Corbyn wins again!

Disaster.

My last hope is that Theresa May calls an early election next year. She will win, of course, but better that she wins next year than in 2020. The sooner Corbyn faces the whole electorate, the better. After he loses a general election, no matter how many Labour party members want to take a selfie with him, his position will be untenable.

How does the fact that 300,000 of them believe something make it therefore true? Many people believe many things that are untrue.

Corbyn's massive unpopularity with the electorate as a whole, his approval rating of minus 41% (far worse than Michael Foot ever had), the fact that one third of 2015 Labour voters prefer Theresa May over him... these facts speak for themselves.

That 300,000 Corbyn extremists are unable to come to grips with reality doesn't have any bearing on the factual nature of the points I've raised. Though many Corbynites do seem to believe that their feelings override facts, that enthusiasm makes up for competence. These people seem to have a very difficult relationship with the truth, that they believe any particular proposition would not, for me, be a very strong argument in its favour

Well lets start with the basic principles of how a vote works shall we. the maths on it i.e. 2 is greater than 1.

Proving that you can count doesn't take you any closer to demonstrating that the mere fact that 300,000 people hold the same view means it must be correct.

I wouldn't be so sure of Tories winning.

Secondly Corbyn has many popular policies

ending all airstrikes in Syria and Iraq

I'd be surprised if labour doesn't win with a sizeable majority.

It means they are 300,000 times more likely to be right than you.

It means they are 300,000 times more likely to be right than you.

Yup, everyone else is wrong and Cult of the Blessed Jeremy is right. You are the only ones who are clever enough to see the truth

Dat "logic"

This is genuinely what people like him believe.

I know, right? Madness.

And if something is more likely to be true the greater the number of people who believe it, then far more people believe Corbyn is useless than believe otherwise.

Yeah I know. Using the "if loads of people agree with it then it must be true" card when it's the majority view is dumb. Using it when it's not even the majority view displays a complete breakdown of their mental functions.

I imagine that many of our fellow Tories felt a moment of intense pleasure knowing that the market economy is safe for another decade or so.



This is true and a little sobering. While his chances of winning rely on a shock event, that small probability could still come to fruition and if it does then we can wave goodbye to the monarchy, our historic alliances and say hello to a million refugees.

So true.

People will be so desperate, they will probably end up voting Lib Dem again.

The Irish Republican Army. In 1987, eight IRA terrorists attacked a police station with machine guns and a car bomb in an attempt to demolish it and kill all the police officers inside; thankfully the SAS had intelligence of an attack and ambushed them. Corbyn held a minute's silence for these terrorist murderers, proclaiming "I'm happy to commemorate anyone who does fighting for a united Ireland".

In 1984 the IRA bombed the Grand Hotel in Brighton during the Tory conference, coming very close to killing the Prime Minister (the ensuite 8 feet away from where she was standing was obliterated and the floor fell out and collapsed), and killing a Conservative MP, an aide and three wives of MPs. Following that, in the journal of which Corbyn was editor, it pointedly refused to condemn the attack, blaming the government and published a "joke"; "What do you call five dead Tories? A good start". Those women were somebody's mother, somebody's wife, as the men were fathers, brothers, friends, husbands. It was a vicious attack, and Corbyn's indifference to the horror of it speaks volumes about the kind of man he is.

In 1985, Corbyn sided with both republican terrorists and extremist unionists in opposing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which was a major building block that eventually led to the Good Friday Accords. He opposed it on the basis that "It won't lead to a united Ireland". The extremists on both sides were opposed to it, the republicans because it didn't automatically lead to a united Ireland and the loyalists because it wouldn't return to their almost Apartheid-like regime of pre-72.

Corbyn supported violent extremists in the IRA and spurned the Labour Party's sister socialist party in Northern Ireland, the non-violent SDLP.

Corbyn, unctuously and hypocritically as usual, claimed that somehow he was a great peacemaker in Northern Ireland, and that he was far ahead of his time in talking to the IRA. This is an outrageous rewriting of history. The British government had backchannel communications with the IRA all the way from 1972 until the IRA was disbanded. In 1972, the Tory Home Secretary Willie Whitelaw had an IRA leadership delegation to his flat in London (including a very young Gerry Adams); he asked them on what terms they might end the conflict. They offered terms they knew he couldn't accept, and the conflict continued for another 26 years.

All through the 1970s and 1980s, HMG had a backchannel to the IRA through MI6 officer Michael Oatley. So it's totally untrue for Corbyn to claim that somehow he was ahead of his time and talking to the IRA and the government wasn't. The difference was that every time the UK government engaged with the IRA, it was to try to persuade them to put down their guns, agree to a ceasefire and engage in the political process. Every time Corbyn engaged with them, it was to egg them on; to tell them he was in total support of them, and to show that there was support for them on the left of the Labour Party and that if they could hang on long enough, they could prevail through violence.

In the end, the UK government was right. The IRA agreed to an end to the conflict on terms that were no more ambitious than what was on offer in 1972. The IRA accepted the continuation of Northern Ireland as part of the UK, they accepted the principle of non-violence and the need to achieve their case through persuasion and democratic means. In other words, the entire IRA campaign after 1972 was for nothing; thousands of lives were lost needlessly.

In fact, we now know that in 1990 Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness contacted the British government through Michael Oatley to say something along the lines of, "We know the conflict is essentially over. We need your help to bring it to an end". The 1980s had not been kind to the IRA; the extensive use of the SAS, the increasingly effective use of informants, of electronic surveillance, and the close cooperation with the Gardai (Irish Police) following the Anglo-Irish Agreement (that Corbyn opposed) had pushed the IRA into a corner. Increasingly it was the SAS he were clipping IRA terrorists and not IRA terrorists knocking off British soldiers.

The reason Adams and McGuinness said "We know the conflict is over, we need your help" was that they were acknowledging that they could not win through violence, that democratic means was the only effective and legitimate way forward. At the same time, Adams and McGuinness had very real concerns that if they moved too quickly towards ending the conflict and an accomodation with the British government, the hardliners on the IRA would blow their head off. All the way up until, and after, the Good Friday Accords one of Adams and McGuinness biggest concerns was being killed by their own people for being seen to "surrender" to the British.

And all through that period, Corbyn was obliviously continuing to support the armed struggle, to use rhetoric that tended to encourage the hardliners, to say and do things that would not assist Adams and McGuinness in their attempt to bring the conflict to an end. It took another 8 years, and quite a few more bombings and murders by the IRA, before the conflict did end.

Anyone who is aware of those facts, of the actual history of the Troubles, cannot say with a straight face that Corbyn was a peacemaker. He was a complete disgrace, a man who obliviously and selfishly promoted a violent terrorist organisation while he sat safe and comfortable in London and the Northern Irish lived in terror.

Corbyn has also expressed his very clear support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah, saying that they were "dedicated to peace and social justice", "honoured guests" and "friends". This is an organisation that suicide bombed a tourist coach in Bulgaria solely on the basis that the people on board were Jews. We're not talking about something that happened 20 years ago, it happened in 2012.

Corbyn also expressed his admiration for the "freedom fighters" opposing the Americans in Iraq; we're talking about Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the organisation that evolved into ISIS. The Stop the War Coalition, of which he was head, repeatedly said similar things. He called the killing of Bin Laden a "tragedy".

It's quite clear where Corbyn's sympathies lie. He will support any organisation, no matter how violent, if he perceives it as "anti-imperialist" or it violently opposes Israel or the United States. That is a very serious moral blindness which ordinary voters will not appreciate when it is brought to their attention in a general election. There are many other comparable instances of moral blindness; the £20,000 he accepted in payment to shill on TV for a regime that lynches gay men from cranes. This stuff will sink him, and Labour, in a general election.



It's not an invalid ad hominem argument to point out positions Corbynites have actually taken and things they've actually said where these things have a negative impact on the Labour Party. Just because a fact is unfavourable to Corbynites doesn't make it ad hominem

@JRKinder @KimKallstrom

They're only unelectable if people are persuaded by the right-wing media that they're unelectable and so don't vote for them.

I hope you can see the gaping hole in your "look how smart I am by repeating the mass media rhetoric" statement.

They're only unelectable if people are persuaded by the right-wing media that they're unelectable and so don't vote for them.

I hope you can see the gaping hole in your "look how smart I am by repeating the mass media rhetoric" statement.

No, they're unelectable by the majority of people that no longer consume mainstream propaganda in this country and think they have an understanding of of leftist collectivist socialism.