You still haven't said who you reckon would've done better than him.
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.
You still haven't said who you reckon would've done better than him.
What's the point? No matter who I'd name the response will be the same. It isn't a genuine question at all it's just waiting me to say someone then whoever I say it'll be dismissed.
That's so we don't end up talking about why a Tory leader who ran arguably the worst campaign any political leader of the two main parties has ever ran in modern British electoral history, still won.
The usual cabal of apologists for Corbyn that turn up to stifle and repress any kind of discussion on here have now turned up. You, Silva, Dobba, Nuts, Sweet Square. Occasionally when a normal outsider tends to dip their toe in the thread they're scared off pretty soon after.
You have no idea how to argue, other than to resort to the dismissive and the personal.
YOU made it all about Corbyn so grow a pair and tell us who’d have polled more. Otherwise you’re a blowhard on an angry rant against an individual without offering solutions.
Any progress on working out who the figurehead for Labour’s remain campaign was?
That's were we are. We're not to talk about what Corbyn's said, who he's associated with how he polls, what his performance is as leader or why he's shoulder-to-shoulder with May on Brexit.
Instead we have to ask Oscie who he thinks would have polled better than him at the last election, and then whoever he says say:
"
, [/NAME]"
Because that distracts from the fact Labour finished 2nd to a government in turmoil having the worst campaign any of the two major parties have likely ever had at an election. And thats the most important thing.
Instead we have to ask Oscie who he thinks would have polled better than him at the last election, and then whoever he says say:
"
, [/NAME]"Because that distracts from the fact Labour finished 2nd to a government in turmoil having the worst campaign any of the two major parties have likely ever had at an election. And thats the most important thing.
How pathetic. It’s absolutely fecking crucial - if you can’t name someone who’d have done better then it’s YOU who’s keeping the Tories in by refusing to back the leader who had the best chance to beat them.That's were we are. We're not to talk about what Corbyn's said, who he's associated with how he polls, what his performance is as leader or why he's shoulder-to-shoulder with May on Brexit.
Instead we have to ask Oscie who he thinks would have polled better than him at the last election, and then whoever he says say:
"
Because that distracts from the fact Labour finished 2nd to a government in turmoil having the worst campaign any of the two major parties have likely ever had at an election. And thats the most important thing.
How can anyone take your endless complaints seriously if you have no alternative?!
I have plenty of alternatives but the question wasn't asked in order to find out who they were, it was asked so you could fire back with your prepared comeback that I suspect would have been in line with what I outlined in my last post. You're just annoyed I didn't give you the chance to play the game.
And the chair of Labour’s Remain campaign was arch Corbyn-basher Alan Johnson. He’s played an absolute blinder in getting us to all forget that.
anything short of a European federalist reincarnation of Karl Marx is too mild for Oscie
Oh feck off - I've asked you a basic question here and you aren't answering. I've told you time and time again I don't vote Corbyn and have plenty of criticisms of him.
I think one of the reasons why so few people aside from the Corbyn apologists, and myself, ever post in this thread is that there seems absolutely no point.
Terrible opposition leader performing awfully against the worst government in living memory and yet this thread is pretty much wall-to-wall defending of him.
Terrible opposition leader performing awfully against the worst government in living memory and yet this thread is pretty much wall-to-wall defending of him.
Rubbish. Stop playing the victim card - the anti-Corbyn argument was probably the predominant voice in this thread until a couple of pages back. Your argument ends if you’re completely unable to suggest an alternative.
typical corbyn apologist, stop drinking the cool aid you cultist bastard
Oscie complains that Corbynistas don't let him say anything but it's actually him who wants everyone he disagrees with to shut up so that he can carry on with his repetitive coke head rants undisturbed.
Oh Jeremy (Corbyn).
It does seem like a cult, doesn't it?
United 'supporters' would never shy away from constantly criticising United without pause for breath, but Corbyn's gang would never, ever, hear a single word said against him, no matter what.
*Oscie voice* You're wrong Shamwow, typical Corbyn apologist!
He's basically the Glaston of the Current Events forum. Ouch.
You’re repeating yourself mate. Said that a dozen times now.
Those for Corbyn are no more a cult than those against. Unless you’ve posted loads of stuff you like about him that I’ve missed?
As others have said, more or less, it’s less about defending Corbyn and more about defending the right for the Left to have a voice in politics. In my lifetime they’ve been mostly silenced so I’d be defending anyone who was intent on giving the Left a platform to be heard.
From the outside looking in there's a leader who is held to be above any form of even the mildest criticism or satire by people who attend mass rallies in his honour.
Simply saying "it's not a cult" doesn't make that look less cultish and I don't think it's being entirely unreasonable. Especially like here when you get the pile-in from those who get that Corbyn bat-signal in the sky where within 10 minutes of someone being critical of him the 4 muskybeards pile in.
There's loads of stuff about politicians I have supported over the years that I dislike. To my mind it's strange to see a politician put so obviously above any kind of skepticism or even critical analysis by people who also insist that's a perfectly normal thing to do and attack anyone who disagrees. At least on here his supporters treat him the way an 8 year old would defend his favourite super hero in the playground and it isn't wrong of people to point out that it's a bit weird.
Simply saying "it's not a cult" doesn't make that look less cultish and I don't think it's being entirely unreasonable. Especially like here when you get the pile-in from those who get that Corbyn bat-signal in the sky where within 10 minutes of someone being critical of him the 4 muskybeards pile in.
There's loads of stuff about politicians I have supported over the years that I dislike. To my mind it's strange to see a politician put so obviously above any kind of skepticism or even critical analysis by people who also insist that's a perfectly normal thing to do and attack anyone who disagrees. At least on here his supporters treat him the way an 8 year old would defend his favourite super hero in the playground and it isn't wrong of people to point out that it's a bit weird.
Last edited:
My hope is that Labour policy will shift towards a second referendum on the deal. There will be an enormous backlash from the right either way, especially so if that referendum is conducted in a way clearly designed to stop Brexit, so I'd favour a three-way choice of
1. Yes to Deal
2. No to Deal, Yes to Brexit (renegotiate)
3. No to Deal, No to Brexit
In that situation I'd expect the Regrexit crowd to give Option 3 a slim majority of the vote and the remaining Leavers to be split between options 1 and 2 and (hopefully) dissolve into in-fighting on that basis.
Labour's Brexit line has been frustrating as a Remainer, but has generally toed a line of not alienating Labour's pro-Europe young base or causing its Eurosceptic older voters to rule the party out altogether. Corbyn's big problem, and the reason he doesnt want the next election to be a one issue election on Brexit, is that the Labour vote will be split along Brexit lines to a greater extent than the Tories' vote will. Public opinion is changing though and Labour needs to change with it, as Brexit starts to look worse and worse more people who voted to remain on a sober, pragmatic basis are becoming ideological 'Remainers' for whom positions on a second referendum will be the major electoral cleavage in the event of a snap election. As this group grows current Labour policy is looking less tenable day by day.
1. Yes to Deal
2. No to Deal, Yes to Brexit (renegotiate)
3. No to Deal, No to Brexit
In that situation I'd expect the Regrexit crowd to give Option 3 a slim majority of the vote and the remaining Leavers to be split between options 1 and 2 and (hopefully) dissolve into in-fighting on that basis.
Labour's Brexit line has been frustrating as a Remainer, but has generally toed a line of not alienating Labour's pro-Europe young base or causing its Eurosceptic older voters to rule the party out altogether. Corbyn's big problem, and the reason he doesnt want the next election to be a one issue election on Brexit, is that the Labour vote will be split along Brexit lines to a greater extent than the Tories' vote will. Public opinion is changing though and Labour needs to change with it, as Brexit starts to look worse and worse more people who voted to remain on a sober, pragmatic basis are becoming ideological 'Remainers' for whom positions on a second referendum will be the major electoral cleavage in the event of a snap election. As this group grows current Labour policy is looking less tenable day by day.
Last edited:
Except we’re talking about a leader of a political party who’s received scrutiny and vitriolic scathing of an unprecedented scale by both the media and factions within his own party. So your whole notion of him being exempt from criticism doesn’t add up.
You liberally make use of the term ‘cult’ to describe his supporters, but naturally if his supporters rightly believe that a politician they support receives excessively amounts condemnation from the media and not given balanced scrutiny then you’d understand why they’d be on the defensive.
Even if Corbyn is a private brexiteer, I don’t see him alienating his largely remain-inclined base. In the case of another referendum I fully expect him to endorse the option that sees the UK remain in the EU just as he officially did with the last referendum.
Palestine urges Corbyn not to 'give in' over anti-Semitism code
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...m-code/ar-BBM9Uny?li=BBoPRmx&ocid=mailsignout
Stay strong.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...m-code/ar-BBM9Uny?li=BBoPRmx&ocid=mailsignout
Stay strong.
Yeah I expect the same. The EU has major flaws but it's far preferable to the alternative and those flaw are best solved from within. In the wake of Brexit/a near-miss Brexit the EU has significant motivation for introspection and reform to head off the rise of far-right anti-EU groups in many of its constituent nations.
Except, as it's been made quite clear by me and Oscie, it's people on this Forum we are talking about, not in general.
You guys won't hear/read a word said against him, hence the appearance of a cult.
The Daily Mail attacked Ed Miliband's dead father and for how he eats a sandwich. Gordon Brown was accused of being unfit to lead because of rumours he took antidepressants and a medical condition with his eyes over which he has no control. David Cameron was accused of fecking a pig in a book printed by one of the most high profile Fleet Street journalists. Jeremy Corbyn being a the centre of a storm for things she has said, things he's done or people he's chosen to associated with isn't "vitriolic scathing of an unprecedented scale", it's what happens to politicians who have previously said things that are questionable and/or held problematic associations. Nor does people within his own party noticing the shit job he's doing and becoming disgruntled by that isn't "unprecedented" either. At the dispatch box each week stands opposite a Prime Minister about whom the exact same fecking thing is happening within her own party.
So yeah if we ignore the far worse personal vitriol previous leaders have received and we ignore the fact that he's the only person who has ever had to deal with opposition within his own party, except for the leader of the other main party right now and any leader of his party whilst he's been on the back benches agitating and supporting moves to oust them - HE'S THE MOST HARD DONE BY LEADER EVER!!
This is another thing that makes it seem a bit cultish.
So yeah if we ignore the far worse personal vitriol previous leaders have received and we ignore the fact that he's the only person who has ever had to deal with opposition within his own party, except for the leader of the other main party right now and any leader of his party whilst he's been on the back benches agitating and supporting moves to oust them - HE'S THE MOST HARD DONE BY LEADER EVER!!
This is another thing that makes it seem a bit cultish.
Last edited:
Could you share a single post you've made on this thread that would have been worth engaging with?
It does seem kind of unprecedented to have an army of follows on Twitter who jump all over any criticism of him and call it unprecedented. With a load of hashtags declaring their undying support for poor, persecuted Jeremy.
If we’re looking for stuff that’s actually unprecedented, that’s probably worth a mention
Or just adopt the Venezuelan model...
People be like "twitter is full of idiots and knobs"
People also be like "I have discerned from looking at twitter that group x is full of idiots and knobs"
People also be like "I have discerned from looking at twitter that group x is full of idiots and knobs"
Another stunning contribution from a non-Corbynista. Why aren't the Corbyn supporters engaging with all these amazing arguments built of pure logic and reason? Why are they defending their dear leader, the stupid cult twats? WHAT IS GOING ON?
That is a paradox, to be fair. Although isn’t Corbyn supposed to be sweeping to power as part of a movement that utilised Twitter in a way that no other political leader has managed before? So Twitter Corybnites surely aren’t a million miles removed from Corbynites in general?
I mean there has been actual academic work done which concludes that the attacks on Corbyn have been greater and more sustained than on previous Labour leaders. A big problem he's had is that whereas typically Labour titles have backed previous leaders fully, the likes of The Guardian have been a lot more tentative in their support of him. Attacks on a major political leader tend to be normal, yes, but no one's really denying that.
The Cameron pig allegation doesn't really belong there either. It was made in a book by someone he knows and there's no verification as to whether it was true or not. Most news publications weren't saying it happened; they were reporting on the fact it was alleged.
Is this kind of bullshit what we're meant to be engaging with? Pull the other one, seriously. fecking hell.
I do think there are a lot of rabid Corbyn fans online but again I'm not sure if this is really exclusive to him, or if there's fully substantiated evidence as to whether his lot are worse than those who back other parties. As someone who votes SNP and follows a lot of politically-minded Scots I'll happily admit that they have plenty of toxic supporters online who're incapable of taking a joke, incapable of dealing with disagreement etc. This is also the case for those who back Brexit (a large component of whom will be Tories) and even centrist Labour types. Corbyn supporters are probably more noticeable because they're the most active bunch right now, but are they any worse than people backing any other political party or leader? I say that from a genuine point of interest - if there's academic evidence out there to show they are worse then I'd be interested to see it.
I think this is just the age we're living through, political discourse across the spectrum is currently all about extreme rhetoric and doubling down, doesn't seem to matter a whole lot which side you're batting for.
"This is Brexit Britain. A country known for its moderation has suddenly discovered extremism. Once mainstream Conservative politicians such as Michael Gove and Boris Johnson consort with Steve Bannon over “hard” Brexit.
Something very important has changed in Britain. Political opponents in Britain are now “traitors.” Judges making unwanted rulings are “enemies of the people."..."
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/566435/
Something very important has changed in Britain. Political opponents in Britain are now “traitors.” Judges making unwanted rulings are “enemies of the people."..."
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/566435/
I don't think that's true. This is the research that Corbynites seem to cite the most when it comes to Jezza getting a tough time from the press. It doesn't include any comparison with previous Labour leaders. The closest it comes to this is in the following sentence:
Not the use of the word "arguably". No attempt to provide any actual evidence to back this up.
They also don't compare him with any other politicians from the present day. The whole thing is an exercise in how harshly Corbyn is being treated, in isolation. So if the press is getting more and more critical of politicians in general - which seems likely, given how the general public are more and more jaded by them - then that's another pinch of salt with which to sprinkle their findings.
Here's the Miliband quote they allude to, from 1969: