Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

This thread's been running since June 2016, and for most of it's existence he was leader of the Labour Party and I was actively campaigning for him to be Prime Minister. I posted loads about him then, unsurprisingly. Even then I don't think you'll find the kind of slavish devotion you seem to imagine people have for him here. Where do you think we are? Twitter?
 
His latest musings are ridiculous its 1939 but this time polands getting modern weapons and still fighting.
Russian conscripts die in the ukraine or they die in poland.
Vlad isn't going to stop.
 
I guess if your standing behaviour includes persistently doing things that are morally objectionable and most people don’t like it may result in lots of people disliking you and you don’t get to save the world. Better to do things that that are good and appreciated like striking.
 
Last edited:
of course in the fantasy world where Corbyn wins the 2019 general election and then somehow is still prime minister now, he wouldn't be giving interviews to minor arab satellite stations, so our standing on the world stage would be unsullied by this appearance.
There was never a universe when corbyn won in 2019.
 
Thankfully his time is up, so you have the luxury of imagining the peace and goodwill he would have spread abroad as PM without ever having have to face the reality of what he would have been like
Theres actually alot of truth to this - though when I've thought this before I've been thinking mainly about in regards to the UK (so to me this is indeed an interesting point). This is basically the labour left and its supporters in a nutshell.

But to point to Johnson as being any kind of solution you'd have to be on crack or something.
 
Last edited:
Funny how many on the left are obsessed about what could have been under Corbyn, but only so far as the good stuff goes. The bad stuff is just lurid imaginings.

I'm not a fan of Corbyn's foreign policy stances. Too wishy-washy pacifist for me. But his domestic policies were far superior to literally anything else on offer in electoral politics at the time. Earlier today I was reading stuff about the Attlee government et al, and through that I learnt that even the same administration that set up the beloved NHS had some aspects to it that I would have found objectionable.

For myself, I don't think Corbyn has much of a political future. He had his chance and to some extent, he blew it. There should have been more of an emphasis on the rank and file membership, it seems like the swell of support was squandered (possibly some of it down to interference by the Labour right, but they can't be given credit for all the failures). He wasn't ruthless enough against his internal enemies within the Labour party, and he even put his enemies into positions where they could stab him in the back; no idea why he did that, but definitely it cost him.
 
Because of the Labour Party apparatus ruled by the Blairites, Corbyn had to shift his political positions, at least publicly. An opponent of immigration controls, at the last election he promised the most right-wing Labour policy on immigration in over 30 years. An opponent of NATO, he regarded it as a “danger to world peace” and socialists had to campaign against it. He now embraced NATO, saying that “I want to work within NATO to achieve stability”. A life-long opponent of the monarchy, Corbyn now stated that the abolition of the monarchy “is not on my agenda.” A critic of the police and its shoot-to-kill policy he once laid a wreath to victims of police violence at the Cenotaph. He now said that the police should use: “whatever force is necessary to protect and save life.” Labour pledged to increase the number of police by 10,000 and the number of prison warders by 3,000 and border guards by 500.


How much more would Corbyn have turned to the right if he were Prime Minister?

 
“The libel claim brought by Richard Millett against the Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP has been settled. Mr Corbyn has paid no damages, has made no apology and has given no undertakings concerning repetition of the words complained of. No costs have been paid by either party to the other as part of this settlement save in respect of an outstanding Order of the Court of Appeal from April 2021.

Neither party will be making any other comment about the case.”

e-mail from Corbyn's legal fund :thumbs:
 
e-mail from Corbyn's legal fund :thumbs:

I can't believe Millet won his libel case to be honest. Corbyn called his conduct at a meeting 'abusive'. If anybody is familiar with Millet's conduct at Palestinian Solidarity Meetings, it is hard to see how it could be anything else. Can't help but think the judges just didn't like Corbyn.

EDIT, just checked and what I wrote above is wrong, see below.
 
Last edited:

I'm even more confused now.
 
I'm finding it hard to work out what's happened here - what was the case that was due to be heard next month?

Millet successfully sued Corbyn back in 2020 for defamation, Corbyn appealed the decision and lost four days ago. It seems that since they've settled out of court, seemingly for no costs. Don't have a clue why Millet isn't seeking damages.

Edit - this is incorrect, see post below.
 
Last edited:
Millet successfully sued Corbyn back in 2020 for libel, Corbyn appealed the decision and lost four days ago. It seems that since they've settled out of court, seemingly for no costs. Don't have a clue why Millet isn't seeking damages.
but what was the 10-day case that was due to be heard next month that isn't going ahead now?
 
but what was the 10-day case that was due to be heard next month that isn't going ahead now?

Ah, just looked in to it and I think this is roughly what happened. Back in 2020 there was a preliminary trial to determine whether a full defamation trial could go ahead. The High Court ruled that it could and Corbyn appealed against that decision. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's original ruling so the options were either negotiation or go to trial. Millet and Corbyn settled out of court.
 
In particular I think the preliminary hearing was to determine whether the statements were defamatory. Corbyn claimed not but they were ruled to be. Even if they are defamatory Corbyn would have still have the defense that the statements were true, which presumably Miller didn't want to contest in court.
 
Back
Top Bottom