The "kind, caring" Corbyn strikes again with his kindness

Scroll to see replies

Do not like Corbyn at all but he's done nothing wrong here. Wonder if OP would like to be ambushed outside of their house by complete strangers, on what I can only assume is on a regular basis?

I wouldn't like that, but on the other hand I'd never want to be Prime Minister either. People who do are often of a slightly freaky disposition, in that they want the power more than they dislike the scrutiny.

Unfortunately such people are a necessary evil if you want your party to win elections. I think Corbyn's response, even if it's entirely human (and I think the other incidents show he is a bit more tetchy than most), shows a side that will not go down well. No matter how much the people claim they don't want slick, well-coiffed, well-prepared politicians, the reality is that when a politician doesn't come across as well-prepared, calm etc, then they suffer electorally.

I just don't think Corbyn is up to the job. I also think that this incident at the doorstep throws the other incidents where he snapped at journalists into relief, and it underlines the fact that he already has a very adversarial relationship with the press. This kind of adversarial relationship with the press does no favours to the Labour Party or to the vulnerable people who are relying on Labour

Reply 61

Zargabaath

Original post by lilacwanda28

although you did just make a thread about how You Me At Six sucks....

can u not pls :hand:

that thread is a srs discussion this thread is jus trolling

Reply 62

the bear

Original post by Zargabaath

That face triggered me, use the better one :angry:

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh this is unbearable

Reply 63

BeastOfSyracuse

Original post by DiddyDec

John Prescott was very much like that.

Funnily enough I was at a conference yesterday where the key note speaker was a political editor for a well-known news paper. She said that she once asked John for an interview, to which he replied "**** off".

Posted from TSR Mobile

Presscott was a brute, but he had enough geezer "charm" to pull it off and thus he was no liability, and he never pretended to be anything else. In Corbyn's case it just strips pieces off the image that has been built of this Buddha-eque living saint who is almost too kindly for this tainted world.

The reality with Corbyn (that he is quite tetchy and irritable, that is no saint when it comes to financial issues and his business relationships etc) is so different from the image that these sort of incidents simply serve to show how ludicrous the spin from his supporters has been viz. his character and temperament.

If they'd never claimed any of this for him, there'd be much less basis for criticism. But they have built up the image of this sainted, put-upon man who is too naively principled, and so chipping away the image to show the reality is fair game

Reply 64

lilacwanda28

Original post by Zargabaath

can u not pls :hand:

that thread is a srs discussion this thread is jus trolling

ahhhh a srs discussion, is that what you call it?
:lolz:

Reply 65

BeastOfSyracuse

Original post by Zargabaath

this thread is jus trolling

Reply 66

username878267

This is a silly topic. Again there is so much to attack him on, like he's clueless about how to win an election, rather than non-stories like this.

He's said before he doesn't give interviews outside his house and that's fair enough. He doesn't want journalists lurking like vultures outside his house, him and his family should be afforded a basic standard of privacy in and outside their house.
Despite having said good morning and he doesn't do interviews, this the reporter shoved a microphone in his face and he pushed it away.

This is such a non-story. Nothing happened.

Again, this is gutter politics and just looks like an opportunistic attack on Corbyn.
Attack him on policy, attack him on his lack of leadership but don't drop to the level of the Daily Mail and Sun by attacking him on non-events like this.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 67

KimKallstrom

Dat feel when you get asked about your friendship (Corbyn's words, not the media's) with Holocaust deniers.............like Ibrahim Hewitt and his shameless brown-nosing and sucking up to people who want all Jews killed (not Israelis, not "Zionists" but Jews) and who has compared them to animals and has stated that all Jews are liars, swindlers and thieves................... like Sheikh Raed Salah

We've all been there before right? Right? What's that? No, because not everyone constantly associates with such scumbags?

Also, lol at this BS about it being "smears" when somebody mentions your friends, your close associates and your opinions. If these things are smears then there's probably something wrong.............

What would you lot say if a UKIP minister had friends in Combat 18 or something? You wouldn't go "all that's just a smear, you're just a Labour shill" would you? So why are you doing the same when your messiah Corbyn has friends who share Tweets from Neo Nazi David Duke about the Jews and who come out with stuff that even Hitler would have winced at?

We're not saying that the man himself believes these things or is anti-Semitic/racist etc. We're saying that somebody who keeps this scum as friends and close associates is unfit for the position for which he is contending. Oh and before you give it all the all too predictable "yeah but Tory scum this, Tories associate with Saudis, what about the other politicians with terrible company" and whatever, bear in mind that you lot are telling us all this crap about how Corbyn is above it all and different. It's just nonsense like we've been telling you this entire time.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 68

Youngmetro

Original post by BeastOfSyracuse

I do often argue against the few policies he has on here. Part of the issue is that actually I find myself in agreement with many of his economic policies (such as they are; in reality he doesn't really have much of an economic policy that is any different from what was developed by Miliband and Ed Balls, and which I agree with).

My opposition to him is based mainly around three areas;

(1) He is weak on defence. He proposes to get rid of our nuclear deterrent, which I feel is a vital component of our national security. He is, at best, iffy about our membership of NATO and our alliance with the United States. I also think he would be unlikely to order British troops to fight even in necessary conflicts like the one against ISIS

(2) He has tonnes of baggage that will be an insurmountable problem for Labour if he is the party's leader going into the next election. His praise for Hamas as "dedicated to peace and social justice", his links to the IRA, his friendships with assorted anti-semites and fascist crackpots. The stuff that has been brought up thus far is as nothing to the tsunami of his past baggage that will be thrown at him during an election campaign, and he simply does not have good answers to those questions

(3) He is temperamentally unsuited to the position of Prime Minister. He is much happier in his allotment than in the office, and he turns off his phone to force his staff to deal with issues that come up so he doesn't have to. That's no attitude to have when you're the boss and you're asking the British people to trust that you will be there to take the tough decisions. He snaps at reporters. He doesn't like being questioned. I simply don't think he would hold up under the withering barrage of questions and criticisms every PM faces.

You're spot on with what you say, he's too incompetent and just not the man. His past is indeed very questionable and his policies seem to be like something you would adopt in a fallout, way too socialist for my liking, and i do consider myself as slightly left wing. Nuclear deterrent is essential but note that its basically controlled by the USA as they have the final say in whether we use it or not.

I was very disappointed when he was appointed as leader, Chuka Umunna would have been wonderful had he not pulled out of the leadership race.

Reply 69

viddy9

My goodness, how disgusting! Jeremy Corbyn gets a bit annoyed at having a phone shoved in his face and politely asks the reporter, standing outside of his house, to "put it away please".

No one's a saint, but Corbyn isn't, you know, responsible for people killing themselves. Unlike a certain Mr. Cameron, who is due to face questioning over his tax affairs, Corbyn claims the least in expenses out of any MP in Parliament.

Corbyn's critics amuse me.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 70

username1738703

As much as I hate Corbyn this was really perfectly reasonable. They were shoving the microphone in his face and he was forced to push it out the way so he could physically exit his gate. He doesn't have to answer every question a reporter shouts at him, especially if he's just leaving his house in the morning and not even at work.

Reply 71

username878267

Original post by KimKallstrom

It's legitimate to attack him on those things. It's disgraceful calling Hamas friends and sharing platforms with those people you mentioned.
Although I think you're incorrect to par off criticism of tories saudi links and should hold them both to the same standards.

What you've attacked corbyn on is fine and legitimate and he should be held to account, but attacking him for getting slightly annoyed at a journalist and not bowing enough, are not.

Posted from TSR Mobile