Does anyone still think Jeremy Corbyn is 'unelectable'?

I really don't like to be ageist, but I am surprised at how little talk there has been about his age and the impact that will have on his ability to do the job. Jeremy Corbyn is now 66, by the election in 2020 he will be 71, by the end of his first term in power he will be 76. Most PMs like to run for 2-3 terms, can you really see him standing for re-election during a term where he will cross 80 years of age? Will labour want a party leader who is only really good for 1 term in office? He will be the oldest ever prime minister at the start of his premiership, and may not even be physically able the be prime minister regardless of whether he is elected or not.

I think Jeremy Corbyn has been very good at re-engaging people in political discussion but I do not think there is an appetite for socialist policies in the country; let alone ones delivered by champagne socialists on £140,000 a year. There has been general a move toward the centre in the past 25 years and I don't think that will change anytime soon.

Just because his supporters shout louder than the majority does not mean his supporters represent the majority. I doubt labour will even put him to the polls in 2020. I see him very much as an interim labour leader.

What I'm not doing is assigning blame and essentially calling these soldiers monsters before I know precisely what happened.

As for the rest of your comment, you're being completely unfair and not a bit immature, playing little games like "You can have the last word, go for it". I have tried to be measured, and put my point of view, which is not exactly an illegitimate proposition; I am allowed to have a different point of view.

It seems like you're incapable of seeing the other point of view, and that in your mind, the Israelis are already convicted of being evil monsters who just want to kill Palestinians. What I find most off-putting is that in your mind you are this morally superior being who stands in judgment of everybody else, and you completely discount the possibility that things may be more complicated than "Four legs good, two legs bad".

IIt would be more honest and constructive if you stuck to discussing those. That's what Jeremy would do.

Corbyn will win in 2020, just like Sanders will in 2016.

Corbyn won with a huge mandate, biggest in the history of UK politics. Its only been a month, give the man some time. He has already made an impact on PMQ's and has changed the style to appeal to the broader public.

The media have been attacking him on a daily basis because he is someone different (not afraid of his views) and it is what was needed in this country's politics.

The turnout for the 2015 election was only 66%. There are a lot of voters out there who don't bother to vote because simply they believe they are not affected with what happens in a term of government. These five years will be tough, the NHS is struggling, welfare reforms, rent and house prices are unsustainable, there will be more strikes from public workers, economies around the world are unstable and are going through challenging times. It will impact people's lives and people will have a reason to vote in the next election.

Corbyn opposes a lot of the policies of the current government and so he is a viable opposition leader.

Look at some of the Labour leadership debates Corbyn was involved, he destroyed the other candidates.

Give the man some time. There is still a very long time till the next election!

Actually, Jeremy Corbyn came first in all branches of the party, affiliated members, new members, long term members, and registered supporters.

To the people who say the party is splitting: it isn't. I have never seen it more united.

Again you continue to put words in my mouth.
I'm not calling the soldiers evil, I'm not saying Israel intentionally targets civilians.

What I'm saying is israel, in their decision to bomb such a densely populated and defenceless civilian area were so reckless, that the consequences became inevitable.

They didn't intend to kill civilians but they were so reckless, so careless and showed such a disregard for human life.

I absolutely don't feel they should have gone in and part of the reason for the current situation is the way Israel treat the Palestinians in both gaza and the West Bank.

When Israel bombs 4 kids on the beach, when it bombs a UN school which the UN warned Israel had kids in it 17 times in 24 hours. When it bombs a shopping centre to name three- it shows incredible recklessness.

Now you may want to brush these aside and say 'yeah but mistakes happen ' but that's an awful response. You can't invade somewhere, drop a load of bombs and say mistakes happen.
They may drop leaflets - but there is zero evidence that it is in anyway effective. Often people can't get away- what about elderly people? what about disabled people? What about sick people? What about young children? And furthermore where do they go when even the shelters are being bombed? Dropping leaflets is for public image more than anything.


You're biggest tactic seems to be depolotocisation and make out israel had no choice to invade but again that's nonsense. Israel have been as if not more unwilling in the peace talks. Abbas even said he recognised Israels right to exist as a Jewish state yet they still press on with settlements and chuck Arabs out their homes.


And you say I'm biased? I have never defended Hamas and never will - in fact if someone here was praising them I'd quickly slate them for it. They are a nasty organisation who carries out heinous crimes.

But you're not defending Hamas - you're defending israel. I hate both sides- they are as extremist and unhelpful as one another. The facts stand though that Israel is butchering and massacring thousands of innocent civilians on an Almost bi-annual basis. While the Hamas rockets are inexcusable, they have the systems to stop them. Going in and slaughtering civilians is both morally reprehensible and tactically absurd.

I
1) Why are Hamas choosing to set up their operations' centres in civilian areas?

2) What exactly is the alternative the Israelis can take?

I certainly don't think the Israelis are squeaky clean by any stretch of the imagination.

If unelectable means someone that I wouldn't vote for then the Tories would be unelectable though.

From a moral point of view that makes no difference.

The Israelis are constantly criticised when mistakes are made, as always happens in war. No-one turns a hair at the scarcely believable loss of civilian life (some estimates put it at approaching 600,000) we needlessly inflicted in a "total" war (like the use of such a word makes it morally acceptable!), in fact memorials are raised to the air crew.

The atomic bombing at least has some credible moral basis. It indisputably shortened the war, and you can make a grim utilitarian case that the number of lives lost was less than would have been caused by fighting island by island and then through the Japanese mainland.

A bizarre argument frequently used. The whole of Gaza is a civilian error. It's the most densely populated areas. They don't have areas to set up 'military zones' like the IDF do. Where should they set up?.

Now if only there were neg votes... (I wonder how many neg reps there would be on original post.)

It is quite fun when people use that line, given that they clearly haven't looked at any maps of the Gaza strip to come to the conclusion that the vast majority is densely populated.

In his attempts to fight western neo-colonialism he has befriended and legitimised theocratic Islamist movements that trespass overtly into what most of the population would consider to be terrorist activities.

I honestly don't think the electorate will forgive him for that.