Jeremy Corbyn prediction

[unclebulgaria67]

My instinct is telling me that Jeremy Corbyn will not last a year as Labour leader. He just does not have the support of enough Labour MP's and quite often states views which even his shadow cabinet does not agree with.

 

At some point Jeremy will come to a conclusion that it is not possible for him to continue as leader, because some of his views are too different to his colleagues and he cannot change his long held views.

 

I totally support Jeremys instincts that you should avoid war or violent reaction to criminals if at all possible, using the proper lawful processes to deal with situations, but sometimes this is just dreamland. You have to deal with the real world and not lead a party based on the fantasy world you would ideally want.

[citizenB]

He was being interviewed after the Paris attacks and I think he was very much out of his depth. Do you really want this man in charge of the security of this country ? I sure as hell don't.

[snowdragon]

Deff not!

[tobyjugg2]

same here.

The policies he has which I very strongly agree with would be more than wiped out by his other mainly lefty nuterism.

 

:/

all sing together

 

If you're going to san-fran-syria

Be sure to wear some armour in your hair

If you're going to san-fran-syria

Your sure to meet some nasty people there.

 

and I believe that is a realistic dig at him.

Yes he says dialogue is needed and it was and is - just as Cameron said in his speech excusing deals with China (but wont YET say the same about Assad), but Corbyn would be a lamb to the slaughter.

[unclebulgaria67]

Jeremy cannot lead Labour into the next election, because he would just not get the support of enough middle of the road politics wise voters, to even retain the current number of seats. Labour would be out of office for a generation.

 

If you are being attacked by terrorists with ak47's, you would hope that armed Police or Army would act to save lifes, just in case Jeremy was not around to make a citizens arrest.

 

That is the trouble with those on the loony left or right, is that they don't live in the real world. They have spent so much time fantasising about issues, that they have difficulty in grasping the real actions they might need to take.

[caro]

I applaud his idealism and his views. Sadly they just aren't realistic. He got in due to opposition to Tory lites and no better alternatives. Not enough was known about him at the time.

[BarnOwl1]

Comrade Corbyn' s completely naive or just plain bloody stupid suggesting that terrorist should not be shot and killed the idea of " containment & negotiation!" in nonsense Islamic fanatics are not going to negotiate I doubt they know what it means this is a " Kill or Be Killed" situation as it must be

if Europe is ot going to be overrun with by this plague.

[Conniff]

Well there are some on here that wouldn't agree with the above sentiments, shooting terrorists is "against their 'uman rights".

[caro]

The usual rule is innocent until proved guilty but if someone is actively killing they need to be stopped.

[tobyjugg2]

The usual rule is innocent until proved guilty but if someone is actively killing they need to be stopped.

 

I agree fully caro, and where the line needs to be drawn is a difficult one, but is certainly not at either of the ends of the spectrum.

 

In my view anyone holding, let alone firing a weapon makes them fair game, but just being accused of it, or going searching for it in someone elses country is a different matter.

 

I dont doubt Jeremy Corbyn is almost as far from an appropriate response as those shouting 'kill them all' whoever them is.

[Guest]

....but if someone is actively killing they need to be stopped.

 

as once said, if you have to shoot, shoot, dont talk

[goodatresearch]

The problem with shoot to kill can be summed up with one name - Jean Charles de menezes. Thats the problem isn't it, if someone is firing a gun they are certainly fair game, but can we trust the authorities to get it right.

[SabreSheep]

If someone has a weapon in public, then fair game.

 

Shooting to kill on the basis of suspicion like Jean Charles de menezes is not acceptable

[tobyjugg2]

The problem with shoot to kill can be summed up with one name - Jean Charles de menezes. Thats the problem isn't it, if someone is firing a gun they are certainly fair game, but can we trust the authorities to get it right.

 

Everyone, even governments make errors, but its accountability that makes them really try to get it right.

[citizenB]

If someone has a weapon in public, then fair game.

 

Shooting to kill on the basis of suspicion like Jean Charles de menezes is not acceptable

 

Everyone, even governments make errors, but its accountability that makes them really try to get it right.

 

The Jean Charles de Menezes situation was quite shocking, sadly, Cressida Dick was never held accountable, just promoted out of sight !

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7069796.stm

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

[think about it]

I love the assumption that in a situation like that there's a choice on behalf of the person pulling the trigger as to just how badly you injure someone.

 

Now there are of course sitations like Jean Charles' where you can be pretty certain that if you hold your weapon to the head of the target and repeatedly pull the trigger that there's going to be only one likely outcome. However, at anything like a distance the training and reaction of the 'operator' is to aim for centre-mass of the target. Unless you're an SAS level shooter it's more dangerous to attempt the all too fabled 'head shot' with anything other than a scoped weapon. You're as likely to miss as you are to hit your target. So, you aim for the centre of the person's mass, their torso. Then bullets might just hit bone and muscle, they might destroy a vital organ, who knows where the fragments will go?

 

But, and it's a big but, in a rapidly developing situation like the ones in Paris on Friday and seemingly this morning I'd sooner the operator (military or police) do their job, pull the trigger and, if the target survives we'll ask questions later.

 

Jean Charles' situation, as unfortunate as it was, is worth viewing from the perspective of the officer pulling the trigger. With only limited knowledge and the very recent experience of several explosive devices killing tens of inocent people he/she had to make a decision, ultimately it was the wrong one but if it were me lying on top of him and he was squirming and screaming you can be pretty certain I'd have done exactly the same.

[AndyOrch]

Thread is veering away from thread title......Jeremy Corbyn and the support of his party ?

 

Plenty of existing threads already covering Paris and the attacks of Friday last

[SabreSheep]

Do I think JC will be PM - At this rate nope. BUT that was not the reason why I voted for him.

 

I voted for him so he could help reform the party in time for a decent election campaign in 2020 under a more electable leader. JCs job at the minute is to suck the poison out of the party (Personnel, Old neo lib views and history, eg Iraq and Blairist cock ups ) so it can be reborn.

[citizenB]

Do I think JC will be PM - At this rate nope. BUT that was not the reason why I voted for him.

 

I voted for him so he could help reform the party in time for a decent election campaign in 2020 under a more electable leader. JCs job at the minute is to suck the poison out of the party (Personnel, Old neo lib views and history, eg Iraq and Blairist cock ups ) so it can be reborn.

 

However, once he is outed, as he will be, the old school will return !

[tobyjugg2]

However, once he is outed, as he will be, the old school will return !

 

We can but hope that Corbyns election as leader will be a lesson well learned (errr - and not that they should limit who can be elected).

[Guest]

The Cons must be laughing re all the infighting/differences going on, most recently Ken vs...

Unless things change, Corby prob wont last too long. but if he goes, wont a similar thing happen again given the divisives. who would the corby voters then vote for instead?

[unclebulgaria67]

You may see some Labour MP's regularly voting against the parties whip position, pointing out that Corbyn as a backbencher was a free spirit regularly voting against the parties policies. It is unlikely that Corbyn could take any action and he may come to the conclusion that he does not have the support of enough MP's. Many Labour MP's are giving Corbyn a chance, but it won't last too long.

[citizenB]

Well it didn't look like he had too many supporters in respect of an alliance with France and Russia bombing Syria.

[unclebulgaria67]

Well it didn't look like he had too many supporters in respect of an alliance with France and Russia bombing Syria.

 

Corbyns position has always been that violence or war, just leads to more of the same. At some point people have to talk and try to come to agreements or allow the law to resolve issues. Whilst this is admirable, it does not deal with those who wish to wage war against others, not looking to come to any agreements or comply with any laws.

[Guest]

most recently Ken vs...

.....?

 

now both on ch4 news, ding donging. funny.