[Nonsense]

So despite being in parliament for decades non of Corbyn's detractors can name a single issue he was on the wrong side of nor a single vote he should feel ashamed of.

Well, on BREXIT, he is taking a very 'Liberal' position, he's 'sitting-on-the-fence', being non-commital, waiting for something that's not going to happen.

Now, of course, he's not going to be proven 'wrong' on the issue of BREXIT, he's just not going to be proven 'right' either.

People are 'judged' by the 'friends' in whose company they keep, he has stood on the side of Palestinian terrorist & the common concensus is that he's 'anti-semetic'.

It's stretching things a bit to think that CORBYN walks on water, but, that's not the point in the current situation, the Tories are are so incompetent, so sociopathic, so dishonest, so damaging to this country, that even makes CORBYN look very respactable by comparison, which he isn't, but, that again is not the point.
What is the point, is the issue of BREXIT as only one-half of the political equation by the majority of people,to rid the 'TORY' class from existance in our national affairs, the other half is electing CORBYN into government, to fulfil that 'nuclear option' as 'punishment' to the 'TORY'-'LIBERAL', self-appointed 'elite', who think that they can control the people all of the time, in the same way that religion does to those brainwashed by it.

That 'elitism' started with BLAIR, the traitor to working people's aspirations, he vacated 'socialism' in favour of the 'Third Way', by joining forces with the 'Tories' in the 'centre ground', thats what the 'Third Way' is, the favouring of the 'Middle Class' & driving the working class into the ground.

That's why CORBYN is so politically attractive, not because he wants to reverse course, but because he wants to 'change' course for the benefit of those the Tories have waged war on in this country.

[Beren]

That's why CORBYN is so politically attractive

But he's still not attractive enough. What should happen to Britain, what should the Tories do to get him elected? Would the British elect him if the Tories turned out to be the children of Satan himself?

[Nonsense]

But he's still not attractive enough. What should happen to Britain, what should the Tories do to get him elected? Would the British elect him if the Tories turned out to be the children of Satan himself?

Nonsense -

The Tories do not need to do anything, they already have done enough to make CORBYN the next P.M.

Uncontrolled immigration, BREXIT, austerity, incompetence, zero credibility, national debt explosion - x4 what it was when Labour left office-heading close to £2 TRILLION insecure borders, falling living standards, tax cuts for the rich,better-off, at the expense of the poor, 40% of pensioners in the two lowest decimiles of income groups, economic,wealth & social divisions ever increasing.

What could possibly go wrong?

[SolarCross]

Well then, by your own logic, I am guessing that you consider yourself and Ter as pro-chinese communist imperialists for supporting Trump.

Trump Discussed Pulling U.S. From NATO.

I wouldn't consider myself a trump supporter, I am trump agnostic. However there may be a method in the madness... Nato has a lot of members many of whom treat membership as a free ride at the US's expense, so it might be Trump is playing a kind of psyop on those freeloaders, to prompt them into appreciating and contributing to NATO instead of just taking it for granted. It's a classic dealer's trick to feign disinterest in a deal in order to prompt a more generous offering from the other parties. I wouldn't be too sure he is serious.

[noemon]

I wouldn't consider myself a trump supporter, I am trump agnostic.

I am under the justified impression that you are a Trump supporter(however your attempt to distance yourself from him is quite welcome), after all if you were not, you would not be attempting to conduct apologetics on his behalf:

However there may be a method in the madness... Nato has a lot of members many of whom treat membership as a free ride at the US's expense, so it might be Trump is playing a kind of psyop on those freeloaders, to prompt them into appreciating and contributing to NATO instead of just taking it for granted. It's a classic dealer's trick to feign disinterest in a deal in order to prompt a more generous offering from the other parties. I wouldn't be too sure he is serious.

Whether Trump is serious or not, is besides the point. Trump is undermining NATO, openly and explicitly. The undermining of NATO by a sitting US President and the alienation of its NATO allies has a lot more consequences for the alliance than Jeremy Corbyn's criticism of NATO for its botched invasions in Libya, Iraq and Yugoslavia.

Lastly, your argument about "freeloaders" is quite ridiculous. NATO members that disagree with these invasions should not be subsidising American invasions abroad.

[SolarCross]

I am under the justified impression that you are a Trump supporter(however your attempt to distance yourself from him is quite welcome), after all if you were not, you would not be attempting to conduct apologetics on his behalf:

That impression comes from the madness of the left. If one isn't frothing at the mouth and apoplectic with rage at the orangeman's mere existence then one must be maga hat wearing nazi. Admittedly given the crazy people hate him he can't be all bad.

Whether Trump is serious or not, is besides the point. Trump is undermining NATO, openly and explicitly. The undermining of NATO by a sitting US President and the alienation of its NATO allies has a lot more consequences for the alliance than Jeremy Corbyn's criticism of NATO for its botched invasions in Libya, Iraq and Yugoslavia.

Lastly, your argument about "freeloaders" is quite ridiculous. NATO members that disagree with these invasions should not be subsidising American invasions abroad.

If his aim was to get the freeloaders to pay their share then that wouldn't be undermining Nato in the end, just the opposite. While the US is the main military power it is left to the US to call the shots. If the US's judgement on when and where to engage is questionable then it is up to the other nato members to present a restraining influence but that must be proportional to the extent they contribute, no contribution no say.

[noemon]

Admittedly given the crazy people hate him he can't be all bad.

Tacit support for Trump is no less of a support.

If his aim was to get the freeloaders to pay their share then that wouldn't be undermining Nato in the end, just the opposite.

For someone who claims to see reality for what it is, your apologetics become all the more surprising. Trump's aim is to cash on the popular discontent against NATO's botched invasions in Iraq, Libya and Syria and that is why he has also pledged for the removal of US troops from Syria. His aim is to appropriate these voters and enlist them in his ranks. It seems to me that you are more than happy to justify NATO's undermining by Trump as long as it serves your interests, that is the bolstering of a far-right president regardless of cost to NATO, but at the same time you are more than willing to use the exact same argument against Corbyn. Making it rather obvious that your NATO argument is hypocritical. Lastly, Trump's alienation of NATO allies can result to various consequences such as several countries leaving the alliance or setting up parallel organisations, which he has already succeeded in achieving.

but that must be proportional to the extent they contribute, no contribution no say.

Are you saying that Turkey who is spending a higher proportion of its GDP for its military than the UK should have more of a say in NATO than the UK?

[B0ycey]

Ok, so there is talk that the Labour Party might split. Don't know if this is a good idea as any division in the Labour vote could make another Tory government a certainty - and those Etonite weasels have got to go ASAP no matter what. However you have to question whether Corbyn could survive to lead Labour in the next election if such a split occurs. After all, the Centrist Labour faction are Remainers and Corbyn is a Leaver. How will his supporters act when they have to decide loyalty over the EU?

[noemon]

If these people leave Labour it will guarantee Labour's victory as the Cassandras will be out. These people are nobodies that do not stand a chance to win a single seat, their betrayal threats are only good as long as they are in Labour as they keep the negative press in the limelight, once they are gone and I truly hope they do, their whole schtick collapses.

[Beren]

After all, the Centrist Labour faction are Remainers and Corbyn is a Leaver. How will his supporters act when they have to decide loyalty over the EU?

Labour will support Remain and Corbyn will lead them.

Another senior Labour MP involved in talks about what is being called parliament’s “final showdown” said: “By that stage, at one minute before midnight, Labour will have no option but to back the Kyle amendment as a route to a second referendum, as they will have run out of alternatives. There should also be enough Tories who will see the sense in allowing the public either to sign off on, or reject, May’s deal. This is clearly the best way to end this argument for good.”

[B0ycey]

I agree with your sentiment @noemon, but I think the safety given to MPs being aligned to an established party such as Labour will prevent such a split materialising - or I hope this to be the case anyway as it will split the Labour vote. It would take a momentous moral stance to split and form a new party against political ambitions - which would be fine normally if Labour didn't need the numbers to stand any chance in the next election.

Although it needs to be said that the mere suggestion of a new party being formulated taking MPs from Labour (and possibly the Tories) with it does give you a sense that there is a strong support in remaining in the EU in Westminster that perhaps Corbyn needs to take seriously to maximise his PM ambitions in the future.

[B0ycey]

Labour will support Remain and Corbyn will lead them.

But when? It seems to be the option of last resort. Although I will agree it does seem to be a question of when they declare they are a party for Remain as the Tories continue to ignore them. Perhaps Corbyn should give more assurances to distinguish dissent once and for all.

[Beren]

But when?

When parliament approves May's deal for a referendum on it in exchange, so it will be May's deal or Remain, and both Labour and Corbyn will go for Remain.

[B0ycey]

When parliament approves May's deal for a referendum on it in exchange, so it will be May's deal or Remain, and both Labour and Corbyn will go for Remain.

Do you think May will go with it?

She should actually. It is the only way she can get her deal past parliament. Although I haven't heard Corbyn support Kyles ammendment yet. And unless he gives it his backing I suspect it will fail like Coopers bill.

[noemon]

I agree with your sentiment @noemon,

It's not really a sentiment mate, more of an observation based on experience.

but I think the safety given to MPs being aligned to an established party such as Labour will prevent such a split materialising - or I hope this to be the case anyway as it will split the Labour vote. It would take a momentous moral stance to split and form a new party against political ambitions - which would be fine normally if Labour didn't need the numbers to stand any chance in the next election.

Honestly, there is no chance Labour losing any votes even if these people split from Labour, there are at best 25 unknown Labour MP's who can hardly command the votes of their own families. The only reason they get elected is because they stand with Labour. We already have an anti-Brexit party, the Lib-Dems and they are sinking more and more into irrelevancy, these Labour MP's will not cause any dent to Labour and in fact them leaving will result to more and more people join Labour. Whatever trick these people have tried, has backfired, it has strengthened Jeremy and Labour as a result. Why do you think such a move would be any different? Such a split from Labour will split the Tory vote, not the Labour vote, and do not think I am joking here, but the Tories as they stand they have completely destroyed their 'centrist' credentials and whatever new comes along will only cause Tory centrist voters to join such a thing either because they cannot join Jeremy's Labour due to an aversion to Jeremy or because they know that Lib-Dems do not stand a chance in their constituencies. Jeremy's Labour has sustained so many attacks that it is very safe to say that whoever is standing with Labour at this point(as in the 40% it got in the 2017 elections), will be standing with Labour in the near future as well. This 40% knew that Jeremy is all that he is and that he will not be siding with the anti-Brexit brigade, so there is absolutely nothing that can cause them to abandon the party. Labour is water-tight and air-tight. The same cannot be said for the Tories who are facing pressures from their centrists as well as their far-rightists and before the end of the year, one of these factions within the Tory party will have split from the party as the inevitable Brexit resolution(either way it goes) will hit the party in the face with a wet towel.

[Beren]

Do you think May will go with it?

She should actually. It is the only way she can get her deal past parliament. Although I haven't heard Corbyn support Kyles ammendment yet. And unless he gives it his backing I suspect it will fail like Coopers bill.

Why wouldn't she go with it? Maybe neither May nor Corbyn will give their consent publicly and they'll be simply forced to accept the situation. However, can you see any other possible solution to the problem?

[B0ycey]

Why wouldn't she go with it? Maybe neither May nor Corbyn will give their consent publicly and they'll be simply forced to accept the situation. However, can you see any other possible solution to the problem?

I agree. I see no other solution to the problem. In fact it is the only option left on the table out of this mess today. But May is more concerned with running down the clock than finding a solution to Brexit currently. So I want to believe she will champion it when the penny drops that there is no other options left to take. But I am not sure. Will she jump off the cliff edge for the sakes of stubborness or be a patriot? Being all she has done so far is take the wrong direction I think she will go down as the lady who broke Britain rather than the savour of Cameron's fuck up.

[noemon]

The 7 anti-Corbyn propagandists have quit Labour.

Great stuff, they can now fade into irrelevance or join the Tories.

[Heisenberg]

@noemon My favourite bit of the BBC article about the split:

The group has launched a website with a statement of its founding values, which appears to have crashed

[Rich]

Yet further vindication of Cameron and May's brilliant leadership. In 2013 the Europe issue threatened to tear the Tories apart fuel the rise of UKIP and possibly consign the right to a generation in opposition, but its Labour that have just lost 7 MPs die to a split. The referendum promise in 2013 kept the Tory split down to 2 MPs, one of which failed to be re-elected in the ensuing by-election.

However nothing is ever safe in politics. The split in the labour party will undoubtedly encourage greater recklessness / political gambling on the right.