All things Labour Party

.......the Corbynettes.

Didn't Phil Spector produce their debut LP ?

Are Corbynites the same as Corbynistas?

A Corbynite is a Corbynista that has hit the ground.

Corbynistas think Corbynites are rabid fundamentalist lunatics while Corbynites think Corbynistas are lily livered apologists. They both agree on one thing, though. They all hate the Corbynettes.

Jeremy Christ and the Corbynettes does have a certain 60s beat-combo appeal - although most of them at that time had Chuck Berry, Elvis and Muddy Waters as heroes, not Stalin, Trotsky, Mao and Hoxha.

I've just seen this, which is The Guardian's less than scientific canvas of views about Corbyn, for or against. I'm torn. Do I support the Labour party-hating, terrorist-loving, criminal-apologising black hole of a leader...or not? It's a tough one.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/09/how-do-you-rate-jeremy-corbyns-performance-as-labour-leader-so-far?CMP=share_btn_fb

Are Corbynites the same as Corbynistas?

Don't forget the Corbynists and the Peoples' Front of Corbynea.

And so it goes on. Today's speciality: going to the Christmas party of a supposedly anti-war pressure group, the heavily Trotskyist-compromised Stop the West Coalition, which ran a call to arms [sic] in 2014 with the headline: "Time to go to war with Israel as the only path to peace in the middle East". This piece was published while Corbyn actually led the organisation.

 

It has, of course, been shamefacedly taken down but can be found here, along with two other quietly buried gems:

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/sirajdatoo/stop-the-war-take-down-a-third-article-from-its-website?utm_term=.kgqwNDOvM#.jmNza073l

yes what a abosulate disgrace,surely he should be sitting down with the representatives of the arms industry like all good mps normally do and taking his cut and lining his pockets before joining the board of directors when he retires:D fancy trying to stop the war you would have thought they would have learned there lessons from history after pressure to stop the vietnam war in the 1960s.

yes what a abosulate disgrace,surely he should be sitting down with the representatives of the arms industry like all good mps normally do and taking his cut and lining his pockets before joining the board of directors when he retires:D fancy trying to stop the war you would have thought they would have learned there lessons from history after pressure to stop the vietnam war in the 1960s.

I don't get this silly whataboutery. No one is suggesting that Corbyn should sit down with arms dealers. But by this argument Corbyn apologists (you've not the only one by any means) try to deflect rather than address the criticism.

To be clear: "going to war with Israel" is wildly inappropriate language for a supposedly anti-war movement. Interesting, isn't it, that Corbyn's close mate in Stop the War, Tariq Ali, declares by contrast that the coalition "does NOT [his emphasis] take positions on the demerits or otherwise of the Taliban, Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad."

So those responsible for a vast body count that far outweighs anything Israel has managed to achieve since the 1940s are not worthy of any critical comment whatsoever. Nothing. But we in the west should "go to war with Israel".

I repeat: any responsible anti-war organisation would listen to the voices of Syrian citizens. What they have said time and again is that Assad is the cause and ISIS the symptom of the terrifying troubles heaped on their heads - and what they want, at a minimum are no-fly zones that take Assad's Russian-supplied helicopters out of the air. The chemical attacks and barrel bombs have been targeted exclusively at civilians. Yet when civilians try to express this view to Stop the War, they are thrown out of meetings and have the police called on them.

Stop the War is a deeply unpleasant, Trotskyist-inflitrated nest of vipers with some very nasty views - not least a complete and seemingly guilt-free willingness to sacrifice thousands of civilian lives in order to hide behind the fig-leaf of "taking no position" on Assad. Corbyn has until very recently been the Chair of that organisation. He demonstrates by his continuing association and unquestioning support (unlike the admirable Caroline Lucas) that he is a truly sickening individual.

Don't forget the Corbynists and the Peoples' Front of Corbynea.

Cu nts

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/12/jeremy-corbyn-ed-miliband_n_8794354.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

So, if there was an election tomorrow, Labour would be annihilated.

So, if there was an election tomorrow, Labour would be annihilated.

If there were to be an election tomorrow, Labour would do better than it did earlier this year (as the article indicates).

There's plenty of time for the government to tear itself apart over Europe and the third runway. There's plenty of time for the economy to fall flat on its face.

There's plenty of time for Labour to slowly slowly pick up steam.

If there were to be an election tomorrow, Labour would do better than it did earlier this year (as the article indicates).

 

There's plenty of time for the government to tear itself apart over Europe and the third runway. There's plenty of time for the economy to fall flat on its face.

 

There's plenty of time for Labour to slowly slowly pick up steam.

I thought you were comparing Saints with Pompey there for a moment...

If there were to be an election tomorrow, Labour would do better than it did earlier this year (as the article indicates).

 

There's plenty of time for the government to tear itself apart over Europe and the third runway. There's plenty of time for the economy to fall flat on its face.

 

There's plenty of time for Labour to slowly slowly pick up steam.

The article doesn't say that at all.

Labour in the election - 30%, higher than the 29% in the poll, and the Tories on 40% in the poll, far higher than the election at 37%.

If there was an election tomorrow, based on that poll, Labour would be annihilated.

The article doesn't say that at all.

 

Labour in the election - 30%, higher than the 29% in the poll, and the Tories on 40% in the poll, far higher than the election at 37%.

 

If there was an election tomorrow, based on that poll, Labour would be annihilated.

Except there just was a bi-election and they increased their share of yhe vote.

If there were to be an election tomorrow, Labour would do better than it did earlier this year (as the article indicates).

 

There's plenty of time for the government to tear itself apart over Europe and the third runway. There's plenty of time for the economy to fall flat on its face.

 

There's plenty of time for Labour to slowly slowly pick up steam.

3rd runways and such stuff will not tear the government apart

the economy is not going to fall flat on its face, they are not going to sell off the NHS and they are not going to kick people out of their council houses and what ever stereotypical tory things you may suggest they will do

all last government we were told it was only a matter of time before it broke up. Instead, they did a pretty decent job in sorting the country out

the tories are here until 2020....at the very earliest

Except there just was a bi-election and they increased their share of yhe vote.

Except there just was a bi-election and they got far fewer votes.

Except there just was a bi-election and they increased their share of yhe vote.

Book the removal men, Jeremy, you're off to Number 10.

It turns out that Jeremy Corbyn has an amusingly 'mad professor' type a older brother - Piers - who interestingly also happens to be a leading climate-change sceptic.

While I'm not qualified to comment meaningfully of the scientific merits of his arguments, which basically seem to be that solar activity is a much more significant factor on our climate than any CO2 derived man-made effect, it does seem the Corbyn family is itself worthy of further study.

Except there just was a bi-election and they got far fewer votes.

They got fewer votes because there was a reduced turnover. However they achieved a larger percentage of the overall vote and there was a swing to Labour.

[h=3]Elections in the 2010s[/h] [TABLE=class: wikitable]

[TR=bgcolor: #E9E9E9]

[TH=colspan: 6]Oldham West and Royton by-election, 2015^[7][/TH]

[/TR]

[TR=bgcolor: #E9E9E9]

[TH=colspan: 2]Party[/TH]

[TH]Candidate[/TH]

[TH]Votes[/TH]

[TH]%[/TH]

[TH]±%[/TH]

[/TR]

[TR=class: vcard]

[TH=bgcolor: #DC241f][/TH]

[TD=class: org]Labour[/TD]

[TD=class: fn]Jim McMahon[/TD]

[TD=align: right]17,209[/TD]

[TD=align: right]62.1[/TD]

[TD=align: right]+7.3[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR=class: vcard]

[TH=bgcolor: #70147A][/TH]

[TD=class: org]UKIP[/TD]

[TD=class: fn]John Bickley[/TD]

[TD=align: right]6,487[/TD]

[TD=align: right]23.4[/TD]

[TD=align: right]+2.8[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR=class: vcard]

[TH=bgcolor: #0087DC][/TH]

[TD=class: org]Conservative[/TD]

[TD=class: fn]James Daly[/TD]

[TD=align: right]2,596[/TD]

[TD=align: right]9.4[/TD]

[TD=align: right]-9.6[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR=class: vcard]

[TH=bgcolor: #FDBB30][/TH]

[TD=class: org]Liberal Democrat[/TD]

[TD=class: fn]Jane Brophy[/TD]

[TD=align: right]1,024[/TD]

[TD=align: right]3.7[/TD]

[TD=align: right]0.0[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR=class: vcard]

[TH=bgcolor: #6AB023][/TH]

[TD=class: org]Green[/TD]

[TD=class: fn]Simeon Hart[/TD]

[TD=align: right]249[/TD]

[TD=align: right]0.9[/TD]

[TD=align: right]-1.0[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR=class: vcard]

[TH=bgcolor: hotpink][/TH]

[TD=class: org]Monster Raving Loony[/TD]

[TD=class: fn]Sir Oink A-Lot[/TD]

[TD=align: right]141[/TD]

[TD=align: right]0.5[/TD]

[TD=align: right]N/A[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR=bgcolor: #F6F6F6]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: right]Majority[/TD]

[TD=align: right]10,722[/TD]

[TD=align: right]38.7[/TD]

[TD=align: right]+4.5[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR=bgcolor: #F6F6F6]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: right]Turnout[/TD]

[TD=align: right]27,706[/TD]

[TD=align: right]40.3[/TD]

[TD=align: right]-19.3[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR=bgcolor: #F6F6F6]

[TH=bgcolor: #DC241f][/TH]

[TD=colspan: 2]Labour hold[/TD]

[TD=align: right]Swing[/TD]

[TD=align: right]+2.3[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[TABLE=class: wikitable]

[TR=bgcolor: #E9E9E9]

[TH=colspan: 6]General Election 2015: Oldham West and Royton^[8][9][/TH]

[/TR]

[TR=bgcolor: #E9E9E9]

[TH=colspan: 2]Party[/TH]

[TH]Candidate[/TH]

[TH]Votes[/TH]

[TH]%[/TH]

[TH]±%[/TH]

[/TR]

[TR=class: vcard]

[TH=bgcolor: #DC241f][/TH]

[TD=class: org]Labour[/TD]

[TD=class: fn]Michael Meacher[/TD]

[TD=align: right]23,630[/TD]

[TD=align: right]54.8[/TD]

[TD=align: right]+9.3[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR=class: vcard]

[TH=bgcolor: #70147A][/TH]

[TD=class: org]UKIP[/TD]

[TD=class: fn]Francis Arbour[/TD]

[TD=align: right]8,892[/TD]

[TD=align: right]20.6[/TD]

[TD=align: right]+17.4[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR=class: vcard]

[TH=bgcolor: #0087DC][/TH]

[TD=class: org]Conservative[/TD]

[TD=class: fn]Kamran Ghafoor[/TD]

[TD=align: right]8,187[/TD]

[TD=align: right]19.0[/TD]

[TD=align: right]-4.7[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR=class: vcard]

[TH=bgcolor: #FDBB30][/TH]

[TD=class: org]Liberal Democrat[/TD]

[TD=class: fn]Garth Harkness[/TD]

[TD=align: right]1,589[/TD]

[TD=align: right]3.7[/TD]

[TD=align: right]-15.4[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR=class: vcard]

[TH=bgcolor: #6AB023][/TH]

[TD=class: org]Green[/TD]

[TD=class: fn]Simeon Hart[/TD]

[TD=align: right]839[/TD]

[TD=align: right]1.9[/TD]

[TD=align: right]N/A[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR=bgcolor: #F6F6F6]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: right]Majority[/TD]

[TD=align: right]14,738[/TD]

[TD=align: right]34.2[/TD]

[TD=align: right][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR=bgcolor: #F6F6F6]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: right]Turnout[/TD]

[TD=align: right]43,137[/TD]

[TD=align: right]59.6[/TD]

[TD=align: right][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR=bgcolor: #F6F6F6]

[TH=bgcolor: #DC241f][/TH]

[TD=colspan: 2]Labour hold[/TD]

[TD=align: right]Swing[/TD]

[TD=align: right]-4.0[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

They got fewer votes...

I agree.

The only thing that actually gets counted at an election is the number of ballot papers.

I agree.

 

The only thing that actually gets counted at an election is the number of ballot papers.

Except that the main thing counted at UK elections is seats won. The Labour victory at Oldham is of equal worth in May as in December regardless of total votes counted.

3rd runways and such stuff will not tear the government apart

the economy is not going to fall flat on its face, they are not going to sell off the NHS and they are not going to kick people out of their council houses and what ever stereotypical tory things you may suggest they will do

 

all last government we were told it was only a matter of time before it broke up. Instead, they did a pretty decent job in sorting the country out

 

the tories are here until 2020....at the very earliest

You ignore the EU issue above. And 3rd runway is potentially a divisive issue which will be elevated above its actual effect by its emotive aspects.

You ignore the EU issue above. And 3rd runway is potentially a divisive issue which will be elevated above its actual effect by its emotive aspects.

It might be a divisive issue, but its not divisive along party lines. I imagine the proportions of Labour and Tory voters for and against are pretty similar. The only way the expansion will damage the government is if they are seen to dither and fudge.

Except that the main thing counted at UK elections is seats won. The Labour victory at Oldham is of equal worth in May as in December regardless of total votes counted.

So how many seats do you win by having "a higher percentage of the overall vote"?

Nit sure what a random bi election has to do with anything. One small achievement isn't going to translate to a general election victory is it. It's one thing to do largely the same as labour did under Ed, quite another to convince floating voters to switch back to labour. I'm not sure anyone is seriously suggesting he I would win back enough of them to have a chance of victory.

I think BTF is suggesting just that.

People can parrot on about labour slowly picking up steam but I don't believe even the most optimistic of people seriously think he has a chance of an election win. What labour need is a more electable with enough time before the election to mount a proper challenge.

People can parrot on about labour slowly picking up steam but I don't believe even the most optimistic of people seriously think he has a chance of an election win. What labour need is a more electable with enough time before the election to mount a proper challenge.

I find it highly unlikely that the amateurish rag tag rabble of overgrown student debating society ditherers will get anywhere near to writing a general election manifesto and selling it to anyone outside of their own miniscule fanbase.

Can anyone else seriously see Corbyn in a TV election debate? He didn't really want to be Labour leader, there's no way on earth he actually wants to be Prime Minister.

Not that this will be a surprise, but some interesting details on the company Corbyn keeps with his “fraternal” welcome at the Stop the War coalition dinner:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12047827/The-veteran-Trotskyite-and-the-public-schoolboy-united-behind-Jeremy-Corbyn.html

John Rees, “veteran Trotskyist” and participant in the CAGE press conference in which Jihadi John was praised as “beautiful”. He also supported the Russian annexation of Crimea.

Andrew Murray, Communist Party member and the current chair of STW, who oversaw the article gloating about Paris “reaping the whirlwind” of the ISIS attack.

Kamal Majid, a patron of STW and founder member of the Stalin Society, devoted to “defending Stalin and his work.”

Issa Chaer, who runs the “Syrian Social Club” and who appears on Assad-friendly TV stations to praise the murderous dictator.

Kate Hudson, who was recently quoted as saying “The collapse of the Soviet Union was a catastrophe for humanity.”

Before any Corbynists on here sneer at the Telegraph link, it’s worth remembering that Andrew Gilligan exposed the “dodgy dossier”.

Not that this will be a surprise, but some interesting details on the company Corbyn keeps with his “fraternal” welcome at the Stop the War coalition dinner:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12047827/The-veteran-Trotskyite-and-the-public-schoolboy-united-behind-Jeremy-Corbyn.html

 

John Rees, “veteran Trotskyist” and participant in the CAGE press conference in which Jihadi John was praised as “beautiful”. He also supported the Russian annexation of Crimea.

 

Andrew Murray, Communist Party member and the current chair of STW, who oversaw the article gloating about Paris “reaping the whirlwind” of the ISIS attack.

 

Kamal Majid, a patron of STW and founder member of the Stalin Society, devoted to “defending Stalin and his work.”

 

Issa Chaer, who runs the “Syrian Social Club” and who appears on Assad-friendly TV stations to praise the murderous dictator.

 

Kate Hudson, who was recently quoted as saying “The collapse of the Soviet Union was a catastrophe for humanity.”

 

Before any Corbynists on here sneer at the Telegraph link, it’s worth remembering that Andrew Gilligan exposed the “dodgy dossier”.

This quote from that article pretty much sums it up:

“Stop the War is not anti-war,” said James Bloodworth, the former editor of the Labour-supporting blog, Left Foot Forward. “It is anti-West. It does not appear to object unduly to wars when it is the enemies of the West that are doing the killing.”

I can understand why STW had so much public support - you can't really argue with stopping wars. But there's enough information in the public domain coming from that group for the public to start getting savvy. This is not a nice group of people.

This quote from that article pretty much sums it up:

 

“Stop the War is not anti-war,” said James Bloodworth, the former editor of the Labour-supporting blog, Left Foot Forward. “It is anti-West. It does not appear to object unduly to wars when it is the enemies of the West that are doing the killing.”

 

I can understand why STW had so much public support - you can't really argue with stopping wars. But there's enough information in the public domain coming from that group for the public to start getting savvy. This is not a nice group of people.

And of course it would be impossible for us to come up with a list of dodgy people that Cameron had shaken the hand of and welcomed into this country with open arms wouldn't it? Although I suspect if that were possible, you might find that those individuals have been responsible for the death of many many more innocent people than the no-names mentioned above from the stw bunch. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not one of the stw bunch but the amount of one sided tosh spouted about Corbyn on here is unbelievable. Here's a few of Cameron's mates to get you started. I'm sure you can come up with your own.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/31/why-is-david-cameron-welcoming-egypt-autocrat-president-sisi-to-london

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3280212/David-Cameron-brings-dishonour-Britain-kowtowing-China-s-despots-says-one-PM-s-close-friends.html

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4613933.ece

And of course it would be impossible for us to come up with a list of dodgy people that Cameron had shaken the hand of and welcomed into this country with open arms wouldn't it? Although I suspect if that were possible, you might find that those individuals have been responsible for the death of many many more innocent people than the no-names mentioned above from the stw bunch. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not one of the stw bunch but the amount of one sided tosh spouted about Corbyn on here is unbelievable. Here's a few of Cameron's mates to get you started. I'm sure you can come up with your own.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/31/why-is-david-cameron-welcoming-egypt-autocrat-president-sisi-to-london

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3280212/David-Cameron-brings-dishonour-Britain-kowtowing-China-s-despots-says-one-PM-s-close-friends.html

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4613933.ece

If in doubt, what-about.

And of course it would be impossible for us to come up with a list of dodgy people that Cameron had shaken the hand of and welcomed into this country with open arms wouldn't it? Although I suspect if that were possible, you might find that those individuals have been responsible for the death of many many more innocent people than the no-names mentioned above from the stw bunch. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not one of the stw bunch but the ŷamount of one sided tosh spouted about Corbyn on here is unbelievable. Here's a few of Cameron's mates to get you started. I'm sure you can come up with your own.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/31/why-is-david-cameron-welcoming-egypt-autocrat-president-sisi-to-london

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3280212/David-Cameron-brings-dishonour-Britain-kowtowing-China-s-despots-says-one-PM-s-close-friends.html

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4613933.ece

Well, I didn't reference Corbyn, I was referencing Stop The War, although the fact he supports them says a lot about what goes on behind his soft cuddly exterior. And by raising the question, I can only assume you've not read many opinions coming out of STW. This isn't a peace loving organisation who have been involved in negotiations with unsavoury types in the quest to fulfill its peace loving objectives. This is an organisational that actively and openly supports anyone who is against the West, that uses a language of violence, that calls terrorists murdering civilians 'freedom fighters'. That alone should be enough to make you question their intentions, and quash the little - yes but David Cameron has met unsavourily people too - thought bubbling in your head. I'm no Cameron fan either, but really. These people are as ugly as they come.

Well, I didn't reference Corbyn

It's a 'Jeremy Corbyn' titled thread and the quote you were replying to did quote JC so by implication your comments were a reflection on him.

although the fact he supports them says a lot about what goes on behind his soft cuddly exterior.

See, told ya!

This is an organisational that actively and openly supports anyone who is against the West, that uses a language of violence, that calls terrorists murdering civilians 'freedom fighters'. That alone should be enough to make you question their intentions.

I'm not to familiar with the organisation to be honest but I suspect the soundbites that you've quoted are not credited to the STW group as whole but to some individuals associated with it. Every group that is passionate about its cause has a few 'bad apples' or people with extreme views but that doesn't mean that everyone that supports the aims of those organisations shares their individual viewpoint.

I notice that Caroline Lucas was a member until very recently and she doesn't strike me as being someone you would describe as being 'as ugly as they come', but then again I guess that doesn't fit the Corbyn bashing agenda does it?

In fact here's some very recent quotes from her:

"Jeremy and I have worked together for years and will continue to do so. I have huge respect for him*and we share a commitment to waging peace."

"I stepped down as a patron of Stop the War almost a month ago and of my own volition*– not this week as some have reported, nor under any duress. And I did so without any fanfare because*I did not want to cause damage to an organisation with whom I have worked productively for over a decade, and which has played a vital role in the peace movement."

Doesn't sound very scary.

"The phone hasn't stopped ringing since and all because some want to use the story to attack the left and, in particular, Jeremy Corbyn."

The final quote sort of confirms my point really.

I guess at the end of the day everyone will make their own minds up, whether that's through believing the right wing red tops or by doing their own research but I think it's a bit rich to suggest JC is some sort of terrorist sympathiser for being a member of a group wanting to stop wars!

These people are as ugly as they come

We'll this is the quote that I found most unbelievable. I added a short list of despots to my earlier comment who are responsible for the deaths and torture of many many people yet you seem to think that a few people who have dared to express an unsavoury opinion (although I suspect that some of their quotes have been taken out of context) are the more 'ugly'. It beggars belief and just reinforces how distorted the arguments about JC have become.

TwoPints, I appreciate your polite reply - thanks! Excuse me if my reply is much shorter and I don't do a tidy copy and paste response, but I'm on an iPad and formatting on this is a nightmare.

All I can say is this - my loathing for STW has spanned over a good decade. Well before I ever became aware of Jeremy Corbyn (who is my MP and who I have voted for). Also, comments I make on the subject on here, are my personal opinions and not connected to whatever Corbyn based agenda you are seeing on this site.

In reality, I'm still working Corbyn out - at the least he's weak for not cutting out those objectionable opinions. What I've not yet decided is, is he more than just weak. My opinion seems to alter on a daily basis. That he works with the likes of Seamus Milne (nasty man) is pretty concerning.

But there's plenty of nasty coming out of STW. Official quotes on their website equate to more than one or two objectionable people. Not so say there aren't good people involved. But there is an underbelly of an anti western agenda as the article Verbal pasted highlighted. There is a lot more evidence for this that is easily accessible. I'd copy and paste into this message if it wasn't for the fact that every time I open a new window on this damn iPad it reloads and I lose what I've typed! But you don't me - try google.

I don't understand why you're so shocked by me saying they are ugly. Saying they are as ugly as they come is a turn of phrase and to assume that means I'm comparing them unfavourably to despots is a bit of a leap. I could also say a few of the exchanges on here are as ugly as they come - safer to assume I'm comparing forums rather than comparing those on here with murderous dictators.

You're making the mistake of picking out one poster, and merging their thoughts with others on here who appear in similar territory. That's not me.

Hi Coxford Lou

Thanks for your response. Interesting read and clearly you know far more about STW than I do. As I mentioned earlier, I'm not too familiar with them but their objective of stopping war seems like a good idea to me however from what you say, there may be more to it than that.

I too cannot quite make out Corbyn. I'm surprised at the support he gets tbh, but, as I'm a chap that likes a fair fight, all I ever seem to read are warped stories about him that are normally highly exaggerated and the more they're repeated, the truer they become to those that are easily led. I just like to try and redress the balance.

It's a depressing situation that the labour party don't seem to have anyone in the party that's a stand out leader so I think we're stuck with JC for a while although as I say, he does seem to be getting a fair amount of support. Whether that's spin or true again I'm not sure, we'll have to wait and see.

I understand your point about the Ipad, I use a tablet too and it took me ages to type my last reply. ?

Excellent article by Dan Hodges, comparing Corbyn with Enoch Powell:

Powell was always at pains to paint himself as someone who did not personally entertain prejudice. He was merely an interlocutor between the body politic and those that did. He did not endorse racism. But he thought it important to engage with those who held such views, to understand them, and provide an outlet for their opinions.

Jeremy Corbyn is the same. Terrorists. Anti-semites. Isil apologists. He doesn’t share their views. But he offers himself as a conduit for them. So we can better understand them. Or so he says. And then off he goes, partying with those who chide us not to compare Isil with the Nazis, just as Isil are slipping lethal injections into the arms of disabled children.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12051510/Jeremy-Corbyn-has-become-the-Lefts-Enoch-Powell.html

Over reaching by the Mail?

Excellent article by Dan Hodges, comparing Corbyn with Enoch Powell:

 

Powell was always at pains to paint himself as someone who did not personally entertain prejudice. He was merely an interlocutor between the body politic and those that did. He did not endorse racism. But he thought it important to engage with those who held such views, to understand them, and provide an outlet for their opinions.

 

Jeremy Corbyn is the same. Terrorists. Anti-semites. Isil apologists. He doesn’t share their views. But he offers himself as a conduit for them. So we can better understand them. Or so he says. And then off he goes, partying with those who chide us not to compare Isil with the Nazis, just as Isil are slipping lethal injections into the arms of disabled children.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12051510/Jeremy-Corbyn-has-become-the-Lefts-Enoch-Powell.html

True to form old boy.

Hatchjob Hodges. Who p!$$es himself, like an incontinent attack dog, on account of any politician who isn't called tony or david m or boris for that matter.

Boo Hoo to the Bitterites.

True to form old boy.

 

Hatchjob Hodges. Who p!$$es himself, like an incontinent attack dog, on account of any politician who isn't called tony or david m or boris for that matter.

 

Boo Hoo to the Bitterites.

I think we'll see who the really bitter ones are within the two years it takes the bearded tit to find himself in the dustbin of history.

I think we'll see who the really bitter ones are within the two years it takes the bearded tit to find himself in the dustbin of history.

And I hope Corbyn fails quickly and painlessly, though, above all, I hope he fails as a result of his own mistakes rather than the machinations of others. It's not like he needs to be pushed.

But, so convinced of NuLab's manifest destiny, it's not in the DNA of Blairites to stay quiet -never mind to listen and learn. The likes of Hodges are akin to those Japanese soldiers who carried on fighting WWII decades after Japan surrendered. Or Dan Ackroyd in Trading Places. But in this case, they were trounced by a bearded twät. And for one I find their enraged impotence hilarious -and long may it continue till a credible alternative to Blairism and Corbynism emerges.

And I hope Corbyn fails quickly and painlessly, though, above all, I hope he fails as a result of his own mistakes rather than the machinations of others. It's not like he needs to be pushed.

 

But, so convinced of NuLab's manifest destiny, it's not in the DNA of Blairites to stay quiet -never mind to listen and learn. The likes of Hodges are akin to those Japanese soldiers who carried on fighting WWII decades after Japan surrendered. Or Dan Ackroyd in Trading Places. But in this case, they were trounced by a bearded twät. And for one I find their enraged impotence hilarious -and long may it continue till a credible alternative to Blairism and Corbynism emerges.

You must be new to politics. A few things:

One is don't buy the Corbynists' simplistic conspiracy theory that the party is divided between them and "Blairites". Labour is a much more complex party than that. For Corbyn's crowd, Blairites = Tory-lites and should therefore be deselected from the party. But Corbynists seem unable to understand that they are fighting with woeful inadequacy to protect the very measures that the Tory-lites introduced. Still, the Corbynists have a good model - Corbyn achieved the square root of **** all in over three decades, while shocking Blairites like Gordon Brown had tax credits and Harman the 2010 Equality Act to disgrace their names.

The "bitter" tag is surely ironic given the relentless conspiracy-theorising whining from Corbynists about how the mainstream media are all out to get them. They actually appear to believe that all others aside from Corbyn get a free ride - ignoring the vast acreage of articles critical of Cameron, Grayling, Farage, Gove, Osborne, etc, etc.

Who exactly "trounced" the non-Corbynist wings of the party is still to be determined. It looks likely that regardless of the shiny-faced Utopians, the real winners, as in the eighties, will be the anti-parliamentary left. If so, the real losers will in all likelihood be the very people Labour have always sought to protect.

Not only does JC seem to be dividing the Labour party, he seems to be splitting the SWF lefties on here as well.

Up until the last election, lefties on here were united in their struggle against the coalition / tories. Now they are arguing amongst themselves.

The centralists and right-wingers on this board, have been sidelined.

You must be new to politics. A few things:

 

One is don't buy the Corbynists' simplistic conspiracy theory that the party is divided between them and "Blairites". Labour is a much more complex party than that. For Corbyn's crowd, Blairites = Tory-lites and should therefore be deselected from the party. But Corbynists seem unable to understand that they are fighting with woeful inadequacy to protect the very measures that the Tory-lites introduced. Still, the Corbynists have a good model - Corbyn achieved the square root of **** all in over three decades, while shocking Blairites like Gordon Brown had tax credits and Harman the 2010 Equality Act to disgrace their names.

 

The "bitter" tag is surely ironic given the relentless conspiracy-theorising whining from Corbynists about how the mainstream media are all out to get them. They actually appear to believe that all others aside from Corbyn get a free ride - ignoring the vast acreage of articles critical of Cameron, Grayling, Farage, Gove, Osborne, etc, etc.

 

Who exactly "trounced" the non-Corbynist wings of the party is still to be determined. It looks likely that regardless of the shiny-faced Utopians, the real winners, as in the eighties, will be the anti-parliamentary left. If so, the real losers will in all likelihood be the very people Labour have always sought to protect.

Nope.

Can certainly assure you that those faultlines exist within the party. In private, the likes Chuka Umunna and David Miliband happily refer to themselves as neo-Blairite.

What this means in practice -besides a thin version of equality of opportunity married to social populism and a happy-clappy faith in business or pluralism as its euphemistically called- is anyone's guess.

Clearly there are other faultlines in the party, many deeply sceptical of Corbyn, though their voice isn't nearly as loud or shrill as the Blairites. Mandelson's gleeful portmortem on Labour's election defeat, hours after the fact, while the body was still lukewarm was as breaktakingly partisan as anything the Corbynites have done. Dan Hodges "look at what Ed Miliband did and do the opposite" -and Ed M now comes across as a moderate- is as binary as any Corbynite worldview.

Let's not forget, the Bitterite tag was coined by John Prescott. He backed Andy Burnham to win the leadership contest. His comment, above all, speaks to how indulgently destructive this internal opposition has the potential to be -never mind, there are ideas on Corbyn's tentative policy menu that mainstream labour supporters and indeed voters might sign up to. Scepticism, tempered by wait-and-see and residual party loyalty, appears to be the prevailing mood, not the schlock Dan Hodges articles you cite.

So yes, it takes two tango and the Corbynites are not gristling over an imagined enemy.

None of which is to deny that the sooner the Labour Party moves past the dalliance with Corbyn, the better. The same goes for Corbyn's most vocal critics: the sooner they learn some of the lessons of Corbyn's victory (and more critically their own failures) rather than dismissing everything as some bizarro putsch by the unreconstituted left, the better. The last thing Corbyn or British politics needs is to make a martyr out of the bearded tŵàt. A sense of victimhood comes easily enough already.

Quit moaning and get behind Koeman...

I wonder what Hodges leftie mother makes of his attacks on Jezza . I'd imigane she'd be quite close to Corbyn , politically , not in an Abbott type way (puke) .

I see Corbyn's bessie and comrade in Stop the War arms, Tariq Ali, has taken to insulting Kurds because of their support for action against ISIS. He's called them "stage Kurds" - witless stooges of the West, in other words.

Here's an excellent response from the Kurds' regional representative in London, basically telling Ali to go **** himself.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/12/we-need-talk-about-kurdistan

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12066323/Jeremy-Corbyn-cancels-Christmas-and-refuses-to-issue-festive-message.html

Telegraph Claims Corbyn Has 'Cancelled Christmas - He Hasn't' http://huff.to/1NLtXu2

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12066323/Jeremy-Corbyn-cancels-Christmas-and-refuses-to-issue-festive-message.html

Thats spectacularly weak.

Thats spectacularly weak.

Probably. But Corbyn continues his speciality line in grumpy open-goal scoring. He forgets - did he ever know or care? - that the roots of the Labour party are substantially in the Christian socialist movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Outside of London - for Corbyn is as much a produce of the hermetic London elite as any of the 'Tory-lites' in his party - the free-chapel preachers (included among the 'ragged trousered philanthropists' of Robert Tressell's famous novel) in working class towns and cities were a critical in laying the foundations of popular support for Labour among working-class voters.

Besides, the refusal to issue a Christmas message makes Corbyn the prototypical Sad Old Git - hopelessly confusing a festive holiday enjoyed by atheists and other religionists alike with some kind of ritual of fundamental religiosity. It is not the latter, and never has been.

What an utter miserablist Corbyn is. Again.