Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Arniepie]

56 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Pretty easy to look good when things are cherrypicked and displayed in isolation. 

If you are ridiculed for saying something (such as the Tories being funded by Russian money)and then a while later there is a 24 degree u turn, and we see the media howling for sanctions against Russian oligarchs,I think he has every right to point it out.

Ditto his views on putin.

 

[Bjornebye]

9 hours ago, Arniepie said:

He literally spent the entire video saying what a cunt putin was and at the very beginning utterly condemned the invasion by showing what they were doing.

Yeah but what he actually said doesn’t suit the narrative. 
 

[House of Dirk]

14 hours ago, SasaS said:

I have no idea how a Tory would dress it or why would a Tory bother dressing it since they probably view him with a great deal of nostalgia. None of these old antiimperialists live in a real world. Fortunately, most of them are nowhere near actual decision making.

Luckily its never happened before. Oh.

[House of Dirk]

1 hour ago, A Red said:

 

 

Corbyn the protestor says one thing and Corbyn the potential leader says another. Luckily, with regard to the situation in Ukraine, he is irrelevant. 

Yes, luckily we are left with the current shithouses in charge because thats fucking better for fucking everybody. Thank fuck for that.

 

We are all fucking irrelevant, more so when we all get the shit blown out of us, and it will still some cunt will find Jeremy Corbyn to blame.

 

 

[Creator Supreme]

I'm sure the last line in When the Wind Blows is Hilda Bloggs uttering "Fucking Corbyn!" with her last breath.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, A Red said:

Corbyn when not in power said that NATO should disband itself and that it was only formed to promote the cold war. He said that NATO was effectively just a tool for the delivery of oil and sale of arms. When looking to get in power the rhetoric changed somewhat saying that it should restrict its role and become more democratic but would not confirm whether he would go to the defence of another NATO member attacked by Russia.

 

Corbyn the protester was one of the leaders of CND and wanted rid of the UK's nuclear deterrent and cancelling of Trident. When looking to get in to power the cancelling of Trident was not in the manifesto put to conference. Corbyn refused to say whether he would use nuclear weapons if attacked, effectively nullifying the deterrence.

 

Corbyn the protestor says one thing and Corbyn the potential leader says another. Luckily, with regard to the situation in Ukraine, he is irrelevant. 

It's almost as if a party leader - a decent one, at least - has to speak for the whole party, and not just himself.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Pretty easy to look good when things are cherrypicked and displayed in isolation. 

It should be easy enough for the people who are accusing him of being a Putin supporter to cherry-pick quotes saying "I bloody love Putin, me".

[AngryOfTuebrook]

8 hours ago, SasaS said:

I think Turkey and Greece would quickly slid into a war, Greece may attack Macedonia, Serbia would try to regain Kosovo, Serbian part of Bosnia would go independent and cause a war, with all those right wing populists cropping up everywhere everybody would be taking out historic maps, Hungary may try to take back territories lost after WWI to Romania and elsewhere. I think it would be like dominos of total instability. What you may now see as unthinkable, such as Spain falling apart in a bloody conflict, may suddenly be a real danger.

You could be right with some of those scenarios. Serbia, Bosnia and Kosovo aren't NATO members, so I don't think NATO makes a difference there. As long as Hungary and Romania are EU members it is (economically and politically) practically impossible for them to go to war with each other. The other potential conflicts would need some serious peace-keeping structures in place, if NATO were disbanded.

[SasaS]

The thing I forgot to say and with that I would bow out of British domestic politics, what irks me about these "old antiimperialists" (where I included Corbyn) is that they don't seem to realize the world has changed, all these relatively recently emerged regional powers like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar (money) and I include Russia in that because they don't have the resources anymore to be a proper super power, are much worse and more detrimental than America.

There is also a total lack of recognition that America since Clinton with coloured revolutions and what not has changed its approach. The results may often be disastrous but that is for another discussion.  And in general, the world seems to be heading towards a situation where people would be looking with nostalgia at status quo liberal democracy and capitalism as the good old days.

[Numero Veinticinco]

12 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

It should be easy enough for the people who are accusing him of being a Putin supporter to cherry-pick quotes saying "I bloody love Putin, me".

Well, absolutely if that’s what they’re accusing him of saying. In fact, it should be demanded that they do or their opinion dismissed. 

[A Red]

24 minutes ago, House of Dirk said:

Yes, luckily we are left with the current shithouses in charge because thats fucking better for fucking everybody. Thank fuck for that.

 

We are all fucking irrelevant, more so when we all get the shit blown out of us, and it will still some cunt will find Jeremy Corbyn to blame.

 

 

It is better actually because in terms of the UK we at least have some form of protection by being in NATO and we have a nuclear deterrent.

 

I'm not blaming Corbyn for anything because he hasn't done anything

[Numero Veinticinco]

17 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

It's almost as if a party leader - a decent one, at least - has to speak for the whole party, and not just himself.

Do you think Corbyn was good at speaking for the whole party? I’m not even sure it’s possible when it comes to Labour. How do you speak for an entire party when one section is anti-NATO and wants to get rid of the nuclear deterrent, and the others are incredibly pro-NATO and want to keep/renew the nuclear deterrent?

[A Red]

 

17 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

It should be easy enough for the people who are accusing him of being a Putin supporter to cherry-pick quotes saying "I bloody love Putin, me".

Has anyone on here accused him of being a Putin supporter? I know I haven't.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 minute ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Do you think Corbyn was good at speaking for the whole party? I’m not even sure it’s possible when it comes to Labour. How do you speak for an entire party when one section is anti-NATO and wants to get rid of the nuclear deterrent, and the others are incredibly pro-NATO and want to keep/renew the nuclear deterrent?

You go with the positions supported by the Conference, etc. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

6 minutes ago, SasaS said:

The thing I forgot to say and with that I would bow out of British domestic politics, what irks me about these "old antiimperialists" (where I included Corbyn) is that they don't seem to realize the world has changed, all these relatively recently emerged regional powers like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar (money) and I include Russia in that because they don't have the resources anymore to be a proper super power, are much worse and more detrimental than America.

There is also a total lack of recognition that America since Clinton with coloured revolutions and what not has changed its approach. The results may often be disastrous but that is for another discussion.  And in general, the world seems to be heading towards a situation where people would be looking with nostalgia at status quo liberal democracy and capitalism as the good old days.

 

 

I've heard Corbyn speak a few times and I can confirm that he absolutely understands all that stuff about the changing nature of power in the world.

[A Red]

Just now, AngryOfTuebrook said:

You go with the positions supported by the Conference, etc. 

He didn't put pulling Trident to conference. Didn't even try to get it into his manifesto.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Just now, A Red said:

He didn't put pulling Trident to conference. Didn't even try to get it into his manifesto.

Point?

[House of Dirk]

9 minutes ago, A Red said:

It is better actually because in terms of the UK we at least have some form of protection by being in NATO and we have a nuclear deterrent.

 

I'm not blaming Corbyn for anything because he hasn't done anything

Some form of protection. Lolz. We are fucked mate. 

[Bjornebye]

2 minutes ago, House of Dirk said:

Some form of protection. Lolz. We are fucked mate. 

Fucking hell Dirk “lolz” you’re letting the side down here! A Diane Abbot moment

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Incidentally, the UK's "independent nuclear deterrent" is not independent nor a deterrent. It's a massive drain on our resources and makes the country weaker and less safe. 

 

But that's for another thread.

[SasaS]

5 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

You could be right with some of those scenarios. Serbia, Bosnia and Kosovo aren't NATO members, so I don't think NATO makes a difference there. As long as Hungary and Romania are EU members it is (economically and politically) practically impossible for them to go to war with each other. The other potential conflicts would need some serious peace-keeping structures in place, if NATO were disbanded.

I don't think EU would survive without some form of military power in the new world, in which there is no NATO and what Russia is now trying to do becomes normal. In the west Balkans, (the existence of) NATO makes all the difference, the fact some countries are not members is not particularly relevant.

People tend to forget (or they never were aware of) several little know shorter conflicts and all-out wars between European countries in the years after the WWI and leading up to WWII. Mainly because WWII in its aftermath created a Cold War theater in which regional and individual interests were (often forcibly) subjugated by the superpowers in Europe. But it all always simmers underneath.

[A Red]

Just now, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Point?

The ex leader of CND who campaigned against nuclear weapons all his adult life, who campaigned for unilaterally giving them up didn't even try to put scrapping Trident in his manifesto.

 

Could be for 1 of 3 reasons that I can see -

 

1. He realised it was a ridiculous stance that was great in theory

2. He didn't want conference to vote it down and make him look weak

3. He didn't want to risk losing a General Election as he knew it was a vote loser

 

We're not talking about nationalising the railways here. Man of principle my arse.

 

[Section_31]

If people don't think nukes are a deterrent just ask why Kim Jong Un hasn't been hung on YouTube yet. 

[Bjornebye]

Would ex-Labour leader Corbyn have been better off appearing on Russia Today the day of the invasion to plug a book like the ex-Lib Dem leader rather than posting a video of himself condemning the attack and calling for peace? 

[A Red]

9 minutes ago, House of Dirk said:

Some form of protection. Lolz. We are fucked mate. 

You may be right