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.
The thing is that there's no real benefit to the country Corbyn pushing the importance of any slither of doubt Russia was responsible. There is a benefit to the country to oppose Brexit, but he won't.
How many times does this needs saying - opposing Brexit would destroy any chance of Labour getting into power.
It’s electability. Which Corbyn hasn’t got.
He's been elected in every general election since 1983.
So basically you want the leader of the opposition to not oppose? To ignore the government's haste in favour of some rising bulldog soundbites?
So, other than absolutely not questioning the Russian influence in the political agenda in this country, you would like him to do what? How does one appear statesmen-like and protect our country? What was his play, exactly? What is it which he didn't do, which would have not been what he did, but would be better than what the Tories did?
Haste?
Sometimes the job of the leader of the opposition is to look like a PM in waiting, ie as prime ministerial than the PM. That doesn’t mean sub churchillian cliches, but it does mean seeking a bit of parliamentary unity in the face of a threat, and looking authoritative. I don’t think the correct initial response was to attempt to pick holes in the PMs statement, no. That stuff can come later.
I realise the quality of our political leaders is really low at the moment so it’s hard to see what proper good looks like, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree on Corbyn. He’d be found out in a m9ment in a real crisis.
Last edited:
The impression he gave in his first response was he was more concerned with giving the govt a hard time, rather the likely perpetrators of the attack. That’s fine if you are leading a 6th form debating team. It’s insufficent in a potential PM.
A question for you. What was the more authoritative response to the unfolding events? May’s first statement to parliament? Or Corbyn’s?
Last edited:
You know full well what I mean. You can be electable to a narrow caucus and unelectable to a broad one. A general election is a broad one with different dynamics.
That's not the impression I got. He gave the standard lip service, then raised a not unrelated and incredibly important issue. If Boris Johnson is playing tennis with Putin's friends for hundreds of thousands of pounds in donations, what weight do May's words have?
Who gave the most authoritative statement? The PM, by the very nature of her job title. Did it mean anything? Not at all.
.MP since 1983
.Won 2 leadership races with the biggest majority ever
.Help turn Labour into the biggest social democratic party in Europe
.Got Labour best result since 1997
.Biggest increased Labour vote since 1945
There are plenty of criticisms that can be said of Corbyn meaningless cliches is just pointless.
All that and yet when the real test came, he still couldn’t beat the worst Tory govt in living memory. So I think I am entitled to my claim.
The ignore button is great on here.
Beaten so easily.
Considering where he was and all those haters predicting a Labour wipe out and a Tory majority. He did remarkably well.
Considering how a sizeable faction of the labour party have been undermining him from day one, and then you factor in UKIP's collapse with most of their votes going to the tories AND the media witch hunt also from day one, he's done a bloody good job of making the Labour party a genuine progressive alternative. Looking at the trajectory of Labour's increased appeal, the political galvanisation of young voters and the inevitable Tory self-implosion exacerbated by Brexit, then its ridiculous to suggest he's unelectable. And that's not taken into account his history of electoral successes in his 30 years in politics.
By your token Barack Obama and Bill Clinton were unelectable because they lost some key elections in their political careers preceding their presidential tenures against pretty unremarkable oppostion.
er....ok then.
Being an oppositon leader doesn't mean he must oppose everything. I'd want the opposition to do what is best for the country, not try to point score.
Obviously in this case Russia did it but lets play out that they haven't. I don't think Corbyn trying to calm the goverment down and ensuring proper procedure will be looked back on badly do you?
I just fail to see what putting aside concerns is suppose to achieve. You honestly think Putin gives one feck what Corbyn does?
No I don't, it's Putin. Do you think Corbyn saying what he had is anything but damaging for international relations?
One of Corbyn top aids is Seamus Milne who has written a lot on the British secret service(Not to mention the secret service spied on Corbyn)so I image the standard line in the Corbyn office is to assume the British government is lying, which historical is a pretty good approach.
Let's just hope Corbyn never finds himself living at number 10 downing street then.
You didn't read the part where I said it was a good approach.
Yeah, I did.
But let's pretend this isn't a problem because.....media.....and....Iraq....and...fecking Tories. Right?
I almost forgot: BLAIR!
Yup definitely not a problem. In fact I'm so confident it's not a problem that I'd lay a shiny penny on the majority of replies to this will point out it's wrong of me to see it as a problem.
So Tory voters think labour and Corbyn are anti-Semitic? Shock horror. I never thought they would get that from reading the Sun and the Mail.
If Corbyn shat gold you'd complain it was brown.
Donald Sugar. Total knobish tweet.
Hello tossers?? Ffs
Hello tossers?? Ffs
And how's that going to be paid for? Not that the small details bother Corbyn much.
A quick shake of whichever magic money tree paid the DUP.
It probably is a fairly cynical vote winner that isn't needed for better off people within that bracket, but the Tories have been pulling the equivalent shit with old people for years and rarely get questioned on it. Probably a smart move to continue engaging the youth vote.
Wasn't the funding explained in the video?
yes
Bus Passes for U25s
As soon as a person pops up and says “how is that going to be paid for?” whatever opinion they might offer after that is almost certainly totally irrelevant
You CANNOT compare Government finances to your own finances in the sense that Macroeconomics is not ‘zero-sum’. It’s not like your household finances where you have a certain amount of money to allocate at the end of every month and a certain amount of outgoings to cover.
I think people imagine that whoever is in power is sat there looking at some bank statement thinking “hmmmm...want to give young people bus passes....have to cut something....hmmmm....OK let’s get rid of a few hospitals”
Doesn’t work that way. Think of each decision instead as an investment, not a cost. For example, what is the ROI in giving young people bus passes? More young people from low-income families can travel to work/college. Do I have to explain the benefits of that? Surely not.
What is the ROI in giving Colin, 65, retired from Wiltshire with a house worth £650K and a holiday home in Spain a bus pass? Next to nil.
When a Party announce a policy, ask yourself, “who is this policy intended to benefit, why, and what’s the benefit for Society as a whole”
As soon as a person pops up and says “how is that going to be paid for?” whatever opinion they might offer after that is almost certainly totally irrelevant
You CANNOT compare Government finances to your own finances in the sense that Macroeconomics is not ‘zero-sum’. It’s not like your household finances where you have a certain amount of money to allocate at the end of every month and a certain amount of outgoings to cover.
I think people imagine that whoever is in power is sat there looking at some bank statement thinking “hmmmm...want to give young people bus passes....have to cut something....hmmmm....OK let’s get rid of a few hospitals”
Doesn’t work that way. Think of each decision instead as an investment, not a cost. For example, what is the ROI in giving young people bus passes? More young people from low-income families can travel to work/college. Do I have to explain the benefits of that? Surely not.
What is the ROI in giving Colin, 65, retired from Wiltshire with a house worth £650K and a holiday home in Spain a bus pass? Next to nil.
When a Party announce a policy, ask yourself, “who is this policy intended to benefit, why, and what’s the benefit for Society as a whole”
You must be new to this thread, they know all the above they just like throwing out Tory catchphrases anyway. Think of it like Tory tourettes with the trigger word of Corbyn.
Magic money tree it is then.