Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 15 April 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Al Quds Day videos

Before I delete them again, does Jeremy Corbyn appear in these [1] [2] [3]? If not, there is no purpose to them being cited in this article.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

They support the assertion that the Al Quds day is openly antisemitic. Notice that the claim is not of him saying any particular thing there, but his knowing and willing presence at that event consisting in an association of his person with the worst antisemitic drivel of Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran. As the Al Quds day exists since 1979 we can safely assume he knew what he was getting into in 2012. The photo of him in front of a Hezbollah flag might have been taken by chance, but it was highly likely to be shot given that al Quds day is regularly attended by hundreds of Hezbollah flags. I hope that clears that up Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

So that'll be a "no" then? - David Gerard (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(EC) So your answer is no? The article is about Jeremy Corbyn, not Al-Quds Day. If you want to demonstrate that Al-Quds Day is anti-semitic then write that article. Or post a video here that shows Mr Corbyn at an Al-Quds Day function. Otherwise this is no better than the ragloid quote mining that we have all laughed at so much over the past week.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The article currently claims he attended an al Quds day rally. Which is doubtlessly evidenced by the ref provided. The article furthermore claims that al Quds day rallies are openly antisemitic. Which the three refs you don't seem to want to be part of the article prove. After all, there was a "fact" tag on the statement "openly antisemitic", so how best to prove it if not from the horse's mouth of al Quds day rallies and their sponsors, be they in Iran, Toronto or London. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You can't really say a rally is racist due to how anyone can potentially join whether they wholly agree or just agree on a single point; challenging the organizers and their organizations is much easier. So instead, you can say something like "Corbyn is controversially known to have attended the al-Quds Day rally, which was organized by several antisemitic organizations".--Forerunner (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

So let's have a little thought experiment, shall we? What if David Cameron were to attend a "Cornwall day" (I hope this is a fictitious thing; I in no way mean to insult Cornwall) rally that is organized by e.g. the EDL and other similar groups. Would we cite the speech by Cameron to prove that the rally is openly racist or would we cite the presence of the EDL folk and the speeches those people have given. Or better yet, the speeches that were held at previous "Cornwall day" rallies. If the "Cornwall day" was held for forty years and had its share of racist rhetoric and the best you would hear there would still be borderline racist, and Cameron were to attend (even if he didn't speak or his speech were the definition of conciliatory and inoffensive) wouldn't we still slam Cameron for attending a racist rally? And wouldn't we be citing the EDL speeches if someone doubts the racist nature of the rally?Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

David Cameron attends rally known to purvey racism. Fine. Jeremy Corbyn attended Al Quds Day which is know to promote anti-semitism. Fine. Leave it at that and stop posting irrelevant videos as citations.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Well someone doubted that Al Quds day is antisemitic. So I provided videos of the actual event (horse mouth and all) for people to see whether that is the case. If those videos are removed, the fact tag will re-appear. So how do we establish that the al Quds day is antisemitic, now? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I would have done this al Quds Day.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This is really heavy-duty coatracking. The BS over the photo is disgraceful. Is there any reason not to delete the paragraph? - David Gerard (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd delete the whole paragraph, but if it is not to deleted my version is at least accurate and not libel of a living person.---Mona- (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Please explicitly say which of my well sourced assertions are factually wrong or even libelous... Did he attend the Al Quds day rally? Was a picture of him in front of a Hezbollah flag taken? Should he have been aware of the type of people who congregate at this type of events? Is his association with this type of people something that ill behooves a political leader? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion that any of this is not fucking inane. You're trying to cobble together a case that isn't actually being made citably by anyone else you can produce, and that's why everyone else here doesn't buy it. I've deleted the BS again. If you must do this, draft it on the talk page and get it to a stage where anyone else doesn't think it's bloody stupid - David Gerard (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

All the videos posted above have to do with Israel and Zionism, nothing related to remarks made against Jews as a people/ethnic grou or asserting that Jews are planning world domination for it to qualify as antisemitism. Is some of the language, like describing Israel as a cancer, hostile? Absolutely. But that in itself is not antisemitic; it's egregious rhetoric against a country and its actions, but it's not demonizing or calling out an ethnic group. If Corbyn appeared at rallies where there were calls for Jews to go into the oven or calls for Jews to be exterminated, then that's fair game. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I am quite sure that the oven calls or the good ole' "child murderer Israel" have been uttered at al quds day rallies by the crowds... And Corbyn willingly and knowingly going to a rally organized by the Ayatollah and his proxies (i.e. Hezbollah) and thaen being all surprised if pictures of him in front of a Hezbollah flag surface.... I do think that's relevant and should be mentioned Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Provocative and tactless, yes, but they did kill 300+ children in 08-09 Gaza War, and 550+ children in 2014 according to international rights groups. I wouldn't use the term personally or politically, but the number of children killed last year exceeded that of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and maybe either Iraq or Syria (one of the two, I forget), so it's not total hyperbole even if insensitive. That seems preposterous that Corbyn would attend a rally organized by the Ayatollah himself or his proxies, because if that were the case, I'm sure there would be immediate arrests on the basis of a terrorist organization coming together for a rally. ChrisAmiss :::: (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Children died in a war as result of Hamas using human shields. That is not the same thing as murder. However, you can say that Hamas engages in involuntary manslaughter at the very least.... And of course if you are gay or anti-Hamas in Gaza, let's just hope the Hamas police don't catch you, because involuntary manslaughter would be your least concern thaen Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Jesus christ stop using outdent so much, it wasn't made for restarting a stack after 4 lines.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

There's no evidence Hamas uses human shields. Amnesty, HRW, and the Goldstone Report in 09 went through this and determined there was no evidence of them using human shields even though they criticized Hamas for war crimes. Hamas' domestic policies are a red herring and irrelevant to our discussion regarding statistics of children's deaths during the Gaza wars, so I won't comment on them. And in a great majority of the cases, they and other human rights groups like PCHR, PCATI, B'tselem and others all determine there was no nearby target to justify the targeting or claim that it was a mistake/collateral damage, which means Israel would be engaging in terrorism.ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Not only is there no evidence Hamas used human shields, there is much evidence that Israel did. Israeli High Court: Israeli Soldiers Used Palestinians as Human Shields 1,200 Times. And of course no one believed a pissed IDF was going to stop this just because the court said they had to. They did it last summer as well.---Mona- (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I do actually believe that some reference to JC (not that one) attending an al-Quds Day rally miight be relevant to the article. My beef with Avenger was the hectoring manner in which it was expressed and the stream of pointless video "references". Can we re-draft that and reach a sensible agreement here on the talk page? If not, fine. I have also changed the section heading back to something a little less judgemental.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A section that is currently bowdlerized

For the benefit of our readers, here is a section of the article that while extensively sourced and not at all offensive - even its detractors can't find any factually wrong statements in it - is currently replaced by a bowdlerized version posted by User:-Mona-. So without further ado, the banned section in its entirety Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Mona was doing the same thing with the PETA article. This is starting to get annoying. Ok it's already annoying but it's starting to get really, really annoying. ClothCoat (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Why did you delete the section? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a magic thing called an edit summary, you should read it--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't usually read the fossil record of talk pages because usually all contributions stay there unaltered. Usually. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not repeating myself.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

What harm does it do? Are you afraid it might convince someone of my version being better thaen miss Bowdler? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

We can see your version in the archives, we don't need to post it on the talk page. We did the same thing to Mona when she did it.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't paste a load of ref tags on talk pages. They don't belong here & make a mess of the page structure. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Avenger, you know you can link to revision diffs right? That would get your point across, make it easy for people to see your preferred revision, without annoying people in the process? Blacke (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

"Apologetics" for Assad

This claim isn't supported by the citation: "sometimes turning into apologetics for Bashar al-Assad with regard to the latter's use of chemical weapons and going as far as calling Russia's evidence of the rebels' alleged use of sarin gas 'much stronger'.[14]" I'd like to modify to something along the lines of: "he advocated that evidence of rebel responsibility for the use of sarin gas be considered and felt that evidence was strongest." The situation was opaque and Corbyn didn't remotely say Assad was a great guy who'd never do such a thing.---Mona- (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

In any case, I don't see a problem with supporting Assad. The man is no saint, but when the alternative is ISIS and al-Nusra, a sane person would take Assad any day of the week. (The "moderate" rebels the West keeps on talking about are just a big joke, which I don't think even the Western leadership really believes.) Blacke (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

There were and are no good choices in this hellish war. Anyway, I made the indicated edit.---Mona- (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Blacke. Is there a reason that either Assad or ISIS needs to be supported? Seems better to not support either one. SolPyre (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If the government of Syria is defeated, then a genocide of Alawites (and probably Christians too) will soon follow. I don't have a problem if Assad is replaced by another Alawite leader, however I think that will have to come from within the Syrian government (not forced on it from outside), and I don't see what the big value is in keeping the current government but removing Assad from his leadership position (he is largely a figurehead). Blacke (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The rebels don't have the capabilities to produce that kind of weaponry, the only inference one can make is it's Assad's doing. And Assad needs to go period. He's killed more civilians in Syria than ISIS or al Nusra. He's responsible for 4 million refugees because this asshole thought it'd be cool to crush protests asking for democracy that he promised a decade ago. ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Really? The only inference one can make? A number of people and organizations, including the UN, did not feel compelled to make that inference.---Mona- (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Daily Fail is not a valid source. Others are ok though. CorruptUser (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a weak source. On occasion they do have something politically accurate and useful. But for anything about science they are shit. So not a good choice, I agree.---Mona- (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Assad gassed his own population. Making excuses for that is Assad apologetics qua definitionem Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's assume for the sake of the argument that the claims are right, that the sarin was launched by government forces and not by the rebels. Still, where is the evidence that Assad ordered that, as opposed to some government forces with access to sarin doing it independently of his orders (or even, possibly, in contradiction to them)? People have this view of Assad as some absolute dictator whose every whim is obeyed, but I simply don't think that is true. Assad is largely a figurehead; the real power lies behind the scenes, with the leaders of the Syrian military, intelligence and security services. Could one of these leaders launched a sarin attack without Assad's knowledge/permission? Could even some lowly military commander have done it without the knowledge/permission of his superiors? Seems very possible to me. In the chaos of the Syrian war, I doubt the Syrian army had the kind of physical and technical access controls on weapons of mass destruction that (for example) the US military would. Blacke (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

"where is the evidence that Assad ordered that, as opposed to some government forces with access to sarin doing it independently of his orders " There's evidence that exactly that happened. Government forces used sarin but Assad was unaware and did not order it. I inserted this Guardian report as a reference to one version of the Corbyn article but it got reverted. ---Mona- (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay I take the point about who is responsible Assad vs other Syrian government elements, I was thinking rather sloppily by personifying the Syrian government into the person of Assad but either way people were gassed. Supporting an organization that did that (regardless of which bit of the organization is directly responsible), an organization that signed the Chemical Weapons Convention but then hid its stocks (and no fucking wonder the weapons got used), supporting that organization seems like a bad idea. SolPyre (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘In my mind it is a needless distraction whether Assad personally ordered civilians to be gassed or whether it was one of his lieutenants implicitly or explicitly acting against orders. The fact remains that someone on his side did it and that he is ultimately responsible for it. If only for making the means to gas civilians so accessible. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Corby

The criticism of Corby seems to fall into these 4 categories

• Lack of experience
• PIDOOMA statements and policy suggestions
• (Supposed) moonbattery
• Woo support

ScepticWombat (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I would add a fourth one: He is too chummy with the anti-Israel crowd (see below) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Lack of experience

Well, yes, that's pretty obvious, if experience is measured as time spent in the party leadership. However, what this criticism misses is that "this is a feature, not a bug". Sure, there's more than a whiff of populism about Corbyn supporters, but compared to the naked elitism of the Blairite establishment in the (New) Labour apparatus and the perfidious attacks on Corbyn for daring to even question the "cut your way to growth" policy recommendations of both Blairites and Tories, it's hardly surprising if Corbynites start to harden in their "circle the wagons" and anti-establishment opinions.
The worrying bit of the lack of experience seems more to be the rather clumsy start that the Corbyn leadership has gotten off to. 6-12 months from now we will probably be able to tell if these were simply beginner's trouble or a more systematic flaw in the Corbyn regime. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It can indeed be a feature. It may (only may) in fact be a mistake to equate lack of experience in ministerial or shadow ministerial roles as all-round inexperience. He has been a constituency MP for 30+ years and a local councillor before that. Jeremy Corbyn lives for politics. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well whatever you think about his stance on Hezbollah, the way he said something that if it was not calling them "friends" sounded awfully close to it and his going to a Aö Quds day rally does not help his case. At all Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

PIDOOMA statements and policy suggestions

Corbyn seems to have said some odd stuff, but as an outsider with limited time on my hands, I have difficulties in digging through all the claims about him to sort the quote mining from the actual howlers. Some examples of both are already in the article, but some expansion might be nice. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

(Supposed) moonbattery

This seems mainly to be a function of Corbyn not subscribing to the economic consensus that has characterised (New) Labour, the Tories and LibDems alike - or at least it looks that way to this non-Brit observer. Into this category also goes all of the "he's a man of Labour's past"-stuff which (in my opinion) misses the fact that the situation is quite different today and that Maggie's legacy still rides high in the UK. In so many words, rather than Corbyn being a rerun of "Old Labour" conservatism and nay saying, holding such views today almost amounts to a progressive, if not revolutionary, injunction against the "Maggie Model" of UK society which is the actual status quo today. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Over here we call the left wing equivalent of winguttery moonbattery. At least mostly. Unless you honestly want to suggest his economic policies are actually right wing, I guess you are using the wrong term. Kind regards Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

And that was of course what I meant (but didn't write for some reason, don't know why that one slipped). Fixed. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

No harm done, eh Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Woo support

Unfortunately, I'm not surprised by this as there sadly seems to be a tendency for left-wingers to support especially alt-med woo, possibly based on the mistaken assumption that standing up to Big Pharma alongside the alties is part and parcel of standing up to corporate capitalism (instead, it typically means standing alongside cranks & quacks against science and medicine). ScepticWombat (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I've not been following this too much but it looks like homeopathy support might be his worst problem.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Homeopathy, shmomeopathy. It might actually win him votes. His bigger problem is his chumminess with Hezbollah and his going to Al Quds day rallies Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Some lefties and some libertarians sometimes do fall into woo as part of fighting corporatism. I may agree Monsanto is fucking vile but that doesn't mean I "know" GMF is dangerous. But I haven't seen reports of Corbyn being woo-ish and I've been following his trajectory with some focus. The knives are out on him and I'd expect to see it if there was a lot of there there.---Mona- (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

What does "corporatism" even mean? I guess I now know where your Antisemitism comes from... The same regressive pseudo-anti-Capitalism as always... Pray tell... Do you think Capitalism is a good system but "greed" is the problem? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's being argued here with regard to homeopathy. Are people arguing that he's not a supporter of homeopathy (In which case his WP article is wrong) or are people arguing that it doesn't matter that he believes in this stupidity?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 17:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Bob, that link you give shows he holds some positive views on homeopathy -- not so much a single tweet but that "EDM" report he signed. Apparently, 29 other Labour members also signed it. But that supports saying he sees homeopathy as efficacious.---Mona- (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure of your point. WP says: "In 2010, he stated on Twitter that he believed homeopathy could work for some people[64] and signed a parliamentary motion introduced by the Conservative MP David Tredinnick calling on the Government to consider the experiences of other countries such as India, which backs homeopathy treatment, when formulating health policy" - which sounds like support for homeopathy to me. Is he alone in this stupidity? No. --Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Bob, maybe I wasn't clear. I'm agreeing with you. :) ---Mona- (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah. :-) OK.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Well it appears Corbyn is in support of Homeopathy. Which is a depressingly common view on the left. This should definitely be part of this article. But I fear it is not his worst political position. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It may not be his worst political position - but in terms of our mission statement it's probably the most significant. So I'd say it should be clearly highlighted by us.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

He's too chummy with the anti-Israel crowd

If it were not currently sysop-protected and my sysop rights revoked for reasons passing understanding, I would add a bit more on that. Him attending an al Quds day rally and thaen acting all surprised when a picture of him in front of a Hezbollah flag (hint: there are a lot of Hezbollah types at al Quds days, being that both are brainchilds of the Iranian regime) surfaces. Also his unhelpful rhetoric that at least makes it sound as if he supports Hezbollah or considers them "friends" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop with the creating bullshit new articles to get around the fact that your sysop privleges were taken away and you can't edit the Corbyn page. Getting some friend to link to an al Quds "article" you just whipped up is transparently fucked up.---Mona- (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Please argue on the merits as to why we should not in fact have an article on Al Quds day. Also, I saw that the user in question edited on this article and thought he might be interested in the whole "situation" regarding Corbyn and the al Quds day rally. Given that I had already written on that, I only thought it proper to give said user that information handy. Thanks for your kind attention Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Avenger, you do realise that this is already under discussion on AfD, right? So anyone interested in debating the merit of said article is encouraged to go there. Until the vote is decided, citing that particular RW article isn't going to count for much... ScepticWombat (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but she brought this up here before the Afd. Also Mona is not addressing any of the issues here and just flinging dirt in my direction in the hope that more will stick on me thaen on her Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hamas, Hezbollah and recognizing Israel's right to exist

First of all the fact that we even have to argue about the right of one state to exist as opposed to all other currently existing (and even some proposed ones) shows how fucked up this issue really is. And now to the issue at stake: Have either Hezbollah or Hamas ever said anything that really means "Yes we will officially recognize Israel if..." (actually there should not even be an if, but that's just my common sense tingling). And I explicitly mean an "recognize Israel". Not some weird Islamic fifty year truce thing. Accept the existence of Israel end of story. If Hamas or Hezbollah came out with something like that, they would hear stern words from Tehran at the very least. After all, the Mullahs still keep repeating "death to Israel" at any given opportunity. Paritcularly al Quds day Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You and your obsession with Al Quds day.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It is a fucking insanity that this thing even still exists. I mean, what would you think if there were a North Korean Seoul day held in every major city of the West with unfriendly words towards South Korea screamed with abandon. It just goes to show how far the anti-Zionist Antisemitism has come Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Until the 1980s, unfriendly words at south korea were a good thing. it's why i have such a deviant position on Singapore and the wests relation with it. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

While this is decidedly not the issue at hand here (I just used North Korea as an analogue for the Iranian regime, without prejudice as to which is worse), I do think that even in the 1980s South Korea was better to live in thaen North Korea. If only for the standard of living. I know the South was a brutal dictatorship, but it least it wasn't Kimsanity (scnr) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The north only truly went south (which is impressive given it wasn't above the border in the first place) after the fall of the soviet union, the famine and when crazy eyes became leader, before that it could atleast claim some kind of competition with the south. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well this is a fascinating discussion and all, but maybe we should move it to its own section? Or even its own page? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Avengerofthe BoN Aha, please continue. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

If I were Palestinian I'd be most unlikely to recognize the "right" of the Zionist state to exist as an ethno-religious, supremacist, apartheid state -- which is what Israel is. Moshe Dayan understood perfectly well why Palestinians would feel this way when, during a 1956 eulogy for an Israeli soldier a Gazan killed, Dayan said this: "Let us not today fling accusation at the murderers. What cause have we to complain about their fierce hatred to us? For eight years now, they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we turn into our homestead the land and villages in which they and their forefathers have lived.We should demand his blood not from the Arabs of Gaza but from ourselves. . . . Let us make our reckoning today. We are a generation of settlers, and without the steel helmet and gun barrel, we shall not be able to plant a tree or build a house. . . . Let us not be afraid to see the hatred that accompanies and consumes the lives of hundreds of thousands of Arabs who sit all around us and wait for the moment when their hands will be able to reach our blood." Indeed.---Mona- (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

So back to the issue at hand: When did Hamas or Hezbollah recognize Israel right to exist? I know there is this weird long term truce thing they sometimes allude to, but it is a very peculiar concept in Islamic law that actually only means "truce to sharpen our sword" when one gets down to it. That is not only not the same as recognition, it is its precise opposite. And no Israeli political leader wishing to survive (politically) would strike a deal that gives him or her less thaen "recognition" from Hamas. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

"So back to the issue at hand" You are so very silly. This is the talk page for Jeremy Corbyn. You, Avenger, have not remotely returned to "the issue at hand."---Mona- (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

When you start defending obvious racists like McKinney and organizations that are openly advocating for a state that will have even more ethical problems than a "Homeland for one ethnicity (and a few minorities allowed)", you kind of lose the argument. Israel is fine with having a Christian, Druze, and Muslim minority, along with the occasional African (which you somehow turn into propaganda against Israel), Hamas openly states that its goal is the extermination of all the Jews everywhere, along with the subjugation of every non-Muslim, and many Muslims too (just ask the Shia in Gaza). Even if you buy into the bullshit that "they'll change when they are in a position to complete their goals", do you really think that their "secret not so terrible goal" somehow has the moral high ground over the Zionist one? If the organizations in Gaza and the West Bank were only saying "hey, give us citizenship and equal rights, but don't worry this will still be a safe haven for you" and not "let's wipe out the Jews", I'd probably support them over the Israeli government. But they aren't. So it's fairly dark grey versus black morality. CorruptUser (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

First, I do not identify as a "supporter" of Cynthia McKinney. I simply disagree with you about what her positions have been and currently are. Second, Hamas does not state its goal is the extermination of Jews everywhere. Finally, I don't ultimately care what your position is on who should prevail as between the Palestinian and the Zionists. For purposes here, I care only that the facts are supported and accurate. (That standard alone is sufficient for the cause I do care about.)---Mona- (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well why do they have the section with the Jew hiding behind a tree in their founding documents thaen? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather not defend Hamas or Hezbollah given that they're Islamic conservatives, but their diplomatic position is more nuanced than you portray it to be. Hamas and Hezbollah do not make explicit recognition of Israel because, well, Israel makes no explicit recognition of them (recognizing Hezbollah as representing the self-determination of the Shia in Lebanon as the Lebanese government agreed to a couple of years ago or recognizing Hamas as the elected representatives of the Palestinians) nor an explicit recognition of the Palestinian state (Oslo doesn't count since it merely created a bunch of bantustans with a puppet government in the PA). Nevertheless, they are willing to be diplomatic about it and settle with truces in accordance with international law, which is better than offering no peace gesture at all. Would you rather they be like the Arab states in the 50's and 60's who didn't bother to recognize implicitly the existence of Israel? I'd rather they make some gesture than no gesture at all. ChrisAmiss (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hamas has moved beyond its charter since it was elected, and the main academic expert on Hamas, Khaled Hroub, mentions that the charter was written by one person rather than an organized group of people. Meshall disavows it. And their actions of suppressing rocket fire would seem to confirm they're credible negotiators. ChrisAmiss (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Chris, I know I have read that re: Hamas moving beyond its charter in several places but can't handily locate documentation. If you have some, please, please provide it.---Mona- (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

US Institute of Peace: http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/Special%20Report%20224_Hamas.pdf. Also, even if for argument's sake we accepted that they don't accept any existence of Israel, keep in mind Israel has never defined its borders since its foundation. This makes it difficult to determine what part of Israel is legally legitimate and what part Israel occupies or controls isn't. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Within the source: Although peaceful coexistence between Israel and Hamas is clearly not possible under the formulations that comprise Hamas’s 1988 charter, Hamas has, in practice, moved well beyond its charter. Indeed, Hamas has been carefully and consciously adjusting its political program for years and has sent repeated signals that it may be ready to begin a process of coexisting with Israel [. . .] Although Hamas, as an Islamic organization, will not transgress shari‘a, which it understands as forbidding recognition, it has formulated mechanisms that allow it to deal with the reality of Israel as a fait accompli. These mechanisms include the religious concepts of tahadiya and hudna and Hamas’s own concept of “Palestinian legitimacy [. . .] Although a peace process under such circumstances might, for Israelis and Westerners, seem involved, arcane, and of dubious utility, it is necessary to consider the possibility of such a process because there is no realistic scenario under which Hamas will disappear. Understanding the Islamic bases of Hamas’s policies and worldview will be essential for the success of any process in which it is engaged". ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

A reminder

... that this article is about Jeremy Corbyn. It wholeheartedly does not need piss fights about Israel/Palestine. Just a simple statement of JC's position is fine. No need for the grandstanding that keeps appearing from either side of the dispute. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I ain't inserting the fringe garbage, that7 has nothing to do with Corbyn.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well Mona is needlessly going off on a tangent (and quoting "electronic intifada" in the process) on whether or not recognizing Israel's right to exist is a good or a bad thing. It does not matter how one stands on that issue. Hamas' and Hezbollah's refusal to recognize Israel is one of the main obstacles to any kind of peace deal. Just imagine a group declaring the US have no right to exist. Would any American politician even consider negotiations with them that have anything but the unconditional recognition of the existence of the US and its right thereto as a result? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't an article about Hamas or Hezbollah; it's about UK politician Jeremy Corbyn. & It was you, not Mona, who turned it into yet another front in the Israel/Palestine war you're waging all over the wiki. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I inserted his statements on Hamas and Hezbollah - which are without a doubt statement he made - and further inserted some background on Hamas and Hezbollah. None of that is doubted even by Mona. However, Mona is now going on a tangent to polish the turd of Hamas and Hezbollah rejecting the right of Israel to do what any state does (namely exist), which has no place being in this article. And besides it is highly doubtful information and more of an opinion. Mona could of course write an essay on said opinion. But not insert it into this here article Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada as a source?

Let's not kid ourselves a page that calls itself "Electronic Intifada" should probably be covered as one of the kooks this site was founded to argue against and not cited as a reliable source. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I've so far failed to see any compelling reasons why them having intifada in their name would make them an unreliable source. And no, intifada isn't the same as jihad. Christ. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:25, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

So instead of this silly I-find-their-name-questionable-so-obviously-they're-full-of-bogus bogus, could you maybe offer up some actual examples of them being "kook"-y? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:27, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

If electronic Intifada's claims are accurate it should not be hard to find them repeated in mainstream sources. And the quote that Mona used on this page is particularly heinous as it was an opinion piece which is per definitionem not factual. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada is a credible source that is cited in the NYT, and its editor given op-ed space. It is very rare for me to use a dubious source and this is not one of those rare times.---Mona- (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Jeff Handmaker lectures in human rights at the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague and Gentian Zyberi is a Ph.D. Candidate at the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights, Utrecht University. That's who wrote the EI analysis of a state's "right" to exist.---Mona- (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thaen why don't you cite him somewhere else if that person writes for other things thaen electronic Djihad, cursade or whatever it is called. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There we go. The predicted false equivocation. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:04, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Avenger: No.---Mona- (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

If Electronic something says accurate things, you will have no trouble to back up their facts with some other, better source. That you don't want to do this, indicates that you can't do this or can't be bothered, hence I think this hatchet piece should not be cited on our page. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Again: No.---Mona- (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No- -Mona- Please elaborate.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Considering Electronic Intifada recently blamed the Labour Party anti-semitism issue as some sort of Zionist conspiracy, I don't consider it to be a reliable source. Kentuckyball (talk) 05:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop edit warring

Avenger and Arisboch, I told you that if the first two sentences here went in, so would the third:

Neither Hamas[8][9] nor Hezbollah[10][11] have accepted the right of Israel to exist within any borders. A stance that - if left unchanged - would complicate peace negotiations somewhat. Although, some say demanding recognition of a specifically Jewish state is a red herring and irrelevant to a solution to the Israel-Palestinian controversy[12][13], and that the question depends on what kind of state is "recognized."[14]

Either delete them all, or leave them all. But stop reverting just my third sentence.---Mona- (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't provide any reason why we should leave your highly questionable statement with even more questionable sources should be included. The other sentence has been accepted to be factually accurate, so there is no grounds for removal. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

All that's been accepted is the first sentence. I and others reject the second. Moreover, my sources are just fine. Interestingly, and unusually, you actually have some! So, delete it all, or leave it all. Finally, the whole topic is only barely reelvant here. It's not necessary, so the whole thing could easily go. But either way, all or none. (I'm getting a lot done today on the Zionism draft. It shouldn't be too long now. Paravant asked me to submit it as is but I want to polish it more.)---Mona- (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Avenger, yesterday you were put in autopatrol and there was consideration of placing you in the vandal bin. You also had a tendentious article deleted relating to matters here, and now you are edit warring AGAIN. I'm leaving it up to Paravant what to do with you, but you don't seem to be able to learn and adjust your behavior.---Mona- (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there any thing of substance you have to say besides personal attacks on my person? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

"All that's been accepted is the first sentence. I and others reject the second. Moreover, my sources are just fine." Keep it all, or delete it all. You are incapable of stopping yourself so you will continue reverting. I, I am going back to the Zionism draft and well mess with this again later, and also ask Paravant to deal with you. Bye for now---Mona- (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Currently there are two users (myself and Arisboch) who support the version you reject. And no user besides you who supports your version. Until and unless you can get a stronger consensus for your version, I advise you to kindly refrain from reverting. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

2 against 1? Great consensus you got there. But if we're gonna be counting who's for and who's against, me and TheroadtoWiganPier also seem to agree with Mona's version. And of course there's the multitude of other users not vindictively trying to remove this specific piece of content. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:26, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

It seems I have to clarify: Reverting when you are clearly in the minority is a highly disruptive behavior. Now that there seems to be enough attention to have a sensible discussion, let's have said discussion. Why is it necessary to quote electronic Intifada and why is it necessary to do in the way we do? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You've still failed to explain why you consider quoting Electronic Intifada such a thoroughly undesirable thing to do. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:43, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

It is an inherently biased source (look at its name) and if anything they say is valid or relevant, it is sure to have been picked up by some less problematic source. We could of course quote Wikipedia on Hamas' or Hezbollah's stance towards Jews in general and Israel in specific... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Weaseloid removed the whole Hamas shtick and I agree with that. He thinks it's irrelevant and so do I. My position was and remains: none oif it is necessary, but if Avengers two sentences go in, so does my third. But the entire thing is best left out. Now, back to my draft.---Mona- (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a section right above called Electronic Intifada as a source? I said what I have to say there on that issue and don't know why it has to relitigated here?---Mona- (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The relevance of Corbyn attending Al Quds day rallies

It has been questioned whether Corbyn's stance on Hamas and Hezbollah is relevant. It is my informed opinion that it is, especially considering our mission statement that includes refuting crank ideas and authoritarian movements. Both Hezbollah and Hamas are religious cranks and authoritarian. Hezbollah even with original goose-stepping and a salute that looks like... something... thrown in for good measure. As many people don't know what the Al Quds day is, we should at least re-insert the footnote that gave a one line summary of it. Please argue on the merits and if you are sympathetic towards Hezbollah and/or Hamas yourself, you might want to do some soul-searching. And now I hope to see Tom Brady lose. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

NATO and Russian aggresion

Why is his assertion that NATO's eastward expansion has caused Russia to react more belligerently towards the West a problem. It seems fairly logical to say that Russia sees NATO bases in Ukraine as a problem.--Owlman (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ukraine has any right to decide for themselves whether or not they want NATO bases and how many of them. Dividing the world up into "zones of influence" is major BS if you ask me. And exactly the kind of thinking we don't need on the political left. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with your hatred of 'spheres of influence' I will say that Dubya inviting Ukraine and Georgia to NATO and then refusing to grant them membership was a major mistake. It didn't help that he ended the ABMT and chose to end the 1994 deal with North Korea as well as refuse to negotiate with Iran and Palestine. I hate that Russia is trying to dial back the Maidan revolution in Ukraine like they did with the Orange revolution, but it seems implausible to allow Ukraine to become a NATO partner at this point. We should be more worried about the Balkans states in my opinion.--Owlman (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

In fear of sounding stupid, what exactly were the rough outlines of the 1994 "deal" with Iran? And what is ABMT? Also the Nazis present on the Maidan might be a topic worth exploring on RW Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry the deal in 1994 was with NK not Iran. The Agreed Framework offered fuel and assistance in nuclear energy as long as they made facilities that would be harder to make a nuke. Iran offered a deal in 2006 that would have been similar to the current one. THE ABMT or Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty limited the anti ballistic missle defenses in order to deter an increase in the construction of ballistic missiles.--Owlman (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

WW1 comments

I see the Daily Mail is spreading around claims that Corbyn criticised First World War commemorations as a waste of money, something which is political suicide. Does anyone know what he actually said? I'm just seeing Jingoists hijacking threads on it to insist that Corbyn's a Fifth Columnist.-- Forerunner (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Toooooooo many citations

Ref note 11 has 9 different citations, two of which are from the Daily Mail FFS. One is surely enough (not from the Daily Mail, of course)? It is not even a particularly important point - a whopping 15 words of text have 9 citations attached. Any objection to deleting this large overkill and leaving I would suggest the first reference only (Daily Telegraph)?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not my edit, but I'm guessing it's snark? There was a media frenzy about Jeremy's Great Patriotism Deficit. But if you want to reduce some of them (and yeah, DM is horseshit for many things, but as an example of manufactured outrage it can be good) I have no objections. I would love to add the gif here (the bottom, moving one) if we could get permission.---Mona- (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove the examples. But perhaps they could be put into a single themed footnote - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see that's what it does already. No, don't remove any of them; they're not in the way, they're not causing any sort of problem, and the quantity is an example of just how stupid this is - David Gerard (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I did use it to give an example of a manufactroversy and media frenzy. I'm definitely no fan of the Mail (or God forbid the Sun), but it's interesting (and somewhat worrying) to see how different – or similar – their coverage was of this non-event (Michael Foot got similar treatment for allegedly wearing a donkey jacket when he was leader of the Labour Party).

I don't object to removing the "overkill", but I'm fairly sure most readers and editors will understand that this is snark and shows a point about the media coverage of this event. Also, if you are to remove the tabloid references, I'd still mention that papers such as The Guardian and The Independent carried this story, rather than just the Tory press. – AOAPJM ^(talk) 19:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I would remove none of it whatsoever. The tabloids are part of the government press machine as much as the broadsheets, and reach more voters - David Gerard (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

His advantages

• He has a 'real face' (not one that has been metrosexualed into a clone of other politicians).
• He has actual views, not those generated by SPADs and opinion polls.

Meanwhile the LibDem chap has made no mark whatsoever. 86.146.100.12 (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Well welcome to RW my good BoN (Bunch of Numbers, a technical term referring to unregistered users). Could you please elaborate on that a bit? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey - many people have have those advantages too!--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Spads - Special advisors (a relative of the policy wonk).

The LibDem leader is still invisible, despite the referendum - SNP Nicola Sturgeon has made more of an impression.

One can give comprehensible reasons for not supporting him (one does not like his socialism, his supporting cause (x, y, z) etc. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Is riding a bike a "quirk"?

In most places (let's exclude Denmark or Münster for argument's sake here) a high ranking politician riding a bike is seen as weird, to say the least. If not even a political statement. Just imagine Harry Reid riding around on a bike in DC Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "he also has some quirks outside of politics" was meant as a quasi-snarky way of saying "here's some minor stuff about him that doesn't involve politics". 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:52, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

It sure as hell is something right wing people would attack him for. Sadly enough. I am a proud cyclist and I think cycling should become a utilitarian pursuit of all strata of society again. Not just a pastime of some old men in Lycra and people too cheap to buy a car. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Boris Yeltsin caused a stir when he wore Russian made shoes and rode around on the Russian public transport like an average Russian shlub. CorruptUser (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

And got drunk on average Russian vodka?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't lived in the U for a while but I thought Cameron rode a bike sometimes.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

See here.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I just ran over a list of leaders of the opposition since 1945 and none of them would have used as bicycle routinely as their preferred method of transport, and none would have have used a public allotment (gardening is not the quirk, rather the form of the land used - maybe you need to be British to understand the nature of allotments!). So yep, quirks. Anyway given other things wrong with this article, this is not major.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I have found one minor back bench MP who cycles [4]. I forget his job title.... Prime something, isn't it? Oops, already covered by Bob Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I know everything Boris does is a quirk but he is Mayor of London and strongly tipped for more. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

:) . Next challenge - allotments and making his own jam. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Real men drive two Jags. 94.8.156.77 (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

From Jacksonville ? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Boris Johnson has ridden a bike... and there was a 'politician on a pogo stick' a while back (wherein lies a whole other tale). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Tell me more. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

A reference to [5] and the link therefrom. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

What's the deal with the "Corbyn is not these people" bit?

Just wondering. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:47, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

The newspapers keep trying to portray him as a clone of Communist leaders such as Marx and Mao, and take advantage of the vaguest of similarities, even to the extent that riding a bike is proof he's a Communist.-- Forerunner (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Snarky riff on accusations that have been against him; commies he's claimed to be just like. I only put the Patriometer in, the rest were added by others.---Mona- (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Owlman done good putting them all at the bottom in a gallery.---Mona- (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty weak. Mao is the only relevant one, & only because of a newspaper inexplicably identifying him with the bicycle Corbyn rides. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it works. Much prefer the gallery format though.. well done on that.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Nah, I think it works. The ridiculously implausible redbaiting is a thing that the "quality" newspapers are actually doing - David Gerard (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is Michael rosen in the same company as sta!in, che, and marx? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I added them in, mainly for the "Chairman Mao bicycle" story but also because a lot of papers were making some Bernie/Corbyn comparisons as well, if I remember. As for Michael Rosen, the honest answer was just that he looks a bit like Corbyn and has some similar views. (Brilliant answer, I know [!]). I also saw the "Poets for Corybn" book around about the same time; I was gonna add in something about that, but decided against it.

Feel free to delete them, it was just a bit of frivolous padding-out of what was then a fairly short article. – AOAPJM ^(talk) 11:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Champagne Socialist Corbyn

He might claim little parliamentary expenses, but Corbyn grew up in a seven-bedroom mansion, went to a private school and his home is worth £650,000 in an affluent pocket of London. His MP salary is still £67,000 a year, plus whatever expenses he claims (even if minimal), plus an additional £58,000 since being leader of the Labour party (so he's now earning £125,000 a year). Since he's been an MP for over three decades, he's earned over £3 million of tax-payers money, yet was from a wealthy background to begin with. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3233237/ANDREW-PIERCE-Corbyn-cost-3m-far.html http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/business-news/politics/how-rich-is-labour-leader-jeremy-corbyn/11776.article But he's a socialist and represents the working class right? Schizophrenic (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm no fan of Corbyn, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Only the working classes who live in poverty can possibly represent the working classes and be socialists? Seems a little blinkered to me. Worm (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The EU the evil privatiser?

It says in a throwaway line that the EU forces member states to privatise...

Last time I checked Britain privatised their water and railway and whatnot all by themselves. And Brexit does not mean sudden renationalisation, does it now? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It was a poor choice of words. Plutoniumboss (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Personally I'm most thrilled by the people editing this article using the Daily Mail and Daily Express as sources of actual facts on the article and talk pages, not just sources of the fact that these rags put forth particular bile. Well done, you're showing every bit of the competence you've long presented at RW - David Gerard (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me, senpai. Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Conservapedia

... has no article on JC, but 3 mentions in other contexts. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The reference to Corbyn on the "Cat" article has to be the most informative, personally speaking. – AOAPJM ^(talk) 19:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression JC was more of a Che-ist .

Apparently the UK Foreign Office were told, mid-19th century, that Marx and Engels 'who were anti-monarchists' were resident in the UK; 'Perhaps they should go to the United States, which has no monarch.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps

We should mention he is an ineffectual incompetent with the charisma of a sponge? Labour is dead. There will be be no spark for years and the tories are effectively unoppossed. The poor of this country are and will continue to be fucked. AMassiveGay (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

If you have links then create a section. If someone is a complete dolt then they deserve to be criticized.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 06:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

everything he says and doee? AMassiveGay (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

he has no control over his own party, seemly no control of his own aides, hes provided ineffectual opposition - his one job. And his pitiable contributions to the referendum show a disconnect with working class folk - the people it is claimed he represents. Labour will not be elected with him at the helm. It wont with other guy either. Labour is dead. AMassiveGay (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Dude, what are you talking about. I wasn't disagreeing with you.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 06:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The disconnect with working class voters during the Referendum had nothing to do with how good/bad Jeremy was. Most had made up their minds long before the last General Election, and others were disenfranchise voters who hated "the Establishment" in general and wanted to cause as much problems, seeing the Remain campaign as a Cameron lobby only looking out for the rich and southern (even if Cameron wasn't saying it, his association was toxic). Yorkshirefolk historically see themselves as Second Class Citizens, and treated the immigration factor as proof that rich, establishment-linked (in this case, "that Lundun") employers treat them as no different from a fresh-of-the-boat Romanian (which is, work for cheap with a 0-hours contact and give the Agency a cut in earnings and not get official employment). Then you have Lincolnshire, which suffers a lot of crime caused by Eastern Europeans. A lot of it is the fault of gangs which trick people into coming over for work and then boarding them in overcrowded houses with night-shift factory work and then taking huge cuts of the income, making them very bitter. The police doesn't get the proper funding in that county to actually do anything about it, so Lincolnshirefolk were especially pissed that so little was being done. Outside that we have the usual bigots who just hated foreigners on the grounds of being foreign and genuinely thought that voting Leave meant all migrants would be deported immediately, especially those from Muslim countries such as Pakistan (even though Pakistan isn't an EU nation and Britain could have closed borders to Pakistanis without "EU Libreal Nazis robing are sovrinity"). But yeah, the for TL;DRs - the Leavers hated the system as a whole and the EU referendum was taken up because there was no "kick out Cameron" referendum. Corbyn didn't have a chance to get more than 60% of Labour voters to the Remain camp.-- Forerunner (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

he didnt even try to reach labour voters. He refused to work with the tories or share a platform. He missed key events. He had the opportunity to make more than a tory civil war, but he was invisible and the many didnt know labours stance. He could have done so much more by just providing effective opposition to government policy that is increasing competition to access services, to jobs, to the nhs, to housing, to schools; making immigration the issue that it is but he was unable too. That would have required leadership. That would have required actual policy rather than half formulated ideas. That would have required being one day in a position to implement them. That would have required cooperation with party members who are not actual allies, the abilty to bring people together. His pettiness and ineffectualness contributed to leave because he provided no viable alternative to the status quo. This not a leader of a major political party let alone the country. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Labour lost a lot of ground under Ed Milliband as he was too far left for the average British voter, and then they replace him with someone even further left. I am still a Labour voter but the party is a mess.--Mercian (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

When you already think most of Parliament is an amorphous blob of anti-'decent hardworking people' entities distinguished only by their hairstyles and colour ties, the prospect of Corbyn and Cameron sharing a platform as part of a single campaign more or less confirms it. It was a lose-lose scenario for Labour, who have been hit by critique after critique in the same style Neil Kinnock got regardless of it making sense. Hell, I'm willing to go so far as to say that Ed was doomed the moment the tabloids called him a "backstabber", then allowing readers to agree to the claims of his father being a traitor, and finally laughing at how he doesn't like bacon. That kind of character assassination led to people I know refusing to vote for Labour on the grounds he had a stupid face, neither the press or undecided voters even bothering to look into policies to justify whether or not they're good. I can criticise Corbyn for not putting more of an effort on what the consequences would be to ordinary people ("more expensive holidays to Magaluf" is understandable; "banks will be in trouble" leads to people saying they deserve it, without thinking). But over all, there was simply no chance that Labour under any politician - even David Milliband - would have been able to bring in near-100% Labour support as well as attract non-Labour voters to vote Remain.-- Forerunner (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

(reset) Hilary Benn makes better speeches (but then he has the background - daddy, granddaddy and great-granddaddy also in politics). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The 2016 "Chicken Coup" and Leadership Challenge

I've followed the post-Brexit campaign to unseat Jeremy Corbyn with interest and increasing worry. The whole thing started badly for Labour as a party when, rather than mounting a formal leadership challenge and bringing forth a challenger, a large slice of MPs tried to simply pressure Corbyn to resign and, even worse, used Brexit as a pretext and thus helped cement the far fetched narrative that Brexit was "really" Corbyn's (and by extension Labour's) fault in the public mind. This silly narrative also set the stage for a leadership contest in which such stories and manufactroversies became highly prevalent and very resistant to the actual facts (at 62%, Labour's Bremain vote was proportionally equal to the SNP's 63%, yet no one are going around blaming Nicola Sturgeon). Helped by anti-Corbyn media, especially The Guardian which has played a very conspicuous role, MPs have been waging an extremely dirty negative campaign at that quickly led me to suspect that they had already given up winning this round and were instead waging a FUD war of attrition that will associate Corbyn and his with practically every bad epithet that The Grauniad would allow on its pages (a very low bar indeed). So far Corbyn & Co. have been accused of being, supporting or failing to curtail (and this list is not even extensive):

• Homophobes
• Online bullies (incl. death threats)
• Real life vandalism and intimidation
• Antisemites
• Misogynists
• Cult members
• Storm troopers
• Trotskyists
• Entryists
• Racists

The media stories have been based entirely on claims by anti-Corbyn MPs and their allies (incl. citing effin' spin doctors as if they were simply setting out the facts) and none of them have, so far, stood up to scrutiny and no evidence has been produced to demonstrate that such actual occurrences as threats and bullying really originate with the Corbyn wing. Indeed, some of these stories (e.g. the (in)famous brick through what turned out not to be Angela Eagle's office windows) have been revealed as out and out manufactroversies, yet they're still being trotted out as "evidence" at Corbyn's supposed reign of terror. I used to reject the various rants about the mainstream media out of hand! but an almost daily browse through the supposedly left wing papers' (Guardian, Independent) has made me rethink my stance. The anti-Corbyn wing has turned to full blown ratfucking, by, in addition to the bizarre propaganda campaign in the traditional media, by retroactively imposing a cut off date for new party members after the leadership contest was already underway which disenfranchised roughly 130,000 new Labour members, unless they - and anyone else who wanted to - forked over £25 at a given date. This latter loophole completely undercut the usual arguments for such cutoff dates, i.e. that they curtail opportunism, which already looked shaky due to the retroactivity. The next round of ratfucking has been another disenfranchisement initiative in which Labour members are barred from voting in the leadership contest based on an extremely broad, vaguely defined and arbitrarily imposed set of criteria incl. "abuse" (curiously not applied, so far, to millionaire Labour donor who took to the pages of the Daily Mail to call Corbyn supporters "Nazi storm troopers" for a double whammy of historical irony and present day hypocrisy) and "supporting other political parties". Nevertheless, a recent opinion poll showed a clear lead for Corby, but I wonder about the long term damage to the party of having Labour's own MPs(!) depicting the party as a haven for a hodgepodge of the unsavoury types listed above. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Their approach leaves approximately everything and more to be desired, but the MPs have a point: Jez has absolutely won the hearts and minds of the Labour Party membership demographic, but doesn't do too well outside it, polling somewhat worse than Trump. He doesn't have the charisma of Sanders, for instance. I love Jez and think his ideas are great, but I also realise that just over 50% of the UK electorate just voted to shoot everyone in the foot, and they'll probably vote next election. It's a cluster of clusterfucks, and no mistake - David Gerard (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Corbyn is neither a shoe in for PM in the next general election nor an unassailable or sterling party leader. The concerns about whether someone who is popular with party members is able to reach the broader electorate are also well-founded, but I find the tactics used to attempt to oust Corbyn extremely dubious, especially in a democratic political party. Personally, I think that Corbyn's poor polling is hardly surprising, given an almost universally hostile British media landscape and a dedicated internal opposition which has been waging a sort of "death by a thousand cuts" campaign of constant negative leaks since the day Corbyn took over as Labour leader. Thus, if such factors are seen as limiting who can be Labour leader, then it essentially means that only New Labour style politicians can ever lead the party. Anyone with left wing views, incl. what was once uncontroversial social democratic views (e.g. most of Corbyn's policies, bar his stance on Trident and similar foreign/security policies), is going to be slammed in the British media which is dominated by the right and whose "left wing" seems to barely b placed to the left of the Liberal Democrats/New Labour. It is hardly surprising, then, that an electorate which is seldom informed about Corbyn's actual policies through the media, but is instead subjected to a barrage of stories depicting him as a terrible, unelectable leader of a political bent slightly to the right of the late Soviet Union's who hangs around with a host of dubious characters, is more than a little wary of seeing him as a future PM. Corbyn's leadership has thus raised some interesting questions about the nature of British politics, its "marketplace of ideas", and whether systemic factors curb or curtail the practical scope of political options. I find this year's LSE study of how British media has treated Corbyn to be particularly worrying in this context. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

PS. Sanders has charisma? I mean sure, he's more charismatic than Corbyn in the sense of the balloons and speech making rituals characteristic of US campaigning, but that's not really saying much and probably also a reflection of different political cultures. Come to think about it, British politics isn't exactly jam packed with charismatic politicians when you look at the ranks of prospective, former or current cabinet members. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The loved one is a Labour Party member (I'm just a lifelong Labour voter), and I said "your problem - yes, yours personally, you're a member - is to MAKE JEZ CHARISMATIC." It'll be an uphill battle, but it's the needed one. I could push Jez's views better than he does, and I'm a huge arse. - David Gerard (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not just his MPs who think he's incompetent. After he won the leadership election in 2015, the party press office lined up all the obvious TV and press interviews for him, but he decided it would be a much better idea to give an exclusive to the Huffington fucking Post. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

So how exactly is that choice of media venue a clear indication of incompetence? I mean, sure HuffPo isn't a great outlet, but considering that all of the traditional British media had apparently decided that he should be portrayed as a either a gibberish left wing loonie Trotskyist, a bumbling buffoon, a throwback to the Militants of the 1980s, or all three combined, deciding against giving them yet another opportunity to have a go doesn't seem entirely unreasonable.

I agree that there have been mistakes in his handling of the PLP and internal party politics (though distinguishing actual mistakes from negative campaigning becomes ever more difficult), but it's hardly a stretch to point out that cooperation hasn't exactly been helped along by the series of strategic leaks and badmouthing that began even before he won the leadership contest and by several elements in the PLP portraying him as some sort of usurper.

It seems clear to me that allowing Corbyn on the leadership ballot last year was originally supposed to be no more than a PR stunt to illustrate diversity and that the shock of him actually winning led to surprisingly little introspection among the party mandarins, whose views seem fundamentally rooted in New Labour ideas, as to why he won, whether some of his ideas might have merit or if some of the issues he raised could be addressed in different ways or by copying only some elements of his platform. Instead, the reaction appears to have been no more thoughtful than a "how can we get rid of him?" mentality that seems to have crossed over into a sort of "the end justifies the means" approach in which any allegation that might serve to damage Corbyn is lopped into the media without any regard to the "collateral damage" to the Labour "brand". Sure, it makes short term party political sense if you think Corbyn is "unelectable" to get rid of him by any means necessary, but portraying your own party as a hotbed of the unsavoury characters listed above seems to be a case of cutting of one's nose to spite one's face. Even worse is that it has helped cement the narrative that Brexit was Corbyn's fault, not Cameron's, thus removing (at least for the time being) the obvious possibilities arising from the chance to really put the boot into a Tory party that appears to have no idea how it is to navigate through a Brexit process and whose internal splits have been barely (and probably only briefly) papered over by May and are likely to reerrupt once the Brexit negotiations actually get going (and continuing the current limbo of not invoking Article 50 will have the similar effects as irate Tory Brexiters will begin to cry foul).

Finally, it's depressing that this internal Labour struggle quickly degenerated into a question of personality and negative campaigning, because it stifles the far more important debate about the overall political direction Labour should move in: Towards some form of more "classical" social democracy? Towards a social liberal agenda somewhat like the LibDem Beveridge Group? Something more like the Orange Bookers? Incorporating a stronger anti-immigration and similar "tough" stances combined with either a populist platform with possibly a less neoliberal economic view of the economy than during the New Labour years? Revamping the New Labour package? All these perspectives have been shoved aside in favour of questions of style, managerial skills and outright fear mongering. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ As for the concern that Corbyn is simply preaching to the choir and that his ability to mobilise a majority of Labour Party members doesn't translate into success at a general election, I completely agree and that is perhaps the most weighty argument I've encountered against Corbyn. However, the obverse is rarely mentioned: How likely is it that a Labour leader who can't even mobilise a majority in his or her favour in an internal Labour contest will be able to sweep the Tories from office in a general election? Corbyn is far from an ideal leader, but the question is whether anyone can currently plausibly pose a stronger challenge to May and the Tories? I must admit that I have a hard time coming up with alternatives. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Indented lineThis is not strictly accurate, is it - the notion that a Labour leader who can't mobilisie a majority in his or her favour in an internal Labour contest will not be able to sweep the Tories from power? Just look at Blair. Grassroot members and even mainstream members of the Labour Party deserted it, many joining the LibDems, others joining UKIP (and even the BNP) under his leadership. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)