What was so bad about Corbyn? Watch

QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#61
Report 1 month ago
#61
(Original post by Bang Outta Order)
...you're acting like a girlfriend
I'm not a huge fan of Corbyn as Labour leader. I think he was the wrong choice after the referendum. However, most of the issues you right-wing Kool Aid monkeys have against him are *******s, and like Corbyn, I am a man of principle and honesty, even if it is unpopular.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#62
Report 1 month ago
#62
(Original post by Bang Outta Order)
He honestly terrified me and people I know that he would politically and economically whore himself and UK out to Islamic countries, particularly those with high or suspected terrorist activities, in favour of insane far pseudo leftism.
See? This is just bonkers. I can't believe that anyone could actually, genuinely think this. But then, Brexit and Johnson. As I keep saying, the people are mostly idiots.
0
reply
deathbySTEP
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#63
Report 1 month ago
#63
(Original post by QE2)
Pick three from that list and we will look at the reality of the claim. (Hint: It's mostly *******s)
Let's start with the first one? Unfortunately you can't possibly deny that it's incorrect (as Corbyn himself did on Andrew Neil's show when he said he didn't meet anyone from the IRA)
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#64
Report 1 month ago
#64
(Original post by deathbyfm)
Let's start with the first one? Unfortunately
35 years ago, Corbyn invited two ex-NI prisoners to Westminster to discuss prison conditions in NI.
Explain how that makes him a worse PM than Johnson.

you can't possibly deny that it's incorrect (as Corbyn himself did on Andrew Neil's show when he said he didn't meet anyone from the IRA)
He didn't meet them as representatives of the IRA. If a cancer survivor is also a member of the BNP, if you meet them to discuss cancer survival, are you "meeting the BNP"?
Last edited by QE2; 1 month ago
0
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#65
Report 1 month ago
#65
(Original post by QE2)
I don't.
There are plenty of people who agree with me who are stupid, and others who disagree who are clearly not.
However, the evidence suggests that a large proportion of people are indeed idiots, and I don't see why we should pretend otherwise.
So you think that you are better then most other people. Who are you call other people idiots?
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#66
Report 1 month ago
#66
(Original post by QE2)
Pick three from that list and we will look at the reality of the claim. (Hint: It's mostly *******s)
Just as the individual ingredients of Marmite are not necessarily a no-no, the combination, the number, the consistency of the message is that to him and his fellow-travellers the western powers are a bunch of nasties while what we see as our state's enemies are all actually a nice well-meaning lot whom we should be allied to'.

Corbyn could not be trusted not to turn British policy quickly and completely against all that the country has stood for since the war, no matter what government has been in power, abandon our alliances and ostracise us from our current allies.

And that is without mentioning his ridiculous Marxist economic policies. What is to like?
1
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#67
Report 1 month ago
#67
(Original post by looloo2134)
So you think that you are better then most other people. Who are you call other people idiots?
"Better" is an entirely subjective term, so I would not claim to be "better" than anyone. Or "worse". However, it has been conclusively demonstrated over the last few years that in the context of economics and politics a good proportion of people are idiots who don't have a clue what is going on. The evidence is overwhelming.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#68
Report 1 month ago
#68
(Original post by Good bloke)
Just as the individual ingredients of Marmite are not necessarily a no-no, the combination, the number, the consistency of the message is that to him and his fellow-travellers the western powers are a bunch of nasties while what we see as our state's enemies are all actually a nice well-meaning lot whom we should be allied to'.

Corbyn could not be trusted not to turn British policy quickly and completely against all that the country has stood for since the war, no matter what government has been in power, abandon our alliances and ostracise us from our current allies.

And that is without mentioning his ridiculous Marxist economic policies. What is to like?
Again, this is just your own personal, politically biased opinion. It is also obvious nonsense. Put the Kool Aid down and try actually reading the Labour manifesto.
0
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#69
Report 1 month ago
#69
(Original post by QE2)
"Better" is an entirely subjective term, so I would not claim to be "better" than anyone. Or "worse". However, it has been conclusively demonstrated over the last few years that in the context of economics and politics a good proportion of people are idiots who don't have a clue what is going on. The evidence is overwhelming.
That because most people have other things to do with their time they have families, jobs, keeping a roof over their heads etc they can't spent their day reading about politics.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#70
Report 1 month ago
#70
(Original post by QE2)
Again, this is just your own personal, politically biased opinion. It is also obvious nonsense. Put the Kool Aid down and try actually reading the Labour manifesto.
The manifesto?

We will give workers a stake in the companies they work for – and a share of the profits they help create – by requiring large companies to set up Inclusive Ownership Funds (IOFs). Up to 10% of a company will be owned collectively by employees, with dividend payments distributed equally among all, capped at £500 a year, and the rest being used to top up the Climate Apprenticeship Fund

This confiscates 10% of shares from their current owners, gives them to employees, then confiscates most of the dividends those employees might expect to receive as sharehiolders and gives it to the government. Double confiscation. You do not get much more Marxist than that.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#71
Report 1 month ago
#71
(Original post by looloo2134)
That because most people have other things to do with their time they have families, jobs, keeping a roof over their heads etc they can't spent their day reading about politics.
In which case, they shouldn't be expected to make complex decisions on far-reaching and important issues.
However, if you have the vote, it is your responsibility to understand what you are voting for.
I propose voting machines that test your basic knowledge of the issues before allowing you to vote. Nothing too difficult. And you get another chance if you get it wrong.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#72
Report 1 month ago
#72
(Original post by Good bloke)
The manifesto?

We will give workers a stake in the companies they work for – and a share of the profits they help create – by requiring large companies to set up Inclusive Ownership Funds (IOFs). Up to 10% of a company will be owned collectively by employees, with dividend payments distributed equally among all, capped at £500 a year, and the rest being used to top up the Climate Apprenticeship Fund

This confiscates 10% of shares from their current owners, gives them to employees, then confiscates most of the dividends those employees might expect to receive as sharehiolders and gives it to the government. Double confiscation. You do not get much more Marxist than that.
Sounds good to me. Why should someone toiling for 40 hours a week at the coalface get a subsistence wage while the privileged elite sit at home getting even richer by doing nothing, off the backs of the noble worker?

If you think that 10% of the country should earn 90% of the wealth created by the work of 90% of the people, fair enough. There are obviously millions of ordinary working class people who support perpetuating such inequality against their own best interests. Mind that forelock doesn't pull out.
0
reply
TheDemeaning
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#73
Report 1 month ago
#73
because Corbyn aNtisEmiTic
0
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#74
Report 1 month ago
#74
(Original post by QE2)
In which case, they shouldn't be expected to make complex decisions on far-reaching and important issues.
However, if you have the vote, it is your responsibility to understand what you are voting for.
I propose voting machines that test your basic knowledge of the issues before allowing you to vote. Nothing too difficult. And you get another chance if you get it wrong.
So think that person who for example has learning disability/mental health problems who would not able to do basic knowledge test should not vote. By the why that wrong they have much of a right to as say as you. People with disabilities are more effected by what happen to NHS, social care, education, employment law, benefits and how the government funds it than other people.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#75
Report 1 month ago
#75
Here's an extract from a column by Dan Hodges. It is both on the money, and pleasingly, found within the pages of the reviled Daily Mail so bound to be ignored by those who should listen!

"When asked if they would use Britain's nuclear deterrent, the next Labour leader needs to say 'yes'. When asked if they would order police to shoot to kill terrorists running amok on the streets of Britain, the next Labour leader needs to say 'yes'. When asked if they would back environmental crusaders breaking the law to make their voices heard, the next Labour leader needs to say 'no'.

Then they need to tell their party to shut up. Shut up about the Palestinians. Shut up about Greta Thunberg. Shut up about Northern Ireland customs forms.

And start listening to what people in Bolsover and Sedgefield and Barrow actually care about..."
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#76
Report 1 month ago
#76
(Original post by QE2)
If you think that 10% of the country should earn 90% of the wealth created by the work of 90% of the people, fair enough. There are obviously millions of ordinary working class people who support perpetuating such inequality against their own best interests. Mind that forelock doesn't pull out.
Priviliged elite? The existing owners are pension funds and ordinary people. This would have confiscated 10% from virtually everyone, and the income would then have been largely confiscated again. Pure robbery.
0
reply
deathbySTEP
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#77
Report 1 month ago
#77
(Original post by QE2)
35 years ago, Corbyn invited two ex-NI prisoners to Westminster to discuss prison conditions in NI.
Explain how that makes him a worse PM than Johnson.


He didn't meet them as representatives of the IRA. If a cancer survivor is also a member of the BNP, if you meet them to discuss cancer survival, are you "meeting the BNP"?
1) He invited IRA convicts to Parliament which, irrespective of the purpose, was entirely inappropriate in the wake of the Brighton bombings
2) You haven't addressed the fact that he repeatedly denied meeting IRA members
2
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#78
Report 1 month ago
#78
If people need to ask what is so bad about corbyn they need to look at their own politics because it is extremely obvious what is wrong with him.
0
reply
nathan_nacu
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#79
Report 1 month ago
#79
(Original post by Pencil)
He was a very weak leader, which I think was his biggest downfall.

He stated when first elected that Labour would become a more democratic party, which never really happened. He also promoted more "grown up politics" which didn't last long. He caved in very quickly after becoming leader and wore a dark suit like everyone else, despite supporters loving his originality. He failed to remove his former lover Diane Abbot from the top job, despite her making racist comments and a series of blunders that would have got any other MP sacked or at the very least demoted. He couldn't make his mind up on Ken Livingston who seemed to stay suspended forever. He seemed to change his mind on the EU, despite a lifetime of being against it (I think from there on, he lost his reputation as an honest man). He was unable to take a tough stance when anti-semitism became an issue in the party and he made the party's official position on Brexit a lukewarm one, infuriating leave and remain voters.

This is against a backdrop of showing support for the IRA, showing support for Argentina's claim of The Falkland Islands, support for Gibraltar becoming Spanish, despite the people who live there wanting to stay British (it seems that he doesn't believe in self-determination) and he wants the UK to give up its nuclear weapons.

He only seemed strong and motivated when his position as Labour leader was challenged.
Lol Diane never made racist comments whatre u on about
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#80
Report 1 month ago
#80
(Original post by looloo2134)
So think that person who for example has learning disability/mental health problems who would not able to do basic knowledge test should not vote. By the why that wrong they have much of a right to as say as you. People with disabilities are more effected by what happen to NHS, social care, education, employment law, benefits and how the government funds it than other people.
Are you saying that people with disabilities are necessarily idiots? How dare you?!

Either the vote has some kind of meaning, or it is just a random allocation of likes. At the moment it is more like the latter.
(BTW, my preferred system is a technocracy with fixed-term appointments by random selection from a database of suitable candidates)
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

What's stopping you doing a masters?

It's too expensive (19)
24.68%
My career doesn't need one (8)
10.39%
I'm sick of studying (14)
18.18%
I can't find a course I want to do (3)
3.9%
I don't know enough about them (9)
11.69%
Nothing, I'm going to do it! (24)
31.17%

Watched Threads

View All