General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

beggars_bush

beggars_bush wrote: »

I must have missed the auld Marxists running the UK for the last 20 years

They certainly won't be running the country for the next 20 years.

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

Boris calls Muslim women letter boxes, British media don't really go after him in any significant way. Corbyn said what exactly that could be considered anti semitism? Yet the entire media establishment go after him relentlessly for months before the election.

Totally politically motivated.

And the Conservatives and right wing press couldn't give two hoots about Britain's Jewish community. It was all faux outrage and an excuse to attack Corbyn.

hotmail.com

sid waddell wrote: »

And here we go...

Trumpism is official Tory policy.

Turn reality on it's head, always. It's going to be a car crash.

https://twitter.com/JohnSimpsonNews/status/1206010631763234817

I recall Tony Blair refusing to do interviews with the Today Programme back in his time.

Politicians boycotting media outlets isn't an invention of Donald Trump.

Lefty Bicek

Strazdas wrote: »

I was reading an article too about Labour remain voters in northern rural England : these were often likely to be of the "I voted remain but now I want Brexit implemented" variety ie. likely to be swayed by cheap populist propaganda by the hard right telling them it was undemocratic to oppose Brexit.

Link please ?

McGiver

sid waddell wrote:

Yet Corbyn wasn't a particular problem in 2017. So what has changed?

Time.

More time to throw muck at Corbyn, more time to run propaganda, more time to find issues in the manifesto, more time to find issues in the Labour Party. And Corbyn had becomes stale sort of. In 2017 he was offering a change. In 2019 he wasn't, it was Johson who was new and was offering a change...

McGiver

ancapailldorcha wrote:

I never said it will be "just like that". The entryist voters in the party will choose the next leader and it will be someone very similar to Corybn.

There is a possibility more people join or people who were members before rejoin. That may influence the outcome.

ancapailldorcha wrote:

Labour cannot accommodate factions who want mutually exclusive things. The working class northerners want Brexit while the city dwelling liberals and socialists want to remain in the EU. These are mutually exclusive stances and Corbyn's dithering culminating in his clearly reluctant second referendum proposal were calamitous.

I'm not so sure. Essentially all big tent parties have factions which by logic will inevitably have mutually exclusive policies (see Tories since the 90s!). So this is something they'll need to work with but they are unable to.

Also, I have not seen any solid research estimating the numbers of the "Northern Labour Leave voters". There is little to no evidence on this and I think it's an untested hypothesis. My hypothesis is that the numbers are relatively small and that significant non-Tory leave vote was composed of people who usually don't vote in GE and likely won't vote again. After all it was a protest vote. And the Best of Britain feedback about Brexit not coming up in the North working class areas during this campaign would point to that direction.

ancapailldorcha wrote:

I don't see the current party as being that far left. I think the bigger problem, aside from the press was the amount of left wing policies. In hindsight, focusing on the NHS, policing and social care might have been better than proposing a 4-day working week and free broadband for all. A new leader needs to be elected ASAP so they can formulate a clear, coherent message. They need to learn from Miliband and Corbyn's errors.

Yes, that's included in the simplicity I mentioned. Narrow it down to few key, large impact policies, make it simple to explain, and invest all energy into the key policies. Several dozen policies Labour had are easy to attack by other parties, the media and are not easy to explain, the message gets lost in a maze of policies.

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

Boris calls Muslim women letter boxes, British media don't really go after him in any significant way. Corbyn said what exactly that could be considered anti semitism? Yet the entire media establishment go after him relentlessly for months before the election.

Totally politically motivated.

I never realised all Muslim women went around in Niqabs

Strazdas

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Link please ?

I can't remember the article as I've read loads of them. It was from one of the pollsters though and he said Labour remainers in Leave voting areas are a different beast to Labour remainers in the big cities and much more open to being swayed by the pro-Brexit crowd.

sid waddell

hotmail.com wrote: »

I recall Tony Blair refusing to do interviews with the Today Programme back in his time.

Politicians boycotting media outlets isn't an invention of Donald Trump.

What basis do the Tories have for boycotting the Today programme on BBC, the national broadcaster?

It would be like Fine Gael boycotting Morning Ireland.

If Fine Gael boycotted Morning Ireland, what do we think the reaction would be?

And what does it say about Johnson and the Tories in terms of being subject to scrutiny?

You're just making excuses for them.

I don't know why some people have a tendency to make excuses for such behaviour but I think it says a lot about the people who do, none of it good.

sid waddell

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

I don't know why you are cavilling about this. Clearly I am making a distinction between a personal opinion of my own, and a position I take based on evidence. If you think that an unimportant distinction, that's fine, we can leave it at that.

Why on earth would you put forward a position that you say "is based on evidence", and then say you have a different view, ie. one not based on evidence?

sid waddell

Here's a thing - in 2015, I recall very little, perhaps none (I can't remember any off hand) of the vitriol towards Ed Miliband that Labour lost 40 seats in Scotland, that Jeremy Corbyn has suffered in 2019 for losing northern and midlands seats.

There was no "Labour has to listen to people, that's why they lost Scotland - they didn't listen".

Why was this?

Lefty Bicek

sid waddell wrote: »

Why on earth would you put forward a position that you say "is based on evidence", and then say you have a different view, ie. one not based on evidence?

They're not different views at all. They're complementary views. But with very different bases for having them.

One - The primacy of 'The Corbyn Factor', is suggested by the post-election data/evidence presented formally earlier, and I didn't make that case before I saw that formalised evidence.

The Other - 'Labour Party Not Listening Factor', is my judgement (though far from mine alone, it goes without saying) based on my experiences, my conversations, my reading over thirty years.

It's an opinion as valid as any other, especially people who have clear political affiliations and preudices here. Not the same as election-based numbers though. Which is a distinction worth making.

sid waddell

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

They're not different views at all. They're complementary views. But with very different bases for having them.

One - The primacy of 'The Corbyn Factor', is suggested by the post-election data/evidence presented formally earlier, and I didn't make that case before I saw that formalised evidence.

The Other - 'Labour Party Not Listening Factor', is my judgement based on my experiences, my conversations, my reading over the years. Though far from mine alone, it goes without saying.

It's an opinion as valid as any other, especially people who have clear political affiliations and preudices here. Not the same as election-based numbers though. Which is a distinction worth making.

If you're putting forward a view which you say is "based on evidence", then it is your view.

Otherwise you wouldn't put it forward andd base an argument around it.

Again you say "the Labour party didn't listen".

Who did they not listen to?

Was it Leavers they didn't listen to? Remainers? Focus groups? "The people on the doorstep"? The Blairites?

The problem with this "people on the doorstep" narrative is that it largely assumes that people have a singular view, which is obviously nonsense.

The people on the doorstep in the north largely wanted Brexit. The people on the doorstep in the south and most big urban areas didn't.

That is not squareable.

We are told it was "the Brexit election", and then simultaneously told it wasn't.

We hear people like Aiyesha Hazarika telling us "Labour didn't listen", while literally shouting at people on the couch of Good Morning Britain. Aiyesha Hazarika, who was an advisor to a Labour party which got 29% and 30% on lower turnouts than we've had in the last two elections.

Whatever Labour did wrong, I very much doubt it was for the want of listening - because most of their policies were highly popular and directly addressed the needs and wants of people in society - the Tories certainly havent listened to people in this regard over the last decade, and we will see that again over the coming years.

If it was the "Corbyn factor" to blame, what does that mean? Was it just him personally and the way he was perceived?

Can the policies be divorced from the man?

Because the "Corbyn factor" and the maniffesto are different things altogether.

We're told "Labour should go back to Blairism".

Whatever Blairism was, it sure wasn't about listening to people, it was about choreography, spin and centralised control of power in the party among four people - Blair, Brown, Mandelson and Campbell.

Professor Moriarty

sid waddell wrote: »

If you're putting forward a view which you say is "based on evidence", then it is your view.

Otherwise you wouldn't put it forward andd base an argument around it.

Again you say "the Labour party didn't listen".

Who did they not listen to?

Was it Leavers they didn't listen to? Remainers? Focus groups? "The people on the doorstep"? The Blairites?

The problem with this "people on the doorstep" narrative is that it largely assumes that people have a singular view, which is obviously nonsense.

The people on the doorstep in the north largely wanted Brexit. The people on the doorstep in the south and most big urban areas didn't.

That is not squareable.

We are told it was "the Brexit election", and then simultaneously told it wasn't.

We hear people like Aiyesha Hazarika telling us "Labour didn't listen", while literally shouting at people on the couch of Good Morning Britain. Aiyesha Hazarika, who was an advisor to a Labour party which got 29% and 30% on lower turnouts than we've had in the last two elections.

Whatever Labour did wrong, I very much doubt it was for the want of listening - because most of their policies were highly popular and directly addressed the needs and wants of people in society - the Tories certainly havent listened to people in this regard over the last decade, and we will see that again over the coming years.

If it was the "Corbyn factor" to blame, what does that mean? Was it just him personally and the way he was perceived?

Can the policies be divorced from the man?

Because the "Corbyn factor" and the maniffesto are different things altogether.

We're told "Labour should go back to Blairism".

Whatever Blairism was, it sure wasn't about listening to people, it was about choreography, spin and centralised control of power in the party among four people - Blair, Brown, Mandelson and Campbell.

Labour dropped 2,500,000 votes since 2017. The Tories gained 300,000 votes. This gave the Tories a huge majority. Which means that Labour probably has five years to reinvent itself as an electable party. How should they do that?

sid waddell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Labour dropped 2,500,000 votes since 2017. The Tories gained 300,000 votes. This gave the Tories a huge majority. Which means that Labour probably has five years to reinvent itself as an electable party. How should they do that?

It isn't that difficult to identify the cure - the whole party unites around a common platform of social justice which simultaneously promotes aspiration and social mobility.

You cannot have a party where the messaging is so continually muddled and MPs are dissenting all over the place.

Labour has to be the party of aspiration in opposition to the Tories being the party of desperation.

It has to find a compromise between Corbynism and Blairism. I envisage that it wouldn't be a million miles away from the 2017 manifesto, but it has to make allowances to the spirit of Blairism, particularly in how it is presented.

That means compromises on both sides. The problem is both sides seem to want wipe the other out. Winning the civil war is more important than finding a common platform.

Attitudes to "the other side" are the biggest problem.

Of the current contenders, Starmer is probably the best option in terms of uniting the party, but I don't believe he has anything like the messianic qualities of Blair - only Andy Burnham has anything approaching that.

Professor Moriarty

sid waddell wrote: »

It isn't that difficult to identify the cure - the whole party unites around a common platform of social justice which simultaneously promotes aspiration and social mobility.

You cannot have a party where the messaging is so continually muddled and MPs are dissenting all over the place.

Labour has to be the party of aspiration in opposition to the Tories being the party of desperation.

It has to find a compromise between Corbynism and Blairism. I envisage that it wouldn't be a million miles away from the 2017 manifesto, but it has to make allowances to the spirit of Blairism, particularly in how it is presented.

That means compromises on both sides. The problem is both sides seem to want wipe the other out. Winning the civil war is more important than finding a common platform.

Attitudes to "the other side" are the biggest problem.

Of the current contenders, Starmer is probably the best option in terms of uniting the party, but I don't believe he has anything like the messianic qualities of Blair - only Andy Burnham has anything approaching that.

Agree 100%. I would add that, as the Tories stole the Brexit Party's clothes, Labour needs to attract votes from all other parties. For instance, they need to become definitively pro EU to eliminate the Lib Dems and have a radical climate change policy to eliminate the Greens.

Lefty Bicek

sid waddell wrote: »

If you're putting forward a view which you say is "based on evidence", then it is your view.

Otherwise you wouldn't put it forward and base an argument around it.

This boring detour all began when you made an error here -

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112024018&postcount=5732

There is no 'shift' in position that you thought you saw.

Again you say "the Labour party didn't listen".

Well, actually, I didn't say that.

I said something much more specific - that they didn't listen to anyone who pointed to Corbyn as the liability that he is.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112023997&postcount=5729

Who did they not listen to?

Was it Leavers they didn't listen to? Remainers? Focus groups? "The people on the doorstep"? The Blairites?

The problem with this "people on the doorstep" narrative is that it largely assumes that people have a singular view, which is obviously nonsense.

The people on the doorstep in the north largely wanted Brexit. The people on the doorstep in the south and most big urban areas didn't.

That is not squareable.

The big difference being, that for generation after generation, the Labour party could be assured of the votes of the Northern doorsteps. They didn't much have to listen.

Now, if things are not squarable, then perhaps the Labour Party has no reason to exist.

Whatever Labour did wrong, I very much doubt it was for the want of listening - because most of their policies were highly popular and directly addressed the needs and wants of people in society - the Tories certainly havent listened to people in this regard over the last decade, and we will see that again over the coming years.

Then we might assume that they acted against their interests (a condescending thing to say, but leave that for now), in order to give their 'betters' a kick up the hole.

A sure sign of people who feel they aren't, and haven't been, listened to.

If it was the "Corbyn factor" to blame, what does that mean? Was it just him personally and the way he was perceived?

Yes, him personally.

Because the "Corbyn factor" and the maniffesto are different things altogether.

So, they rejected him, and ignored the manifesto ? If so, why ?

We're told "Labour should go back to Blairism".

Whatever Blairism was, it sure wasn't about listening to people, it was about choreography, spin and centralised control of power in the party among four people - Blair, Brown, Mandelson and Campbell.

Yes, I lived through all that. But man, the elation we felt at the time to get a break from the Tories. It felt like a new dawn. Didn't last.

Anyway, late for work now. Wish you a good evening.

sid waddell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Agree 100%. I would add that, as the Tories stole the Brexit Party's clothes, Labour needs to attract votes from all other parties. For instance, they need to become definitively pro EU to eliminate the Lib Dems and have a radical climate change policy to eliminate the Greens.

Labour already has a radical climate change policy.

But if the Labour party becomes definititively pro-EU over the coming five years, how will it win back the so called "red wall"?

Brexit may well cease to become a major issue over those five years - through exhaustion with it among voters as much as anything else.

Water John

Pro EU now moves to being a position of remaining close to Euope as opposed to USA, an easy position for Lb.
Lb need a uniter as a leader. The notion of Bailey becoming the next leader is delusional.

sid waddell

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

This boring detour all began when you made an error here -

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112024018&postcount=5732

There is no 'shift' in position that you thought you saw.



Well, actually, I didn't say that.

I said something much more specific - that they didn't listen to anyone who pointed to Corbyn as the liability that he is.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112023997&postcount=5729



The big difference being, that for generation after generation, the Labour party could be assured of the votes of the Northern doorsteps. They didn't much have to listen.

Now, if things are not squarable, then perhaps the Labour Party has no reason to exist.



Then we might assume that they acted against their interests (a condescending thing to say, but leave that for now), in order to give their 'betters' a kick up the hole.

A sure sign of people who feel they aren't, and haven't been, listened to.



Yes, him personally.



So, they rejected him, and ignored the manifesto ? If so, why ?



Yes, I lived through all that. But man, the elation we felt at the time to get a break from the Tories. It felt like a new dawn. Didn't last.

Anyway, late for work now. Wish you a good evening.

There is no misunderstanding.

Labour party MPs have said "we didn't listen".

I'm still no wiser as to what that means. I don't think it means anything to be honest, I think it's an empty slogan.

The problem is that Jeremy Corbyn, whatever his personal failings as a leader, and there were plenty, was subjected to a vicious smear campaign, the likes of which has never been seen in UK politics.

Everybody in Labour knew that Corbyn had failings as a leader. But the smear campaign he was subjected to, from inside Labour almost as much as from without, was throughly undeserved.

This is a problem the next Labour leader will face, whoever it is. Brown and Miliband suffered early incarnations of it. This is what the Democratic candidate in 2020 will face, just like Hillary Clinton faced.

We are not dealing with normal politics as practised in the 1990s or 2000s here.

What we are dealing with is an all out dirty war from the right.

I don't have the answers as to how to deal with that, but that is what we are facing and will continue to face.

Other posters here have stated that the Johnson government will be a form of dictatorship. I agree with that. I think it will be vicious, and will utilise all the classic fascist propagnda techniques in order to vilify everybody who gets in its way.

In a previous post I've stated how I think the Labour party should advance, but that sort of thing only works in environment where objective truths matter.

We have now left that world.

ilkhanid

Deleted User wrote: »

Boris calls Muslim women letter boxes, British media don't really go after him in any significant way. Corbyn said what exactly that could be considered anti semitism? Yet the entire media establishment go after him relentlessly for months before the election.

Totally politically motivated.

To be precise, Johnson called niqab-wearing Moslem women letter boxes. They are a small minority of Moslem women as a whole and regarded as being religious extremists even by many Moslems.
By contrast, Corbyn, while not an anti-semite himself, let the whole anti-semitism problem fester in the party. His response, especially in interviews was muddled and lacking in firmness.

In addition, he was too close to radical groups that were extreme in a way that allowed him to be painted as anti-British. He was close to Sinn fein and voted against ,and spoke against the Anglo-Irish agreement in parliament. His reaction to the Russian Skripal poisonings in Salisbury did him no favours either. The media didn't make up those things but a hostile media certainly made the most of them, but then he often carved the stick for his own back.

Shelga

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Agree 100%. I would add that, as the Tories stole the Brexit Party's clothes, Labour needs to attract votes from all other parties. For instance, they need to become definitively pro EU to eliminate the Lib Dems and have a radical climate change policy to eliminate the Greens.

What's the point in becoming pro-EU, when the UK will have left? The best thing to focus on is trying to make the best of Brexit. They have to adapt. Remain is dead.

I actually think there is some hope for Labour, provided they pick the right leader. Brexit won't be the defining issue at the next election, which is a big plus, in my opinion. If it had been a hung parliament and some kind of weak Labour/SNP coalition, it would have just fostered resentment among Leave voters for a generation. This way, Brexit happens, completely owned by the Tories, and Labour can aim to have a completely fresh start- albeit starting from the position of having been completely burned to the ground by this general election!

Professor Moriarty

sid waddell wrote: »

Labour already has a radical climate change policy.

But if the Labour party becomes definititively pro-EU over the coming five years, how will it win back the so called "red wall"?

Brexit may well cease to become a major issue over those five years - through exhaustion with it among voters as much as anything else.

Labour dropped their climate change policy weeks before the election. It was radical but they watered it down because a union feared job losses. They then had a variety of aspirational positions depending on who you asked. Currently, there is no definitive policy.

Brexit already has exhausted most voters. However, I don't think that Labour lost its Red Wall because of Brexit alone. The NHS was top issue. And Corbyn's unpopularity was key. The very worst thing Labour could do is not put clear blue water between themselves and the Tories on Brerxit.

wfdrun

Sonny678 wrote: »

Im just stating a fact. Its a fact to say economies go up and down. To say a recession is coming in the coming years is just stating the obvious. If I said the economy is going to grow and grow and there will never be another recession , I would be lying through my teeth. But I suspose lying through your teeth is the new politics. You have got Trump in the white house who is a pathological liar. And you havw got Johnston who is an even worse pathological liar , he was sacked ftom two jobs for lying. And was up in the courts for lying to the Queen. And British media have being lying to British public for 50 years, and the British mefia and politicans told 50 years of lies on the EU.

I deal in facts. And to say economies go up and down is a fact of life. To say recession is going to occur in the coming years is obvious. Thats nothingto do with been a doom.merchant , it just dealing with the reality of the situation

Britian has had 8 recessions since 1945
List of British Recessions
1 1949 Recession
2 1953 Recesion
3 1956 recession
4 1961 recession
5 Mid 70s recesion 1973 1974 1975 recession
6 Early 80s recession 1980 1981
7 Early 90s recession 1990 1991
8 Great Recesion 2008 2009

Britian dominant sector has been the service sector ( the British servive industry accounts for 80% of GDP) has in the last few months gone into contraction. US service sector has contracted for the first time in 3 years. Germany sector has contracted for the first time in 6 years recently also. While in the Uk Exports are falling. In the Uk there has been sharp drop in construction and fall in factory output. The British economy shrank in June for the first time in 7 years. Manufactuers in August had their worst month in 6 years

These are all tell tale shines, the Uk economy is disimproving and thats a thrend that will continue. If the British economy was to shrink again in the coming months , it could be in recession early next year. I think most experts are predicting autumm 2020 as most likely.
The last 8 recessions led on average to 2500 pounds loss per person and increased unemployment by 1 million in the Uk. And government dont have the room.to manoerve as they had before the last recession in 2008. With interest rates at historical high rates , QE wouldnt work this time. So government will need a different plan. This potentially worsen the damage of the recession.

US Recessions ( This is important to Ireland if US goes into recession it eill effect the Irish economy)
1 1945 Recession
2 1949 Recession
3 1953 Recesion
4 1958 Recesion
5 1960 61 Recession
6 1969 1970 Recession
7 1974 1975 Recession
7 Early 1980s Recession 1980 81
8 Early 1990s Recesion
9 Early 00s Recession
10 Great Recession 2008 2009

In Germany the fear is Germany could enter recesion in thr next quarter. The German economy has been stagnate since last summer. German manufacturing has slumped. Germany has had 10 consecutive years of growth. In Ireland the head of NMTA said recently of a recession happening to Ireland as 100%.

Overall recessions are part of the normal economic stye eg Recession - Expansion - Slowdown - Recesion - Expansion - Slowdown - Recession. This will always happen. The big issue is debt in Ireland , Uk and USA.The debt Ireland took on in the last crisie is an issue. The interest is three time higher then it was in 2003 to 2008. Theres also debt crisis in Uk. 8 million people in Uk are in debt. And this household debt will more then likely cause next crisis. The Uk banks are giving easy credit. 1.5 trillion debt owed. Debt in US held by public ids15 trillion. and sits at 106 % of gdp. The US federal debt in 2008 was
253 billion. It is 86% higher now.

Anerican and the Uk are drowning in debt. Real US debt could be 2000% of economy. Ireland debt is 200 billiion. The countries whuch have the most debt per GDP ratio in the world are Irelands debt is 9th most in the world. Uk is second most debt in the world and the US has 1st most debt per GDP ratio in the world

These are all facts. Not opinions not viewpoints just facts. Johnston and whoever is in the white house and whoever is Taoiseach will have to deal with economy in serious decline in the coming year. And if this debt crisis becomes an issue we will need real smart and strong leaders in Europe and the US. At the moment the US and Uk have hit rock bottom in terms of leaders with Trump and Johnston , the two most morally bankrupt individuals to ever hold high office in both countries and thats saying something.
and in Ireland and rest of Europe the leos and the Macrons are pretty useless.

"With interest rates at historical high rates" INCORRECT

rossie1977

ilkhanid wrote: »

To be precise, Johnson called niqab-wearing Moslem women letter boxes. They are a small minority of Moslem women as a whole and regarded as being religious extremists even by many Moslems.
By contrast, Corbyn, while not an anti-semite himself, let the whole anti-semitism problem fester in the party. His response, especially in interviews was muddled and lacking in firmness.

A number of Tories were being investigated for anti semitism and two of those were elected this past week https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/two-tories-win-seats-despite-investigations-over-antisemitism/

Richard Hillman

Corbyn and Labour fans are constantly talking about smears on Corbyn. What are the "smears" ?

He engages and allows Anti-Semitism?
He constantly attends events with extreme islamic groups. It's no secret that the likes of Hezbollah dont take too kindly to Jewish folk. He knows exactly who they are and what they believe in.

He is a danger to national security?
He would have appointed Diane Abbott as home secretary, that's bad enough but he was also happy to stand aside and allow ISIS attempt to take Syria and Iraq. He also refused to say he would allow the shot to be taken on Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi.

With him and Abbot at the helm the British would have been at their unsafest since WW2. No same person can argue that the UK were safer under Corbyn and Abbot. Whether it be terrorism, other nations, mass 3rd world migration or from Gangs, they would have been in an awful state.

prawnsambo

His response to the Skripal poisoning was almost comical. Perhaps naive, but ridiculous to believe that the Russians should investigate it and be given samples of the substance used.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

His response to the Skripal poisoning was almost comical. Perhaps naive, but ridiculous to believe that the Russians should investigate it and be given samples of the substance used.

His default position is suspect of the UK/US, and "understanding" of the reasons the enemies of the UK -- Russia, ISIS, Iran etc. -- give when a scandal erupts.

With an attitude like that, the enemies of the UK would clearly benefit if Corbyn became Prime Minister. They would have carte blanche to do as they wish as they know Corbyn will be sympathetic to their "explanations".

Add to that the fact that Corbyn claims he would never use the nuclear deterrant, and what you have is a clear and present national security threat to the UK.

It's totally and utterly shameful that many Labour MPs were prepared to allow that eventuality to take hold.

rossie1977

Yeah quite a few tried to paint Michael D as best friends and second coming of Fidel Castro. Thankfully the right wing media especially Murdoch has little influence in this country.

Corbyn spent the 1980s fighting injustice and for the civil rights of black South Africans and Catholics in Northern Ireland but the media managed to convince millions he was a gigantic racist and the next Stalin.

prawnsambo

rossie1977 wrote: »

Yeah quite a few tried to paint Michael D as best friends and second coming of Fidel Castro. Thankfully the right wing media especially Murdoch has little influence in this country.

Corbyn spent the 1980s fighting injustice and for the civil rights of black South Africans and Catholics in Northern Ireland but the media managed to convince millions he was a gigantic racist and the next Stalin.

Just waving away that idea of getting the number one suspects for the Skripal poisonings to investigate themselves then?