Dishonest Jeremy Corbyn avoids the questions again

AN: Let me turn to NATO. It was created by a Labour government. But you’ve called NATO ‘a very dangerous Frankenstein of an organisation’, ‘a danger to world peace’. Two years ago you said it should be ‘wound up’. Do you still believe that?

JC: What I’ve always believed is that NATO was a product in 1948 of the awful trajectory of the Cold War. We had the Warsaw Pact which was formed a little bit later on one side, NATO on the other. 1990, Berlin Wall came down – end of –

AN: Should it be wound up?

JC: – . I think the role of NATO now had to be to build good relations with the neighbours and insist on democracy and human rights being part of that agenda of good relations.

AN: But it was only three years ago you called it ‘a very dangerous Frankenstein’ and ‘a danger to world peace’. Do you still believe that, or not?

JC: I want to work within NATO to achieve stability. I want to work within NATO to promote a human rights democracy and under a Labour government that’s exactly what we’d be doing.

AN: But do you think it’s a ‘Frankenstein’?

JC: I think all organisations need to be accountable.

AN: So have you changed your views on NATO?

JC: No. What I’ve done – no, no.

AN: So you still think it’s a danger to world peace?

JC: Can I finish my sentence, please? Thank you.

AN: You could if you could answer my question.

JC: Andrew, NATO exists. It was a product initially of the Atlantic Charter in 1942, it then became –

AN: We know the history, Mr Corbyn. I’m trying to work out if you would be a committed supporter of NATO as every previous Prime Minister of this country has been?

JC: I will be a committed member of that alliance in order to promote peace, justice, human rights and democracy. And I believe that we can make a positive contribution on that.

Corbyn went into the Mumsnet chat with a seeming determination to continue his recent conversion to politicians' tactics of spin and PR by never actually answering the question you've been asked.

Instead of giving a straightforward answer to difficult questions asked, he simply ignores it and instead offers some inane platitude. Note his answers to Andrew Neil's questions about Corbyn having called NATO a 'Frankenstein' and "a danger to world peace" back in 2014.



When asked on the Mumsnet chat about whether he would resign if he lost the election, he answered "Proud to lead the party". What does that even mean? He would get far more respect if he could just say, "I honestly can't answer that now because I don't know".

Instead, Corbyn has the worst of all possible words; he's an extremist hard-leftist but doesn't even have the virtue of being straight-talking and being able to admit what he is. He'll say anything to get elected.

It's because of Corbyn that I, a Labour party member, a former trade union officer, will be abstaining in this election. For all the hysterical shrieking by his most fanatical supporters about how they've "closed the polling gap", the reality is that May is going to comfortably win this election. If Corbyn manages a Miliband-level performance, his supporters will cry that this is a great victory and vindication. That's right, they will claim that the party not collapsing means that Corbyn is justified to remain leader.

But if Corbyn couldn't even win over someone like me, it shows why Labour is incapable of ever winning an election under him

When asked on the Mumsnet chat about whether he would resign if he lost the election, he answered "Proud to lead the party". What does that even mean? He would get far more respect if he could just say, "I honestly can't answer that now because I don't know".

Hmmm.....
Jeremy Corbyn much more sincere, straightforward and trustworthy as opposed to Theresa May IMHO...

You know he won't resign unless the result is truly catastrophic, don't you?

Hmmm.....
Jeremy Corbyn much more sincere, straightforward and trustworthy as opposed to Theresa May IMHO...

let's face it; our country no longer has a proletariat... the mines and cotton mills and whatnot all closed down ages ago. thus there are no downtrodden workers whose shackles need to be prized off. the labour party is no longer needed, especially in the crypto-communist iteration planned by Mr Corbyn and his apparatchiks.

Ohh, I thought you were being ironic. I thought you were drawing attention to the fact it's claimed he's sincere and straightforward, but this OP clearly shows he's not.

I gemmed you by accident, then. I didn't think you could possibly have been serious

He probably won't resign even if the result is catastrophic unless he can ensure he installs a hard-left successor.

But in terms of objective justifiability, he claimed that his political formula would result in droves of people coming to support Labour, that he would avoid the failures and compromises of the previous Labour leaders. If he only does as well as Miliband (even if he does better), it shows that his political formula doesn't work.

The people have taken a look at what Corbyn has to offer, and found it wanting. The honourable thing to do at that point would be to resign and let the parliamentary party nominate new candidates (of course he will avoid doing this if there's a chance of getting his rule change through the national conference to lower the nomination threshold to 5%)

@AlexanderHam why do you make the effort to make these posts?
Do you honestly think you`ll change anyone`s mind or vote, most people have decided on their vote by now.

Bearing in mind, this occured almost eight months ago as part of the labour leadership race.

I'm expressing an opinion. That's what this website is supposed to be about.

So he still thinks the IRA armed struggle was justified?

Corbyn can't even tell us if he still believes what he said three years ago (that NATO was a Frankenstein and a danger to world peace). Why don't you answer that, if his views are clear like you say?

Does Corbyn still think Hamas and Hezbollah are "dedicated to peace and social justice"?