To not understand all of this Corbyn hate

[clevername]

Disclaimer – I consider myself to be an intelligent and thoughtful person but also very uninformed and ignorant of political (and other) current affairs. Largely through my own choosing – I have virtually no faith in politicians and politics at all. I realised a very long time ago that the whole thing was an elaborate farce. I’ve always spoilt my ballot until Nick Clegg won me over and then proved, unequivocally, that I was right to not trust them. I vowed never to vote again but I’m feeling stirred to this time around and have therefore been looking into it more and trying to sift through the inevitable bullshit…

So – what is so bad about Corbyn? From what I understand (do remember my disclaimer and how uninformed I am!), the main people in the Labour party hate him because he is ‘unelectable’. So they’ve wanted him out for a long time but he has refused to go, on account of the fact he has been democratically chosen by the party members to be the leader. This annoys and frustrates them and they therefore blame him for creating an enormous and damaging rift in the party. But, surely, the fact that he has been elected as leader is testament to his popularity with Labour voters? And isn’t it a good thing that he stands his ground? Especially against the kind of people who would rather have someone like Ed Milliband (or his ilk – I don’t know any ‘current’ names) as party leader? Doesn’t it show that he is principled and ‘different’ from the political norm? Isn’t this something that we need?

And what does it matter if the Labour party are in shambles (a common reason I hear for not wanting to vote for them this time)? Surely that’s because of all of the ‘unelectable’ stuff above. But if he were to be elected, I’m guessing those problems would evaporate. Because he would have been elected. And anyway, aren’t political parties often shambolic? Wasn’t May’s drastic cabinet overhaul and sackings at the beginning of her reign (not to mention the Boris/Gove thing in the leadership contest) a clear sign of an ununited, shambolic party?

I realise Corbyn isn’t to everyone’s tastes politically but if you’re left leaning and want to try and get rid of the Tories, surely he’s not such a bad bet?

I’m sorry if this is making me come across as stupid but I genuinely want to know why some people (especially those who would normally consider themselves left-wing or Labour voters) dislike him so much.

Im not sure that the right wing tropes that keep getting wheeled out arent anywhere near as effective as they were yet they still get trotted out.

Corbyn (the weak leader that he apparently is) cant seem to get Theresa May to debate him, I wonder if she knows that their record in government is indefensible and so doesnt want to be held to account without her scriptwriters at hand

It would be great if some of the points being made were actually addressed, rather than dismissed, or the people making them insulted.

Valentine, you're welcome . The other issue is the unions - they mostly support Trident. By electing Corbyn, the party has ensured these divisions stay front and centre. Conference decides the "work" of the party (see the party rule book) - I suspect most of the PLP wouldn't support Trident if it wasn't popular in the country, and with the unions. Any party divided on this issue would face a press grilling.

I haven't twisted your words

I didn't call you stupid I said it was a rather stupid argument you are trying to put forward

Every PM will have to deal with other state leaders regardless at times of their countries regimes it's politics and diplomacy

His work wasn't it was to line his pockets you may not have a problem with it I do when he promotes himself as a man of principle (as I would any other politician who was touted as principled yet their actions are questionable)

One brings in huge amounts of money for our country even if we don't like it (and Saudi is our closest Arab ally in the ME and we like their cheap oil) and one simply isn't necessary

It wouldn't drastically change under labour as our relationship with Saudi is too good financially for us to give up on

Do I like that no! do I hope it will change absolutely! can I see it changing not much at this point in time we simply need as much money as possible behind us as we leave the EU

One brings in huge amounts of money for our country even if we don't like it (and Saudi is our closest Arab ally in the ME and we like their cheap oil) and one simply isn't necessary
Sorry but you genuinely made me laugh out loud. You, yourself, say that his meeting Irani press and saying stuff that I have yet to check so I keep my judgment safe on that is a problem because Iran doesn't matter to us financially and Saudi does, though like any other ally, they like to support international terrorism here in our streets (which Iran hasn't).
And then you have managed to demand that Corbyn should be the man of principle and shouldn't see press from a country that hasn't supported terror in our streets?
That sounds real mental. Can you please try and explain that to your young children? I most certainly can't.

enthusiasm
You have basically told me to teach my kids this:
Someone comes and bullies and hurts your family but gives you large quantities of money and cheap oil and that makes it fine.
Jus do not go and talk to people who don't give you money and don't come to kill you because they are rather useless for you.

It's not what principle is. You either leave principle out of it or stop bringing up some obscure press tv interview (can you please explain which of the points he said in there that you have a problem with?).
FWIW, I think it's also the job of political leaders of countries to try make good relationships with countries that do have loads of oil and haven't killed anyone on our streets ever and can potentially help us fight the monopoly of bullies like Saudis.

Corbyn reminds me a bit of Chamberlain as far as the ME goes. Chamberlain made the mistake with Hitler and Mussolini of assuming that they were reasonable men and would come to reasonable consequences to keep the peace. But they weren't reasonable men, they were mad men in thrall to an insane ideology and intent on war, bloodshed, obliteration of their enemies and domination of as much of the world as possible.

I think Corbyn is the same with extremist Islam, he's trying to be reasonable with unreasonable men because he's far too optimistic about their intent.

That said, Iran as a Shia country is a potential bulwark against Wahabbism, but I doubt that's why Corbyn is talking to them.

I haven't mentioned anything about Iran's importance to us

I never said Corbyn met with Iranian press I said he appeared on Iranian State TV and was paid for his appearance it had nothing to to with any peace talks imor political work it was a job (I think it was a phone in) that he got paid well for but why would a man so principled as Corbyn (obviously I don't believe he is) accept payment for himself from the Iranian State

Iran not behind terrorism maybe not directly here but Iranian State is believed to find many terrorists groups that indirectly impact us

You can't possibly believe that if Corbyn became PM he wouldn't deal with Saudi heads of state of course he would he would have to

I think Corbyn is the same with extremist Islam, he's trying to be reasonable with unreasonable men because he's far too optimistic about their intent.

I have no qualms about him or May talking to anyone. I just wish someone starts to focus on their policies and how Corbyn's plan of diverting money from Trident can fund at least some of the rest of his pledges (we are talking about scores and scores of billions here per year). Can we kindly leave Saudi and Iran alone? We have a country of our own and have genuine problems that need attention.

The problem isn't the content of the interviews per se - it is that he took money, from the state TV - the state with a horrendous record on human rights, torture (including of journalists etc etc). uk.businessinsider.com/jeremy-corbyn-press-tv-iran-money-labour-leadership-2016-9.

No-one twisted JC's arm to do this, it wasn't part of his job from any possible angle, and it seems to have helped no-one except himself or possibly his "office".

In what way was this demonstrating integrity or principle?

Valentine, how will Corbyn scrap Trident? Will he face down the unions, change the rule book, or what?

enthusiasm
So it was a phone call?
What's wrong in it? Prince Charles managed to actually change into Arab attire to please his oil-filled friends.
And our own country has killed millions directly and indirectly in the last few decades so it's a bit rich of you to point fingers to any other country basically.
I still don't see why you have a problem with him making money out of a phone interview. i have never seen much of a problem with MPs/PMs/presidents using their experience/position to give paid talks etc.
It's part of their job anyway. They might as well make some money out of it. Specially as the said interview doesn't involve a country that's actively killing our people.

lalsy
I don't know if he will or won't. I just wonder. The problem is that PLP etc have created so much noise that its become hard to sit down and ask these questions one by one.
That's one big source of annoyance for the younger public I think.

lalsy
I think if PLP get some fucking guts and support this policy, the results will inevitably show the public that it was the right thing to do.
But populism is the new principle now.

My huge concerns are the privatisation of the NHS and Education. The NHS has been run down to the ground by the Tories yet they have borrowed more money than all Labour Governments put together and not paid off any of the national debt, So where is the money going? On tax breaks to the wealthy, Certainly not into the Health Service nor into schools.I don't have private health insurance and the idea of having to pay to see my GP or to have an operation worries me.I can see that many, many people just won't be able to access medical help. I am deeply troubled by the fact that schools are now so short of resources that teachers are having to ask parents for financial help or to pay for resources out of their own pockets and that staffing levels are being reduced. Support staff levels are being reduced and children who require extra support are being let down. Schools simply don't have the money and this will only get worse if the Tories stay in Government.I hate the changes they have made to the National Curriculum and the endless emphasis on testing. I despise the fact that the Tories are only interested in helping the rich and the rest of us can go to hell. I really welcome Jeremy Corbyn's policies too as I want to see a fairer society.We are the 5th richest country in the world yet homelessness has increased under this Government, people now have to resort to using food banks and the sick, mentally ill, disabled and elderly are being treated appallingly. It worries me that my children won't be able to afford to buy their own homes. I have heard Jeremy Corbyn speak on a couple of occasions and have met him. He is a man of true integrity, a compassionate man and a man who champions negotiation over hostility. It is truly disturbing to hear that Theresa May would fire nuclear weapons as a first strike. And as for her cozying up to Trump, words fail me. As for how Labour would pay for their policies like abolishing tuition fees, renationalising British Rail,( this won't cost anything as BR will be brought back under public ownership) properly funding Education and Health, I understand that the Labour Party will reverse the Tory Party cut in Corporation Tax, ( £64 billion)halt the tender of NHS contracts and phase out the £48 billion given to private health care, ban the sweetheart deals between MHRC and the multi- corporations who don't pay their tax, for starters. I hate what this country has become; the selfishness of people and I like that the Labour Party values the many and not the few.

understand that the Labour Party will reverse the Tory Party cut in Corporation Tax, ( £64 billion)halt the tender of NHS contracts and phase out the £48 billion given to private health care, ban the sweetheart deals between MHRC and the multi- corporations who don't pay their tax, for starters. I hate what this country has become; the selfishness of people and I like that the Labour Party values the many and not the few.

Can you please share some kind of link that could help me understand these figures?

www.labourhartlepool.co.uk/2017/04/labour-has-fully-costed-policies-for.html

understand that the Labour Party will reverse the Tory Party cut in Corporation Tax

Apparently yes. However they are over promising what this money will be used for. So far about 5 policies will use this money -and the magic money tree which is completely unrealistic.

The last few days they have launched new policies yet no one can answer the question of 'how will you pay for it'. By not answering it they are losing the public and falling into the usual stance of good idea but completely unrealistic.

I think if PLP get some fucking guts and support this policy, the results will inevitably show the public that it was the right thing to do.

Firstly why should they?

Secondly public opinion is for them to stay.

Thirdly the unions and some the Labour heartlands will never go for it as they provide so many jobs. Hardly complain that Tories cuts are causing job loses if they then go and do the same can they?

Fourthly why should the PLP get behind Corbyn. He hasn't with past leaders. He can't expect loyalty when he hasn't given it himself!

Chamberlain made the mistake with Hitler and Mussolini of assuming that they were reasonable men and would come to reasonable consequences to keep the peace. But they weren't reasonable men, they were mad men in thrall to an insane ideology and intent on war, bloodshed, obliteration of their enemies and domination of as much of the world as possible.

Another way of looking at it:

If we view WWII as an extension of the Great War, unfinished business. Clearly German militarism was a major cause. Why were they so damned aggressive?

One of Germany's complaints was that they too should be able to hold an Empire. Why should other nations be allowed to spread themselves around the globe? It is a difficult question as at the time Empires existed, and we have to ask ourselves about the nature of our own position.

I think it is a bit simplistic to say that our meddling has caused the problems in the Middle East. But we have meddled. We don't approach with completely clean hands.

Corbyn was in favour of a united Ireland and supported the Anglo-Irish agreement

Corbyn's position on Ireland is that whilst he unequivocally condemns ‘all bombing’ carried out by the IRA, he insists on acknowledging the role of atrocities like Bloody Sunday and the "treatment of IRA prisoners" in precipitating radicalisation. As he has explained repeatedly,  he felt in the 80s and early 90s that discussion was a better route towards a peace process.

Those wishing to challenge this by depicting Corbyn as an IRA sympathiser have pointed to evidence that he stood for a minute’s silence to commemorate IRA terrorists who had been shot dead in an SAS ambush in 1987. They also point out that he invited individuals associated with the IRA into parliament only a matter of weeks after the Brighton bombings.

Controversial sounding. But let's be clear: the 1987 Loughgall ambush incurred civilian casualties and a civilian fatality, commemorated in the silence. The meetings in parliament were to discuss 'prison conditions and the rehabilitation of prisoners'. In other words, these actions were entirely consistent with Corbyn’s repeatedly expressed opposition to violence as a means of counteracting terrorism. Taking Corbyn’s actions out of these contexts, ignoring his repeated condemnation of the IRA’s violent tactics and insisting that he met with these individuals (in parliament) as an expression of support for their cause requires a series of staggering imaginative leaps.

Another widely circulated claim is that as a member of the editorial board of London Labour Briefing (along with Tony Benn), Corbyn was responsible for an editorial that stated: ‘the British only sit up and take notice when they are bombed into it’. And yet (as Nathan Akehurst has argued elsewhere) this sentence can only possibly be read as an endorsement of bombing when taken completely out of context. The article argues that given that the IRA were "determined never to lay down arms" until listened to, republican voices "must be heard". Consequently, its authors clearly endorse Sinn Fein’s ballot box strategy. The bombing reference read in light of these remarks isn't a defence of violence, but is a condemnation of the causes of it. As such, it is again consistent with Corbyn’s insistence on dialogue – a conviction that anticipated Mo Mowlam’s much lauded policy of ‘talking to terrorists’.

This is how they are going to pay for their policies. www.labourhartlepool.co.uk/2017/04/labour-has-fully-costed-policies-for.html

This is how they are going to pay for their policies.

I hardly doubt it will be like that considering moving MP including the GE campaign manager will answer the question and just say it will be in the manifesto.

*no MP

The meetings in parliament were to discuss 'prison conditions and the rehabilitation of prisoners'.

As I said. If I was being generous, the timing was at least insensitive. If it was your wife who had life altering injuries or your friend who had been murdered,for example, how would you feel if these people were invited by another MP into your place of work a few weeks after it happening?