Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Corbyn spin machine of attack and smear is exposed Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    I hate suicidal foreign policy escapades driven by profit
    How was the Iraq War driven by a profit motive?

    plus the accompanying decimiation of all liberty and privacy to 'deal with' a terror threat.
    How has "all" liberty been "decimated"? By any sane, non-paranoid standard the UK is one of the freest countries in the world and one of the freest polities in all human history, by far.

    Globalism
    There is no such thing as globalism. No-one is calling for a world government. There has been no serious intellectual movement for world government since the World Federalists surge in support in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

    Constantly labelling any outcome or manifestation you don't like as having been wrought by some amorphous group of unidentifiable "globalist" conspirators is paranoid nonsense.

    and millions of people who support the moronic policy of 'liberal interventionism'
    Millions of people don't support liberal interventionism. It's quite a niche ideology. There hasn't been a single liberal intervention for 20 years

    which is why Trump will be pathologized
    Trump doesn't have to be pathologised, he is pathological without any assistance. The man is the most amoral, unqualified person ever to run for the Oval Office.

    The whole of New Labour establishment opposed our national interest with their policy as regards the ME and the US
    That's not a substantive comment, it's just a bare assertion supported by nothing.

    There is NO extreme right in the UK.
    Wow, so the BNP isn't extreme right. Well, that's me told.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So, if Owen Smith is elected (which is unlikely, but whatever), what will he do as someone 'on the left of the party' to make him so much more popular (within the electorate) than Corbyn?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I still haven't made my mind up about this contest
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Corbin can suck a lemon. Thanks to him Britains probably going to have successive Tory party governments for the next 10 to 15 years. God save us from those rich, self concerned douchebags. Corbin is not the answer, he's the problem.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CornetPerson)
    So, if Owen Smith is elected (which is unlikely, but whatever), what will he do as someone 'on the left of the party' to make him so much more popular (within the electorate) than Corbyn?
    Not being Corbyn is itself a huge advantage. Not having the enormous baggage of, say, having accepted £20,000 from a regime that murders gay people and stones women to death. Not having not only called Hamas his "friends" but having praised their "dedication to peace and social justice". Not having accepted expensive gifts and busines class flights from oil industry lobbyists. And not having done all these things while obnoxiously implying that you are some kind of saint and decent man amongst a corrupt political class.

    Corbyn is extremely unpopular because he's unlikable. He's incompetent. He's not a credible leader. He says extremely stupid things, regularly. He pals around with fascists and murderous homophobes. And he will pay the consequences of these acts in a general election; every single day, he will get hit over and over again as the man who takes money from murderers, the man who befriends holocaust deniers, the man who prefers our enemies to our allies, a man who can't be trusted with the nation's defence. And it will work because they are valid criticisms. But he's not the only one who will get hit; the Labour Party will too. He'll drag us down like an albatross around our neck.

    If Corbyn remains leader, there is a strong possibility that he and his supporters will move to deselect pretty much everyone in the parliamentary party who opposes him. Now keep in mind that in some branches that have nominated Corbyn that motion was passed with just 7 votes out of 13 people who turned up. We will see similarly tiny numbers used to justify deselecting existing MPs who don't support him or his agenda, and then there is every possibility that Labour will face 150 simultaneous byelections as all those deselected MPs resign their seat to re-fight it as independents or some kind of new, moderate Labour. That will be the end of the Labour Party. Then again, who knows; maybe it will be the birth of a better Labour Party party. But these are the facts as they stand.

    Oh and there are of course the polls showing that 68% of non-Labour members think Smith would make a better Prime Minister than Corbyn. In fact, Corbyn is now so unpopular that he comes third in "Most preferred Prime Minister" after May and "Don't know"; no opposition leader has ever been as unpopular as Corbyn is (his favourability rating is minus 41%, compared to minus 28% for Michael Foot who is next most unpopular). Large numbers of people who voted Labour in 2015 say they will vote Tory next time. Corbyn is a very large part of why that is the case. It's electoral suicide to believe that this hard left crap will appeal to the British public, and the polls show it
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harold Godwinson)
    Corbin can suck a lemon. Thanks to him Britains probably going to have successive Tory party governments for the next 10 to 15 years. God save us from those rich, self concerned douchebags. Corbin is not the answer, he's the problem.
    Well said. The worst part is that this obnoxious, corrupt man (note the £20,000 he accepted from the government of Iran, a regime that murders gay people and stones women,as payment to shill for them on television) believes himself to be a saint. There's something incredibly unctuous, sanctimonious and self-satisfied about him, and I don't think that will appeal to the British public.

    In fact, during the 1930s the Labour Party had its own 1930s Corbyn called George Lansbury, who led the party for a few years and was basically a complete pacifist, opposing all policies that would re-arm in the face of Nazi aggression. In 1935, the union TUC leader Ernie Bevin, who left school at 13 and yet went on to be one of our greatest Foreign Secretaries in the postwar Attlee government, made a devastating speech condemning Lansbury for his sanctimonious defeatism. It was so effective that Lansbury basically had to resign. When asked about this after, Bevin said, "Lansbury's been dressed in saint's clothes for years waiting for martyrdom. All I did was set fire to the fa ggots" (alluding to burning at the stake, fa ggots meaning bundles of sticks).

    That comment could be such an apt commentary on Corbyn. Labour now needs its own Bevin to get rid of the High Sparrow

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Not being Corbyn is itself a huge advantage. Not having the enormous baggage of, say, having accepted £20,000 from a regime that murders gay people and stones women to death. Not having not only called Hamas his "friends" but having praised their "dedication to peace and social justice". Not having accepted expensive gifts and busines class flights from oil industry lobbyists. And not having done all these things while obnoxiously implying that you are some kind of saint and decent man amongst a corrupt political class.

    Corbyn is extremely unpopular because he's unlikable. He's incompetent. He's not a credible leader. He says extremely stupid things, regularly. He pals around with fascists and murderous homophobes. And he will pay the consequences of these acts in a general election; every single day, he will get hit over and over again as the man who takes money from murderers, the man who befriends holocaust deniers, the man who prefers our enemies to our allies, a man who can't be trusted with the nation's defence. And it will work because they are valid criticisms. But he's not the only one who will get hit; the Labour Party will too. He'll drag us down like an albatross around our neck.

    If Corbyn remains leader, there is a strong possibility that he and his supporters will move to deselect pretty much everyone in the parliamentary party who opposes him. Now keep in mind that in some branches that have nominated Corbyn that motion was passed with just 7 votes out of 13 people who turned up. We will see similarly tiny numbers used to justify deselecting existing MPs who don't support him or his agenda, and then there is every possibility that Labour will face 150 simultaneous byelections as all those deselected MPs resign their seat to re-fight it as independents or some kind of new, moderate Labour. That will be the end of the Labour Party. Then again, who knows; maybe it will be the birth of a better Labour Party party. But these are the facts as they stand.

    Oh and there are of course the polls showing that 68% of non-Labour members think Smith would make a better Prime Minister than Corbyn. In fact, Corbyn is so unpopular that he comes third in "Most preferred Prime Minister" after May and "Don't know". Large numbers of people who voted Labour in 2015 say they will vote Tory next time. Corbyn is a very large part of why that is the case. It's electoral suicide to believe that this hard left crap will appeal to the British public, and the polls show it
    A nice healthy dose of reality there, unfortunately I fear you're flogging a dead horse.

    IMO Owen Smith isn't calling him out on the issues in the first two paragraphs to try and avoid tarnishing Labour's image even more.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I would strongly advice the public to consider voting for UKIP, as a viable party for the working class. Labour has ditched it's working class roots in favour of becoming the communist, protest party, the Tories are just the Tories, businessman more then politicians, and any other party is either moronic or to small for purpose. UKIP is the most viable option for the working class, everyday person that actually gives a damn about the public and the country it governs.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    A nice healthy dose of reality there, unfortunately I fear you're flogging a dead horse.
    Thanks indeed, I am trying but I've increasingly come to the conclusion that it's probably futile. The Corbynite movement has all the characteristics of a personality cult, and unfortunately with only a few hundred thousand people you can basically take over one of the major parties. By winning Labour Party internal elections they convince themselves that they must be very good at politics, whereas in fact they are simply the beneficiaries of entryism and the prior end of mass membership of political parties. The Militant slogan of "No compromise with the electorate!" seems to be the Corbynites guiding credo.

    IMO Owen Smith isn't calling him out on the issues in the first two paragraphs to try and avoid tarnishing Labour's image even more
    The fact that Smith hasn't is utterly disgraceful. I think Smith isn't calling him out on those issues because he knows the current membership would get angry at it even being brought up. What a sorry commentary that is. If the end is pre-ordained, I'd rather go out fighting and die on my feet than live on my knees under these crackpot cultists.

    My chief comfort in these trying times is the words of the great George Orwell in The Road to Wigan Pier;

    The fact is that Socialism, in the form in which it is now presented, appeals chiefly to unsatisfactory or even inhuman types. On the one hand you have the warm-hearted un-thinking Socialist, the typical working-class Socialist, who only wants to abolish poverty and does not always grasp what this implies. On the other hand, you have the intellectual, book-trained Socialist, who understands that it is necessary to throw our present civilization down the sink and is quite willing to do so. And this type is drawn, to begin with, entirely from the middle class, and from a rootless town-bred section of the middle class at that.

    Still more unfortunately, it includes — so much so that to an outsider it even appears to be composed of — the kind of people I have been discussing; the foaming denouncers of the bourgeoisie, and the astute young social-literary climbers who are Communists now, as they will be Fascists five years hence, because it is all the go, and all that dreary tribe of high-minded’ women and sandal-wearers and bearded fruit-juice drinkers who come knocking towards the smell of ‘progress’ like bluebottles to a dead cat.

    The ordinary decent person, who is in sympathy with the essential aims of Socialism, is given the impression that there is no room for his kind in any Socialist party that means business. Worse, he is driven to the cynical conclusion that Socialism is a kind of doom which is probably coming but must be staved off as long as possible. Of course, as I have suggested already, it is not strictly fair to judge a movement by its adherents; but the point is that people invariably do so, and that the popular conception of Socialism is coloured by the conception of a Socialist as a dull or disagreeable person. ‘Socialism’ is pictured as a state of affairs in which our more vocal Socialists would feel thoroughly at home. This does great harm to the cause.
    Oh and this from The Lion and the Unicorn;

    In intention, at any rate, the English intelligentsia are Europeanized. They take their cookery from Paris and their opinions from Moscow. In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings.

    It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God save the King” than of stealing from a poor box. All through the critical years many left-wingers were chipping away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes squashily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always anti-British.

    It is questionable how much effect this had, but it certainly had some. If the English people suffered for several years a real weakening of morale, so that the Fascist nations judged that they were ‘decadent’ and that it was safe to plunge into war, the intellectual sabotage from the Left was partly responsible.
    The sabotage from the Corbynite crowd who take their fashions from Scotland and their opinions from RT, sometimes squishily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always anti-British, is having the same effect. The Putins of the world are laughing when they see how easily they can undermine us by appealing to a few idiotic conspiracy theories, railing against "the elite" and "the MSM", and thus the left becomes a complete joke (if not something more sinister) rendering permanent Tory government the likely outcome.

    (JRKinder KingBradly KimKallstrom : thought you might appreciate this commentary)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Corbyn has this strange tactic of looking like he's just spent the previous night sleeping in his car (Boyle's words not mine!)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paraphilos)
    Corbyn has this strange tactic of looking like he's just spent the previous night sleeping in his car (Boyle's words not mine!)
    It's a valid criticism; he looks extremely shabby. This isn't a criticism out of a fashion sense or a superficial obsession with garment; it's what his shabbiness says about him. When you turn up to a memorial for the Battle of Britain, shabbily attired, tie undone, not even bothering to sing the national anthem, ordinary Englishmen and women conclude that you are a flake, that you think you're better than everyone else.

    Just like if you turn up to a wedding in shorts and sandals; it's not about the actual clothes. It's what it says about your lack of respect for the occasion. Unfortunately the cult members of the High Sparrow will shriek that this is unforgivable superficiality; apparently caring about the message you send out and the impression you give is a sign of ideological impurity.

    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    The first article uses tweets from a twitter account called @JeremyCorbyn4PM. A twitter account which says:
    "Please note, we don't speak for @jeremycorbyn or @UKLabour" Therefore points 1 to 8 and point 10 are without evidence. The only point where Jeremy Corbyn's actual twitter account was used was in no. 9, where the article compares him to Tony Blair, for no reason.

    At first the Guardian article appears to be sincere, until I realise that it is from a biased source: the Owen Smith camp.

    I have tried to stay out of this debate, because of its complexity, but now I shall deliver my view:

    Jeremy Corbyn is a passionate, honest, innocent, quiet and principled politician.

    However, he isn't animated, and he is a poor manager. If he made a commitment to manage his team better, then things may be different.

    I believe some of those who left Jeremy's opposition did it in the true lack of belief in Jeremy's competence as a manager. However, I also believe that others did it for political gain. I would like to see Jeremy at the forefront of an opposition and perhaps a future government, but I don't think that could be possible with the quality of management displayed this year. He either needs to improve, or step aside, to be effective.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    04MR17


    He isn't honest, innocent or principled, I used to think the same thing.

    His portrayal as such is a facade which is easily broken if you look into the abhorrent people he's cosied up to over the years.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    He isn't honest, innocent or principled, I used to think the same thing.

    His portrayal as such is a facade which is easily broken if you look into the abhorrent people he's cosied up to over the years.
    Evidence please. I don't like assertions.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    Evidence please. I don't like assertions.
    http://uk.businessinsider.com/money-...id-iran-2016-7

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...y-antisemitism

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQLK...ature=youtu.be - 45 seconds in is the comment that sticks out, not the Hamas/Hezbollah friends bit.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    And where has he lied to make him dishonest?
    Where has he broken a law to make him guilty?
    Which of his policies has he folded on to make him not principled?

    Whilst all of this 'mud' may be relevant,
    it does not contradict my statement. I am by no means agreeing or upholding what he has said or done, but I maintain my description.

    With regards to foreign policy, any indication of that will always be watered-down to realism once/if in power. That is why comments on foreign policy are so insignificant, because in reality, not much of significance occurs.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Alexander going HAM in this thread. Thank you......I'm here all week

    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    That comment could be such an apt commentary on Corbyn. Labour now needs its own Bevin to get rid of the High Sparrow

    However I have got to pull you up on this. While the High Sparrow comparison had occurred to me due to the cult-like nature of it all, the comparison would only be truly accurate if the High Sparrow had a consistent record of receiving bungs from businessmen in Braavos and also brown nosing and associating with the Sons of The Harpy while they were committing terrorist attacks and declaring himself a friend of the slaves. However the High Sparrow seemed to actually have consistent principles. I mean actually have them, not just convince your cult that you do since barely any of them know a thing about him since ten minutes ago when he became leader as is the case with most Corbynites.....
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Alexander going HAM in this thread. Thank you......I'm here all week

    However I have got to pull you up on this. While the High Sparrow comparison had occurred to me due to the cult-like nature of it all, the comparison would only be truly accurate if the High Sparrow had a consistent record of receiving bungs from businessmen in Braavos and also brown nosing and associating with the Sons of The Harpy while they were committing terrorist attacks and declaring himself a friend of the slaves. However the High Sparrow seemed to actually have consistent principles. I mean actually have them, not just convince your cult that you do since barely any of them know a thing about him since ten minutes ago when he became leader as is the case with most Corbynites.....
    Very true and very well put. The High Sparrow was fanatical but consistent (and also highly intelligent). Corbyn is fanatical but he seems to find ways to cash in on that fanaticism, like the £20 grand bung he took to shill for the Iranians on TV as you pointed out.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    At first the Guardian article appears to be sincere, until I realise that it is from a biased source: the Owen Smith camp.
    The piece is by Heidi Alexander, it is an opinion piece so of course it's from a point of view. And having worked with Corbyn up close, having tried to make it work by serving in his shadow cabinet, she has seen just how completely incompetent he is and that's why she stepped down.

    Jeremy Corbyn is a passionate, honest, innocent, quiet and principled politician.
    What was innocent, quiet and principled about accepting a £20,000 bung to be a TV shill for a regime that murders gay people and stones women?

    If he made a commitment to manage his team better, then things may be different.
    But he won't/can't make any such commitment because he doesn't even think he's done anything wrong. He unctuously says "Well, they could have come and talked to me". The reason most of his shadow cabinet resigned (even those on the left who were his strong supporters like Lisa Nandy) is precisely because they couldn't talk to him; one of his shadow ministers had to basically camp outside his office door for three days waiting for a meeting (even though by the standards of opposition leaders he is very inactive and lazy)

    He is utterly convinced that he is a persecuted martyr, so sanctimious. The reality is that a good man wouldn't do the things he's done, like take £20k from murderers, or accept the gift of a business class flight from an oil industry lobbyist while proclaiming himself a saint, or praising the IRA and supporting their terrorist atrocities when by left-wing etiquette Labour Party members owe their solidarity to the non-violent SDLP. And a good man wouldn't, as he has done, allow a cult of personality to be created around him, and to disclaim any knowledge while he sics his supporters to attack those who have different opinions (including impliedly supporting deselecting his parliamentary colleagues)

    I believe some of those who left Jeremy's opposition did it in the true lack of belief in Jeremy's competence as a manager. However, I also believe that others did it for political gain
    The people who were absolutely and utterly opposed to him from the start refused to serve so they weren't in the Shadow Cabinet when **** went down in June. And those on the moderate wing of the party who did manage to get appointed last september were purged anyway back in January. Wth a few exceptions, the vast majority of those in the Shadow Cabinet who resigned were on the left of the party, including previously some of his closest allies like Lisa Nandy

    I would like to see Jeremy at the forefront of an opposition and perhaps a future government, but I don't think that could be possible with the quality of management displayed this year. He either needs to improve, or step aside, to be effective.
    He will never step aside, he is clearly thrilled by the sense of power he is feeling. You could see it written on every line of his face when he paraded out of the NEC meeting last month; he was so self-satisfied, patronising and arrogant.

    He doesn't think he has done anything wrong or requiring improvement, he is happy to sit on his hands while Momentum hysterically attack anyone who criticises him at all, and the party will continue to implode. He is so obnoxiously self-absorbed that he is willing to let the Labour Party be destroyed before he stands down

    JamesN88
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    And where has he lied to make him dishonest?
    Where has he broken a law to make him guilty?
    Which of his policies has he folded on to make him not principled?
    You called him "principled, innocent and honest".

    A principled and innocent man doesn't accept £20,000 to be a TV shill for a regime that murders gay people and stones women. An honest man does not praise Hamas (an organisation whose charter calls for all Jews worldwide to be killed) as "dedicated to peace and social justice" and then claim he was merely being diplomatic. An honest man doesn't dishonestly avoid answering questions, like when he was asked on Northern Irish radio about his support for IRA violence, and his canned response was to repeatedly and patronisingly say "I condemn all violence, including violence by the British Army". And an honest man doesn't repeatedly lie about his connections to Holocaust denier Paul Eisen.

    Corbyn is greedy, dishonest and hypocritical, in addition to being not very bright

    Whilst all of this 'mud' may be relevant,
    it does not contradict my statement
    Bringing up factual incidents that occurred is not "mud" or a "smear". And yes, pointing out the £20,000 he took from a regime that murders gay people does contradict your claim that he is "innocent, principled and honest".

    With regards to foreign policy, any indication of that will always be watered-down to realism once/if in power. That is why comments on foreign policy are so insignificant, because in reality, not much of significance occurs.
    First, Corbyn has made it very clear he has no intention whatsoever to water anything down, and his personality cult backs him 100%.

    Second, his foreign policy stances demonstrate that he is immoral, that he has given moral succour to the use of violence against civilians.

    Third, it is because of his support for and associations with terrorists, his sympathy for criminals who used bullets and bombs to terrify the Irish people, and the money he took from fanatical hard right fascists that he will never be in power. Ever. The British people will never elect such a revolting man. I'm a Labour Party member, and if he is still the leader I will abstain at the next election. I refuse to cast a ballot for a party led by such an immoral, stupid, dishonest individual

    If he can't even convince people in his own party that he is worth supporting, how on earth is he going to convince the millions of non-Labour voters he has to persuade to vote Labour in order to get the party elected? He can't. But of course his agenda has nothing to do with winning power; he knows he is utterly incapable of doing so. His agenda is first for his supporters to completely take over the Labour Party and silence all dissent, and then groom a successor in the long-term. His allies say he is playing the "long game"; I guess when you're an MP it doesn't really matter if we have another 15 years of Tory government (and possibly permanent if he and his gang wrest control of the party; the English won't elect fanatics to government)

    JamesN88
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    AlexanderHam


    Speaking of showing solidarity his stance on Syria also really annoys me.

    The Kurds are led politically by a democratic socialist party, yet he shows now inclination to help them defend themselves against a savage medieval cult intent on subjugating them.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 25, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.