Corbyn the terrorist sympathiser

I myself completely agree with that sentiment. The far left does not. They expect politicians to be absolutely perfect, and Corbyn has been part of that mindset. I mean, the Stop the War coalition went and protested against the Labour Party last week ffs. They have their man in the leadership, and if he doesn't do exactly what they want, they denounce him.

Corbyn has been part of that mindset; it's a matter of live by the sword, die by the sword. If Corbyn was the sort of person who said, "Well, being in government is tremendously complex. There are always shades of gray, almost everything you do will displease someone" then I might have some sympathy for him. But he doesn't; he has been at the forefront of the faction that claim that everything is a conspiracy, that any politician who doesn't do precisely what they demand is not just wrong but evil/immoral. They have set up a tremendously high standard, and it is not at all improper to hold them to the standard to which they hold others.

I think there's a big difference between such personal failings, and Corbyn's repeated choice to associate himself with men of violence, to associate himself with people who call for the death of homosexuals.

It would be like if someone is close friends with a Ku Klux Klan leader. That person is certainly free to have such a friendship, but they shouldn't then pretend they are some great friend of the black community. You make your choices about how important such associations are. Corbyn and his supporters astonishingly claim this high moral ground in every sphere. When you actually tally it up, it is very clear that Corbyn chooses violence over peace, that he chooses murderous homophobia over standing up for gay rights

Actually they did, partially. They brought the railways (as in the actual rails) back into public ownership, and brought the East Coast Main Line into public ownership.



Actually that primarily happened under Thatcher with the Big Bang



Giving control over interest rates to the government-appointed BoE governors, with the Chancellor retaining ultimate oversight, is not "abandonment" of democratic control. And the economy's performance, the low level of inflation, the low level of unemployment, the much more stable economic situation viz. growth and contraction, speaks for itself.



You seem to be confused. Royal Mail was privatised in 2013.



Kickstarting privatisation of the NHS? I'm sorry but it's clear you don't have a clue what you're talking about.



If you think the US actions in Iraq were imperialist then you are utterly deluded. Perhaps you can provide some examples of how it was an imperialist venture?

I'd probably put myself at socialist, and I don't think like that (although tbf that's hardly 'far left' ).

Good to see you've admitted some of the statements I've made e.g. social housing

What will destroy the party is Corbyn and his cultists. Corbyn is now the most unpopular opposition leader in history. Labour is now consistently 8 or 9 points behind the conservatives, 13 points in some polls.

Labour has no hope of winning the next election if it goes to it with Corbyn, it could well be the end of the party. On the other hand, if Corbyn can be pushed out, and a strong and sensible frontbench of slate can be put together (my ideal slate, Hilary Benn for leader, Dan Jarvis for Deputy + Foreign Sec, Eagle for Chancellor, Watson for Home Sec, Burnham Defence, Chuka Business, Tristram Education and Keir Starmer Lord Chancellor), then Labour has an exceptionally good chance at the next election.

If anything, there will be a honeymoon amongst moderates if such a leadership group is put together; the contrast as against the chaos and far left mania of the Corbyn era would be palpable.

Allowing Corbyn to continue in power is simply out of the question. The only reason I remain a party member is the knowledge that people will need to be there to pick up the pieces when the Trotskyite circus moves on.

The PM basically labelled everyone against bombing a terrorist sympathiser. He said 'Corbyn and terrorist sympathisers' not 'Corbyn the terrorist sympathiser'. Saying that everyone against bombing is a terrorist sympathiser does need an apology.

Also on your Qatar/Iran point it's highly hypocritical to criticise JC for that when Cameron is bowing and scraping to Saudi. He might want to rethink next time he spouts stuff like that.

Backing the imperialist pretensions of the most fanatically right-wing government the US has ever suffered. The invasion of Iraq was a disaster. Although imperialism in itself is not exclusive to right-wingers, it is quite easy to see that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a policy dreamt up by a bunch of fanatically right-wing Neo-Conservatives in the US. When making character judgements it is often useful to consider the company that is kept, and the governments that the UK aligned with in order to carry out the invasion and occupation of Iraq included arguably the most right-wing government in US history, the fanatically right-wing (and corruption riddled) Partido Popular of Spain led by José María Aznar, Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia and the right-wing government of Japan led by Junichiro Koizumi (aside from pushing Japan into the invasion of Iraq he was also famous for privatising the Japanese postal service and regularly paying homage to Japanese war criminals)

Then leave the Labour Party

I describe Corbyn as someone with a personality disorder, he is unstable in Leadership because not really much MPs support him, however he made me regret so much in voting for conseratives. I like this left wing vision he has done to The Labour Party. He has made everyone including me engaged in politics. I hope Labour does come into power in 2020 because i think this is the prime minister in waiting

Do you know that one of Corbyn's revenge is to get rid of right-wing mps and replace with them hard-left? it's clear that a left wing labour works and look at their membership! i'm ONE OF THEM!!

I'm a socialist too. It's precisely because of my belief in sensible, pragmatic socialism in the mould of Denis Healey, Jim Callaghan, Harold Wilson and Clem Attlee that I despise Corbyn so much.

Attlee would have despised Corbyn too; he hated far-left fads and enthusiasms. Attlee was a strong supporter of the American alliance, he created the British nuclear deterrent, he sent troops onto the docks to smash a communist-provocatured strike, and introduced prescription charges to pay for our deployment to the far east to roll back communist aggression in Korea.

If we were back in the 1940s, Corbyn and his ilk would oppose Attlee as a sell-out and a Tory.

I agree. And one of them is taking money from murderous regimes like Iran and Qatar that use torture and the death penalty against dissenters, that prescribe death for homosexuals. For Corbyn to take their coin is unforgivable. And given he holds himself out as a great moral exemplar, and his supporters claim for him the mantle of the greatest prophet for a thousand years, it is absolutely fair to hold him to a reasonably high standard of probity and morality. He clearly does not meet even a fairly forgiving standard of morality.

I suppose the difference is that Cameron actually did achieve something huge for gay rights, Corbyn has never achieved anything for gay rights. The other distinctions are that Cameron is acting in his capacity as Prime Minister, pursuant to what has been the UK's state policy viz. the Gulf for a century.

And Cameron didn't accept money, personally, from those regimes. Corbyn personally accepted money from Qatar and Iran to act as a mouthpiece for them. There's a difference between the Prime Minister undertaking diplomacy in his capacity of leader of this country, state to state, and Corbyn utterly disgracing himself by taking money not to represent us but to represent them

The Saudis give us oil, the Iranians give us nothing but ****

I am happy to work with Muslims, Arabs whoever, I don't care if they are Salafi as fawk so long as they don't try to kill us and so long as we benefit.

I predict we won't have to put up with their crap for much longer (the Saudis, that is).

The mullahs are very unpopular with their own population, the Persians are quite a sophisticated and cosmopolitan people. I travelled to Tehran back in 2012, I met some amazing people there. I do not think the mullahs will still be in power twenty years from now.

We should re-orient our Middle Eastern alliances towards Iran (or rather, the three I's of West/South Asia; Israel, Iran and India). Couple that with increasing renewable energy technology and we will be able to uncouple ourselves from the gulf states

The Saudis give us oil, the Iranians give us nothing but ****


I am happy to work with Muslims, Arabs whoever, I don't care if they are Salafi as fawk so long as they don't try to kill us and so long as we benefit.

I'm sorry but you are utterly deranged. First you vote for the conservatives, now you're claiming to be a left-winger? What a muddled individual you are.

This is my party, I'll be here long after the paranoiacs and opportunistic weirdos like you have moved on. It's quite obvious your superficial interest in the party is based on some kind of emotional need to feel like you're part of a movement, rather than any genuine commitment to socialist or social democratic values.

How the bloody hell did you get into Tehran without them killing you?

I'm not happy to work with regimes that punish death, apostasy and adultery by death. Just another very good reason to bloody get on with developing renewables and get off our oil dependency, Mr. Greenest-Government-Ever Cameron.

You claimed New Labour privatised Royal Mail. They did not. You shouldn't be dishonest like that.

In addition, Labour's plans were to privatise 30% of it and keep Royal Mail primarily in public ownership, as well as the fact that it was pursuant to a European directive

You seem to be exceptionally confused. I asked you to adduce evidence that it was an imperial venture. You have adduced no such evidence.

The point I'm making is that nothing Corbyn does will have any effect.


We can isolate the Saudis, cut them off, buy oil from somewhere else, but so long as global dependence on oil is high, they can still sell their oil on global markets so the whinging and whining from the left about we should cut them off, won't actually have any positive outcome until that crap is worth less per gallon that water.

We'd be a hell of a lot less hypocritical, though, and I think that's worth it. Plus, anything that actually gets the government to start funding renewables is a plus in my books.

The second part of your post I agree with, investment, education for new engineers and scientists is badly needed, but I really couldn't care less about the hypocrisy argument. Corbyn takes money from Qatar and Iran even though they are brutal regimes, yet he criticises Cameron for making mutually beneficial deals with the Saudis, Corbyn is the real hypocrite.