Jeremy Corbin - Out of touch?

[Dripsey3]

Let me start by saying that Jeremy Corbin is a breath of fresh air in British politics. However 2 recent issues have got me wondering if he is in fact out of touch with the British public? 

1. He favours power sharing with Argentina in the Falkland Islands. The same Argentina who tried to take the islands by force. Plus the Falkland Islanders held a referendum and the result was overwhelmingly in favour of remaining in the UK. The vast majority of people in the UK see the Falklands as British and wouldn't entertain the idea of Argentina having a say. 

2. Mr Corbin seems to be in favour of allowing every single migrant in Calais into the UK. Not only that he seems to be in favour of Britain taking in millions of migrants over the next few years. Obviously Jeremy hasn't been watching the news in Sweden or Germany. Mass migration will only lead to massive problems for any country silly enough to allow it. 

It's hard to see anything but Tory domination if Mr Corbin continues on his ultra left path..........

[Tarkers]

I also find the guy fascinating....crazier than a box of frogs, but interesting.

Did he honestly suggest keeping Trident subs............. but removing the missiles?.......I thought I had heard just about everything in my 58 years, but that one made my jaw drop!

What next....tanks without shells or removing the bullets from the Army soldiers?

When he was first elected, I had hoped for someone more like this

 

 

[DangerousSausage]

I like Jeremy Corbyn and the general thrust of his politics, although I don't agree with everything. I also feel he's guilty of talking over the public's heads at times. His opposition to Trident being a case in point - he's right IMO but I don't feel he's explained it to the public well enough. The reasons may be obvious to him as a long-standing CND activist, but you have to pick up the people where they are.

His stance on the Falklands is also odd - we should respect the islanders' right to self-determination, surely. Expect this to be quietly dropped.

He's right about the migrants / asylum seekers though. Here in Germany we're having problems because of the sheer numbers. It's an international problem and needs an international solution - 10 countries taking 100,000 each with every EU member making a proportionate contribution to the costs is far more manageable than what we have now. Let's not forget that there was no asylum system in place during WW2 and many Jewish refugees were sent back. Many lives could have been saved had one been in place. If we decide that people seeking refuge is someone else's problem, we risk turning the clock back and losing more lives in the future.

People have been wanting a conviction politician at the helm of a party instead of a slimy PR man - now you've got one.

[Chris Website URL Visit Site 𝕏 fmcj10 Instagram fmcj10]

Labour are just using him to fix the issues they came from appointing Wallace.

I'm not going to engage with the whole poltics, yet he could be a good person to reform the whole decaying issues around them lot - I think politics has been waiting for someone who is able to be honest and speak of values, if Labour could work on some of his imperfections he would be more than what he is but as I mention - he's just lifting a party which basically topped itself several times.

[Elite_pie]

I basically agree with @notts-joe .  While I don't think Corbyn has a hope in hell of ever becoming Prime Minister, he was still the best option to lead a Labour party that has been in sharp decline since it opted for the wrong Miliband brother.  Corbyn has his faults, but at least he's given the party a fresh approach and direction which needs to be built upon.  Hopefully someone will emerge from the ranks with a bit of charisma to take over before the next election.  I firmly believe that Cameron is in power because the opposition (Miliband and Clegg) was so weak rather than any qualities he has.  

[Feral Fox]

Well, where do I begin???

Jeremy was elected with the largest mandate ever given to a leader when selecting the person to lead the cabinet or shadow cabinet.

Labour's membership has gone from withering on the vine to having more members than all other political parties in the UK combined.

As a staunch supporter and activist, of course I'm going to promote those facts first.

As a realist, have mistakes been made? Of course. Lots of silly issues that shouldn't have been issues.

Policy mistakes? The biggest thing that the party has failed to do in my opinion is let the public know that all policies are up for discussion. Just because some right wing paper (such as the daily fail) decide to report a comment doesn't make it Labour policy. 

On the issue of 'a bunch of migrants' I felt disgusted to ear that sort of comment from any Prime Minister. Quite frankly it disgusts me to treat people who are fleeing for their lives to ensue the safety of their families, to be referred to in such a way. Refugees of war deserve much more. 

Ed wasn't the bes to lead us into the last election. BUT the biggest issue wasn't the leader, it was the inability of the party as a whole to communicate a message as a whole to re-butt the tories. Standing on the doorstep last election was difficult as he issues people were raising were genuine concerns which Labour wasn't batting back.

Things such as the tory myth on Labour left us bankrupt. It has taken 5 1/2 ears for the tories and all banking bodies to admit that was total rubbish and nothing but frenzied media spin. Because of this we regularly got the 'can't be trusted with the economy.'

Now we are doing things in the right way using economists who are not only respected, but have won Nobel prizes for economic theory.

We didn't lose the last election because we were too left wing, we lost because most people didn't see any alternative and wee worried about the SNP. Well the SNP votes came in, but didn't effect the result. We lost because we weren't media friendly enough. We don't need to pander to this now. Corbyn will admit his campaign wasn't won in the papers or sky or the BBC. It was won by social media and a lot of people waking up to better ways of motivating people.

 

Corbyn is finding his feet. His mandate is large enough that he has a big honeymoon period to iron out the stupid mistakes. The point is the party is now going in the right direction. Maybe he will decide to let someone else tackle the next election, but if he does he does i knowing that he has offered the country a better alternative to what they've had previously.

[Super_Danny_Allsopp]

4 hours ago, Dripsey3 said:

Let me start by saying that Jeremy Corbin is a breath of fresh air in British politics. However 2 recent issues have got me wondering if he is in fact out of touch with the British public? 

1. He favours power sharing with Argentina in the Falkland Islands. The same Argentina who tried to take the islands by force. Plus the Falkland Islanders held a referendum and the result was overwhelmingly in favour of remaining in the UK. The vast majority of people in the UK see the Falklands as British and wouldn't entertain the idea of Argentina having a say. 

2. Mr Corbin seems to be in favour of allowing every single migrant in Calais into the UK. Not only that he seems to be in favour of Britain taking in millions of migrants over the next few years. Obviously Jeremy hasn't been watching the news in Sweden or Germany. Mass migration will only lead to massive problems for any country silly enough to allow it. 

It's hard to see anything but Tory domination if Mr Corbin continues on his ultra left path..........

1. I don't support this view, as many others won't. The Falkland Islanders have voters, and should they continue to vote for British rule, so should they remain. 

2. The migrant issue is now cloudy. Am I in support of families fleeing war-torn places such as Iraq and Syria claiming refuge in a country able and willing to support them? Yes. I also believe the UK should do a lot more for these type of refugees.

Am I in support of economic refugees piggy-backing on these genuine refugees? No. How many of these piggy-backers are there? I have no idea, however I do have first hand experience of such people who did this, who are from Azerbaijan, and have since claimed every benefit going and have no intention of working in the foreseeable future. These people who piggy-back initially on the refugee crisis and secondly on tax payer money, are not welcome, IMO. How do we stop this and how can we distinguish the real refugees from these piggy-backers? Again, no idea. 

 

[liampie]

i actually like him, he speaks the truth and reminds me of my grandfather set in his ways but that is not always a bad thing.

we have seen worse leaders of the labour party.

[Joe Jones]

Corbyn is what I describe as a "reset button" for the Labour party. Fact of the matter is, Corbyn may appeal to a sizeable amount of people, namely the traditional left, a fair amount of students (though you'd be surprised how many actually bat for the other side - my uni course was full of those), and a lot of people disillusioned with traditional politics - but I really cannot see him appealing to the "I'm alright Jack" crowd (aka "shy Tories", which I think should be renamed "greasy selfish quislings"), a lot of people in business, and of course anyone who reads the Sun and continues to take a playground bully approach to the democratic process ("I'm voting for the charismatic jock, not the dweeby nerd / supply teacher"). Sadly the demographics I've just mentioned are probably a good 2/3 of the Great British public, so really you have to win those over. 

I think the best thing that could happen to Labour is for Corbyn to do his job of "resetting" the Labour party and expose the Tories as the duplicitous, slimy sociopaths that they are, then in 2018, get Dan Jarvis to the helm - now HE will win Labour an election.

[Piethagoram 𝕏 @piethagoram]

@Joe Jones A good piece on the scenario of where Labour is. I take issue though with the quote "I think the best thing that could happen to Labour is for Corbyn to do his job of "resetting" the Labour Party". In reality, such "resetting" is making Labour unelectable. Recent history dictates that Labour can only win by taking the middle ground by winning over Tories with a social conscious. Significant policy issues highlighted by the predominantly right wing press like Trident, Falklands, Refugee Crisis etc will NEVER sway those "Tories with a social conscious" from switching their votes to Labour. The proposed Parliamentary boundary changes are likely to significantly favour the Tories too. Until Labour actually reviews and accepts what is needed to win, the step back to Michael Foot politika will be a disaster for this country by providing grounds for an ineffective and unelectable opposition

[DangerousSausage]

The majority of voters oppose replacing Trident with a like-for-like system, although mainly on cost grounds, so that's hardly a vote loser. It's not seen as the major political issue it was in the 80s, but it is up for replacement and a lot of money is at stake. There is the question of how useful it would actually be, and what would happen to the weapons should Scotland go independent over the coming decades.

The press are fascinated with Trident though, as it allows them to both portray Corbyn as living in the past and highlight divisions within Labour.

Supposing a charismatic, centre-ground figure had emerged, become leader in 2010 and swept home at last year's election (now that's a HUGE if) - what then? We would have a Labour government pandering to the right-wing press and implementing exactly the same cuts as the Tories are now. What would be the point? And as for effectiveness, what was effective about the Labour right abstaining during the vote on the welfare bill? It took Corbyn's election for the party to start showing some backbone and acting as a principled and effective opposition. The approach of standing aside, letting the Tories do what they want, implementing it at council level and then whingeing about it at election time robbed the party of what was left of its credibility - it has had its day. The new style is novel for many people but give it time.

The left often eschews personality politics and focuses on intellectual arguments. But what the labour movement tends to forget is that at election time people don't just vote with their heads, they make a gut decision about the leadership potential of the party leaders - can they imagine them providing strong leadership in difficult times? Do they look and sound the part? A bit shallow maybe, but it shouldn't be completely ignored. This is a problem for Corbyn, who never struck me as leadership material. The trouble is, one glance at the front bench will tell you that the PLP is hardly bursting with quality - Diane Abbott for heaven's sake! Dan Jarvis might be flavour of the month among some, as Ed Milliband was for a time in 2010, but in the limelight he would be exposed as an unprincipled empty suit just like Ed was. The Labour Party does need to rediscover what it's for, but it's also true that it needs to reach out to and put itself across to potential voters better. IMO

[Piethagoram 𝕏 @piethagoram]

@DangerousSausage Firstly with Trident, I read somewhere in the distant past, there are "hidden" transfers made to the UK  from governments of other European countries which in the end covers a lot of the cost. 

As regards anti Austerity, the big question hangs over UK taxation. People tend to vote to pay the least amount of tax and Corbyn has failed to demonstrate how he is going to tackle the tax revenue side of his arguments, apart from sound bites of closing tax loopholes....and they all say that 

[Feral Fox]

3 hours ago, DangerousSausage said:

Supposing a charismatic, centre-ground figure had emerged, become leader in 2010 and swept home at last year's election (now that's a HUGE if) - what then? We would have a Labour government pandering to the right-wing press and implementing exactly the same cuts as the Tories are now. What would be the point? And as for effectiveness, what was effective about the Labour right abstaining during the vote on the welfare bill? It took Corbyn's election for the party to start showing some backbone and acting as a principled and effective opposition. The approach of standing aside, letting the Tories do what they want, implementing it at council level and then whingeing about it at election time robbed the party of what was left of its credibility - it has had its day. The new style is novel for many people but give it time.

Well said