To still like Jeremy Corbyn?

[malificent7]

I think it's right that he stepped down as the public clearly didn't get him...hated him even but i think he stands for the good in society. I actually think he is correctvto call out Israel for being bastards to Palestine and whilst ge apparently supports terroism ( ira), i think he is a negotiator ...the UK shafted Ireland hugely and the IRA is a consequence of that. We need people to negotiate with them.
I slso think remaining neutral on Brexit was the right thing to do but respecting the will of the people.

I don't hate Boris but he has got away with a lot. He has said many racist slurs, he hates women, he has multiple illegitimate children yet blames women, he switched sides re Brexit, oh and he's happy to trade with people like Saudi Arabia who have awful human rights. But apparently Jeremy is the bad one.

I know it’s circular

But instead of saying that a left wing manifesto appeals to your left wing values, you introduced the idea of morals and virtue. Morals and virtue that you don’t know the source of (so not religious).

It’s the whole goodie versus baddie thing. This left wing manifesto appeals to my left wing values therefore it is good. That right wing manifesto doesn’t appeal to my left wing values therefore it is not.

Most business owners are in business to make money

Most business owners have no employees, are working for themselves and are not earning very much money.

Most business owners have no employees, are working for themselves and are not earning very much money.

Then they don’t have to worry about the impact of a 4 day week.

But instead of saying that a left wing manifesto appeals to your left wing values, you introduced the idea of morals and virtue. Morals and virtue that you don’t know the source of (so not religious).

Values is just another way of saying morals, Noble. You are attempting to draw a distinction that doesn’t exist. We all vote with our morals, or we vote tactically. I voted with my morals. I don’t know what you want here.

I also love him. He is the only politician who has represented my views properly. He is dignified, passionate and brave. He has given me hope despite the shitty result and inspired me to be a better person myself.

Still can't get my head round people saying he was a brilliant leader
A leader can inspire people to follow him, Corbyn failed miserably. It's the base skill set required for the job. He couldn't even get his own back benchers to follow him, never mind the general public, old school labour turned their backs in the millions..

He was even offering bribes at a rate of noughts in desperation, cheap train fares, free Wi-fi, cheap houses, four day weeks, and still people, traditional labour voters at that , people struggling , people who desperately need these things, turned their backs for the first time in their lives.

I'm not sure what the definition of a brilliant leader is that's being used here, but it's not any definition I'm aware of.

And Boris? Boris is a liar, he's a serial cheat, he even broke the law, he's a philanderer, he can hardly keep it in his pants, no one even knows how many kids the man has, and yet, people in their droves voted for him. He walked away with a land slide victory. Becayse when it came to it they trusted him more. The results show people still would rather have him in charge, than Corbyn even if he came with all the freebies he was offering in return for votes.

If Corbyn is a brilliant leader, by that definition then Boris must be world class. Because he was able to command what Corbyn couldn't.

(JC) wasn’t exactly aligned with Blairite politics

Now that's definitely true - and yet Blair's government was the one which managed to win three elections

Whatever our individual views it seems clear that the country as a whole won't accept a leftist Labour government, which is why we won't have had one for about half a century. So realistically what's the answer for Labour ... do they carry on as they are in the hope voters will change their minds, or settle for permanent opposition and try to influence things from there?

Values is just another way of saying morals,

No it’s not. Values is what you place importance on. Morals is about whether behaviour is right or wrong’.

noblegiraffe

No it’s not. Values is what you place importance on. Morals is about whether behaviour is right or wrong’.

But we define what we place importance on against our morality. There is no getting away from that.

Anyway, this is getting pointless. I don’t have to justify my vote to you.

So realistically what's the answer for Labour ... do they carry on as they are in the hope voters will change their minds, or settle for permanent opposition and try to influence things from there?

Neither. The Party is not a static entity. Different people join it and leave it and define what ‘it’ is about. That will either draw them closer to the electorate or it won’t. We will have to wait and see.

I did not get very far on this thread before I got a sudden urge to throw up.

So much boot licking in such a small space and such a massive dose of only seeing what one wants to see, too much for me I'm afraid.

But we define what we place importance on against our morality

So out of the values of tolerance, family and security, which is the more moral?

Can I ask what qualifications I economics the ‘that manifesto is rubbish and could ever be done’ people have? Because 163 actual economists thought it was exactly what the country needed...
I’m with church in that while we can’t get anything done in opposition I feel like getting elected than doing nothing much different from the Tories isn’t massively constructive either. We need to find a way to sell the policies despite the fact that every media outlet will immediately misrepresent them. (Case in point: ‘4 day week’. The manifesto doesn’t say everything will shut down on the same day. It says each worker will work a day fewer hours per week). It’s a puzzle, but abandoning socialist principles and policies is no more the answer than blindly carrying on without changing anything.

So out of the values of tolerance, family and security, which is the more moral?

Tolerance of what?

Obviously the answer depends anyway. A desire to have security for your family isn’t immoral, but, if you ask me - and you are asking me - hoarding resources that’s others need as much as or more than you is. So I think a redistributive model is more moral. Overall. And I am entitled to think so.

The Party is not a static entity. Different people join it and leave it and define what ‘it’ is about. That will either draw them closer to the electorate or it won’t

Yes, that seems entirely fair - so let's just hope they can source better folk in future to give us all a much improved choice next time (or at least effective opposition for now)

Yanbu. Rather him than what we have now

Then they don’t have to worry about the impact of a 4 day week.

Are you not understanding who these people are? Cleaners, hairdressers, taxi drivers, gardeners, who will have to continue with a 5-7 day week to make ends meet with no guarantee that anybody is going to raise their wages?

Can you not understand how irrelevant a 4 day week is to many people?

To be clear, I don't have strong feelings about the length of the working week. My point is that 'business owners' are also low paid self employed people.

A desire to have security for your family isn’t immoral, but, if you ask me - and you are asking me - hoarding resources that’s others need as much as or more than you is
Fine. But resources aren’t plucked out of thin air - someone has to earn them. If I can’t keep them then I won’t earn them. I’ll stop when I’ve earned the maximum my family is allowed to keep. Let the other person earn their own like I did. And this is why socialism doesn’t work.

@AnnieTotach agreed. Labour might have gotten in if he had left earlier.

That has been the most bizarre argument I've ever read!

Obviously the aim of a business is to make money! Otherwise they'd all be charities. Starting up a business is risky. Why would someone take on loans, borrow from family, remortgage their home and work their socks off if there's no hope of reward?

It may not be churchandstate's concern that we have thriving businesses but where does the country's wealth come from? How are you going to tax them if there's no profit?

And that is why I couldn't vote for this Labour Party, however great the Environment and Animal Welfare policies might have been. The policies that I read in the manifesto would have made Britain too inhospitable to business. Big businesses can move all too easily, taking their jobs and National Insurance contributions with them.

I don't dislike Corbyn because of what people on here insist was "media smearing." I dislike him because of his policies and ridiculously thin attempt to bribe the electorate with promises he couldn't hope to fulfil, and his pig-headed determination to remain in post when it was abundantly clear that doing so would cost Labour the election. Oh, and his refusal to state his position on Brexit, and of course to deal with anti-Semitism in the party.
But I strongly objected to the sneering contempt that he exuded whenever I saw him interviewed; the eye-rolling; the way he insulted our intelligence by openly lying about things like watching the Queen's speech (as if anyone expected him to watch it or cared if he did).
So glad he's going. If he ever does. Typical slippery answer from him: "I won't be leading the party in another election." That doesn't mean he's resigning anytime soon. And why should he hang around to ensure his successor is someone he approves of? It should be out of his hands now.

Blair's government was the one which managed to win three elections

Blair is the ONLY Labour leader in almost 50 years who actually won an election (well 3 to be precise). One successful leader. 50 years!! It’s pretty shocking.

All those grim difficult battling years in the 80s and 90s spent trying to make the Party electable again, only for the whole thing to happen all over again.

"I won't be leading the party in another election." That doesn't mean he's resigning anytime soon

Agree, when he made that statement I think he had no intention of resigning in the near term, he was simply placating, he will be 75 likely by the time if the next election so was never going to be leading it in all probability,

I think he had no intention of stepping down, was hoping he could ride it out during his period of reflection, and that this would place, but the pressure is huge, so he's given likely early next year, I think that will depend on how much he can fend off, and if he thinks he can get another socialist in charge.

As a leader he's failed abysmally to lead either his party or the electorate, that simply can't be disputed. It's labours worst result in nearly a hundred years and let's face it, that's saying something.