Beginning to distrust Jeremy Corbyn

Untrue , if there were empty seats why were so many others standing . Just another bit of desperation from the anti Corbyn cult . Do you not think that if he was sitting and then got up to sit on the floor one of the other passengers would have noticed (unless the whole carriage were Corbyn followers . Branson tweeted this bit of made up stuff , he is very anti Corbyn for obvious reasons . This thread will be ended soon , but I am sure someone will start another similar.

The Tories must be loving this: he's the gift that keeps on giving.

Maybe they jumped Anniebach, given the company
Oops indeed.

Sorted, the train was packed at 11am, Corbyn had a seat sbout 11.30, a statement has been released explaining he did have a seat then because passengers had got off the train. Another release - the first stop for the train is 1pm , oops

Definitely a set-up. We shall soon be told that she and her kids are poverty-stricken because of an uncaring state!

A woman claims she too sat with her children on the floor near Corbyn because no seats yet the video clip shows reserved and non reserved seats in the carriage , wonder if she sings about wind and wings

He really is working Cronyism!

So much for 'honest politics'!

Just a stunt...

And snother release, Corbyn supported Abbot not Khan for Landon mayor candidate , explains why he wasn't at the celebration party when Khan won

Oh and ?Momentum claims the film footage of Corbyn walking past empty seats has been tweeked

All a stunt to show up Virgin and push his outdated nationisation agenda. What a berk!

Jeremy corbyn sits on floor of train - YouTube

Don't know if this link will work but the video and media pictures are easy to view.

It is 'possibly' a Drop The Dead Donkey Scenario. Virgin trains are quite right to defend themselves and thus far I am as interested as the media as to his explanation of why he didn't sit in an empty seat.

He was off to a husting and was with 'his team' who filmed the so called incident where Corbyn was spinning for State Ownership.

Wow
and wow

That is the sort of thing that people never forget.

Big row between Corbyn and Virgin trains, seems his claims of sitting on the floor because no seats isn't true , he walked through a carriage with empty seats and this was filmed. After he did his piece to camera from the floor of the train he sat in a seat for two hours for the rest of the journey

I think refusing to stand with the PM on the Brexit campaign was disgraceful

His failure to work with his shadow cabinet then complaining - get behind me.

He is so unwilling to compromise so cannot work in a team

I have cast my vote

1. He couldn't look Mrs. May in the eye when he was getting the usual parliamentary bollocking!
2.Angela Eagle said that when asked for backing and advice from his MP's, he would just smile and look away!
3. Needs to be part of a group (see militant mobs) to survive.
4. Refusing to stand with the then Prime Minister on the Remain Platform - utterly childish.
5. Totally non-supportive of his colleagues unless their politics match his!

He reminds me of that useless Peter Seller's character who conned people into thinking he was clever by doing nothing!

For further reading, try "The Emperors new Clothes"

I agree Beam, I think for me the facts that he needed Shami to pass him notes when he was questioned by the select committee on racism in the Labour Party and he has been protected from direct questioning by reporters shows a man who is so very weak

At the end of the day, irrespective of Corbyn's politics and iffey friends, the man is incapable of leading a major political party which is the cause of this election. The man has little personality and does not want the responsibility of leadership; he slips it on the shoulders of others.
If we were talking about Business, with Parliament being a Company, he would get the sack! He had his trial period and was found inadequate and wanting.

No use my posting on a second Beginning to distrust Corbyn thread, no beginning to distrust for me, I do not trust him

M0nica, do you want to start a Beginning to distrust Jeremy Corbyn, Part 2?

i am baffled that suggesting Corbyn devotees here are involved with momentum causes such strong denials , must be something iffy about this sect

For all the talk of the west and the EU, and I suppose Nato?[I dont know anywhere near enough about all of this so cannot answer the Phillip Hammond question] the west is scared to do anything without the US?

Eloethan, are you thinking at all along any of the same lines as Corbyn in the spectator link I posted?
"jeremy corbyn isnt anti-war, he is just anti-west"

@Maomentum certainly can't be short of material bags

A leading politician who would not support his country's sworn allies is not to be trusted.

That seems to me to be a fairly simple idea though the ramifications are complex.

I agree with Oliver Kamm in doubting Corbyn's ability to get his head round complex ideas. In short, the man's a fool. My dad continues to turn in his grave over the current state of the Labour Party.

Meanwhile I'm amusing myself following @Maomentum on Twitter. It seems to be a parody account taking the piss. Someone has to even though a lot of what's happening seems almost beyond parody.

Russia is, under Putin, 'aggressive and expansionist* without doubt. It's no use simply listing countries with allegiances and military presences to one side or other as if in a game of Risk, that misses the point. And it's clear that none of us are experts on military issues. But what is clear is that Putin (like many quasi dictators before him) is sabre rattling for his own reasons and so far the 'west' has allowed him his way.

The whole Syria débâcle is because Assad is backed by Putin and the west fear to challenge him. Therefore all the chaos, human misery and death being inflicted by Assad on his own people is allowed to continue.

Having read the linked article by Kamm, posted by thatbags in which he describes Russia as "aggressive and expansionist", and NATO "exemplifying the principle of solidarity to accomplish humane and democratic ends", I did a little research.

At the very real risk of being labelled a "communist" by people on this thread, I would point out that it appears to be on record that NATO promised Gorbachev that, in exchange for German re-unification within NATO, NATO would not expand "one inch to the east". In 1999, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined NATO. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania were invited to membership talks in 2002 and joined NATO in 2004. These are countries that either border Russia or are in fairly close proximity to it. Some commentators believe it is understandable that Russia feels threatened by what some believe represents western expansionism. I'm not sure the U.S. would be too keen on Russian military bases surrounding it.

Russia has a military presence in:

Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Syria, Tajakistan, Ukraine and Vietnam - the majority of which border or are relatively close to it.

Contrast that with the US, which has a considerable military presence in many parts of the world, including:

Belgium, Iraq, Canada, Netherlands, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kosovo, Kuwait, South Korea, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Diego Garcia, Brazil, Cuba (Guantanamo Bay), Djibouti, Greece, Spain, UAE, Denmark, Honduras, Portugal, Qatar, Singapore, Turkey and the UK.

A search on the internet reveals that there is opposition in many of these countries to the US military presence.

I am no expert on military issues or on the situation in the Ukraine but I actually think that Hammond is right to be reluctant to be drawn into the Ukraine conflict, which, from what I have read, seems far from clear cut. I think probably Corbyn would be of the same opinion. Hammond's reasononing, however, that "the sacrifice of parts of Ukraine to Moscow would not be important to the UK" is very cynical but probably quite typical. An example of this "what is important to the UK (and never mind anyone else)" approach is the way we forcibly removed the Diego Garcians and dumped them in Mauritius and the Seychelles in order that a US military facility could be based in the Chagos Islands. It was militarily and politically more important to the UK to go along with the US's plans than to protect the right of the islanders to remain in their country of birth.