Jeremy Corbyn

[Doctor Floptopus]

What do people think of the new UK labour leader?
What do you think of his policies?
Are the Labour party now, to quote Cameron, "A threat to national security"?

Personally, as a hard Leftie, I agree with a lot of his policies, but I'm not entirely sure how many are realistic - as an example, I don't think the country has enough money to renationalise railway and energy companies, but it might be better for the economy in the long run.

 

[Beth Pavell]

To call Labour a threat to national security is just plain ridiculous. Considering how well sewn-up the Tories' position is, they really shouldn't feel the need to make statements like that.

On a personal level, I find Corbyn too much of a traditional leftie. That being said, being left in Labour usually means buddying up to the Unions, which I like even less, so I guess I'm on the fence. Assuming Corbyn does manage to stick around as leader, and assuming the party follows his way of thinking ... well, it won't get them elected at the next general, but I suspect it'll do Labour good in the long run to be seen as a properly socialist party again.

 

[Sword Master]

It's meant to be Corbyn not Corbin. Lol
Meh. I support the Tories, and his ideas are ridiculous (scrapping nukes, army) are country economic growth would be destroyed, we have no defences and our country will not be worth living with Corbyn as leader. Hope he stays as labour leader, as we can continue with strong Tory leadership.

 

[The Infidel]

As a Conservative I am over the moon. He is the greatest gift we could ever wish for.
I actually signed up as one of the £3 Labour "supporters" in order to vote for him to help us to the win.

And yes I agree with David that if he ever got into power he would be a huge threat to our national security, he's already stated he doesn't understand why we killed a terrorist plotting to kill many of us.

Thankfully the chances of him ever getting in are extremely slim, he holds some really vile and disgusting views that I think even a lot of Labour supporters would be very uncomfortable with. (Hamas as our friends, no longer criticising Iran for killing gay teens) as well as lobbying on behalf of a man who said he wants every British soldier dead.

No one needs to do anything, the press dont even have to work hard for stories, just simply show the videos. Quite often he doesn't even deny them. I mean what it's been 4 days and he's already turned up looking scruffy to an armed force memorial event and refused to sing the country's national anthem.

 

[Doctor Floptopus]

I guess this is where I disagree.
I think we shouldn't use nuclear weapons. No-one should. A nuclear war could easily kill billions of innocent people.
Peace talks, while difficult, should always happen before rushing into war. They probably wouldn't work, but hey, it's worth a shot.
Controls on rent and more tax controls are necessary to prevent the gap between the rich and the poor increasing. I would also like to see lowered tuition fees since I don't really like the idea of being in debt before I even have a job.
And while I am opposed to his anti-royalist views, I can see the reason behind them. I think that's also why he refused to sing the National Anthem. I mean, isn't it his choice?

 

[Lysson]

At first I thought he would be good by his policies because I agree with a lot of hem but what Azuro has said about him... he's actually horrible.

However Corbyn's policies are mostly popular within the party, they're hardly his own. I'm also suspicious of him when it comes to women's and LGBT+rights with his stance on ISIS, Hamas and such who murder or enslave such people. Oh and appointing a mostly female shadow cabinet doesn't impress me, it makes it look as though he pities women and doesn't think they'd get the positions if it weren't for him.

 

[Beth Pavell]

However Corbyn's policies are mostly popular within the party, they're hardly his own. I'm also suspicious of him when it comes to women's and LGBT+rights with his stance on ISIS, Hamas and such who murder or enslave such people.

As I understand it, his point is that you have to make compromises with people you don't like if you want peace. Which is sensible, really - you can't apply the same attitude towards LGBT rights when negotiating with Middle Eastern leaders as you do with the opposition in Parliament.

 

[Persephone]

There's a tough game internationally where even the most ardent of domestic liberals occasionally have to work with horrific leaders abroad because foreign policy is more determined by shared national objectives than leadership similarities. Even in the Cold War countries occasionally operated on the "opposite" side in practice. If that's your main concern with him, I'm afraid you probably won't be able to find a leader with any expectations of running a country one day who doesn't have that problem.

 

[Iteru]

In my opinion he is too stuck in the past. Suggestions like women-only carriages only drive the country backwards.

However there are good things about him in that he does get young people interested in politics and it is about time that PMQs isn't a group of middle aged men acting like apes, so good on him for trying to change it. The whole national anthem thing is completely blown out of proportion as yes, the song is about pledging allegiance to a person whom the majority of us recognise as an economic asset and not anything more. Do people get at the current monarch for not singing the song? No, but somehow they're not being disrespectful.

For me at the end of the day the Conservatives are necessary for our economic recovery and once its done they'll be gone. Corbyn is just extending that period.

 

[Lysson]

However Corbyn's policies are mostly popular within the party, they're hardly his own. I'm also suspicious of him when it comes to women's and LGBT+rights with his stance on ISIS, Hamas and such who murder or enslave such people.

As I understand it, his point is that you have to make compromises with people you don't like if you want peace. Which is sensible, really - you can't apply the same attitude towards LGBT rights when negotiating with Middle Eastern leaders as you do with the opposition in Parliament.

I fully understand that. David Cameron has done a deal with Saudi Arabia which is the worst country when it comes to women's rights and LGBT+ rights but at least he had the decency to express his disgust with their treatment and said you sometimes had to make deals. As far as I have seen, Corbyn hasn't expressed his disgust at Hamas or Iraq and frankly he should.

There's a tough game internationally where even the most ardent of domestic liberals occasionally have to work with horrific leaders abroad because foreign policy is more determined by shared national objectives than leadership similarities. Even in the Cold War countries occasionally operated on the "opposite" side in practice. If that's your main concern with him, I'm afraid you probably won't be able to find a leader with any expectations of running a country one day who doesn't have that problem.

That's not my only problem with him, I have plenty more. Labour needs and deserves a leader like Nicola Sturgeon. And like I said, I understand you have to do deals with the enemy sometimes to keep peace but you need to show that you hate what they do. If he doesn't have the nerve to speak out about rights in other countries then I hardly trust him with our rights.

As a young woman he just seems entirely old fashioned and out of touch with modern women, especially young ones. Women only carriages? Implying women can't take care of themselves and think every man is out to get them? He's no Bernie Saunders and it shows. Corbyn isn't the worst Labour could have gotten but it needs better. I personally don't see what's wrong with Ed Miliband and he was great, not the best though. But the media will do what it does best, confuse and manipulate the public.

 

[Beth Pavell]

I can't help but think that we get what we deserve as the public. You can blame it on the media, but honestly I think the public as a whole put too much stock in appearances. Ed Miliband doesn't look like a statesmen and we wouldn't stop slamming him for it, as if if Putin would be giving him noogies at every summit. We complained constantly that parties don't have personality any more. So now we've given Labour every reason to go for something completely different

 

[Persephone]

He's no Bernie Saunders and it shows.

Jumping in from across the pond to say that Corbyn is way to Sanders left on a multitude of issues. Sanders wants to cut the military to levels that would still dwarf the UK in per capita spending and he hasn't proposed abolishing the nuclear programs afaik. He doesn't support nationalizing even the health care system, although the railroads in America are already semi-public as is so he doesn't have that to worry about. Sanders supports more or less unlimited "gun rights," is friendly with Saudi Arabia (because you have to be as an American politician), etc. Honestly on economic issues and (most) social issues Sanders would be center-right in practice in Europe. When he says "democratic socialist" he means by American standards. And, with America being arguably the most conservative developed democracy in the world, that's not saying much.

 

[Lysson]

He's no Bernie Saunders and it shows.

Jumping in from across the pond to say that Corbyn is way to Sanders left on a multitude of issues. Sanders wants to cut the military to levels that would still dwarf the UK in per capita spending and he hasn't proposed abolishing the nuclear programs afaik. He doesn't support nationalizing even the health care system, although the railroads in America are already semi-public as is so he doesn't have that to worry about. Sanders supports more or less unlimited "gun rights," is friendly with Saudi Arabia (because you have to be as an American politician), etc. Honestly on economic issues and (most) social issues Sanders would be center-right in practice in Europe. When he says "democratic socialist" he means by American standards. And, with America being arguably the most conservative developed democracy in the world, that's not saying much.

Ah that is very true, America is quite a bit more right wing than us. I meant more so on his charisma but I was unaware that he was that right wing (most news outlooks I follow are american left wing or the BBC who portray him in a positive and left aspect).

 

[Doctor Floptopus]

The only problem with milliband was that it was very, very easy to mock him, so the media did.
I agree that we need more leaders like those of the minor parties, like Sturgeon, but unfortunately there just don't seem to be a lot of good enough politician around.

Now that we've got a properly left labour leader again, when are we going to get a properly right Tory?

 

[Beth Pavell]

I'm not sure that Nicola Sturgeon is an apt model for comparison. She - and the SNP as a whole - can always shore up her image with some good old nationalistic rhetoric every now and again. Like threatening to hold another referendum.

 

[Jolene]

He's the best gift Labour could give to the Conservatives. He is very interesting to say the least and I agree with his stance regarding the Middle East.

Unilateral disarmament and complete re-nationalization are nothing but pipe dreams at this point but it's nice to see those views aired. More people will realize how ridiculous and untenable they are.

 

[The Infidel]

I guess this is where I disagree.
I think we shouldn't use nuclear weapons. No-one should. A nuclear war could easily kill billions of innocent people.
Peace talks, while difficult, should always happen before rushing into war. They probably wouldn't work, but hey, it's worth a shot.
Controls on rent and more tax controls are necessary to prevent the gap between the rich and the poor increasing. I would also like to see lowered tuition fees since I don't really like the idea of being in debt before I even have a job.
And while I am opposed to his anti-royalist views, I can see the reason behind them. I think that's also why he refused to sing the National Anthem. I mean, isn't it his choice?

The difference is the UK doesn't maintain Nuclear weapons in the hopes that it can wipe out some of its foes (like a few countries hoping to obtain Nuclears are) the UK maintains its Nuclear arsenal only as a deterrent initially in the cold war to make sure Russia didn't nuke us, but now to deter against other threats.

And you're right he is perfectly allowed to not sing, and turn up looking scruffy to a war memorial event. I haven't seen anyone suggest what he did should be criminalised. But equally us as voters have the right to be disgusted by his decisions and not vote for him.

At first I thought he would be good by his policies because I agree with a lot of hem but what Azuro has said about him... he's actually horrible.

However Corbyn's policies are mostly popular within the party, they're hardly his own. I'm also suspicious of him when it comes to women's and LGBT+rights with his stance on ISIS, Hamas and such who murder or enslave such people. Oh and appointing a mostly female shadow cabinet doesn't impress me, it makes it look as though he pities women and doesn't think they'd get the positions if it weren't for him.

Also the thing many on the left are scared to point out is that while he has half his shadow cabinet full of females, they are mostly all low ranking roles, some dont even have a specific role they just get to turn up, literally, just to make up the numbers! The Top 5 positions, Leader, Deputy, Home, Foreign, Chancellor, are all filled by old white men.

However Corbyn's policies are mostly popular within the party, they're hardly his own. I'm also suspicious of him when it comes to women's and LGBT+rights with his stance on ISIS, Hamas and such who murder or enslave such people.

As I understand it, his point is that you have to make compromises with people you don't like if you want peace. Which is sensible, really - you can't apply the same attitude towards LGBT rights when negotiating with Middle Eastern leaders as you do with the opposition in Parliament.

You are never going to get an agreement with people who's sole aim is the complete eradication of another people. Want compromise can you possibly reach (only eradicate half of them?) Hamas have in line 1 of their charter, the complete destruction of israel, and the death of all the jews, "where even the trees say there is a jew behind me come kill it" That's not an ideology you can reason with. ISIS, want to impose Shariah law on the world under a global caliphate, that is their sole reason to exist. And they believe nothing is higher than Islam, and any deviation from it is punishable by death, so how is some old white guy from britain going to convince them to set aside their main raison d'etre.

The only problem with milliband was that it was very, very easy to mock him, so the media did.
I agree that we need more leaders like those of the minor parties, like Sturgeon, but unfortunately there just don't seem to be a lot of good enough politician around.

Now that we've got a properly left labour leader again, when are we going to get a properly right Tory?

Well, we already have UKIP filling that role. Mostly, the Tories have learnt (from Tony Blair) that elections are won from the centre, and that politics is about compromise to implement some of your agenda, rather than remain a purist and implement none of it.

I'm not sure that Nicola Sturgeon is an apt model for comparison. She - and the SNP as a whole - can always shore up her image with some good old nationalistic rhetoric every now and again. Like threatening to hold another referendum.

Surely if the Scots vote in a party that wants another referendum, the Scots are entitled to it? No politician, whether Labour, SNP or Tory, can tell the Scots they can't have another vote. All humans have a right to self determination, not 1 chance at self determination then you have to stick with the result even if things change!

 

[Beth Pavell]

However Corbyn's policies are mostly popular within the party, they're hardly his own. I'm also suspicious of him when it comes to women's and LGBT+rights with his stance on ISIS, Hamas and such who murder or enslave such people.

As I understand it, his point is that you have to make compromises with people you don't like if you want peace. Which is sensible, really - you can't apply the same attitude towards LGBT rights when negotiating with Middle Eastern leaders as you do with the opposition in Parliament.

You are never going to get an agreement with people who's sole aim is the complete eradication of another people. Want compromise can you possibly reach (only eradicate half of them?) Hamas have in line 1 of their charter, the complete destruction of israel, and the death of all the jews, "where even the trees say there is a jew behind me come kill it" That's not an ideology you can reason with. ISIS, want to impose Shariah law on the world under a global caliphate, that is their sole reason to exist. And they believe nothing is higher than Islam, and any deviation from it is punishable by death, so how is some old white guy from britain going to convince them to set aside their main raison d'etre.

Compromises like agreeing on national borders. Agreeing that people have the right to exist as a nation. Agreeing on a ceasefire. Agreeing to put aside doctrinal differences in order to contain a threat to everyone's peace. Some of that will involve being prepared to put up with working with governments that are pretty damn reprehensible for the sake of getting some sort of stability and rule of law going. None of those things are easy. Trying to pick one side as the good guys and bombing their opponents has failed to work, and if anything, has made Britain less safe.

I'm not sure that Nicola Sturgeon is an apt model for comparison. She - and the SNP as a whole - can always shore up her image with some good old nationalistic rhetoric every now and again. Like threatening to hold another referendum.

Surely if the Scots vote in a party that wants another referendum, the Scots are entitled to it? No politician, whether Labour, SNP or Tory, can tell the Scots they can't have another vote. All humans have a right to self determination, not 1 chance at self determination then you have to stick with the result even if things change!

I wasn't criticising self-determination. I was criticising using it as a cheap threat to gain quick approval. And in any case, it's disrespectful to the democratic process to hold another vote as soon as you can because you didn't get the result you wanted last time

 

[The Infidel]

However Corbyn's policies are mostly popular within the party, they're hardly his own. I'm also suspicious of him when it comes to women's and LGBT+rights with his stance on ISIS, Hamas and such who murder or enslave such people.

As I understand it, his point is that you have to make compromises with people you don't like if you want peace. Which is sensible, really - you can't apply the same attitude towards LGBT rights when negotiating with Middle Eastern leaders as you do with the opposition in Parliament.

You are never going to get an agreement with people who's sole aim is the complete eradication of another people. Want compromise can you possibly reach (only eradicate half of them?) Hamas have in line 1 of their charter, the complete destruction of israel, and the death of all the jews, "where even the trees say there is a jew behind me come kill it" That's not an ideology you can reason with. ISIS, want to impose Shariah law on the world under a global caliphate, that is their sole reason to exist. And they believe nothing is higher than Islam, and any deviation from it is punishable by death, so how is some old white guy from britain going to convince them to set aside their main raison d'etre.

Compromises like agreeing on national borders. Agreeing that people have the right to exist as a nation. Agreeing on a ceasefire. Agreeing to put aside doctrinal differences in order to contain a threat to everyone's peace. Some of that will involve being prepared to put up with working with governments that are pretty damn reprehensible for the sake of getting some sort of stability and rule of law going. None of those things are easy. Trying to pick one side as the good guys and bombing their opponents has failed to work, and if anything, has made Britain less safe.

Well done you've managed to completely ignore what I said. There is no way to get Hamas to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, because their whole reason of being is to wipe Israel off the map. If they acknowledge Israel's right to exist, their whole reason of being is gone, and please don't tell me your naive enough to believe any form of compromise with ISIS is possible, again their very foundation is about implementing the strictest interpration of Islam without compromise.

I'm not sure that Nicola Sturgeon is an apt model for comparison. She - and the SNP as a whole - can always shore up her image with some good old nationalistic rhetoric every now and again. Like threatening to hold another referendum.

Surely if the Scots vote in a party that wants another referendum, the Scots are entitled to it? No politician, whether Labour, SNP or Tory, can tell the Scots they can't have another vote. All humans have a right to self determination, not 1 chance at self determination then you have to stick with the result even if things change!

I wasn't criticising self-determination. I was criticising using it as a cheap threat to gain quick approval. And in any case, it's disrespectful to the democratic process to hold another vote as soon as you can because you didn't get the result you wanted last time

NO! What's disrespectful to the democratic process is if Scotland votes in favour of holding another referendum, and you deny them that because you feel they had one too recently!

 

[Beth Pavell]

Well done you've managed to completely ignore what I said. There is no way to get Hamas to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, because their whole reason of being is to wipe Israel off the map. If they acknowledge Israel's right to exist, their whole reason of being is gone, and please don't tell me your naive enough to believe any form of compromise with ISIS is possible, again their very foundation is about implementing the strictest interpration of Islam without compromise.

Nope, no I didn't. Agreeing on ceasefires, agreeing on national borders and the right of other nations to exist, all applicable to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Which isn't the only conflict in the Middle East. If the past ten years has taught us anything, it's that you can't form a lasting peace simply by shooting enough people, especially when the war starts over an idea. Hasn't worked in Israel, hasn't worked in Afghanistan, hasn't worked for Assad in Syria. That's not naivete, that's looking at the facts. As far as ISIS is concerned, I wouldn't like to make many predictions. If they actually manage to form a functioning state, they'll have to learn how to play the diplomacy game, or else collapse in on themselves.

NO! What's disrespectful to the democratic process is if Scotland votes in favour of holding another referendum, and you deny them that because you feel they had one too recently!

First of all, you're attacking me as if I said my voice matters in any Scottish independence referendum - I didn't say that. Secondly, in a vote where the results will be permanent, it is not respectful of the results of the last referendum to keep holding them until you get the result you want - in other words, permanent independence. Those Scots who want independence would essentially get chance after chance to get their own way, but if Scotland goes independent, the Scots who didn't want it wouldn't get a second chance. Holding only one referendum and declaring it binding forever is obviously unfair on future generations, which is why voting on it once per generation is a much fairer solution.