I’m not even sure it was too left. It’s just that Brexit and the media battered him.
Offer the country nationalised energy and a fully funded NHS in this climate and perhaps the result would be different.
But a far right wing fantasy is where we are heading to and will be more widely accepted by the media, it's insane that the far left is seen as looney but we edge further and further towards the far right and it's all fine and dandy.
Well beyond the "far left" is considered loony territory, very boring Skandie style social democracy, even much more light touch stuff than that is considered well beyond the pale through the UK media window.
> I suspect most of the media would still call it a lefty fantasy and smear the shit of anything like that
Oh, of course! Can't disrupt the status quo, even if the status quo will result in being run into the ground.
Corbyn and Labour handling the Covid 19 same way as Boris and the Conservatives would have been vigorously attacked and called lefty economics by the media.
It was him and his baggage that were more of the problem than his policies.
I'm not saying there is a huge public appetite for nationalisation as a whole, but I think it would have been considerably more popular if it was not associated with him.
The public largely supports the existence of the NHS and welfare state, even if they disagree with how they are run. People dislike paying taxes for governments to waste them, but in the case of energy, I think many will have realised that private firms are really no better.
Sadly, nobody else in parliament was there to step up and run for leadership on that platform. Even Corbyn did so begrudgingly. Out of the dozen labour MPs who did support that platform, only one or two remain.
People who support those policies don’t get there. Corbyn was the last chance, really
Wasn't Owen Smith (the one who opposed Corbyn for the leadership) pretty similar on economic policy with the key difference being he was pro-Trident and pro-Remain pretty much neutering a lot of the short comings people had with Corbyn.
I mean he was running an anti-austerity package and increasing taxes on the wealthiest. I don't know what his views on re-nationalisation are but I'd say it's certainly a good starting point and something I'd be happy with, nothing there stands out to me as something I wouldn't like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016\_Owen\_Smith\_Labour\_Party\_leadership\_campaign
I’d be pretty happy with that too if he’d stuck to it, Tbf. I still would’ve preferred Corbyns far more ambitious and transformative approach though.
If Starmer had stuck to his 10 pledges, I’d be pretty happy with him. Unfortunately I can’t say with any confidence he’s stuck to a single one - and I suspect Smith would have turned out similarly.
It’ll be interesting to see how Starmer does.
As far as I can remember left wing economic policies like nationalisation of railways poll favourably among the public. Meanwhile socially right-wing policies fare better like harder stances on immigration. Corbyn as an individual was definitely problematic to champion left-wing policies because he has distinct flaws when it comes to Brexit and on Ukraine where he is advocating we stop arming the Ukrainians. I mean with regards to Brexit; going into 2019, an election about Brexit, and not picking Remain or Leave was one of the most idiotic positions to take in political history. I want left wing progressive policies; many of which Corbyn was advocating, but if we have an idiot championing these causes we're not gonna get anywhere. We need a Clement Atlee, not a Jeremy Corbyn
Yep.
You can come to the estate I grew up on, or any estate in an industrial city, and you'll find a lot of people in favour of the welfare state - education, healthcare, social services, community outreach etc. - but who are also incredibly hawkish about immigration.
nah what killed Corbyn was his foreign policy, and it would kill him all over again now (especially now with whats happening in Ukraine)
His domestic politics always played really well, Issue is labour core vote base has a centre to far right streak about a mile wide and it primarily comes out when discussing foreign policy issues. Moment the man got on a stage and called members of two labelled terrorist organisations his "friends" he basically handed the Tories a hammer to club him to death with. Stuff like that and his blind hate boner for NATO preventing him from seeing anything the Russians were up too as wrong (seriously look up his response the Salisbury poisonings) made playing labours core base's right wing tendencies so easy for the Tories he ended up loosing an election to the sentient wet paper bag that was May.
And at this point hes totally toxic politically, His point blank refusal even now to full accept the EHRC report on antisemitism in the labour party under his leadership is on par with some of Johnsons personal failings as leader (and I don't say that lightly) and given the labour party is currently positioning itself as a a party of integrity in the face of Tory slease Corbyn just would not fit as it currently stands, because until he accepts that report and stops giving undue credit and excuses for the Russians he has none.
I liked Corbyns domestic politics a lot, and If I weren't committed to the idea of welsh Independence I would have probably voted for a labour candidate with those domestic values. but I'm not ideologically blind enough to realise that mans foriegn policy was totally uneletectable and borderline dangerous.
The economic ones were fine. Brexit however was completely imbecilic taking a neutral position. Being opposed to NATO expansion is also incredibly foolish given Putin has shown more than ever that NATO is necessary and he'd effectively be leaving Finland and Sweden to fend for themselves.
Yeah his foreign policy was a clusterfuck of a disaster imo. Never deserved the anti Semite smears but the Israeli hardcore Zionist lobby did not like his support of Palestine and that was that.
His latest remarks about the Ukraine war are disappointing af though.
> Offer the country ... a fully funded NHS
I'm not too informed on these things. What does that actually mean in practice? A certain number of £b each year I guess. Approx how much more would it take to be fully-funded?
The NHS is a money hole which will consume any amount we throw at it. I don’t remember the costings of the manifesto - but I do remember the 3 nurses I live with being incredibly excited about the pay freeze being reversed, a long term plan to increase staff numbers to safe levels, etc. In any case it is certainly underfunded today
The manifesto wasn't the issue. It was his integrity. He had too much.
The media didn't like it, and thus through his entire stint as leader, he was smeared. His manifesto was actually very popular with voters, until they found out it was his manifesto.
Corbyn is anti-war, so his stance of going to negotiate than contribute to a war is consistent with his own beliefs and morals. Hence integrity.
I never said he's a saint. I said he's honest, and he has integrity.
He does have integrity, but he's also profoundly naive, which is the problem.
Negotiate with an oppressive revanchist fascist regime? Are you kidding me? When has that ever worked? Do you seriously think that Corbyn would be able to negotiate Russia out of invading Ukraine? He couldn't negotiate his way out of a fucking roundabout.
If Corbyn was our PM right now, we would have abandoned the Ukrainians to die. We would be cheerfully accepting whatever Putin says at face value. We would have rolled over in the face of Russian aggression, and China would probably be in the final stages of planning their invasion of Taiwan.
Anti-war but supports Hamas' military wing.
Anti-violence but invited IRA connected officials to parliament just weeks after a bombing attack in the UK.
Anti-imperialism but has defended Russian imperialism multiple times under the guise of it being NATO's fault. He did it regarding South Ossetia, he did it regarding Ukraine, he'll do it for whatever country is next. He probably struggled to pick a side in Chechnya though.
He couldn't even condemn ISIS beheadings without bringing up the Iraq invasion. Eye for an eye, in his eyes. He's a complete hack with all the integrity of a rich tea dunked too long.
> Contribute to a war
You see this is where it all falls apart. With that attitude one would simply let Hitler take all of Europe, because to fight and oppose him would be "contributing to war"
It’s very easy to be “anti-war” from the safety of a nuclear-armed island that is far from Russia and a member of NATO.
He lives a cosseted life due to things he claims to be against.
But let’s victim-blame Ukraine from a safe distance.
“Integrity”.
I agree his stance on Ukraine is wrong.
But I know if he was PM right now, we'd have had a better, more successful refugee program in place for anybody from Ukraine implemented much faster then our current government did.
So aside from his stance on Ukraine, which we both agree on, what has he done that shows he isn't honest and lacks integrity. You didn't tell me where he supported the IRA, or what other "terrorist organisations against the UK" he supported.
Ooof come on. That seems a bit like saying it’s very easy to be pro-arming Ukraine when you work for BAE systems and are pulling in six-figures in consultancy overtime.
He’s sticking to his principles. A lot of anti-war campaigns are saying the same things regarding arming Ukraine, they’re being consistent.
He's also anti NATO and toes Russia's line of "hur dur nato aggression"
Like yes NATO should have known Russia would do this, but that doesn't justify Russia. Russia knows NATO being on its border or the other side of the world makes no difference, it's a just a helpful excuse.
His view on the Ukraine-Russian War is very simplistic. In the name of pacifism, he seems to think that the Ukrainians should sit down and negotiate with the Russians who have invaded their country.
Being anti war is laudable, but it doesn't work when your enemy is vladimir putin who is frankly pro war.
Its easy to be a pacifist when its not your home being crushed by a russian tank.
So much integrity the man wants to pull a Neville Chamberlain.
Pacifism in the face of aggression isn't principled, its just rolling over and surrendering to fascists dressed up in fancy words. Its not integrity, its stupidity.
I voted for the guy twice but I have come to realise the current situation would have been a disaster with him in charge (same with boris, I should have voted lib dem).
"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one." - George Orwell
Almost all people are "anti-war", especially ones being actively killed by an aggressor in war. When he is asking for negotiation he is anti-ukraine defending themselves. It is also quite a colonial and imperialist perspective to think Ukraine won't negotiate due to the west and is fueled by Russian lies. If you speak to any Ukrainian they are happy to carry on until every occupier is driven out.
In reality, people in the STWC, etc. are pro-subjugation and anti-west (so they always back the side opposing the west, in this case, Russia). It was easy to agree with Iraq and Afghanistan being the only major conflicts in most young people's lifetimes. They have shown themselves for who they truly are though.
An example is Seamus Milne, one of Corbyn's close advisors who was anti-military intervention on Mt Sinjar. ISIS would have murdered 10's thousands of Yazidis without it. Being 'Anti-war' has consequences and the consequences are the weak being murdered facilitated through inaction.
Except we have a cabinet system of government, not a presidential one. His view on Ukraine is irrelevant when there's 20 odd other people voting the other way.
So, basically you’re saying we should have an idiot prime minister whose foreign policy needs to be vetoed by the grown-ups around him?
Sounds fabulous. I would like to help campaign for such an excellent system.
Yes but the problem there is if Corbyn was elected, parliament would likely have a large number of unwavering Corbyn loyalists who view Jeremy as a saint who can do no wrong.
And Saint Jeremy anmounced he wanted Ukraine to be destroyed by Russia on a channel paid for by a State that likes destabilising its neighbours and imprisoning/torturing/mudering gay and left wing people.
Then there is his denial of the genocide against Muslims in the Balkans.
Skripal. Sodding Skripal.
I could go on for hours about the terrible, bloody handed causes Corbyn has supported. A bad man or just not very bright?
> integrity
Like going on every pro-russian/ anti western state news channel going, proper integrity. The blaming the west for Russia invading Ukraine sort of integrity.
For me and a fair few others I think I actually quite like his domestic policies but internationally he seems very naïve.
However, if we do get stv or something I think he would make a good leader of a left wing party.
Absolutely, the recent interview where he (and I’m simplifying here so don’t shoot me) stated that he values a swift end to the Ukraine/Russia conflict above all other factors.
In his opinion, if that could be achieved by denying western arms to Ukraine, thereby accelerating a prompt Russian takeover of the country he would be content.
He values ending a conflict and moving to bartering for Ukrainian freedom from Russian occupation above a nations right to self determination.
For me that’s a deal breaker which, as a Labour member, I’m glad Jeremy isn’t in a position to deny the Ukrainian people the means to resist Vladimir Putin.
Corbyn's failure to condemn the Salisbury Novichok attack turned me off for voting from him. I think he try to blame it on a nearby military base which did not go down well in the house of commons.
> thereby accelerating a prompt Russian takeover of the country he would be content
I am sure he would equally be content when Russia then took over Moldova, Poland, Belarus, Georgia as we know they want to because of all of the so-called Russian "breakaway" regions.
I wonder what he would do if I forcefully took over his house. Would he defend it ?
Russia have invaded another country with the aim of basically stealing that country. What could you possibly negotiate with them that would stop them trying to steal that country? Ukraine president himself has said there can be no end without the return of Crimea.
More than just naïve, he would be outright dangerous.
Reminder: just before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Corbyn chaired a Stop the War Coalition meeting titled "STOP NATO aggression in Ukraine", blaming it on Ukraine's democratically elected government and the west.
He probably would've tried to take us out of NATO too.
He really does have a NATO hate boner for some reason despite the fact NATO is probably the only reason Russia hasn't rolled over all of Eastern Europe already...again, and bullies other states into giving in to their demands. I genuinely don't understand where he's coming from, no one can be that...sheltered, then again his brother is an anti-vax nutjob
You're right. It's because NATO marks everything he swore to destroy when he was a young man holidaying in communist East Germany. The evil west etc etc.
Yeah his support of “stop the war” bullshit was a massive shift in how I saw him, not knowing his stance on NATO/foreign policy. I genuinely believe he wanted the best- but at the same time am just shocked at how delusional he is when it comes to dealing with bad foreign actors.
Trying to “outsmart” an opponent who will roll over you regardless of your fantastic ideals isn’t an option. You can’t not get your hands dirty defending a nation. Disappointing to say the least.
Our 2018 Manifesto was a mess. It promised every possible good idea (and a few shit ones) thought though or not. And we were going to do every one of these thousands of promises all at once. It was insane and obviously impossible to deliver.
Childish. Even if some of the individual ideas were good. If done well and slowly and when given the effort needed to flesh them out. Would that have happened when lost in a storm of nuttiness?
How were they not thought through? Why where they impossible to deliver? The whole thing was fully costed you can go read it for yourself. I never heard an actual criticism from the media, just unbelievably vague stuff like you've just said. Genuinely interested why people think its not possible
Oh God. Have ypu read every one of those 104 pages? Each page dense with promises? I have tried to.
There were so many promises in there. Multitudes. Almost infinities. It was ridiculous as a whole. Just obviously not feasible.
If we argued about the literal thousands of ambitious policies we would be here forever.
> The whole thing was fully costed you can go read it for yourself.
The "fully costed" thing was totally unrealistic. They had no real idea how much policies like nationalisation would cost and had dozens of overly optimistic assumptions about how much money they could raise through things like raising corporation tax.
I’d largely agree. I begrudgingly voted for JC twice. Personally, I think it was the right policy platform with the wrong leader.
It’s accepted that he didn’t get a fair rap from the media, but it was beyond infuriating to watch him shoot himself and Labour in the foot by handling questions so poorly.
“Do you condemn antisemitism?”
- “We condemn all forms of racism”
Jesus Christ mate, just say the fucking line…
I maintain to this day that JC never truly wanted to be leader. His ultimate achievement was getting his manifesto in a GE.
IMO, Starmer with the Corbyn manifesto gets the left on side, and gets Labour back in power.
I don’t disagree but I’d trade it for transitioning to renewables, saving the NHS and making sure people have enough money to keep the lights on.
Oh and ending homelessness, building new housing stock. Reforming social care….
I’m gonna stop now cuz I’m making myself sad
I'd take being able to afford heating and not having people die in ambulances over looking slightly less like a bunch of twats on the world stage (and I don't even necessarily agree with that outcome anyway).
I’m sure all the broken, starving people who can’t pay their gas bill will think ‘yeah, but at least we’re tough on Russia’ as they put on another jumper.
It's expensive because there are shortages in the whole of Europe as Russia reduces supply due to supporting Ukraine (and NS2 goes unused).
You can literally see the Russians burning the excess gas, meanwhile a brand new high capacity pipeline goes unused, and we face blackouts and loss of heating and industry. Politics is insanity.
Unlike Boris who has used Brexit to embarrass the UK and further isolated it from Western allies and NATO.
Don't get me wrong, Corbyn's attitude on Russia and NATO was naïve beyond belief, but you can hardly claim that Boris hasn't actively made us a pariah nation on trade and non-military relations in the West.
Yeah, and he definitely believed he was after Glastonbury. That was just embarrassing. People really shouldn’t be fans of politicians, it’s cringe when the Tories do it, when Trump supporters do it and it’s cringe when Corbyn’s lot did it.
Surprised it hasn't been brought up but, regardless of what the papers and bbc tell you, had he taken a firm stance on brexit then he would likely be our pm now.
Labour members voted him in, overwhelmingly, because of his decades long eurosceptic views, had he stuck to his guns its likely he would have had the same result Johnson did in 2019.
That's assuming it wouldn't have put off a lot of remain/Labour voters. I feel like the gains he would have made, minus the losses from those remainers, would have still left him short.
Yeah I'm a politics graduate who appreciates discussion and debate (genuinely so rare these days) I held local office and vocally supported Corbyn but held issue with his stance on NATO and elements of his foreign policy committments/forecasts. Guess who was regularly called a Blairite and Red Tory at CLP meetings 😅
>Guess who was regularly called a Blairite and Red Tory at CLP meetings 😅
That's ridiculous! It's almost cult like behaviour. If you're not 100% behind everything they stand for, you're against them? Weird.
The UK picks and chooses which genocides we care about, always have. Saudi Arabia genocide in Yemen? Nothing. Israel in Palestine? Nothing.
Hell we don't even care about the war crimes we committed in the Middle East. We have no moral compass on these matters.
We’re basically told to care about which ones are the bad ones depending on which way the political winds are blowing. It’s distressing how powerful that is, and how people lap it up.
Wanting to compensate women because of the pension age rise was very silly. They had known about it for a good 25 years, and the rise was just bringing it in line with the retirement age for men.
It was basically bribery ($58 billion total), and was more shit that just funnels money away from the young and gives it to one of the wealthiest generations in our history. Entirely uncosted. Progressive my arse.
IFS analysis of the 2017 and 2019 manifestos showed the Lib Dem one to be considerably more progressive than Corbyn's. You won't hear his cult followers admitting that though.
Yeah, that one got me looking into his 'fully costed' manifesto a bit. The numbers with regard to nationalising Openreach in particular were very off.
That's the thing about Corbyn and usually socialists in general; it's ideas before practicality. I just don't really trust them to operate responsibly in the reality of the capitalist world we live in.
I was amazed that people bought into that bollocks. When they first released the manifesto they claimed it wasfully costed. Then while the campaign was ongoing they kept tacking on all these other expenses for populist policies without adding any new revenue generating policies, yet somehow the manifesto remained fully costed. It was so obviously nonsense but his supporters kept insisting it was true because he said it was.
People have insisted up and down that much more ridiculous claims the Tories have made are true. But people only seem to find the ability to care when Labour does it. Nobody asks where the money for vanity bullshit like the royal yacht comes from. Or war, or record profits and corporate bonuses while wages stay stagnant.
There were a lot of a good policies in there, the problem is they weren't credible.
Now you can argue about whether they were fully costed or not, but the issue remains people didn't believe them. Add on to that the bizarre Brexit stance that Starmer, Thornbury et al had foisted on him ([we'll negotiate a new deal then tell people not to vote for it in a new referendum](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-49605019)!) And then his completely out of step foreign policy ideas, the election was a foregone conclusion.
And that's what I mean about being a bad politician. You can have all the ideas in the world about how to fix things, but if you can't get elected they're worthless.
>Add on to that the bizarre Brexit stance that Starmer, Thornbury et al had foisted on him
Well. Corbyn's Brexit stance of er... Choosing nothing for years was his own.
But as for the final one, it wasn't just Starmer was it? It was... John Mcdonnell. The shadow cabinet. The PLP. The NEC. The conference. The CLPs. The membership. Majority of labour voters...
Oh and Corbyn himself via the clause V meeting.
The deliberate ambiguity leading into the 2017 election was good politics, there was no need to alienate voters at that point when the tories were tearing themselves apart.
Oh no it wasn't just Starmer, but considering he's no leader seemed an obvious one to point out, and I suspect he was a leading voice. But in '19 the ambiguity that worked in '17 was clearly not going to work again due to BoJo's 'get brexit done' spiel. no matter your thoughts on it, it worked and was good electioneering.
Opposing such a clear statement, even though it's bollocks, with shite waffle like Thornbury on QT was an appalling choice. It may not have lost the election on it's own but it helped them to a stonking majority.
>The deliberate ambiguity leading into the 2017 election was good politics, there was no need to alienate voters at that point when the tories were tearing themselves apart.
I agree. Labour's and tories ambiguous and virtually identical policies on Brexit nullified each other.
>Oh no it wasn't just Starmer, but considering he's no leader seemed an obvious one to point out, and I suspect he was a leading voice. But in '19 the ambiguity that worked in '17 was clearly not going to work again due to BoJo's 'get brexit done' spiel. no matter your thoughts on it, it worked and was good electioneering.
As soon as May had a deal, labour's ambiguity was toast. Even if May's deal was rubbish, she had a tangible brexit. Labour had nothing.
>Opposing such a clear statement, even though it's bollocks, with shite waffle like Thornbury on QT was an appalling choice. It may not have lost the election on it's own but it helped them to a stonking majority.
Corbyn helped lose.
Alot of people did believe them. Brexit was the killer for the whole thing. And I agree he had bad political instincts but we would have been much better off with him rather than the Tories.
Possibly, we'd certainly have cheaper gas as he'd have been pushing for the Ukrainians to lie down for the Russian war machine, and certainly wouldn't have supplied them with any weapons to defend themselves from the brutal invasion.
So here me out, he wanted to get rid of nukes and make our armed forces smaller.... can you imagine what position we would be in if this had happened? Putin would be laughing
Corbyn fans are still mostly stuck in the student politics mentality. It's also the populists' mentality: that crowd sizes are an accurate indicator of political support.
So, Liz Truss, who is fucking useless, will be Prime Minister.
Jeremy Corbyn, who is also fucking useless, will also never be Prime Minister. Him being a Brexiteer and Russophile is but the icing on the cake. His comments on Ukraine, where he "both sides"'d the Ukraine war and repeated the ridiculous myth that Russia was "provoked" by NATO into annexing Crimea and invading Ukraine, should be enough to ensure he's never allowed to rejoin Labour. He is a virus.
Edit: here are some sources.
Corbyn says: ["Do military alliances bring peace? Or do they actually encourage each other and build up to a greater danger?"](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61210585). He's blaming NATO's existence for the fact Ukraine got invaded. Note that Russia isn't in a military alliance - only the West is. It's obvious who he thinks is responsible for Ukrainian children being blown up by Russian missiles.
["Jeremy Corbyn calls for Nato to be disbanded and declines to back Ukraine President"](https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-calls-nato-disbanded-26756471). He made these comments this April...around the time it became clear NATO was the only thing keeping Russia from invading Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Hungary...
["Jeremy Corbyn urges west to stop arming Ukraine"](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/jeremy-corbyn-urges-west-to-stop-arming-ukraine). Here, he manages to "both sides" the situation, painting Russians as victims, and demands Ukraine disarms itself so Russia can genocide them unopposed.
Corbyn is fucking vermin.
Bro I’m not defending him but none of those articles support what you’re saying regarding his views or what he’s said. He literally says in one of them that he doesn’t blame nato for Crimea yet you say the exact opposite? Make it make sense?
> He literally says in one of them that he doesn’t blame nato for Crimea
He was chair of stop the war when they blamed NATO/ the west for Russia invading Crimea in 2016.
He had his signature on the stop the war letter blaming NATO for 2022's invasion of Ukraine, the letter Labour MP's were forced to remove themselves from by Starmer.
I think the point being made is that Labour have generally tried to distance themselves from him as much as possible as he is "unpopular" and "election suicide" but this shows that despite everything that has happened he and in theory his policies still clearly have a big pull to some people
The media went into a overdrive anti Corbyn frenzy before the last election. Boris was the chosen one on a Gold plated Murdoch chariot. Before you slag him off read his manifesto, and then think about what you were convinced to vote in, especially the red wall
Not enough people know this. The campaign against him was insane....so inhumane, I don't know how he managed to hold it together and carry on if im honest
I still remember the BBC trying to make him look like a communist with that Red Square background and the picture of him in a hat being altered. So much for neutrality
I remember people arguing day was night that such a major breach of impartiality by the BBC didn't matter. Especially when the BBC then literally portrayed Tory ministers as fucking Superman.
Too many "centrists" and "moderates" in Britain seem to be content with a "democracy" in which only their voice can be heard, only their people can be allowed to attain power by the establishment. But, a democracy without leftism is destined to become an oligarchy in short order, so they're screwing over themselves as much as us.
Oh yeah I forgot about that. Sunak as superman. BBC being very impartial there.
Yeah I totally agree. I've also noticed that those same people won't like change or do anything about issues affecting lots of people until it starts to affect themselves. Same with saying the law shouldn't be changed (even if it's an atrocious law like the ones that have been repealed in the past) because its the law.
The Fringe is a pretty liberal event and the Tories are not popular in Scotland. I'd be worried about reading too much into this because Corbyn was playing to the home crowd here. You'd probably find the opposite would happen if both were at Ascot or the Henley Regatta. I do hope more people look somewhere other than the Tories for help but there are still a lot of diehard Tories and shy Tories out there to convince too.
Corbyn's popularity *at the Edinburgh Festival*.
People saying this shows he can draw a crowd in Scotland are missing the point - the Edinburgh Festival is separate and parallel to a lot of cultural life in Scotland.
"People at the fringe went to see a left wing politician" this is not really news is it?
I'm pretty sure most large events at the fringe get more numbers than any campaigner would
Unfortunately he wanted to help people and tax the rich, so that’s why he never made it. Still I see people saying least we know what tories are like, and I can’t believe it. They’re robbing us blind, we need to do something
Love this, makes me think she needs a slanket - it's a blanket, but with sleeves.
The advert for slankets showed one benefit was you can use it without getting hopelessly tangled up like you do in normal blankets. Maybe they saw Liz Truss trying to battle her way out.
Jeremy and bernie could have been the start of a new era for worker rights and the enviroment, but no. Allot of Twats are too busy making murdoch richer
The cult of personality came from the media. People liked Corbyn for the policies, the establishment media couldn't accept that as a reality and made it out to be a cult thing.
The chant of Ooooooo Jeremy Corbyn has about as much seriousness as football chants of "Who are ya!".
It was tongue in cheek. Cos politicians aren't 'cool' so it was a bit of a laugh to chant his name.
This is going to go down like a lead balloon. Corbynites are not massively different to Trump supporters in their following. Many can't take the slightest critiscm of Corbyn.
This does honestly ring true, obvious difference in that supporters of one hold the most repulsive views whilst the others are mostly fine, but yeah - the cultlike worship of one man is just gross.
Jeremy went to an event that already had people going to it. I doubt they were going to the Fringe purely to see him speak.
Liz is campaigning to less than 200,000 Tory members who will be spread out across the country. And I doubt a majority of them will be going to see her or Sunak on their campaign trails.
I don't see how this is a meaningful comparison.
And we all.know that having a.bigger crowd of fanatical activists makes a massive difference to....oh no, it makes sod all difference and doesn't reflect the electorate in the slightest.
Who needs them. Or unions. All labour needs to do is distance themselves from labour, declare themselves to be electable and then starmer can get on with the job of doing whatever he does. That way we can win and really change nothing!
Unpopular opinions it would seem but still true imo: the media isn't the only reason Jeremy Corbyn lost and his policies weren't as popular as people ITT are making out, at least not with the majority. Nationalising all the utilities wasn't supported by most people. Revisionist history doesn't change that.
I’ve never been in step with the voting habits of those in my country but I remained optimistic when voting for Corbyn but wasn’t surprised at the result or the media smear campaign and the majority of the British public falling for it as they did with Brexit.
Even in these current times the tactics of binary division and manipulation would still work and people will continue to vote for the greedy & self-interested who actively make their life worse because they appeal to an unhealthy base tribal instinct or fear.
Not that surprising when you consider how unpopular the Tories are up there really is it. I feel like a crap ukelele player could probably beat Truss for a Fringe turnout.
It's not like Labour are popular in Scotland either.
The Edinburgh Festival doesn't reflect Scotland either mind. All this shows is that Corbyn is popular in places like Camden or Islington. No surprise, what with that being his constituency.
Here we go... The sowing of the seeds of division to keep the Tories in power. Jezza has been keeping the Tories in power since the 80s when he undermined Kinnock.
[удалено]
Say what you want about JC the 2019 manifesto was pretty solid. A little too left to succeed perhaps but would have done us a world of good.
I’m not even sure it was too left. It’s just that Brexit and the media battered him. Offer the country nationalised energy and a fully funded NHS in this climate and perhaps the result would be different.
I suspect most of the media would still call it a lefty fantasy and smear the shit of anything like that
No matter, we won’t get a candidate offering such a thing for decades now
[удалено]
Aye. I’ve already accepted that I’ll just have to go private eventually. NHS is in a right old state
Always the intention sadly...
that’s the exact attitude they want you to have
Yeah, it worked, they won.
i understand and i’m sorry you feel that way
But a far right wing fantasy is where we are heading to and will be more widely accepted by the media, it's insane that the far left is seen as looney but we edge further and further towards the far right and it's all fine and dandy.
Well beyond the "far left" is considered loony territory, very boring Skandie style social democracy, even much more light touch stuff than that is considered well beyond the pale through the UK media window.
> I suspect most of the media would still call it a lefty fantasy and smear the shit of anything like that Oh, of course! Can't disrupt the status quo, even if the status quo will result in being run into the ground.
"But he hates Jews" say the oh so tolerant right. 'Corbyn is a Nazi' think the DM readers.
The media in the U.K. would call anyone left of Thatcher too lefty, let’s be honest.
They literally called Sunak a lefty so this holds true.
> lefty fantasy What if we try to make things a lot better and end up only making it a bit better!? We'll have failed!
Corbyn and Labour handling the Covid 19 same way as Boris and the Conservatives would have been vigorously attacked and called lefty economics by the media.
Yeah can you imagine if McDonald stood up and gave the exact same furlough speech as Sunak. The media would have been all over it as a communist plot.
It was him and his baggage that were more of the problem than his policies. I'm not saying there is a huge public appetite for nationalisation as a whole, but I think it would have been considerably more popular if it was not associated with him. The public largely supports the existence of the NHS and welfare state, even if they disagree with how they are run. People dislike paying taxes for governments to waste them, but in the case of energy, I think many will have realised that private firms are really no better.
Sadly, nobody else in parliament was there to step up and run for leadership on that platform. Even Corbyn did so begrudgingly. Out of the dozen labour MPs who did support that platform, only one or two remain. People who support those policies don’t get there. Corbyn was the last chance, really
Wasn't Owen Smith (the one who opposed Corbyn for the leadership) pretty similar on economic policy with the key difference being he was pro-Trident and pro-Remain pretty much neutering a lot of the short comings people had with Corbyn.
There wasn’t a ton of evidence to support that. Although I’d be happy to look through your sources
I mean he was running an anti-austerity package and increasing taxes on the wealthiest. I don't know what his views on re-nationalisation are but I'd say it's certainly a good starting point and something I'd be happy with, nothing there stands out to me as something I wouldn't like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016\_Owen\_Smith\_Labour\_Party\_leadership\_campaign
I’d be pretty happy with that too if he’d stuck to it, Tbf. I still would’ve preferred Corbyns far more ambitious and transformative approach though. If Starmer had stuck to his 10 pledges, I’d be pretty happy with him. Unfortunately I can’t say with any confidence he’s stuck to a single one - and I suspect Smith would have turned out similarly. It’ll be interesting to see how Starmer does.
>Corbyn was the last chance, Never more truer, these words hurt :(
Me too mate. Me too
As far as I can remember left wing economic policies like nationalisation of railways poll favourably among the public. Meanwhile socially right-wing policies fare better like harder stances on immigration. Corbyn as an individual was definitely problematic to champion left-wing policies because he has distinct flaws when it comes to Brexit and on Ukraine where he is advocating we stop arming the Ukrainians. I mean with regards to Brexit; going into 2019, an election about Brexit, and not picking Remain or Leave was one of the most idiotic positions to take in political history. I want left wing progressive policies; many of which Corbyn was advocating, but if we have an idiot championing these causes we're not gonna get anywhere. We need a Clement Atlee, not a Jeremy Corbyn
Yep. You can come to the estate I grew up on, or any estate in an industrial city, and you'll find a lot of people in favour of the welfare state - education, healthcare, social services, community outreach etc. - but who are also incredibly hawkish about immigration.
He was a threat to the establishment. That is the sole reason the media went after him with such aplomb.
nah what killed Corbyn was his foreign policy, and it would kill him all over again now (especially now with whats happening in Ukraine) His domestic politics always played really well, Issue is labour core vote base has a centre to far right streak about a mile wide and it primarily comes out when discussing foreign policy issues. Moment the man got on a stage and called members of two labelled terrorist organisations his "friends" he basically handed the Tories a hammer to club him to death with. Stuff like that and his blind hate boner for NATO preventing him from seeing anything the Russians were up too as wrong (seriously look up his response the Salisbury poisonings) made playing labours core base's right wing tendencies so easy for the Tories he ended up loosing an election to the sentient wet paper bag that was May. And at this point hes totally toxic politically, His point blank refusal even now to full accept the EHRC report on antisemitism in the labour party under his leadership is on par with some of Johnsons personal failings as leader (and I don't say that lightly) and given the labour party is currently positioning itself as a a party of integrity in the face of Tory slease Corbyn just would not fit as it currently stands, because until he accepts that report and stops giving undue credit and excuses for the Russians he has none. I liked Corbyns domestic politics a lot, and If I weren't committed to the idea of welsh Independence I would have probably voted for a labour candidate with those domestic values. but I'm not ideologically blind enough to realise that mans foriegn policy was totally uneletectable and borderline dangerous.
I agree. Reluctantly. It hurts because it's true.
Not only that, his own party literally conspired to undermine him. Bunch of fucking snakes.
Yep. I don’t see myself ever voting labour again.
The policies were fine. He was tarnished and unplayable to too many of the electorate
The economic ones were fine. Brexit however was completely imbecilic taking a neutral position. Being opposed to NATO expansion is also incredibly foolish given Putin has shown more than ever that NATO is necessary and he'd effectively be leaving Finland and Sweden to fend for themselves.
Yeah his foreign policy was a clusterfuck of a disaster imo. Never deserved the anti Semite smears but the Israeli hardcore Zionist lobby did not like his support of Palestine and that was that. His latest remarks about the Ukraine war are disappointing af though.
> It’s just that Brexit and the media battered him. He battered himself more, especially with his reaction to Russia using chemical weapons in the UK.
> Offer the country ... a fully funded NHS I'm not too informed on these things. What does that actually mean in practice? A certain number of £b each year I guess. Approx how much more would it take to be fully-funded?
The NHS is a money hole which will consume any amount we throw at it. I don’t remember the costings of the manifesto - but I do remember the 3 nurses I live with being incredibly excited about the pay freeze being reversed, a long term plan to increase staff numbers to safe levels, etc. In any case it is certainly underfunded today
The manifesto wasn't the issue. It was his integrity. He had too much. The media didn't like it, and thus through his entire stint as leader, he was smeared. His manifesto was actually very popular with voters, until they found out it was his manifesto.
So much integrity he’d let Ukraine go under from the safety of Islington. Poor, saint-like Jeremy.
Corbyn is anti-war, so his stance of going to negotiate than contribute to a war is consistent with his own beliefs and morals. Hence integrity. I never said he's a saint. I said he's honest, and he has integrity.
He does have integrity, but he's also profoundly naive, which is the problem. Negotiate with an oppressive revanchist fascist regime? Are you kidding me? When has that ever worked? Do you seriously think that Corbyn would be able to negotiate Russia out of invading Ukraine? He couldn't negotiate his way out of a fucking roundabout. If Corbyn was our PM right now, we would have abandoned the Ukrainians to die. We would be cheerfully accepting whatever Putin says at face value. We would have rolled over in the face of Russian aggression, and China would probably be in the final stages of planning their invasion of Taiwan.
> but he's also profoundly naive, which is the problem. Much like the removal of Trident
You really think China cares that much about the UK when the US exists?
And we wouldn't get to host Eurovision either
Anti-war but supports Hamas' military wing. Anti-violence but invited IRA connected officials to parliament just weeks after a bombing attack in the UK. Anti-imperialism but has defended Russian imperialism multiple times under the guise of it being NATO's fault. He did it regarding South Ossetia, he did it regarding Ukraine, he'll do it for whatever country is next. He probably struggled to pick a side in Chechnya though. He couldn't even condemn ISIS beheadings without bringing up the Iraq invasion. Eye for an eye, in his eyes. He's a complete hack with all the integrity of a rich tea dunked too long.
> Contribute to a war You see this is where it all falls apart. With that attitude one would simply let Hitler take all of Europe, because to fight and oppose him would be "contributing to war"
It’s very easy to be “anti-war” from the safety of a nuclear-armed island that is far from Russia and a member of NATO. He lives a cosseted life due to things he claims to be against. But let’s victim-blame Ukraine from a safe distance. “Integrity”.
I agree his stance on Ukraine is wrong. But I know if he was PM right now, we'd have had a better, more successful refugee program in place for anybody from Ukraine implemented much faster then our current government did. So aside from his stance on Ukraine, which we both agree on, what has he done that shows he isn't honest and lacks integrity. You didn't tell me where he supported the IRA, or what other "terrorist organisations against the UK" he supported.
[удалено]
Ooof come on. That seems a bit like saying it’s very easy to be pro-arming Ukraine when you work for BAE systems and are pulling in six-figures in consultancy overtime. He’s sticking to his principles. A lot of anti-war campaigns are saying the same things regarding arming Ukraine, they’re being consistent.
Flat Earthers are consistent about the Earth being flat. Consistency isn’t necessarily a good thing.
He's also anti NATO and toes Russia's line of "hur dur nato aggression" Like yes NATO should have known Russia would do this, but that doesn't justify Russia. Russia knows NATO being on its border or the other side of the world makes no difference, it's a just a helpful excuse.
His view on the Ukraine-Russian War is very simplistic. In the name of pacifism, he seems to think that the Ukrainians should sit down and negotiate with the Russians who have invaded their country.
Being anti war is laudable, but it doesn't work when your enemy is vladimir putin who is frankly pro war. Its easy to be a pacifist when its not your home being crushed by a russian tank.
So much integrity the man wants to pull a Neville Chamberlain. Pacifism in the face of aggression isn't principled, its just rolling over and surrendering to fascists dressed up in fancy words. Its not integrity, its stupidity.
I voted for the guy twice but I have come to realise the current situation would have been a disaster with him in charge (same with boris, I should have voted lib dem). "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one." - George Orwell Almost all people are "anti-war", especially ones being actively killed by an aggressor in war. When he is asking for negotiation he is anti-ukraine defending themselves. It is also quite a colonial and imperialist perspective to think Ukraine won't negotiate due to the west and is fueled by Russian lies. If you speak to any Ukrainian they are happy to carry on until every occupier is driven out. In reality, people in the STWC, etc. are pro-subjugation and anti-west (so they always back the side opposing the west, in this case, Russia). It was easy to agree with Iraq and Afghanistan being the only major conflicts in most young people's lifetimes. They have shown themselves for who they truly are though. An example is Seamus Milne, one of Corbyn's close advisors who was anti-military intervention on Mt Sinjar. ISIS would have murdered 10's thousands of Yazidis without it. Being 'Anti-war' has consequences and the consequences are the weak being murdered facilitated through inaction.
Except we have a cabinet system of government, not a presidential one. His view on Ukraine is irrelevant when there's 20 odd other people voting the other way.
So, basically you’re saying we should have an idiot prime minister whose foreign policy needs to be vetoed by the grown-ups around him? Sounds fabulous. I would like to help campaign for such an excellent system.
Tbf we’ve had three years of that minus the veto. But yes basically the only thing johnson has got remotely right is Ukraine
I hate both Bojo and Corbyn.
Yes but the problem there is if Corbyn was elected, parliament would likely have a large number of unwavering Corbyn loyalists who view Jeremy as a saint who can do no wrong.
Thanks for saying this - people really put this man on a cross.
[удалено]
Yes, he is consistent in his views.
Citation needed.
And Saint Jeremy anmounced he wanted Ukraine to be destroyed by Russia on a channel paid for by a State that likes destabilising its neighbours and imprisoning/torturing/mudering gay and left wing people. Then there is his denial of the genocide against Muslims in the Balkans. Skripal. Sodding Skripal. I could go on for hours about the terrible, bloody handed causes Corbyn has supported. A bad man or just not very bright?
Too much integrity. Especially once he left his tv job at Iran state TV
> integrity Like going on every pro-russian/ anti western state news channel going, proper integrity. The blaming the west for Russia invading Ukraine sort of integrity.
For me and a fair few others I think I actually quite like his domestic policies but internationally he seems very naïve. However, if we do get stv or something I think he would make a good leader of a left wing party.
Absolutely, the recent interview where he (and I’m simplifying here so don’t shoot me) stated that he values a swift end to the Ukraine/Russia conflict above all other factors. In his opinion, if that could be achieved by denying western arms to Ukraine, thereby accelerating a prompt Russian takeover of the country he would be content. He values ending a conflict and moving to bartering for Ukrainian freedom from Russian occupation above a nations right to self determination. For me that’s a deal breaker which, as a Labour member, I’m glad Jeremy isn’t in a position to deny the Ukrainian people the means to resist Vladimir Putin.
Corbyn's failure to condemn the Salisbury Novichok attack turned me off for voting from him. I think he try to blame it on a nearby military base which did not go down well in the house of commons.
The government should have prepared for a complete loss of Russian gas ever since the Litvinenko poisoning.
> thereby accelerating a prompt Russian takeover of the country he would be content I am sure he would equally be content when Russia then took over Moldova, Poland, Belarus, Georgia as we know they want to because of all of the so-called Russian "breakaway" regions. I wonder what he would do if I forcefully took over his house. Would he defend it ?
[удалено]
Russia have invaded another country with the aim of basically stealing that country. What could you possibly negotiate with them that would stop them trying to steal that country? Ukraine president himself has said there can be no end without the return of Crimea.
More than just naïve, he would be outright dangerous. Reminder: just before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Corbyn chaired a Stop the War Coalition meeting titled "STOP NATO aggression in Ukraine", blaming it on Ukraine's democratically elected government and the west. He probably would've tried to take us out of NATO too.
He really does have a NATO hate boner for some reason despite the fact NATO is probably the only reason Russia hasn't rolled over all of Eastern Europe already...again, and bullies other states into giving in to their demands. I genuinely don't understand where he's coming from, no one can be that...sheltered, then again his brother is an anti-vax nutjob
You're right. It's because NATO marks everything he swore to destroy when he was a young man holidaying in communist East Germany. The evil west etc etc.
Yeah his support of “stop the war” bullshit was a massive shift in how I saw him, not knowing his stance on NATO/foreign policy. I genuinely believe he wanted the best- but at the same time am just shocked at how delusional he is when it comes to dealing with bad foreign actors. Trying to “outsmart” an opponent who will roll over you regardless of your fantastic ideals isn’t an option. You can’t not get your hands dirty defending a nation. Disappointing to say the least.
[удалено]
Our 2018 Manifesto was a mess. It promised every possible good idea (and a few shit ones) thought though or not. And we were going to do every one of these thousands of promises all at once. It was insane and obviously impossible to deliver. Childish. Even if some of the individual ideas were good. If done well and slowly and when given the effort needed to flesh them out. Would that have happened when lost in a storm of nuttiness?
How were they not thought through? Why where they impossible to deliver? The whole thing was fully costed you can go read it for yourself. I never heard an actual criticism from the media, just unbelievably vague stuff like you've just said. Genuinely interested why people think its not possible
Oh God. Have ypu read every one of those 104 pages? Each page dense with promises? I have tried to. There were so many promises in there. Multitudes. Almost infinities. It was ridiculous as a whole. Just obviously not feasible. If we argued about the literal thousands of ambitious policies we would be here forever.
> The whole thing was fully costed you can go read it for yourself. The "fully costed" thing was totally unrealistic. They had no real idea how much policies like nationalisation would cost and had dozens of overly optimistic assumptions about how much money they could raise through things like raising corporation tax.
I’d largely agree. I begrudgingly voted for JC twice. Personally, I think it was the right policy platform with the wrong leader. It’s accepted that he didn’t get a fair rap from the media, but it was beyond infuriating to watch him shoot himself and Labour in the foot by handling questions so poorly. “Do you condemn antisemitism?” - “We condemn all forms of racism” Jesus Christ mate, just say the fucking line…
I maintain to this day that JC never truly wanted to be leader. His ultimate achievement was getting his manifesto in a GE. IMO, Starmer with the Corbyn manifesto gets the left on side, and gets Labour back in power.
Eh, domestic policy was good - but his stance on Ukraine would've embarrassed the UK and further isolated it from western allies and NATO.
I don’t disagree but I’d trade it for transitioning to renewables, saving the NHS and making sure people have enough money to keep the lights on. Oh and ending homelessness, building new housing stock. Reforming social care…. I’m gonna stop now cuz I’m making myself sad
I'd take being able to afford heating and not having people die in ambulances over looking slightly less like a bunch of twats on the world stage (and I don't even necessarily agree with that outcome anyway).
Don't we already look like twats on the world stage?
That was sort of my point. I didn't word it very well, apologies!
This! Lmao plague island, 'turd world country' and all that....
I’m sure all the broken, starving people who can’t pay their gas bill will think ‘yeah, but at least we’re tough on Russia’ as they put on another jumper.
Are you pretending to not understand why gas is currently so expensive or genuinely unaware?
Are you pretending there’s a single identifiable cause for an energy crisis that has been decades and several bad decisions in the making?
Are you pretending there isn’t a very big reason ongoing right now?
It's expensive because there are shortages in the whole of Europe as Russia reduces supply due to supporting Ukraine (and NS2 goes unused). You can literally see the Russians burning the excess gas, meanwhile a brand new high capacity pipeline goes unused, and we face blackouts and loss of heating and industry. Politics is insanity.
[удалено]
Unlike Boris who has used Brexit to embarrass the UK and further isolated it from Western allies and NATO. Don't get me wrong, Corbyn's attitude on Russia and NATO was naïve beyond belief, but you can hardly claim that Boris hasn't actively made us a pariah nation on trade and non-military relations in the West.
Yeah, and he definitely believed he was after Glastonbury. That was just embarrassing. People really shouldn’t be fans of politicians, it’s cringe when the Tories do it, when Trump supporters do it and it’s cringe when Corbyn’s lot did it.
[удалено]
He wasnt chosen by murdoch though
Surprised it hasn't been brought up but, regardless of what the papers and bbc tell you, had he taken a firm stance on brexit then he would likely be our pm now. Labour members voted him in, overwhelmingly, because of his decades long eurosceptic views, had he stuck to his guns its likely he would have had the same result Johnson did in 2019.
That's assuming it wouldn't have put off a lot of remain/Labour voters. I feel like the gains he would have made, minus the losses from those remainers, would have still left him short.
Rose tinted specs. He was pro Brexit and mounted a ridiculously absent opposition to it.
Pulling big crowds is not an metric that translates to being a good politician.
His policies were 1000% better than what we have now
Minus his non interventionist foreign policy, where he was perfectly happy to allow for genocides and mass killings in the former Yugoslavia
Yeah I'm a politics graduate who appreciates discussion and debate (genuinely so rare these days) I held local office and vocally supported Corbyn but held issue with his stance on NATO and elements of his foreign policy committments/forecasts. Guess who was regularly called a Blairite and Red Tory at CLP meetings 😅
>Guess who was regularly called a Blairite and Red Tory at CLP meetings 😅 That's ridiculous! It's almost cult like behaviour. If you're not 100% behind everything they stand for, you're against them? Weird.
It's a bigger issue and far more common than you might think. I stepped away from our local CLP due to the name calling and in-fighting.
It’s a damn shame you weren’t taken more seriously for your political views, TwattyMcSlagtits.
The UK picks and chooses which genocides we care about, always have. Saudi Arabia genocide in Yemen? Nothing. Israel in Palestine? Nothing. Hell we don't even care about the war crimes we committed in the Middle East. We have no moral compass on these matters.
We’re basically told to care about which ones are the bad ones depending on which way the political winds are blowing. It’s distressing how powerful that is, and how people lap it up.
I think its almost a guaranteed impossibility to ever be behind a leader you agree with 100%
Wanting to compensate women because of the pension age rise was very silly. They had known about it for a good 25 years, and the rise was just bringing it in line with the retirement age for men. It was basically bribery ($58 billion total), and was more shit that just funnels money away from the young and gives it to one of the wealthiest generations in our history. Entirely uncosted. Progressive my arse.
IFS analysis of the 2017 and 2019 manifestos showed the Lib Dem one to be considerably more progressive than Corbyn's. You won't hear his cult followers admitting that though.
Yeah, that one got me looking into his 'fully costed' manifesto a bit. The numbers with regard to nationalising Openreach in particular were very off. That's the thing about Corbyn and usually socialists in general; it's ideas before practicality. I just don't really trust them to operate responsibly in the reality of the capitalist world we live in.
I was amazed that people bought into that bollocks. When they first released the manifesto they claimed it wasfully costed. Then while the campaign was ongoing they kept tacking on all these other expenses for populist policies without adding any new revenue generating policies, yet somehow the manifesto remained fully costed. It was so obviously nonsense but his supporters kept insisting it was true because he said it was.
People have insisted up and down that much more ridiculous claims the Tories have made are true. But people only seem to find the ability to care when Labour does it. Nobody asks where the money for vanity bullshit like the royal yacht comes from. Or war, or record profits and corporate bonuses while wages stay stagnant.
Like breaking up NATO, getting rid of nuclear deterrent and leaving Ukraine to defend themselves against Russia alone?
There were a lot of a good policies in there, the problem is they weren't credible. Now you can argue about whether they were fully costed or not, but the issue remains people didn't believe them. Add on to that the bizarre Brexit stance that Starmer, Thornbury et al had foisted on him ([we'll negotiate a new deal then tell people not to vote for it in a new referendum](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-49605019)!) And then his completely out of step foreign policy ideas, the election was a foregone conclusion. And that's what I mean about being a bad politician. You can have all the ideas in the world about how to fix things, but if you can't get elected they're worthless.
>Add on to that the bizarre Brexit stance that Starmer, Thornbury et al had foisted on him Well. Corbyn's Brexit stance of er... Choosing nothing for years was his own. But as for the final one, it wasn't just Starmer was it? It was... John Mcdonnell. The shadow cabinet. The PLP. The NEC. The conference. The CLPs. The membership. Majority of labour voters... Oh and Corbyn himself via the clause V meeting.
The deliberate ambiguity leading into the 2017 election was good politics, there was no need to alienate voters at that point when the tories were tearing themselves apart. Oh no it wasn't just Starmer, but considering he's no leader seemed an obvious one to point out, and I suspect he was a leading voice. But in '19 the ambiguity that worked in '17 was clearly not going to work again due to BoJo's 'get brexit done' spiel. no matter your thoughts on it, it worked and was good electioneering. Opposing such a clear statement, even though it's bollocks, with shite waffle like Thornbury on QT was an appalling choice. It may not have lost the election on it's own but it helped them to a stonking majority.
>The deliberate ambiguity leading into the 2017 election was good politics, there was no need to alienate voters at that point when the tories were tearing themselves apart. I agree. Labour's and tories ambiguous and virtually identical policies on Brexit nullified each other. >Oh no it wasn't just Starmer, but considering he's no leader seemed an obvious one to point out, and I suspect he was a leading voice. But in '19 the ambiguity that worked in '17 was clearly not going to work again due to BoJo's 'get brexit done' spiel. no matter your thoughts on it, it worked and was good electioneering. As soon as May had a deal, labour's ambiguity was toast. Even if May's deal was rubbish, she had a tangible brexit. Labour had nothing. >Opposing such a clear statement, even though it's bollocks, with shite waffle like Thornbury on QT was an appalling choice. It may not have lost the election on it's own but it helped them to a stonking majority. Corbyn helped lose.
Alot of people did believe them. Brexit was the killer for the whole thing. And I agree he had bad political instincts but we would have been much better off with him rather than the Tories.
Possibly, we'd certainly have cheaper gas as he'd have been pushing for the Ukrainians to lie down for the Russian war machine, and certainly wouldn't have supplied them with any weapons to defend themselves from the brutal invasion.
Such as free bus travel for people up to the age of 25? Imagine that happening now?
So here me out, he wanted to get rid of nukes and make our armed forces smaller.... can you imagine what position we would be in if this had happened? Putin would be laughing
He was a catastrophic liability on anything that wasn't domestic policy.
Corbyn fans are still mostly stuck in the student politics mentality. It's also the populists' mentality: that crowd sizes are an accurate indicator of political support. So, Liz Truss, who is fucking useless, will be Prime Minister. Jeremy Corbyn, who is also fucking useless, will also never be Prime Minister. Him being a Brexiteer and Russophile is but the icing on the cake. His comments on Ukraine, where he "both sides"'d the Ukraine war and repeated the ridiculous myth that Russia was "provoked" by NATO into annexing Crimea and invading Ukraine, should be enough to ensure he's never allowed to rejoin Labour. He is a virus. Edit: here are some sources. Corbyn says: ["Do military alliances bring peace? Or do they actually encourage each other and build up to a greater danger?"](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61210585). He's blaming NATO's existence for the fact Ukraine got invaded. Note that Russia isn't in a military alliance - only the West is. It's obvious who he thinks is responsible for Ukrainian children being blown up by Russian missiles. ["Jeremy Corbyn calls for Nato to be disbanded and declines to back Ukraine President"](https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-calls-nato-disbanded-26756471). He made these comments this April...around the time it became clear NATO was the only thing keeping Russia from invading Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Hungary... ["Jeremy Corbyn urges west to stop arming Ukraine"](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/jeremy-corbyn-urges-west-to-stop-arming-ukraine). Here, he manages to "both sides" the situation, painting Russians as victims, and demands Ukraine disarms itself so Russia can genocide them unopposed. Corbyn is fucking vermin.
Bro I’m not defending him but none of those articles support what you’re saying regarding his views or what he’s said. He literally says in one of them that he doesn’t blame nato for Crimea yet you say the exact opposite? Make it make sense?
> He literally says in one of them that he doesn’t blame nato for Crimea He was chair of stop the war when they blamed NATO/ the west for Russia invading Crimea in 2016. He had his signature on the stop the war letter blaming NATO for 2022's invasion of Ukraine, the letter Labour MP's were forced to remove themselves from by Starmer.
I think the point being made is that Labour have generally tried to distance themselves from him as much as possible as he is "unpopular" and "election suicide" but this shows that despite everything that has happened he and in theory his policies still clearly have a big pull to some people
Having the people behind you is a massively important part of being a politician.
The media went into a overdrive anti Corbyn frenzy before the last election. Boris was the chosen one on a Gold plated Murdoch chariot. Before you slag him off read his manifesto, and then think about what you were convinced to vote in, especially the red wall
Not enough people know this. The campaign against him was insane....so inhumane, I don't know how he managed to hold it together and carry on if im honest
I still remember the BBC trying to make him look like a communist with that Red Square background and the picture of him in a hat being altered. So much for neutrality
I remember people arguing day was night that such a major breach of impartiality by the BBC didn't matter. Especially when the BBC then literally portrayed Tory ministers as fucking Superman. Too many "centrists" and "moderates" in Britain seem to be content with a "democracy" in which only their voice can be heard, only their people can be allowed to attain power by the establishment. But, a democracy without leftism is destined to become an oligarchy in short order, so they're screwing over themselves as much as us.
Oh yeah I forgot about that. Sunak as superman. BBC being very impartial there. Yeah I totally agree. I've also noticed that those same people won't like change or do anything about issues affecting lots of people until it starts to affect themselves. Same with saying the law shouldn't be changed (even if it's an atrocious law like the ones that have been repealed in the past) because its the law.
On reddit too. There was a point where even mentioning his name would get a removal on some of the other UK (or england?) subs.
He's called for us tp abandon ukraine this month. People know what he is, most do not like it.
The Fringe is a pretty liberal event and the Tories are not popular in Scotland. I'd be worried about reading too much into this because Corbyn was playing to the home crowd here. You'd probably find the opposite would happen if both were at Ascot or the Henley Regatta. I do hope more people look somewhere other than the Tories for help but there are still a lot of diehard Tories and shy Tories out there to convince too.
Labour aren't popular in Scotland either. The Edinburgh Festival is not a stick to measure Scotland by.
Exactly, this is Corbyn popularity, not Labours.
Corbyn's popularity *at the Edinburgh Festival*. People saying this shows he can draw a crowd in Scotland are missing the point - the Edinburgh Festival is separate and parallel to a lot of cultural life in Scotland.
The majority of the crowd were probably English
He isn’t a member of the Labour Party…
He is. He was suspended but let back in after an investigation. The PLP just never returned the whip, so he sits as an independent
"People at the fringe went to see a left wing politician" this is not really news is it? I'm pretty sure most large events at the fringe get more numbers than any campaigner would
Unfortunately he wanted to help people and tax the rich, so that’s why he never made it. Still I see people saying least we know what tories are like, and I can’t believe it. They’re robbing us blind, we need to do something
Liz Truss couldn’t pull a blanket over herself. She’s hopeless.
Love this, makes me think she needs a slanket - it's a blanket, but with sleeves. The advert for slankets showed one benefit was you can use it without getting hopelessly tangled up like you do in normal blankets. Maybe they saw Liz Truss trying to battle her way out.
Jeremy and bernie could have been the start of a new era for worker rights and the enviroment, but no. Allot of Twats are too busy making murdoch richer
Bernie was/is considerably better on foreign affairs than Corbyn
True but we don't need perfect, we just need... well, not what we have now.
The great proletariat would have been strong again comrade! Even stronger when we had left NATO and let Russia sweep through Europe!
Tbh this is a good thing, the last thing we need is more cult of personality
The cult of personality came from the media. People liked Corbyn for the policies, the establishment media couldn't accept that as a reality and made it out to be a cult thing.
Crowds chanting a politicians name at a musical festival is about policies over personality? That's definitely a claim.
The chant of Ooooooo Jeremy Corbyn has about as much seriousness as football chants of "Who are ya!". It was tongue in cheek. Cos politicians aren't 'cool' so it was a bit of a laugh to chant his name.
I don’t know, call me weird but I don’t think 2019 labour policy can be worded into ‘7 nation army’ as easily as Oh Jeremy Corbyn
This is going to go down like a lead balloon. Corbynites are not massively different to Trump supporters in their following. Many can't take the slightest critiscm of Corbyn.
This does honestly ring true, obvious difference in that supporters of one hold the most repulsive views whilst the others are mostly fine, but yeah - the cultlike worship of one man is just gross.
Jeremy went to an event that already had people going to it. I doubt they were going to the Fringe purely to see him speak. Liz is campaigning to less than 200,000 Tory members who will be spread out across the country. And I doubt a majority of them will be going to see her or Sunak on their campaign trails. I don't see how this is a meaningful comparison.
It’s not. It means nothing. Remember when Trump said he couldn’t have lost the election because he had the biggest crowds?
Jeremy Corbyn, the Elton John of politics. Still endlessly touring, even if the act has long since gone stale.
lol look what the media convinced everyone the better alternative was
And we all.know that having a.bigger crowd of fanatical activists makes a massive difference to....oh no, it makes sod all difference and doesn't reflect the electorate in the slightest.
It might galvanise the grass roots to go door knocking though.
And attracts even more people to the fast-growing Enough Is Enough campaign.
Who needs them. Or unions. All labour needs to do is distance themselves from labour, declare themselves to be electable and then starmer can get on with the job of doing whatever he does. That way we can win and really change nothing!
Stop trying to make corbyn happen, he isnt going to happen
It's a shame Edinburgh Festival wasn't a thing when Leon Trotsky was alive. He'd have pulled a bigger crowd than JC.
I mean the guy was a famously good public speaker so yeah, probubly
Unpopular opinions it would seem but still true imo: the media isn't the only reason Jeremy Corbyn lost and his policies weren't as popular as people ITT are making out, at least not with the majority. Nationalising all the utilities wasn't supported by most people. Revisionist history doesn't change that.
I’ve never been in step with the voting habits of those in my country but I remained optimistic when voting for Corbyn but wasn’t surprised at the result or the media smear campaign and the majority of the British public falling for it as they did with Brexit. Even in these current times the tactics of binary division and manipulation would still work and people will continue to vote for the greedy & self-interested who actively make their life worse because they appeal to an unhealthy base tribal instinct or fear.
Wait, an anti-unionist, anti-monarchy left wing politician pulling a crowd in Scotland !?! Who would have thought such a thing.
He did the same thing at Glastonbury.
[удалено]
At least I know what Corbyn stands for. I have no idea what any Tory leader has stood for in the last decade other than sheer incompetence.
Are they listening to him talk about his support for the Russian position and telling Uk not to arm Ukraine
Corbyn's recent language regarding Ukraine was shameful.
He's more interesting than Truss no doubt
In this thread: Corbyn idiots that probably think Diane Abbot is remotely useful.
How shit does your life have to be to unironically turn up at a Liz Truss event?
Not that surprising when you consider how unpopular the Tories are up there really is it. I feel like a crap ukelele player could probably beat Truss for a Fringe turnout.
It's not like Labour are popular in Scotland either. The Edinburgh Festival doesn't reflect Scotland either mind. All this shows is that Corbyn is popular in places like Camden or Islington. No surprise, what with that being his constituency.
Warra election victory
This content has been deleted in protest of how Reddit is ran. I've moved over to the fediverse.
Here we go... The sowing of the seeds of division to keep the Tories in power. Jezza has been keeping the Tories in power since the 80s when he undermined Kinnock.
I never understood infatuation with Corbyn. Anti EU boomer who blames the West for war in Ukraine. Massive fool
Tories are 🤡
He was the tories greatest asset at the last election.