Another Corbyn Clanger

How have they exactly?

And I'm not talking about the Right-Wing media who anyone knows will always go after Left-Wing politicians.

The financial industries, especially the banks who were incredibly reckless and careless in their dealings.

But you say you're against printing money... the Conservatives have been printing huge amounts of money. Are you against them?

What I find staggering is how Theresa May was regarded as mainstream and centrist for happily declaring that she would press the nuclear button and kill millions of innocent civilians, whereas Jeremy Corbyn was regarded as a dangerous extremist for saying he would not kill millions of civilians.


I'm no Corbyn fan, but it is deeply worrying that being willing to kill millions of innocent civilians is seen as the new centre ground as politics.

I don't blame Labour for the financial crash. It how they dealt with it. They made the public sector too big before the finical crash happened. Our country would be in a lot better state and we could pick up our feet again quicker if Labour were not as stupid with their spending. Jemery Crybon wants to print money for his fantasy projects, let's not borrow any more than we have too!

Unpopular as it may sound to say, it's a myth that Labour overspent during this period. It was more like a lack of a diversified economy over-reliant on financial services. So as a country we were very exposed to the effects of the global crash.

I don't blame Labour for the financial crash. It how they dealt with it. They made the public sector too big before the finical crash happened. Our country would be in a lot better state and we could pick up our feet again quicker if Labour were not as stupid with their spending. o!

I don't blame Labour for the financial crash. It how they dealt with it. They made the public sector too big before the finical crash happened. Our country would be in a lot better state and we could pick up our feet again quicker if Labour were not as stupid with their spending. Jemery Crybon wants to print money for his fantasy projects, let's not borrow any more than we have too!

I know, the silly Labour party have been quantitatively easing hundreds of millions since 2010. Oh no wait... that's the Conservatives.

Is there any evidence for this though? If someone is crazy enough to nuke us, what makes you think that they would care about being nuked back?

If ISIS ever got hold of a nuclear weapons, the threat of their destruction would mean nothing if it meant that they could take us with them.
The biggest threats we face today are not nuclear. Arguably the two biggest threats we face today are ISIS and global warming.

Even Michael Portillo, a right wing former defense secretary opposed trident on the grounds that it is totally useless in defending us from the threats we face today.

Each missile has the power to kill millions, the less of them in the world, the better. I don't want our Prime Minister to be prepared to kill millions of innocent civilians. I want one who is measured, who wouldn't rush to war and certainly one who would not kill millions. I'm not saying that's Jeremy Corbyn, but opposing trident does not make one dangerous.


There seems to be an awful lot of paranoia, and in essence our love of trident seems little more than a dick measuring contest.

Yes and all that austerity they impose to try and run the country within its budget.

You mean other than the entire Cold War? I know that there's other factors such numbers of conventional forces too but I don't think you'll find many public acknowledgements of nations admitting they didn't attack a neighbour due to that neighbour having nukes.
There's also others -
India & Pakistan
DPRK & ROK/USA
China & Taiwan/USA

Heck, even in the Falklands War, the fact the RAF got a Vulcan bomber down to region concerned the Argentines as it meant that our nuclear weapons could potentially reach them. They apparently pulled more fighters around their capital to protect it.

Unfortunately, it's easy to fall into the trap of being prepared for the last war you thought. Just because Trident wasn't useful in Iraq, Afghan etc doesn't mean it won't be useful in 10-20yrs time. No one can accurately predict the geo-political situation for when this new weapon system comes online.

From what Corbyn has said, he wouldn't go to war fullstop. If he'd have got his way, we'd wouldn't have intervend in the first Gulf War, the Balkans or Sierra Leone during the 1990s all of which can absolutely universally be described as positive.

Unpopular as it may sound to say, it's a myth that Labour overspent during this period. It was more like a lack of a diversified economy over-reliant on financial services. So as a country we were very exposed to the effects of the global crash.

Not that cost is an argument against Trident, mind. When you consider that the cost is spread over decades and how small the yearly cost is compared to other budgets it really ain't no thang. Saying bazillions and kadrillions and look at the NHS and blah blah sounds like an actual and plausible argument to some people but when you regain some perspective, it really isn't.

take the Mirror, which apparently 'supports Labour'

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/can-you-tell-jeremy-corbyn-8664386

This article has a 'can you differentiate between Trump or Corbyn's policies' deliberately to smear him.

Question 7 says that Corbyn supports disbanding NATO.

Instead, his actual answer is a bit more boring and long-winded but it effectively doesn't amount to him wanting to disband NATO.

This is one example. Other examples of when this has happened before include his nuclear stance, him supporting the capture and not remote execution of terrorists, him supporting not extending airstrikes to Syria, etc...

He is a victim of constant media smearing, and regardless of whether or not I agree with him - many people continue to support him and ignore the media smears because of this happening throughout the 21st century.

An almost satirical quiz in the Mirror isn't a smear campaign. He invites ridicule as he hasn't put forward anything with substance behind it, like Trump. Labour's website having no mention of any policies being a prime example of this. Try reading what the Mirror say about the Tories, they're basically the left-wing Daily Mail.

His nuclear stance is one of unilateral disarmament and not pushing the button under any circumstances. Regardless of our(I suspect different) opinions on the matter printing these facts in an article isn't smearing him, it's the truth.

The same with his opposition to bombing in Syria, again it's the truth.

He wants to withdraw from NATO, the truth.

His stance on drone strikes, the truth.

If his opinions are unpopular with the majority of the general public then he isn't a viable candidate to lead the country.

"Its the truth" means nothing, the media has represented his views differently to what they actually are, if you think those things, then you have probably interpreted these things from the very media which I am condemning.

The entirety of the media across the political spectrum aren't conspiring against him. The paranoid notion of such demonstrates the bubble that some Corbynistas operate in.

His views on those issues mentioned simply aren't popular in the mainstream, Labour is fast becoming a protest group on the fringes rather than a serious political party.

I agree with you. He also has this weird thing he does with the media where he acts like he's talking sense to a lunatic - that he's acting maturely - when really he just looks completely lost.

This.

It was a global crisis the likes of which hasn't been seen since the 1930's. The Tories conveniently forget that they supported(or at least pretended to as a means of not losing votes) Labour's spending up until 2008.

Their whole "blame the last govt for everything " line is pathetic and easily debunked.

Where do you stand on the political spectrum? As in ideology, rather than political parties.