Coffee House

10 reasons why Corbyn’s critics are the worst people in British politics right now

18 December 2015

3:49 PM

18 December 2015

3:49 PM

This has been a difficult year for me. For I have been compelled to break a pact I made with myself when I was 18 years old and do something I promised I would never do, something which goes against every cell and fibre of my being. I’ve defended a leader of the Labour Party.

I can’t tell you how alien this feels. Imagine if Princess Diana had become press officer for a landmines factory, or if the Pope started moonlighting for Marie Stopes. Now you know how it feels for me to say vaguely nice things about Labour, a party whose paternalism, illiberalism, killjoyism and cretinism have been rubbing me up the wrong way since I was a Trotsky-admiring teen.

But it has to be done. Because right now there’s something far worse in British politics than the Labour leadership, and that’s the critics of the Labour leadership: the Corbynphobes of the Blairite wing of the party and much of the media who spend their every waking hour bleating and tweeting about Corbyn being the most wicked man in Christendom. These are the worst people in British politics. Really. Here are 10 reasons why.

1) They’re anti-democratic

They openly and shamelessly talk about using sub-Shakespearean skulduggery to get shot of Corbyn. They say this will ‘save Labour’, when anyone with a functioning brain can surely see it will do far more to destroy Labour than Corbyn ever could. It corrodes the democratic soul of the party and treats its members as imbeciles whose democratic-but-dumb wishes can apparently be usurped.

2) They’re censorious

All that guff about Corbyn-critical Labour MPs being ‘trolled’ and ‘bullied’, especially following the Commons vote on Syria — please. If you think receiving furious missives from anti-war loudmouths is ‘bullying’, you shouldn’t be in politics; you should be in a nunnery — it’s safe there. Some Corbyn critics want a code of conduct to protect moderate MPs from intemperate bile. That is, they want a controversy-deflecting forcefield between them and the plebs. Man up, you muppets. People’s right to express themselves is infinitely more important than your right to sail through life without ever hearing a cross word.

3) They promote the politics of fear

[Alt-Text]


Corbyn is a threat to national security? This silly secular vicar from Islington who looks like he couldn’t punch his way out of a nursery? Get a grip. The ‘security threat’ slur is a McCarthyite attempt to paint anyone who’s anti-war as dangerous. It’s the use of fear in place of serious argument. ‘Vote Corbyn and people will die!’ Stop it.

4) They use the word ‘electability’

This yellow-bellied word, always on the tip of a Corbynphobe’s tongue, sums up how devoid of principle they are. They’re obsessed with making Labour as smooth and PR-friendly as possible so that it might have a hope in hell of getting back into government. Which speaks both to their contempt for the electorate — whom they snootily imagine will only vote for safe, dull politicians — and to their lack of political vision. They never say what Labour should do when it’s in office; only that it must get there.

5) They’re self-important

I swear to God if I read one more article by a puffed-up hack announcing that he or she has flounced out of Labour because Corbyn’s a rotter… This isn’t all about you, guys, strange as that might seem.

6) They have absolutely no sense of moral proportion

Consider comic actor Robert Webb. He ripped up his Labour membership card when Corbyn appointed public-school Stalinist Seumas Milne as his spin doctor. So Webb stayed in Labour when it was in government and was destroying Iraq and Afghanistan, dismantling civil liberty, strangling free speech and creating 27 new criminal offences a month, but left when a Guardian columnist who says silly things about international affairs was given a top job. What a paragon of political virtue!

7) They are cowards

Coward is a strong word, I know, but how else does one describe people who failed or refused to challenge Corbyn in the open, democratic leadership contest and now try to do him over with media gossip and bitchy leaks? They prefer knives to democracy.

8) They are a little bit McCarthyite

Their effort to make Corbyn leave and denounce the Stop the War Campaign has become really ugly. Okay, so you don’t like Stop the War and what it says. Cool. But Corbyn does. People have different political views! How long before everyone who stands for parliament is asked: ‘Are you now or have you ever been a supporter of Stop the War?’

9) They think it’s bad to have principles

Their chief bugbear with Corbyn is that he sticks to his principles, even the unpopular ones, and even when he gets bad media coverage as a result. Are these people for real? For a decade now, pretty much everyone has complained about over-spun, belief-lite politicians who would sell their granny for a few extra votes. Then along comes a politician who actually believes stuff and we say, ‘Stick him on the stake!’ Bizarre.

10) They’re helping Corbyn

This is the most unforgivable thing: they’re so dumb that they don’t realise it is precisely the soul-zappingly dull Third Way politics that they cherish which has helped to build up Corbyn’s support base. All they have to offer is technocratic, principle-free blather about electability, as if politics were a personality contest, and then they wonder why young people and a large number of Labourites are drawn to Corbyn. Look in a mirror, guys. In the land of the bland, the ever-so-slightly principled politician can become king.

More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.




Show comments
  • EM

    Broadly correct, except that ‘they’ are not a’little bit McCarthyite’. They are whole heartedly Mc Carthyite.

  • Sue Smith

    “Bleating and tweeting”. Priceless. Sheep who are also twits. Who would have thought?

  • P.

    Brendan O’Neill’s diatribe is the biggest load of nonsense I’ve read this year.
    What utter trash.

  • TNL

    I mean there is so much wrong with this
    article it is almost a bit bizarre – especially for someone who purports to not
    want to defend a Labour leader. We can start with noting that many who
    criticize the man don’t see Corbyn as the “most wicked man in Christendom” but
    rather an incompetent leader. But I do think there is good reason to deal with
    each point in turn.

    1. Corbyn was elected by Labour members and Labour “supporters” – people with £3 to spare. To see his election as the actual will of the party is not as clear cut as it might at first seem.

    2. Yes, those in politics should have thicker skins and not belly-ache about people disagreeing with them. But what about the mobs tracking certain Labour MPs in the run-up to them voting on the Syria bombing? Should they have a thick skin about that? And Corbyn himself should heed your advice, as he often seems to be belly-aching about how the media doesn’t like him.

    3. Total mis-representation of the national security threat argument – Corbyn isn’t a strong or violent person, which is precisely the point. He’s the man who supports terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the IRA. He believes we should negotiate with ISIS, a death cult explicitly committed to destroying the West. He is an appeaser who makes Neville Chamberlain look bellicose. So yeah, “vote Corbyn and people will die” is a statement of fact, not a non-argument.

    4. Labour has developed a fetish for PR and for winning elections. After the 1980s that seems fair enough. And so the charge about Corbyn’s lack of electability is fair enough. He’s not going to be Prime Minister, and the longer he stays in power the longer it will be until there is another Labour PM. The point of political parties is to attain power; Labour under Corbyn will not.

    5. No, it isn’t all about them. But it is partly about them. As (former) members of that party and as, on
    occasion, people who have served that party in a number of different capacities.

    6.
    Robert Webb is a comedian; to try to use him as in some way indicative of the Labour party as a whole seems spurious at best. And yes, Labour in power was draconian and, through its foreign policy adventures with the odious President Bush, came with a death toll. But Milne backs a man who make that death tool insignificant compared to the destruction he wrought in his own land; Stalin is a monster, and I struggle to back any leader who would have a Stalinist by their side. It really is the equivalent of an Osborne aide turning around and saying “you know, that Hitler bloke got it right on a number of levels.”

    7. So those who have explicitly stated that they want Corbyn replaced at in some way cowards? Nope.

    8. Straw Man Argument – there is no-one likely to move in the direction of demanding that people who have been part of STW should be denied the right to be in Parliament. There is, however, a lot of things that STW has said that seem repugnant to many. Corbyn doesn’t have to reject them, but he should equally be held accountable for his views if he does not do so. Which is what is happening – that whole democracy thing.

    9. Corbyn believes in stuff, yes.But (1) it is stuff a lot of people find difficult at best – people don’t just want politicians with beliefs but politicians with reasonable beliefs – and (2) he seems to have believed in exactly the same things since 1983. To not see your principles evolve across the course of over three decades is not the sign of a conviction politician but rather the sign of a closed mind.

    10. In the modern world, politics is a personality contest on a number of levels. And Corbyn is not king; he is a failing pretender to the throne that is actually being the Prime Minister.

  • new_number_2

    “I swear to God if I read one more article by a puffed-up hack announcing that he or she has flounced out of Labour”

    I know what you mean. I think Dan Hodges has one more resignation from Labour still left in him unfortunately.

  • David Taylor

    I wrote something similar in Huff Post a few weeks back, watching Corbyn critics from my party really is getting boring!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-taylor/a-tory-for-corbyn-_b_8555636.html

  • llanystumdwy

    It is Blair, Brown, the Millibands, and the other descendants of New Labour who are responsible for the demise of Labour. They are the ones who turned Labour into a bunch of careerist politicians who surrounded themselves with an elite of spin doctors that were completely out of touch with their supporters. They are the ones who after 13 years in office, paid sycophantic homage to the bankers who ruined the country. They are the ones who left us with a housing crisis, a dumbed down educational system, massive debts, and a collapse in manufacturing investment, and they are the ones who left us with a record gap between rich and poor which would have made the Tories blush. I could go on but please, don’t blame Corbyn for the mess the Labour party is in now in. .

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Elections are decided by the least decisive, dimmest members of society.

  • JoRo

    The thing I like the most about this is how you criticise the critics in point 3 for spreading the politics of fear … just after complaining about them criticising the politics of fear in point 2 by telling them to “man up”.

    That and the bit about you pledging yourself to never, ever, not in any circumstance, no matter what defend a leader of the Labour Party when you were 18.

    Good to see you’ve finally grown up.

  • alfredo

    So the latest trope amongst those striving after some scintilla of originality among their chattering chums is to maintain – creasing the brow in a miming of deep thought – that there might be something to be said for Corbyn after all. God help us. Clearly the strain of being reasonably sensible over a protracted period is beginning to take its toll on O’Neill.
    Being a person of unwavering principle is not a virtue if your principles are barmy, inconsistent, ill-thought-out, and immoral, and if you clearly don’t possess the mental equipment for them ever to be otherwise.

  • Jenny Wren

    I’m in new territory too…I read a whole article by this author.

  • kevin foy

    I feel clean after reading that. I can’t help but like Corbyn for the sole reason that just like Donald Trump, he’s annoying so many people.

    • Geo

      I despise everything that Corbyn stands for, but I’m enjoying seeing the Blairites panic and seeing Labour in such disarray. Long-term though it’s unhealthy to have such an incompetent opposition.

  • Comrade Darling

    Like the author I am in new territory here, agreeing with a Spectator commentator. Thanks for this.

  • Mark Williams

    Thanks, Brendan. You’ve articulated what a great many democrats have been thinking.

  • startledcod

    JC is a very bizarre interlude in the history of the Labour Party, the end of his reign will not come about until party works out what it thinks and what it is for.

    DC, however, has been caught out by the old adage that you can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time; it is hard to think of a political leader who has exposed himself so badly over both the EU ‘renegotiation’ and the Heathrow volte face. Two opportunities missed.

  • The_greyhound

    A very amusing spoof.

    I suppose if Mr O’Neill had written about corbyn’s sartorial accomplishment, or lauded his intellectual and educational attainment, it would have been gilding the lily.

    But as it is, it seems to have taken in the usual slack-mouthed lovers of militant and islamo-fascism.

    • nick

      Did you know when that when you ridicule and depict ordinary people as lovers of islamo-fascism you sound like a spoiled child and your argument is completely discredited?

      Your line of attack suggests you have no valid arguments to make.

      The desperation is amusing.

  • juliet solomon

    This is a really good article. Bet the Guardian wouldn’t give it houseroom – or the Statesman – or, indeed, any of the papers claiming to be “left-leaning” . We know JC’s views are not perfect – whose are? but at least he cares about Ordinary People and isn’t obsessed with the rich, or with appearances, like his “colleagues” in New Labour appeared to be. The level of tittle-tattle that has been arrived at is quite mind-blowing; all these commentators and critics should get on with actually trying to improve the world – there’s plenty they could be doing – if they know so much.

  • Jean Andrew

    I’ve never known a government to be so scared as this one..Good

    • Mongo

      yeah the mighty Corbster seems to have them really sh!tting themselves

  • Leon Wolfeson

    Quite.
    Thanks for saying this.

    “They never say what Labour should do when it’s in office; only that it must get there.”

    Exactly. And frankly, Blair’s branding seems to be the toxic one – we’ll see of course in the acid test of the local elections.

  • Kevin

    The word is Corbynophobes, with an O in the middle. I should know, I coined it.

  • Badger

    I’m sure this used to be The Spectator.

    • Leon Wolfeson

      But suddenly you realise it’s talking about you. Cold sweats, eh?

      Good journalism :)

  • mdear

    Does the author have any reasons why Corbyn’s critics are the worst people in British politics that aren’t based on strawmen?

    • sidor

      === based on strawmen ======

      Could you please explain your point in intelligible terms avoiding idiotic internet slang?

      • mdear

        What internet slang would that be, the term that predates widespread use of the internet by fifty years?

        • sidor

          OK, you may drop “internet”. The rest is true, I presume. So, what exactly were you going to say, in rational terms without referring to any form of straw?

          • mdear

            The author isn’t repudiating the arguments made against Corbyn’s leadership, he’s repudiating simplistic caricature’s of those arguments. Well, when he’s not engaging in childish name calling, that is.

            • sidor

              Your problem with expressing yourself unambiguously appears to persist. I don’t think anyone would be able to discriminate between what you call “arguments” and what you call “simplistic caricatures of those arguments” unless you kindly explain the meaning of this sophisticated metaphor.

              • mdear

                That you can’t discriminate between the arguments and the authors misrepresentations of those arguments is interesting, do you perhaps not understand the arguments that have been put forward in opposition of Corbyn’s leadership?

                Since you’ve asked for an example of the author’s dependence on strawmen, under the accusation that moderate Labour MP’s are censorious, when accusing MP’s who publicly spoke out about threats they had received prior to and after the Commons vote on Syria from some of the more vehement members of the hard left of being censorious, the author argues that “People’s right to express themselves is infinitely more important than your right to sail through life without ever hearing a cross word.” Receiving threats and never hearing a cross word are two very different things. By equating them the author is creating a false proposition that the proposed online code of conduct is designed to insulate MP’s from the opinions of members rather than the reality of it’s purpose which is to provide a mechanism to discourage and prevent abusive and threatening behaviour.

                • sidor

                  Thanks for your very informative post.

                  Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any answer to my simple technical question: how can one discriminate between “arguments” and “simplistic caricatures of those arguments”?

                • mdear

                  You’re asking me how can you understand the difference between the arguments that have been made and someone misrepresenting those arguments? That’s a simple matter of paying attention and making the effort to understand the arguments that are being made. I’ve provided a decent enough example of the difference based on a section of this very article in my previous post.

                • sidor

                  So, I understand what you mean as follows: a simplistic caricature is a misrepresentation. That is, what it shows doesn’t really exist. Is this what you say?

                • mdear

                  The arguments the author has set up to refute aren’t the same as the arguments being proposed, no.

                • sidor

                  In simple language it is called lie. Why didn’t you present at least one example of this lie instead of discussing irrelevant straw slang? A good style is a low-redundancy style.

                • mdear

                  You seem that be asking why I used the precise name for the logical fallacy the author is engaging in rather than a broader term? I’d have thouht that the answer to that should be obvious. Straw man isn’t slang. Maybe you don’t understand what it means, but it refers to a specific fallacy that occurs in polemical debate and it is that fallacy that the author has engaged in. If you want an example please refer to my earlier post, if you want further explanation, I imagine that Wikipedia probably has a decent enough article on the straw man fallacy.

                • Mongo

                  seems like wiki is where you copy and paste your explanations from. ‘Strawman’ is one of those terms that people throw out all the time in any kind of online ‘debate’ usually inappropriately without understanding what it actually means.

                  maybe we should make a Godwin’s Law for the word Strawman

                  ‘displaying your own ignorance’ is another gem of a term that never fails to crop up

                • mdear

                  Misuse of a term doesn’t invalidate use.

                  You’ll have to provide examples of where I’ve copied and pasted from wikipedia because otherwise it might look like you’re engaging in an ad hominem attack.

                • Mongo

                  ‘ad hominem’

                  there’s another one! Thanks, I’d forgotten about that one

                • mdear

                  I thought that you might appreciate it.

                • sidor

                  You tried to explain what was eventually found to be a trivial thing in a lengthy complicated ambiguous and generally unintelligible way. My remarks were purely stylistic. Avoid slang as much as possible and reduce the text redundancy.

                • mdear

                  Surely it was only unintelligible to you because you don’t understand the meaning of the term ‘straw man’. Of course, you’ll have to tell me what all this slang I’ve failed to avoid using was because for the life of me I don’t know what you might be referring to other than my use of a well defined term that you don’t know the meaning of. Other than that I’ll be sure to give the stylistic suggestions you have proffered based upon your not understanding a specific term the consideration they deserve.

                • sidor

                  Are you sure you can explain the meaning of that idiotic cliche? We have just noticed that you could express your trivial point in one line without using any straw. Unclear text reflects unclear thinking.

                • mdear

                  I did express my point in one line in my initial comment. The problem was that you didn’t understand the meaning of a term that I used in that comment. Though I have to admit, your attempts to try and deflect blame for your own ignorance on to myself are quite amusing.

                • sidor

                  You didn’t answer: can you explain the meaning of the strawmen cliche you used in the first comment? Yes/no would suffice for the answer.

                • mdear

                  Oh, I thought that was a rhetorical question. You should probably try writing in a less ambiguous and generally unintelligible way. Though to answer your question I can explain the meaning as well as you could, if you’d bother to use Google.

                • sidor

                  If you can, please do it. Thanks in advance. Waiting with interest.

                • mdear

                  To save your fingers from the work of using Google, a Straw Man is an argument that gives the impression of refuting an opponents argument by refuting a different but similar proposition. You’d already know this if you’d made any effort to look up the phrase that you were unfamiliar with.

                • sidor

                  The argument that is intended to produce an impression isn’t an argument: it is called demagoguery. You can find it in the dictionaries. Try to use the existing language instead of contaminating it by unnecessary slang.

                • mdear

                  You’ll notice that I said “A Straw Man is an argument that gives the impression of refuting an opponents argument by refuting a different but similar prproposition” not simply an argument intended to produce an impression and not demagoguery, which is an argumentsthat appeals to prejudices and emotion rather than rationality. Try reading the full sentence before jumping to conclusion as to its meaning and learn the usage of existing language instead of contaminating it with your misconceived personal definitions.

  • FriendlyFire

    What are they to do, Brendan? Ed changed the rules, and the party now is not the one they joined – it is of the unelectable fringe. The Blairites are upset with nowhere to go. They are stuck, trapped by Ed’s idiocy. Shouting at Ed isn’t going to help. So they rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    • Charlie

      Just like the left hand side of the party were stuck in a party that was nothing like the one THEY joined during the Blairite years! Either they put up with it and support their party or leave, if they absolutely can’t bring themselves to do that.

      • FriendlyFire

        True. But at least Blair got the lefties the chance to implement a lite version of their politics. Whereas Corbyn’s full fat version is never going to be implemented so it’s all just theoretical posturing.

  • Muscleguy

    The attacks on Corbyn as so reminiscent of the attacks on the Yes Campaign and the SNP that despite Corbyn being an arch unionist who spurned the hand of friendship the SNP offered him for boilerplate SLAB ‘SNP BAAAAD’ rhetoric I feel sorry for him.

    His metropolitan, unionism is not making him popular here in Scotland or helping the Labour party IN Scotland. In fact there is a detectable Corbyn bounce here: reactionary former Labour voters are switching straight to the Tories, where they probably belonged all along except Tory is toxic here.

  • MickC

    Excellent stuff!

  • osho

    It is not wrong to have principles. But it is stupid not to change your mind when facts change. Corbyn’s brand of politics and econmics has been defeated since 1980, but his position hasn’t changed on anything. He is dim witted.nBeing stupidly rigid is not to be principled.

    • FriendlyFire

      Absolutely. People who find Corbyn’s views “refreshing” and “different” are either a) not old enough to have been a student in the 80s when every lefty pressure group was saying those exact same things, or b) are old enough and were part of those groups and haven’t changed any of their thinking since.

      • MickC

        I am old enough to remember the 70s and the 80s and yes, a lot of this stuff was being said then.

        However, the crony capitalism which has now ensued wasn’t the intended result of the Thatcher years, nor had it resulted in widespread prosperity. A reaction is inevitable.

        • FriendlyFire

          Agreed about crony capitalism – definitely needs sorting out, and leaving the EU will be a good start.

          At the same time I’d say it has still resulted in widespread prosperity relative to the 80s – think of all the things we take for granted that would have been luxuries back then.

          • MickC

            But consumer goods and luxuries bought with massive personal debt, are not prosperity.

            Prosperity surely consists of a due measure of financial security, such as a real and regular income (whether from investment or work), some real wealth (e g home ownership), and probably engagement in a representative political system open to all citizens (in other words, some political power). These are the very things that the crony capitalists seek, and they most certainly recognise prosperity.

            I would therefore suggest that true prosperity has actually decreased, not increased.

            The Indians (us) are being sold beads, in return for the continent of North America! It wasn’t a good deal then, and it certainly isn’t now….

            • FriendlyFire

              OK let me list some of the things that you are taking for granted which were luxuries 40 years ago but are bog-standard for most people in the UK today…

              central heating
              double glazing
              flights to the Med
              a freezer
              high quality supermarket food
              high quality health care (NHS)
              life expectancy of 70 to 80+
              a car, or two, complete with electric windows, ABS, etc.
              computer
              smartphone
              access to investment in stocks and shares
              safe working conditions even in manual jobs
              meals out
              etc
              etc

              So consumer goods and services are part of it, but the progress and wealth includes vastly improved health care, education, recreation, etc. You live a lifestyle your great-grandparents could barely of dreamed of if they’d still been alive 40 years ago.

              • MickC

                All of which are fine things, but are basically due to technological progress. Every generations great grandparents would be astonished by the subsequent progress.

                These things represent improved living standards, which is good. My argument is that they do not represent prosperity, which I believe constitutes the things I set out in my first reply to you….basically a level of true “wealth” which provides some independence. Wealth and the things which provide a comfortable lifestyle are entirely seperate entities.

                The percentage of the population with any real amount of savings is decreasing, as is home ownership. The prosperity of “we, the people” is disappearing; that of the few is increasing…immensely.

                Annoyingly enough, as living standards have improved, political engagement has declined. Some bread, and lots of circuses keep the people happy….

  • Are You Sure

    Corbyn’s supporters seem to think that, just because 250k people voted for him, he is beyond criticism.

    I have news for you, he is not.

    This is a man with ambitions to become PM so it is imperative that we are told about his past and what he truly stands for, not what he would like us to believe.

    • nick

      I don’t think he’s beyond criticism at all.

      Why do you feel the need to put words in peoples’ mouths?

      • Are You Sure

        You don’t think he’s beyond criticism but no doubt you reject every form of criticism that’s been aimed at him thus far as a “smear”.

        • nick

          There you go again, telling what I think and what I do.

          This might be a challenge for you, but… do you have any arguments against real opposition viewpoints that you haven’t made up?

          • Are You Sure

            The main criticisms against Corbyn are pretty well known at this point. Why don’t you tell me which of them you don’t think is a “smear”? Which criticisms do you think actually hit the mark?

            • nick

              What makes you think that I think he’s been smeared?
              Are you that determined to guess what I think?

              I don’t think Corbyn’s Prime Ministerial, I don’t think he has a wide enough appeal with the wider public. That doesn’t mean I don’t think he’s precisely the right man for the job at the right time, and infinitely preferable to the other leadership candidates.

              100 days down, 4 years to go. I think people are so pre-occupied with hammering Corbyn and caricaturing his supporters that they’ve forgotten exactly how much can happen in four years. Get some perspective.

              • Are You Sure

                I agree that he is not Prime Ministerial but I was really talking about the more fundamental issues.

                That he supported the IRA openly for years, yet now lies about his support.

                By extension that he supports the Irish Republicans claims that Northern Ireland to become part of the Irish Republic, against the wishes of the majority of Northern Irelanders.

                That he supported islamist terrorist organisations openly for years, yet now lies about this support.

                That he supports Argentina’s claims to the Falkland Islands, notwithstanding that this is against the democratic wishes of the Islanders themselves.

                That he has openly supported holocaust deniers and other assorted antisemites, calling them his friends.

                That he would value the human rights of terrorists over those of the British people if he were PM.

                That he would not act in the interests of the British people on the world stage.

                That he knowingly allows his supporters and advisers to threaten and harrass Labour MPs that do not toe the Corbynite line.

                That his supporters portray him as a man of ethics and principles, ignoring the fact that he walked out on his wife and child because of the school his wife chose for their child.

                Etc etc etc…

                • nick

                  Disappointingly you’ve typed several lies there. You’ll deny it, but I’ll take one little example to demonstrate your dishonesty…

                  “he has openly supported holocaust deniers”

                  Please provide evidence of this.

                  If you can’t, I’ll have to assume the whole of your post was flailing, lying nonsense.

                  Good luck :)

                • Are You Sure

                  Thanks for quite eloquently proving my original point.
                  We got there in the end.

                • nick

                  No, you missed my point. If you can’t prove one of your claims, it casts doubts on all your claims.

                  That’s the nature of rational discussion. Logic: are you familiar with it?

                  Provide evidence for your claim and we can go from there.

                • Are You Sure
                • milford

                  It’s a terrible, terrible thing when somebody thinks six counties in the Northern part of the island of Ireland should be in political union with the rest of the island of Ireland, of which it is an integral part. Such an awful man! Stop him!

                • Are You Sure

                  It’s terrible when the vast majority of peaceful people are terrorised by a bunch of crooks and racketeers.

                  Agreeing with the republican’s aim is one thing, supporting terrorists is quite another.

                • milford

                  Quite, and there were ‘terrorists’ on both sides. Except one side just had ‘terrorists’ and the other side had terrorists, the police, the armed forces, MI6 Special Branch, the UDA etc etc etc

  • Robert Jones

    I’m not one of Brendan O’Neill’s hugest admirers – he can lose me entirely when he gets down to specifics – but in this he has it entirely right. New Labour was loathsome, and all Corbyn’s critics want is a return to it. The latest of them, Peter Hayman, has a screed the length of a Georgic in The Observer today: he speaks of the disaster which was Iraq, while lacking all understanding of how a Blair government was always likely to fall into such a trap. I begin to think the most salient characteristic of New Labour and the Blairite rump is that they have no logic, no conception of cause and effect – and really, just aren’t very bright. Blandness, and beige-boring stupidity: how we yearn for them!

  • Matthew Kynaston

    We (The British) made loads of mistakes in Ireland. We were inhumane and oppressive, like in every other colony we’ve raped and pillaged. It is humanist to recognise that, NOT “anti-British”. He fought for freedoms in the past, he fights for freedoms now. JC for PM!

    • Are You Sure

      Funny then that the majority of people in Northern Ireland are Unionists.

  • Ark Ark

    The anti corbynites won’t be happy until they have replaced him with someone as dull as Andy Burnham, a kind of bromide spewing Miliband MK2.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here