How stupid is Corbyn getting

Do quote the whole point Ana:

the anti-Labour voters will delight in anything that attacks him. As they are never going to vote Labour whoever leads the party, we have little need to pay attention to their views.

If you have or would vote Labour then I wasn't referring to you as you can see.

'Anti-labour voters' is a very loose description. Many may be so at the moment, but may not be in the future.

Gracesgran

There is an alternative view though isn't there.

Those who lionise Corbyn refuse to accept anything that doesn't keep him on a pedestal.

I will be asked to give an example so here goes.

I couldn't help but note there has been a wide defence of Corbyn sharing platforms with some shady characters and his friendship toward Hamas and Hezbolla. They have defended him by saying his stance is to have dialogue with those you don't agree with. When asked if that means he would adhere to that principle and share a platform with the BNP he said of course not. It might be a minor comment but it implies his logic and reasoning is not what it seems when discussing his connections .

I rather liked the way during the Sky debate he had applause by the audience when he said 'I don't buy the Sun newspaper'. They soon kept quiet when it was pointed out he had written an article in the Sun newspaper. I know what that small point says to me but I dare say you will not agree.

To those who lionise Corbyn they will repeatedly use the age old excuse that anything that does state a truthful fact that they don't like it must be right wing propaganda because then they don't have to accept something that lowers the pedestal somewhat.

Very interesting days ahead.

I like what Corbyn is saying POGS but I don't believe he walks on water. I think people are a less naïve than that.

Well said that Gracesgran. I also like what Corbyn is saying and I accept politicians have to share platforms with people they don't necessarily totally agree with but his willingness to share with some groups does bother me - a bit. If he's elected leader, I'll accept the will of the majority and support him until or unless I have reason not to. Nothing he's said during this campaign has alienated me. I'm a bit pro maintaining Trident, none of my close friends or family agree with me, so there you go.

We live in interesting times. At the moment, although he seems, on the whole, to be the archetypal nice bloke, I don't think JC will make a good leader of the Labour Party. If he gets the vote, we'll know soon enough (he might surprise me), and if he isn't voted in we may never know.

POGS there is a difference between talking to others from different cultures and societies who have been denied the right of elected representation and sharing a platform with parties you are diametrically opposed to. The former you may find some common ground you can work with, the latter you will not. Seems perfectly logical to me.

There is a big difference between the BNP, which represents the views of very few people in the UK and which has seen its support virtually fade away, and Hamas which - like it or not - represents the views of thousands of people. It is necessary to negotiate with every group that is involved in a conflict and whose co-operation must be obtained in order to achieve peace. There isn't much point in gathering together only the people with whom you are in broad agreement and then conclude that you can do nothing about achieving peace because not all the relevant parties are present.

Has Hamas accepted the state of Israel yet? Difficult to negotiate anything with such a heels dug in position that they have been used to take.

That's one of my worries thatbags and one of the reasons JC didn't get my vote in the leadership election.

I seem to recall that the IRA were always insistent that they would never recognise the legitimacy of Northern Ireland and their stated aim was to force the British out of Northern Ireland. It was not through dubbing the voice of Gerry Adams and refusing to talk to the IRA that a settlement was reached but through recognising that, however abhorrent a group's methods may be, it is only when you bring all the parties together that meaningful negotiations for a peaceful settlement can take place.

I believe it is unrealistic to expect to commence a negotiation between parties by demanding a declaration be made that would require one party to yield to the other before the process of negotiation has even begun.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/04/david-cameron-abandon-syria-airstrikes-vote-jeremy-corbyn-wins

A good reason to vote for Corbyn.

Difficult to negotiate anything with such a heels dug in position that they have been used to take.

You are not going to persuade them by not talking to them though, are you Iam64?

To make real progress in dialogue with bodies such as the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah, and with dictators like Putin, it is necessary to start from a position of strength. Sinn Fein came to the table because it realised that the IRA could not win militarily on he ground. Walking out of NATO and abandoning the nuclear deterrent is not a basis for constructive talks with people whoa re not as nice as we are and will stop at nothing to achieve their aims.

IS don't negotiate. Bombing Syria will achieve nothing.

Good post grumppa.

True, IS wont negotiate. And probably true that bombing Syria wont achieve much. Not sure.

They could start in fighting.
My hope is that they are not arriving mixed in with the refugees and migrants.
They might be, big time.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/what-corbyn-moment-means-left

Do you think none of the other 3 candidates have principles?

soontobe- that fear that IS may be "arriving, mixed in with the refugees and migrants' is imo a red herring. IS members live amongst us already and I suspect they don't need to put themselves at high risk as asylum seekers are doing in order to enter Europe. This fear mongering seems to be influencing some people away from a humanitarian approach to refugees/asylum seekers.

Gracesgran, I agree that dialogue is the way forward in almost every conflict. I recall my wise father though, when as a radical 17 - 18 year old I railed against war and insisted everything could be resolved by appropriate negotiations and dialogue. Yes said he, you're right about most conflicts but there would have been no negotiating with Hitler. I continued to argue with him, as most young people would with their father - but his calm, consistent and kindly message to me has been a big influence in my life. He was, of course, right, as he so often was. I suspect we'll eventually negotiate with IS as we have with Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness. It doesn't mean I'd trust Gerry Adams with my children…..

At 17 - 18 I would have called myself a pacifist I think Iam64, but I have since come to the conclusion that Teddy Roosevelt’s maxim "speak softly and carry a big stick" is generally what is needed. I do think you have to remember the "speak softly" bit though and, as far as Corbyn is concerned, the people he has been prepared to speak to in the past while some on here and elsewhere are holding there noses, may well be the people we have to speak to in the future, whether we like it or not.

Yep Gracesgran, i don't disagree with you and in fact, it could be argued the sooner we start talking, the better. I've just read through the thread about whether Cameron is shaming the country though and dialogue/consensus is certainly not in evidence over there. Grim, grim grim -I wasn't intimidated into not posting I just couldn't see the point

stb I am sure you are right. There have been reports of IS infiltrating the schools in the refugee camps.

However, that should not distract us from the huge humanitarian crisis which needs help.

I like that quote, gg. Corbyn wants to get rid of the big stick as well though, doesn't he?

I think you would have to decide for yourself thatbags, as I read it he does not want the renewal of the biggest of sticks.

I have been trying to get my head around why IS would want to infiltrate schools in the refugee camp.
They could blow it up or have their way with children or possibly recruit them, without going into the school.
Are they trying to brainwash them? Pose as teachers?
Assuming the reports are true. I couldnt find anything on google.