, they had no mandate from the population to proceed how they have.
Cameron / Boris / May all won elections. Cameron appealed due to being statesmanlike and a clean, safe option. Boris and May because they were up against a genuine radical. Boris also held mass appeal due to his 'relatability'. That relatability masked a lot of his true intentions and hard right views.
Our last two Prime Ministers weren't even elected, and Rishi will get trounced in the next election because the tories have exposed themselves for who they truly are these past few years rather than playing it safe like Cameron.
If he says yes to the terrorist thing, then the next point for morgan is to say 'you don;t negotiate with terrorists'
So a call for a ceasefire is then described as negotiating with terrorists.
I would have thought that even the most outraged would not be so silly as to think morgan was ever aguing in good faith. About anything.
So a call for a ceasefire is then described as negotiating with terrorists.
I would have thought that even the most outraged would not be so silly as to think morgan was ever aguing in good faith. About anything.
No room if you can't get past the first question asked.