UK politics: Jeremy Corbyn has gone stark raving mad

Jeremy Corbyn has decided to waste away all the advantages he obtained with the shock results of the snap election in 2017. But, he has forgotten that he is still the Leader of the Opposition and didn’t come close to being elected Prime Minister. Now, with two of his recent actions, he’s proven that he is still the same old backbench clown that he always was.

It was incredibly stupid of Mr. Corbyn to question the evidence of the Russian assassination attempt on UK soil. That is such an assault on democracy that even he could see it. But, no, he genuflects to Putin. I guess because he’s such a stupid rebel that he loved the IRA among other terrorists thugs.

Now, he’s sacked Owen Smith (his challenger for Labour Party Leader) for composing a well written editorial for The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/24/owen-smith-corbyn-sacking-me-over-call-for-brexit-mistake-labour

Brexit is a mistake, and yet Mr. Corbyn refuses to admit this. Jeremy Corbyn does not understand that he is the Leader of the Opposition and in his role he can oppose the stupidity of Brexit and vote against the government.

The Labour party needs a new leader and it needs it soon.

That remains to be seen, though I won’t disagree.

Corbyn has been pro-Brexit for a very long time.

As for the sacking of Smith, from that Guardian editorial he was right to do so. You have to respect a democratic decision if you believe in democracy. You can’t just respect only the decisions you like. You can’t have another referendum just because the first one gave the wrong answer. And for once Dianne Abbot nailed it:

She, of course, was not sacked for doing much the same a while back because she is legendarily stupid and - more importantly - Corbyn’s squeeze.

Now Corbyn is in trouble for being a weasel about an anti-Semitic mural.

I fundamentally disagree. One of the features of democracy is that a decision is never set in stone; the people can change their minds. That’s what elections and the concept of the Loyal Opposition are about: even if they lose, it’s the mandate of the Opposition to oppose the Government’s policies, and to make the case that the Opposition’s policies are better.

Atlee decided to nationalise railways in Britain. Major reversed that and privitised them. He didn’t think he was bound by Atlee’s polio of nationalisation, even though the voters had voted for it. Now Corbyn wants to re-nationalise. He doesn’t think he’s bound by Major’s decision, made through the democratic process.

And it’s no different for referendum. The people of Britain voted to stay in the EC back in the mid-70s, with a thumping majority: 67% in favour of staying. That was a democratic decision, but the proponents of Brexit obviously didn’t think they were bound by it.

People can change their minds. Voters can change their minds. They might think that a certain policy is a good thing in principle, but then when they see the details of exactly how it will work, how much it will cost, and the possible down-sides of the deal, they have the right to reconsider.

Is the deal currently on the table the one that the proponents of Brexit campaigned on? If not, is it sufficiently different to change people’s minds? The people have the right to change their minds in a democracy.

Yes, you can work to change the Brexit decision, but you have to respect it. See the difference? But I’m not referring to the referendum itself: Smith was part of the Shadow Cabinet which has agreed to not call for another referendum. As such collective responsibility applies. He can’t campaign for a new referendum inside the Shadow Cabinet. He did, so Corbyn was right to sack him.

And I’m saying no, you don’t have to respect it, if by that you mean it’s a done deal and can’t be questioned.

If someone strongly believes it was the wrong decision, or even actually voted for it in principle but now thinks that the proposed exit terms are too harsh, then that person has every right in a democracy to call for the decision to be reversed.

Just as the Brexiters are calling for the decision in the 1975 referendum to be reversed. If they can seek to reverse the 1975 decision, why can’t the anti-Brexiters seek to reverse the 2016 decision?

As for the sacking, yes, if he’s speaking publicly against the collective decision of the Shadow Cabinet, then Corbin has every right to sack him. That’s a different issue. But, I would say he had every right within the Shadow Cabinet to try to convince his colleagues to oppose Brexit.

Not only that: there is now with the Cambridge Analytica fiasco, obvious evidence that voters were influenced (and that Russian Money was used by Leave), which makes this Referendum not an open and fair election.

Moreover, modern Democracy does not translate to “tyranny of majority” (or as Leavers like to put it “We won, shut up”). One of the cornerstones is that rights can’t be taken away; yet the rights of European citizens are being taken away right now as they live in Limbo: >1 mio. British (= European) citizens living on the continent, and >3 mio. European citizens in the UK will loose their Freedom of Movement, the right to live with their Family, to work and study abroad…

Just because Leave “won” doesn’t make it legal. (And neither is the extra-Act which allows government to Bypass Parliament to get Brexit through).

Which Act are you referring to? :confused:

Looks like Corbyn is losing an MP.

What is it with Corbyn, his hard left allies, and their anti-Semitism?

Jeremy Corbyn criticised for meeting radical group Jewdas amid anti-Semitism rowhttp://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corbyn-criticised-for-meeting-radical-group-jewdas-amid-anti-semitism-row-11314813

I guess one person’s anti-antisemitism is another’s pro-Palestine.

After the last three days of seeing Palestinian children shot in the back and killed where does a reasonable person put themselves on a line between Hamas ad the Israeli State. Hamas of course not being able to represent a state.

The rest is, as always, spin.

This is the reason so many support Corbyn, all the media crap aside - letters like this over 3 decades: https://twitter.com/NEWTEKWORLDNEWS/status/980867864621191168
Are these people anti Semitic: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/250-march-in-tel-aviv-in-solidarity-with-gaza-after-deadly-protests

If Corbyn and the Labour hard left were simply attacking the Israeli government, then I don’t think that is anti-Semitic. I think Netanyahu is despicable as well.

But, that isn’t the issue. There’s just a huge connection between the Labour Left and anti-Semitism, such as Corbyn’s anti-Semitic mural praise.

How about Christine Shawcroft and her defense of a holocaust denial candidate

I was going to say who? But then your link said this:

Next?

I cannot agree with you more and I cannot add anymore to agree with you. Thanks for saying it as it is

No worries. In the face of so much negative and dominant media spin - look at the OP - it certainly helps me to be be reminded compassion and integrity should be qualities we look for in politicians.

Do you honestly think that Jeremy Corbyn is full of compassion and integrity? He’s a backbencher that whined when Labour got into Government and defied the whip numerous times. The Labour party made a horrible mistake when they allowed 5 pound clowns to be able to vote for the party leader.

I think your series of OPs on Corbyn, and the hyperbolic language you use, speaks for itself.

The Tory party is despicable and is becoming worse with their need to pander to the most extreme Eurosceptics. However, Labour under Corbyn and his cronies would probably be far worse. John McDonnell and Diane Abbot in government? That’s an unfunny joke. The Labour party does have plenty of talent, but Corbyn seems more intent on ‘purifying’ the party and getting rid of any evil Blairites than actually trying to be an effective opposition.

“despicable” and “far worse” than despicable. purifying and evil. Goodness.

I guess the thing is almost 50% of the country see the trajectory of capitalism in exactly those terms - distribution of wealth, state assisted tax avoidance, enabled money laundering, specific non-criminalised banking activities, and so on. The people are due a reset. This time it won’t involve rope and lamp posts but it will include social justice and compassion.