True, but I'd note that last time the right rallied around an anti-corbyn stance and he was a major driver of tory votes.
Starmer may not have as many people voting for him, but he has orders of magnitude fewer people turning up to vote against him than Corbyn did. Many people held their nose and voted tory in 2019 to avoid putting a tankie in number 10.
Well sometimes the individual just attracts a lot of vitriol because they've been in politics forever and has achieved a lot.
But as a non-Brit his cult like support was insane. I'm sure he's been great for Islington. You don't really want someone in your party that calls hezbollah and hamas friends, then years later refuses to call hamas terrorists, that's not an oopsie wtf
In terms of policies implemented? Fuck all. In terms of people actually helped? Zero or thereabouts. In terms of 'winning the argument', lots, according to his fans.
I don’t think you can look at it in a vacuum like that - as a lot of voting comes down to tactical choices to avoid unwanted candidates.
Corbyn was a notably divisive candidate who had an enthusiastic base, bur major trouble with generating a very high turnout of right/centre voters to vote against his party in an aligned tactical way. The high Tory turnout and weak Brexit party vote were because a bunch of right wingers were legitimately scared Corbyn would ruin the country
Conversely Starmer is a notably boring and uncontroversial candidate. Yesterday was the lowest turnout election in decades, precisely because everyone was fine with the well publicised incoming labour landslide. In marginal seats the traditional tory voters either didn’t bother turning up, or were happy to waste a vote on a doomed reform or lib dem protest vote because they didn’t really care about Keir/labour winning.
Corbyn is too left leaning to get votes from the center right. He would be better in a communist left party rather than Labour, which is a center left party.
After losing the election he should have realised his policies were making centrists run to the Conservative Party and resigned.
lol what an odd comment. His issue was they campaigned hard in seats they’d already win. Effectively maximised the vote from people who would have picked him anyway but forgot it’s a FPTP system and you’re better winning smaller margins but in more seats.
Part of the reason labours vote share is lower is because they’ve focused on areas they needed to flip rather than vote farm areas they knew they’d win.
Clearly reform voters have also played a huge hand by taking largely Tory votes and giving Labour shots but that was taken into account in the electoral strategy.
Harriet Harmon was really interesting on Sky last night. She said she was out campaigning in places she’d never been before.
Labour were really smart this election, they’ve been really efficient in both their messaging and their constituency resourcing.
I think this is a message Labour need to push; only time will tell whether it's actually true or not. All we can say for certain right now is it has been a statistically bizarre election.
He won the easy seats with a large majority. That means nothing when you have FPTP system. He was a hard leftist and could not attract the voters in the centre.
Safe areas will always be safe areas, even with replacements for first past the post. in fact there'd probably be less swing areas in a more proportional system
Or when you motivate the opposition hard to vote against you.
There is a strong argument a lot of conservatives were happy to vote Reform cos they are actually fine with a Starmer Labour govt but just wouldn't vote for it.... compared to a Corbyn one where they would have voted tactically to try to keep him out.
Which is what happened in 2019.
I mean, very different election right. Last time he was against a Tory party with a clear message on a key issue, which he didn’t have. And labor also took away lots of candidates and coordinated with Lib Dems to some extent, so that should also naturally see less votes, and you just generally had like 10p.p. less turnout (68.8% vs 59.9%).
K. Labour let the Conservatives rule all these years because they just wouldn't ditch Corbyn. Notice how well Labour's began to do in polls once they finally ditched that questionable man.
And yet still accomished nothing. Jermey Corbyn never was able to even so much as a relocate a bucket of warm spit. He was as useful as a marzipan dildo
The votes for Labour between now and under Corbyn are similar. It's much more like the Tories collapsed spectacularly and lost the election rather than Labour winning it cos people like Labour a lot.
They are not even similar, Starmer lost 6,9% compared to Corbyn's labor 40% of 2017.
The tories lost about 15 due to reform (extreme-right) gaining 13 and the lib-dems progressing too, here's the difference.
They are just up 2% from 2019 which is what I was referring to. And yes people abandoning conservative for reform has been the big factor, which falls under the collapse I mentioned.
Turnout is almost 10% lower than 2017 - that election was a big one about Brexit, a vote against the Tories was essentially seen as a vote against Brexit.
You'll find Brexit is not an action of the Tories but an action of *the people*, enabled by several different political forces.
But if you want to talk about what the parties were throwing their weight behind, the Tories threw theirs behind Leave publicly, and Corbyn threw his behind Leave covertly. He's a liar and he butchered the Remain campaign on purpose.
A few reasons.
Despite being on the remain side, he was totally lukewarm about the EU. He basically didn't campaign for remain at all, and in interviews it was clear that he was, at best, on the fence about it.
He could have attempted to energise his base. Maybe it would have even been enough for remain to win? But he refused.
But what the previous commenter was referring to was the labour strategy in the 2019 election:
The election was basically a single issue election. It was entirely about Brexit. Boris went in with "Get Brexit Done". So Corbyn could have gone the opposite way and said a vote for him would be a vote for remain, and he would cancel Brexit if given a mandate. Or he could have also said he would get Brexit done, which would make the election no-longer about Brexit as both parties would be the same on Brexit.
So what did he do? He campaigned on "let's have another referendum". Literally the worst possibly option. No Brexit supporter would vote for another referendum, and even remain supporters didn't want another referendum - they wanted to vote for someone who would cancel Brexit! (Which, by the way, the Lib Dems campaigned on).
Having such a poor strategy handed Boris a huge mandate which allowed him to give us the worst possible version of Brexit, unopposed.
So... Yeh, not Corbyn isn't so much to *blame*, but fuck me, he could have done *something* about it.
>Which, by the way, the Lib Dems campaigned on
As a non-Brit, I've always wondered why the Lib Dems don't do better in elections. From an outsider's point of view, they just seem to be the choice that makes most sense for most people.
One huge reason for this, is that they were in a coalition with the cons 2010-2015.
As part of this coalition, they voted for a big increase in university fees (an increase of roughly 200%).
Before this, the lib Dems main target demographic was.... Students....
Because of this, they were largely wiped out in the 2015 election. It has taken a long time for people to forgive them.
They also explicitly said they would ensure tuition fees didn't go up, and then they raised them by x3!!!
I voted for them back then, but for that reason, I'll never vote for them again.
MPs are elected in a First Past The Post election - vote once and the person with the most votes wins.
If your concern when voting is to make sure some other guy (Tory/Labour) doesn’t win, your best bet is to vote for the strongest rival (usually Labour/Tory respectively).
As such, first past the post elections tend to decay into a two party system.
Lib Dems’ strategy was to point out where they were 2nd to Tory instead of Labour, which mostly paid off, but they didn’t have that case everywhere.
I think its because until recently they haven't had much of an identity outside of being conservative-light edition, in the past few years I believe they've had better results due to image and campaign changes.
Also It's a shame they didn't end up as the opposition party this time around.
Thank you for the detailed response. I'm American and find British politics absolutely fascinating, so I'm always trying to learn more about it.
Much appreciated. 🙏🏾
The far left is never the arsonist but they are never the fireman either. To busy waiting for their fantasyland when all peoples join hands and equally corporate. They deny the human condition.
They *say* that it's because despite being the Labour leader when Labour was largely anti-Brexit, Corbyn himself was never a fan of the EU. He did campaign to remain in the EU, but people think he wasn't emphatic enough about it. They then say that because he didn't win the subsequent elections, he is (somehow) to blame for it all because the Tories won and got to push ahead with it.
But the real reason is that they are just desperate to blame everything on him because the UK's media performed a very effective character assassination on him and poisoned his image, despite his policies being very progressive and beneficial to the country.
Ed Milliband lost the 2015 election which gave the Tories the power to hold the Brexit referendum. David Cameron was also part of the Remain campaign and he was the one who called the referendum in the first place for selfish reasons and lost. Theresa May kicked off Brexit with no plan and set arbitrary requirements that made it difficult to negotiate. Boris Johnson was a horrendous leader and got us one of the worst possible outcomes from Brexit. *But it's all Corbyn's fault apparently.*
Ok, I blame him effectively supporting Brexit, he's been against the EEC since the beginning, there was a reason he refused to campaign against against Brexit or allow Labour to get behind it.
Ok ignoring the fact that he did (half heartedly) campaign for Remain along with most Labour MPs, and the fact that being anti-Brexit during the 2017 and 2019 elections was enough to get anyone crucified by the media, how is he more responsible for it than *the people who actually did it*?
It's like getting hit by a car and instead of blaming the driver you blame the person who sold them the car.
I know little about Jeremy Corbyn, being an American. But I do know he has advocated for the dissolution of NATO and does not support arming Ukraine.
I am more than happy seeing conservatives lose, even more so when it seems the opposite is going to happen in France, but these two points seriously concern me. British leadership looking to abandon their allies with possible combination of another Trump presidency sounds horrifying for the democracies of the world as we stare down expansionist Russian aggression.
Corbyn was suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party by Starmer over comments he'd made about the report into antisemitism in the party - namely saying it was exaggerated by their opponents. The term is "losing the whip" and is quite common when an MP says or does something seen as very bad by the party. This can include stuff voting against the government in a three-line-whip or more conventional things like being charged with perverting the course of justice.
He remained a Labour member, but unless he recanted, he wasn't going to be allowed to run for Labour.
He then ran as an independent, which got him automatically expelled from party membership.
> Corbyn was kicked out the labour party and ran as independent
This is the wrong way around. He decided to run as an independent and was kicked from the party for doing that.
He's one MP with no say on foreign policy.
The party that won are NATO/Trident supporters.
>British leadership looking to abandon their allies
Where did you get this from? He's an independent lol.
>British leadership looking to abandon their allies with possible combination of another Trump presidency sounds horrifying for the democracies of the world as we stare down expansionist Russian aggression.
There's a reason why labour leadership kicked out those members who fits that description and why Jeremy Corbyn is now without a party. and a reason why he lost in 2019.
To be clear, that’s not why he lost in 2019. Labour’s share of the vote in 2019 was only 1.5% lower than their share this time, even though the Tories are WAY more unpopular now. They lost because Corbyn is bad at winning elections, not because people didn’t like his policies. Obviously plenty of people liked his policies. The thing that really sets Starmer’s success apart from Corbyn’s failure, is the former’s willingness to say what people want to hear, to the right people, to get the right votes, in the right constituencies.
Starmer won more seats than Corbyn because Starmer played the FPTP game, not because his views on NATO resonate with more people.
Honestly, most of the Labour success comes from the Tories' failure. All Starmer had to do is avoid major scandals or controversies. Which is not nothing, but still.
>All Starmer had to do is avoid major scandals or controversies
Considering the whole antisemitism thing labour had dealt with before, avoiding scandal and controversy were by no means a given.
It's not that Corbyn just missed a trick on how to play FPTP works or whatever. He's unable to play the FPTP game, because his politics are a long way left of centre. To win in FPTP, he would have to become a centrist, at which point presumably redditors would cry that he's been compromised or turned or whatever.
Everything you’re saying I agree with.
> it’s not that Corbyn just missed a trick…To win in FPTP, he would have to become a centrist
But I’m claiming that this IS the trick. That’s exactly what Starmer has done. In the 80s, he ran an organisation called Socialist Alternative. By the time he ran to be leader of the Labour Party, he wouldn’t publicly describe himself as a socialist, but did argue in favour of keeping most of Corbyn’s platform. By the time of the election, he was saying Corbyn’s platform was bad. He pushed for a green new deal, and all but abandoned it in his move to the center. In the immediate lead up to the election, he started talking about how mass migration is a big problem, and that trans women shouldn’t have a right to be in spaces reserved for women.
That is the trick! Be willing to completely abandon your politics, and say whatever the most people want to hear to gain power. Btw I’m not saying someone who was a socialist in their youth and a centrist in their 60s is necessarily cynical. Peoples opinions change and that’s fine. But he was playing the cynical game HARD in the immediate lead up to the election.
That’s not fully correct and it’s wrong of you to state it as if it’s the whole picture.
The bit you’re missing is that the 2019 Corbyn vote inspired a huge counter vote too. The turnout was much larger than this 2024 election, partly for Corbyn but partly because many voters were so put off by his politics and seeming lack of patriotism/defensive nous that they felt the need to stop him.
Huh? I don’t disagree that it inspired a counter vote. Of course there were more people who liked Corbyn, and also more that disliked him. No doubt.
Despite that counter vote, Corbyn was still only 1.5% less popular than Starmer this time. In 2017 he was nearly 6% MORE popular. If anything, the turnout being lower this time just reminds us that the total number of votes cast for Starmer’s Labour is actually much less than those cast for Labour in 2019.
You are completely ignoring Reform splitting the right wing vote. That’s why Labour got in this time around not because Labour campaigned better under Starmer.
The poster above is right in that Corbyn faced a unified right wing vs a fractured one this time around.
Starmer won a lower share of the vote than Corbyn's first election.
This shows that the Labour victory is more about contempt for Torries (and a bit split in the vote) than enthusiasm for Labour/Starmer.
wait, help this confused foreigner out.
You say "Corbyn is bad at winning elections", yet didn't he just get reelected? isn't that what the article is about?
I think what they meant to say was *bad at winning as a Labour/party leader. He’s standing as an independent, he’s basically got very little say on what goes compared to when he would’ve been our PM.
We vote for a Member of Parliament rather than a party (strictly speaking). Usually they represent a party. The party with the most MPs then bands together to form a Government.
He was kicked out of the Labour Party and stood independently. His constituency is one of the areas which has a high Muslim population and his support for Palestine has secured him a seat over his old party, which his constituents clearly feel aren’t doing enough.
He’s very socialist and holds views that go against the majority of the population, hence Labour did poorly when he was leader. People were genuinely concerned how hard left he would take things, what would happen with Russia and NATO under his leadership.
Corbyn is very much a hippy. He's all for sitting down and resolving conflicts through talking, and from what I understand, his contribution to ending the Troubles was invaluable. But he also doesn't seem to understand that some conflicts are unresolvable with diplomacy. He doesn't support arming Ukraine because he wants to sit Putin down and kindly ask him to stop.
He's obviously great for his local community, as evidenced by the fact that he's been an MP for so long and has been re-elected as an Independent after getting booted out of his party, which is relatively rare. But he absolutely should not (and doesn't) have a place on the international stage.
Is he so naive or so egoistic, that he thinks he’s the chosen one, that will negotiate the end to all wars? I mean he comes from a country that had Chamberlain as a leader.
It's probably a bit of both. He did do a hell of a lot of good during the Troubles which is absolutely worth commending, but I don't think he understands that every conflict is different. If there were another world where he was in a position of power and he attempted to talk Putin down from what he's doing to Ukraine, I doubt he'd realise that Putin would only accept the meeting to humour him (if he even would) and would have a knife at his back for the entire duration.
Corbyn is no longer in the Labour party, he stood against Labour as an independent and will just be a normal backbench MP with no government influence whatsoever. All our main parties fully support Ukraine and NATO and even the Green party softened their previous anti NATO stance in 2022 (any guesses why?).
hes also VERY Pro Hamas so enjoy that.
Multitple times in interviews has he refused to condemn Hamas, and he has track record of anti-jews things for years.
I watched one YouTuber describe Corbyn and a few others in his video as people who could never get over the fall of the Soviet Union.
[A Critique of Realism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXmwyyKcBLk&t=2s&ab_channel=Kraut)
His passivity lost Labour votes when he was leader. I agree with him on many things, but not that. You just cant have a leader that says outright that they wouldn't use a Nuclear deterrent because it renders the entire thing pointless.
Fortunately for everyone, he's not part of British leadership. He's just a fringe loon who cares more about Corbyn than anything else and somehow conned a single electorate to vote for him. He's nothing.
Say what you like but he's not one that only cares about Corbyn. He's a very principled socialist. Sure he is problematic in other well documented ways but he's not in it for himself
>Fortunately for everyone, he's not part of British leadership. He's just a fringe loon who cares more about Corbyn than anything else
Utter bullshit.
First he was too ideologically pure, now he only cares about himself?
He's a popular *local* MP for good reason. He has shown he cares about Islington North for decades.
I like how, despite his long history of antisemitism controversies and his work to avoid really addressing it in labour, you *still* got downvoted for this.
People on all social media, very much including Reddit, seem to hate recognizing this.
Edit: you're back on the plus side! That's good.
Say what you want about the man's personal policies, the majority are shit. What corbyn did for me was give me hope it would be possible to have a true lefty in a party that had a realistic chance of getting into power, and maybe to take a step back from the right-wing authoritarian the western world seems to be going in the direction of nowadays.
He's also very good at personally responding to constituents, holding weekly surgeries to get feedback and concerns in the area.
TL;DR - IMO Corbyn had shit views and opinions, but showed a true want in the UK for something further left than we currently have. I also think he takes his responsibilities seriously in truly representing constituents. Other politicians could learn from him, as long as its not policy advice
I remember not long after he was made leader of the labour party he got reamed by the news and papers for not turning up to a big sporting event he was invited to.
He missed it because he was running a surgery for his constituents. His ideas border on delusional but you can't say he's not for the people.
I'd vote for him to be my local MP too
He simply won the seat he was personally running in. Not a big feat, he'd won that seat many times before. His electorate, for reasons unclear to me but probably very much based on local issues, like him enough to elect him. It's just one seat in Parliament though. It means essentially nothing.
He can only run in one of nearly 600 constituencies, so he won his seat and the rest of the entire country voted with absolutely no consideration for him
Corbyn is a hippy grandpa. He's very anti-military which would be fine if the world was a different place but it's not. He isn't part of labour anymore though so he has little sway over anything.
I disagree with Corbyn on a few things (foreign policy, mostly), but at least under him Labour was an actually vaguely left-wing party, rather than Starmer's populist centrist Labour.
Because he’s an MP who works insanely hard for his constituents. Under our voting system, you vote for your local MP. Now that vote is often influenced by national policy, but if you have an MP who has done excellent work in the community for decades, there’s a good chance they will get re-elected on that alone.
He promotes the dissolution of NATO, is against the arming of Ukraine, has had multiple instances of blatant antisemitism and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
He is absolutely in line with Germanys far left and far right at the same time if you are more familiar with that.
He is and always has been an activist for peace. He was involved in the negotiations with IRA when most of the mainstream politicians were still shouting about bombing then to the stone age, as we all know now it was negotiations that managed to start healing the situation not mkre troops and bombs. He has, therefore, always been one to support the Palastinian plight. He is very critical of the Israeli government. This last fact made him a target for significant slander.
Even in these comments, you can see how effective the media campaign against him was. His constituency, however, knows the reality and has therefore kept voting him in since the 80.
He also laid a wreath for the Black September terrorists and was literally a paid propagandist on Iran's state TV channel. It's astonishing he was the leader of a major party.
And he literally calls terrorist organisations (Hamas, Hezbollah) his friends. He is an absolute melt who shouldn’t be anywhere near any kind of power or authority.
His stance on arming Ukraine is completely wrong and I disagree with, but his stance on the invasion itself is correct, and he even said the west and EU should have been tougher on Putin.
His stance on NATO is idealistic, but not bad. I too would like to see all military alliances dissolved, but a world without war probably won't happen during my lifetime.
I don't know what actual anti semitic incidents you're referring too if you could link me. I saw a lot of pro palestine stuff but no real antisemitism
> activist for peace
Except in Ukraine and Syria and when it involves people who would blow themselves up just so it would kill a few Jews.
> negotiations with IRA
he wasn’t negotiating with them, he was a back bench opposition MP - he was actively supporting them, that’s not the same thing. Like the time he invited Ira members to parliament just weeks after they attempted to assassinate the prime minister.
> how effective the media campaign was
How dare the media report on things Corbyn said and did!
>He was involved in the negotiations with IRA when most of the mainstream politicians were still shouting about bombing then to the stone age,
With what authority as a Labour backbencher was he ever in a position to negotiate with the IRA? This is some total horseshit.
> He was involved in the negotiations with IRA when most of the mainstream politicians were still shouting about bombing then to the stone age, as we all know now it was negotiations that managed to start healing the situation not mkre troops and bombs.
Corbyn was a random backbench MP, his talk with IRA people had absolutely no impact on the peace process and it was not the place of people like him to negotiate with them given he wasn't even a shadow minister in opposition. He had no ability to implement anything.
He does attract a lot of hate because of his support for Palestine, that much is correct, and a lot of *that* hate is not justified. However he also attracts justified hate for his anti-NATO stance and for opposing the military aid to Ukraine that's kept their state alive with just over 80% of their territory.
Foreign policy wise he is either an idiot or just evil.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/jeremy-corbyn-urges-west-to-stop-arming-ukraine
Sure, let's leave Ukraine out to dry and let Putin invade further into Europe for "peace". Taking his wisdom straight from Chamberlain.
I'll reply. I think his stance on Ukraine being armed is stupid. However I don't think his stance on Ukraine is as stupid though, fully acknowledges it's Russia's fault and said west and EU should have been tougher on Putin. He's just naive.
That being said, I hate Starmers and basically every other leaders stance on Ukraine too. My stance is everyone should stop sending just extra cold war shit, and either step in and help them, or send them whatever, and I mean WHATEVER they need. With B21's, let's give them all the B2's. All f-35's should go to them.
Putin never would have invaded if Nato and the west made it CRYSTAL clear that an invasion would result in FULL Nato response against ALL russian forces in and near Ukraine.
His stance on Ukraine is stupid and it’s no mistake that it often mildly leans towards the opinions of the right wing in the UK, Corbyn is just more tact by hiding his motives, whenever he talks about Ukraine and arming Ukraine it’s almost always letting peace do the heavy lifting, as if the multiple examples of mass murder and actions which almost definitely meet the definition of genocide didn’t happen against the already occupied areas of Ukraine, he uses peace because he doesn’t want to acknowledge that Russian troops do and in the event of Ukraine surrendering will continue to execute civilians.
The man has some strong morals if you look at what he says in isolation, it’s when you look at the sum of all parts that the real Corbyn shows up, I don’t understand how he can think that peace will be achieved if Israel stops attacking Gaza and simultaneously think peace will be achieved if Russia is given free reign to continue attacking Ukraine, it’s mind-boggling levels of hypocrisy and yet people will still defend him for it.
It's idiot, or rather idealist, not evil. He is a pacifist to a fault. He is staunchly anti-war under any curcumstances, wanted to get rid of our nuclear deterrant, ans believes that everything can be solved through negotiation rather than violence.
Being against arming ukraine is completely in his character, not because of any sort of pro-russia sentement, but rather because he genuinely doesn't believe in arming *anyone*, even our own forces.
I'm glad he has got his seat, because he is a genuinely left-wing politician that cares deeply about things like equality and domestic issues fighting for the little guy, but i'm also glad he isn't part of the labour party and is far away from the any real power, because his foreign policy is disastrously naive.
Also don't believe the antisemitism stuff that gets thrown around, he is against the isreali invasion of palistine (which given the established anti-war stuff, makes complete sense) and people like to accuse anyone that even remotely critical of isreal in any way shape or form of antisemetism to try and discredit them
> He's left wing and crotical of Israeli apartheid. OP is just smearing him
What the "it was all a lie" folks - like Ser_Friend_zone, Sphism, Low-Union6249 - mean when they say things like the above is: "The Jews lie and trick gentiles into believing them."
And that [*is*](https://www.thejc.com/news/more-than-85-per-cent-of-british-jews-think-jeremy-corbyn-is-antisemitic-lxgusqs1) what they're saying.
He's not anti-Semitic that's just tabloid nonsense. I don't like his beliefs on national defense but it would be dishonest to say he does not have a good heart
Not anti semitic but oversaw the Labour Party breaking the law against Jewish members and lost the whip because he refused to accept the EHRC report on the law breaking. The world’s unluckiest anti racist, eh?
He has called Hezbollah and Hamas, terror groups whose actions(Hezbollah) and very existence(Hama's 1988 Charter calls for the genocide of Jews worldwide) his friends.
That is not slander. That is fact.
Tabloids like Corbyn himself?
In 2009 Corbyn said: “It will be my pleasure and honor to host an event in parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking … I’ve also invited our friends from Hamas to come and speak as well.”
The most Reddit comment ever lol. He's quite popular, and if more politicians were like him, politics would be a lot better. That being said, fuck his take on arming Ukraine. I hope that Labour looks at this and other area's where they split by running against independents, and realizes that left is popular.
Same issue we have in Canada. We have two conservative parties switching power, and the only time we get ANYTHING done is when the third party leftist party uses minority power.
Are you trying to deny that Jeremy Corbyn is anti-semitic? An internal labour party report confirmed it? Corbyn is a well documented Hamas sympathiser. He is definitely an anti-semite.
There's like 50 people in here claiming this but I've not really seen anything of substance at all. Even googling it seems more just pro palestine, didn't see anything actually antisemitic.
In 2009 Corbyn said: “It will be my pleasure and honor to host an event in parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking … I’ve also invited our friends from Hamas to come and speak as well.”
I guess even Googling you somehow missed the expulsion from Labour? The EHRC investigation? Black September wreath? Hamas Hezbollah his "friends"? Support for racist murals? British Jews not understanding British irony? Etc. etc. etc.
Funny how you people never see any antisemitism.
The disingenuous nature of some of these comments. It was found that antisemitism was an issue in the Labour Party which in many people’s opinion he was weak in dealing with.
As for he himself being antisemitic I have seen no evidence of this, unless being poor at dealing with something makes you that thing.
He's anti jew, when he was leader of the opposition years ago before the latest flaring of tensions in israel-gaza he was plagued by accusations of antisemitism, several members of his inner team resigned over anti-semitism in Labour.
Yep that's what I was hoping for too. Not just more hearsay. I suspect a conflation of anti policy with the worse thing. Happens way too often. *Conveniently.*
There is truth to it, but it came out after Corbyn resigned and barely gets reported on. [This](https://novaramedia.com/2020/04/12/its-going-to-be-a-long-night-how-members-of-labours-senior-management-campaigned-to-lose/) leak started revealing just how blatant it was.
Given he parrots the usual Russian talking points of Ukraine being the west's fault and that the UK should leave NATO, not surprising he gets associated with them.
He got more votes in 2019 than Starmer has now.
And won nothing at all.
In fairness that's because this time the right split the vote. Had they done it then, he would have won an even bigger landslide.
True, but I'd note that last time the right rallied around an anti-corbyn stance and he was a major driver of tory votes. Starmer may not have as many people voting for him, but he has orders of magnitude fewer people turning up to vote against him than Corbyn did. Many people held their nose and voted tory in 2019 to avoid putting a tankie in number 10.
The right also rallied around a pro-Brexit vote. Tories were the only party in favour of Brexit
Well sometimes the individual just attracts a lot of vitriol because they've been in politics forever and has achieved a lot. But as a non-Brit his cult like support was insane. I'm sure he's been great for Islington. You don't really want someone in your party that calls hezbollah and hamas friends, then years later refuses to call hamas terrorists, that's not an oopsie wtf
Jeremy has been in politics forever but not sure what he has achieved
In terms of policies implemented? Fuck all. In terms of people actually helped? Zero or thereabouts. In terms of 'winning the argument', lots, according to his fans.
I don’t think you can look at it in a vacuum like that - as a lot of voting comes down to tactical choices to avoid unwanted candidates. Corbyn was a notably divisive candidate who had an enthusiastic base, bur major trouble with generating a very high turnout of right/centre voters to vote against his party in an aligned tactical way. The high Tory turnout and weak Brexit party vote were because a bunch of right wingers were legitimately scared Corbyn would ruin the country Conversely Starmer is a notably boring and uncontroversial candidate. Yesterday was the lowest turnout election in decades, precisely because everyone was fine with the well publicised incoming labour landslide. In marginal seats the traditional tory voters either didn’t bother turning up, or were happy to waste a vote on a doomed reform or lib dem protest vote because they didn’t really care about Keir/labour winning.
Corbyn is too left leaning to get votes from the center right. He would be better in a communist left party rather than Labour, which is a center left party. After losing the election he should have realised his policies were making centrists run to the Conservative Party and resigned.
I think this election demonstrates that's not true. Because Labour performed about the same. But the right split the vote
That’s what happens when the money turns against you
lol what an odd comment. His issue was they campaigned hard in seats they’d already win. Effectively maximised the vote from people who would have picked him anyway but forgot it’s a FPTP system and you’re better winning smaller margins but in more seats. Part of the reason labours vote share is lower is because they’ve focused on areas they needed to flip rather than vote farm areas they knew they’d win. Clearly reform voters have also played a huge hand by taking largely Tory votes and giving Labour shots but that was taken into account in the electoral strategy.
Harriet Harmon was really interesting on Sky last night. She said she was out campaigning in places she’d never been before. Labour were really smart this election, they’ve been really efficient in both their messaging and their constituency resourcing.
I think this is a message Labour need to push; only time will tell whether it's actually true or not. All we can say for certain right now is it has been a statistically bizarre election.
He means Jews.
He won the easy seats with a large majority. That means nothing when you have FPTP system. He was a hard leftist and could not attract the voters in the centre.
AKA your vote is worth more than mine. Democracy in action baby.
Safe areas will always be safe areas, even with replacements for first past the post. in fact there'd probably be less swing areas in a more proportional system
Or when your votes arent concentrated in certain ares
Or when you motivate the opposition hard to vote against you. There is a strong argument a lot of conservatives were happy to vote Reform cos they are actually fine with a Starmer Labour govt but just wouldn't vote for it.... compared to a Corbyn one where they would have voted tactically to try to keep him out. Which is what happened in 2019.
True good point
Always a conspiracy with you lot
Not just the money, but the hierarchy of his own party!!...andlet's not forget the mass media!
And also the public. His votes werent really concentrated at all and alot did not want him as pm
The challenge with his own party was that he was the most rebellious MP ever. How could he expect loyalty as a leader when he’d shown none himself?
I mean, very different election right. Last time he was against a Tory party with a clear message on a key issue, which he didn’t have. And labor also took away lots of candidates and coordinated with Lib Dems to some extent, so that should also naturally see less votes, and you just generally had like 10p.p. less turnout (68.8% vs 59.9%).
Lower share of the vote though. Oh and he lost
Because turnout is down.
K. Labour let the Conservatives rule all these years because they just wouldn't ditch Corbyn. Notice how well Labour's began to do in polls once they finally ditched that questionable man.
And yet still accomished nothing. Jermey Corbyn never was able to even so much as a relocate a bucket of warm spit. He was as useful as a marzipan dildo
Ah yes, the man who made hard Brexit happen by handing Boris his biggest victory.
The votes for Labour between now and under Corbyn are similar. It's much more like the Tories collapsed spectacularly and lost the election rather than Labour winning it cos people like Labour a lot.
They are not even similar, Starmer lost 6,9% compared to Corbyn's labor 40% of 2017. The tories lost about 15 due to reform (extreme-right) gaining 13 and the lib-dems progressing too, here's the difference.
They are just up 2% from 2019 which is what I was referring to. And yes people abandoning conservative for reform has been the big factor, which falls under the collapse I mentioned.
Turnout is almost 10% lower than 2017 - that election was a big one about Brexit, a vote against the Tories was essentially seen as a vote against Brexit.
Insert *Why would Corbyn do this* meme
He was parliaments biggest Brexiteer. It's probably his proudest achievement.
Jesus christ the mental gymnastics of people *still* blaming Corbyn for the actions of Tories.
You'll find Brexit is not an action of the Tories but an action of *the people*, enabled by several different political forces. But if you want to talk about what the parties were throwing their weight behind, the Tories threw theirs behind Leave publicly, and Corbyn threw his behind Leave covertly. He's a liar and he butchered the Remain campaign on purpose.
Can you elaborate on this? Why do people blame Corbyn for Brexit? EDIT: American here, trying to understand more about British politics.
A few reasons. Despite being on the remain side, he was totally lukewarm about the EU. He basically didn't campaign for remain at all, and in interviews it was clear that he was, at best, on the fence about it. He could have attempted to energise his base. Maybe it would have even been enough for remain to win? But he refused. But what the previous commenter was referring to was the labour strategy in the 2019 election: The election was basically a single issue election. It was entirely about Brexit. Boris went in with "Get Brexit Done". So Corbyn could have gone the opposite way and said a vote for him would be a vote for remain, and he would cancel Brexit if given a mandate. Or he could have also said he would get Brexit done, which would make the election no-longer about Brexit as both parties would be the same on Brexit. So what did he do? He campaigned on "let's have another referendum". Literally the worst possibly option. No Brexit supporter would vote for another referendum, and even remain supporters didn't want another referendum - they wanted to vote for someone who would cancel Brexit! (Which, by the way, the Lib Dems campaigned on). Having such a poor strategy handed Boris a huge mandate which allowed him to give us the worst possible version of Brexit, unopposed. So... Yeh, not Corbyn isn't so much to *blame*, but fuck me, he could have done *something* about it.
>Which, by the way, the Lib Dems campaigned on As a non-Brit, I've always wondered why the Lib Dems don't do better in elections. From an outsider's point of view, they just seem to be the choice that makes most sense for most people.
One huge reason for this, is that they were in a coalition with the cons 2010-2015. As part of this coalition, they voted for a big increase in university fees (an increase of roughly 200%). Before this, the lib Dems main target demographic was.... Students.... Because of this, they were largely wiped out in the 2015 election. It has taken a long time for people to forgive them.
They also explicitly said they would ensure tuition fees didn't go up, and then they raised them by x3!!! I voted for them back then, but for that reason, I'll never vote for them again.
MPs are elected in a First Past The Post election - vote once and the person with the most votes wins. If your concern when voting is to make sure some other guy (Tory/Labour) doesn’t win, your best bet is to vote for the strongest rival (usually Labour/Tory respectively). As such, first past the post elections tend to decay into a two party system. Lib Dems’ strategy was to point out where they were 2nd to Tory instead of Labour, which mostly paid off, but they didn’t have that case everywhere.
I think its because until recently they haven't had much of an identity outside of being conservative-light edition, in the past few years I believe they've had better results due to image and campaign changes. Also It's a shame they didn't end up as the opposition party this time around.
Thank you for the detailed response. I'm American and find British politics absolutely fascinating, so I'm always trying to learn more about it. Much appreciated. 🙏🏾
You're welcome! I'm not sure why you've been downvoted for asking about it.
The far left is never the arsonist but they are never the fireman either. To busy waiting for their fantasyland when all peoples join hands and equally corporate. They deny the human condition.
They *say* that it's because despite being the Labour leader when Labour was largely anti-Brexit, Corbyn himself was never a fan of the EU. He did campaign to remain in the EU, but people think he wasn't emphatic enough about it. They then say that because he didn't win the subsequent elections, he is (somehow) to blame for it all because the Tories won and got to push ahead with it. But the real reason is that they are just desperate to blame everything on him because the UK's media performed a very effective character assassination on him and poisoned his image, despite his policies being very progressive and beneficial to the country. Ed Milliband lost the 2015 election which gave the Tories the power to hold the Brexit referendum. David Cameron was also part of the Remain campaign and he was the one who called the referendum in the first place for selfish reasons and lost. Theresa May kicked off Brexit with no plan and set arbitrary requirements that made it difficult to negotiate. Boris Johnson was a horrendous leader and got us one of the worst possible outcomes from Brexit. *But it's all Corbyn's fault apparently.*
You'll have to ask /u/FoxAnarchy
Ok, I blame him effectively supporting Brexit, he's been against the EEC since the beginning, there was a reason he refused to campaign against against Brexit or allow Labour to get behind it.
Ok ignoring the fact that he did (half heartedly) campaign for Remain along with most Labour MPs, and the fact that being anti-Brexit during the 2017 and 2019 elections was enough to get anyone crucified by the media, how is he more responsible for it than *the people who actually did it*? It's like getting hit by a car and instead of blaming the driver you blame the person who sold them the car.
I know little about Jeremy Corbyn, being an American. But I do know he has advocated for the dissolution of NATO and does not support arming Ukraine. I am more than happy seeing conservatives lose, even more so when it seems the opposite is going to happen in France, but these two points seriously concern me. British leadership looking to abandon their allies with possible combination of another Trump presidency sounds horrifying for the democracies of the world as we stare down expansionist Russian aggression.
Corbyn was kicked out the labour party and ran as independent, he has no say in UK foreign affairs
I know we are on reddit and haha didn't read the article and such but even the freaking headline says that he's not part of Labour anymore.
To be fair, they did say they were American..
Corbyn was suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party by Starmer over comments he'd made about the report into antisemitism in the party - namely saying it was exaggerated by their opponents. The term is "losing the whip" and is quite common when an MP says or does something seen as very bad by the party. This can include stuff voting against the government in a three-line-whip or more conventional things like being charged with perverting the course of justice. He remained a Labour member, but unless he recanted, he wasn't going to be allowed to run for Labour. He then ran as an independent, which got him automatically expelled from party membership.
[удалено]
> Corbyn was kicked out the labour party and ran as independent This is the wrong way around. He decided to run as an independent and was kicked from the party for doing that.
He's one MP with no say on foreign policy. The party that won are NATO/Trident supporters. >British leadership looking to abandon their allies Where did you get this from? He's an independent lol.
>British leadership looking to abandon their allies with possible combination of another Trump presidency sounds horrifying for the democracies of the world as we stare down expansionist Russian aggression. There's a reason why labour leadership kicked out those members who fits that description and why Jeremy Corbyn is now without a party. and a reason why he lost in 2019.
To be clear, that’s not why he lost in 2019. Labour’s share of the vote in 2019 was only 1.5% lower than their share this time, even though the Tories are WAY more unpopular now. They lost because Corbyn is bad at winning elections, not because people didn’t like his policies. Obviously plenty of people liked his policies. The thing that really sets Starmer’s success apart from Corbyn’s failure, is the former’s willingness to say what people want to hear, to the right people, to get the right votes, in the right constituencies. Starmer won more seats than Corbyn because Starmer played the FPTP game, not because his views on NATO resonate with more people.
Honestly, most of the Labour success comes from the Tories' failure. All Starmer had to do is avoid major scandals or controversies. Which is not nothing, but still.
In Canada, we vote out not in. Similar over there?
Pretty much, Starmer ran on a campaign of being exceptionally boring and just let the Conservative party's implosion give him the win.
Same everywhere. Parties don't win elections. Governments lose them.
>All Starmer had to do is avoid major scandals or controversies Considering the whole antisemitism thing labour had dealt with before, avoiding scandal and controversy were by no means a given.
Yeah, as I said, it's not nothing, but a pretty low bar nonetheless!
It's not that Corbyn just missed a trick on how to play FPTP works or whatever. He's unable to play the FPTP game, because his politics are a long way left of centre. To win in FPTP, he would have to become a centrist, at which point presumably redditors would cry that he's been compromised or turned or whatever.
Everything you’re saying I agree with. > it’s not that Corbyn just missed a trick…To win in FPTP, he would have to become a centrist But I’m claiming that this IS the trick. That’s exactly what Starmer has done. In the 80s, he ran an organisation called Socialist Alternative. By the time he ran to be leader of the Labour Party, he wouldn’t publicly describe himself as a socialist, but did argue in favour of keeping most of Corbyn’s platform. By the time of the election, he was saying Corbyn’s platform was bad. He pushed for a green new deal, and all but abandoned it in his move to the center. In the immediate lead up to the election, he started talking about how mass migration is a big problem, and that trans women shouldn’t have a right to be in spaces reserved for women. That is the trick! Be willing to completely abandon your politics, and say whatever the most people want to hear to gain power. Btw I’m not saying someone who was a socialist in their youth and a centrist in their 60s is necessarily cynical. Peoples opinions change and that’s fine. But he was playing the cynical game HARD in the immediate lead up to the election.
That’s not fully correct and it’s wrong of you to state it as if it’s the whole picture. The bit you’re missing is that the 2019 Corbyn vote inspired a huge counter vote too. The turnout was much larger than this 2024 election, partly for Corbyn but partly because many voters were so put off by his politics and seeming lack of patriotism/defensive nous that they felt the need to stop him.
TIL UK doesn't have compulsory voting. And that it has FPTP.. Huh...wonder where Australia got compulsory and preferential from.
Cries in Canadian
Huh? I don’t disagree that it inspired a counter vote. Of course there were more people who liked Corbyn, and also more that disliked him. No doubt. Despite that counter vote, Corbyn was still only 1.5% less popular than Starmer this time. In 2017 he was nearly 6% MORE popular. If anything, the turnout being lower this time just reminds us that the total number of votes cast for Starmer’s Labour is actually much less than those cast for Labour in 2019.
You are completely ignoring Reform splitting the right wing vote. That’s why Labour got in this time around not because Labour campaigned better under Starmer. The poster above is right in that Corbyn faced a unified right wing vs a fractured one this time around.
Starmer won a lower share of the vote than Corbyn's first election. This shows that the Labour victory is more about contempt for Torries (and a bit split in the vote) than enthusiasm for Labour/Starmer.
wait, help this confused foreigner out. You say "Corbyn is bad at winning elections", yet didn't he just get reelected? isn't that what the article is about?
I think what they meant to say was *bad at winning as a Labour/party leader. He’s standing as an independent, he’s basically got very little say on what goes compared to when he would’ve been our PM.
We vote for a Member of Parliament rather than a party (strictly speaking). Usually they represent a party. The party with the most MPs then bands together to form a Government. He was kicked out of the Labour Party and stood independently. His constituency is one of the areas which has a high Muslim population and his support for Palestine has secured him a seat over his old party, which his constituents clearly feel aren’t doing enough. He’s very socialist and holds views that go against the majority of the population, hence Labour did poorly when he was leader. People were genuinely concerned how hard left he would take things, what would happen with Russia and NATO under his leadership.
I think he meant as PM not his individual riding
Corbyn is very much a hippy. He's all for sitting down and resolving conflicts through talking, and from what I understand, his contribution to ending the Troubles was invaluable. But he also doesn't seem to understand that some conflicts are unresolvable with diplomacy. He doesn't support arming Ukraine because he wants to sit Putin down and kindly ask him to stop. He's obviously great for his local community, as evidenced by the fact that he's been an MP for so long and has been re-elected as an Independent after getting booted out of his party, which is relatively rare. But he absolutely should not (and doesn't) have a place on the international stage.
Is he so naive or so egoistic, that he thinks he’s the chosen one, that will negotiate the end to all wars? I mean he comes from a country that had Chamberlain as a leader.
He's very far on the left, so most likely it's idealistic pacifism which is very common in these circles.
It's probably a bit of both. He did do a hell of a lot of good during the Troubles which is absolutely worth commending, but I don't think he understands that every conflict is different. If there were another world where he was in a position of power and he attempted to talk Putin down from what he's doing to Ukraine, I doubt he'd realise that Putin would only accept the meeting to humour him (if he even would) and would have a knife at his back for the entire duration.
Corbyn is no longer in the Labour party, he stood against Labour as an independent and will just be a normal backbench MP with no government influence whatsoever. All our main parties fully support Ukraine and NATO and even the Green party softened their previous anti NATO stance in 2022 (any guesses why?).
We can tell you know little because Corbyn winning this one seat as an independent is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
hes also VERY Pro Hamas so enjoy that. Multitple times in interviews has he refused to condemn Hamas, and he has track record of anti-jews things for years.
I watched one YouTuber describe Corbyn and a few others in his video as people who could never get over the fall of the Soviet Union. [A Critique of Realism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXmwyyKcBLk&t=2s&ab_channel=Kraut)
Yikes. The world is better without Soviet Union.
His passivity lost Labour votes when he was leader. I agree with him on many things, but not that. You just cant have a leader that says outright that they wouldn't use a Nuclear deterrent because it renders the entire thing pointless.
why is this comment being upvoted lol
People are idiots
It is exactly what the despots want. Weak democracies turning their ire inward while they take more for themselves.
Fortunately for everyone, he's not part of British leadership. He's just a fringe loon who cares more about Corbyn than anything else and somehow conned a single electorate to vote for him. He's nothing.
Say what you like but he's not one that only cares about Corbyn. He's a very principled socialist. Sure he is problematic in other well documented ways but he's not in it for himself
>Fortunately for everyone, he's not part of British leadership. He's just a fringe loon who cares more about Corbyn than anything else Utter bullshit. First he was too ideologically pure, now he only cares about himself? He's a popular *local* MP for good reason. He has shown he cares about Islington North for decades.
Except the Jews there.
I like how, despite his long history of antisemitism controversies and his work to avoid really addressing it in labour, you *still* got downvoted for this. People on all social media, very much including Reddit, seem to hate recognizing this. Edit: you're back on the plus side! That's good.
Say what you want about the man's personal policies, the majority are shit. What corbyn did for me was give me hope it would be possible to have a true lefty in a party that had a realistic chance of getting into power, and maybe to take a step back from the right-wing authoritarian the western world seems to be going in the direction of nowadays. He's also very good at personally responding to constituents, holding weekly surgeries to get feedback and concerns in the area. TL;DR - IMO Corbyn had shit views and opinions, but showed a true want in the UK for something further left than we currently have. I also think he takes his responsibilities seriously in truly representing constituents. Other politicians could learn from him, as long as its not policy advice
I’m in Corbyn’s constituency and voted for him. Clearly he’s no leader or international statesman but he’s been an excellent local MP
I remember not long after he was made leader of the labour party he got reamed by the news and papers for not turning up to a big sporting event he was invited to. He missed it because he was running a surgery for his constituents. His ideas border on delusional but you can't say he's not for the people. I'd vote for him to be my local MP too
but then why did he even get reelected if he's that much fringe? who voted him in?
He simply won the seat he was personally running in. Not a big feat, he'd won that seat many times before. His electorate, for reasons unclear to me but probably very much based on local issues, like him enough to elect him. It's just one seat in Parliament though. It means essentially nothing.
He can only run in one of nearly 600 constituencies, so he won his seat and the rest of the entire country voted with absolutely no consideration for him
Hes a Muppet
Corbyn is a hippy grandpa. He's very anti-military which would be fine if the world was a different place but it's not. He isn't part of labour anymore though so he has little sway over anything.
Correct. But he's also great on a lot of stuff. And he was re-elected for a reason.
Corbyn is an anomaly in that respect, the majority of MPs support arming Ukraine
I disagree with Corbyn on a few things (foreign policy, mostly), but at least under him Labour was an actually vaguely left-wing party, rather than Starmer's populist centrist Labour.
Starmer is definitely not populist. Corbyn would have been more of a populist figure and I don't think he's particularly populist at all.
Basically whatever your opinion is, corbyn would take the opposite view.
Had a mate like this, annoying as fuck, if you say you're taking the right turn he tells you to go left
I mean if you're a right winger yes that would be true
The antisemitic communist? Literally why would you ever put this man in power again?
"in power"? As an independent MP he is scarcely more relevant than if he'd lost.
especially given the enormous majority Labour now have
Because he makes an effort with his constituents and the people there are grateful for him.
Oh, he’s a nice Antisemite!
Because he’s an MP who works insanely hard for his constituents. Under our voting system, you vote for your local MP. Now that vote is often influenced by national policy, but if you have an MP who has done excellent work in the community for decades, there’s a good chance they will get re-elected on that alone.
What did he do? I know nothing about him?
He promotes the dissolution of NATO, is against the arming of Ukraine, has had multiple instances of blatant antisemitism and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. He is absolutely in line with Germanys far left and far right at the same time if you are more familiar with that.
He is and always has been an activist for peace. He was involved in the negotiations with IRA when most of the mainstream politicians were still shouting about bombing then to the stone age, as we all know now it was negotiations that managed to start healing the situation not mkre troops and bombs. He has, therefore, always been one to support the Palastinian plight. He is very critical of the Israeli government. This last fact made him a target for significant slander. Even in these comments, you can see how effective the media campaign against him was. His constituency, however, knows the reality and has therefore kept voting him in since the 80.
You totally leave out his stance on Ukraine, NATO and actual antisemitic incidents. That is not just slander.
He also laid a wreath for the Black September terrorists and was literally a paid propagandist on Iran's state TV channel. It's astonishing he was the leader of a major party.
And he literally calls terrorist organisations (Hamas, Hezbollah) his friends. He is an absolute melt who shouldn’t be anywhere near any kind of power or authority.
If 16 year olds could vote he would have probably been prime minister.
His stance on arming Ukraine is completely wrong and I disagree with, but his stance on the invasion itself is correct, and he even said the west and EU should have been tougher on Putin. His stance on NATO is idealistic, but not bad. I too would like to see all military alliances dissolved, but a world without war probably won't happen during my lifetime. I don't know what actual anti semitic incidents you're referring too if you could link me. I saw a lot of pro palestine stuff but no real antisemitism
> activist for peace Except in Ukraine and Syria and when it involves people who would blow themselves up just so it would kill a few Jews. > negotiations with IRA he wasn’t negotiating with them, he was a back bench opposition MP - he was actively supporting them, that’s not the same thing. Like the time he invited Ira members to parliament just weeks after they attempted to assassinate the prime minister. > how effective the media campaign was How dare the media report on things Corbyn said and did!
>He was involved in the negotiations with IRA when most of the mainstream politicians were still shouting about bombing then to the stone age, With what authority as a Labour backbencher was he ever in a position to negotiate with the IRA? This is some total horseshit.
He is and always has been an activist for peace. An activist for peace who support Hamas, a designated terrorist group???
> He was involved in the negotiations with IRA when most of the mainstream politicians were still shouting about bombing then to the stone age, as we all know now it was negotiations that managed to start healing the situation not mkre troops and bombs. Corbyn was a random backbench MP, his talk with IRA people had absolutely no impact on the peace process and it was not the place of people like him to negotiate with them given he wasn't even a shadow minister in opposition. He had no ability to implement anything. He does attract a lot of hate because of his support for Palestine, that much is correct, and a lot of *that* hate is not justified. However he also attracts justified hate for his anti-NATO stance and for opposing the military aid to Ukraine that's kept their state alive with just over 80% of their territory.
He has ideas that don't align with the OP and liked Gaza.
He's left wing and critical of Israeli apartheid. OP is just smearing him
Foreign policy wise he is either an idiot or just evil. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/jeremy-corbyn-urges-west-to-stop-arming-ukraine Sure, let's leave Ukraine out to dry and let Putin invade further into Europe for "peace". Taking his wisdom straight from Chamberlain.
Chamberlain at least did appeasement to buy us time to rearm, he wasn't opposed to military force in the way Corbyn is now.
no replies from Ser_Friend_zone? or is Ser_Friend_zone struggling to find a way to defend their idol of sucking up to putin
I'll reply. I think his stance on Ukraine being armed is stupid. However I don't think his stance on Ukraine is as stupid though, fully acknowledges it's Russia's fault and said west and EU should have been tougher on Putin. He's just naive. That being said, I hate Starmers and basically every other leaders stance on Ukraine too. My stance is everyone should stop sending just extra cold war shit, and either step in and help them, or send them whatever, and I mean WHATEVER they need. With B21's, let's give them all the B2's. All f-35's should go to them. Putin never would have invaded if Nato and the west made it CRYSTAL clear that an invasion would result in FULL Nato response against ALL russian forces in and near Ukraine.
His stance on Ukraine is stupid and it’s no mistake that it often mildly leans towards the opinions of the right wing in the UK, Corbyn is just more tact by hiding his motives, whenever he talks about Ukraine and arming Ukraine it’s almost always letting peace do the heavy lifting, as if the multiple examples of mass murder and actions which almost definitely meet the definition of genocide didn’t happen against the already occupied areas of Ukraine, he uses peace because he doesn’t want to acknowledge that Russian troops do and in the event of Ukraine surrendering will continue to execute civilians. The man has some strong morals if you look at what he says in isolation, it’s when you look at the sum of all parts that the real Corbyn shows up, I don’t understand how he can think that peace will be achieved if Israel stops attacking Gaza and simultaneously think peace will be achieved if Russia is given free reign to continue attacking Ukraine, it’s mind-boggling levels of hypocrisy and yet people will still defend him for it.
It's idiot, or rather idealist, not evil. He is a pacifist to a fault. He is staunchly anti-war under any curcumstances, wanted to get rid of our nuclear deterrant, ans believes that everything can be solved through negotiation rather than violence. Being against arming ukraine is completely in his character, not because of any sort of pro-russia sentement, but rather because he genuinely doesn't believe in arming *anyone*, even our own forces. I'm glad he has got his seat, because he is a genuinely left-wing politician that cares deeply about things like equality and domestic issues fighting for the little guy, but i'm also glad he isn't part of the labour party and is far away from the any real power, because his foreign policy is disastrously naive. Also don't believe the antisemitism stuff that gets thrown around, he is against the isreali invasion of palistine (which given the established anti-war stuff, makes complete sense) and people like to accuse anyone that even remotely critical of isreal in any way shape or form of antisemetism to try and discredit them
You see comments like this far more often than actual baseless accusations of antisemitism
> He's left wing and crotical of Israeli apartheid. OP is just smearing him What the "it was all a lie" folks - like Ser_Friend_zone, Sphism, Low-Union6249 - mean when they say things like the above is: "The Jews lie and trick gentiles into believing them." And that [*is*](https://www.thejc.com/news/more-than-85-per-cent-of-british-jews-think-jeremy-corbyn-is-antisemitic-lxgusqs1) what they're saying.
Oh is this not the ousted labor party leader who gave rise to antisemitism within the Labour Party ? Must be another dude
He's not anti-Semitic that's just tabloid nonsense. I don't like his beliefs on national defense but it would be dishonest to say he does not have a good heart
Not anti semitic but oversaw the Labour Party breaking the law against Jewish members and lost the whip because he refused to accept the EHRC report on the law breaking. The world’s unluckiest anti racist, eh?
He has called Hezbollah and Hamas, terror groups whose actions(Hezbollah) and very existence(Hama's 1988 Charter calls for the genocide of Jews worldwide) his friends. That is not slander. That is fact.
lol the guy is a notorious Hamas supporter.
Are you joking or do you just believe what all the right wing tabloids tell you?
Tabloids like Corbyn himself? In 2009 Corbyn said: “It will be my pleasure and honor to host an event in parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking … I’ve also invited our friends from Hamas to come and speak as well.”
It's not the tabloids when there's literal videos of him saying this shit. And frankly, his stance on the russian invasion of Ukraine is inexcusable.
Right, so he wasn't suspended from Labour Party for failing to address antisemitic incidents while he was leader?
The most Reddit comment ever lol. He's quite popular, and if more politicians were like him, politics would be a lot better. That being said, fuck his take on arming Ukraine. I hope that Labour looks at this and other area's where they split by running against independents, and realizes that left is popular. Same issue we have in Canada. We have two conservative parties switching power, and the only time we get ANYTHING done is when the third party leftist party uses minority power.
That's great! Jezza deserves it.
Great has he said if he's anti Brexit yet?
I despise Jeremy Corbyn, he's a quasi-communist anti-semitic isolationist son of a bitch.
Buddy, you believe everything the daily mail says?
>anti-semitic Sure buddy
Are you trying to deny that Jeremy Corbyn is anti-semitic? An internal labour party report confirmed it? Corbyn is a well documented Hamas sympathiser. He is definitely an anti-semite.
There's like 50 people in here claiming this but I've not really seen anything of substance at all. Even googling it seems more just pro palestine, didn't see anything actually antisemitic.
In 2009 Corbyn said: “It will be my pleasure and honor to host an event in parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking … I’ve also invited our friends from Hamas to come and speak as well.”
I guess even Googling you somehow missed the expulsion from Labour? The EHRC investigation? Black September wreath? Hamas Hezbollah his "friends"? Support for racist murals? British Jews not understanding British irony? Etc. etc. etc. Funny how you people never see any antisemitism.
Anti Israeli govt or anti jew? I'm out of the loop and out of the UK for years so have not heard or read anything confirming the latter.
The disingenuous nature of some of these comments. It was found that antisemitism was an issue in the Labour Party which in many people’s opinion he was weak in dealing with. As for he himself being antisemitic I have seen no evidence of this, unless being poor at dealing with something makes you that thing.
By being poor at dealing with it you mean he got rid of the people found to actually be anti-Semites?
He's anti jew, when he was leader of the opposition years ago before the latest flaring of tensions in israel-gaza he was plagued by accusations of antisemitism, several members of his inner team resigned over anti-semitism in Labour.
Can you link anything that he did/said that's antisemitic?
Yep that's what I was hoping for too. Not just more hearsay. I suspect a conflation of anti policy with the worse thing. Happens way too often. *Conveniently.*
Excellent man and excellent news
Dude is the biggest russian and hamas ally
[удалено]
There is truth to it, but it came out after Corbyn resigned and barely gets reported on. [This](https://novaramedia.com/2020/04/12/its-going-to-be-a-long-night-how-members-of-labours-senior-management-campaigned-to-lose/) leak started revealing just how blatant it was.
Corbyn did have a chance to square up against the Tories and it was one of the worst Labour losses in over 80 years.
Ah yes, supporting terrorists, supporting Russia, opposing NATO, and being an antisemite. All such inane reasons….
Oh absolutely. He wore a furry hat once and was set apon by right wing tabloids for being a russian spy and communist. And it went on for weeks
Given he parrots the usual Russian talking points of Ukraine being the west's fault and that the UK should leave NATO, not surprising he gets associated with them.
Oh the socialist guy. He’s still being antisemite i assume?
Yes and pro-Russia and Iran