And which unicorn political party will provide that? Labour hit their peak in the snap general election last year with people venting their anti-Brexit campaign and the Tories running one of the worst campaigns in modern UK political history. Magic money trees? Strong and stable? Yet, Labour still fell far short of winning.
Don’t worry dalej42, Saint Jeremy will lead us to the promised land. I mean, he’s thick as mince, hasn’t changed a view of his since about 1976, exists almost entirely in a London bubble alongside people who play micro-left factional politics as a hobby. Yeah but, he’s going to deliver, right?
I don’t buy the “gentle Jeremy, meek and mild” shtick one bit. I think he likes democracy as long as it is his version of it. I don’t trust him as far as I can throw him. His supporters make much of him being on the right side of the big military decisions whilst neglecting the fact that he is ultimately an appeaser. Someone who I don’t think would take action no matter what the provocation. He’s been against every major military intervention and by the “stopped clock” principle can of course claim some morall victories but no, I don’t see him as a leader. Not someone willing to build consensus and not someone able to command wide respect.
The UK military wasn’t just beaten it was humiliated in Bazra and in Helmund - not countries you understand but a city and a rural province , both in states of occupation not war, both without modern arms or air cover. We literally couldn’t defend ourselves without US help. We utterly failed - beaten, defeated, humiliated -in both Bazra and Helmund.
And now we have 2 spanking new aircraft carriers - a present from the departing Gordon Brown to Scottish shipyard workers, we can’t afford to crew, never mind put next generation warplanes on. Putin calls them target practice.
Tell me more about the UK and its “interventions”.
A mostly-critical earlier thread on Corbyn: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=805993
Sure, I think we know who started that one as well.
There is no doubt that I’ve been anti-Corbyn from the beginning. I did give him credit for Labour doing better in the snap general election. And, watching the pathetic Tories have to grovel to the DUP to maintain their control of government was enjoyable. However, Corbyn has squandered away all of his political advantage since the general election. He’s proved himself over and over to be a backbench clown more interested in ideological purity and purifying Labour than actually trying to be a leader of the opposition and show himself as a potential prime minister. And keep in mind, doing better than expected still means that Labour lost the election and is still in opposition.
There was an interesting interview with Roy Hattersley on This Week in Westminster and he thinks Labour is worse off now than during the years in the wilderness.
You still a Dan Jarvis fan, u_t_j? 
Ha! Corbyn asked him twice to take a Shadow role but he’s obv. decided the Sadiq Khan option is more strategic. He’s got a good 20 years left in the game …
I’m not sure that there’s an easy route back into Parliament for the regional mayors, but we’ll see. London is different, obviously.
You are imagining arguments I haven’t made.
Have some interventions gone badly? yes
Did we get the decisions wrong in some cases? yes
The only was to avoid the above is to never do anything. That is a valid philisophy. If you share it with Corbyn then he and you should at least have the balls to say so and the public can judge him for it. I abhor conflict, I’m very much a pacifist but even I recognise the need to resist tyrannical aggression.
I’m happy to Godwinise the thread by pointing out that were Corbyn in power in 1939 then his response to Fascism would have been appeasement and a bake -sale.
I invite people to look for his mealy-mouthed response to the recent Syrian chemical attacks.
Here’s a good summary of the Hattersley interview. “…The Labour Party is in a much more dangerous situation than it was in the 1980s”
LOL. God help us.
Corbyn is picking the Syria strikes as the hill he wants to die on. Considering that the strikes were coordinated between the UK, USA, and France, with three very different leaders, I think he’s making a mistake. Combined with his weasel approach to the Russian assassination attempt, this is further proof that the closest he needs to get to Downing Street is the iron gate where some tourist can lend him a selfie stick.
eh? Do you ever think you might be just a little too American for European politics.
I’m a centrist by European standards. This puts me on the far left fringe of the American political spectrum.
I’d listen to what Corbyn had to say, then vote against Labour. I’m anti-Brexit, but I could see myself voting for the Tories if the Liberal Democrats had trivial support in my district.
Internationalist neuro-typicals had it pretty good in Britain before Brexit, at least after Thatcher left. Oh well.
I’ve been following European politics since I was 18, in particular UK politics. I woke up at 6 am to see the very first televised coverage of the House of Commons.
And it looks like’s Corbyn’s lunacy is starting to hurt Labour.
Corbyn really doesn’t know when to shut his mouth. He’s still claiming that Russia may not be behind the Salisbury assassination attempt. Now, he doesn’t think that Assad may have been behind the chemical attacks. https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/jeremy-corbyn/news/94388/watch-jeremy-corbyn-suggests-non
You make the point for me me; Corbyn is the leader of the Official Opposition. That is: Official. Opposition.
In other words it’s not his role, to find a place in the bribery and corruption feeding trough alongside the President:
With regard his particular position on apparent chemical attacks in Syria, not only is the polling behind him but so are key figures like the former ambassador to Syria. Shy News:
Even the Daily Mail: Theresa May faces public backlash for bombing Syria without backing
You read just like another extreme, simplistic American for whom the answer is - seemingly literally - always to bomb the shit out of something several thousand miles from home.
Corbyn’s statement in full. One passage:
And just in case you have trouble joining up the dots. Theresa May probably had no choice, support for this was likely the quid pro quo for the emphatic US support (expelling 60 diplomats) after Salisbury.
Being leader of the opposition does not mean that he has to oppose. He is not duty bound to disagree with every government action taken.
Apparent?..apparent? that is a very odd choice of word.
So he’s taking the easy and popular position? Neither the public nor the former ambassador will be privy to the full intelligence behind this action. We don’t know, you don’t know, they don’t know what the French have uncovered.
And you read like someone who takes the easiest route possible, just like Jeremy. No military action under any circumstances. That’s fine, if that is what you really mean but it does ensure that Assad, Putin and all other aggressive actors are given a green light to do what ever they like. That is the inescapably logic of such a position for people such as them.
And one line from it that needs highlighting
They are on the ground, they are being hindered. Care to guess who by? What does Jeremy suggest happens now? quick…quick…quicker than that…ah!, too late. The Russians and Syrians have now removed evidence of any chemical weapon manufacture, storage and delivery.
I refer you to this wonderful routine by Paul Daniels. I’ll do you the favour of assuming you get the reference.