Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Corbyn wins again!

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    That publication - The Morning Star - also made gags about the Tory MP's wife who was left permanently disabled from the attack. Lovely people.
    In this particular case the publication in question was the London Labour Briefing, an extreme left paper that is now defunct. But the Morning Star is equally obnoxious, as you rightly point out.

    I note they have scrubbed all the columns Corbyn wrote for them from their website. You can't go back and get hold of them anymore, which is sad because there was so much there that was worth bringing up, like this little piece (speaking of the US and UK presence in Afghanistan supporting the elected government);

    “This is a war of colonial occupation that can only suck in more and more troops as the Taliban increasingly represents nationalist feelings, even if there are disagreements about the social attitudes of its leadership.”
    Disagreements? From whom? From within the Taliban? The Afghan people? Jeremy Corbyn? By "social attitudes", does he mean this?



    (With credits to Shiraz Socialist)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snufkin)
    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.
    I wouldn't be so sure of Tories winning. They are committed to more austerity cuts and they put in Damien Green as head of the DWP. Green is a friend of Ian Duncan smith and no doubt there will be even harsher cuts and sanctions against the disabled and poor.

    Secondly Corbyn has many popular policies which will result in a labour victory such as Free university tuition, Nationalisation of railways, and ending all airstrikes in Syria and Iraq.

    Witney for example could still turn to labour as the people have had enough of Cameron and probably suffered the most of public service cuts and welfare cuts by having 'cutaway Cameron' as their local MP.

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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    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.
    These arent facts theyre manipulated statistics.
    They may well do or have those qualitites i neither know nor care not being a corbyn supporter though.

    However lets take your arguement and transpose it into the EU debate. By your logic **** the plebs who voted out as they're wrong... I mean personally im all for ignoring the referendum result but never the less.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    😂😂😂

    R.I.P lads
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    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.
    It means they are 300,000 times more likely to be right than you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    I wouldn't be so sure of Tories winning.
    Anyone with common sense is pretty sure they will.

    Secondly Corbyn has many popular policies
    He has a few, but he won't have any opportunity to get traction on them because it will become a national security election. From day one, the Tories will open up on Corbyn about the money he took from a regime that lynches gay people, his praise for terrorist groups like the IRA, his friendships with people who say adulterous women should be stoned to death.

    Corbyn will be doing a radio interview and the host will wheel out the child of one of the women who was killed in the IRA bombing of the Grand Hotel in 1984; the bombing Corbyn refused to condemn and blamed on the government, followed by the sick "joke", "What do you call five dead Tories? A good start".

    The government will wheel out on cue probably some LGBT Iranian refugee who was given asylum under this government who will tear Corbyn to shreds on the business deal he agreed with the Iranian government to shill for them on television for £20,000.

    He will be painted, with considerable justification, as a threat to national security. It will be pointed out that he wants to conclude an appallingly imperialistic deal with Argentina to hand over the Falkland Islands to them, contrary to the wishes of the Falkland Islanders themselves and with a nauseating contempt for the hundreds of British soldiers and sailors who lost their lives taking it back from the Argentine fascist junta.

    Corbyn finds it difficult enough to just hold on to the support he already has in normal, everyday politics. In the intensity of a general election he will crumble. From the first day he will be on the back foot over his terrorist connections and corruption, and he will never take back the initiative. If Corbyn can't even convince someone like me, a Labour member and former branch treasurer, a former trade union officer, to vote for him, he simply can't win. He can't win if he can't convince someone like me, who is to the left of most of the population.

    ending all airstrikes in Syria and Iraq
    Surrendering to ISIS is not a popular policy. A very clear majority of those with a view support continuing airstrikes against these genocidal fascists. The people who are opposed tend to be those on the hard left and far isolationist right (in other words, not swing voters in marginal seats who are the ones Corbyn has to persuade)

    I'd be surprised if labour doesn't win with a sizeable majority.
    Geeze. On polling day your world is going to turn upside down. Your grasp on reality seem tenuous, at best.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    It means they are 300,000 times more likely to be right than you.
    Obviously you don't have a very good grasp of logic and probability. In any case, if in your mind something is more likely to be true the greater the number of people who believe it, then 60% of voters think Corbyn is utterly incompetent and repellent.

    By your standards they must be right. Of course I would never claim the fact that something like 15 million people think Corbyn is utterly useless means it is therefore true. It just happens to be true.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    It means they are 300,000 times more likely to be right than you.
    Dat "logic"

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)

    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 :rolleyes:
    This is genuinely what people like him believe.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Dat "logic"
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    This is genuinely what people like him believe.
    It's very much in line with the mindset I described the other day in my thread about the conspiracy frame of mind. They believe that everything is a conspiracy, and that anyone who disagrees is either stupid, malicious or part of the conspiracy.

    They believe that they are the only ones who truly see through it all, who are clever enough to understand what is really going on. In my experience there is an inverse relationship between intelligence and the likelihood of subscribing to this mindset. None of the really intelligent people I know (the sort who got 1st class honours at Oxford, work at the chancery bar for a top set of chambers, etc) believe any of this stuff.

    I've found that people who are marginalised, people who have suffered significant failures, often take comfort in this sort of thing. Understandably so; it provides an explanation for why they failed to get the job/girl/prize, whatever. With different particulars, the same mindset applies to people who blame everything on racism/prejudice; I didn't get the job/girl/prize because they hate me because I'm fill in the blank.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    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.
    :lol: Nailed it, mate.

    I'm not sure how that guy can come back from such a withering rebuke, I wonder if he will scurry away or will he come up with some new "irrefutable" logic?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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.
    Normally my response to this would be that I would move to the USA, but given theres a genuinely high possibility of Trump becoming President, I can't even say that anymore.*

    Not too sure where this utter wave of sheer stupidity has flown in from, that has caused people to genuinely consider candidates like Trump and Corbyn actually vote-able.*
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    He's an angel.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    So true. :sad:

    People will be so desperate, they will probably end up voting Lib Dem again. :teehee:
    We can only hope so :facepalm2: I know this may be a tad controversial but I sometimes see the Lib Dems who's party line doesn't want me to tear my little remaining hair out!

    That said they have some right liberal nutters in their ranks.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    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
    You clearly don't know anything about the conflict when you say that the IRA was disbanded in 1972 when there was a split.

    If you knew anything about the Loughgall Ambush you would know that it was unlawful and part of a deliberate shoot-to-kill policy by the British armed forces.

    The SDLP are not and never have been a sister party to Labour and they have never been socialist.

    "Northern Irish" people weren't living in fear of republican paramilitaries, they were living in fear of loyalist sectarian murderers who regularly knocked on people's doors in the dead of night and shot them dead, claiming they were republicans and striking a blow for loyalism, when all they were doing were killing innocent Catholics.

    Corbyn said it was a shame Bin Laden had been shot because he wanted him put on trial.

    The daily rising body-count was used as the ultimate bargaining weapon in intimidating nationalists to force the IRA to stop its military campaign. The nightly trawling of nationalist areas by loyalist serial killers was not replicated by nationalists in unionist areas. Whereas the IRA fought a political war, loyalist paramilitaries, hand in glove with state security forces, fought a sectarian war. To draw comparisons between loyalist death-squads like the Loughinisland killers or the Shankill Butchers with the IRA campaign is a grotesque insult to the victims and families of these sectarian killers.

    For the record I don't actually care about Corbyn or Labour as I've no affiliation with either.
    The oversimplification of the conflict here that IRA = bad and Army/ Special Forces = good is completely incompetent That Bearded Man


    Israel regularly abuses human rights and has broken more international laws than you have GCSEs.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    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.
    I like your Michael Collins avatar.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    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 have an understanding of the toxicity of leftist collectivist socialism.
 
 
 
Poll
Which party will you be voting for in the General Election 2017?
Useful resources

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

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