Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'll start by coming straight out and just saying it: I HATE this man with a passion! He wishes to rid the UK of its nuclear deterrent and his party has a Maoist streak running through it which puts the Grand Canyon thoroughly to shame. His pacifistic proclivities often manifest as terrorist-sympathetic tantrums that strongly condemn the actions of our military and our allies in the war on terror while simultaneously being an apologist for ISIS' murdering of our citizens.

Yes, I REALLY dislike this cretin, but what actually scares me is the sheer number of do-gooder sheeple who support him! In the run-up to the leadership election 60,000 voters suddenly joined the Labour party just to vote for him, leading to him winning the election. What's not widely known is that the vast majority of those 60,000 voters were from ethnic minorities who he'd pandered to. Being vocal about wanting an open-door policy on immigration, and telling everyone to come to the UK and bring their families instantly won over a section of society whose numbers are massively underestimated by official figures.

This clown, Comrade Corbyn, is a threat to the traditional British way of life and should be removed by any means neccasary, end of. What's your thoughts?

My thought is that you need a cup of tea and a stiffer upper lip.

Nurse! Nurse! The Edwardian time capsule has opened and he's out again!!!

My thoughts would probably get me a warning.

Yes, think you need to calm down a bit there sir.

Corbyn is proving to be even more terrible than I expected (and my expectations were low low low), but to claim he's anything other than an embarrassing soon-to-be-irrelevance risks running into tinfoil territory.

First - what will do Corbyn in isn't ideology it's incompetence. He simply just isn't upto the job. The utter, utter debacle that was the Syria vote (which would have led to resignations if adults were in charge) was just the latest balls-up. Mcdonnels and Livingstones various dribblings, shoot-to-kill, and a determination to pack the party with various Trot/Class War nutters. And that's from the last month!

But he does have a base of support- one that likes him very much. But it is a small one. 350K votes for leader do not a General Election win - and there is the problem - he's given no indication whatsover that he's interested in leading a government. I think the Corbynites really would rather struggle on in glorious, permanent opposition.

Still reckon none of this would ever have happened if the other leadership candidates hadn't been so poor.

We've just had a by-election where Labour won a larger share of the vote than they did in the General Election (for that seat). Of course one shouldn't read too much into by-election results but this could be an indication that Corbyn isn't as disliked as the media would like us to think.

I don't agree with everything Corbyn does but I think he's a breath of fresh air in an environment where the only discernible difference between different politicians is what colour their tie is.

Corbyn's greatest strength is probably also the reason why he won't make it to the next General Election, he actually wants to change things in a meaningful way.


Just on the Syria thing, Corbyn has said in recent weeks that he believes we should be tracking down the people that fund ISIS and those who buy their oil. This will hurt them much more than dropping even more bombs on innocent civilians. Cameron doesn't want to do this though and it's about time people started asking why.

Edited. cba

I wish he'd stick to domestic social issues. I want him tacking taxation of the rich and large companies that avoid tax debts, addressing wages, protecting union rights, rental/house prices. These are things that matter to many people and are left wing issues worth fighting.

Instead he continually brings up the non-issue of Trident (which will be renewed before the next election - with a contract almost impossible to cancel I suspect). His logic is stupid. He says that trident was made for a time that doesn't exist any more because the threats today are not from nations. Yet he then thinks it should be scrapped because this threat won't ever change. The way Russia is behaving, that's wrongheaded for our future.

His opposition to action against terrorism borders on sympathising, some of the donors and advisors he works with are definitely sympathisers. He opposes bombing in Syria without offering alternatives beyond talking out a political solution (with ISIS, people only interested in murdering, enslaving and raping until they carve up enough of the Middle East to set up a new state). He made a valid point about what the end game plan was for bombing, but saying there's some political settlement we can reach with ISIS is a joke.

Huge disappointment. A left wing opposition that prattles on all the time about not renewing trident instead of tackling the things that really affect our society. Total waste of an opposition. Ideally I'd like a economically left wing government that addresses equality in society and puts through welfare, employment and housing reforms but isn't simultaneously full of woolly minded hippy thinking bent on gutting our armed forces and any standing we have in world affairs (leaving the nuclear club would diminish is quite a bit) and likely throw open our borders to mass migration instead of securing the future of people already here.

Well lets see,

under various previous administrations we never acted against the USA despite a significant amount of their population (and the odd politician) raising money and otherwise supporting the terrorist organisation the IRA.......

Bombing as we're doing now is pretty irrelevant except to provide moral support to the other counties involved (not necessarily a bad thing, but in no way is it going to do anything to 'fix' the situation). Better to have left it to them and gone after the countries funding Isis by buying their stolen oil (even if we are technically allies)

Trident will indeed be renewed before he has any chance to block it, but I don't think it will be impossible to stop, as all of these big projects run late & go massively over budget leading to the contractors being given more time & money, if he was in power all he'd have to do is say no and the contactor would bite his hand off to cancel the unbreakable contract by mutual agreement

(while I think a nuclear deterrent is probably still worth having especially with Russia becoming more aggressive, I'm not sure a submarine based one is as the only real advantage is it gives you better first strike capability and we've we wouldn't do that)

Submarines aren't just about first strike. They're also about ensuring your opponent can never know for sure exactly where your ICBMs are.

 Muhr wrote:
This clown, Comrade Corbyn, is a threat to the traditional British way of life and should be removed by any means neccasary, end of. What's your thoughts?

I think you need some perspective and some chill pills

 Grey Templar wrote:
Submarines aren't just about first strike. They're also about ensuring your opponent can never know for sure exactly where your ICBMs are.

Fair enough that is true, (although with all the satellites, undersea monitoring stations there are now I wonder how true that is any more)

I guess an enemy could, in theory, target and destroy any UK fixed instillations without us being able to launch anything in response (although I'm certain they'd not be able to do so to all of our nuclear armed allies)

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Submarines aren't just about first strike. They're also about ensuring your opponent can never know for sure exactly where your ICBMs are.

Fair enough that is true, (although with all the satellites, undersea monitoring stations there are now I wonder how true that is any more)

I guess an enemy could, in theory, target and destroy any UK fixed instillations without us being able to launch anything in response (although I'm certain they'd not be able to do so to all of our nuclear armed allies)

Plus, maybe we need to nuke someone ourselves, it would obviously be more accurate if we fired from their doorstep.


Personally, I dislike Corbyn. I'm not not fond of that many politicians to be honest, but some of his ideas are extremely silly.....

 Muhr wrote:
Yes, I REALLY dislike this cretin, but what actually scares me is the sheer number of do-gooder sheeple who support him! In the run-up to the leadership election 60,000 voters suddenly joined the Labour party just to vote for him, leading to him winning the election. What's not widely known is that the vast majority of those 60,000 voters were from ethnic minorities who he'd pandered to. Being vocal about wanting an open-door policy on immigration, and telling everyone to come to the UK and bring their families instantly won over a section of society whose numbers are massively underestimated by official figures.

This clown, Comrade Corbyn, is a threat to the traditional British way of life and should be removed by any means neccasary, end of. What's your thoughts?

I would advise you that dismissing everyone that has a different view to you as 'do-gooder sheeple' isn't likely to get people to pay much attention to you. And surely getting more people involved in politics is a good thing? If they suddenly feel like they actually have someone to speak for them then surely they should be allowed to express that by voting for them?

Could you supply some evidence for that ethnic minority statement? Because there was a *lot* of support for him and his policies among students. Besides which, why would the voters being ethnic minorities be bad? Also, why is the ethnic minorities thing a problem? They're, British citizens; they get a vote.

As to your final point; what traditional British way of life? Sitting down for a picnic in the park with your butler? Invading every country on the planet? Pandering to corporations? Having everyone in charge of the country come from the same school?

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Submarines aren't just about first strike. They're also about ensuring your opponent can never know for sure exactly where your ICBMs are.

Fair enough that is true, (although with all the satellites, undersea monitoring stations there are now I wonder how true that is any more)

I guess an enemy could, in theory, target and destroy any UK fixed instillations without us being able to launch anything in response (although I'm certain they'd not be able to do so to all of our nuclear armed allies)

Even with satellites and monitoring stations they can't even begin to cover the ocean. Its a freaking huge place.

El Torro wrote:

I don't agree with everything Corbyn does but I think he's a breath of fresh air in an environment where the only discernible difference between different politicians is what colour their tie is.

Exactly, its also doubtful if a Labour government under Corbyn could make such a massive arse of things as the Tories have under Cameron and its also distinctly dubious calling Corbyn unelectable.

He is unelectable on 'conventional logic' given that is based upon the usual homogenised right of centre career politicians who have come to dominate politics over the last few decades. That certainly doesn't mean that 'conventional logic' is accurate, not least because a third of the electorate routinely doesn't vote.

 jhe90 wrote:

Expensive price for your attack.

What attack? Russia isn't to be nuking the UK, there is no rational tactical nor strategic need to and nukes are going to be no deterrent to an irrational attack. Trident's truly vast drain on the public purse could be much better spent elsewhere.

You really need to look up what Communist means OP.

I think the clear rift between Corbyn and the people he chose for his own cabinet would make things very difficult to run an effective government. Great for debate in opposition, but there needs to be more unity and purpose in order to run the country.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I think the clear rift between Corbyn and the people he chose for his own cabinet would make things very difficult to run an effective government. Great for debate in opposition, but there needs to be more unity and purpose in order to run the country.

Indeed, presumably at least some of the shadow cabinet was chosen to provide some kind of link to the old/new labour years?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
What attack? Russia isn't to be nuking the UK, there is no rational tactical nor strategic need to and nukes are going to be no deterrent to an irrational attack.

But... must have big shiny expensive explody things! Think of the children!

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
What attack? Russia isn't to be nuking the UK, there is no rational tactical nor strategic need to and nukes are going to be no deterrent to an irrational attack.

But... must have big shiny expensive explody things! Think of the children!

As it stands no large nuclear powers have ever gone to war vs each other.

I have a sneaking feeling were dealing with a ill-informed Tory...

I'm going to assume that you added the "large" qualifier so that you could purposely ignore India and Pakistan.

Russia and America still exist. Stalin never rolled his tanks to the channel. Warsaw pact vs nato never happened.

Nuclear weapons make the risk of war too expensive to contemplate. A imperfect peace solution. MAD.

Also North Korea, but there nuclear, but at war, though that's special. They never ended the war in the first place.

Nuclear weapons are less weaponry, more insurance. Makes war too destructive to be of advantage to anyone involved

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I wish he'd stick to domestic social issues. I want him tacking taxation of the rich and large companies that avoid tax debts, addressing wages, protecting union rights, rental/house prices. These are things that matter to many people and are left wing issues worth fighting.

Instead he continually brings up the non-issue of Trident (which will be renewed before the next election - with a contract almost impossible to cancel I suspect). His logic is stupid. He says that trident was made for a time that doesn't exist any more because the threats today are not from nations. Yet he then thinks it should be scrapped because this threat won't ever change. The way Russia is behaving, that's wrongheaded for our future.

His opposition to action against terrorism borders on sympathising, some of the donors and advisors he works with are definitely sympathisers. He opposes bombing in Syria without offering alternatives beyond talking out a political solution (with ISIS, people only interested in murdering, enslaving and raping until they carve up enough of the Middle East to set up a new state). He made a valid point about what the end game plan was for bombing, but saying there's some political settlement we can reach with ISIS is a joke.

Huge disappointment. A left wing opposition that prattles on all the time about not renewing trident instead of tackling the things that really affect our society. Total waste of an opposition. Ideally I'd like a economically left wing government that addresses equality in society and puts through welfare, employment and housing reforms but isn't simultaneously full of woolly minded hippy thinking bent on gutting our armed forces and any standing we have in world affairs (leaving the nuclear club would diminish is quite a bit) and likely throw open our borders to mass migration instead of securing the future of people already here.

Hitting the nail on the head.

Corbyn is only part of the problem. Labour as a whole is not the party which instituted the NHS and the provision of welfare. Attlee and Bevan would surely look positively right wing compared to the current crop of Polytechnic politicians currently proliferating among the ranks.

The point of the Loyal Opposition is that it opposes the government.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I think the clear rift between Corbyn and the people he chose for his own cabinet would make things very difficult to run an effective government. Great for debate in opposition, but there needs to be more unity and purpose in order to run the country.

A leader with a grasp on reality would be a start. Maybe a career which hasn't been based around student bar theorising 'if I ran the country......'.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I think the clear rift between Corbyn and the people he chose for his own cabinet would make things very difficult to run an effective government. Great for debate in opposition, but there needs to be more unity and purpose in order to run the country.

A leader with a grasp on reality would be a start. Maybe a career which hasn't been based around student bar theorising 'if I ran the country......'.

That applies to all the modern politicians, though. None of them have ever had a real job. A lot of them (on the Conservative side) have never even had a 'real' life.

That is a big part of the problem.

I'm a huge Corbyn fan.

He's doing fairly well given the traitorous New Labour scum briefing against him constantly despite his huge mandate to lead them, and the incredibly biased and hostile press.

He's made mistakes, but I'd take Corbyn over just about any other UK politician any day.

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm a huge Corbyn fan.

He's doing fairly well given the traitorous New Labour scum briefing against him constantly despite his huge mandate to lead them, and the incredibly biased and hostile press.

He's made mistakes, but I'd take Corbyn over just about any other UK politician any day.

Corbyn is doing the best he can, but I think he is outmatched out gunned and has a dogged determination to hold onto ideology no matter what the situation is. IMO he will continually back himself into corners of his own making.

You could probably enjoy a drink with him, until the rough starts him spouting political dogma.

See, I agree with him on almost all of his ideology, so I guess that's the difference!