Trumplethinskin Cancels London Visit, Blaming Obama With A Lie

Why is anyone surprised Trump cancelled his visit? I wouldn't come here either if I was him.
There would be massive protests by the left for sure and it would out Trump Trump in all the news that outlets. Who wants that publicity, the narrative being 'Britain hates the US president"

I'm glad he's avoiding it to be honest. I'd be pretty embarrassed that we'd dissed the leader of our biggest investor, or rather the vocal minority on the left stole the headlines to make it seem that way.

I believe most people in the UK couldn't give a toss if he visited but unfortunately that silent majority doesn't make the news.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: SprocketUK

Sprocket,

That just is not accurate. Labour has some members of parliament who are not fans of the idea of leaving the EU, thats true. But the insistence is that they respect the will of their constituents, and indeed respect the will of the people, something that Corbyn takes very seriously indeed. What the irrelevant specks to the right of the Labour party think about it, being as they are, more concerned with their wallets than the people or the country, is entirely moot in the face of how they are instructed to comport themselves by the people, and by the leadership of the party they are members of.

Its not FULL of Remainers. It has some. It also has those who are willing to give the people the lead on this, and follow their directive, which makes them actually acceptable candidates for high office, people who know their place, relative to the collective will of the electorate. That is something to be very pleased about. Its been some time since this important value, was given the pride of place it deserves.

You haven't been paying attention mate.
labourlist.org...


With people like Kier Starmer and his mates trying to push for membership of all the things we voted to be free of, I fail to see how that is repecting Brexit.

a reply to: SprocketUK

With respect, just because you fail to see it, does not mean it is not there.

People like Jeremy Corbyn are only where they are today, because they have paid close attention to what the people ask of them, and as the man who seeks to lead the country, Corbyn, regardless of his membership of this working group, will and always has sought to represent the people in a manner accordant with their needs and wishes, as he damned well ought to, and will continue to if his record is anything to go by.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Corbin is one thing, the plp something quite different.

He doesn't have the power over his MPs he needs as can be seen by the never ending stream of them appearing on the news calling for staying in the customs union etc.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Corbyn is a cockwomble who would jeopardise relations with the US by banning Trump from a visit.
We've hosted much worse, and Corbyn was happy enough dealing with Northern Irish terrorists back in the day, he just jumps on whatever left wing bandwagon is trending on social media.
I wouldn't trust him to mind my pint while I had a piss let alone minding the nation.

a reply to: SprocketUK

I don't want a leader who has power over his party. I want a leader whose only interest is the people, with party members who are elected on the same basis, and that is what we will get, if we get a Labour government. A party prepared to represent the people first, and everything else a distant last.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Well, first of all sir, you stumbled massively in your first line.

It is the US which jeopardises relations with us, by having a boor and a charlatan at its helm, whose comments and actions cannot be justified in the minds of morally sound individuals, which disqualifies him from being worthy of a state visit. So you got that all backwards. Its not Corbyn being unwilling, but Trump being unacceptable that causes the problem here.

And as for Corbyn's actions regarding the Northern Irish issue, he was, at the time, the only person in politics, willing to actually engage in dialogue for the purpose of bringing the bloodshed to a close, well ahead of his time in that regard. He was only in the situation of having to go out on a limb in that fashion, because the government of the day was too pig ignorant and bullheaded, to make decisions about who to talk to, based on how much good could be done by the doing of it, rather than the metric they eventually used to make those choices, to whit, how much face they would lose in the public eye at the time by discussing the issues with their opposite numbers.

If more people during that period, had been willing to enter productive dialogue with the Northern Irish, we could have seen a faster resolution to the troubles than was eventually the case, especially if the actual government had been willing to involve themselves in that manner. That Corbyn was willing at that stage to enter dialogue, rather than continue the tit for tat violence of the period, shows that he was, even then, one of the most proactive, forward thinking and humanitarian politicians of the day. Understand this, he was the only person in the political sphere, who considered the human lives at stake, worth more than the loss of face that a government might receive by entering dialogue, which is a mark of strength, not weakness. It shows that his understanding of the human cost of continuing hostilities, was greater than the understanding of the leaders of the day.

a reply to: TrueBrit

All a matter of opinion of course. You are clearly a supporter of Corbyn while I clearly am not.
I'm happy enough for Trump to visit and assume you are not. I suspect we'll never square that circle.