Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Rico1304]

It’s reached the mutual accusations of being thick stage.

 

Gripping stuff. Can’t wait to see the twists and turns this one will take.

I take solero in being stupid.

[Mook]

A plank of wood could call Einstein thick, but we oughtn't take the proposition as seriously as we would if the roles were reversed.

 

We're at the point now where I'm being called a Tory cunt for pointing out that the Labour manifesto committed to keeping Tory benefit cuts. Pick the bones out of that one.

 

I'm not entirely convinced that a plank of wood could call Einstein thick.

[Moctezuma]

Ok I'll try critiquing Corbyn from a generally supportive perspective, don't go too mental if I'm not the most perseptive fucker you've read, I reckon he has in particular the following faults

 

In the media age there is a need to keep cool in an environment, there have been a number of times I have seen him actively irked about a question, this plays well with people who support him who say stuff like "that's because they ask him stupid questions", but I do wonder if it comes across as losing his head to the rest of the public.

 

There is a bit of an inability to shift conversation within interviews, this could be deemed as whataboutery, but I was listening to Chris Grayling on the Today programme the other day with Mishal Hussain questioning, while he is a spectacularly shite minister known for his endless incompetence/fecklessness, in front of a microphone he does know how to change the direction of travel, he was being asked about Islamophobia in the Conservative party and Johnson as a future PM, but he very quickly turned it around so that the BBC interviewer was in effect having to put across Corbyn's position. I can't really ever remember Corbyn doing that, though he is less inclined to attack other parties on issues he considers frippery or non-consequential.

 

I think there is an over reliance on references to our past industrial heritage and the notion that manufacturing of a certain sort can be revived, I think there should be more of an attempt at painting the picture of an economy of the future that is based more around medical/tech/software innovation, which are more likely to be growth industries along with a healthy dose of renewables 'eat your greens haha'.

 

I think some members of the shadow cabinet aren't the greatest communicators and probably don't have the profile to get their opinions across, though this tends to happen to oppositions when they have been out of government for a while, but is perhaps worsened in this case by the PPE brigade not wanting to be part of Corbyn's party.

 

I'm unsure at what point Labour will start changing their messaging around Brexit, but if we slide towards a no-deal which is more than likely, he and Seamus Milne better have a pretty good plan up their sleave to avoid being painted in with the rest of the 'politicians' who have fucked this up. Actually overall there has not been enough of a drive to paint the mess of Brexit as a Conservative problem of their own making, though perhaps this is because the point below.

 

All of this is caveated against the fact that practically every monied vested interest in the country is trying to prevent him becoming Prime Minster even for a few years as they are worried about some watered down European social democracy/post war consensus light policies, fucking pathetic when you think about it. Every attempt they have made in tarring his reputation becomes more and more desperate/vicious, I find it illuminating in particular talking to mates about the antisemitism issue who aren't as politically involved, I've heard stuff like "yeah don't really get what all that's about", "they're just flinging more shit at him", "what's it about" and "they should do something about that Brexit", which perhaps if only anecdotally indicates the grand plan of highlighting this issue* endlessly so that people won't vote for him isn't going entirely to plan.

 

What all of this does do though is take up air time and crowds out the capacity to float alternative ideas and build momentum behind the opposition. Though it is notable the Conservatives have had to start changing their tune on some social issues, if not their policies that much.

 

* I'm fairly certain that parts of the Labour party do have an issue with Antisemitism just as the entirety of society does. In my experience the most antisemitic people I have met have been on the right of the political spectrum, but invariably I think the false  "Jewish bankers controlling the world" trope is probably something that is possible to slide into if you are reading fringe texts that assert that malicious forces are pushing society towards negative outcomes for the majority of the worlds population.

[Boss]

This thread is turning into a daily mail article with these two Tory cunts. They aren’t here for discussion or genuine critical analysis of Corbyn or Labour’s direction and policies under him. They just don’t like left wing politics because they’re right wing. There no changing or reasoning with cunts like that and they will go along with any shite the tabloids come up with. They probably both read the sun on a daily basis

 

It’s why they just keep posting trolling bollocks like “he’s a shit MP because what legislation has Corbyn ever got through Parliament?” It’s like listening to a manc telling you Gerrard is a shit footballer because he never won the premier league. “What policies? one of the cunts comes out with then following it up literally in the next post by revealing he’s actually read the Labour manifesto. It just omitted the words “ending the benefits freeze” or some other specific shite twisted to keep the troll going but comically missing the point that the manifesto did maybe have a few policies in it. It’s just trolling and shouldn’t be responded to.

 

If everyone just blocked them and fucked them off then the thread could actually produce some decent critique. Instead it’s just going to go round in circle where these two cunts post some deliberately vague shite to try to wind people up and unfortunately there’s always at least one to take them up because it’s just too easy to point out what utter shite is being written. It’s gone beyond Code levels of troll.

 

Unfortunately the blocking system is deeply flawed. It only blocks the original post from the user. If it blocked every post quoting the user as well (and gave posters the option in the ignore preferences panel to do so) it'd cut all this stuff out in one fell swoop. I'd go as far as to say it's the most important feature that needs to be added to the site because so many threads on the GF are ruined because of these unnecessary back and forths. It makes this whole section, certainly the political threads, unreadable most of the time.

[Anny Road]

Unfortunately the blocking system is deeply flawed. It only blocks the original post from the user. If it blocked every post quoting the user as well (and gave posters the option in the ignore preferences panel to do so) it'd cut all this stuff out in one fell swoop. I'd go as far as to say it's the most important feature that needs to be added to the site because so many threads on the GF are ruined because of these unnecessary back and forths. It makes this whole section, certainly the political threads, unreadable most of the time.

Should we not just have a black 'dont quote list'

So when Rico posts a long rant about Mays shoes instead of quoting the post just start the post with @Rico. Kind of quoting. self policing.

[Strontium]

I'm not entirely convinced that a plank of wood could call Einstein thick.

This ignores the fact that Corbyn (pbuh) is giving voice to the voiceless as never before.

[Rico1304]

Should we not just have a black 'dont quote list'

So when Rico posts a long rant about Mays shoes instead of quoting the post just start the post with @Rico. Kind of quoting. self policing.

Lefties and their lists. Hades has one too if I remember rightly.

[Strontium]

Unfortunately the blocking system is deeply flawed. It only blocks the original post from the user. If it blocked every post quoting the user as well (and gave posters the option in the ignore preferences panel to do so) it'd cut all this stuff out in one fell swoop. I'd go as far as to say it's the most important feature that needs to be added to the site because so many threads on the GF are ruined because of these unnecessary back and forths. It makes this whole section, certainly the political threads, unreadable most of the time.

"Back and forth" is an interesting description of people offering a reasoned, thought out opinion, and receiving abuse for it.

 

If certain figures could cease behaving as if every little criticism of the Blessed Jeremy was blasphemy deserving of the death penalty, things would soon settle down.

[Spy Bee]

If you didn't always play the victim card things might improve too.

[Rico1304]

@rico - those who are a bit fucking mard might want to scroll past.

 

Here’s an article laying it all out. It’s quite a long read.

 

https://areomagazine.com/2018/08/16/anti-semitism-the-case-against-corbyn-and-the-labour-party/

[The Guest]

Unfortunately the blocking system is deeply flawed. It only blocks the original post from the user. If it blocked every post quoting the user as well (and gave posters the option in the ignore preferences panel to do so) it'd cut all this stuff out in one fell swoop. I'd go as far as to say it's the most important feature that needs to be added to the site because so many threads on the GF are ruined because of these unnecessary back and forths. It makes this whole section, certainly the political threads, unreadable most of the time.

I agree Boss. I just think if that is going to change I think everyone blocking them would result in them not getting quoted. They’d soon get bored. Everyone posts stupid shit from time to time but not everyone is purposefully trying to troll with nearly every single post like these two massive cunts are.

[Strontium]

Yeah, how dare these people troll by... er, holding a different opinion. Who do they think they are? Do they think this is a free society or something? Have they not noticed this is the "Jeremy Corbyn Praise, No Dissent Tolerated Thread"?

[Rico1304]

Yeah, how dare these people troll by... er, holding a different opinion. Who do they think they are? Do they think this is a free society or something? Have they not noticed this is the "Jeremy Corbyn Praise, No Dissent Tolerated Thread"?

The bloke who advocated killing everyone who disagrees with him is fine though, harmless.

[Anny Road]

Every member who pays up should have there own forum were only they are allowed to post. They have unlimited reps for themselves and anyone who posts in someone else forum gets an instant ban.

 

Seriously who gives a fuck really, you dont need a button to ignore someone. You see a name you dont want to read just. you know. ignore it  

[Strontium]

I think we need to remind a few people what trolling actually is:

 

(to post inflammatory material so as) to attempt to lure others into combative argument for purposes of personal entertainment and/or gratuitous disruption, especially in an online community or discussion

[Strontium]

Seriously who gives a fuck really, you dont need a button to ignore someone. You see a name you dont want to read just. you know. ignore it

But somebody might be saying something mean about Jeremy, like pointing at the things he's said or the unsavoury characters he's met. These people need to be reeducated, or failing that, eradicated.

[Anny Road]

Did someone say something?

[moof]

I think we need to remind a few people what trolling actually is:

 

(to post inflammatory material so as) to attempt to lure others into combative argument for purposes of personal entertainment and/or gratuitous disruption, especially in an online community or discussion

What would you know about trolling?

[Anny Road]

Seriously I like JC. But only his beliefs.

I think he is a boring, scruffy, un charismatic, poor leader. He lacks decisiveness needed to be a powerful world presence and gives solace to his own personal, strongly held morality over what may actually be the right political decision. It is a poor world but this is the one we live in.

He would make a great policy spark for a leader with some presentation skills. 

[Strontium]

What would you know about trolling?

I just took the definition from Wiktionary. If you think you have a better definition, feel free to offer it.

 

Notable, however, that no definition I've ever seen includes "posting something I disagree with and daring to defend it when challenged".

[Denny Crane]

I see the Sun, the Times, the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Express and Metro are under investigation by IPSO the UK press regulator for their fairy tales over this wreath business.

 

I look forward to them scrutinising their industry with the sort of vigour they have addressed anti-semitism.

[Numero Veinticinco]

What a load of fucking tosh. It’s you, once again, trying to make yourself look clever.

Rico, will you please think about what you're saying. If I wanted to make myself look clever, at least to people whose opinion I care about, I would instantly stop posting here. I certainly wouldn't look to the arse-end of a football forum as the platform from which make myself look clever. No, that wasn't my intent; I was illustrating why your lack of rigour and avoidance to give clear opinions you can't later ferret away from is as misinterpretable as it is annoying. It's lazy and it's cowardly. I'm happy to ignore the trolling you display to Nelly and friends, but if you're going to be having a dig at other people for it, I'll pick up on any intellectual laziness and cowardice from you.

 

Man of the people Corbyn changed fucking nothing for the people he was representing. Ever. Now, if he’d been an MP solely worried about his constituents perhaps that’s forgivable, but we know that’s not the case.

 

I have to say, of all the most ridiculous criticisms, in a month chock-a-block full of ridiculous criticisms, this is probably the most ridiculous criticism I've seen of Corbyn. The job of a backbencher isn't to spend their time putting forward a bill. Maybe you don't know what a backbencher's job is, so let me enlighten you so you can avoid making this utterly preposterous mistake again; they're there to debate and vote on bills; to argue, debate, and represent the views on behalf of their constituents and the country, and to serve on things like committees. For example, the Social Security Select Committee, the Justice Select Committee, and London Regional Select Committee; there's also the ability for activism, for example the Stop the War movement, the Anti-Apartheid movement, Miner's and workers rights, Poll Tax activism, etc, etc, etc.

 

He spent his career on the back benches exactly because he was serving his constituents rather than himself and his career. He was there precisely because he was a thorn in the side of the government and because he was actually doing his job as a backbencher. Even if he had the objective of getting something done, one of the most ineffective ways to do it would be to try the very thing you're criticising him for not doing. It's silly. And by the way, the 'usually voting with the Tories' line is utter, utter tripe.

 

It's true that backbenchers have very limited scope to change things, especially when rather than because you're a new MP, you're on the backbencher because you can't be relied upon to support the government in their dirty dealings. This is surely the reason he tried to become leader, and is now trying to become PM; so that he can change things to his liking. Your attempt to paint him as useless and feckless is hideously inaccurate. The job he did as a backbencher is a good one, rewarded with a large share of the vote in his constituency, and I think that's where he should have stayed. Labour members had a different idea.

 

As I mentioned previously, I'm not a big fan of Corbyn, I don't think he's a very good leader, I don't think he'll win an election - though he just might - and I won't be voting for him. Not unless I have to in order to stop your Conservative friends getting into power, but this weak, thoughtless criticism is tedious to trawl through; trolling Nelly and friends is one thing, talking utter shit and having a pop at me is a different thing.

 

I assume I'll get a 'hahah' or some jibe about my lack of intelligence, if so just don't waste your time. That shit is ruining the fuck out of the GF right now.

 

He's MP for Islington and his website has more mentions of Israel than it does Islington. Read into that what you will.

Can you back this up, please. I've looked at his website, which people can click and see for themselves just how chock full of Israel content it is. I searched for 'Israel' which returns four mentioned of Israel (all in links to speeches, one about climate change, one about the Chakraborti report, another about the European Council, and another about the Netanyahu visit). I also searched for 'Islington' and got 11 results. Now, I'm open to the possibility that there's another website somewhere, but I sure as fuck can't find it. If not, I'll read into it that it's a load of bollocks.

 

 

Bingo? I suppose if you're playing some game of "Post the most irrelevant and inane thing you can find".

Actually, it seems that we've been playing it for quite some time. How irrelevant and inane are things about his website or bullshit about his ability to change the world from the back benches. I've got issues with Corbyn, but these silly things are actually making people have to defend him just out of good conscience.

 

Still, if  "Yeah, but the Lib Dems" stops you having to talk about Labour and their support for the benefits freeze.

 

Support for the benefits freeze? From what I can remember, this is quite up in the air but nothing is confirmed. Feel free to offer some more information on that, I'd be interested. I don't like the approach from Labour, and this would be a fairly big stick to hit with. I remember that one think tank did a review of the manifesto and made some claims that we're a bit daft, and I think Emily Thornberry said something that was walked back, but I can't remember 'support' for it.

 

We're now in a situation where the leader of the opposition is consorting with terror chiefs who send mobs into synagogues to murder people with axes.

Consorting, huh? Are you sure he wasn't just pictured behind Corbyn? I think that's a fair question.

 

What date was Maher El Taher appointed leader of the PFLP?

What date did he meet Corbyn?

What date did the attacks occur?

Did he have any previous form before these attacks?

Did Corbyn know who he was?

Did Corbyn do anything other than to exchange greetings?

 

If you can't answer all those questions (and more) instantly, then it shows you care little for the nuance, you only care about the smear.

Who gives a fuck? BURN THE WITCH, ASK QUESTIONS LATER NEVER.

 

I mean, these are important things to ask before attempting to ruin somebody or implying they're terrorist sympathisers. It's really quite underhanded behaviour and I'm getting tired of it.

 

Those are questions for his DEFENDERS to answer. The onus is on them.

 

The idea that I should cast around looking for valid reasons as to why he would be consorting with terrorists is as risible as it is predictable.

I'm fairly sure you know that's not how it works. If you make a claim, it's up to you to provide evidence to back it up, or have it justly dismissed.

 

Do people honestly believe Corbyn is a man of aggression?

I asked a similar, simple question earlier in this thread, a few days ago. It's almost as if they know they're slinging mud, they don't care if it's true or not, they just want to sling it.

[Strontium]

I see the Sun, the Times, the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Express and Metro are under investigation by IPSO the UK press regulator for their fairy tales over this wreath business.

What you mean is, Labour has made a complaint to the IPSO.

[Anny Road]

The reason the press, the Tories and his own side all have a go at him is not because he is a Socialist it is because he is weak.

John Smith would have wiped the floor with them and they would have shut the fuck up. He was equally as principaled

Even Blair, although barely a socialist, spent massive amounts on public services and held the whip hand over everyone.

 

Projecting strength deters attacks. Appear weak you will be bullied.

[Denny Crane]

So under investigation then?