It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Jeremy Corbyn too good to be true?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Hi UK people, if you're out there!
What are your opinions on new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn?
After having Tony Blair drag Labour into war without any conscience, isn't it refreshing to have someone to actually apologise for his party's actions? And to be welcoming to Marxists? Will this rebalance the New Labour created for Tory old boys and Etonians?
Was his refusal to sing God Save The Queen a statement of his views of the monarchy?
And why did his party vote against him regarding Trident? The expensive Cold War nuclear "deterrent" which Labour under Kinnock sought to decommission?
Thoughts anyone?




posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Antidisestablishment




What are your opinions on new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn?

I think he's a refreshing change and it may take people a while to get used to having a man of integrity as a party leader , the press will do their best to destroy him but hopefully the British public will see through the attempts of the old boy network.



Was his refusal to sing God Save The Queen a statement of his views of the monarchy?

It was a principled act from someone who doesn't support the Monarchy like myself , if he had sung it he would have been called a hypocrite by the press so he was in a no win situation , he decided to catch the flack for sticking to his principles which is a sign of the guys integrity to me.






edit on 3-10-2015 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Wait and see. He's got good PR, but most people in the UK will not react to a left-leaning party led by a person who is regressive

I'm sure he's a nice guy, but not sure he's electable.

Principled can be read as inflexible?
edit on 3/10/2015 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Antidisestablishment
He's Michael Foot, isn't he? On Armistice Day, he'll probably wear a donkey jacket at the Cenotaph.
His election manifesto is likely to be the second-longest suicide note in history.
I'm a conservative. I want him to stay.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI




He's Michael Foot, isn't he?

No.



On Armistice Day, he'll probably wear a donkey jacket at the Cenotaph.

Does it really matter what he wears ?



His election manifesto is likely to be the second-longest suicide note in history.

Get that from the Daily Mail ?



I'm a conservative. I want him to stay.

I'm a returning Labour supporter , so do I.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
"On Armistice Day, he'll probably wear a donkey jacket at the Cenotaph".
"His election manifesto is likely to be the second-longest suicide note in history."

Both these two remarks were pursuing the Michael Foot analogy. Anyone with a long memory would catch the reference.

edit on 3-10-2015 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
hes a leader of a main party and i know it shouldn,t matter what you look like but first thing my gf said on his first speech was he looks a bit like a tramp,shoes not polished,looked like a student who had slept in his clothes and just got out of bed to rush to a lesson.

as i say it shouldn,t matter but its going too,even how you present yourself is going to matter to voters,the gf is in to politics where i couldn,t care less and she said she wouldn,t vote for him cause he just doesn,t look credible.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
He doesn't tick all the boxes of what's expected, which is great, because I'm sick of the factory line politicians, as are many others.

I'm excited, real opposition, real choices, this is how it should be!



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: valiant
He doesn't tick all the boxes of what's expected, which is great, because I'm sick of the factory line politicians, as are many others.


But Corbyn is a "factory line" politician.

He's been in the game and has not known anything else. To be honest, his only difference is that his "factory" has Marxist foundations, and most of those factories closed with the expiry of the "Looney Left". Thank God.

Corbyn's a symbol and will be 70 at the next election. 70 years old. If you want new ideas, then you need to look to the young.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Antidisestablishment

Well he is a very opinionated man but true to his word and he is not about to start lying to the British public or the world about his own opinion's, he intended to implement a more democratic system of government and has already demonstrated this at his first prime minister question time when instead of charging in with his own argument's to lock horns with Cameron he instead put Cameron very cleverly on the back foot by addressing question's from the Public at the current prime minister.

Cameron could not go back to his old and well tested style of Argument and school bully shouting matches or he would have been seen to be arguing with the Electorates question's.

I Agree with Corbyn's stance on not getting involved in foreign conflict except when it directly involves us, our citizens or our allies but with the latter would not allow another nations foreign policy to drag us into war so I actually more or less agree with him on that point.

I disagree over the falklands but do understand the point of view of Argentina which I feel is based on incorrect historical claims and the spanish giving them what they then did not own when Argentina became independant, the French had taken the Falklands from the Spanish in war and the French then sold them to the British, had the french not sold them to the british then the Argentinians would currently be arguing with the French whom no doubt would eventually have also settled them.

Though we owned them for many years they remained unpopulated and also there is no evidence of them ever having been populated before the european powers discovered them, the only settlers were some Portuguese walers whom set up a waling station on the island's and later well after they had already been claimed by the British a group or Argentinians tried to settle on what was already British sovereign territory, this was well after they had supposedly been given to Argentina by the Spanish whom like I say had only placed a claim on them, never settled them and then lost then in war to the French whom then sold them to the British thinking them worthless and too remote.

However if there are assets in the Area such as Oil it would only be right and fair to share them with that part of the world and of course though thousand's of miles to the west the closest land mass is in fact Argentina or rather the southern south american mainland.

The war was a tragedy however and I do not think they were actually worth losing a single life over except in that the settlers whom have lived there for many generations and are of course British citizen's were actually under an occupation force so in fact not for the sake of the island's but for the sake of a matter of defending our citizens it was a justified action.

Here is a trick of history for you though, both Thatcher whom was suffering a terrible popularity decline as a result of her right wing policys (well she was a Tory) and the Argentinial General (if I remember correctly Galtieri or something) whom led the miliary Junta that ran Argentina needed that war, he would have become a national hero overnight regardless of the Dissapeared one's (his secret police and army abducted those they saw as enemy's of the military dictatorship) but of course he failed and so when our soldiers took back the islands and that war was a closer run thing than many would like you to know as our supply lines were stretched too thin and thatcher had already pushed through defence cut's - hmm cameron has as well and that is also an area were I disgree with Corbyn - she rode a wave of patriotic support and good feeling as we had defended our sovereign territory on her watch, an odd fact had the falkland's war not taken place Labour would have likely been in power instead of her at her next term.

So what do I think, I like the guy and am going to vote for him as are a very great many other's regardless of the character assassination being launched constantly at him but I do not agree with every policy he has suggested, however I too would not press the button and would not use the nuclear deterrant which is a good thing as if we do keep it then that is all it is really meant to be a nuclear deterrant, still he should not have said he would not as that kind of takes the threat out of the deterrant for any potential agressors against our national interests.

He get's my vote, I like him as he is honest and will be true to his word which makes a heck of a change from the usual lying hypocrites we get in parliement all the time and I think he is actually what we need as a leader to restore some social justice to the UK though, we need to invest in our people not cut money from them like this bunch of loony right wingers are doing, talk about cutting the trunk from the tree you live in eh mr cameron, I think the current prime minister forgets that society has a base and if you weaken that base the house tumbles down eventually, that or he just does not give a damn.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Michael foot was a good man, he came from the upper class's but made the mistake of thinking he could show solidarity with the working class by not cutting his hair and wearing a donkey jacket all the time but in fact he was really a very clever man.

If I was corbyn and I was likened to him I would take it as a complement, especially since that was before all this spin doctore crap we have now with manicured prime minsiters being more important than there policys for all the sheople out there.

Oddly I never trusted Kinnock though I agreed with his policy's one hundred percent, I actually wonder why he let that rigged election get away from him - blackmail or something else, at this may's election's they kept on going on about how the exit poll's predicted it and so it shows the exit poll was correct but as I and other's remember at that election when kinnock nearly won (or did he win) the exit poll clearly showed that labour HAD won, they were even celebrating there victory and only waiting for the final count when news came in shattering there celebration that the Tory's had won, hmm MI5 and vested financial interests? then there was the whole tory scandal of the 1970's when Lord Mountbatten was going to be installed as prime minister by a coup plot against the then labour government that WE today would never have known about except for released document's from the US intelligence archives that showed the CIA had given there approval, our own records will remain sealed away probably for ever but it seem's the US at a very high level had given there blessing to the Plot,
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think the NEW LABOUR party were nothing but wolves in sheeps' clothing, they were actually college graduates by and large whom were merely in the Labour party as a career path and hijacked the party movement for there own vested interests turning it into another Thatcherite party, there was schism with real labour splitting from them and they clamped down in the courts as Real Labour growing very fast and was gaining back it's electorate from new Labour as well as about to contests seat's with NEW LABOUR which would have left NEW LABOUR high and dry without any voter base, predictably the courts (Usually a politically biased right wing institution) sided with NEW LABOUR and Real Labour which represented the Labour Traditionalists and there values was effectively outlawed by this action leaving NEW LABOUR to coast along on there long term voters whom now had only the Tory's whom they would never vote for as an alternative had there party taken over by a right wing Cancer.

edit on 3-10-2015 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Don't forget that before making "the deal" with Gordon Brown, Blair was actually a Tory. They only picked him for leader because of his winning smile and boyish good looks! :0



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
Wait and see. He's got good PR, but most people in the UK will not react to a left-leaning party led by a person who is regressive

I'm sure he's a nice guy, but not sure he's electable.

Principled can be read as inflexible?


He's got good P.R? Lol, the guy has been attacked and ridiculed in the press for the last three months. What the press forgot above all else, is that us Brits love an underdog.

What is actually happening is that this man who is a pacifist and doesn't have a nasty bone in his body, is bringing in a new way of politics, a grown up way. No name calling, no attacking scandals of the opposition, just talking politics and telling it as it is.

Is this not what most of us have been calling for? Whilst the opposition parties argue and attack each other over the most trivial of matters, what actually gets done? It's a deception, made to lure us into taking our eye off the ball and in the last thirty years parliament has become pure theatre.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Yes, it's great that he's a pacifist, CND supporter and vegetarian too.
I used to be a member of the Labour Party, but kind of gave up on them because they had become too right wing. I wanted my Labour Party to be a socialist party. I live on the Isle of Wight, which has only ever been a Tory stronghold, there have been a couple of Liberal MPs, but never Labour. Labour only has one seat on the council over here so I thought we were fighting a losing battle. I voted Green in the last election which I kind of regretted because they managed to pull off a "divide and rule" to get Andrew Turner back in. The Green candidate was not very well educated, she did not even know who David Icke was, and he used to stand for The Green Party over here. I was very worried about the support UKIP were getting. UKIP doesn't even have an environmental policy to speak of, and were fully in favour of fracking in an area of natural beauty. If the Labour and Green voters had chosen to fully back one or the other, the result might have been different. I am very glad UKIP didn't win tho, they have got the local BNP and EDL folks backing them, and a lot of disgruntled Tories. Nasty bunch.

edit on 3-10-2015 by Antidisestablishment because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: valiant
He doesn't tick all the boxes of what's expected, which is great, because I'm sick of the factory line politicians, as are many others.


But Corbyn is a "factory line" politician.

He's been in the game and has not known anything else. To be honest, his only difference is that his "factory" has Marxist foundations, and most of those factories closed with the expiry of the "Looney Left". Thank God.

Corbyn's a symbol and will be 70 at the next election. 70 years old. If you want new ideas, then you need to look to the young.


I disagree, simply because he's of a certain vintage, doesn't mean he doesn't have any new ideas. Marxism isn't a bad thing, the Russian bastardised version was a bad thing, but of course it would be, it was being financially supported by the western banks.

Corbyn, very much like many within the Labour Party were activists, campaigning against many Human Rights injustices. But yeah he's a career politician, so let's attack him for that.

He's got you rattled, I can tell.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Antidisestablishment
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Yes, it's great that he's a pacifist, CND supporter and vegetarian too.
I used to be a member of the Labour Party, but kind of gave up on them because they had become too right wing. I wanted my Labour Party to be a socialist party. I live on the Isle of Wight, which has only ever been a Tory stronghold, there have been a couple of Liberal MPs, but never Labour. Labour only has one seat on the council over here so I thought we were fighting a losing battle. I voted Green in t e last election which I kind of regretted because they managed to pull off a "divide and rule" to get Andrew Turner back in. I was very worried about the support UKIP were getting. If the Labour and Green voters had chosen to fully back one or the other, the result might have been different. I am very glad UKIP didn't win tho, they have got the local BNP and EDL folks backing them, and a lot of disgruntled Tories. Nasty bunch.


I live in Bristol, within a very strong Labour constituency. I was an ardent Labour supporter until 2003, that's when I realised we had sold out to a Conservative. Blair took us to war and Labour leaders don't do war.

I've voted independent candidates ever since, as I lost faith in party politics. But to see this Gentleman at his party's conference, standing and talking sense, certainly more sense than I have heard from a politician over the last 20 years, well I look forward to the next 4+ years.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
He gets slagged off by "new" labour lowlifes and tories because he used to try speak to the likes of the IRA and Hizbollah to resolve things..

When we all know what we are supposed to do,is bomb the living fork out of such types for years,THEN talk to them after,to pretend to resolve things after years of bloody misery and arms contracts.

He also gets slagged off for having the temerity to actually make the labour party go back to what it stood for before Tony Blair and his evil cohorts took it over and aligned it with the American neo conservative movement.

How dare you Corbyn!!!

Never thought I would say this,but I might,just might vote for the guy in the next general election.
(I never wanted to vote labout after blair)

I do disagree with him on trident though-I think we should keep our nuclear deterrent.
The world is only going to get madder,and does anyone believe the likes of pakistan/north korea/israel/USA/Russia would ever give up thier nukes?
Nope.
Well,nor should the UK in that case IMO.
I know,its batpoo crazy,but that is where we are sadly.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Silcone Synapse

There are many people within Labour that want to keep Trident. It will never become policy, so it is all scaremongering really. What I question is the cost of it. Sure let's have it, as long as we can support those less fortunate than ourselves and we don't attack the people who are suffering enough.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

All publicity is good publicity.

If he was a threat to the establishment the establishment media wouldn't mention his name.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Cobaltic1978
Trident was built to counter the Soviet "threat" during the "Cold War".
It is neither use nor ornament.
Labour even admitted the only reason to keep it was to keep Scots in jobs.
It would never defend us if we were targeted by the Israelis!


edit on 3-10-2015 by Antidisestablishment because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join