But you haven't given many, or any, examples of Corbyn lying. I am not a great fan but do think he is a honourable man who has committed his life to helping the oppressed; despite the obvious vilification that accompanies that.
I don't think I have done much verbal abuse recently; in fact I thought I was restrained.
I certainly don't hate this country; but there are certain elements of it that I do. I have worked hard all my life to try & make it a better palce. However I have reached the stage where I have almost given up on England. If things stay as they are, or likely worsen, we will leave England. I have been to Ireland several times, including Cork. I agree it is a fantastic place.

That is word for word my overall opinion too. I believe he is a decent man and exactly the type of socialist that needs to be on the backbenches keeping Labour honest when they are inhabiting the centre ground. But this country desperately needs a potent opposition and he just doesn't have what it takes to lead. Particularly at this time of unprecedented turmoil where he is torn between his longstanding ideological mistrust of the EU, and what deep down he knows is best for the people he represents. He can't be the effective leader Labour needs because his head must be mush trying to process that conflict.

Well said, sir.

I believe that his intentions, generally are good but, probably because he is so torn, personally, on the issue of Brexit, he is just not leading the party and it will cost them severely when the inevitable election comes around.
Far more effective from the backbench than as leader.
Mind you, with the influence of the Unions in leadership contests, the situation is unlikely to change anytime soon.
Their choices of leader since Blair have been poor.

Yes, the country needs someone to lead them into an illegal war rather than fight for justice, peace, sustainability, workers' rights.....

The dilemma for those that lean left is that seemingly Labour has to adopt a very centre-left position to be able to win enough hearts and minds to have an election victory. Blair in 1997 for example. It appears that for many socialists this is repugnant and Blair is perceived by them as "Tory-lite", a war criminal or both.

That's versus the more traditional left-wing ideals of social justice and all that entails which I believe will struggle to garner enough support to form a majority government. Do people on the left want to be in power and able to affect some change, however diluted. Or do they want to remain firm to their socialist principles and possibly not be elected to enact them. I'm not a Labour voter but I recognise their importance and it pains me to see this almost existentialist conflict about what they are meant to be and what they can pragmatically achieve.

I didn't mention Brexit so I'm off-topic. I'll just say Bercow for Prime Minister and it'll be ok.

Good leaders are not always right but, they have the ability to unite and fight for the common good.
Although there is no doubt whatsoever that we should have gone to war, equally, there is no doubt that, if/when the USA ask us again in the future, we will make exactly the same choice.
Such is our need for them to defend us if/when we are in need, the cost of this is that we have to dance and sing when the political music starts.

Blair understood that, you can have all the ideals and principles that you want but, if you dont hold the reigns, you cannot actually drive the stagecoach.
Yes, he had to sacrifice certain principals but, at least once in power, he was able to improve the lives of millions of UK residents.
This cant be done whilst looking on from the sidelines.

I must have missed the improvements made by Labour under Blurgh and Brown...

That won't come as a surprise to anyone.

Because there weren't any.