The Student Room Group

Dishonest Jeremy Corbyn avoids the questions again

Scroll to see replies

Original post by AlexanderHam


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


This isn't an opinion, this is simply justifying why you think voters shouldn't vote for him. Clearly we can make up our own minds? Thanks.

Furthermore why is supporting NATO a big deal? I'm sure he's still going to play an active role if elected for the sake of his party and the country.
Original post by the bear
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.


I would personally disagree with that assessment. There is absolutely still economic exploitation. I see no reason why anyone should have to work three jobs simultaneously, each on zero-hours contracts and often up to 60 hours a week, to earn just barely enough to survive. And yet that is the fate of many cleaners today. They are but one example.

There is also great wealth disparity and much of the enormous increase going to the very top (not the top 1%, I'm talking about the top 0.001%) and much of it has been earned in ways that do not actually represent productive industry and enterprise but are instead artifacts of the particular financial and economic system we have.

One example is leveraged buy-outs by asset-strippers. In other words, the strippers use the company they haven't even bought yet as collateral for the loan, and once the deal goes through they load that debt onto the purchased company's books. Part of that large loan will be used to pay large commissions to the asset-strippers so these guys immediately make a few million pounds each on the deal. The company is now so loaded with debt that often it has to be broken up and liquidated, often selling off plant and machinery to retire the debt. This happened to many factories in the West; companies that could have been made profitable again with investments in technology and innovation, but instead the asset-strippers sold off the plant and machinery to places like China in order to cover the costs of the purchase and their own fat commissions. China started a lot of factories this way.

That is not a form of capitalism that really has justification. Others are in the derivatives market where there isn't even a connection to a real product or commodity, like the fact you can contract a derivative that bets on the number of twins that will be born in Kansas next February. That is casino stuff, and yet it's part of our financial industry.

I absolutely believe we need major economic reforms. But Corbyn is not the man to do it. He is completely untrustworthy on foreign and defence policy, he lies about his past connections to terrorist groups and he would undermine decades of relationships that have been built up with Europe and the United States. Can you imagine Emily Thornberry as Foreign Sec?

So I cannot support Labour to put Corbyn in power. These economic reforms can wait another five years, but the damage Corbyn would do would be permanent
Original post by BigMan Ting
This isn't an opinion, this is simply justifying why you think voters shouldn't vote for him. Clearly we can make up our own minds? Thanks.

What are you, a child?

I expressed an opinion about Corbyn. People can either agree with it or disagree with. They can express that agreement or disagreement with posts. No-one is forcing you to do anything.

Furthermore why is supporting NATO a big deal?


Why can't Corbyn give a straight answer about whether he still thinks NATO is a "danger to world peace"?
Original post by AlexanderHam


Oh wow, this is going to be interesting, although I wonder if they also interviewed Thersa May.
Original post by glad-he-ate-her
Yes and i wasnt trying to say you shouldn`t,


Two or three Corbyn threads in six weeks, on a News and Current Affairs board?

but it just seems a big effort on your behalf for little yield


I think you're confused about the purpose of this message board and these threads.
Original post by JMR2017
No he never believed those things, you have just cherry picked quotes out of context like some of the media do too.


How is it out of context that he called NATO a "danger to world peace"? Why don't you explain to us the precise context of the event he was at, the preceding and subsequent paragraphs of his speech, and how I have misrepresented it?

Just because I'm pointing out something that makes Corbyn look bad doesn't mean it's "out of context". It's salient
Original post by AlexanderHam
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


Just relax a bit...
No party leader is ever going to say they'll resign if they lose because it could change the narrative in a way you don't want to happen.
You don't have to be "fanatical" to correctly say that the poll gap has closed massively... they have, and you can't deny that.
It's looking like his share of the national vote will be significantly higher than Ed Milibands; having said that I don't think that's good enough. Gaining seats would be enough to stay on in my opinion (I'm aware that that's unlikely).
Original post by AlexanderHam
How is it out of context that he called NATO a "danger to world peace"? Why don't you explain to us the precise context of the event he was at, the preceding and subsequent paragraphs of his speech, and how I have misrepresented it?

Just because I'm pointing out something that makes Corbyn look bad doesn't mean it's "out of context". It's salient


If NATO is continuously provoking Russia than of course it's a danger to world peace... bear in mind that the reason for it's creation in the first place was to oppose Russia... that makes it a relic of the past that's whole purpose is dividing the world into different factions which of course is a danger to world peace
I am amazed so many people support Corbyn or Labour. If it was not for the biased BBC, guardian or other Trotskyist outlets, Conservative support would be in the region of 70%.
Original post by Whiskey&Freedom
I am amazed so many people support Corbyn or Labour. If it was not for the biased BBC, guardian or other Trotskyist outlets, Conservative support would be in the region of 70%.


So you think that in general the media is biased towards Jeremy Corbyn? That is a sick, sick joke...

Unless your a troll, which you probably are nvm
Original post by RuneFreeze
If NATO is continuously provoking Russia than of course it's a danger to world peace

If this is what Corbyn believes then he should say so openly so the electorate can judge him accordingly.

On the substance of the issue, NATO is not provoking Russia; you need to engage in some industrial-strength doublethink in order to come to that conclusion in spite of the history of the last 5 years. It's not NATO or a NATO member state that annexed the territory of a neighbouring state and started the bloodiest conflict in Europe since the Balkan Wars.

It's not NATO or its members that have hacked into the emails of Russian politicians and leaked them in order to try to influence their presidential elections. It's not NATO whipping up ethnic irridentism by claiming that Russia has a right to "protect" ethnic Russians in the baltic states (just as Hitler claimed for the Sudeten Germans). And it's not NATO that has carried out simulated nuclear bomb runs against Russian territory.

Russia is the clear aggressor, and Putin has created a climate where Russians fear they are under siege by the West. This has been done to distract the Russians from the looting of their country by the oligarchs, from their crumbling economy and the increasing authoritarianism of Putin's government. Any left-wing person who refuses to acknowledge these things is no progressive at all.


bear in mind that the reason for it's creation in the first place was to oppose Russia... that makes it a relic of the past


It was created to provide a common front for the defence of Western Europe against Soviet aggression. The fact it was created for that purpose doesn't therefore mean that it can only serve that purpose and no other. There is still a need for an alliance of Western nations. In fact, Russia's belligerent behaviour is showing just how relevant NATO is to the modern era.

But the issue here is not the usefulness or otherwise of NATO. That policy question has already been decided, and your mind is not open enough to consider logical arguments. The issue here is that Corbyn refuses to tell us whether he still thinks NATO is a danger to world peace.

It's a pretty fundamental question as it relates to his foreign policy, and we deserve to know the answer
Original post by AlexanderHam
I'm expressing an opinion. That's what this website is supposed to be about.


Is there noone in meatspace you can talk to about politics?
Original post by PQ
Is there noone in meatspace you can talk to about politics?


Given you have 37,000 posts under your belt and you've been on this website for 13 years, isn't it rather odd for you to take that line?
Original post by AlexanderHam
Given you have 37,000 posts under your belt and you've been on this website for 13 years, isn't it rather odd for you to take that line?


13 years, 37,000+ posts and I've started less than half the number of threads you have in less than one year. That seems like a cry for help to me for you to put this much effort into broadcasting your opinions - so I figured I'd reach out and ask after your social support offline. But if you take offence at my genuine concern for your wellbeing then I apologise.
OP, it does seem Corbyn's in a bit of a no-win situation with you. If he sticks to his positions, he's an extremist polarising the party and taking it apart. If he compromises or moderates for the sake of party unity and the election, he's a sellout.

Obviously, there are things I'd rather he'd stuck to, and things he'd done differently. But he's done enough to get my vote, which is more than I can say for any other Labour leader in my lifetime.
Original post by Whiskey&Freedom
I am amazed so many people support Corbyn or Labour. If it was not for the biased BBC, guardian or other Trotskyist outlets, Conservative support would be in the region of 70%.


And what of the Tory-leaning outlets, which are considerably more numerous? In terms of proportion of circulation, the press has had an observable Tory bias at every election since 1945, except for the three won by Blair - i.e. at each election, the proportion of newspaper circulation made up by Tory-backing papers exceeded the actual Tory popular vote, often substantially so, while the Labour-backing papers were invariably a smaller proportion of the eventual Labour vote.
Original post by AlexanderHam
If this is what Corbyn believes then he should say so openly so the electorate can judge him accordingly.

On the substance of the issue, NATO is not provoking Russia; you need to engage in some industrial-strength doublethink in order to come to that conclusion in spite of the history of the last 5 years. It's not NATO or a NATO member state that annexed the territory of a neighbouring state and started the bloodiest conflict in Europe since the Balkan Wars.

It's not NATO or its members that have hacked into the emails of Russian politicians and leaked them in order to try to influence their presidential elections. It's not NATO whipping up ethnic irridentism by claiming that Russia has a right to "protect" ethnic Russians in the baltic states (just as Hitler claimed for the Sudeten Germans). And it's not NATO that has carried out simulated nuclear bomb runs against Russian territory.

Russia is the clear aggressor, and Putin has created a climate where Russians fear they are under siege by the West. This has been done to distract the Russians from the looting of their country by the oligarchs, from their crumbling economy and the increasing authoritarianism of Putin's government. Any left-wing person who refuses to acknowledge these things is no progressive at all.




It was created to provide a common front for the defence of Western Europe against Soviet aggression. The fact it was created for that purpose doesn't therefore mean that it can only serve that purpose and no other. There is still a need for an alliance of Western nations. In fact, Russia's belligerent behaviour is showing just how relevant NATO is to the modern era.

But the issue here is not the usefulness or otherwise of NATO. That policy question has already been decided, and your mind is not open enough to consider logical arguments. The issue here is that Corbyn refuses to tell us whether he still thinks NATO is a danger to world peace.

It's a pretty fundamental question as it relates to his foreign policy, and we deserve to know the answer


I never defended Russia's actions in Ukraine, and I firmly believe that Russia under Putin's leadership is indeed a threat to world peace. But simply acknowledging that fact doesn't render NATO the innocent protectorate of world peace that you want it to be.
Most Ukrainians, as well as it's elected government, were opposed to joining the military alliance hostile to Russia as suggested by the president. This threat was a factor that triggered the crisis in the first place.
After the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, NATO wasn't, despite having lost it's reason for existence. Surely, if peace had been the aim, it could have formed a new collective security arrangement, including Russia, under the collective guise of the United Nations? Instead it simply became the advance guard of a new US dominated world order. Within this arrangement, unilateral war was waged across the world such as in Yugoslavia, and relentlessly expanded eastwards despite there being a US pledge not to do so.
Why was there a US - backed coup to overthrow the corrupt but elected President who refused to sign a deal that brought Ukraine closer to the EU in a military deal, but was exclusive of any similar deals with Russia?
Russia may well have been involved in leaking embarrassing DNC emails along with Wikileaks, and almost certainly favoured Donald Trump over Hilary Clinton. I'm not in any way defending that, but at the same time I won't defend the countless times that the US has done much worse with regard to interfering with other countries democratic process. After all, the information that become known was still true, and highlighted the very concerning fact that the DNC was incredibly biased towards Hilary Clinton; just saying Russia may have been involved is just a deflection if your not going to also acknowledge that the information contained within was also true.
Also, do you really think that it made a difference to the outcome to the election?
Original post by the bear
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.


I must have missed the part where the proles loosing industry to China resulted in post scarcity communism.

Like you would ever give a **** about down trodden workers lol


Original post by anarchism101
And what of the Tory-leaning outlets, which are considerably more numerous? In terms of proportion of circulation, the press has had an observable Tory bias at every election since 1945, except for the three won by Blair - i.e. at each election, the proportion of newspaper circulation made up by Tory-backing papers exceeded the actual Tory popular vote, often substantially so, while the Labour-backing papers were invariably a smaller proportion of the eventual Labour vote.


Also Tony Blair uses words to describe the right wing press as a cartel.

Original post by anarchism101
OP, it does seem Corbyn's in a bit of a no-win situation with you. If he sticks to his positions, he's an extremist polarising the party and taking it apart. If he compromises or moderates for the sake of party unity and the election, he's a sellout.



It's like when paxman tried to have a go at him for not sticking wildly unpopular positions such as abolishing the monarchy in his manifesto. If he had put that in that turd of an interviewer would be having a go at him over it. Not like we ever see journalists have a go at right wing Tories for not getting their death penalty fetish in their manifestos.


Original post by AlexanderHam
If this is what Corbyn believes then he should say so openly so the electorate can judge him accordingly.



I'd rather he be good at realpolitik.
(edited 6 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you