Jeremy Corbyn elected UK Labour leader in a landslide - Polidicks

Lots and lots of left-wingers passionately screaming at ol' Davey C on Twitter right now, accusing him libel. Calling Corbyn a threat to our 'national security'... I have to agree. Only a nutcase who has no understanding of 20th Century history (which he [i]lived through[/i] might I add) would believe that Trident is unnecessary. Our nuclear deterrent is the only reason we're still at any bargaining tables. It dismays me to see people saying that our military no longer needs to be ready to counter the threat of international war, and that we can downsize because 'the world is at peace'. Surely the point of a military is to be ready to keep the country's borders secure against any threat? If you start designing your armed forces around austerity, you've given up your defence capability, plain and simple. For example, if we'd pulled out of F-35, we would have extended the Royal Navy's impotence ad infinitum. I could go on. I have disliked Cameron for a great many things but his policy on security - at least external - has been pretty up to scratch for the current state of things.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;48666333]Thank god I don't work for The Sun anymore they're probably going into maximum overdrive right now. COMMUNIST labour leader Jeremy Corbyn outed as secret MUSLIM leader of ISIS that wants to STEAL your TAXES[/QUOTE] According to today's headline he wants to abolish the armed forces based ona a couple comments where he p mich said "It would be nice if we could be like Costa Rica and be peaceful'. And I doubt we'll re-elect the Tories after this, they'll have done way too much damage.

[QUOTE=GordonZombie;48680291]And I doubt we'll re-elect the Tories after this, they'll have done way too much damage.[/QUOTE] Feels like April again

Does anyone believe McDonnell when he says that all the shite positions they gave to women will suddenly become super important now? That sounds like brocialist bullshit to be honest. [editline]14th September 2015[/editline] [img]http://puu.sh/kaZfo/f847b04403.png[/img] from the Guardian what a dumb excuse seriously

Giving government jobs to people solely on the basis that they have a vagina or penis is the dumbest thing I have ever heard and ironically proves that the people with such views are living in the past. All shadow cabinet positions should be given to those with the needed skillset and experience in politics which is what Corbyn has already stated he has done.

[QUOTE=smurfy;48680341]Feels like April again[/QUOTE] People learned their lesson when UKIP (who are closely affiliated with the Tories I might add) were used as a buffer to draw away Labour votes as well as the SNP.

the media seem very desperate to destroy corbyn as quickly as possible. the idea that corbyn hates women or feels that women shouldn't have cabinet positions is completely ridiculous since the cabinet now has a female majority. [quote]Does anyone believe McDonnell when he says that all the shite positions they gave to women will suddenly become super important now? That sounds like brocialist bullshit to be honest.[/quote] 'shite positions'?

[QUOTE=person11;48680411]Does anyone believe McDonnell when he says that all the shite positions they gave to women will suddenly become super important now? That sounds like brocialist bullshit to be honest. [editline]14th September 2015[/editline] [img]http://puu.sh/kaZfo/f847b04403.png[/img] from the Guardian what a dumb excuse seriously[/QUOTE] wtf is a "brocialist"? did you just make that up?

It does seem strange how little Diane Abbot got given how crucial she was in his campaign though. His support for her mayoral candidacy was pretty lukewarm as well...

[QUOTE=Antlerp;48680760]wtf is a "brocialist"? did you just make that up?[/QUOTE] From what I understand, it's an "insult" feminists use for left-wing politicians and their supporters who aren't hardcore feminists. So basically, even though we may agree with them on 90% of things, we're still their opponents because we don't blame everything on the patriarchy and we reject the [URL="https://rainn.org/news-room/rainn-urges-white-house-task-force-to-overhaul-colleges-treatment-of-rape"]rape culture myth[/URL]. I see it most commonly with feminists complaining about Bernie Sanders supporters.

[QUOTE=Bobie;48680709]the media seem very desperate to destroy corbyn as quickly as possible. the idea that corbyn hates women or feels that women shouldn't have cabinet positions is completely ridiculous since the cabinet now has a female majority. 'shite positions'?[/QUOTE] glass ceiling + angela eagle should have been chancellor not bloody mcdonell

[QUOTE=elfbarf;48680797]From what I understand, it's an "insult" feminists use for left-wing politicians and their supporters who aren't hardcore feminists. So basically, even though we may agree with them on 90% of things, we're still their opponents because we don't blame everything on the patriarchy and we reject the [URL="https://rainn.org/news-room/rainn-urges-white-house-task-force-to-overhaul-colleges-treatment-of-rape"]rape culture myth[/URL]. I see it most commonly with feminists complaining about Bernie Sanders supporters.[/QUOTE] ah. awkward people, you reckon he's probably someone who'd agree with this total mentalist on the independent? [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/if-its-truly-progressive-labour-will-have-voted-in-a-female-leader--regardless-of-her-policies-10496237.html[/url] which is hilarious because there is actually more women in the shadow cabinet than men

[QUOTE=Antlerp;48680856]ah. awkward people, you reckon he's probably someone who'd agree with this total mentalist on the independent? [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/if-its-truly-progressive-labour-will-have-voted-in-a-female-leader--regardless-of-her-policies-10496237.html[/url] which is hilarious because there is actually more women in the shadow cabinet than men[/QUOTE] [quote]That’s why the only truly progressive thing for Labour to do would be to elect a female leader this time around – no matter what her policies are.[/quote] :suicide:

Corbyn for Prime Minister!

A lot of terrible opinions in this thread. If you were at all inclined to do even the slightest research you'd find the typical Daily Mail headlines are complete fabrications. I'm not looking forward to years of mouth-breathing right-wingers mumbling about HAMAS TIES and HOLOCAUST DENIAL.

[QUOTE=Jon27;48680175]Lots and lots of left-wingers passionately screaming at ol' Davey C on Twitter right now, accusing him libel. Calling Corbyn a threat to our 'national security'... I have to agree. Only a nutcase who has no understanding of 20th Century history (which he [i]lived through[/i] might I add) would believe that Trident is unnecessary. Our nuclear deterrent is the only reason we're still at any bargaining tables. It dismays me to see people saying that our military no longer needs to be ready to counter the threat of international war, and that we can downsize because 'the world is at peace'. Surely the point of a military is to be ready to keep the country's borders secure against any threat? If you start designing your armed forces around austerity, you've given up your defence capability, plain and simple. For example, if we'd pulled out of F-35, we would have extended the Royal Navy's impotence ad infinitum. I could go on. I have disliked Cameron for a great many things but his policy on security - at least external - has been pretty up to scratch for the current state of things.[/QUOTE] to be fair, trident was basically obtained by the british government essentially strong-arming the US by cobbling together a nuclear weapon of their own and detonating it to get the message across the atlantic. as far as weapon systems goes, the trident is probably due for a replacement, but SLBMs are even more important than ever before as weapon CEPs are very small today and nobody's developed a good way to get rid of SLBMs in a first strike scenario yet

[QUOTE=Mesothere;48682025]A lot of terrible opinions in this thread. If you were at all inclined to do even the slightest research you'd find the typical Daily Mail headlines are complete fabrications. I'm not looking forward to years of mouth-breathing right-wingers mumbling about HAMAS TIES and HOLOCAUST DENIAL.[/QUOTE] ahah at least try and refute some of my points dummy

This is such a fucking weird image to see [t]http://imgkk.com/i/oyy9.jpg[/t] This is all still super crazy

[QUOTE=smurfy;48682434]This is such a fucking weird image to see [t]http://imgkk.com/i/oyy9.jpg[/t] This is all still super crazy[/QUOTE] Are there any more speeches from him since his election? I've seen Jon Snow and #WelcomeRefugees [editline]14th September 2015[/editline] Also DC's deleted the tweet

He was supposed to have an interview with Andrew Marr but went to a NHS Fundraiser instead :v: And I can understand why DC is deleting shit, if he really wants to play the 'Corbyn is unelectable' tune, he should probably start by not putting out semi-hysterical tweets. Wait, what tweet did Cameron delete? I still see the one about Labour being a threat to national security etc.

[QUOTE=leontodd;48680489]Giving government jobs to people solely on the basis that they have a vagina or penis is the dumbest thing I have ever heard and ironically proves that the people with such views are living in the past. All shadow cabinet positions should be given to those with the needed skillset and experience in politics which is what Corbyn has already stated he has done.[/QUOTE] But he didn't even do that, because he gave all the prestigious positions (chancellor etc) away to his closest mates?

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48683304]But he didn't even do that, because he gave all the prestigious positions away to his closest mates?[/QUOTE] Oh I know I can't deny that, I was just refuting all this sexism bullshit that seems to be spouting from the media. He definitely lost a lot of trust appointing John McDonnell throughout the party I'm sure.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48683304]But he didn't even do that, because he gave all the prestigious positions (chancellor etc) away to his closest mates?[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say that, and this is someone who is very anti-Corbyn. John McDonnell, shadow chancellor, is the only very strong example of this. I mean, Diane Abbott only got a crappy post, and many within the cabinet are hardly glowing Corbyn supporters. The issue is more the general mediocrity of the whole cabinet due to Corbyn's positions being indefensible to so many Labour MPs that they do not believe they can serve under him.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48682380]ahah at least try and refute some of my points dummy[/QUOTE] You're the guy worried about our "national security", yeah? Or - as you said in the other thread - perhaps you're concerned about the "global prestige" afforded us by our nuclear weaponry? So you presumably hate Corbyn for wanting to scrap Trident in favour of alternative defences. What value do you possibly see in Trident? Meanwhile, you (I assume) support the Conservative government - led by a man who personally voted in favour of the war in Iraq, which itself directly led to the birth of ISIS. We can assume more pig-headed initiatives by the same leader in future (lol let's bomb Syria) leading to similar international-scale catastrophes... but you're right! The guy who wants to divert the funding to the colossal monetary black-hole that is the frankly obsolete Trident program must be the one who's putting our security at risk.

We should bomb Syria. Iraq was a mistake and a disaster, but you can pick on the MPs of both major parties for voting for it, and just because one intervention was a disaster doesn't mean every single one is, and I understand why people voted in favour of the war, as I think with good reason no-one believed Saddam, and that people had good reasons and intentions behind removing a dictator who gassed his own people and invaded neighbouring countries. I've explained these opinions in the other thread, but I'll clarify that I don't really support the current Conservative government, I prefer it to a Corbyn led government.

Please justify the bombing of Syria? What can it realistically achieve? You cannot topple an ideology by throwing ballistics at it - you merely bolster their hatred - and in the meanwhile, innocent lives are also lost.

God I can't fucking wait for PMQs. Cameron is so used to doing the whole "MY RIGHT HONOURABLE FRIEND IS A CUNT WAHEY" style of PMQs but Corbyn doesn't acknowledge personal attacks, so how will Cameron respond if Corbyn just ignores them? Surely he can't keep acting like that if the other side isn't doing the same? Also how will Labour MPs respond to Corbyn? Will they cheer for him or just sit there or what? What will Corbyn even ask Cameron? I'm imagining the first chance Cameron gets to speak he'll reel off all the national security RIP Labour stuff, but beyond that I really don't know what will happen. I think Corbyn could really wrongfoot the PM if he delivers on his "less shit PMQs" promise, comes out dead serious, completely ignores any attacks/jokes and just repeats his questions until they're answered. Corbyn could also win the day if he can make Labour appear to be rising above the regular bullshit of PMQs. Maybe he could actually tell his MPs [I]not[/I] to cheer for him in order to appear more ~intellectually curious~? However worst case scenario for Corbyn is that he comes out with some crazy questions like when are you going to kill the bankers, Labour MPs are as rowdy as ever and some of them boo him or something, Cameron drops some mad zingers and manages to grab the headlines, he ends up kinda shouting like in his victory speech, John McDonnell grabs the mace and gets suspended again, and at the end his pants fall down and his cock flops out on live TV. That would really be a bad start to his leadership.

ISIS won't go away on their own and without western intervention. ISIS will form a permanently destabilising force upon the world if not properly dealt with. Am I promising that the result will be some kind of beautiful democracy with children waving American flags? Of course not. But the only way to avoid an ISIS controlled state is through our intervention. Afghanistan, although the Taliban are still a presence and threat, is less controlling and dominant as a result of firm military intervention. Yes, the ideology will not be killed, but it will be pushed back, and defeat always will push back ideologies.

[QUOTE=smurfy;48683479]God I can't fucking wait for PMQs. Cameron is so used to doing the whole "MY RIGHT HONOURABLE FRIEND IS A CUNT WAHEY" style of PMQs but Corbyn doesn't acknowledge personal attacks, so how will Cameron respond if Corbyn just ignores them? Surely he can't keep acting like that if the other side isn't doing the same? Also how will Labour MPs respond to Corbyn? Will they cheer for him or just sit there or what? What will Corbyn even ask Cameron? I'm imagining the first chance Cameron gets to speak he'll reel off all the national security RIP Labour stuff, but beyond that I really don't know what will happen. I think Corbyn could really wrongfoot the PM if he delivers on his "less shit PMQs" promise, comes out dead serious, completely ignores any attacks/jokes and just repeats his questions until they're answered. Corbyn could also win the day if he can make Labour appear to be rising above the regular bullshit of PMQs. Maybe he could actually tell his MPs [I]not[/I] to cheer for him in order to appear more ~intellectually curious~? However worst case scenario for Corbyn is that he comes out with some crazy questions like when are you going to kill the bankers, Labour MPs are as rowdy as ever and some of them boo him or something, Cameron drops some mad zingers and manages to grab the headlines, he ends up kinda shouting like in his victory speech, John McDonnell grabs the mace and gets suspended again, and at the end his pants fall down and his cock flops out on live TV. That would really be a bad start to his leadership.[/QUOTE] Damn right he'll nail it. When should we expect to see this?

[QUOTE=Cypher_09;48683499]Damn right he'll nail it. When should we expect to see this?[/QUOTE] Wednesday at 12 get hyped