Corbyn a man of principle ?

Yggdrasil, name the shadow cabinet members who helped the media with smears

Why should decent politicians give over the Party to Corbyn and his Coven! If he has principles, surely he should have the courage of his convictions and stand as the communist he surely is. He is using the LP to push a far left agenda. That is not a principled thing to do.

< all those MP's who refused to work in his shadow cabinet have been condemned for standing by their principles>

I don't condemn those who refused to join the shadow cabinet. I am against those who took the jobs and then undermined the leader at every chance. The media doesn't need any help with smears and misreporting, but it isn't going to reject it either.

If you don't like Labour values, go join the libdems or restart the SDLP.

Corbyn lacks imagination, imo. He probably believes his political principles are shared by millions, or hopes to win them round to his way of thinking. But he is of another age. I was so reminded of Michael Foot when listening to him the other day, but without Foot's intelligence.
Socialism is on the back foot in this Age of Fear and Competitiveness - see France.

So his most admired principle seems to be be - he voted against his party hundreds of times because he didn't agree with the labour cabinet , yet all those MP's who refused to work in his shadow cabinet have been condemned for standing by their principles

Politics ARE a religion to a lot of people (these threads are the Church to many). Yes, dd, you are intelligent and rational but most people who vote do so for tribal reasons which they justify by rubbishing the other side.

Yggdrasil, the problem I have with that is, you think it principled to vote against your party hundreds of times which is also voting against your party leader yet on becoming party leader sacking a well respected MP from his post for disagreeing with you once!

He was a man of principle as a back bench MP it seems. He is well liked by his constituents. His voting record confirms he has stood by his belief and principles. I don't suppose he expected to win the first leadership campaign. Being leader means finding consensus, compromise in order to appeal to a wider electorate. Slightly off topic but in addition, I don't find his delivery of those principles effective or persuasive.

I haven't a clue whether Corbyn has principles.He probably does, because he hasn't followed the party line. It was up to the Labour Party itself or his constituency party to kick him out, if they didn't like what he was doing.

My concern is not about his principles, but his incoherent and inconsistent ideology. I don't think he has any plan for the country.

A great many politicians are professional politicians. Their intent is to get a parliamentary post, and work their way up the hierarchy eventually maybe to PM.
In the beginning, they might be good constituency MPs, but they soon learn which way to vote in their party to get on the ladder. The New Labour party under Blair was very little like the traditional Labour party, and Blair got himself despised because of it.
Some MPs let their constituency know how they stand, and then vote on parliament in that respect, no matter how their party changes its stance. This is what is known as 'having principles'.
Now people like that rarely get any office, and we can see what happens when one does. Lots of people can't cope!

norose I must go too as I am meeting up with some of my tribe tomorrow.

Corbyn is a rebel who has constantly voted against his party's whip and therefore should have broken away and formed his own party.
He may have had principles - so much easier to have those on the back benches than as leader, but he has ditched many of them now so, no, he cannot be that principled any more.

?Jalima , of to bed too tired for any more loyalty to gransnet ?

And, in fact, 'loyal supporters' is completely the wrong term to use about a religion!

Believers? Followers? but not supporters

What's all this about "loyal supporters"?
Well, someone mentioned tribal voters on another thread - same thing surely?

And it is a term used constantly in the media.

for his campaign launch in Westminster Jeremy Corbyn had gathered only his most loyal supporters. Several hundred heads nodded approvingly as Going Back to My Roots played through the sound system. These were the true believers in the resurrection from the dead.
(The Guardian)
The decisive factors in Stoke appear to have been residual, tribal Labour loyalty – in spite of the current leadership
(The Guardian - ooh, both in one sentence!)
On the face of it, it does indeed seem like Corbyn has many loyal supporters because of the fact he is so well defended on social media, but when you look deeper, that doesn’t seem to be the case
(The Huff)

Voters in marginal seats loyal to Labour but have doubts about Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister
(The Mirror)

Those that voted for Owen Smith in 2016 unequivocally said their loyalty was with the Labour Party rather than with Jeremy Corbyn - with 95 per cent saying so.
(The Telegraph)

Oh dear, this could get boring, all seems to be on a theme .....

But the media uses the term 'loyal supporters' of both politicians and parties so perhaps we mere mortals can be forgiven for thinking it is a term that has some meaning.

Gramatically you may be correct, but not very mannerly to be so pedantic

daphnedil

No wooden spoon.

Stop making comments, statements if you only want everybody to agree with you.

"What's all this about "loyal supporters"? Political parties are not a football team or a religion. They represent a set of ideas."

What a stupid comment , you are saying there is no such thing as a 'loyal supporter'. I thought you have been telling everybody and his dog how you loyally vote Lib Dem. Read what you post.

Is that your own definition of 'loyal' Daphendill? don't think we need to be word policed on dear old Gransnet

You're being incredibly naive POGS and probably enjoying stirring your wooden spoon. Many people don't vote tribally. No Party's views are 100% in tune with voters (unless the voters are sheep). People's views and priorities change and if it's a genuine choice for some between two parties, the suggestion is that it is better to concentrate opposition by voting for one candidate rather than splitting the vote.

What's all this about "loyal supporters"? Political parties are not a football team or a religion. They represent a set of ideas.

Well put Pogs

Sorry Annibach I don't quite understand your last post

norose, you mean - we know he is allegedly a pacifist but stating he does know if he would sign those very important orders all new PM''s sign?

"Political parties elect the person whom they feel can best represent them in Parliament."

Very true and then their supposed loyal supporters go and vote tactically for another party because they have no faith their parties 'elected person' can win a constituency .

Giving their party the chance to govern is worth less than keeping another party out.

Mad world.

No, I haven't. Sorry you don't understand, but I'm not wasting my time on repeating it.

Daphne, no idea what your post has to do with the question , no one has asked who they should vote for, think you have posted on the wrong thread,