Printable version of thread

Posted by: Suedehead2 14th September 2015, 11:12 AM

For as long as Jeremy Corbyn is Labour leader, we are bound to see a string of ridiculous headlines so I thought it would be worth dedicating a thread to them.

The first entry comes from today's Sun which leads with a story saying that Corbyn wants to abolish the Army. From a quick glance at the story (I didn't look inside as that would have meant handling the rag), Corbyn once said that it would be good to be able to abolish the Army. By that, I think he meant that it would be good to live in a world where we didn't need an army. That's very different from saying that he would abolish it tomorrow if he had the power.

Posted by: popchartfreak 14th September 2015, 12:21 PM

Take your pick...

Unions Threaten Chaos After Corbyn Win (Telegraph)

Back Corbyn Or Quit Labour (Metro)

Sounds like he's going to lead a revolution in the streets as thats the only way to get democracy, and there is no room in the Labour Party for democracy and alternate viewpoints.

Still at least he ISN'T proposing baby-eating in the headlines. Yet.

Posted by: Qassändra 14th September 2015, 09:29 PM

He did also say that Britain doesn't need an army.

Posted by: popchartfreak 14th September 2015, 09:40 PM

This is true, just watched the clip. Presumably he doesn't think that another Hitler wannabee could ever arise in the modern world and it's just wasted money.

The day the human race has no members of it who aren't selfish greedy and ruthless is the day genetic engineering that the nazis would have killed for (even more) is mandatory. Not everyone is nice. The human world isn't perfect and never has been and never will be.

He should know that, he's been voting against most of his own party for 30 years....

Posted by: Qassändra 14th September 2015, 11:09 PM

We may as well just get it out of the way - most of the headlines that will be coming up in this thread would have people utterly outraged at a Tory counterexample, no matter how much you tried to explain it away with technicalities and 'they probably meant this'. We've all got far better things to do with our lives than spend three years defending a doddery, irritable old fool who has spent thirty years trading in conspiracy theories and moon on a stick bollocks. Does he eat babies? No. He probably wouldn't say a fucking thing if he was sat next to someone who was though, so long as he thought they otherwise had the right politics.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 14th September 2015, 11:13 PM

Not quite true.

Posted by: Suedehead2 14th September 2015, 11:14 PM

But apart from that, what do you think of him?

Posted by: Qassändra 14th September 2015, 11:14 PM

Oh, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Posted by: popchartfreak 15th September 2015, 12:34 PM

True. He more or less (and I paraphrase) said I'm sure there must be a circumstance where I would call in the troops but I can't think of an example off the top of my head.

Not very imaginative then given there are examples on the news every day in the rest of the world.

How about foreign rebels shooting down a British airliner?

How about Russian planes buzzing more than the coast of Bournemouth? Let 'em do what they want, fly over anywhere?

How about a convoy of ISIS rebels being warmy welcomed on the beaches as they carry on with their stated intention to change the world to their own image (and which incidentally includes murdering gay people by throwing them off high rise buildings)?

There was 3 off the top of my head. Perhaps I should run for Labour leader, I'm clearly a bit smarter than the current one.

Posted by: jark 15th September 2015, 05:59 PM

f***ing hell. You are absolutely unbearable right now.

Posted by: Qassändra 15th September 2015, 06:26 PM

And you're absolutely idiotic right now for thinking this third-rate old tit is anything other than an insanely overpromoted fairytale. I'm disgusted because he's not only wrong on principle, he's wrong on the strategy for how he's going to make his principles succeed now he's been elected. I could have a grudging respect if he was putting his best foot forward. I feel insulted that he isn't. His SUPPORTERS should feel insulted that he isn't - this is the first chance they've actually had in power in ages. Instead they've got a man who's being UTTERLY SILENT in the face of all attacks and refusing to go on or talk to the media - hence, what are people going to hear? 'The Conservatives said xyz about Corbyn. Corbyn refused to comment'. You think that's a formula for success for anybody but the small band of already politically active people who've decided they love him?

His survival depends entirely on him realising this and changing how he deals with the media, the press, and his speeches before his supporters realise they haven't nominated an inspiring Owen Jones figure with a beard - they've elected a rambling geography teacher who is nothing other than the tremendously lucky cipher for their politics.

Posted by: Rooney 15th September 2015, 06:40 PM

Don't tell me you've fallen to the left!

While I normally disagree with Tirren, I think he's quite right on Corbyn - fairytale is very apt for his believers. There is no way he's going to be able to swing the marginal voters to Labour.

Posted by: AntoineTTe 16th September 2015, 12:00 PM

I'm currently in love with Jeremy Christ.

Posted by: Common Sense 16th September 2015, 02:14 PM

He does have a point actually as we're an island so any attack has to come from the sea or air. We just need the navy and air force.

Posted by: JamesP 16th September 2015, 06:21 PM

NEWS OF THE DAY: Agnostic Republican doesn't sing song thanking God for an unelected hierarchy.

Meanwhile the Tories have managed to sneak through destroying working tax credits. Well done to all involved. 🙈

Posted by: Qassändra 16th September 2015, 06:29 PM

Well in particular, well done to the man who made the front pages about him rather than having the sense to realise that if you want the topic to be tax credits, you give your enemies as little ammunition as possible to make it about you.

(And before we get the 'HE WAS DAMNED EITHER WAY', the response if he did sing would've been the eminently reasonable 'uh, I'm standing to be the PM of this country, of course I'm going to sing its national anthem', which would've done a tremendous job of helping him frame that the papers are overplaying their hand in attacking him any way they can. As it goes, there'll be plenty of people out there who haven't made their minds up on Corbyn who think 'well...they do have a point'.)

Posted by: Brett-Butler 16th September 2015, 06:40 PM

For someone who doesn't believe in God, to sing "God Save the Queen" is basically the same as saying "Don't Save the Queen" anyway, so there's no problem.

Posted by: Qassändra 16th September 2015, 06:43 PM

I mean also it really is the kind of obnoxious Year 10 logic behind the kinds of atheists that make a point of standing there in silence during the hymns if they have to go to church. You're at a ceremony bigger than you, just have a bit of respect and JOIN IN FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

Posted by: JamesP 16th September 2015, 07:42 PM

Disagree entirely. If you don't believe in a system, you don't then SING ABOUT IT. Just yesterday, the tabloids were calling him a HYPOCRITE for accepting his honours from the Queen. Now they're calling him insulting and the biggest insult to Britain that's ever lived. It's entitirely laughable.

Posted by: Suedehead2 16th September 2015, 08:20 PM

If we had a National anthem, there wouldn't have been the same problem. Unfortunately, we have the only anthem in a democracy that isn't about the country at all.

Posted by: popchartfreak 16th September 2015, 09:29 PM

molehill mountain. I also dont sing the national anthem, never have. Apart from anything else it's cruel to subject anyone within earshot to my vocal talents and it's a dreadful dreary song. He should have mimed like I always did at school assembly.

Posted by: Qassändra 16th September 2015, 10:01 PM

And like I said, if he'd just reasonably said 'yes, I'm standing to be Prime Minister. That involves receiving intelligence reports from the Queen - would you want an Opposition leader who could form the next government to not have access to those reports? Would you want an Opposition leader to not sing the national anthem?' plenty of people would've looked and thought the media were just reaching. As it stands, plenty of people will now think they have a point.

It's also worth noting that in their heart of hearts, Salmond and Sturgeon are almost certainly republicans and would almost certainly like to see the monarchy scrapped in an independent Scotland. Both are also intelligent enough to know that it's a fight not worth having if they want to win on the bigger picture. The SNP only started actually making proper inroads after the 90s once they realised that howling at the moon and picking every single battle that comes up gets you nowhere when it comes to winning the unconverted to a cause.

Posted by: steve201 16th September 2015, 11:34 PM

Eh most of the SNP aren't Republicans though. (To all SNP supporters on BJ funny the hypocrisy of the British media to this issue but when the SNP dare to show patriotism it's all narrow nationalism and terribly unjustified, but it's ok in this instance).

This thread is going to be awful for the next few years with even Labour supporters not getting behind the leader just because they disagree with his views

I personally think JC is a breath of fresh air to the current political arena. I don't necessarily think he will win but the topics and debates he is reintroducing to the centre ground is certainly a good thing.

On specific non issues like not singing the national bloody anthem who the heck cares?? Can someone not respect various things like this In whatever way they want - is that not what the Battle of Britain was fought for - freedom of thought??

I think it's bloody Brillant he didn't sing it, he plays by his rules not the establishment media.

Posted by: Suedehead2 16th September 2015, 11:45 PM

But you've missed the point. As a previous poster said, he was criticised for accepting membership of the Privy Council which meant having to grovel to the queen. Some people chose to call that hypocritical. Then, when he sticks to his republican beliefs, he is criticised by the same people. Of course, you may say that these inevitable dilemmas show why Corbyn's election was a big mistake. Labour's problem is that it was a mistake made by an awful lot of members and supporters.

Posted by: Qassändra 16th September 2015, 11:51 PM

No, you're (literally, given it was in that post) missing the point I'm making. Of course he's going to be criticised by those people either way. Therefore, being as reasonable as possible in the face of that makes it more likely that people stop taking those hostile to him seriously, and makes it far easier for him to frame them as being hyperbolic and criticising him on literally any grounds they can find. Which is kind of exactly the sort of thing you need to be doing if you're going up against a supremely hostile media - getting them to overplay their hand to a point where they discredit themselves.

Posted by: Qassändra 16th September 2015, 11:54 PM

I also still haven't seen a single person engage with the basic point that if you want to talk about tax credit cuts happening that day and you *know* you're up against a media desperate to make you the story instead, it's really fucking stupid to do ANYTHING that gives them the chance to do so. Sure, one or two might have tried to lead with 'CORBYN HYPOCRITE SINGS THE NATIONAL ANTHEM'. But literally every newspaper today - left, right and centre - led with him not singing the national anthem. There was literally no effort on Corbyn's part to make the tax credit cuts the story here.

Posted by: Danny 16th September 2015, 11:55 PM

And it goes beyond just them - even some of those of us who didn't vote for him want him to be given a good proper run at it (two years atleast).




And how well did Miliband's approach of caving into the right-wing press time after time work for him?

Posted by: Qassändra 17th September 2015, 12:01 AM

What are we defining here as 'caving into the right-wing press'? Because replying to any right-wing press trying to criticise him had he sung it with 'I'm standing to lead the country, of course I'm going to sing the bloody national anthem' wouldn't really have looked like him caving into them in any way (particularly as him singing in the first place would've been on his own terms rather than 'responding' to anything - particularly after a solid five months of having established himself as his own man).

As it is, what he's done with 'I'll sing it in future' is the equivalent of what happened when Ed Miliband posing with The Sun - he's lost points for the principle in the first place and now he's just made himself look weak and prevaricating by backtracking immediately. Which brings us to the beginning - what was the fucking point in the first place? He's literally lost a day of potential headlines for the tax credit cuts (i.e. one of *the* signature things you'd think he'd be vaulting on), set up a moment of infamy which he won't really be able to erase easily, done something that affirms the Tory definition that he's not especially loyal and patriotic, and all for the sake of...what exactly, now he's said he's going to sing it in future?

And again:

Posted by: Danny 17th September 2015, 12:08 AM

You're overthinking this: we all know Corbyn is never going to be PM, and that he'll probably go before 2020 even if he was a "success". The whole point of his leadership is to move the centre of gravity to the left. He's the trailblazer putting "outrageous" ideas on the table today, so that those same ideas won't seem so outrageous when the next guy (preferrably a younger and more media-friendly one) comes along saying them tomorrow.

Posted by: Qassändra 17th September 2015, 12:11 AM

I mean, the Tories *are* trying to make sure that all of this sticks to the Labour Party as a whole. This isn't going to etch-a-sketch quite so easily.

I'd also suggest that if he wants to shift the window, focusing his fire on tax credit cuts would probably be more effective at trailblazing things for his wing than...uh, the right for the Leader of the Opposition to not sing the national anthem without consequence? It's a little second order as a priority for our brave new socialist future, shall we say.

Posted by: steve201 17th September 2015, 08:27 PM

I agree with Danny here - most British people would never even have thought that a politican would not sing the national anthem but it's brought that thread of thought/idea to the public spotlight and highlights the inequality at the heart of British democracy - an unelected head of state.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 18th September 2015, 05:50 AM

Not sure he's fighting for the right not to sing the national anthem, he just didn't feel he should given his views ( I don't blame him, it's a load of dirge). Of course the papers were going to go on about this, but they were anyway whatever he did and eventually this kind of constant unprovoked attack on a leader of the opposition (see: Ed Milliband) does wear thin on the general public with time and tends to have the opposite effect.

I do enjoy the Sun and other right leaning publications calling Jeremy Corbyn out for being a hypocrite for accepting to be part of the privy council on Tuesday and then being (mock) outraged when he didn't sing the bloody awful national anthem and instead stood in respectful silence, when as you say Steve the SNP and their national pride is tarred by the same paper as being extreme and dangerous - but it's OK for us to be jingoistic and nationalistic to apparently appear RESPECTFUL. Also I loved Owen Patterson telling him to grow up about refusing to kneel in front of the Queen when arguably those who take part in all these stupid traditions actually need to grow up. It's not 1815 anymore and there are far more important issues like y'know the biggest migration of people since WWII.

I also really enjoyed PMQs this week and robo-cameron having to reboot a few times to deal with genuine questions from outside the Westminster bubble. It would have been nice to see Jeremy challenge his responses a bit though.

Posted by: steve201 18th September 2015, 08:54 PM

Yeh agreed on all of the above. They really need to modernise Westminster overall.

Thoroughly enjoyed QT last night too and was pleasantly surprised by John McDonnells responses especially his apologies. The guy from the Telegraph was ridiculous when he said when the national anthem comes on you should sing with a wide mouth and make sure your dressed with top button done. He was also ridiculous to say JC is extreme - thoroughly enjoyed Alex Salmond retorting saying he believes the Telegraph is the extreme voice!!

Posted by: Suedehead2 18th September 2015, 09:13 PM

The Telegraph bloke was dreadful. The look on his face when most of the other panelists were speaking spoke volumes.

John McDonnell was surprisingly good. I'm sure many people were expecting to see him ranting most of the time, so his calm delivery worked well. I didn't always agree with him, but his style at least made it easy to listen to him. His apologies also went beyond the standard "I apologise for any offence I may have caused" as well. The problem for him and Corbyn is that they have spent their entire parliamentary careers with no expectation of ever being on the front bench. That means that there are bound to be many statements which they would rather forget.

Of course, Sandi Toksvig was also very good. Liz Truss's performance was on a par with this classic



And this

Posted by: steve201 19th September 2015, 12:33 PM

Haha autocue malfunction!!

Posted by: Suedehead2 20th September 2015, 10:56 AM

We have some more gems. Some papers are criticising Corbyn for not attending the opening of the rugby World Cup. No doubt the same papers would have been just as critical if he had accepted "capitalist corporate hospitality".

Not to be outdone, the Sunday Express are claiming that his great great grandfather was the master of a workhouse. Given that he wasn't born until about 100 years later, I'm not sure what he is supposed to have done about that.

Unfortunately for those of us who despise the press, it seems to be working. In a poll this weekend, 42% disapprove of Corbyn. No doubt many of them wouldn't have known who he was a month or so ago. The other politicians to have come to prominence in the last couple months (John McDonnell, Tom Watson, Tim Farron) all have high "don't know" ratings (67% in Farron's case), but Corbyn's is very low.

Posted by: Suedehead2 20th September 2015, 10:58 AM

It's not just that (assuming you are right about it not working). She has obviously been told to look around the audience and to smile. She just hasn't grasped how to make it look natural.

Posted by: popchartfreak 20th September 2015, 03:15 PM

Oh entirely predictable they would go all guns blazing for him, after all he threatens the amount of money and power over the working class that they hold. It's just a pity that so many people who should know better than to read the toerag press still do, and like the Fox Network, the day after day endless mudslinging starts to stick and people start repeating it.

People are easily swayed, and emotionally manipulated by those that shout loudly. Sadly, and sometimes happily.

Posted by: princess_lotti 13th October 2015, 05:58 PM

Not sure if this is the right thread, but have just seen this headline on my facebook today: Corbyn stripped of 'Right Honourable' title by QUEEN after he snubs Privy Council invite (http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/611562/Jeremy-Corbyn-loses-Rt-Honourable-title-snubs-Privy-Council-invite)

I'm interested to see how this will play out

Posted by: Suedehead2 13th October 2015, 07:09 PM

The story is inaccurate. While he has been listed as Rt. Hon in some places (including Hansard), that is premature. He hasn't been sworn in yet, so shouldn't have been given the title. No doubt the story (I'm not going to add to Express ad revenue by looking at their site) also fails to mention that Cameron missed the first two meetings after he became Tory leader.

Posted by: Suedehead2 10th November 2015, 12:25 AM

Time for an update.

Various tabloids have attacked Corbyn for his behaviour at Sunday's Remembrance Day service. The Sun said that he didn't bow his head enough when he laid his wreath. The Mail were outraged at the fact that his hand-written message dared to suggest that it might be quite a good idea if we didn't keep having lots of wars.

Neither paper bothered to report what happened after the television cameras were off them. Cameron hotfooted it to a nice VIP meal. Corbyn stayed behind to applaud the parade of veterans and to talk to people.

Posted by: Qassändra 10th November 2015, 09:57 AM

Not actually true.

Posted by: Suedehead2 10th November 2015, 10:59 AM

Are you saying the independent lied?

Posted by: Qassändra 10th November 2015, 11:06 AM

You'll notice if you look at the story on the Independent now any mention of 'VIP lunches' has been removed. More poor fact-checking on their part to be honest.

http://littleatoms.com/society/jeremy-corbyn-and-slap-lunch-meme

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/663664935680024577

In the scheme of things, a fairly insignificant small lie, but I'm not sure what ground the Twitter pro-Corbyn spinners think they'll have criticising 'smears' (which mostly tend to be verbatim quotes which they object to fairly clear interpretations of, rather than total fabrications) in future if they're going to resort to outright lies in trying to set the agenda back.

Posted by: popchartfreak 10th November 2015, 01:16 PM

As Ian Hislop commented on HIGNFY, Corbyn's "anti-war" stance might have more weight to it if he came out and denounced all terrorism and acts of violence by all humans everywhere and acknowledged, perhaps, that bombing innocent victims for political motives loses you the moral high ground. Two wrongs do not ever make a right. He should carefully watch last week's Dr Who episode....

Posted by: steve201 10th November 2015, 09:38 PM

I'm pretty sure that's what he means in his stance....

Posted by: popchartfreak 10th November 2015, 10:04 PM

Hmm not sure his actions over the years, talking with terrorist groups, constitutes anti-war or anti-violence. Whether you agree with the causes or not, it's more useful to act as moderator to get a just and lasting peace rather than take sides in unwinnable conflicts based on hate and history. "Wouldn't it be nice not to have war" is a fairly bland statement everyone would agree with - but is essentially wishful thinking.

Posted by: Suedehead2 10th November 2015, 10:07 PM

John Major and Tony Blair both initiated talks with Sinn Fein. Does that mean they supported terrorism? There are many ways of persuading terrorists to announce violence. Talking to them is one of those ways. Giving in to all their demands is another. I know which one I prefer.

Posted by: Qassändra 10th November 2015, 10:46 PM

They also talked to the DUP. I doubt Corbyn would have been caught dead with an Israeli settler until he got called out on it.

Posted by: Suedehead2 11th November 2015, 12:28 AM

And Thatcher dismissed Nelson Mandela as a terrorist, yet was perfectly happy to talk to Menachem Begin.

Corbyn's views on Israel-Palestine and Ireland are not exactly a secret. Therefore, he was in a better position to influence Sinn Fein / IRA than the DUP.

If a politician can make some progress by talking to a terrorist group, then that is a good thing. It is certainly better than Cameron grovelling in front of Saudi rulers.

Posted by: steve201 11th November 2015, 12:30 AM

I'm not sure anyone has evidence Corbyn ever didn't talk to unionists at any rate he was well ahead of his time talking to republicans and realised the only way to resolving the conflict was to talk to ALL the main participants.

Posted by: Suedehead2 11th November 2015, 12:33 AM

An additional point.

Talking to the DUP was not considered particularly controversial at the time. Talking to Sinn Fein was. Major and Blair should both be applauded for having the courage to talk to Sinn Fein, even if Major might be criticised for saying that the very idea made him "sick to the stomach" at a time when he knew full well that the talks were happening.

Posted by: Suedehead2 11th November 2015, 12:33 AM

Fair point!

Posted by: steve201 11th November 2015, 12:35 AM

In hindsight it's funny how centrist tories now are in awe of Mandela and the like even though they were terrorists before the 90s.

I'm surprised the Brits still don't look at George Washington as a terrorist for his role in the fight for US independence.

Posted by: Suedehead2 11th November 2015, 12:43 AM

I think they'd prefer not to be reminded of past comments. Just like Cameron would like to avoid any mention of his expenses-paid trip to South Africa in the apartheid years. That is, the trip that happened at around the same time that Jeremy Corbyn was arrested for protesting outside South Africa House.

Posted by: steve201 11th November 2015, 12:44 AM

Indeed Thatchers policies of making criminals out of acts of political violence shows a lack of understanding of the Irish conflict and made things much worse. Although this was partly as a reaction to the murder of her friend Aire Nieve!

Posted by: popchartfreak 11th November 2015, 10:55 AM

all very fair comments, and hypocrites should be outed in politics at every opportunity, but I still think ALL politicians need to be practical and even-handed when it comes to conflict, and condemn all atrocities by all sides. Saying the Ends justify the Means, just a big "No it doesn't" is all it takes. People die. A true pacifist does not condone random violence in any circumstances, and true believers in democracy believe that is the only reasonable method for change but it can't be suddenly imposed it needs persuasion. I'm not a pacifist because I believe one has the right to defend oneself from violence, but that doesn't include the right to defend yourself by striking at someone else first or tit for tat an eye for an eye and all that goes with that.

I'd just like Jezza to make his views perfectly clear when it comes to violence, and condemning those that do it. I would also like a world free from war and conflict and injustice.

Posted by: Kath 11th November 2015, 02:39 PM

Corbyn snubs national treasure Incy Wincy Spider!

https://twitter.com/BBCLouise/status/664429993196462080/video/1

The shame!

Posted by: steve201 11th November 2015, 03:24 PM

I would argue JC does exactly that as i said do we have any proof he doesnt talk to all the participants, its just in Britain its easy to show pictures of him with Gerry Adams in the 1980s repeatedly to convince people he is at ease with people who resort to these methods.

In relation to believing you have the right to defend yourself but not to 'strike at someone else first' I totally agree and i am not sure you are making a comment in relation to republicans in N.Ireland? At any rate republicans would say they joined the IRA due to events like Bloody Sunday. The IRA only came into the new conflict in 1970 4 years after the first death by the UVF in 1966.

At any rate the Irish conflict is one that goes back hundreds of years and its very hard to say who started what without going through a 1000 year history lesson although we dont know who started it British government policy throughout the years definately lengthened and exacerbated the conflict.

Posted by: popchartfreak 11th November 2015, 07:28 PM

Just general conflict comments I wasn't being specific, fairly obviously everyone thinks they are fighting for a just cause or they wouldn't do it. The British government has a lot of historical decisions to criticise (though most governments aren't exactly free from criticism to a lesser or greater degree), but it doesn't help the here and now and those alive now to refer back to events that happened before most of us were born, as if someone alive today is in some way to blame for something that happened centuries (or however long) ago. The ones to blame are those who took/take decisions, but in any case that still doesn't solve the current problems and issues, which are the most important thing to concentrate on.

Peace takes generations to become lasting, and human rights are really quite a recent development. It's within my living memory that sections of the UK population were granted equality, and within living memory generally that women got the vote. With regard to the IRA, none of the methods of violence worked politically, it just entrenched opinion and lost the cause sympathy. Things only changed when one terrorist attack was so awful it altered public opinion and people sat down to talk and negotiate. Which should have been the attitude of all parties concerned decades earlier to avoid escalation.

Posted by: steve201 12th November 2015, 11:25 PM

Yeh exactly right I abhor the methods they used but being a key student of Irish history and politics I understand WHY they occurred and don't believe Martin McGuinness was born with a gun in his hand he reacted to the environment he grew up in and as you say ultimately made the choice of the road to take.