RugbyRebels

Happy 3rd Not-Brexit day y'all

Yup. It's as if we wanted to continue playing for our home club but not paying our sub's.
The club would rightly tell you to feck off.

Corbin making sense...

Corbyn said: “People sometimes accuse me of trying to talk to both sides at once in the Brexit debate, to people who voted leave and remain. You know what? They’re right.

“Why would I only want to talk to half the country? I don’t want to live in half a country,” he added.

Stom wrote:Corbin making sense...

Corbyn said: “People sometimes accuse me of trying to talk to both sides at once in the Brexit debate, to people who voted leave and remain. You know what? They’re right.

“Why would I only want to talk to half the country? I don’t want to live in half a country,” he added.

More to the point, Corbyn making sense in a pithy way that's difficult to people to maliciously misquote. What's happened to him?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:Corbin making sense...

Corbyn said: “People sometimes accuse me of trying to talk to both sides at once in the Brexit debate, to people who voted leave and remain. You know what? They’re right.

“Why would I only want to talk to half the country? I don’t want to live in half a country,” he added.

More to the point, Corbyn making sense in a pithy way that's difficult to people to maliciously misquote. What's happened to him?

Puja

He's good on the campaign trail.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:Corbin making sense...

More to the point, Corbyn making sense in a pithy way that's difficult to people to maliciously misquote. What's happened to him?

Puja

He's good on the campaign trail.

Why can't he do that elsewhere, then!

Look, Corbyn has some serious problems, mainly because he is a theorist and not a realist. But the press have painted him with a really bad brush. He's not going to destroy civilisation.

BJ is far more likely to do that...

But a large minority of people would never consider voting for him just because of what the press has said about him in the past 8 years.

I think that is an extremely damaging position for any democracy to be in.

For the press to be able to print falsehoods and massive exaggerations.

There are some falsehoods about a lot of politicians in the press, though the left probably has it worse in a majority of major national newspapers. But a lot of Corbyn's problems aren't falsehoods, for a lot of people the problem with Corbyn isn't what's in the press, it's what Corbyn says, does and how he thinks about society and the world.

Digby wrote:There are some falsehoods about a lot of politicians in the press, though the left probably has it worse in a majority of major national newspapers. But a lot of Corbyn's problems aren't falsehoods, for a lot of people the problem with Corbyn isn't what's in the press, it's what Corbyn says, does and how he thinks about society and the world.

Like what? What things he does, says, has confirmed he believes in are a problem for our society? Other that they may challenge certain negative parts of our society?

Yes, he holds some ideas that are a little too theoretical, but that's what his cabinet are there for.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:There are some falsehoods about a lot of politicians in the press, though the left probably has it worse in a majority of major national newspapers. But a lot of Corbyn's problems aren't falsehoods, for a lot of people the problem with Corbyn isn't what's in the press, it's what Corbyn says, does and how he thinks about society and the world.

Like what? What things he does, says, has confirmed he believes in are a problem for our society? Other that they may challenge certain negative parts of our society?

Yes, he holds some ideas that are a little too theoretical, but that's what his cabinet are there for.

Support the IRA, the EU is an imperialist capitalist machine out to thwart the will of the people, his magic money tree and bizarre plans for people's QE, trident subs without trident, plans for nationalisation we cannot afford or nationalisation that steals private assets (he's not clear which), he's pro coal... do we really have to do this? The only way to not think Corbyn is a prat who isn't fit to be leader, and frankly there are better minds than his on the far left of the party (not hard to find in fairness), is if you buy into the cult of Corbyn and are such a fanboy you ignore the problems.

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:There are some falsehoods about a lot of politicians in the press, though the left probably has it worse in a majority of major national newspapers. But a lot of Corbyn's problems aren't falsehoods, for a lot of people the problem with Corbyn isn't what's in the press, it's what Corbyn says, does and how he thinks about society and the world.

Like what? What things he does, says, has confirmed he believes in are a problem for our society? Other that they may challenge certain negative parts of our society?

Yes, he holds some ideas that are a little too theoretical, but that's what his cabinet are there for.

Support the IRA, the EU is an imperialist capitalist machine out to thwart the will of the people, his magic money tree and bizarre plans for people's QE, trident subs without trident, plans for nationalisation we cannot afford or nationalisation that steals private assets (he's not clear which), he's pro coal... do we really have to do this? The only way to not think Corbyn is a prat who isn't fit to be leader, and frankly there are better minds than his on the far left of the party (not hard to find in fairness), is if you buy into the cult of Corbyn and are such a fanboy you ignore the problems.

There's a lot of questionable things in that list. I won't do the IRA one as that's been done to death and isn't really arguable to a conclusion. He is right that the EU is heavily pro-capitalist and, while I don't agree with him that we shouldn't be in it, I don't regard it as an abhorrent position to hold. The "Magic Money Tree" was a Conservative fiction, given that the 2017 manifesto was costed (unlike the Conservative one) and a great deal less profligate than a) the economic damage that austerity policies caused and b) the promises that Johnson is currently flinging about.

"People's QE" wasn't bizarre, it was printing money to do investment in infrastructure through a National Investment Bank, which is actually a lot more economically sound than doing so to buy gilts and assets to prop up the stock market. Are you confusing it with helicopter money (which has never been proposed by Corbyn)?

Trident can be argued and I won't go down the rabbit hole here, but being against it isn't problematic in and of itself. 49% of the population were against full renewal (29% agreeing specifically with Corbyn's compromise policy), so it's against hardly an outrageous and abhorrent position to hold.

On nationalisation, the CBI figures are bunk. They take the most expensive possible assumptions, as well as ignoring that, if the government buys assets, then the money isn't frittered away, there will be the value and the profit from the assets also on the balance sheet. There's been no suggestion of "stealing" assets from Corbyn at any point - that's just come from political opponents.

Pro-coal is a weird one - I've just had to search to see where that's come from, as it seems out-of-character for his public statements on fracking, environment, an 2017 manifesto that back phasing out coal-fired power stations, etc. I eventually tracked it down to an interview with Greenpeace during the 2015 leadership election, where he said that he "wanted to keep fossil fuels in the ground" and pushed for solar and wind energy, but then answered a question about energy security and his 1980s support for coal and miners by saying that, in a hypothetical where coal prices rose, there might be a case for reopening a mine in Wales and operating carbon capture on coal plants. This comment was then turned into a full article in the Telegraph which was headlined, "Corbyn's Britain: Reopening coal mines and nationalising energy companies". I think that's more of a comment on the state of the media than it is problems with Corbyn.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
Like what? What things he does, says, has confirmed he believes in are a problem for our society? Other that they may challenge certain negative parts of our society?

Yes, he holds some ideas that are a little too theoretical, but that's what his cabinet are there for.

Support the IRA, the EU is an imperialist capitalist machine out to thwart the will of the people, his magic money tree and bizarre plans for people's QE, trident subs without trident, plans for nationalisation we cannot afford or nationalisation that steals private assets (he's not clear which), he's pro coal... do we really have to do this? The only way to not think Corbyn is a prat who isn't fit to be leader, and frankly there are better minds than his on the far left of the party (not hard to find in fairness), is if you buy into the cult of Corbyn and are such a fanboy you ignore the problems.

There's a lot of questionable things in that list. I won't do the IRA one as that's been done to death and isn't really arguable to a conclusion. He is right that the EU is heavily pro-capitalist and, while I don't agree with him that we shouldn't be in it, I don't regard it as an abhorrent position to hold. The "Magic Money Tree" was a Conservative fiction, given that the 2017 manifesto was costed (unlike the Conservative one) and a great deal less profligate than a) the economic damage that austerity policies caused and b) the promises that Johnson is currently flinging about.

"People's QE" wasn't bizarre, it was printing money to do investment in infrastructure through a National Investment Bank, which is actually a lot more economically sound than doing so to buy gilts and assets to prop up the stock market. Are you confusing it with helicopter money (which has never been proposed by Corbyn)?

Trident can be argued and I won't go down the rabbit hole here, but being against it isn't problematic in and of itself. 49% of the population were against full renewal (29% agreeing specifically with Corbyn's compromise policy), so it's against hardly an outrageous and abhorrent position to hold.

On nationalisation, the CBI figures are bunk. They take the most expensive possible assumptions, as well as ignoring that, if the government buys assets, then the money isn't frittered away, there will be the value and the profit from the assets also on the balance sheet. There's been no suggestion of "stealing" assets from Corbyn at any point - that's just come from political opponents.

Pro-coal is a weird one - I've just had to search to see where that's come from, as it seems out-of-character for his public statements on fracking, environment, an 2017 manifesto that back phasing out coal-fired power stations, etc. I eventually tracked it down to an interview with Greenpeace during the 2015 leadership election, where he said that he "wanted to keep fossil fuels in the ground" and pushed for solar and wind energy, but then answered a question about energy security and his 1980s support for coal and miners by saying that, in a hypothetical where coal prices rose, there might be a case for reopening a mine in Wales and operating carbon capture on coal plants. This comment was then turned into a full article in the Telegraph which was headlined, "Corbyn's Britain: Reopening coal mines and nationalising energy companies". I think that's more of a comment on the state of the media than it is problems with Corbyn.

Puja

People's QE isn't just bizarre, its worrying in the extreme. Sadly the Tories seem to have caught the bug. Though granted for all I'm socially liberal I am fiscally conservative, that said you could be much more liberal on the fiscal front than I and still think you should plan how you're going to pay for things not just print money. Also they did have a magic money tree, and no the last manifesto wasn't costed, not even if Diane Abbott said so on Today earlier, and I'm pretty sure she did (not actually costing a manifesto is a charge that in fairness can be thrown at any party, they're all crap at it)

I don't think on major nationalisation the money is merely frittered away, and personally I'd prefer some of the major utilities were in public ownership, but there's still the reality of how you're actually going to pay for them. And there are plenty of stories coming out from the political left on how they can run down contracts and/or offer an alternative public service where the private sector fails to cover, which for me come with some big concerns around the concept of private ownership and just where the left might take that

The pro coal thing has come up more than once, I think in this his basic problem is as with the Trident subs whilst he might not want the product he is pro trade union, and pro working class jobs, whether he's happy to pay people just to mine the coal and never burn it is perhaps possible given his position on the Trident sub. Just on Trident if he wants to run on a no Trident platform that's fine, just have the balls to say there's no point have those subs so associated build and jobs around them will go, by all means propose an alternative spend, but don't build something ill defined for a new purpose just to protect union jobs even if you don't need the asset

He's right the EU is pro capitalism, but it's hardly the imperial warmonger he seems to view it as. Whether his ire stems from the CAP essentially originating to stop the spread of Socialism I don't know, given his feelings on socialism it's quite possible.

And if you don't want to answer ro his pro IRA views you could always address his love for the Jews

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
Support the IRA, the EU is an imperialist capitalist machine out to thwart the will of the people, his magic money tree and bizarre plans for people's QE, trident subs without trident, plans for nationalisation we cannot afford or nationalisation that steals private assets (he's not clear which), he's pro coal... do we really have to do this? The only way to not think Corbyn is a prat who isn't fit to be leader, and frankly there are better minds than his on the far left of the party (not hard to find in fairness), is if you buy into the cult of Corbyn and are such a fanboy you ignore the problems.

There's a lot of questionable things in that list. I won't do the IRA one as that's been done to death and isn't really arguable to a conclusion. He is right that the EU is heavily pro-capitalist and, while I don't agree with him that we shouldn't be in it, I don't regard it as an abhorrent position to hold. The "Magic Money Tree" was a Conservative fiction, given that the 2017 manifesto was costed (unlike the Conservative one) and a great deal less profligate than a) the economic damage that austerity policies caused and b) the promises that Johnson is currently flinging about.

"People's QE" wasn't bizarre, it was printing money to do investment in infrastructure through a National Investment Bank, which is actually a lot more economically sound than doing so to buy gilts and assets to prop up the stock market. Are you confusing it with helicopter money (which has never been proposed by Corbyn)?

Trident can be argued and I won't go down the rabbit hole here, but being against it isn't problematic in and of itself. 49% of the population were against full renewal (29% agreeing specifically with Corbyn's compromise policy), so it's against hardly an outrageous and abhorrent position to hold.

On nationalisation, the CBI figures are bunk. They take the most expensive possible assumptions, as well as ignoring that, if the government buys assets, then the money isn't frittered away, there will be the value and the profit from the assets also on the balance sheet. There's been no suggestion of "stealing" assets from Corbyn at any point - that's just come from political opponents.

Pro-coal is a weird one - I've just had to search to see where that's come from, as it seems out-of-character for his public statements on fracking, environment, an 2017 manifesto that back phasing out coal-fired power stations, etc. I eventually tracked it down to an interview with Greenpeace during the 2015 leadership election, where he said that he "wanted to keep fossil fuels in the ground" and pushed for solar and wind energy, but then answered a question about energy security and his 1980s support for coal and miners by saying that, in a hypothetical where coal prices rose, there might be a case for reopening a mine in Wales and operating carbon capture on coal plants. This comment was then turned into a full article in the Telegraph which was headlined, "Corbyn's Britain: Reopening coal mines and nationalising energy companies". I think that's more of a comment on the state of the media than it is problems with Corbyn.

Puja

People's QE isn't just bizarre, its worrying in the extreme. Sadly the Tories seem to have caught the bug. Though granted for all I'm socially liberal I am fiscally conservative, that said you could be much more liberal on the fiscal front than I and still think you should plan how you're going to pay for things not just print money. Also they did have a magic money tree, and no the last manifesto wasn't costed, not even if Diane Abbott said so on Today earlier, and I'm pretty sure she did (not actually costing a manifesto is a charge that in fairness can be thrown at any party, they're all crap at it)

I don't think on major nationalisation the money is merely frittered away, and personally I'd prefer some of the major utilities were in public ownership, but there's still the reality of how you're actually going to pay for them. And there are plenty of stories coming out from the political left on how they can run down contracts and/or offer an alternative public service where the private sector fails to cover, which for me come with some big concerns around the concept of private ownership and just where the left might take that

The pro coal thing has come up more than once, I think in this his basic problem is as with the Trident subs whilst he might not want the product he is pro trade union, and pro working class jobs, whether he's happy to pay people just to mine the coal and never burn it is perhaps possible given his position on the Trident sub. Just on Trident if he wants to run on a no Trident platform that's fine, just have the balls to say there's no point have those subs so associated build and jobs around them will go, by all means propose an alternative spend, but don't build something ill defined for a new purpose just to protect union jobs even if you don't need the asset

He's right the EU is pro capitalism, but it's hardly the imperial warmonger he seems to view it as. Whether his ire stems from the CAP essentially originating to stop the spread of Socialism I don't know, given his feelings on socialism it's quite possible.

And if you don't want to answer ro his pro IRA views you could always address his love for the Jews

Has the pro-coal thing come up since that one quote in 2015 (and Owen Smith referring back to that quote when he was failing to oust Corbyn)? I couldn't find any record of Corbyn mentioning coal in the last 10 years other than that.

I agree with you on the stupid Trident position, but it drew a lot of support as a halfway house because the theory was that you could always reinstate the missiles if we changed our minds. It was an act of compromise and political savvy, which is something Corbyn's rarely accused of.

QE does make quite a bit of fiscal sense when the economy is in the doldrums and there's little to no inflationary pressure. It's less so now that the economy is growing and there is some inflation, which is why it's good that Labour have dropped it as a policy an slightly worrying that the Conservatives are still in favour of it.

The 2017 Labour manifesto was costed - whether it was accurately or realistically costed is a different question and which I'd give a different answer to - but it did at least offer explanations of how pledges would be paid for and where the money was expected to come from, which is not something you could say about May's.

On the ... I actually just nearly typed the words "Jewish question". That would've been spectacularly unfortunate. On the anti-semitism issue, I will note that there's never been anything Corbyn or his associates to anti-Semitic actions or words. However, it's without a doubt that his desire to keep supporting Palestine, combined with his complete incapacity to manage the media or a coherent narrative outside of an election, emboldened anti-Semites in the party and created an awful environment that he failed to effectively deal with. I don't know I believe he is an anti-Semite himself, but his fuck-ups and inability to control a narrative have allowed anti-Semitic things to happen and anti-Semitic attitudes to flourish. Clearly, none of that is good.

However, given the other choices for Prime Minister currently are a committed and unrepentent Islamophobe and Jo Swinson, I am willing to view him as the lesser of evils at present.

Puja

I still cannot imagine putting a tick next to Labour under Corbyn without just vomiting in the voting booth, but I'm going to have to keep revisiting the question as it's maybe the only way Mitchell doesn't win in Sutton. But I suspect when push comes to shove I will vote Lib Dem even if I'd prefer they'd gone a slightly different way these last few months

Digby wrote:I still cannot imagine putting a tick next to Labour under Corbyn without just vomiting in the voting booth, but I'm going to have to keep revisiting the question as it's maybe the only way Mitchell doesn't win in Sutton. But I suspect when push comes to shove I will vote Lib Dem even if I'd prefer they'd gone a slightly different way these last few months

ditto

Digby wrote:I still cannot imagine putting a tick next to Labour under Corbyn without just vomiting in the voting booth, but I'm going to have to keep revisiting the question as it's maybe the only way Mitchell doesn't win in Sutton. But I suspect when push comes to shove I will vote Lib Dem even if I'd prefer they'd gone a slightly different way these last few months

Labour is the only option to stop the Tories in Sutton Coldfield (and even that's a long shot), the Lib Dems only got 4% of the vote last time.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:I still cannot imagine putting a tick next to Labour under Corbyn without just vomiting in the voting booth, but I'm going to have to keep revisiting the question as it's maybe the only way Mitchell doesn't win in Sutton. But I suspect when push comes to shove I will vote Lib Dem even if I'd prefer they'd gone a slightly different way these last few months

Labour is the only option to stop the Tories in Sutton Coldfield (and even that's a long shot), the Lib Dems only got 4% of the vote last time.

I am aware. And if Labour were still a party under Ed Miliband I'd be voting Labour for the first time in my life, but they aren't, and who and what their current leader and indeed leadership group is/are is a massive problem for me.

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:I still cannot imagine putting a tick next to Labour under Corbyn without just vomiting in the voting booth, but I'm going to have to keep revisiting the question as it's maybe the only way Mitchell doesn't win in Sutton. But I suspect when push comes to shove I will vote Lib Dem even if I'd prefer they'd gone a slightly different way these last few months

Labour is the only option to stop the Tories in Sutton Coldfield (and even that's a long shot), the Lib Dems only got 4% of the vote last time.

I am aware. And if Labour were still a party under Ed Miliband I'd be voting Labour for the first time in my life, but they aren't, and who and what their current leader and indeed leadership group is/are is a massive problem for me.

ditto, makes you almost hanker for Blair

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Labour is the only option to stop the Tories in Sutton Coldfield (and even that's a long shot), the Lib Dems only got 4% of the vote last time.

I am aware. And if Labour were still a party under Ed Miliband I'd be voting Labour for the first time in my life, but they aren't, and who and what their current leader and indeed leadership group is/are is a massive problem for me.

ditto, makes you almost hanker for Blair

I would breathe a sigh of relief and vote Blair in a heartbeat, and I thought just about all of his actual policies were at best a weird way to do things. Actually I quite liked Blair in the abstract, it was the actual detail of what he did which annoyed me, indeed I'm all set to have another another rant about PFI now.

I did like the extra independence for the BoE I suppose, and the extra money for the NHS was needed, and it'd have been a miracle if someone had stuck in that amount of extra money and done it all efficiently, so that some of it was wasted I find not in the slightest bit surprising.

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:I still cannot imagine putting a tick next to Labour under Corbyn without just vomiting in the voting booth, but I'm going to have to keep revisiting the question as it's maybe the only way Mitchell doesn't win in Sutton. But I suspect when push comes to shove I will vote Lib Dem even if I'd prefer they'd gone a slightly different way these last few months

Labour is the only option to stop the Tories in Sutton Coldfield (and even that's a long shot), the Lib Dems only got 4% of the vote last time.

I am aware. And if Labour were still a party under Ed Miliband I'd be voting Labour for the first time in my life, but they aren't, and who and what their current leader and indeed leadership group is/are is a massive problem for me.

So you’re saying you’d rather no deal brexit than vote for Labour?

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Labour is the only option to stop the Tories in Sutton Coldfield (and even that's a long shot), the Lib Dems only got 4% of the vote last time.

I am aware. And if Labour were still a party under Ed Miliband I'd be voting Labour for the first time in my life, but they aren't, and who and what their current leader and indeed leadership group is/are is a massive problem for me.

So you’re saying you’d rather no deal brexit than vote for Labour?

There's more than a kernel of truth in that, and I'm livid about Brexit. Frankly I feel sick at the thought of Boris or Jeremy as PM, there is the ongoing question of whether I can justify a vote for Labour just to try and stop something I don't want happening, and I don't know I can given just how strongly I object to Labour as they are, even if I trusted Corbyn on Brexit, which I don't

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:
I am aware. And if Labour were still a party under Ed Miliband I'd be voting Labour for the first time in my life, but they aren't, and who and what their current leader and indeed leadership group is/are is a massive problem for me.

So you’re saying you’d rather no deal brexit than vote for Labour?

There's more than a kernel of truth in that, and I'm livid about Brexit. Frankly I feel sick at the thought of Boris or Jeremy as PM, there is the ongoing question of whether I can justify a vote for Labour just to try and stop something I don't want happening, and I don't know I can given just how strongly I object to Labour as they are, even if I trusted Corbyn on Brexit, which I don't

So you're willing to allow someone who everyone knows is an abusive narcissist to choose the path of the country...

Just because you're more inclined to believe what you've read is true about someone rather than what they've actually said?

To be fair Stom, Corbyn has said and written enough in person to make many people question his politics. McDonnell too for that matter. Media bias might not favour him but the words recorded directly from his mouth are sufficient to raise serious concerns, and that’s before you start to look at the anti-semitiam issue that he blatantly didn’t think to be a problem.

I’m in the same boat as Diggers. Do I vote against the Conservatives as a protest vote whilst not wanting Corbyn in number 10?

If a moderately sensible soft left leadership were running Labour then it would be an easy decision, but that isn’t the case.

I think that, even if you utterly despise Corbyn, you are better off supporting him here as the lesser of the two evils. Corbyn, for all his flaws, even in the absolute worst case scenario, will not do the damage to the UK that Boris is promising. Even if you think he's despicable, a win for him would be as a minority government or coalition which would temper him and, even if by some miracle he won a majority, he doesn't have autocratic control over his MPs and would have to get anything he wants to do through Parliament.

Boris, on the other hand, is in charge of a party where near all of the moderate voices have been purged, not least because he summarily removed the whip from people who dared vote against him. The only potential coalition involves the DUP or Brexit, neither of whom will make his party less extreme. He has no beliefs or morals, except for wanting power, and is looking to Trump for inspiration.

I can understand why someone might despise Corbyn - I don't necessarily agree, but I can understand it. However, when you compare the risks of a Corbyn premiership, with the moderating effects of other parties and his own MPs, against a Johnson premiership, with a party that has been honed to remove moderating voices, I don't see that there's a choice.

Puja

Sandydragon wrote:To be fair Stom, Corbyn has said and written enough in person to make many people question his politics. McDonnell too for that matter. Media bias might not favour him but the words recorded directly from his mouth are sufficient to raise serious concerns, and that’s before you start to look at the anti-semitiam issue that he blatantly didn’t think to be a problem.

I’m in the same boat as Diggers. Do I vote against the Conservatives as a protest vote whilst not wanting Corbyn in number 10?

If a moderately sensible soft left leadership were running Labour then it would be an easy decision, but that isn’t the case.

What has he actually said "firmly", without taking only part of his words, to make him even approach Boris Johnson?

We're not talking about comparing Stalin and Hitler here, we're comparing a literal narcissist with a theorist who often fails to get his head out of his arse.

One you can reason with, the other will agree with you absolutely and fully, and then do what pleases him anyway, even if it means going back on his word.

And on the anti-semitism argument, I understand where Corbyn was coming from. But he's not very good at articulating his thoughts under pressure.

The problem for him - and for others within the Labour party - has been labelling criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. Hell, I want to be able to criticise Israel without being labeled an anti-semite.

Because it's a fucking disgusting government they have there.

He just completely allowed his head to get stuck in his arse and because so many Labour party members have been playing stupid ass politics around Corbyn for so long, he didn't have enough close voices saying "Err, Jeremy, you need to be careful here, let's do it differently".


Guys, we're not saying you should be voting for the second-coming of Lenin.

We're just saying: vote whatever way it takes to remove a dangerous narcissistic abuser from power.

Puja wrote:I think that, even if you utterly despise Corbyn, you are better off supporting him here as the lesser of the two evils. Corbyn, for all his flaws, even in the absolute worst case scenario, will not do the damage to the UK that Boris is promising. Even if you think he's despicable, a win for him would be as a minority government or coalition which would temper him and, even if by some miracle he won a majority, he doesn't have autocratic control over his MPs and would have to get anything he wants to do through Parliament.

Boris, on the other hand, is in charge of a party where near all of the moderate voices have been purged, not least because he summarily removed the whip from people who dared vote against him. The only potential coalition involves the DUP or Brexit, neither of whom will make his party less extreme. He has no beliefs or morals, except for wanting power, and is looking to Trump for inspiration.

I can understand why someone might despise Corbyn - I don't necessarily agree, but I can understand it. However, when you compare the risks of a Corbyn premiership, with the moderating effects of other parties and his own MPs, against a Johnson premiership, with a party that has been honed to remove moderating voices, I don't see that there's a choice.

Puja