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: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 02:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Antidisestablishment

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!


In fact Blair was never a Tory so don't make things up. Blair made Labour electable. Putting the war aside, Blair was quite progressive and placed Labour in the centre-left in politics. The left in the Labour Party tarnish the name of one of the most successful Labour leaders, in revenge for themselves being side-lined.


originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Is this not what most of us have been calling for?


Only if you think a dose of leftist policies, dragged from the past, will serve any good purpose and return Labour into power where they can enact the said will actually happen.

It would be good for Labour to split. The socialists can trot off and fantasise about the "working class struggle, comrade" and the Labour party can retain the centre-left and work to promote progressive politics.
edit on 4/10/2015 by paraphi because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 03:57 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

That's a big enough difference for me!

However you cut it, the guy is not a typical politician, no matter his background.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 05:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Kester




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

The establishment media have no choice but to mention his name as he's the leader of her majesty's opposition , the determination of some parts of the media to bring him down show he is perceived as a threat by the establishment because they don't control him , they are too stupid to realise their attacks make him stronger ,

This country has been longing for a change of direction and some honesty in their politicians for years , now we have it and whether you support Corbyn or not choice of direction has to be a good thing when choosing a government.

The only way to fight the power is from within , Corbyn is our man on the inside and I believe he will fight the power whether it gets him elected or not , give me principle and policies over spin and double talk any day.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Antidisestablishment

JC is George Osborne's one way ticket to No. 10 Downing Street, London SW1A. It is not that I disagree with JC; I think he would be an interesting PM, but the majority of the British electorate will be convinced by mainstream media that a Labour government with a manifesto of socialism would be devastating to the UK. On that score he does not stand a chance in hell of becoming PM; he is unelectable like Michael Foot or Tony Benn.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex

The establishment media have no choice but to mention his name as he's the leader of her majesty's opposition , the determination of some parts of the media to bring him down show he is perceived as a threat by the establishment because they don't control him , they are too stupid to realise their attacks make him stronger ,


Oh, for Heaven's sake. The media report on Corbyn because he's news, it's not about choice. He's not Voldermort, so the media is allowed to use his name. The media report on the fact that other people are uncomfortable, such as other members of his party. It's news, just like UKIP and Farage were news, or Cameron and pig-heads are news.

Corbyn is not a threat to "the establishment", whatever that is, but is a threat to the mainstream Labour Party. He's a threat to those who want Labour to be left of centre, rather than far left. Other than that, let's just wait and see if the can keep the Labour Party together, before he puts class war and introduces "The Red Flag" as the national anthem.
edit on 4/10/2015 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi




Oh, for Heaven's sake. The media report on Corbyn because he's news, it's not about choice. He's not Voldermort, so the media is allowed to use his name.

He is leader of the opposition whether that is news or not , I didn't say they weren't allowed to use his name so I don't see your point.



It's news, just like UKIP and Farage were news, or Cameron and pig-heads are news.

Cameron and pig-heads , yeah can see the connection there .... snouts in trough.



Corbyn is not a threat to "the establishment", whatever that is, but is a threat to the mainstream Labour Party. He's a threat to those who want Labour to be left of centre, rather than far left.

The establishment.

Today's establishment is made up – as it has always been – of powerful groups that need to protect their position in a democracy in which almost the entire adult population has the right to vote. The establishment represents an attempt on behalf of these groups to "manage" democracy, to make sure that it does not threaten their own interests.
www.theguardian.com...

Yes , he is a threat to them.



Other than that, let's just wait and see if the can keep the Labour Party together, before he puts class war and introduces "The Red Flag" as the national anthem.

I agree , people are spending too much time gazing into their crystal balls predicting this that and the other when the guy has only been in office for a couple of months , class war or fairer society ? , "The Red Flag" as the national anthem or just change it to land of hope and glory , glorify our country rather than a symbolic figurehead.... Time will tell.


edit on 4-10-2015 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

The problem with the term "establishment" is that it has different connotations to different people.

I would include in the establishment the Trade Unions Congress. It's an unhealthy relationship and Corbyn's deeply embroiled.

Corbyn attracts financial donations from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which may be why as a London MP he's silent on the strikes by well paid train drivers that have inconvenienced millions of Londoners.

Several unions, including ASLEF, NURMTW, UNITE, CWU stumped up thousands to support him in his leadership bid.

Conflict of interest? I should think so. Squeaky clean? Nope.

Edit to add MPs declared interests


edit on 4/10/2015 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

I would rather a party be funded by groups who's aim is to represent working people than a party like the Tories who's donations come from the establishment , which is who they represent.

In a page on its website that boasts of how the Tories “unlike Labour… are not funded by trade unions”, the party has listed the 32 people who pay a minimum of £50,000 a year for access to the Prime Minister himself, along with a host of other senior Conservative ministers.

The “Leader’s Group”, the party says, promises its members invitations to “dinners, post-PMQ lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches”.

Almost every single member of the group is male, with the possible exception of Anastasia Sergeef, who directs Sovereign Business Jets Ltd alongside her husband Serge Sergeef. They are listed together as representatives of the private jet charter service, having donated an estimated £60,000.
www.independent.co.uk... 58102.html


I don't see a problem with Labour being funded by the people who basically set the party up , I don't agree with everything the unions do and some of the leaders are further to the left than I but they we're born with the same plastic spoon in their mouths as I unlike the party opposite.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Don't business also represent working people? Regardless, if you look through members declared interests you will see that businesses also donate to Labour MPs, as do individuals. The Trade Union movement has changed enormously since Labour was founded and have no place in politics to the extent they continue to have.

I feel any donation from an organisation is an attempt to gain access and influence. Corbyn is part of the problem, in that he's directly supported by the establishment - in this case the Trade Unions.

If we want "new politics" then we have to dump this "paying for influence" from all sides. Corbyn is not a "breath of fresh air", he's part of the problem.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Antidisestablishment
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!



Absolutely correct, I do however think we should keep a limited nuclear arsenal but maybe a far cheaper alternative.

I do think however that the world is truly a more dangerous place day by day and yes I do think it is the corporate driven foreign policys of the west which have seriously exacerbated this but it is one of those thing's, there is no going back so we need to fix the problem while keeping a big stick just in case, it just does not have to be that big and of course for the sake of helping members of the commonwealth and our allies (which is sadly actually very important to overseas trade as a lot of the smaller or weaker nations will snuggle up to the big guy to protect them from the bully's) we need better investment in the traditional navy (not like cameron the moronic right wing buffoon cutting our air craft and ordering ship's with no aircraft), this traditional Professional armed force approach would bolster job's here as well as the British Steel Industry and all support industry's so long as we kept it in the family so to speak and of couse lucrative contract's could be used throughout the commonwealth (which is what it's name implies) to bolster relation's there as well such as sourcing iron ore and other materials.

Here is the trick the Tory's used to use, when labour would get into power they would shift there investment's and asset's out of the country so dropping the economy each and every time by a percentage, when the Tory's came into power they would shift there asset's back into the country so improving the economy very slightly.

I have always liked the traditional liberal party though I am a Labour man but then I would with Disreali being a distant relative of mine.

I am going to go off on a slight tangent here to demonstrate the nature of the Tory Party members and there quality as people.


As for just how honest the Tory's are for anyone that is interested, well under thatcher there was a certain MacAlpine whom was the the Tory Treasurer in charge of all the Tory party assets, well sadly he too was a distant cousin of my Mother, My mother worked all her life and never even knew that she was a titled lady as it had been concealed from her, she used to scrub the floors in the Birds Eye factory in Liverpool and never knew that her blood relative's and god parent's the Tattershall's had left her everything including the bloodstocks, the ring's, the land under Cambden market, substantial housing and land stock including what is now called Central and Cecil housing trust in Kensington london which has as it's registered charity number my mothers trust number, well needless to say dirty work goes on when a young disabled girl is forced into a marriage to a man she does not love and whom then tried to poison her.

The queen mother told my mother by letter which we have that my mother was supposedly dead under her first married name of Alice Leslie in 1960 and a plaque had been dedicated to her on the Tattershall stand at Aintree Racecourse, Hmm that was news to my mother as she was alive and had divorced Francis Leslies in 1959 after her doctor told her that he had tried to poison her, she was effectively homeless with nowhere to go so had to leave her children there but did ask them to come with her and they chose to stay with Francis Leslie there father (I and the rest of the children with the exception of my sister Christine who is his daughter are from my mother's second husband whom she later divorced in 69).

When my mother found out about the theft of her inheritance which had been shared out between a lot of people whom had no claim and were in fact not even related there was an investigation launched called the Cheetah Fraud, a Police office by the name of MR Box at Scotland yard was involved in not dealing with the case but this was a liverpool police case.

MacAlpine went to ground very fast, hmm coincidence I definitely think not, and a reporter searching for him found him living in squalor in a small accomodation in Venice Italy but the case was brushed under the carpet.

Tory's are Thieves simple as that.

My mother was also told that there was a very powerful family whom had simply taken her trust, there was a certain margaret for whom there was no state income and off the record we were told it was taken to provide an anual income for her, so as You can guess I am not a royalist either.

They stole it for greed but if the labour party (the real one) ever did anything similar then it was the good of the many.

Corbyn has my vote and I admire the man, he will stick to his gun's no matter what crap the press throw's at him.

edit on 4-10-2015 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

The Labour Party is not, and has not been for a long time, centre left. It is a fully right wing party. Neither the U.S. or UK have any true left wing parties, well, maybe the Green Party.
You should take a look at the Political Compass test to see how this works.
www.politicalcompass.org...
edit on 4-10-2015 by Antidisestablishment because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Antidisestablishment

I was thinking the other day that had Corbyn been Labour leader during the last general election, instead of Milib(l)and, that we could very well have seen a Labour/SNP coalition, rather than another Tory majority. Being Scottish, and a supporter of Sturgeon and the SNP, this would have obviously been pretty nice, in my small opinion.

As we stand though, we obviously now have another 5 years of Tory rule, which is obviously not very nice, at all. Again, my opinion only. So I would hope Corbyn can keep his head, because the largely Conservative run media have been, and will continue to be all over him, no matter what he says or does.

I hope he can remain true to the people who he seems to want to help, and he does seem the type, but as we all know the media again can be ruthless at the best of times, and politicians are easily bought once in any kind of power, so we shall see.

I remain hopeful about him until proven otherwise.


Good thread.





ETA: I should correct that by saying "another Tory majority" when last time we obviously had a Tory/Lib coalition, even though that basically turned out to be a majority for the nasties, but still.

edit on 4-10-2015 by BelowBottomSecret because: Forgot how easily Scameron pushed Nick "we're all in this together" Clegg about.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Antidisestablishment

What's good about him?

Wasn't he the one who said he was in favour of "untrammelled immigration"? If you are a white caucasian Briton, it would be like a turkey voting for Christmas.

On the economy, it's easy to promise the earth without any costed policies; once you hear how he proposes to fund it all, I suspect your enthusiasm might take a knock.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: CJCrawley

Why do you belive in White genocide?
That isn't a thing.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Antidisestablishment

You wont be asking that question when you and I are in a minority in our own country, sadly.

Not that there is necessarily something intrinsically wrong with that per se, but none of us have ever had a say in it. And never will.

You see, it all comes back to democracy.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Antidisestablishment

There is soooooo much BS and hypocrisy flying around from the rabid right. Trouble is the usual rules apply, shout the same thing long enough and the non thinking lazy sheep believe it!

A quick debunk :

National Anthem

The original photo shows 11 faces where you can identify if they are singing. 6 are singing 5 are not (including Corbyn). But wait !!! one those not singing is a highly decorated officer behind Corbyn to his right.

The cropped photo (Daily Mail) has been carefully chosen to show 3 faces two singing and Corbyn who isn't

Several days after this had lost it's impact Jeremy Corbyn stated that at the time he was thinking of his parents (who are dead) and their role in the war. But no forget them let's get singing to appease the morons. Note how he did not use his parents as a defence at the time, he's far too honourable a man.

Bin Laden "Tragedy"

People need to watch the fricking FULL video of his statement in full context. Cameron you're a nasty piece of work, or your speech writers are.

Trident Push the button

When asked Jeremy Corbyn was totally honest and said he would not push the button. Remember that this is an action that would kill tens of millions of people in retribution nothing more. This is about pressing the button AFTER we have already been nuked. A very sick concept and you have to wonder about the sanity of anyone who would be willing to push the button in that situation.

Andrew Marr asked Cameron the same question. The answer Cameron gave was "The point of a nuclear deterrant is that when a situation occurs you would be willing to press the button". Well no sh.t sherlock !!! Jeremy Corbyn could say the same thing. At least Jeremy Corbyn answered the fricking question that Cameron did not. Now think about this for a minute. If "mr nutter" with nukes saw this interview his conclusion would be that Cameron's avoidance is proof he would not push the button but is politically too afraid to say so. This means nukes are NOT a deterrant even with Cameron at the helm DUH!!!! (The logic of deterrence is flawed anyway but that is for another conversation let's stick with standard simplistic view for now)

The economy

There are scores of economists (including people from the BofE and IMF) who have stated that Corbyn's economics are viable. In fact if you look at the list of economists who predicted the banking crisis there are two from britain both of whom have signed their name on the letter stating their support for Corbynomics.

Support for terrorists

He does not support terrorists. He does support talking to them. Has stated many many times and quite clearly that the actions of some of these groups is abhorrant BUT this should not stop you talking to them. There will only ever be a lasting peace by negotiation.

Margaret Thatcher, John Major and finally Tony Blair all had secret behind the scenes talks with the IRA and it was those talks that led to the Good Friday agreement. Proving Corbyn was right.

Just last week people from the US military, US ambassador, UN representatives, David Owen (remember him of the SDP who negotiated peace talks in the Balkans). All of these have stated that bombing will not solve the problem in Syria there can only be a solution with negotiation between all parties. Very strange this is what Jeremy Corbyn states and yet he is the terrorist sympathiser for saying so.

His has also stated that referring to these people as "friends" acts as a softener to attract them to the negotiating table.

The Privy Council

He is a republican DUH! You do not have kneel and kiss the Queen's hand to be sworn in. There are many many members who have joined like this.

Cameron missed the first two meetings (that's OK). Corbyn missed the first which makes him dangerous and evil. Glaring hypocrisy by the tories.

Nick Clegg missed the first 4 meetings and nobody stated he was the most dangerous man in Britain and he was actually in government!

This has become a sore point for the Telegraph because they have egg on their face after their front page headline scoop which turned out to be utter BS. Paper's hate being wrong and attack the person who caused this. Nasty vindictive people.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: CJCrawley

We won't be because white genocide isn't a real thing.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Antidisestablishment

"White genocide" was your phrase, not mine.

But mass immigration from the third world amounts to the same thing.

Fewer whites.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: CJCrawley
a reply to: Antidisestablishment

You wont be asking that question when you and I are in a minority in our own country, sadly.

Not that there is necessarily something intrinsically wrong with that per se, but none of us have ever had a say in it. And never will.

You see, it all comes back to democracy.


This country has had an open immigration policy for a very long time. Back in the early seventies the National Front was on their 'by the turn of the 21st century' the majority of Britain will be non-whites' tirade. But it didn't happen. And I doubt it ever will. Not whilst the number of people born to white British families far outnumbers those who aren't, and the number of people coming into the UK.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: plainsailing


White British (mainly English people) are a minority in London (43.7%).
English people are also a minority in the settlements of Luton, Slough, Leicester and Birmingham.

en.wikipedia.org...

There you go. London, Birmingham (the UK's 2 largest cities), Luton, Slough, and Leicester.

White British are already a minority in large areas of the country.

No one has had a say in this ever, it's been foisted upon us by successive governments.

This is not democracy.



new topics




 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join