Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Newbury Today Forum _ Random Rants _ Corbyn

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jul 12 2016, 08:12 PM

Shouts a Corbynister outside the NEC meeting as Corbyn leaves. Yep 32 people sat round a table making a decision which affects the whole Country is far more democratic than a referendum involving 40 odd million people!!!!!😂

We need an opposition. This is a disaster.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jul 12 2016, 09:22 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Jul 12 2016, 09:12 PM) *
Shouts a Corbynister outside the NEC meeting as Corbyn leaves. Yep 32 people sat round a table making a decision which affects the whole Country is far more democratic than a referendum involving 40 odd million people!!!!!😂

We need an opposition. This is a disaster.


We also need a GE as May is also an unelected leader. Hopefully the Lib Dems may make a come back as I was never comfortable with them being made a scapegoat for volunteering to help the Country in its hour of need and working with the Tories.

Posted by: x2lls Jul 12 2016, 10:18 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Jul 12 2016, 09:12 PM) *
Shouts a Corbynister outside the NEC meeting as Corbyn leaves. Yep 32 people sat round a table making a decision which affects the whole Country is far more democratic than a referendum involving 40 odd million people!!!!!😂

We need an opposition. This is a disaster.



It is a blessing. With the 'apparent' recession on the way (?,possibly, might be etc etc, scary premonitions), labour ALWAYS leaves us broke. I would love to see what a GE would do to them right now.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 12 2016, 11:00 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Jul 12 2016, 09:12 PM) *
Shouts a Corbynister outside the NEC meeting as Corbyn leaves. Yep 32 people sat round a table making a decision which affects the whole Country is far more democratic than a referendum involving 40 odd million people!!!!!😂

We need an opposition. This is a disaster.

So 32 people decided to let the electorate decide - how undemocractic.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jul 13 2016, 05:09 AM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Jul 13 2016, 12:00 AM) *
So 32 people decided to let the electorate decide - how undemocractic.


That is incorrect. A very small % of Labour voters get to decide. Most of whom seem to be at the far end of the spectrum of the party.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 13 2016, 08:59 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Jul 13 2016, 06:09 AM) *
That is incorrect. A very small % of Labour voters get to decide. Most of whom seem to be at the far end of the spectrum of the party.

No - all Labour voters get to decide - that is the electorate for a Labour leadership contest.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jul 13 2016, 11:21 AM

And you need to remember that those 32 have also changed the rules on membership to avoid another stuffing of the Party with Corbyn supporters at £3 apiece

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 13 2016, 12:26 PM

QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ Jul 13 2016, 12:21 PM) *
And you need to remember that those 32 have also changed the rules on membership to avoid another stuffing of the Party with Corbyn supporters at £3 apiece

And mischievous Tories exploiting the weakness in the system too.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 13 2016, 09:35 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 13 2016, 01:26 PM) *
And mischievous Tories exploiting the weakness in the system too.

It's possible, but I think you should assume good faith until you have good reason not to. I can't speak with any great experience but I believe the great majority of Labour members who, like me, are supporting Corbyn, do so because they support his politics for it's unapologetic social justice, and support Corbyn because of the way he goes about politics. For sure, if you prefer your politics selfish and your politicians shiny then Conservative is always going to be your vote, but there are rather a lot of people who find Corbyn's Labour very attractive.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jul 13 2016, 10:03 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 13 2016, 10:35 PM) *
It's possible, but I think you should assume good faith until you have good reason not to. I can't speak with any great experience but I believe the great majority of Labour members who, like me, are supporting Corbyn, do so because they support his politics for it's unapologetic social justice, and support Corbyn because of the way he goes about politics. For sure, if you prefer your politics selfish and your politicians shiny then Conservative is always going to be your vote, but there are rather a lot of people who find Corbyn's Labour very attractive.


I agree. Though he will never win a GE. And surely that is the point of opposition? Please don't tell me he will. You know in your heart of hearts he won't.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 14 2016, 05:54 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Jul 13 2016, 11:03 PM) *
I agree. Though he will never win a GE. And surely that is the point of opposition? Please don't tell me he will. You know in your heart of hearts he won't.


You never know; if WBC have anything to do with the count, he may very well!

Posted by: blackdog Jul 16 2016, 10:19 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Jul 13 2016, 11:03 PM) *
I agree. Though he will never win a GE. And surely that is the point of opposition? Please don't tell me he will. You know in your heart of hearts he won't.

I don't see that any of the no accounts that are challenging him would do any better at a general election - but Corbyn hasn't been doing so badly at this opposition lark - the government has made a lot of U-turns on his watch.


Posted by: On the edge Jul 17 2016, 05:42 AM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Jul 16 2016, 11:19 PM) *
I don't see that any of the no accounts that are challenging him would do any better at a general election - but Corbyn hasn't been doing so badly at this opposition lark - the government has made a lot of U-turns on his watch.


A pretty astute summary Blackdog!

Posted by: GMR Jul 18 2016, 04:15 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 13 2016, 10:35 PM) *
It's possible, but I think you should assume good faith until you have good reason not to. I can't speak with any great experience but I believe the great majority of Labour members who, like me, are supporting Corbyn, do so because they support his politics for it's unapologetic social justice, and support Corbyn because of the way he goes about politics. For sure, if you prefer your politics selfish and your politicians shiny then Conservative is always going to be your vote, but there are rather a lot of people who find Corbyn's Labour very attractive.


Of course there are a lot of people who find Corbyn's politics attractive; there is not argument there. However, not enough for him to form a government.

The Conservative are always going to be the politics of choice as long as the Labour keep moving left. Blair learnt that lesson and brought them back to the centre and won three elections.


Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 18 2016, 06:17 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 18 2016, 05:15 PM) *
Of course there are a lot of people who find Corbyn's politics attractive; there is not argument there. However, not enough for him to form a government.

The Conservative are always going to be the politics of choice as long as the Labour keep moving left. Blair learnt that lesson and brought them back to the centre and won three elections.

We've had the argument before - I'm not interested in winning elections, I'm interested in perusing social justice, and I'm not going to abandon those principles of social justice just because they're not broadly popular. You're entirely right, Conservatism always has the advantage - it plays to self-interest and a natural deference to authority and the establishment, and the best I can hope for is to challenge that orthodoxy and make the argument that acting equitably and collectively is the moral thing to do even though it means those with the advantage giving up some of what they have.

It's a mistake however to think that power is the only way to affect change, and a mistake too to think that politics is Westminster, because social activism is always available to the powerless and politics starts at home.

Posted by: GMR Jul 18 2016, 06:37 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 18 2016, 07:17 PM) *
We've had the argument before - I'm not interested in winning elections, I'm interested in perusing social justice, and I'm not going to abandon those principles of social justice just because they're not broadly popular. You're entirely right, Conservatism always has the advantage - it plays to self-interest and a natural deference to authority and the establishment, and the best I can hope for is to challenge that orthodoxy and make the argument that acting equitably and collectively is the moral thing to do even though it means those with the advantage giving up some of what they have. It's a mistake however to think that power is the only way to affect change, and a mistake too to think that politics is Westminster, because social activism is always available to the powerless and politics starts at home.





The trouble with your comments is that not even the Labour MPs believe that. The People across the country (who can get Labour into power) don't believe it. Nevertheless, you are entitled to your opinions; as the neo-Nazi's, Lib-Dems etc are entitled to their views (no matter how far they are out of sync with the rest of the country they are).

I also agree that there are other ways to change things; the Poll tax is a good example. But they are few and far between. Putting all that to one side; If Labour MPs don't believe in him, if traditional Labour voters (outside those that have signed up) don't believe in Corbyn then all you've got is your principles, and of course a continuous Tory Government. I am sure the Tory government and other parties (who hope to pick up disenchanted Labour voters) support your principles wholeheartedly. At least there won't be any changes in the near future.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jul 18 2016, 07:37 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 18 2016, 07:37 PM) *
I also agree that there are other ways to change things; the Pole tax is a good example.


I'm a brexiteer but having a separate tax just for the Polish? That's a bit far right wing, even for me!!!!😄

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 18 2016, 07:47 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 18 2016, 07:37 PM) *
The trouble with your comments is that not even the Labour MPs believe that. The People across the country (who can get Labour into power) don't believe it. Nevertheless, you are entitled to your opinions; as the neo-Nazi's, Lib-Dems etc are entitled to their views (no matter how far they are out of sync with the rest of the country they are).

I also agree that there are other ways to change things; the Pole tax is a good example. But they are few and far between. Putting all that to one side; If Labour MPs don't believe in him, if traditional Labour voters (outside those that have signed up) don't believe in Corbyn then all you've got is your principles, and of course a continuous Tory Government. I am sure the Tory government and other parties (who hope to pick up disenchanted Labour voters) support your principles wholeheartedly. At least there won't be any changes in the near future.

The trouble with the Labour MPs, and I suspect a significant minority of the old-guard and party grandees, is that they don't believe in the values which Corbyn has awoken in the majority of the Labour Party membership.

I've heard the argument about a loss of support in the Labour heartlands and I don't accept it. Yes, I accept that Labour has lost support, but I reject the notion that Labour values of social justice are in any way defined by the views of the people who have traditionally benefited from that social justice. Specifically I've heard the argument that Labour, being the party of the working man, should take up whatever opinion that working man would advance, no matter how unjust and objectionable. That argument is bogus - Labour was never the party of the working man - Labour is the party of social justice, and it's in the nature of the thing that the beneficiary of that social justice has oftentimes been the labouring poor, but if "traditional" Labour voters are abandoning Labour then that's a tragedy for social justice but it's no argument to change what Labour's about.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 18 2016, 07:47 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Jul 18 2016, 08:37 PM) *
I'm a brexiteer but having a separate tax just for the Polish? That's a bit far right wing, even for me!!!!😄

laugh.gif

Posted by: GMR Jul 19 2016, 10:06 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 18 2016, 08:47 PM) *
The trouble with the Labour MPs, and I suspect a significant minority of the old-guard and party grandees, is that they don't believe in the values which Corbyn has awoken in the majority of the Labour Party membership.


Well, I can't argue with that. Unfortunately his "values" are minority values.




QUOTE
I've heard the argument about a loss of support in the Labour heartlands and I don't accept it. Yes, I accept that Labour has lost support, but I reject the notion that Labour values of social justice are in any way defined by the views of the people who have traditionally benefited from that social justice. Specifically I've heard the argument that Labour, being the party of the working man, should take up whatever opinion that working man would advance, no matter how unjust and objectionable. That argument is bogus - Labour was never the party of the working man - Labour is the party of social justice, and it's in the nature of the thing that the beneficiary of that social justice has oftentimes been the labouring poor, but if "traditional" Labour voters are abandoning Labour then that's a tragedy for social justice but it's no argument to change what Labour's about.


Social justice means different things to different people. You could argue that the Tories and mostly all parties believe in social justice. But saying that, parties must adapt to the future otherwise they will die. Look at the Tory history; they changed and adapted to modern society. What Labour wants (under Corbyn) is to take the party back to days gone-by. Corbyn's politics were annihilated in the 70s/ 80s. Remember the "longest suicide note in history"? He wants to bring that back. A good example of this was/ is the Trident option. It helped destroy them then, and it is destroying them now (Corbyn lost by 117 votes). Values are ok, but they have to be meaningful and achievable (especially in government). The BNP have values; you can argue everybody has values. But you can only achieve those values by being in Government, otherwise you are just heckling from the outside, watching the world go by. I agree we need to change the world, but that can only be achieved through Government or mass revolt (and Corbyn hasn't got mass revolt; only his party is revolting, and that is against him).


Posted by: blackdog Jul 19 2016, 10:19 AM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 19 2016, 11:06 AM) *
Well, I can't argue with that. Unfortunately his "values" are minority values.


Not in the Labour party, which will re-elect him in September.

British politics needs an alternative to Thatcherism - at the moment Corbyn, SNP and the Greens are it.

Perhaps Labour will be unable to win power with these policies, but they were unable to win power with New Labour Thatcherism even after an unpopular coalition. Would Eagle or Smith win the next election? I doubt it. Would they do better than Corbyn? We can never know, but I doubt it.


Posted by: GMR Jul 19 2016, 01:37 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Jul 19 2016, 11:19 AM) *
Not in the Labour party, which will re-elect him in September.


But which part of the Labour party? And I am sure that many people outside the Labour party will also hope that he is elected in September.

QUOTE
British politics needs an alternative to Thatcherism - at the moment Corbyn, SNP and the Greens are it.


Maybe they should join forces and create a new party.

QUOTE
Perhaps Labour will be unable to win power with these policies, but they were unable to win power with New Labour Thatcherism even after an unpopular coalition. Would Eagle or Smith win the next election? I doubt it. Would they do better than Corbyn? We can never know, but I doubt it.


I think first they must win back Scotland and the North of England to have a chance. But that has to be with a new leader.


Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 19 2016, 02:28 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 19 2016, 02:37 PM) *
I think first they must win back Scotland and the North of England to have a chance. But that has to be with a new leader.

Why the need to "win" anything? Scotland elected the SNP with a near total whitewash, and as far as I can tell the SNP represent Labour values in Scotland perfectly well so the best strategy for me is for Labour to withdraw totally from Scotland and leave it to the Scottish Conservatives to offer an alternative politics. Labour also need to invite the best and brightest of the SNP at westminster onto the Opposition front benches out of respect for the SNP's mandate to govern in Scotland.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 19 2016, 06:18 PM

It isn't just about winning votes. The Blair idea of being more Tory than Tory might have worked for a while, but it's not sustainable. Having three conservative parties (four if you count UKIP) isn't democracy and brings it down to a choice of apples or apples. It also brings us to the managerial, 'free microwave' if you vote for me politics which boils down to the voters choice as being what colour their Ritlin dose should be.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 19 2016, 07:10 PM

I heard now former lLabour Leader contender on the radio explaining how the MPs were actually in touch with public opinion. Apparently it's because like her, they hold very busy constituency surgeries, full of people who are begging them for help to mitigate the cuts. So, no matter what, nothing will stop her helping those people.

Indeed, very worthy I'm sure, but demonstrates what is wrong. That is, the bulk of the population see local and now national politicians as little more than social workers. Sadly, the politicians (who have actually encouraged this) see this as gathering public opinion.

The Queen gets on a train now and again, a train is public transport, ergo, the Queen is one of the people.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 19 2016, 08:53 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Jul 19 2016, 08:10 PM) *
I heard now former lLabour Leader contender on the radio explaining how the MPs were actually in touch with public opinion. Apparently it's because like her, they hold very busy constituency surgeries, full of people who are begging them for help to mitigate the cuts. So, no matter what, nothing will stop her helping those people.


Perhaps she should go to a meeting of her constituency party - who are considering deselecting her.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 19 2016, 08:58 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 19 2016, 02:37 PM) *
But which part of the Labour party?


The biggest part - that's how elections work.

I don't think Corbyn will win a general election, I don't think he's a great party leader - but I think his election to lead Labour is the best thinig that has happened in British politics for many years.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jul 19 2016, 09:09 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Jul 19 2016, 09:58 PM) *
The biggest part - that's how elections work.

I don't think Corbyn will win a general election, I don't think he's a great party leader - but I think his election to lead Labour is the best thinig that has happened in British politics for many years.


He may well now lose. Owen Smith. Ex BBC journalist..... wonder how the BBC will play that. laugh.gif

They'd have organism's (deliberate) if one of their own won the Labour leadership. ohmy.gif

Posted by: On the edge Jul 20 2016, 05:48 AM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Jul 19 2016, 09:53 PM) *
Perhaps she should go to a meeting of her constituency party - who are considering deselecting her.


Quite so! Indeed, the growth in membership also underlines that.

Posted by: GMR Jul 20 2016, 03:28 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 19 2016, 03:28 PM) *
Why the need to "win" anything? Scotland elected the SNP with a near total whitewash, and as far as I can tell the SNP represent Labour values in Scotland perfectly well so the best strategy for me is for Labour to withdraw totally from Scotland and leave it to the Scottish Conservatives to offer an alternative politics. Labour also need to invite the best and brightest of the SNP at westminster onto the Opposition front benches out of respect for the SNP's mandate to govern in Scotland.





For a start Nicola Sturgeon is not Corbyn, nor was Alex Salmond. They were both more articulate than Corbyn. Also their SMPs backed their leader 100%, Corbyn doesn't get that and they also have PR, there isn't that in a general election. And finally the Scottish people deserted Labour for the SNP, while the Scottish Tories took second place. You can see where I am going here?

Another point; Labour doesn't support Scotland leaving the UK.


Posted by: GMR Jul 20 2016, 03:37 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Jul 19 2016, 07:18 PM) *
It isn't just about winning votes. The Blair idea of being more Tory than Tory might have worked for a while, but it's not sustainable. Having three conservative parties (four if you count UKIP) isn't democracy and brings it down to a choice of apples or apples. It also brings us to the managerial, 'free microwave' if you vote for me politics which boils down to the voters choice as being what colour their Ritlin dose should be.


I disagree; you can have three centrist parties (or Tory as you call them). All parties have had to take the centre ground if they want to govern. Now that Labour have turned far-left they've become a minority party. Even in Scotland the SMP have moved to the centre ground. And that is the thoughts of the people (majority centre). But having three "Tory parties" doesn't mean three exact same policies. They can all cut their cloth accordingly.

Blair's ideas failed, not because of "more Tory," but because of the Iraq and most of his policies were just sound bites. And we also must forget that the Tories weren't electable at the time. Blair type Tory politics could have survived if they had a leader who knew what he was doing. The same applies for the actual Tory party. At the end of the day it has always boiled down to apples or apples, the question is, what variety of apples?


Posted by: GMR Jul 20 2016, 03:39 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Jul 19 2016, 09:53 PM) *
Perhaps she should go to a meeting of her constituency party - who are considering deselecting her.





Who is considering deselecting her? According to the last polls I read she has about 85% popularity. I bet politicians would love that, and they are voted for.


Posted by: On the edge Jul 20 2016, 05:46 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 20 2016, 04:37 PM) *
I disagree; you can have three centrist parties (or Tory as you call them). All parties have had to take the centre ground if they want to govern. Now that Labour have turned far-left they've become a minority party. Even in Scotland the SMP have moved to the centre ground. And that is the thoughts of the people (majority centre). But having three "Tory parties" doesn't mean three exact same policies. They can all cut their cloth accordingly.

Blair's ideas failed, not because of "more Tory," but because of the Iraq and most of his policies were just sound bites. And we also must forget that the Tories weren't electable at the time. Blair type Tory politics could have survived if they had a leader who knew what he was doing. The same applies for the actual Tory party. At the end of the day it has always boiled down to apples or apples, the question is, what variety of apples?


For me, that exactly sums up what's wrong with today's politics. It means there is no point in voting. I'm going to get an apple so why am I that concerned what type, particularly if I don't like apples and would rather have a bag of crisps.

What seems to be the biggest problem is the now well outdated segmentation. Labour; seen as the 'workers' party, the Tory's, the establishment. That leaves UKIP which is really Thatcherisim (Cobdenite Liberalisim) or LibDem as the Fabians bringing up the rear. We do need new groupings, big or small government.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 20 2016, 05:50 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 20 2016, 04:39 PM) *
Who is considering deselecting her? According to the last polls I read she has about 85% popularity. I bet politicians would love that, and they are voted for.


Her constituency party; the 'feet on the ground' door knockers in her constituency. Must admit, given their lamentable performance at the General Election and now the referendum what credibility have they got left? Their ability to get an accurate result is as good as WBC!

Posted by: GMR Jul 20 2016, 06:35 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Jul 20 2016, 06:46 PM) *
For me, that exactly sums up what's wrong with today's politics. It means there is no point in voting. I'm going to get an apple so why am I that concerned what type, particularly if I don't like apples and would rather have a bag of crisps.


But that is the thing, there is options. You can vote for extreme left or right. There are plenty of options, but the general public prefer more centrist thinking. So, yes there are bags of crisps on offer (you do have a choice), but, and as you have pointed out, it is about democracy, and most people prefer the centre ground. In other words, most people prefer apples. Isn't that truly democracy, or do you prefer forcing feeding people the crisps (isn't that communism ?).

QUOTE
What seems to be the biggest problem is the now well outdated segmentation. Labour; seen as the 'workers' party, the Tory's, the establishment. That leaves UKIP which is really Thatcherisim (Cobdenite Liberalisim) or LibDem as the Fabians bringing up the rear. We do need new groupings, big or small government.


I agree that we need a new grouping, but that grouping must put their troops on the centre ground to stand any chance of being in Government. And as the Tory being the "establishment"; yes, but that is only because the others have left the centre ground. Blair was wise enough to work that out and that is why he won three terms.


Posted by: GMR Jul 20 2016, 06:35 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Jul 20 2016, 06:50 PM) *
Her constituency party; the 'feet on the ground' door knockers in her constituency. Must admit, given their lamentable performance at the General Election and now the referendum what credibility have they got left? Their ability to get an accurate result is as good as WBC!


I thought we were talking about the Queen here?


Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 20 2016, 07:20 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 20 2016, 04:37 PM) *
Now that Labour have turned far-left...

I've heard it said, but is it true? Corbyn isn't the party of course, but as your assertion is made in the context of a discussion of his leadership it's worth looking at what http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34209478:

QUOTE (Jon Kelly for the BBC)
1. The deficit should be tackled - but not through spending cuts and not to an "arbitrary" deadline. Instead Corbyn would fund its reduction via higher taxes for the rich and a crackdown on tax avoidance and evasion while tackling "corporate welfare" and tax breaks for companies.

2. Britain's railways should be renationalised. He is also opposed to the HS2 rail scheme, saying it would turn northern cities into "dormitories for London businesses".

3. Far more allotments would be good for the UK. He has a plot near his constituency in north London and told the Commons in 2008 that councils and builders "should be doing their best to ensure that every new development includes some allotment space".

4. Talking to militant groups is necessary to win peace in the Middle East. Corbyn faced heavy criticism for using the word "friends" to describe Hamas and Hezbollah. He has responded by saying he had used the term in a "collective way" adding that while he does not agree with either organisation, a peace process means "you have to talk to people with whom you may profoundly disagree".

5. "Quantitative easing for people" could be used to invest in housing, energy, transport and digital projects. Unlike the £375bn issued electronically by the Bank of England between 2009 and 2012 to buy bonds, gilts and other debts, this would be "QE for people instead of banks", Corbyn says. Tax campaigner Richard Murphy argues these plans would stimulate the economy and boost employment. But Shadow Chancellor Chris Leslie attacked the proposal, saying it would lead to higher inflation and interest rates, hurting the poor most.

6. Replacing Trident would be a costly mistake. Corbyn, a long-term CND member, says plans to replace the nuclear missile system should be ditched. He believes the project's £100bn price tag could be better spent "on our national well-being".

7. A National Education Service modelled on the NHS should be established. Under Corbyn, state-funded academies and free schools would be forced to return to local authority control while university tuition fees would be scrapped and replaced with grants. Corbyn would look at ending the charitable status of public schools, although he accepts this would be complicated and might not happen immediately. He reportedly split up with one of his former wives following a disagreement over whether to send their son to a grammar school or a comprehensive. Asked recently if the break-up was over an "an issue of principle", Corbyn told the Guardian newspaper: "I feel very strongly about comprehensive education, yes."

8. Labour should not support air strikes against Islamic State in Syria. Corbyn, who is national chair of the Stop the War Coalition, believes innocent Syrians would suffer and the supply of arms and funds to the Islamic State group should be cut off instead. He opposed military action against the Assad regime in 2013 and was a prominent critic of the invasion of Iraq. His website says he wants to see "illegal wars" replaced with a "foreign policy that prioritises justice and assistance". Asked during a Sky News hustings whether there were any circumstances in which he would deploy UK military forces, Corbyn said: "I'm sure there are some but I can't think of them at the moment."

9. Rent controls should be re-introduced, linking private rents to local earnings, and more council houses should be built. He also believes that council tenants' right to buy their homes should be extended to private sector renters.

10. The Chagos islanders evicted from Diego Garcia should be allowed to return. Some 2,000 people were displaced from the British Indian Ocean territory between 1967 and 1971 to make way for a US air base. Corbyn has been a long-standing supporter of their campaign to go back.

11. The immigration debate has been "quite unpleasant". In an interview with Channel 4 News, Corbyn said the current discourse around the issue "fails to recognise the huge contribution migrants have made to this country". He added: "We should let people into this country who are desperate to get somewhere safe to live".

12. The dispute between the UK and Argentina over the Falkland Islands could be resolved with "some degree of joint administration". In an interview with the BBC in 2013 he said other territorial disputes had been settled in this way, and under such an arrangement the islanders' British nationality could be maintained. He added that during the 1982 Falklands conflict it had been in Margaret Thatcher's interests to "divert attention from her catastrophic economic issues". During the leadership campaign, a Corbyn spokesman said he supported "a long-term negotiated settlement" that took the islanders' views into account.

13. High property prices are leading to the closure of London pubs. In 2013, he said in the Commons that pub companies "make a great deal of money out of selling them" to developers.

14. An arms embargo should be imposed on Israel. Corbyn, who is a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said in August that Palestinian refugees should be given a "right of return". He supported a boycott of goods produced in Israeli settlements and of Israeli universities that engage in arms research.

15. Corbyn is a committed republican, but he would not seek to end the monarchy. He told the New Statesman: "It's not the fight I'm going to fight - it's not the fight I'm interested in."

16. Remaining in the European Union but with changes. Corbyn says he is not content with the EU as it stands, but wants to stay to fight for a "better Europe". He had previously refused to rule out campaigning to leave. He also opposes the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal.

17. Corbyn backs cycling. He does not own a car and declined to share one with the BBC's Chris Mason for an interview, saying: "I cycle all the time. Actually I've got a confession to make, a rather naughty secret - I've got two bikes." He is also a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Cycling.

18. Energy companies should be under public ownership. He says he would be "much happier" with a "regulated, publicly run service delivering energy supplies". He is "totally opposed" to fracking. However, he says deep-mine coal pits in the north of England could be reopened.

19. Ireland should be united. Corbyn has long supported British withdrawal from Northern Ireland and invited Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams to the House of Commons as far back as 1984. He was criticised for observing a minute's silence for eight IRA members killed by the SAS in 1987 and once employed Irish Republican Ronan Bennett as a member of staff at Westminster.

20. A national maximum wage should be introduced to cap the salaries of high earners. He would also introduce a windfall tax on former state assets such as the Royal Bank of Scotland, which he says were privatised too cheaply.

21. Every child should have the chance to learn a musical instrument or act on stage. Corbyn's arts policy also includes directing a greater proportion of funding to local projects, widening access and protecting the BBC.
Image copyright Getty Images

22. Private Finance Initiative deals with the NHS should be ended by using government funds to buy them out. Writing in the Guardian, Corbyn said they were a "mess" that were costing the health service billions.

23. A "serious debate about the powers of Nato" is needed, but Corbyn has said there is not "an appetite as a whole for people to leave". Corbyn has previously supported withdrawal and believes it should have been wound up in 1990 at the same time as the Warsaw Pact. He also said open eastward expansion of Nato would lead the Russian military to conclude that it had "to expand to counteract Nato".

24. The arms trade should be restricted. Corbyn would like to see the "brilliance and skill of those in the arms industry be converted for peaceful purposes".


I suggest if this assemblage of policy thinking is "far-left" then that's only because the middle ground of British politics has drifted so ridiculously rightwards.

And did you see No. 3? Can't help but love this guy. smile.gif

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 20 2016, 07:29 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 20 2016, 08:20 PM) *
I suggest if this assemblage of policy thinking is "far-left" then that's only because the middle ground of British politics has drifted so ridiculously rightwards.

And this is what passes without comment as moderate middle-of-the-road centrist Liberal Democracy - £thousands of public money spent on regalia, uniforms, flag poles, and a mayoral enthronement ceremony while there is not enough public money to pay for respite care for disabled children, public toilets, public libraries, adult mental health services, and public transport for school children.

Posted by: GMR Jul 20 2016, 07:37 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 20 2016, 08:20 PM) *
I've heard it said, but is it true? Corbyn isn't the party of course, but as your assertion is made in the context of a discussion of his leadership it's worth looking at what http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34209478: I suggest if this assemblage of policy thinking is "far-left" then that's only because the middle ground of British politics has drifted so ridiculously rightwards. And did you see No. 3? Can't help but love this guy. smile.gif


So, it is about allotments'?

I don't believe that it has moved far-right, however, anything on the far-left sees anything away from that spot as far-left. However, if you are right, then it is because the people moved in that direction. And without the people, you haven't got anything. And don't you profess to support the people?


Posted by: GMR Jul 20 2016, 07:42 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 20 2016, 08:29 PM) *
And this is what passes without comment as moderate middle-of-the-road centrist Liberal Democracy - £thousands of public money spent on regalia, uniforms, flag poles, and a mayoral enthronement ceremony while there is not enough public money to pay for respite care for disabled children, public toilets, public libraries, adult mental health services, and public transport for school children.





You could look at it a different way. Such regalia attracts people from all over the world (tourists), and from this country. The money that is made on that alone outweighs the money spent on such regalia etc.

"The United Kingdom is the world's 8th biggest tourist destination, with 36.115 million visiting in 2015. US$22.072 billion was spent in the UK by foreign tourists. VisitBritain data shows that the US remains the most-valuable inbound market, with American visitors spending £2.1 billion in 2010." And why do they come? Because of our pomp and ceremony. Removing it could mean that you end up cutting your nose off to spite your face. All this money helps those that you have quoted.


Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 20 2016, 07:43 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 20 2016, 08:37 PM) *
I don't believe that it has moved far-right, however, anything on the far-left sees anything away from that spot as far-left. However, if you are right, then it is because the people moved in that direction. And without the people, you haven't got anything. And don't you profess to support the people?

It was your assertion that Labour is a party of the far-left, so go ahead, make that argument. I've given you the BBC's 24-point distillation of Corbynism so feel free to start from there, or not, it's your argument to make.

Posted by: GMR Jul 20 2016, 07:59 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 20 2016, 08:43 PM) *
It was your assertion that Labour is a party of the far-left, so go ahead, make that argument. I've given you the BBC's 24-point distillation of Corbynism so feel free to start from there, or not, it's your argument to make.





Wasn't it you that criticised the BBC for being biased in the past? Now it suits you, you use them.

I don't need to make the argument; their own MPs do that quite well. And it isn't my assertion; it is being said up and down the country. However, and saying that I do agree.


Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 20 2016, 08:04 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 20 2016, 08:42 PM) *
You could look at it a different way. Such regalia attracts people from all over the world (tourists), and from this country. The money that is made on that alone outweighs the money spent on such regalia etc.

"The United Kingdom is the world's 8th biggest tourist destination, with 36.115 million visiting in 2015. US$22.072 billion was spent in the UK by foreign tourists. VisitBritain data shows that the US remains the most-valuable inbound market, with American visitors spending £2.1 billion in 2010." And why do they come? Because of our pomp and ceremony. Removing it could mean that you end up cutting your nose off to spite your face. All this money helps those that you have quoted.

Ironically enough the idea that public money should be spent to prop-up an otherwise unsustainable economy is leftist, and my position - that the BID should pay for any promotional pomp that supports Newbury business, is rightist. I trust that none of those thousands of tourists visiting Newbury want to use a public toilet.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 20 2016, 08:05 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 20 2016, 08:59 PM) *
I don't need to make the argument...

Bwaaak bwk bwk bwk... wink.gif

Posted by: On the edge Jul 20 2016, 08:28 PM

If all the parties did maintain a centrist approach, we'd never have had the Thatcher revolution. That essentially ended a period like today, where there was little real difference between the parties. Ironically a 'left wing' centre. Now, as there are growing numbers who see that state intervention in housing, public ownership of natural monopoly, the retention of an inclusive free at point of delivery health system etc, the call for change is growing ever stronger. It will need another catalyst to shake us out of our complacency; last time it was the greed and callousness of just a few Trades Union Leaders, substitute them for Business Leaders in a couple of years and the polarity of the centre will be changed alright.

Posted by: GMR Jul 21 2016, 08:23 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 20 2016, 09:05 PM) *
Bwaaak bwk bwk bwk... wink.gif





I said I didn't need to make a case because it has already been made. Made by Labour MPs and others.


Posted by: GMR Jul 21 2016, 08:34 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Jul 20 2016, 09:28 PM) *
If all the parties did maintain a centrist approach, we'd never have had the Thatcher revolution. That essentially ended a period like today, where there was little real difference between the parties.


Of course we would have had Thatcher. Circumstances created her. When she came to power she was centrist (or played the centrist game to appease the "wets"). At the same time we were know as the "sick man of Europe". Labour was tearing themselves apart (as they are doing now) and this gave Thatcher her chance to start her changes. Remember; it took Thatcher three years to get the right people in Government (her people). Before that she had to put up with the "wets".

QUOTE
Ironically a 'left wing' centre. Now, as there are growing numbers who see that state intervention in housing, public ownership of natural monopoly, the retention of an inclusive free at point of delivery health system etc, the call for change is growing ever stronger. It will need another catalyst to shake us out of our complacency; last time it was the greed and callousness of just a few Trades Union Leaders, substitute them for Business Leaders in a couple of years and the polarity of the centre will be changed alright.


I agree that we need a catalyst to change things, but that change isn't here at the moment, and if it does come it will probably come when one party (properly Labour) moves too far to the left (making them redundant), which will give opportunity to the other party (probably Tory again) to implement those changes.

The only time we've had another party - other than the Tory's - that made a difference was Attlee's Labour party. The Tories wanted more of the same (the status quo) and this let Attlee in. The trouble is the Tory's have always been fast learners and encroached on their territory and replaced Labour in 1951 (after six years of Labour rule) and removed ration books, built mre houses and continued with the National Health service etc.


Posted by: GMR Jul 21 2016, 08:35 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 20 2016, 09:04 PM) *
Ironically enough the idea that public money should be spent to prop-up an otherwise unsustainable economy is leftist, and my position - that the BID should pay for any promotional pomp that supports Newbury business, is rightist. I trust that none of those thousands of tourists visiting Newbury want to use a public toilet.





Didn't they reverse the decision on public toilet closures?


Posted by: On the edge Jul 21 2016, 08:58 AM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 21 2016, 09:34 AM) *
Of course we would have had Thatcher. Circumstances created her. When she came to power she was centrist (or played the centrist game to appease the "wets"). At the same time we were know as the "sick man of Europe". Labour was tearing themselves apart (as they are doing now) and this gave Thatcher her chance to start her changes. Remember; it took Thatcher three years to get the right people in Government (her people). Before that she had to put up with the "wets".



I agree that we need a catalyst to change things, but that change isn't here at the moment, and if it does come it will probably come when one party (properly Labour) moves too far to the left (making them redundant), which will give opportunity to the other party (probably Tory again) to implement those changes.

The only time we've had another party - other than the Tory's - that made a difference was Attlee's Labour party. The Tories wanted more of the same (the status quo) and this let Attlee in. The trouble is the Tory's have always been fast learners and encroached on their territory and replaced Labour in 1951 (after six years of Labour rule) and removed ration books, built mre houses and continued with the National Health service etc.


Go back further, the 1906 Liberal government was another massive sea change. However, these changes no matter how beneficial can only happen if there are real differences between political parties. In all of these examples, party policies were significantly different thus enabling the change. Ironically, we've tended to decline and stagnate when they are the same; the 'consensus' politics of the 60s and 70s, the national governments in the 1930s. That's why Labour really does need to be different.

Posted by: GMR Jul 21 2016, 11:32 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Jul 21 2016, 09:58 AM) *
Go back further, the 1906 Liberal government was another massive sea change. However, these changes no matter how beneficial can only happen if there are real differences between political parties. In all of these examples, party policies were significantly different thus enabling the change. Ironically, we've tended to decline and stagnate when they are the same; the 'consensus' politics of the 60s and 70s, the national governments in the 1930s. That's why Labour really does need to be different.





I totally agree with you here; the only way that we can get change is if parties are fundamentally different. However, and saying that, in all those examples there was a real call for change in society (1906, 1945 & 1979). When there was fundamental differences one party (normally Labour) ended up trying to destroy itself. But is there real call for change now? I am not so sure.


Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 21 2016, 02:20 PM

I thought we had a comparatively good government when we had the coalition, but we couldn't directly vote for it. I think we have to analyse democracy and how it can best implemented. All winning national parties and referendum decisions are achieved by a minority of the population. The right have an advantage because there are fewer right-wing parties, so fewer split votes.

Posted by: GMR Jul 21 2016, 03:19 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 21 2016, 03:20 PM) *
I thought we had a comparatively good government when we had the coalition, but we couldn't directly vote for it. I think we have to analyse democracy and how it can best implemented. All winning national parties and referendum decisions are achieved by a minority of the population. The right have an advantage because there are fewer right-wing parties, so fewer split votes.





The trouble is democracy is different things to different people. Over analysing you can end up disappearing to the planet Uranus. And who analyses it? The People? The government? Or the minority groups?


Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 21 2016, 04:41 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 21 2016, 04:19 PM) *
The trouble is democracy is different things to different people. Over analysing you can end up disappearing to the planet Uranus. And who analyses it? The People? The government? Or the minority groups?

Who said anything about over analysing anything; as Churchill once said: 'However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results'.

In my view there is something not right when 25% of the electorate can vote for something that has complete control (as in the General Election). Also, over a million more people voted for Brexit than Remain, but the percentage was narrow, yet it is a complete victory. Then we might consider the competence of the electorate; do they even know what they are doing and were they given proper advice?

We should never just stop on a decision; decisions should be constantly challenged. It's how science works and what makes it the most useful tool we have at the moment.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 21 2016, 05:25 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 21 2016, 04:19 PM) *
The trouble is democracy is different things to different people. Over analysing you can end up disappearing to the planet Uranus. And who analyses it? The People? The government? Or the minority groups?


I wouldn't disagree but can understand why some question its validity. That's no bad thing, but so far, the alternatives seem worse. Some liked the Coalition but arguably that simply injected a small minority opinion into the government; all too often with unfortunate results for both parties. Although believing that PR is a better alternative, to my mind the EU demonstrates it has even greater flaws. The 'list' approach used means that in reality it becomes difficult to hold representatives to account and seems to encourage professional self interested politicians. That's not to say there are things wrong with FPTP.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 21 2016, 06:47 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Jul 21 2016, 06:25 PM) *
Some liked the Coalition but arguably that simply injected a small minority opinion into the government

In some instances it moderated some of the more daft policies that the Tory party wished to adopt. Once given relative freedom, it become apparent, they were less competent. I never believed there was a genuine imperative to meet economic equilibrium in such a short time scale.

As for PR and it's derivatives, it seems it is good enough for political party leadership elections, but not good enough for the country at the general elections.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 21 2016, 08:43 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 21 2016, 07:47 PM) *
In some instances it moderated some of the more daft policies that the Tory party wished to adopt. Once given relative freedom, it become apparent, they were less competent. I never believed there was a genuine imperative to meet economic equilibrium in such a short time scale.

As for PR and it's derivatives, it seems it is good enough for political party leadership elections, but not good enough for the country at the general elections.


Yes, it can't be denied that even their presence in Government meant that extreme policies got diluted.

That's a good point about Political leadership elections and certainly opens a very pertinent debate. The first question the Labour Party should consider is what constitutes a member?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jul 21 2016, 09:02 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Jul 21 2016, 09:43 PM) *
Yes, it can't be denied that even their presence in Government meant that extreme policies got diluted.

That's a good point about Political leadership elections and certainly opens a very pertinent debate. The first question the Labour Party should consider is what constitutes a member?


Someone who deselects the incumbent MP!😂

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 21 2016, 09:12 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Jul 21 2016, 09:43 PM) *
Yes, it can't be denied that even their presence in Government meant that extreme policies got diluted.

I think they also took some of the stupidity out of the tory polices; acting as sanity checkers as it were. They might have added some of course.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 22 2016, 05:56 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Jul 21 2016, 10:02 PM) *
Someone who deselects the incumbent MP!😂


What's wrong with that? We elect MP's personally, not their party. So arguably, that's real democracy, the people decide at the next election.


Posted by: GMR Jul 22 2016, 03:17 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 21 2016, 05:41 PM) *
Who said anything about over analysing anything; as Churchill once said: 'However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results'. In my view there is something not right when 25% of the electorate can vote for something that has complete control (as in the General Election). Also, over a million more people voted for Brexit than Remain, but the percentage was narrow, yet it is a complete victory. Then we might consider the competence of the electorate; do they even know what they are doing and were they given proper advice? We should never just stop on a decision; decisions should be constantly challenged. It's how science works and what makes it the most useful tool we have at the moment.


If you are saying it isn't fair then I presume you are talking about PR? The trouble with that system is that smaller parties could get into government or at least in a powerful position. It will give far-right or far-left groups a chance and could make our country unpredictable and unstable. At the moment I would say that first past the post is the best out of a bad bunch.

As for the referendum; we accepted the rules when we went into it. Sturgeon had suggested that unless all the parties of the UK agreed (or voted in) then it wouldn't count. If Cameron wanted to stay then I am surprised he didn't go for it.


Posted by: GMR Jul 22 2016, 03:18 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Jul 21 2016, 09:43 PM) *
Yes, it can't be denied that even their presence in Government meant that extreme policies got diluted. That's a good point about Political leadership elections and certainly opens a very pertinent debate. The first question the Labour Party should consider is what constitutes a member?


I also thought that the coalition was a good one, and I believe Cameron preferred it. May, in charge, seems a more lighter package than Cameron's.


Posted by: On the edge Jul 22 2016, 03:58 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 22 2016, 04:18 PM) *
I also thought that the coalition was a good one, and I believe Cameron preferred it. May, in charge, seems a more lighter package than Cameron's.


I'm sure Cameron did prefer it, he had some perfect scapegoats. Arguably, it was the LibDems who'd not want one again. Mrs May seems very managerial, perhaps we'll see the return of an updated Heathco column in Private Eye!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 22 2016, 05:54 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 22 2016, 04:17 PM) *
If you are saying it isn't fair then I presume you are talking about PR? The trouble with that system is that smaller parties could get into government or at least in a powerful position. It will give far-right or far-left groups a chance and could make our country unpredictable and unstable. At the moment I would say that first past the post is the best out of a bad bunch.

The FPTP system seems to have created a political environment that is the most unstable in many decades, and who would have predicted the outcome of the last general election or referendum?

QUOTE (GMR @ Jul 22 2016, 04:17 PM) *
As for the referendum; we accepted the rules when we went into it. Sturgeon had suggested that unless all the parties of the UK agreed (or voted in) then it wouldn't count. If Cameron wanted to stay then I am surprised he didn't go for it.

I don't remember anyone being asked? Scotland is much smaller than England in population terms, so in my view it wouldn't be right to have given it equal weight.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jul 22 2016, 09:35 PM

Sturgeon? Two bit shortbread muncher trying to run a country who's main revenue stream seems to be a resource that isn't worth pumping up! Bring back the krankeys, do a more convincing job of it.

Posted by: GMR Jul 23 2016, 04:52 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 22 2016, 06:54 PM) *
I don't remember anyone being asked?


Why should you be asked? It is decide by the government. We just got the vote/ referendum.


Posted by: On the edge Jul 23 2016, 06:42 PM

Isn't it about time we did the decent thing for Scotland. Stop Scottish MPs having any input to English decisions and do away with the overt financial subsidy. It would then enable the SNP to focus on the job it's supposed to be doing. Whilst Miss Sturgeons interventions on the national stage might be good theatre, they are as appropriate as dear old Ted Knight declaring Lambeth a nuclear free zone.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jul 23 2016, 07:04 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Jul 23 2016, 07:42 PM) *
Isn't it about time we did the decent thing for Scotland. Stop Scottish MPs having any input to English decisions and do away with the overt financial subsidy. It would then enable the SNP to focus on the job it's supposed to be doing. Whilst Miss Sturgeons interventions on the national stage might be good theatre, they are as appropriate as dear old Ted Knight declaring Lambeth a nuclear free zone.


Perhaps the rest of the UK should have a referendum about whether we want to keep Scotland in the union. We could do Sturgeon a favour.... laugh.gif

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jul 23 2016, 07:23 PM

First the chosen people, then women, not looking too attractive right now.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jul 23 2016, 07:24 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Jul 23 2016, 08:04 PM) *
Perhaps the rest of the UK should have a referendum about whether we want to keep Scotland in the union. We could do Sturgeon a favour.... laugh.gif

See post #64!

Posted by: je suis Charlie Jul 30 2016, 11:24 PM

Just released, Harry Potter and the cursed child. Corbyns autobiography.

Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 23 2016, 07:58 PM

Oh Jezza, you clown!

Posted by: Mr Brown Aug 23 2016, 09:25 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Aug 23 2016, 08:58 PM) *
Oh Jezza, you clown!


Pretty amateur release, but for all that it signed up a real problem. As he walked through the carriage, did you see all those reserved cards sticking out? The bane of my life when I had to use the early trains from Newbury. Branson's response was telling too; book in advance! No, Mr B, why don't you invest in a few more carriages?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 23 2016, 09:43 PM

QUOTE (Mr Brown @ Aug 23 2016, 10:25 PM) *
Pretty amateur release, but for all that it signed up a real problem. As he walked through the carriage, did you see all those reserved cards sticking out? The bane of my life when I had to use the early trains from Newbury. Branson's response was telling too; book in advance! No, Mr B, why don't you invest in a few more carriages?


I sit on plenty of reserved seats. 20% are not occupied! Still massively overcrowded and Corbyn has a point. Just the wrong way to go about it. First off get on a train at 630am Jezza not 11AM. Then you would not get a poxy seat!!!!!

Posted by: je suis Charlie Aug 24 2016, 12:59 AM

He's still a lying manipulate, lefty, liar though.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 24 2016, 06:25 AM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Aug 24 2016, 01:59 AM) *
He's still a lying manipulate, lefty, liar though.

As opposed to Owen Smith then, who has just been on Breakfast TV making it plain his views depend on the weather forecast!

Posted by: je suis Charlie Aug 24 2016, 06:32 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 24 2016, 07:25 AM) *
As opposed to Owen Smith then, who has just been on Breakfast TV making it plain his views depend on the weather forecast!

He's an idiot, wants a second referendum!

Posted by: blackdog Aug 24 2016, 07:00 AM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Aug 24 2016, 01:59 AM) *
He's still a lying manipulate, lefty, liar though.

I guess it depends on whether you favour lying manipulative liars to be from the left or the right.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 24 2016, 07:27 AM

QUOTE (Mr Brown @ Aug 23 2016, 10:25 PM) *
Pretty amateur release, but for all that it signed up a real problem. As he walked through the carriage, did you see all those reserved cards sticking out? The bane of my life when I had to use the early trains from Newbury. Branson's response was telling too; book in advance! No, Mr B, why don't you invest in a few more carriages?

http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2012/virgin-boosting-standard-seats-by-50-per-cent/ and http://www.railmagazine.com/galleries/brand-new-express-trains-on-east-coast-main-line on the East Coast.
Too many people in a tiny country Mr.B. and growing.
Also, adding extra carriages is not as simple as you may think. Not just a simple matter of buying more and adding them.
Of course we could always build new fast train lines as in France and Japan for example?
Oh! Hang on! http://stophs2.org/
If you see reserved seat tickets you can sit in the seat as long as it is not on the reserved part shown on the ticket.
Also, if the seat is not occupied for the reserved part of the journey you may sit in it.
By the way, reserving a seat is FREE!! (Unless you use Trainline!)

Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 24 2016, 08:16 AM

Oh Jeremy, you Sooo funny!

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2016, 08:16 AM

QUOTE
If you see reserved seat tickets you can sit in the seat as long as it is not on the reserved part shown on the ticket.

Err... I don't get that?

Posted by: JeffG Aug 24 2016, 08:18 AM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Aug 24 2016, 07:32 AM) *
He's an idiot, wants a second referendum!

He has a point. As the effects have sunk in, the protest voters who voted out will have realised what a horrendous mistake they made, and would have a chance to change the outcome.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 24 2016, 08:25 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 24 2016, 09:16 AM) *
Err... I don't get that?

OK Andy,

Say the reservation ticket says reserved Westbury to Exeter.
You can sit in the seat for any other part of the journey.
For example, if you were going from Newbury to Westbury you could use it.
If you were travelling beyond Westbury you would have to give up the seat at Westbury to the person who had reserved it.
If they do not turn up you can stay in the seat.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 24 2016, 08:27 AM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Aug 24 2016, 09:18 AM) *
He has a point. As the effects have sunk in, the protest voters who voted out will have realised what a horrendous mistake they made, and would have a chance to change the outcome.

What effects?
We haven't left yet!
It's only two months down the line.
Talk about knee jerk!! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2016, 08:27 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 24 2016, 09:25 AM) *
OK Andy,

Say the reservation ticket says reserved Westbury to Exeter.
You can sit in the seat for any other part of the journey.
For example, if you were going from Newbury to Westbury you could use it.
If you were travelling beyond Westbury you would have to give up the seat at Westbury to the person who had reserved it.
If they do not turn up you can stay in the seat.

Understood; thanks. TBF, on the fast trains, once they pull away, I'll use them anyway if they are unoccupied.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2016, 08:31 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 24 2016, 09:27 AM) *
What effects?
We haven't left yet!
It's only two months down the line.
Talk about knee jerk!! rolleyes.gif

Agreed.

Mind you, bearing in mind no-one knew what would happen, or had any contingency for it, for the sake of democracy it seems sensible to have a second referendum; however, the bullies of Europe have designed the union in such a way that it makes that almost futile.

Posted by: x2lls Aug 24 2016, 09:42 AM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Aug 24 2016, 09:18 AM) *
He has a point. As the effects have sunk in, the protest voters who voted out will have realised what a horrendous mistake they made, and would have a chance to change the outcome.



Tosh!

I voted out and I have NOT changed my mind one iota.
Who exactly are you referring to?

Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 24 2016, 10:38 AM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Aug 24 2016, 09:18 AM) *
He has a point. As the effects have sunk in, the protest voters who voted out will have realised what a horrendous mistake they made, and would have a chance to change the outcome.

A bit like voting Lib Dems then.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2016, 11:10 AM

QUOTE (x2lls @ Aug 24 2016, 10:42 AM) *
Tosh!

I voted out and I have NOT changed my mind one iota.
Who exactly are you referring to?

The section of the electorate who were unsure and the beguiled.

Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 24 2016, 12:06 PM

Recent poll showed 56% of the electorate thought the result should stand against 22% who thought it shouldn't. Way to go Labour, fly in the face of democracy why don't you.

Posted by: JeffG Aug 24 2016, 01:18 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 24 2016, 09:27 AM) *
What effects?
We haven't left yet!
It's only two months down the line.
Talk about knee jerk!! rolleyes.gif

We are already feeling the effects with the collapse of the pound, meaning a larger trade deficit. Add to that, interest rates at a record all-time low, so that savings are pretty much worthless. Hardly knee-jerk!

Posted by: On the edge Aug 24 2016, 03:37 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Aug 24 2016, 02:18 PM) *
We are already feeling the effects with the collapse of the pound, meaning a larger trade deficit. Add to that, interest rates at a record all-time low, so that savings are pretty much worthless. Hardly knee-jerk!


Really?

You must have a very different news feed. Mine suggests we are doing quite well and if there is any panic, it's in Europe, hence the French/German/Italian summit - elections looming and their electorates are far from happy.

What amazes me is that weather vanes like Owen Smith, 'Lord ' Mandelson, and the like still don't get it.

Posted by: JeffG Aug 24 2016, 06:52 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 24 2016, 04:37 PM) *
Really?

You must have a very different news feed. Mine suggests we are doing quite well and if there is any panic, it's in Europe, hence the French/German/Italian summit - elections looming and their electorates are far from happy.

What amazes me is that weather vanes like Owen Smith, 'Lord ' Mandelson, and the like still don't get it.

Are you disputing the facts I quoted? Pound 1.49 on day of referendum just before result announced, today 1.32. Interest rate now 0.25%.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 24 2016, 06:56 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Aug 24 2016, 07:52 PM) *
Are you disputing the facts I quoted? Pound 1.49 on day of referendum just before result announced, today 1.32. Interest rate now 0.25%.


And why is the pound dropping a bad thing? Can you explain? As far as I can see it has positives and negatives. Depends I suppose if you are desperately seeking justifications for all the wailing by the doom mongers of the remain camp.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 24 2016, 07:11 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Aug 24 2016, 07:52 PM) *
Are you disputing the facts I quoted? Pound 1.49 on day of referendum just before result announced, today 1.32. Interest rate now 0.25%.


Not at all, that's the minutia of the stock market which goes up and down down and up on an almost hourly basis. A classic introduction to it gives students a coin to toss and predict rise and falls. Sure, the numbers might be useful, but to the man in the street, they are as useful as the fuel gauge in a car without a speedo.

After all, if the exchange rate and the stock market indicator is such a good measure; pity it didn't show up the financial crisis, or the mess the Euro nations such as Greece, Italy, Spain etc. have got into.

Listen to the business leaders and executives, confidence is still there and growing. Tie into the commercial news feeds from non European trading areas.

Mind, those who think we will never exit Europe may well be right, once the Dutch and French elections start to kick in, there may be no Europe to exit from anyway.


Posted by: JeffG Aug 24 2016, 07:37 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Aug 24 2016, 07:56 PM) *
And why is the pound dropping a bad thing? Can you explain? As far as I can see it has positives and negatives. Depends I suppose if you are desperately seeking justifications for all the wailing by the doom mongers of the remain camp.

We import far more than we export. Therefore on balance a weak pound is not good for the UK economy. Sure, it has benefits for companies who export.

I'm not "desperately seeking justification" for anything. In fact, I personally am more concerned with ridiculously low interest rates than the state of sterling.

That is something I don't understand, though. I'd have thought that the lower interest rates fall, the weaker the pound is going to be, not the other way round.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 24 2016, 08:00 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Aug 24 2016, 08:37 PM) *
We import far more than we export. Therefore on balance a weak pound is not good for the UK economy. Sure, it has benefits for companies who export.

I'm not "desperately seeking justification" for anything. In fact, I personally am more concerned with ridiculously low interest rates than the state of sterling.

That is something I don't understand, though. I'd have thought that the lower interest rates fall, the weaker the pound is going to be, not the other way round.


I'll make a prediction. Within 2 years the pound will be very strong. Especially against the Euro (if it still exists). When Deutsche Bank fails the EU will go into meltdown. Why do you think Merkels telling everyone to stock up. Impending financial calamity.

Posted by: newres Aug 25 2016, 05:00 AM

You're wasting your time JeffG. On here, experts are idiots, a weak currency is a good thing and a stock market fall is just something that happens without a cause.


Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 25 2016, 06:17 AM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Aug 24 2016, 01:06 PM) *
Recent poll showed 56% of the electorate thought the result should stand against 22% who thought it shouldn't. Way to go Labour, fly in the face of democracy why don't you.

Of course the result should stand, but bearing in mind the deceit from both sides, a second election would cement the decision. My view has moved more to Brexit than it originally was since the election BTW; however, I don't have have a substantial pension to protect.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 25 2016, 06:33 AM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 25 2016, 06:00 AM) *
You're wasting your time JeffG. On here, experts are idiots, a weak currency is a good thing and a stock market fall is just something that happens without a cause.


Of course, it depends which experts.....

I'm beginning to see why there is such pressure to restore Grammar schools; where students were trained to question expertise and not simply unquestioningly accept what they are told.

There is always a reason for falls and rises in the stock market. Determining the reason is the question and is, of course, how speculators make money; something beyond the wit of many 'experts'.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 25 2016, 07:01 AM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 25 2016, 06:00 AM) *
You're wasting your time JeffG. On here, experts are idiots, a weak currency is a good thing and a stock market fall is just something that happens without a cause.

Wow! What a surprise. An insult from newres towards those who do not accept their point of view. rolleyes.gif laugh.gif

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 25 2016, 03:32 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Aug 24 2016, 01:06 PM) *
Recent poll showed 56% of the electorate thought the result should stand against 22% who thought it shouldn't. Way to go Labour, fly in the face of democracy why don't you.

Are you saying that the pronouncements of Owen Smith are the same as Labour party policy? In contrast Jeremy Corbyn says that parliament needs to respect the referendum result and move on.

Posted by: GMR Aug 25 2016, 03:41 PM

Even though I have criticised Corbyn I think Own Smith is a chancer and more dangerous. He is deliberately saying he is from the left, just to get Corbyn's votes. If he is from the left then there is no point is replacing Corbyn. He says he believes in democracy but wants to show disrespect to the Referendum. I would rather have somebody in charge of he labour party that has principles than this Own clown; who doesn't stand for anything. However, neither can win a general election.

What Labour needs is not somebody from the left, but a centrist character that has actual policies that can challenge the Government.



Posted by: je suis Charlie Aug 25 2016, 04:40 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 25 2016, 04:32 PM) *
Are you saying that the pronouncements of Owen Smith are the same as Labour party policy? In contrast Jeremy Corbyn says that parliament needs to respect the referendum result and move on.

Monkey see, monkey do.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 25 2016, 07:05 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Aug 25 2016, 04:41 PM) *
Even though I have criticised Corbyn I think Own Smith is a chancer and more dangerous. He is deliberately saying he is from the left, just to get Corbyn's votes. If he is from the left then there is no point is replacing Corbyn. He says he believes in democracy but wants to show disrespect to the Referendum. I would rather have somebody in charge of he labour party that has principles than this Own clown; who doesn't stand for anything. However, neither can win a general election.

What Labour needs is not somebody from the left, but a centrist character that has actual policies that can challenge the Government.

You're asking Labour to occupy the political centre-right, but the LibDems are there and Labour is the party of the Left. Britain has moved so far to the right - were we not already to have a national health service do you think a Blair government would have created one? I don't see that Corbyn's politics is so very left of centre to be honest, but set against Tory policy it's worlds apart. None of that means Labour under Corbyn will necessarily win election but it does at least give people a choice. Social justice has fallen out of favour of late and whether or not Labour deserves to be elected, both nationally and locally, depends entirely on how well Labour activists can articulate that argument.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Aug 26 2016, 11:44 AM

Now It's Jeremy 'two seats' Corbyn.

Posted by: GMR Aug 26 2016, 04:54 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 25 2016, 08:05 PM) *
You're asking Labour to occupy the political centre-right, but the LibDems are there and Labour is the party of the Left. Britain has moved so far to the right - were we not already to have a national health service do you think a Blair government would have created one? I don't see that Corbyn's politics is so very left of centre to be honest, but set against Tory policy it's worlds apart. None of that means Labour under Corbyn will necessarily win election but it does at least give people a choice. Social justice has fallen out of favour of late and whether or not Labour deserves to be elected, both nationally and locally, depends entirely on how well Labour activists can articulate that argument.





If you say we've moved to the right (which I don't agree) then you've got no chance of gaining power. Labour should occupy the centre ground if it has any chance of government.

When you say that "labour activists can articulate" their argument do you mean in their party or the whole country? When you have Labour MPs fighting against Corbyn and refusing to work with him then you know that you have problems. First you need to win the argument and the MPs in Parliament before you can even think of articulating yourself in the country. On top of that you also need to win the North of England (without even mentioning Scotland).

Corbyn's rating is the worst for any leader; past or present. On top of everything else I've said, Mrs May seems to be popular in the country.


Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 26 2016, 06:59 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Aug 26 2016, 05:54 PM) *
If you say we've moved to the right (which I don't agree) then you've got no chance of gaining power. Labour should occupy the centre ground if it has any chance of government.

What, take the most anodyne middle-of-the-road compliant position, because the only thing that matters is power? I'll leave that to the Lib Dems.

QUOTE (GMR @ Aug 26 2016, 05:54 PM) *
When you say that "labour activists can articulate" their argument do you mean in their party or the whole country? When you have Labour MPs fighting against Corbyn and refusing to work with him then you know that you have problems. First you need to win the argument and the MPs in Parliament before you can even think of articulating yourself in the country. On top of that you also need to win the North of England (without even mentioning Scotland).

Yes, the argument needs to be won both within the party and in the wider community.

QUOTE (GMR @ Aug 26 2016, 05:54 PM) *
Corbyn's rating is the worst for any leader; past or present. On top of everything else I've said, Mrs May seems to be popular in the country.

Corbyn has terrible support amongst the population in general, but then social justice is also widely despised. I'm not particularly bothered whether people get turned on to Corbyn or not as I couldn't give a rats **** for a cult of personality, but I do like Corbyn's values and his take on social justice.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 26 2016, 08:47 PM

The late Tony Benn said there were two types of politician, weather vanes who spun in the wind, or prophets. Prophets are usually unpopular with kings and judges but don't turn or spin. As we've just found out 'the real people' have gone off weather vanes....


Posted by: blackdog Aug 27 2016, 10:21 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 26 2016, 07:59 PM) *
Corbyn has terrible support amongst the population in general, but then social justice is also widely despised. I'm not particularly bothered whether people get turned on to Corbyn or not as I couldn't give a rats **** for a cult of personality, but I do like Corbyn's values and his take on social justice.


I like the piece filmed by Giles Brandryth - https://www.facebook.com/PeoplesMomentum/videos/312666175745443/

Corbyn's policies are popular enough - but he isn't.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 27 2016, 12:35 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Aug 27 2016, 11:21 AM) *
I like the piece filmed by Giles Brandryth - https://www.facebook.com/PeoplesMomentum/videos/312666175745443/

Corbyn's policies are popular enough - but he isn't.


Sounds a bit like it was for Mrs T when she was first made leader.

Posted by: JeffG Aug 27 2016, 12:44 PM

Seems odd that Gyles Brandreth who was a Tory MP is apparently supporting Corbyn here.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 27 2016, 01:09 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Aug 27 2016, 01:44 PM) *
Seems odd that Gyles Brandreth who was a Tory MP is apparently supporting Corbyn here.


Again, it just shows how seriously worried central Office is about a real socialist opposition. Brandreth was actually sending a message back to his own supporters showing the level of support there is for these policies; meaning they, the Tories, have got to put a good few things right before next election.

People are getting increasingly angry with the Government ripping the guts out of local spending whilst letting waste continue elsewhere, the continued abject failure to do anything at all about the likes of Philip Green and his mates, the continued excuses and get outs for the lamentable and yet expensive service provision by the railway firms, telecom providers etc. The Conservatives desperately want an opposition lead by Blair's legatees, people who can draw the fire, but will continue with the same policies.

Posted by: blackdog Aug 27 2016, 01:09 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Aug 27 2016, 01:44 PM) *
Seems odd that Gyles Brandreth who was a Tory MP is apparently supporting Corbyn here.

He's a broadcaster/celebrity these days.

What he's done is pick holes in the idea that people support a party for it's specific policies. He could probably go to a safe Labour seat and get folk to support a selection of Theresa May's policies.

The majority vote according to long held prejudices not short term policies.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 27 2016, 01:14 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Aug 27 2016, 02:09 PM) *
He's a broadcaster/celebrity these days.

What he's done is pick holes in the idea that people support a party for it's specific policies. He could probably go to a safe Labour seat and get folk to support a selection of Theresa May's policies.

The majority vote according to long held prejudices not short term policies.


He'd be better off as. LibDem then!

Posted by: Blake Aug 28 2016, 12:43 PM

Corbyn is a covert Marxist...only some may say less covert.

He is useful in as much he will plunge Socialism back to below the days of Foot and Tony Benn.

As my American friends say "I'll keep my money and my freedom.....you can keep the change."

Posted by: On the edge Aug 28 2016, 01:29 PM

QUOTE (Blake @ Aug 28 2016, 01:43 PM) *
..........As my American friends say "I'll keep my money and my freedom.....you can keep the change."


Quite appropriate for the forthcoming 100th anniversary of the old saying 'the only charge the American's made in the War was the interest for the loans they made'. With friends like that etc laugh.gif

Posted by: JeffG Aug 28 2016, 01:57 PM

QUOTE (Blake @ Aug 28 2016, 01:43 PM) *
Corbyn is a covert Marxist...only some may say less covert.

He is useful in as much he will plunge Socialism back to below the days of Foot and Tony Benn.

As my American friends say "I'll keep my money and my freedom.....you can keep the change."

To put this into perspective: The thought of Corbyn in control worries me, but the thought of the American Right in control (Trump, the NRA etc.) frightens me.

The first is never going to happen, the second just might.

Posted by: GMR Aug 28 2016, 04:29 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 26 2016, 07:59 PM) *
What, take the most anodyne middle-of-the-road compliant position, because the only thing that matters is power?


That is how you see things; because you are from the left.


Posted by: GMR Aug 28 2016, 04:31 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 26 2016, 09:47 PM) *
The late Tony Benn said there were two types of politician, weather vanes who spun in the wind, or prophets. Prophets are usually unpopular with kings and judges but don't turn or spin. As we've just found out 'the real people' have gone off weather vanes....


Corbyn isn't a prophet but just another crooked politician who wants to enforce his ideology.


Posted by: JeffG Aug 28 2016, 04:47 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Aug 28 2016, 05:31 PM) *
Corbyn isn't a prophet but just another crooked politician who wants to enforce his ideology.

Many of us don't like his ideology, but I don't think you can call him crooked.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 28 2016, 05:14 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Aug 28 2016, 05:31 PM) *
Corbyn isn't a prophet but just another crooked politician who wants to enforce his ideology.


Well, his ideology matches the party ideology witch matches its members ideology! Crooked are MP's who stand on the party ticket, but don't enforce it when they are in power.

In fact, he's the opposite of all that's wrong with today's politics; where all involved are simply out for all they can get personally; their only belief being that the rest of the electorate are just as cynical. You might not agree with his ideology, but at least he has one and doesn't change it depending on the day of the week.

Posted by: user23 Aug 28 2016, 07:55 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Aug 28 2016, 05:31 PM) *
Corbyn isn't a prophet but just another crooked politician who wants to enforce his ideology.
I don't think he's crooked, but similar to Trump, his ego is tearing his party apart.

Here's http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/who-said-it-donald-trump-or-jeremy-corbyn--W1neEadQIx if you doubt the similarity between Trump and Corbyn.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 28 2016, 09:10 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Aug 28 2016, 05:29 PM) *
That is how you see things; because you are from the left.

But I'm not especially, I'm a small-state libertarian, bit I like Corbyn and I want to see an end to trident, the scrapping of student tuition fees and reintroduction of maintenance grants, I want to see an end to war-mongering, I believe in Human Rights, and I want to keep the national health service free at the point of use. I'm not entirely convinced but I'd also be willing to take a punt on rail re-nationalisation.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 28 2016, 09:18 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 28 2016, 06:14 PM) *
Well, his ideology matches the party ideology witch matches its members ideology! Crooked are MP's who stand on the party ticket, but don't enforce it when they are in power.

In fact, he's the opposite of all that's wrong with today's politics; where all involved are simply out for all they can get personally; their only belief being that the rest of the electorate are just as cynical. You might not agree with his ideology, but at least he has one and doesn't change it depending on the day of the week.

Entirely agree.

Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 29 2016, 01:24 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 28 2016, 10:10 PM) *
But I'm not especially, I'm a small-state libertarian, bit I like Corbyn and I want to see an end to trident, the scrapping of student tuition fees and reintroduction of maintenance grants, I want to see an end to war-mongering, I believe in Human Rights, and I want to keep the national health service free at the point of use. I'm not entirely convinced but I'd also be willing to take a punt on rail re-nationalisation.

And I'd like to be sixteen again, win the lottery and own a stable full of unicorns. I think my chances are better than yours mind.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 29 2016, 06:24 AM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Aug 29 2016, 02:24 AM) *
And I'd like to be sixteen again, win the lottery and own a stable full of unicorns. I think my chances are better than yours mind.

Sixteen again? We are very different people.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 29 2016, 10:37 AM

QUOTE (user23 @ Aug 28 2016, 08:55 PM) *
... his ego is tearing his party apart.

Do you believe that? I would agree that the party is deeply polarized, but I see the struggle as being between the pro-Corbyn majority who want Labour to re-find its socialist soul and be a grass-roots party of social justice, and the anti-Corbyn minority who want anything that isn't that. That's not ego, it's a power-struggle. I know that Corbyn looked incongruously shabby and gauche when he became leader, and set against the air-brushed sound-bite spin that passes for politics he looked ridiculous, but he's re-normalising politics, and so many people are looking for that. I can't think of anyone in politics with less ego than Corbyn.

Posted by: GMR Aug 29 2016, 03:54 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Aug 28 2016, 05:47 PM) *
Many of us don't like his ideology, but I don't think you can call him crooked.





Isn't he? He is turning his head over a lot of what Momentum is doing and their are other questionable things about him. He is like any other politician; after power.


Posted by: GMR Aug 29 2016, 03:55 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 28 2016, 06:14 PM) *
Well, his ideology matches the party ideology witch matches its members ideology! Crooked are MP's who stand on the party ticket, but don't enforce it when they are in power. In fact, he's the opposite of all that's wrong with today's politics; where all involved are simply out for all they can get personally; their only belief being that the rest of the electorate are just as cynical. You might not agree with his ideology, but at least he has one and doesn't change it depending on the day of the week.





Corbyn is out to get what he wants as well. He is blinded and dogmatic.


Posted by: GMR Aug 29 2016, 04:01 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Aug 28 2016, 08:55 PM) *
I don't think he's crooked, but similar to Trump, his ego is tearing his party apart. Here's http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/who-said-it-donald-trump-or-jeremy-corbyn--W1neEadQIx if you doubt the similarity between Trump and Corbyn.





Corbyn might not be crooked, as Trump is, but he is crooked in the sense that he turns a blind eye (to Momentum's antics) and he has tunnel vision were his mindset.


Posted by: GMR Aug 29 2016, 04:03 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 28 2016, 10:10 PM) *
But I'm not especially, I'm a small-state libertarian, bit I like Corbyn and I want to see an end to trident, the scrapping of student tuition fees and reintroduction of maintenance grants, I want to see an end to war-mongering, I believe in Human Rights, and I want to keep the national health service free at the point of use. I'm not entirely convinced but I'd also be willing to take a punt on rail re-nationalisation.





What you wish is just dreaming; that is why Corbyn will never run this country. You said you are happy with that so long as Corbyn is leader; great! That gives the Tories a straight run and no opposition to them.


Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 29 2016, 04:26 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Aug 29 2016, 04:55 PM) *
...He is blinded and dogmatic.

rolleyes.gif

Posted by: On the edge Aug 29 2016, 04:39 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Aug 29 2016, 05:03 PM) *
What you wish is just dreaming; that is why Corbyn will never run this country. You said you are happy with that so long as Corbyn is leader; great! That gives the Tories a straight run and no opposition to them.


There you go then!

So why are you all so worried about Corbyn leading the Labour Party? If he's going to keep the Tories and their assorted camp followers in office for years, you should be welcoming him with open arms!

What are you all so scared about?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 29 2016, 06:23 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 29 2016, 05:39 PM) *
There you go then!

So why are you all so worried about Corbyn leading the Labour Party? If he's going to keep the Tories and their assorted camp followers in office for years, you should be welcoming him with open arms!

What are you all so scared about?


Nobodies scared of him. He just represents an unelectable opposition. That's not good for the people. Any of us. Still at least the Tories are putting the boundaries right. May as well have a 200 majority than 150. Anyone want to form a party? Gap in the market....

Posted by: On the edge Aug 29 2016, 06:37 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Aug 29 2016, 07:23 PM) *
Nobodies scared of him. He just represents an unelectable opposition. That's not good for the people. Any of us. Still at least the Tories are putting the boundaries right. May as well have a 200 majority than 150. Anyone want to form a party? Gap in the market....


Why is an apparently unelectable opposition not good for the people? I really can't see that. After all, we are getting what we voted for, tooth and claw Toryisim. Arguably, some say a strong opposition moderates extremes. History demonstrates that ain't necessarily so. So what constitutes 'an electable opposition' - un-principled LibDems? The Country clearly doesn't think so.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 29 2016, 06:43 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 29 2016, 07:37 PM) *
Why is an apparently unelectable opposition not good for the people? I really can't see that. After all, we are getting what we voted for, tooth and claw Toryisim. Arguably, some say a strong opposition moderates extremes. History demonstrates that ain't necessarily so. So what constitutes 'an electable opposition' - un-principled LibDems? The Country clearly doesn't think so.


I don't think we voted for that. Not if you look at the % vote by party at the last GE.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 30 2016, 06:49 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Aug 29 2016, 07:43 PM) *
I don't think we voted for that. Not if you look at the % vote by party at the last GE.


So then, what on earth did we vote for, after all we all had an opportunity? How you've set out the stall suggests that we should simply have a choice between different flavours of Tory, Dark blue UKIP, Royal Blue, Conservative, Sky Blue LibDem and Light Blue Labour.

Oh dear, Mr Corbyn, with support of many who chose not to vote in the last election has put real choice in the table - red.

So let's hear why this real choice wouldn't ever attract popular support?

Posted by: JeffG Aug 30 2016, 09:34 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 30 2016, 07:49 AM) *
So let's hear why this real choice wouldn't ever attract popular support?

Because, simply put, Mr. Corbyn's brand of socialism is anathema to the majority of voters in this country.

Posted by: blackdog Aug 30 2016, 11:06 AM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Aug 30 2016, 10:34 AM) *
Because, simply put, Mr. Corbyn's brand of socialism is anathema to the majority of voters in this country.


Yet his policies are actually pretty popular.

The electorate is being sold the old 'reds under the beds' scam.


Posted by: On the edge Aug 30 2016, 12:23 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Aug 30 2016, 10:34 AM) *
Because, simply put, Mr. Corbyn's brand of socialism is anathema to the majority of voters in this country.


What other brand is there? The one Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair have cobbled together? For old time sake, let's have a burst of their version of the Red Flag; all together now

The Working Class can kiss my ar**
I got the Forman's job at last
Those out of work and on the dole
Can shove the red flag up their hole.





Posted by: JeffG Aug 30 2016, 05:52 PM

When you see people selling Socialist Worker at events, then it's time to be wary.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 30 2016, 06:17 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Aug 30 2016, 06:52 PM) *
When you see people selling Socialist Worker at events, then it's time to be wary.

....and when you see the pictures of 'Sir' Philp Green on his boat it reminds you why they are selling!

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 30 2016, 07:02 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 30 2016, 07:17 PM) *
....and when you see the pictures of 'Sir' Philp Green on his boat it reminds you why they are selling!

Not to mention all those buying up all the half decent , often second, homes.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Aug 30 2016, 08:58 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 30 2016, 08:02 PM) *
Not to mention all those buying up all the half decent , often second, homes.


Is the red flag flying over good old Newbury town?
I suppose Farage has now left a gap in the market for the anti establishment, me included. I could never vote for him though. Hasn't got a moustache like Nige!😂

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 30 2016, 10:02 PM

Corbyn seems about old Labour with a certain Lib Dem progressiveness. Of course, what those parties seem to lack is a credible way to sustainably finance everything.

Nationalising the rail doesn't fix what is 'broke'. Rail is an important part of transport policy, but it is not far reaching enough to replace road.
Taxing the rich heavily has the opposite effect
There's more to further education than having a degree.
Housing is screwed.
NHS is another Tory earner on the way.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 31 2016, 06:07 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 30 2016, 11:02 PM) *
Corbyn seems about old Labour with a certain Lib Dem progressiveness. Of course, what those parties seem to lack is a credible way to sustainably finance everything.

Nationalising the rail doesn't fix what is 'broke'. Rail is an important part of transport policy, but it is not far reaching enough to replace road.
Taxing the rich heavily has the opposite effect
There's more to further education than having a degree.
Housing is screwed.
NHS is another Tory earner on the way.


I wouldn't disagree with any of that, it looks as if you are saying that we have massive issues, but all we seem to do is return to failed pasts instead of properly thinking things through and trying to define a new vision. So the big question is then how we can properly start and take forward that debate, without resorting to the usual one way or no way throwing bricks type argument. Perhaps an answer to the first part does lie with a properly dispassionate civil service, who aren't there only to implement and deliver, but also shape the vision and then follow through with the biggest challenge keeping 'we the people' aligned. Does this mean that party centric politics is also irreparably broken?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 31 2016, 07:27 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 30 2016, 11:02 PM) *
Corbyn seems about old Labour with a certain Lib Dem progressiveness. Of course, what those parties seem to lack is a credible way to sustainably finance everything.

Nationalising the rail doesn't fix what is 'broke'. Rail is an important part of transport policy, but it is not far reaching enough to replace road.
Taxing the rich heavily has the opposite effect
There's more to further education than having a degree.
Housing is screwed.
NHS is another Tory earner on the way.

Picking one: tertiary education.

The notion that half the population need a university education is fallacious. It doesn't create social mobility or produce a more productive work-force, it simply feeds the university industry. With so many university places employers are free to demand graduate entry where previously they would have taken on school-leavers into technical and engineering roles and paid them to study for an HNC at the local tech. Scrapping tuition fees and providing maintenance grants to the most accedemically able 5% will only support a fraction of the current universities and only the best will survive with other institutions reverting to polytechnics. Graduates will no longer be saddled with debt and employers will again shoulder the cost of training their recruits, and because the employer is paying the polytechnics will be forced to offer lean and mean courses that give employers the technically qualified staff they need without the fluff. Everyone's a winner.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 31 2016, 08:21 AM

Add to that, make it very tax efficient for businesses that invest in certified and professional training and education.

What do we do about the less academic?


However, the biggest problem I see is the housing issue: home owners rule politics; parties with policies that devalue homes will not get voted in. This leads me to think we need a way to cheapen homes while those who own don't lose their equity.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 31 2016, 10:00 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 31 2016, 09:21 AM) *
What do we do about the less academic?

I'd guess the large majority of jobs need people trained to ONC or HNC level, and that would cover all kinds of jobs.

Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 31 2016, 11:09 AM

Apprenticeships, that's the answer. Train for a skilled job and a job at the end.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 31 2016, 12:31 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Aug 31 2016, 12:09 PM) *
Apprenticeships, that's the answer. Traifn for a skilled job and a job at the end.


If you don't mind me saying so, this encapsulates the problem. What do we actually mean by 'apprenticeship'? A premium apprenticeship where parents paid the company or master and often lead to a degree level qualification? Or perhaps the 'shop boy' who got discharged at the end of his time; simply because adult wages then cut in.

These muddled definitions have dogged our whole education system for decades. Yet in today's politics, they provide an easy sop to the electorate. Bring back Grammar schools, cut University places, restore apprenticehips etc.etc.etc.

Surely, we need an education system which is aligned to the future needs of the Country and delivered against the developing and changing abilities of the students. We already know a good few facts; one size doesn't fit all, the Country needs a much higher degree of education and training, people need it throughout their lives, defining abilities at age 11 doesn't work. We must also accept that umberella words like 'university' don't actually describe what the institutions concerned deliver.

So even education can't be boxed into any present day party doctrine anymore. Still less are there any instant solutions.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 31 2016, 12:45 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Aug 31 2016, 12:09 PM) *
Apprenticeships, that's the answer. Train for a skilled job and a job at the end.

Yes, in the sense that young people would be trained by their employer and pass out with a recognized qualification, but an apprentice should still be paid a living wage.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 31 2016, 12:54 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 31 2016, 09:21 AM) *
However, the biggest problem I see is the housing issue: home owners rule politics; parties with policies that devalue homes will not get voted in. This leads me to think we need a way to cheapen homes while those who own don't lose their equity.

For me the housing crisis is the most intractable of problems and the cause of so much injustice, and I come to the same conclusion as you.

Corbyn is talking about a huge programme of council house building and that has some merit if the housing is high quality - council housing very often has not been. I'm not yet convinced though that the state should be getting involved and it's far from clear to me what the right thing to do is.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 31 2016, 03:10 PM

And so with housing, we've seen many 'one size fits all' solutions delivered in various ideological guises. From the Jerry built semi detached prewar suburbs, to the superb quality of the late 1940s Bevan Council housing, to the squalid system build slums in the sky and back. Housing has been let become a party football and a social engineering laboratory. We'll get nowhere without blocking the political control freaks that simply perpetuate these things. How do we break the mold and get people contributing to the debate again? Joining a local party where you might be permitted to knock the odd door or hand out leaflets doesn't work.


Posted by: GMR Sep 4 2016, 04:41 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 29 2016, 05:39 PM) *
There you go then! So why are you all so worried about Corbyn leading the Labour Party? If he's going to keep the Tories and their assorted camp followers in office for years, you should be welcoming him with open arms! What are you all so scared about?





Because the Tories need a decent opposition to keep them in check and Corbyn can't do that; more so if his own MPs don't believe in him.


Posted by: GMR Sep 4 2016, 04:44 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Aug 30 2016, 12:06 PM) *
Yet his policies are actually pretty popular. The electorate is being sold the old 'reds under the beds' scam.





His "policies" are not popular amongst the wider public. Granted, his "policies" are popular by his supporters and fanatics; but then again the same could be said about Hitler. He needs more than just his supporters and fanatics to win an election. His policies are not even popular amongst his own MPs.


Posted by: GMR Sep 4 2016, 04:48 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 30 2016, 01:23 PM) *
What other brand is there? The one Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair have cobbled together? For old time sake, let's have a burst of their version of the Red Flag; all together now The Working Class can kiss my ar** I got the Forman's job at last Those out of work and on the dole Can shove the red flag up their hole.





The trouble is Corbyn's brand of politics (labour's politics) was ok at the turn of the century, but one has to adapt to the times. Blair knew this and adapted to society. The only thing that Corbyn can achieve is keep the Labour party out for a generation or more.

You say what Mandelson and Blair cobbled together; at least it won him 3 elections. Corbyn's policies won't even win an election.


Posted by: On the edge Sep 4 2016, 05:55 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 4 2016, 05:48 PM) *
The trouble is Corbyn's brand of politics (labour's politics) was ok at the turn of the century, but one has to adapt to the times. Blair knew this and adapted to society. The only thing that Corbyn can achieve is keep the Labour party out for a generation or more.

You say what Mandelson and Blair cobbled together; at least it won him 3 elections. Corbyn's policies won't even win an election.


Certainly insofar as Blair and Mandleson were creatures of their generation. A generation where me became more important than we. Satirically summed up by the phrase 'greed is good'. However as you rightly say, one has to adapt to the times and politics change. Believe me, the tide us now beginning to turn, always did, and Jeremy Corbyn's followers may well be riding a wave.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 4 2016, 07:25 PM

Hmm, I remember the dreaded 'bedroom tax' "that'll finish the Tories, they'll never get reelected now, scum". And what happened?

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 4 2016, 08:24 PM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Sep 4 2016, 08:25 PM) *
Hmm, I remember the dreaded 'bedroom tax'

I'm glad you put it in quotes because there is no such thing. It is merely a term coined by the media.
Bedrooms are not taxed in this country.

Posted by: blackdog Sep 4 2016, 09:21 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 4 2016, 05:44 PM) *
His "policies" are not popular amongst the wider public. Granted, his "policies" are popular by his supporters and fanatics; but then again the same could be said about Hitler. He needs more than just his supporters and fanatics to win an election. His policies are not even popular amongst his own MPs.

They seem pretty popular with Tory voters in Guildford.

And the PLP seem pretty keen to support Owen Smith, who seems to be running on a platform of 'Corbyn's policies but not run by Corbyn' plus a rerun of the Brexit vote.

Posted by: blackdog Sep 4 2016, 09:32 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 31 2016, 01:54 PM) *
For me the housing crisis is the most intractable of problems and the cause of so much injustice, and I come to the same conclusion as you.

Corbyn is talking about a huge programme of council house building and that has some merit if the housing is high quality - council housing very often has not been. I'm not yet convinced though that the state should be getting involved and it's far from clear to me what the right thing to do is.

But the state is involved - it pays to house millions of people. I still can't see how allowing a portion of the moneys paid to pass into house owners' pockets as profit is the best deal for the tax payer or the scial housing tenant.

Council houses may not have been top quality (though many were pretty good) but the stuff that is being built for social housing today is no better.

It seems to me that we need a massive programme of council house building - after al the mrket is failing lamentedly to provide the quantity needed.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 5 2016, 08:08 AM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Sep 4 2016, 10:32 PM) *
But the state is involved - it pays to house millions of people. I still can't see how allowing a portion of the moneys paid to pass into house owners' pockets as profit is the best deal for the tax payer or the scial housing tenant.

Council houses may not have been top quality (though many were pretty good) but the stuff that is being built for social housing today is no better.

It seems to me that we need a massive programme of council house building - after al the mrket is failing lamentedly to provide the quantity needed.

It would seem the Monster Raving Tories don't like social housing because it breeds Labour voters. It would defy their ethnic cleansing of the lower order!

Posted by: GMR Sep 7 2016, 02:01 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 4 2016, 06:55 PM) *
Certainly insofar as Blair and Mandleson were creatures of their generation. A generation where me became more important than we. Satirically summed up by the phrase 'greed is good'. However as you rightly say, one has to adapt to the times and politics change. Believe me, the tide us now beginning to turn, always did, and Jeremy Corbyn's followers may well be riding a wave.


The tide might be changing, but not in favour of Corbyn or his brand of politics. It has already be tried and failed. As for his follower; all types of views have followers, but do they resonate with the rest of the country? And the answer is, no. His rating are the worst for any leader. Fanatics always get excited by somebody that talks their language. What does he say that excites you?

And by the way: it has always been about "me". People look inwards when they vote. And Corbyn is about "me"; what he wants.


Posted by: GMR Sep 7 2016, 02:04 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Sep 4 2016, 10:21 PM) *
They seem pretty popular with Tory voters in Guildford. And the PLP seem pretty keen to support Owen Smith, who seems to be running on a platform of 'Corbyn's policies but not run by Corbyn' plus a rerun of the Brexit vote.


Of course his policies (or should I say Corbyn) because his re election will guarantee them winning another election.


Posted by: GMR Sep 7 2016, 02:06 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 5 2016, 09:08 AM) *
It would seem the Monster Raving Tories don't like social housing because it breeds Labour voters. It would defy their ethnic cleansing of the lower order!


Spoken like a true Corbyn left wing socialist. I am pleased to see that at the next election you will be voting for Corbyn's Labour party.


Posted by: On the edge Sep 7 2016, 04:46 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 7 2016, 03:01 PM) *
The tide might be changing, but not in favour of Corbyn or his brand of politics. It has already be tried and failed. As for his follower; all types of views have followers, but do they resonate with the rest of the country? And the answer is, no. His rating are the worst for any leader. Fanatics always get excited by somebody that talks their language. What does he say that excites you?

And by the way: it has always been about "me". People look inwards when they vote. And Corbyn is about "me"; what he wants.


Her doesn't say anything that excites me, that's just the point. Like a significantly growing number of others I'm sick of 'celebrity' politics and the Des Wilson Guide to Winning Elections. I already have a microwave thanks.

I'm still not cynical enough to believe that everyone only thinks of themselves. How would you explain 1945, or 1974 or even Brexit?

Posted by: GMR Sep 7 2016, 05:00 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 7 2016, 05:46 PM) *
Her doesn't say anything that excites me, that's just the point. Like a significantly growing number of others I'm sick of 'celebrity' politics and the Des Wilson Guide to Winning Elections. I already have a microwave thanks.


And Corbyn doesn't excite anybody other than his own supporters. I am more confident with May in charge than I would be in Corbyn.




QUOTE
I'm still not cynical enough to believe that everyone only thinks of themselves. How would you explain 1945, or 1974 or even Brexit?


They are good examples; in all those cases people voted because they were thinking of themselves. I am not sure why 1974 is there; Heath, Wilson and Callaghan made promises but delivered waffle and confusion. So I would say that the people were confused more than anything.


Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 7 2016, 05:12 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 7 2016, 03:06 PM) *
Spoken like a true Corbyn left wing socialist. I am pleased to see that at the next election you will be voting for Corbyn's Labour party.

I am more likely to vote Monster Raving Tory, and that is certainly not going to happen, unless they suddenly turn into human beings.

Corbyn is useless, even let the PM off at PMQs when she 'tabled an untruth'.

Posted by: GMR Sep 8 2016, 03:09 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 7 2016, 06:12 PM) *
I am more likely to vote Monster Raving Tory, and that is certainly not going to happen, unless they suddenly turn into human beings. Corbyn is useless, even let the PM off at PMQs when she 'tabled an untruth'.





It depends on what you mean my "into human"?


Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 8 2016, 04:25 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 8 2016, 04:09 PM) *
It depends on what you mean my "into human"?

Rational, compassionate, ethical, that sort of thing, but of course, I was and am being flippant; however, I'm not going to vote Monster Raving Tory or Laboured any time soon. Nor Liberally Decimated come to think of it.

Posted by: GMR Sep 19 2016, 04:01 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 8 2016, 05:25 PM) *
Rational, compassionate, ethical, that sort of thing, but of course, I was and am being flippant; however, I'm not going to vote Monster Raving Tory or Laboured any time soon. Nor Liberally Decimated come to think of it.





So who are you going to vote for?


Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 19 2016, 08:12 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 19 2016, 05:01 PM) *
So who are you going to vote for?

I have little choice; I might not vote, or if I do, perhaps a spoiled vote or an independent; it all depends on what the future holds.

Posted by: GMR Sep 20 2016, 04:44 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 19 2016, 09:12 PM) *
I have little choice; I might not vote, or if I do, perhaps a spoiled vote or an independent; it all depends on what the future holds.





I think Theresa May is better than what is coming out of the other parties.


Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 20 2016, 06:41 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 20 2016, 05:44 PM) *
I think Theresa May is better than what is coming out of the other parties.


Vote Jezza! We can all then stop work and live off the state. Stuff the next generation. Lets run up 1000 trillion in debt. Dont like this austerity nonsense. Free money for everyone!! laugh.gif



Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 20 2016, 07:19 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 20 2016, 05:44 PM) *
I think Theresa May is better than what is coming out of the other parties.

Being better, which at best is too early to say, isn't good enough for my vote. She's already start coming up with distorted truths and discourteous behaviour at the dispatch box.

I feel really sad that she's the best we have.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 20 2016, 08:03 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 20 2016, 08:19 PM) *
Being better, which at best is too early to say, isn't good enough for my vote. She's already start coming up with distorted truths and discourteous behaviour at the dispatch box.

I feel really sad that she's the best we have.


Look on the bright side. We could have a choice of Clinton or Trump!

Posted by: GMR Sep 22 2016, 04:26 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 20 2016, 08:19 PM) *
Being better, which at best is too early to say, isn't good enough for my vote. She's already start coming up with distorted truths and discourteous behaviour at the dispatch box. I feel really sad that she's the best we have.


The best we have is better than what we've got as opposition.


Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 22 2016, 05:33 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 22 2016, 05:26 PM) *
The best we have is better than what we've got as opposition.

What does that even mean? You don't like where Labour is going with Corbyn, fine, but the Labour Party doesn't owe you anything.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 22 2016, 07:21 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 22 2016, 05:26 PM) *
The best we have is better than what we've got as opposition.

Being better garbage is still garbage. In fact I prefer Corbyn at the dispatch box.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 24 2016, 07:42 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Sep 20 2016, 07:41 PM) *
Vote Jezza! We can all then stop work and live off the state. Stuff the next generation. Lets run up 1000 trillion in debt. Dont like this austerity nonsense. Free money for everyone!! laugh.gif

I support Corbyn, and that"s not at all how I see it.

I'm perfectly aware that the state has no money of its own and that the money it spends is the money it collects from us in taxes of one kind or another. What I have asked for consistently is that the state should spend that tax where the need is greatest and where it can do the most good. So for example I want to see a fully-funded National Health Service and a state pension that you can live on. However, virtually the whole of the politically-engaged establishment across the whole of the political spectrum have substantial private pensions and can easily afford private medical insurance and they don't want to be taxed to pay for some poor schlob who didn't do as well in life as they did and so they've sold you this line about "austerity" and how the world is going to hull in a hand cart because of the drain on the tax-payer of such things as libraries, public toilets, and adult mental health services, and yet you still believe the lie even when those state functionaries spend £thousands on robes, regalia, and ceremony while they slash essential public services.

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 24 2016, 08:50 AM

Marxist claptrap.

Posted by: JeffG Sep 24 2016, 10:10 AM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Sep 24 2016, 09:50 AM) *
Marxist claptrap.

You closet socialist, you! biggrin.gif

Posted by: On the edge Sep 24 2016, 10:22 AM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Sep 24 2016, 09:50 AM) *
Marxist claptrap.


Sorry to tell you Turin Machine, that response doesn't compute.


Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 24 2016, 12:15 PM

I'm happy, the Labour party has just made itself unelectable for the foreseeable future! Happy days! Now can make the pips squeak.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 24 2016, 12:22 PM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Sep 24 2016, 01:15 PM) *
I'm happy, the Labour party has just made itself unelectable for the foreseeable future! Happy days! Now can make the pips squeak.


That's good then! Young master will be happy too; so finish your pint and back to work or you'll find you won't have any. Come on, chop, chop...

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 24 2016, 01:04 PM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Sep 24 2016, 01:15 PM) *
I'm happy, the Labour party has just made itself unelectable for the foreseeable future! Happy days! Now can make the pips squeak.



They were unelectable anyway. Now just a fringe party like the greens. UKIP may get more votes at the next GE.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 24 2016, 01:11 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Sep 24 2016, 02:04 PM) *
They were unelectable anyway. Now just a fringe party like the greens. UKIP may get more votes at the next GE.


Don't you think we'll exit then?

If Brexit means Brexit, what are UKIP voting for? Independence from Scotland?

The secret is in the title laugh.gif

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 24 2016, 05:50 PM

"There is the horrible — the really disquieting — prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in England"

George Orwell.

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 24 2016, 05:52 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 24 2016, 02:11 PM) *
Don't you think we'll exit then?

If Brexit means Brexit, what are UKIP voting for? Independence from Scotland?

The secret is in the title laugh.gif

It's the only logical choice, if not you have to choose between the Trot's or project fear Tories. And at least UKIP made good on their promises.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 24 2016, 06:23 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Sep 24 2016, 06:52 PM) *
It's the only logical choice, if not you have to choose between the Trot's or project fear Tories. And at least UKIP made good on their promises.


Yes, I agree right now UKIP = job done. So what are they proposing now? Farrage was saying they are attracting the Labour vote so they must be appealing to the semi Trots at least. Then, if you take a studious approach, go right back to UKIPs founder, who was a real old fashioned liberal like Mrs Thatcher. They don't even seem to line up behind their only MP a rift which makes Labours look like a Sunday School,squabble. What ever the troubles in the other parties, UKIP seems even more at sea! Try as I might, I can't see any future for a party with no direction at all.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 24 2016, 06:42 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 24 2016, 07:23 PM) *
Yes, I agree right now UKIP = job done. So what are they proposing now? Farrage was saying they are attracting the Labour vote so they must be appealing to the semi Trots at least. Then, if you take a studious approach, go right back to UKIPs founder, who was a real old fashioned liberal like Mrs Thatcher. They don't even seem to line up behind their only MP a rift which makes Labours look like a Sunday School,squabble. What ever the troubles in the other parties, UKIP seems even more at sea! Try as I might, I can't see any future for a party with no direction at all.


They could well end up the protest vote party and win lots if by elections. A bit like the liberals...

Posted by: JeffG Sep 24 2016, 06:52 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Sep 24 2016, 07:42 PM) *
They could well end up the protest vote party and win lots if by elections. A bit like the liberals...

I know you mean Liberal as a shortened version of Liberal Democrats, but there used to be a distinctly separate Liberal party. Does anyone know if it still exists, or did it go the same way as the SDP?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 24 2016, 07:40 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Sep 24 2016, 06:52 PM) *
... at least UKIP made good on their promises.

Though not the one about the NHS obviously, and that thing about maintaining access to the single market while limiting freedom of movement, how's that going?


UKIP - taking back their promises.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 24 2016, 08:56 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Sep 24 2016, 07:52 PM) *
I know you mean Liberal as a shortened version of Liberal Democrats, but there used to be a distinctly separate Liberal party. Does anyone know if it still exists, or did it go the same way as the SDP?


Yes, in spirit at least. It is actually a breakaway from the LibDems started in the early 1980s by An MP who wasn't happy with the SDP policies which he thought were in the ascendant. It's still there but only just! It still espouses real liberalisim though, so wholly unlike the LibDems.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 24 2016, 08:59 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Sep 24 2016, 07:42 PM) *
They could well end up the protest vote party and win lots if by elections. A bit like the liberals...


Fine, but because no one knows what they stand for anymore, it's more an 'I don't know' vote than a protest surely?

Posted by: On the edge Sep 24 2016, 09:06 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Sep 24 2016, 06:50 PM) *
"There is the horrible — the really disquieting — prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in England"

George Orwell.


That's exactly how LibDem conferences were described by certain disgruntled Liberal members at the start of the SDP merge. Ironic really!


Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 24 2016, 09:28 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 24 2016, 09:59 PM) *
Fine, but because no one knows what they stand for anymore, it's more an 'I don't know' vote than a protest surely?


90% of the electorate dont know what they are voting for.... I sometimes wonder myself! ohmy.gif

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 24 2016, 11:58 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 24 2016, 08:40 PM) *
Though not the one about the NHS obviously, and that thing about maintaining access to the single market while limiting freedom of movement, how's that going?


UKIP - taking back their promises.

And ridding the party of anti Semitism, hows that going Simon?

Posted by: On the edge Sep 25 2016, 06:23 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Sep 24 2016, 10:28 PM) *
90% of the electorate dont know what they are voting for.... I sometimes wonder myself! ohmy.gif


Aaah, so then, the Remainers were right then. The UKIP voters really didn't know what the referendum was all about!

UKIP is beginning to look remarkably like Oswald Moseley's New Party meanderings back in the 1930s. First Conservative, then Labour, then Fascist.

Still, not to worry, who buys anything from an empty shop?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 25 2016, 07:46 AM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Sep 25 2016, 12:58 AM) *
And ridding the party of anti Semitism, hows that going Simon?

You can read the Chakrabarti report for yourself, but if you want the executive summary: http://there%20is%20no%20institutional%20anti-semitism%20in%20the%20Labour%20Party. Credit to Corbyn though for commissioning an open independent report so swiftly, I can't think of any other political party that would have done as much.

But enough of the deflection and smears, you made the assertion that UKIP had made good on their promises and I've challenged that because the NHS funding promise was the most spectacular lie of their campaign and will have suckered millions of people into supporting Brexit where otherwise they wouldn't have, and even the fundamental basis of UKIP's campaign is now looking bogus as the remaining EU states disabuse Blighty of that baseless UKIP promise that the UK will be allowed access to the single market without allowing freedom of movement.

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 25 2016, 08:44 AM

So, the leader of the party isn't a supporter of Hamas then?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 25 2016, 10:15 AM

"Sadiq Khan to stamp out Labour's anti-semitism as Jeremy Corbyn's views on Jewish attitudes spark fury"

So, Sadiq (mayor of London) says there is, Simon (bloke wiv a keyboard) says there ain't! Take your pick.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 25 2016, 11:08 AM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Sep 25 2016, 09:44 AM) *
So, the leader of the party isn't a supporter of Hamas then?

Fair enough, it's a thread about Corbyn so if you don't want to talk about the dishonesty of UKIP I'll let it drop.

Corbyn has said that he regrets referring to Hamas as "friends", but he was trying to use inclusive language in an effort to promote dialogue and understanding. More than anyone I can think of, Corbyn wants peace in the world, and for that to happen you have to challenge attitudes, and while calling Hamas "friends" was a reasonable enough way for a radical back-bencher with no possible expectation of being in a position of authority to challenge the established view, it doesn't sit well with the leader of the Labour Party. Of course if Blighty wants to be a friend to the world then it also needs to wind its neck in few notches, starting with Syria.

Posted by: JeffG Sep 25 2016, 11:33 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 25 2016, 12:08 PM) *
Of course if Blighty wants to be a friend to the world then it also needs to wind its neck in few notches, starting with Syria.

What are you implying here? Make friends with Assad?

Posted by: GMR Sep 25 2016, 03:59 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 24 2016, 07:23 PM) *
Yes, I agree right now UKIP = job done. So what are they proposing now? Farrage was saying they are attracting the Labour vote so they must be appealing to the semi Trots at least. Then, if you take a studious approach, go right back to UKIPs founder, who was a real old fashioned liberal like Mrs Thatcher. They don't even seem to line up behind their only MP a rift which makes Labours look like a Sunday School,squabble. What ever the troubles in the other parties, UKIP seems even more at sea! Try as I might, I can't see any future for a party with no direction at all.





I agree with a lot of what you say about UKIP, however, when you say what are they now for, that is easy... that is if they can get their act together. To challenge or take over where Labour is on self destruct. Now Labour have elected Corbyn for the second time they are all but finished as a serious political party. As Kinnock said "If they reelect Corbyn we won't see a Labour Government in my lifetime again". LibDems are a joke, so what is left? A bad UKIP is a lot better than Labour, LibDems or even the Greens.


Posted by: GMR Sep 25 2016, 04:02 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 24 2016, 08:40 PM) *
Though not the one about the NHS obviously, and that thing about maintaining access to the single market while limiting freedom of movement, how's that going? UKIP - taking back their promises.





I don't know why anybody took that seriously. UKIP, or even Johnson or Grove weren't Prime Minister, and only the Prime Minister could have made such promises. So why say "how is that going" when you must have known full well that they weren't and never will be in a position to make such promises. Only the gullible fool would believe in somebody who wasn't in the power to give.


Posted by: GMR Sep 25 2016, 04:04 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 25 2016, 07:23 AM) *
Aaah, so then, the Remainers were right then. The UKIP voters really didn't know what the referendum was all about! UKIP is beginning to look remarkably like Oswald Moseley's New Party meanderings back in the 1930s. First Conservative, then Labour, then Fascist. Still, not to worry, who buys anything from an empty shop?





Whatever you say Farage was right. He provoked Cameron into giving a referendum and his only goal was to get out of Europe; and didn't he achieve that? End of.


Posted by: On the edge Sep 25 2016, 05:21 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 25 2016, 05:04 PM) *
Whatever you say Farage was right. He provoked Cameron into giving a referendum and his only goal was to get out of Europe; and didn't he achieve that? End of.


I certainly wholly agree, UKIP did exactly what they said on the tin so to speak. The answer is in their title UK I P and absolutely, end of. That's it then surely?

As some have been suggesting they might be voting for UKIP in future, I've been asking what their policies are. No one seems to know and simply keep diverting attention.

Like it or not Corbyn does have and does enunciate future policies very clearly. It's also rather interesting that many in the media have written off his substantial success as an aberration from 'people who don't know and don't count'. Ironic, really, exactly what the Remainers kept saying about the prospective Brexit vote.

Seems to me then, that you are more likely to see a Labour candidate on the ballot paper the next election than one from UKIP. Yes, UKIP succeeded, but that was yesterday.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 25 2016, 06:01 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 25 2016, 05:02 PM) *
I don't know why anybody took that seriously...

Because there is still an expectation that people should tell the truth and not lie - even in politics.

Posted by: GMR Sep 25 2016, 06:36 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 25 2016, 06:21 PM) *
I certainly wholly agree, UKIP did exactly what they said on the tin so to speak. The answer is in their title UK I P and absolutely, end of. That's it then surely? As some have been suggesting they might be voting for UKIP in future, I've been asking what their policies are. No one seems to know and simply keep diverting attention.


I agree about the policies, but as James has just been elected I suppose we've got to give her time.




QUOTE
Like it or not Corbyn does have and does enunciate future policies very clearly. It's also rather interesting that many in the media have written off his substantial success as an aberration from 'people who don't know and don't count'.


Who voted for him? Only his supporters. And what success. Your own members voting for you is not a success. I success is when the country votes for you. The BNP members voted for their leader... are they running the country now? No, nor will Corbyn.

QUOTE
Ironic, really, exactly what the Remainers kept saying about the prospective Brexit vote. Seems to me then, that you are more likely to see a Labour candidate on the ballot paper the next election than one from UKIP. Yes, UKIP succeeded, but that was yesterday.


And that was yesterday when Labour last won an election.


Posted by: GMR Sep 25 2016, 06:36 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 25 2016, 07:01 PM) *
Because there is still an expectation that people should tell the truth and not lie - even in politics.





And when is Corbyn going to start telling the truth?


Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 25 2016, 06:52 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 25 2016, 07:36 PM) *
And when is Corbyn going to start telling the truth?

I'm happy to discuss his honesty with you - but he's got a reputation for being a straight honest bloke, even amongst people who don't like his politics, so it's an odd accusation to make without something specific in mind.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 25 2016, 07:45 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 25 2016, 07:36 PM) *
I agree about the policies, but as James has just been elected I suppose we've got to give her time.






Who voted for him? Only his supporters. And what success. Your own members voting for you is not a success. I success is when the country votes for you. The BNP members voted for their leader... are they running the country now? No, nor will Corbyn.



And that was yesterday when Labour last won an election.


I remember much the same was claimed about Mrs Thatcher. Ooh a woman, ooh strong right wing views, ooh too middle class.....theyve made a mistake and that's the Tory chances sunk for the next 10 years. All the pundits thought 'Sunny Jim' would scrape back again with a majority.... 'Once every thirty years there is asset change in politics....' We've had 'Thatcherisim' for over 30 years now; the tide us turning!

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 26 2016, 01:00 AM

We don't need weapons, we don't need an Army, just sit down with any would be aggressors and have a cosy chat. That's what the Trot's and their deluded followers preach. Working really well in Syria! Putin's really listening ain't he! Still, suit the lefties just fine, work with Moscow while blaming the west. All sandals an leather patches an f all sense!

Posted by: On the edge Sep 26 2016, 06:24 AM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Sep 26 2016, 02:00 AM) *
We don't need weapons, we don't need an Army, just sit down with any would be aggressors and have a cosy chat. That's what the Trot's and their deluded followers preach. Working really well in Syria! Putin's really listening ain't he! Still, suit the lefties just fine, work with Moscow while blaming the west. All sandals an leather patches an f all sense!


...and our nuclear weapons don't seem to have had any effect either!

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 26 2016, 06:45 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 26 2016, 07:24 AM) *
...and our nuclear weapons don't seem to have had any effect either!


Our nuclear weapons are for defence. Not agression. Or are you advocating there use in Syria?

Posted by: On the edge Sep 26 2016, 07:18 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Sep 26 2016, 07:45 AM) *
Our nuclear weapons are for defence. Not agression. Or are you advocating there use in Syria?


Oh, I see, it's just these islands we are defending is it?

The hawkish comments often made on here about our nuclear deterrent claim that they will stop anyone picking a fight with us. At least Syria shows that's utter b******s.

Then, are you honestly saying certain nations are ready and willing to invade these islands with such force? I'm not sure even the bogieman of the moment, President Putin has even guven that a moments thought.

So, even less justification for Trudent then!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 26 2016, 07:54 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Sep 26 2016, 07:45 AM) *
Our nuclear weapons are for defence. Not agression. Or are you advocating there use in Syria?

Blighty's nuclear weapons have nothing to do with defence. Trident is about playing Billy Big Bollcoks on the international stage - like the American Secretary of Defence said, it lets Britain punch above her weight and keeps the UK's permanent seat on the UN Security Council where we can contine to protect our trade interests like some pugnacious imperial empire. Trident doesn't defend against any of the tier-one threats identified by this government - cyber crime, pandemic, global warming, and international terrorism, and indeed it's our bellicose foreign and defence policies that make us such a target for terrorism. Trident is a £200billion vanity project.

Posted by: GMR Sep 26 2016, 03:01 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 25 2016, 07:52 PM) *
I'm happy to discuss his honesty with you - but he's got a reputation for being a straight honest bloke, even amongst people who don't like his politics, so it's an odd accusation to make without something specific in mind.


If you follow him then you would know what accusations have been made against him. Yes, I have heard what you have heard, I've also heard about a sinister side.


Posted by: GMR Sep 26 2016, 03:04 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 25 2016, 08:45 PM) *
I remember much the same was claimed about Mrs Thatcher. Ooh a woman, ooh strong right wing views, ooh too middle class.....theyve made a mistake and that's the Tory chances sunk for the next 10 years. All the pundits thought 'Sunny Jim' would scrape back again with a majority.... 'Once every thirty years there is asset change in politics....' We've had 'Thatcherisim' for over 30 years now; the tide us turning!





Yes, the tide is turning... we've got May now.

The only reason the pundits thought that Jim Callaghan would get back in are those that couldn't see a woman running the country. That was more to do with sexism than anything else.




I agree that change happens every so often, but usually by more stronger characters and they usually take their MPs with them. Corbyn only take his supporters, but in the country there is basically hostility towards him.


Posted by: On the edge Sep 26 2016, 03:40 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 26 2016, 04:04 PM) *
Yes, the tide is turning... we've got May now.

The only reason the pundits thought that Jim Callaghan would get back in are those that couldn't see a woman running the country. That was more to do with sexism than anything else.




I agree that change happens every so often, but usually by more stronger characters and they usually take their MPs with them. Corbyn only take his supporters, but in the country there is basically hostility towards him.


...but those same pundits now can't see a socialist running the County, I'd agree, that's more to do with predudice than anything else.




There was a lot of hostility to Mr Heath in 1970 and his MPs didn't really like him. We now know that if he'd lost, the high command were waiting ready with the knife....the Tories have always been far better assassins; they even have a permanent grouping - 1922 committee.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 26 2016, 03:43 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 26 2016, 04:01 PM) *
If you follow him then you would know what accusations have been made against him. Yes, I have heard what you have heard, I've also heard about a sinister side.

OK, if you don't want to justify your position I'll leave it there, but it looks pretty odd when you have no problem with the stonking great falsehood from the party you support who promised in bad faith to fund the NHS with an extra £350million per week, but then you complain about Jeremy Corbyn being a dishonest man and offer no evidence in the face of him being recognised across the political divide as a thoroughly decent bloke with maybe just a tendency to dress like a geography teacher.

Posted by: GMR Sep 26 2016, 04:33 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 26 2016, 04:40 PM) *
...but those same pundits now can't see a socialist running the County, I'd agree, that's more to do with predudice than anything else.


So are you saying that people are not going to vote for Labour because of "prejudice"? So to show they are not prejudice they should vote for them? Is that what you are saying? And what about the people who are prejudice or disagree with the Tories or LibDems or SNP. Have they got to vote for them to prove they are not prejudice?

QUOTE
There was a lot of hostility to Mr Heath in 1970 and his MPs didn't really like him. We now know that if he'd lost, the high command were waiting ready with the knife....the Tories have always been far better assassins; they even have a permanent grouping - 1922 committee.





There was not the same sort of hostility or hatred towards Heath as there has been against Corbyn by Labour voters and MPs.


Posted by: GMR Sep 26 2016, 04:35 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 26 2016, 04:43 PM) *
OK, if you don't want to justify your position I'll leave it there, but it looks pretty odd when you have no problem with the stonking great falsehood from the party you support who promised in bad faith to fund the NHS with an extra £350million per week, but then you complain about Jeremy Corbyn being a dishonest man and offer no evidence in the face of him being recognised across the political divide as a thoroughly decent bloke with maybe just a tendency to dress like a geography teacher.





I didn't say that, I said, haven't you heard anything yourself? People say has been dishonest over the Jews, and there has been other questions over his political comments. Then there is the stunt over trains; that was dishonest. Then we can add the EU into the equation. And there is much more.


Posted by: On the edge Sep 26 2016, 04:54 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 26 2016, 05:33 PM) *
So are you saying that people are not going to vote for Labour because of "prejudice"? So to show they are not prejudice they should vote for them? Is that what you are saying? And what about the people who are prejudice or disagree with the Tories or LibDems or SNP. Have they got to vote for them to prove they are not prejudice?






There was not the same sort of hostility or hatred towards Heath as there has been against Corbyn by Labour voters and MPs.


Of course not, just the pundits, these are the people who said the electorate would vote to Remain. They also said the Coalition would continue etc. etc. ad infinitum.

The real issue with Labour, isn't it's core support, but the fellow travellers, those that Blair attracted. Have a look at Thatcher and Sons by Simon Jenkins.

Over the past thirty odd years, we've all been conditioned to accept command/control leadership and to simply accept propaganda without question. This was so obvious in the referendum campaign, where both sides produced bogus and doubtful data which was sold as absolute fact. The worst consequence of all this is that every politician becomes a liar.

One very clear message coming from the electorate during the recent election is that they can see through this and are looking for something new. Jeremy Corbyn, like his policies or not, is a conviction politician, who doesn't simply chase power for its own sake and willing to say it as is.

Remember, we are the generation that got taken in, the next are rather more savvy.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 26 2016, 05:06 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 26 2016, 05:35 PM) *
I didn't say that, I said, haven't you heard anything yourself? People say has been dishonest over the Jews, and there has been other questions over his political comments. Then there is the stunt over trains; that was dishonest. Then we can add the EU into the equation. And there is much more.

Dishonest over the Jews? Can you be specific?

I didn't see anything dishonest about the train stunt. He was on a packed train and there were other people sitting in the corridors - I doubt very much that there was not a single seat to be found on the train, but the train was packed as many are, and it was an effective protest against the failure of private enterprise to provide an adequate rail service.

Sorry, the EU? Wasn't that UKIP who lied about the NHS funding?

Posted by: blackdog Sep 26 2016, 05:45 PM

Corbyn is unelectable because the press and media constantly portray him as an incompetent left wing loony. I don't suppose this will change. so people will not take him seriously and vote against him no matter how much they like his policies.

Nevertheless he does have a huge problem as a leader - which is his long history of refusing to follow previous leaders through the voting lobby. With his record it is almost impossible for him to demand his MPs follow his lead.

Personally I think he has been just what British politics needed, a genuine alternative to the multi-party adherence to Thatcherite 'truths'.

Posted by: GMR Sep 26 2016, 06:19 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 26 2016, 05:54 PM) *
Of course not, just the pundits, these are the people who said the electorate would vote to Remain. They also said the Coalition would continue etc. etc. ad infinitum.


Yes, but that is guess work. What they say about Corbyn is totally different. It is nothing to do with guess work but looking at the facts.

QUOTE
The real issue with Labour, isn't it's core support, but the fellow travellers, those that Blair attracted. Have a look at Thatcher and Sons by Simon Jenkins.


I've read it.

QUOTE
Over the past thirty odd years, we've all been conditioned to accept command/control leadership and to simply accept propaganda without question. This was so obvious in the referendum campaign, where both sides produced bogus and doubtful data which was sold as absolute fact. The worst consequence of all this is that every politician becomes a liar.


I agree, however, are you now saying that we should accept another type of propaganda? Every politician is regarded as a liar, even Corbyn, however, when you analyse it and what is left isn't a drawing us towards Corbyn's brand of politics.

QUOTE
One very clear message coming from the electorate during the recent election is that they can see through this and are looking for something new. Jeremy Corbyn, like his policies or not, is a conviction politician, who doesn't simply chase power for its own sake and willing to say it as is.


Yes, they can see though it, they also can see through Corbyn. Yes, Corbyn is a conviction politician, but that isn't reason enough to vote for him. There are many unsavory conviction politicians out there, but that doesn't mean we should willy-nilly vote for them. We only vote for somebody if their message appeals to the masses, not just the idiots and those that are blinded.

QUOTE
Remember, we are the generation that got taken in, the next are rather more savvy.


One thing we learn from people and human nature... nothing changes. People are no more savvy than they were yesterday. And savvy doesn't mean gullible, and that is why people won't vote for Corbyn.


Posted by: GMR Sep 26 2016, 06:24 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 26 2016, 06:06 PM) *
Dishonest over the Jews? Can you be specific?


Are you telling me you don't know anything? Don't you read the news?

QUOTE
I didn't see anything dishonest about the train stunt. He was on a packed train and there were other people sitting in the corridors - I doubt very much that there was not a single seat to be found on the train, but the train was packed as many are, and it was an effective protest against the failure of private enterprise to provide an adequate rail service.


Actually there were seats available. He was pulling a stunt.

QUOTE
Sorry, the EU? Wasn't that UKIP who lied about the NHS funding?


They played semantics, but so did both sides... and both sides lied. But that wasn't what I said. Corbyn spent his life voting against the EU. He was pounced into supporting the In campaigners... but when he did campaign he played with words to give the impression that he was for staying In, he wasn't.


Posted by: GMR Sep 26 2016, 06:26 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Sep 26 2016, 06:45 PM) *
Corbyn is unelectable because the press and media constantly portray him as an incompetent left wing loony. I don't suppose this will change. so people will not take him seriously and vote against him no matter how much they like his policies. Nevertheless he does have a huge problem as a leader - which is his long history of refusing to follow previous leaders through the voting lobby. With his record it is almost impossible for him to demand his MPs follow his lead. Personally I think he has been just what British politics needed, a genuine alternative to the multi-party adherence to Thatcherite 'truths'.


The press can portray him as they like, but that doesn't mean the public also can't see him that way with or without the Presses help.

He is a "genuine alternative" that will keep the Tories in power for generations.


Posted by: On the edge Sep 26 2016, 06:29 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Sep 26 2016, 06:45 PM) *
Corbyn is unelectable because the press and media constantly portray him as an incompetent left wing loony. I don't suppose this will change. so people will not take him seriously and vote against him no matter how much they like his policies.

Nevertheless he does have a huge problem as a leader - which is his long history of refusing to follow previous leaders through the voting lobby. With his record it is almost impossible for him to demand his MPs follow his lead.

Personally I think he has been just what British politics needed, a genuine alternative to the multi-party adherence to Thatcherite 'truths'.


Yes, I think your last paragraph about sums it up. Even if he doesn't get elected and simply starts that shift, he'll have been for the good. I'd also hazard a guess that press and media influence might well have reached a high watermark. Social media and disinterest because of news overload is beginning to have an effect.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 26 2016, 06:34 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 26 2016, 07:19 PM) *
Yes, but that is guess work. What they say about Corbyn is totally different. It is nothing to do with guess work but looking at the facts.



I've read it.



I agree, however, are you now saying that we should accept another type of propaganda? Every politician is regarded as a liar, even Corbyn, however, when you analyse it and what is left isn't a drawing us towards Corbyn's brand of politics.



Yes, they can see though it, they also can see through Corbyn. Yes, Corbyn is a conviction politician, but that isn't reason enough to vote for him. There are many unsavory conviction politicians out there, but that doesn't mean we should willy-nilly vote for them. We only vote for somebody if their message appeals to the masses, not just the idiots and those that are blinded.



One thing we learn from people and human nature... nothing changes. People are no more savvy than they were yesterday. And savvy doesn't mean gullible, and that is why people won't vote for Corbyn.


OK, we won't agree but what is the big fear you have of Jeremy Corbyn? That he might keep the Tories in power for 20 years can be no bad thing if you support them, or UKIP, or indeed the coalition LibDems, so what's the issue? The mantra that good opposition means good government is demonstrably untrue, so it can't be that; so again, why worry about a failure that will keep your opponent on the floor?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 26 2016, 06:47 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 26 2016, 07:24 PM) *
Are you telling me you don't know anything? Don't you read the news?

No, really, I have no idea what you're point is. If you have something to say then out with it.

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 26 2016, 07:24 PM) *
Actually there were seats available. He was pulling a stunt.

Yes, I'm sure there were seats available, but it was packed and it was a legitimate stunt to highlight the fact that too many trains are packed. Had the train been empty then it would indeed have been a dishonest representation, but there were other passengers sitting in corridors and they weren't pulling a stunt, it's just what you do on a packed train.

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 26 2016, 07:24 PM) *
They played semantics, but so did both sides... and both sides lied. But that wasn't what I said. Corbyn spent his life voting against the EU. He was pounced into supporting the In campaigners... but when he did campaign he played with words to give the impression that he was for staying In, he wasn't.

Semantics? UKIP said very clearly in letters the size of a bus that they would divert the EU contribution to better fund the NHS, and that was knowingly false and dishonest. I have no idea what you think is dishonest about Corbyn taking the considered view that, on balance, remaining in the EU is a better choice for the nation than leaving. You very obviously don't agree with him, but that doesn't make his position dishonest.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 26 2016, 06:52 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 26 2016, 07:47 PM) *
Yes, I'm sure there were seats available, but it was packed and it was a legitimate stunt to highlight the fact that too many trains are packed. Had the train been empty then it would indeed have been a dishonest representation, but there were other passengers sitting in corridors and they weren't pulling a stunt, it's just what you do on a packed train.

I don't. I go and find a seat!!! If you sit on the floor when seats are available then it is your choice!
Yes, too many trains are packed but there are many reasons for this. Not just the fact that the railways a "semi" privatised.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2016, 08:38 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 26 2016, 07:47 PM) *
Semantics? UKIP said very clearly in letters the size of a bus that they would divert the EU contribution to better fund the NHS, and that was knowingly false and dishonest. I have no idea what you think is dishonest about Corbyn taking the considered view that, on balance, remaining in the EU is a better choice for the nation than leaving. You very obviously don't agree with him, but that doesn't make his position dishonest.

I have seen no bus advert stating UKIP would divert any money. I saw a proposal that should happen but that isn't the same thing. We weren't voting for a party, we were voting to stay or leave the EU.

With Corbyn it is rumoured he was a closet Brexit and his apparent lacklustre support for Remain seemed to support this in some people's eyes.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 26 2016, 08:44 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Sep 26 2016, 07:52 PM) *
I don't. I go and find a seat!!! If you sit on the floor when seats are available then it is your choice!
Yes, too many trains are packed but there are many reasons for this. Not just the fact that the railways a "semi" privatised.

I've done both, and on a long journey I'd probably poke up with whoever it was I had to sit next to in order to get a seat, or I might just stand, and if I'd decided to stand I might then decide to sit in the corridor - like I say, Corbyn wasn't the only passenger sitting on the floor and those other passengers weren't pulling a stunt, they were just riding a crowded train, and so in my view there was nothing dishonest in the stunt and like t or not it was a valid criticism of how crowded the train was - and by implication how crowded some routes are.

As for attacking the principle of privatisation that's obviously more of a debate as rail was hardly perfect when it was formally nationalised so it's a stretch to say that re-nationalisation would be an improvement, but Corbyn is perfectly entitled to articulate that argument.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 26 2016, 08:44 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 26 2016, 09:38 PM) *
I have seen no bus advert stating UKIP would divert any money. I saw a proposal that should happen but that isn't the same thing. We weren't voting for a party, we were voting to stay or leave the EU.

With Corbyn it is rumoured he was a closet Brexit and his apparent lacklustre support for Remain seemed to support this in some people's eyes.


The same could be levelled against Theresa May and she's become PM cool.gif

Posted by: newres Sep 26 2016, 08:59 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 26 2016, 09:38 PM) *
I have seen no bus advert stating UKIP would divert any money. I saw a proposal that should happen but that isn't the same thing. We weren't voting for a party, we were voting to stay or leave the EU.

But it appealed to the base instinct often found that lurks behind "charity begins at home". It isn't a choice between the NHS and the EU, but to be blunt a lot of our population aren't bright enough to see that and aren't too fond of Johnny Foreigner either.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 26 2016, 09:14 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 25 2016, 08:46 AM) *
You can read the Chakrabarti report for yourself, but if you want the executive summary: http://there%20is%20no%20institutional%20anti-semitism%20in%20the%20Labour%20Party. Credit to Corbyn though for commissioning an open independent report so swiftly, I can't think of any other political party that would have done as much.

But enough of the deflection and smears, you made the assertion that UKIP had made good on their promises and I've challenged that because the NHS funding promise was the most spectacular lie of their campaign and will have suckered millions of people into supporting Brexit where otherwise they wouldn't have, and even the fundamental basis of UKIP's campaign is now looking bogus as the remaining EU states disabuse Blighty of that baseless UKIP promise that the UK will be allowed access to the single market without allowing freedom of movement.

The report that has been widely called a 'whitewash' and whose auther was handed a peerage within weeks of its publication. That report?

Posted by: On the edge Sep 26 2016, 09:15 PM

Sad, Newres, still on the everyone who disagrees with me must be thick line?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 26 2016, 09:18 PM

Is it cos wees all da swivel eyed loons like? laugh.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2016, 09:22 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Sep 26 2016, 09:59 PM) *
But it appealed to the base instinct often found that lurks behind "charity begins at home". It isn't a choice between the NHS and the EU, but to be blunt a lot of our population aren't bright enough to see that and aren't too fond of Johnny Foreigner either.

The bit I don't like is the: UKIP promised to divert the money; they didn't. They might be guilty of lying by omission, but on that it should be 'buyer beware'. The big lie could be whether we can actually Brexit sufficiently to make all this disruption worthwhile.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 26 2016, 09:46 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 26 2016, 09:38 PM) *
I have seen no bus advert stating UKIP would divert any money. I saw a proposal that should happen but that isn't the same thing. We weren't voting for a party, we were voting to stay or leave the EU.

You're right - the £350 million per week promise which was untrue was on the battle bus of the Vote Leave campaign which was a cross-party campaign group and not UKIP itself. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-nigel-farage-nhs-pledge-disowns-350-million-pounds-a7099906.html denouncing the promise the day after polls closed.

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 26 2016, 09:38 PM) *
With Corbyn it is rumoured he was a closet Brexit and his apparent lacklustre support for Remain seemed to support this in some people's eyes.

Is this a witch hunt now? I don't think it's any secret that Corbyn is not a dyed-in-the-wool Europhile and I see no dishonesty in him reaching a considered but not particularly strongly held view that remaining in the EU was on the whole in the best interests of the people of Britain. Neither do I see the problem in his leadership of the Labour Party in the run-up to the referendum - if his considered view was that membership was on the whole just about preferable then he lead Labour honestly - don't forget there are plenty of Eurosceptics within Labour and the question of EU membership is pretty much orthogonal to Labour's socialist political values so it was never clear to me why Labour as a party needed to express a view one way or the other. If you have a gripe about the effectiveness of the remain campaign you need to take it up with Britain Stronger in Europe and the people who led that.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2016, 09:56 PM

I have no gripe. The blame for Brexit should be felt most by the EU. The decision to leave was made fairly easy by them.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 26 2016, 10:13 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 26 2016, 10:56 PM) *
I have no gripe. The blame for Brexit should be felt most by the EU. The decision to leave was made fairly easy by them.

GMR made the accusation that Corbyn was dishonest and I asked him to substantiate that and he cited Corbyn's leadership of Labour in the run-up to the referendum. I don't see any dishonesty in that leadership, so GMR's argument has rather bombed, but that's how we got here.

Posted by: blackdog Sep 27 2016, 08:48 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 26 2016, 07:47 PM) *
Semantics? UKIP said very clearly in letters the size of a bus that they would divert the EU contribution to better fund the NHS, and that was knowingly false and dishonest. I have no idea what you think is dishonest about Corbyn taking the considered view that, on balance, remaining in the EU is a better choice for the nation than leaving. You very obviously don't agree with him, but that doesn't make his position dishonest.


If we're into semantics then it's only fair to point out that it was Vote Leave that painted the bus, not UKIP. It was Johnson and Gove who were using the bus, not Farage.


Posted by: newres Sep 27 2016, 11:27 AM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Sep 27 2016, 09:48 AM) *
If we're into semantics then it's only fair to point out that it was Vote Leave that painted the bus, not UKIP. It was Johnson and Gove who were using the bus, not Farage.


Therefore giving the idea more credibility.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 27 2016, 12:38 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Sep 27 2016, 09:48 AM) *
If we're into semantics then it's only fair to point out that it was Vote Leave that painted the bus, not UKIP. It was Johnson and Gove who were using the bus, not Farage.


You're right, I was mistaken.

Posted by: GMR Sep 27 2016, 03:12 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 26 2016, 07:34 PM) *
OK, we won't agree but what is the big fear you have of Jeremy Corbyn? That he might keep the Tories in power for 20 years can be no bad thing if you support them, or UKIP, or indeed the coalition LibDems, so what's the issue? The mantra that good opposition means good government is demonstrably untrue, so it can't be that; so again, why worry about a failure that will keep your opponent on the floor?





Putting it that way I can't really disagree with you, but it is sad that the Tories won't have an opposition.


Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2016, 03:16 PM

I think Governments eventually lose elections, rather than win them. I remember the tories were written off in the same way when Bliar got in.

Posted by: GMR Sep 27 2016, 03:17 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 26 2016, 07:47 PM) *
No, really, I have no idea what you're point is.


Really?

QUOTE
If you have something to say then out with it. Yes, I'm sure there were seats available, but it was packed and it was a legitimate stunt to highlight the fact that too many trains are packed. Had the train been empty then it would indeed have been a dishonest representation, but there were other passengers sitting in corridors and they weren't pulling a stunt, it's just what you do on a packed train.


I am glad you agree it was a "stunt", but a stunt can be seen as a lie, seeing as he said it wasn't a stunt.




QUOTE
Semantics? UKIP said very clearly in letters the size of a bus that they would divert the EU contribution to better fund the NHS, and that was knowingly false and dishonest. I have no idea what you think is dishonest about Corbyn taking the considered view that, on balance, remaining in the EU is a better choice for the nation than leaving. You very obviously don't agree with him, but that doesn't make his position dishonest.


"They would divert...."? Really? The only person who can divert anything is the PM of this country. Anybody who knows anything about politics should now that, whether it be, Johnson, Gove or UKIP, they can't make any promises because they weren't in a position to do so.


Posted by: GMR Sep 27 2016, 03:18 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 26 2016, 09:38 PM) *
I have seen no bus advert stating UKIP would divert any money. I saw a proposal that should happen but that isn't the same thing. We weren't voting for a party, we were voting to stay or leave the EU. With Corbyn it is rumoured he was a closet Brexit and his apparent lacklustre support for Remain seemed to support this in some people's eyes.





Good point.


Posted by: On the edge Sep 27 2016, 03:46 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 27 2016, 04:12 PM) *
Putting it that way I can't really disagree with you, but it is sad that the Tories won't have an opposition.


I doubt if that will worry them, after all Tony Blair had no real opposition.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 27 2016, 03:51 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 27 2016, 04:17 PM) *
I am glad you agree it was a "stunt", but a stunt can be seen as a lie, seeing as he said it wasn't a stunt.

He could have said it was a gorilla riding a bicycle and you'd argue that it would depend what he meant by "bicycle". It was a legitimate protest at train overcrowding with no misrepresentation involved?

Do you want to have another go at justifying the smear that Corbyn is dishonest?

Posted by: GMR Sep 27 2016, 04:24 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 27 2016, 04:46 PM) *
I doubt if that will worry them, after all Tony Blair had no real opposition.





Tony Blair had more opposition than May will get from Corbyn.


Posted by: GMR Sep 27 2016, 04:25 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 27 2016, 04:51 PM) *
He could have said it was a gorilla riding a bicycle and you'd argue that it would depend what he meant by "bicycle". It was a legitimate protest at train overcrowding with no misrepresentation involved? Do you want to have another go at justifying the smear that Corbyn is dishonest?


I argued it the way it was.

But that isn't what he said; that it was a "legitimate protest". You are playing semantics.


Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 27 2016, 04:52 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 27 2016, 05:25 PM) *
I argued it the way it was.

But that isn't what he said; that it was a "legitimate protest". You are playing semantics.

It's not a matter of semantics, it's rhetoric, and you haven't made you point.

Posted by: GMR Sep 27 2016, 06:46 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 27 2016, 05:52 PM) *
It's not a matter of semantics, it's rhetoric, and you haven't made you point.





I haven't made my point to you because that would put you in an awkward position if I had.


Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2016, 07:25 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 27 2016, 07:46 PM) *
I haven't made my point to you because that would put you in an awkward position if I had.

If you make your point, we won't tell; promise.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 27 2016, 07:25 PM

Its all irrelevant anyway. Corbyn wants to spend £500 billion. No one in the EU and blighty will have a pot to piss in soon...

Get stocked up.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 27 2016, 08:28 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Sep 27 2016, 08:25 PM) *
Its all irrelevant anyway. Corbyn wants to spend £500 billion. No one in the EU and blighty will have a pot to piss in soon...

Get stocked up.

Current government spending is in the region of £800billion. http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ Can you explain your complaint?

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 27 2016, 09:24 PM

Is it not ANOTHER £500 billion?

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 27 2016, 09:30 PM

I did love the fact that although the labour heartland (oop north like) led the charge to brexit according to Jeremy's pit bull everyone who voted out is a racist. Labour voters will really appreciate that I'm sure.

How to self destruct 101!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 27 2016, 09:45 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Sep 27 2016, 10:24 PM) *
Is it not ANOTHER £500 billion?

Is it, I don't know - I'm happy to hold up one end of this argument but I really don't think it's asking too much for someone to put bit of effort in on the other end.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 27 2016, 09:48 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Sep 27 2016, 10:30 PM) *
I did love the fact that although the labour heartland (oop north like) led the charge to brexit according to Jeremy's pit bull everyone who voted out is a racist. Labour voters will really appreciate that I'm sure.

How to self destruct 101!

I suspect the resolution to your apparent paradox is that not everyone who voted brexit is a racist - nice passive aggression btw.

Posted by: blackdog Sep 27 2016, 09:54 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Sep 27 2016, 05:24 PM) *
Tony Blair had more opposition than May will get from Corbyn.

Judging by the number of government U-turns in the last year there is a pretty effective opposition somewhere.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 27 2016, 10:03 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 27 2016, 09:28 PM) *
Current government spending is in the region of £800billion. http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ Can you explain your complaint?


Not even relevant. Sorry Simon. Corbyn wants to spend another 500 billion. If I promised to spend 200 trillion extra would you vote for me? Time to take the pill that tells the truth. Ignore it if makes u feel better. March 2018. My guess. If not before. Depends on how the run on DB gos.



Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 27 2016, 10:58 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 27 2016, 10:48 PM) *
I suspect the resolution to your apparent paradox is that not everyone who voted brexit is a racist - nice passive aggression btw.

Why, thank you. I try, I try.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 28 2016, 06:18 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Sep 27 2016, 11:03 PM) *
Not even relevant. Sorry Simon. Corbyn wants to spend another 500 billion. If I promised to spend 200 trillion extra would you vote for me? Time to take the pill that tells the truth. Ignore it if makes u feel better. March 2018. My guess. If not before. Depends on how the run on DB gos.

That's just an expression of contempt for the idea, it's not a reasoned argument - can you say more specifically what the proposal is and why it's a bad thing?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 28 2016, 06:57 AM

It seems Mr Corbyn is not acknowledging one of the core reasons many of his core voters voted Brexit: immigration. He is not acknowledging a need to mange immigration.

I suppose this has two sides to it: an acknowledgment of the need for immigration whether on economic grounds or humanitarian, but may also come at a cost to his party of which he is of course the leader.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 28 2016, 10:30 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 28 2016, 07:57 AM) *
It seems Mr Corbyn is not acknowledging one of the core reasons many of his core voters voted Brexit: immigration. He is not acknowledging a need to mange immigration.

I suppose this has two sides to it: an acknowledgment of the need for immigration whether on economic grounds or humanitarian, but may also come at a cost to his party of which he is of course the leader.

The problem isn't immigration, the problem is that areas of the UK have been underinvested for the last 40 years and people are just fed up with their miserable lot, so it's understandable when people blame foreigners.

Posted by: GMR Sep 28 2016, 06:34 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 27 2016, 08:25 PM) *
If you make your point, we won't tell; promise.





It is our secret wink.gif


Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 28 2016, 09:18 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 28 2016, 11:30 AM) *
The problem isn't immigration, the problem is that areas of the UK have been underinvested for the last 40 years and people are just fed up with their miserable lot, so it's understandable when people blame foreigners.


So the problem is not massive population growth?
I strongly disagree. Its not foreigners as you say but it is numbers.
We simply cannot cope with the massive numbers of people coming into the country in a few short years. You cant build infrastructure quick enough to cope. I feel this is where brexiteers are wrongly labelled racist. Its such a shame that rational discussion is always hijacked by some. Not you Simon. Id have a pint with you and chew the fat. Others who always see things that sometimes are just not there.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 28 2016, 09:35 PM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Sep 28 2016, 10:18 PM) *
So the problem is not massive population growth?
I strongly disagree. Its not foreigners as you say but it is numbers.
We simply cannot cope with the massive numbers of people coming into the country in a few short years. You cant build infrastructure quick enough to cope. I feel this is where brexiteers are wrongly labelled racist. Its such a shame that rational discussion is always hijacked by some. Not you Simon. Id have a pint with you and chew the fat. Others who always see things that sometimes are just not there.


I don't think Labours policy is much different; simply they won't be drawn on pin point numbers. You are right, the infrastructure in the fullest meaning of the word is indeed collapsing in a fair few areas. Get that put put right, properly right, and most won't give a tinkers cuss about where their neighbour might have come from. That's just what Jeremy Corbyn has said at their conference. Of course, the fastest way to create the infrastructure is to increase the size of the workforce, that necessarily means immigrants, just as it did in 1950s, when from the NHS, London Transport, Imperial Tyoewriters etc.etc.etc. immigrant labour was demanded.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Sep 28 2016, 09:46 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 28 2016, 10:35 PM) *
I don't think Labours policy is much different; simply they won't be drawn on pin point numbers. You are right, the infrastructure in the fullest meaning of the word is indeed collapsing in a fair few areas. Get that put put right, properly right, and most won't give a tinkers cuss about where their neighbour might have come from. That's just what Jeremy Corbyn has said at their conference. Of course, the fastest way to create the infrastructure is to increase the size of the workforce, that necessarily means immigrants, just as it did in 1950s, when from the NHS, London Transport, Imperial Tyoewriters etc.etc.etc. immigrant labour was demanded.


You have a point. How will we go about making sure that the people who are coming in will contribute to the infrastructure build? Id like to see it and pay them well. Does this mean you would only accept a percentage who would not? Or take everyone whether they do or not and just hope for the best?

Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 28 2016, 09:59 PM

Meanwhile, all the immigrant influx are guaranteed a job, at at least £10ph as well as everyone already here. Err, I think I can see a flaw in the argument.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Sep 29 2016, 06:03 AM

[quote name='Simon Kirby' date='Sep 27 2016, 10:48 PM' post='111984']
I suspect the resolution to your apparent paradox is that not everyone who voted brexit is a racist - nice passive aggression btw.
[T?/quote]
Then of course theres the ever popular Jackie walkers delightful stance on the holocaust. Anti Semitism in the Labour party? Why would we think that?

Posted by: On the edge Sep 29 2016, 06:52 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Sep 28 2016, 10:46 PM) *
You have a point. How will we go about making sure that the people who are coming in will contribute to the infrastructure build? Id like to see it and pay them well. Does this mean you would only accept a percentage who would not? Or take everyone whether they do or not and just hope for the best?


No matter what, as you say, there will be a gap before we have a decent infrastructure. That does mean that there is an immediate issue; that of reassuring the population that matters are in control. In my view, this means controls who comes to the Country with the intention of staying. We therefore need to determine the rules and means of enforcement, which must have public confidence. Its this that ought to inform the debate and the test should be public acceptance and there are ways to determine that, other than the easily manipulated concentration on raw numbers.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 29 2016, 06:55 AM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Sep 28 2016, 10:59 PM) *
Meanwhile, all the immigrant influx are guaranteed a job, at at least £10ph as well as everyone already here. Err, I think I can see a flaw in the argument.


Phew, your mate Phil Green unloaded his shop just in time didn't he?



Posted by: Turin Machine Sep 29 2016, 07:31 AM

Good bloke is Phil, Christmas card every year.

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 6 2016, 09:18 PM

"Jeremy Corbyn has made his first major changes since being re-elected as Labour’s leader, appointing his allies Diane Abbott and Shami Chakrabarti to top jobs within the shadow cabinet."

Wow! So Shami gets a peerage and a front bench job for clearing her buddy of anti Semitism. Nice work if you can get it! But nothing suspicious there. Just labour doing its thing.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 7 2016, 05:46 AM

A racist as Shadow Home Sec!

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 7 2016, 07:32 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 7 2016, 06:46 AM) *
A racist as Shadow Home Sec!


I thought it was OK to be racist if you were not white?😄

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 7 2016, 08:09 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Oct 7 2016, 08:32 AM) *
I thought it was OK to be racist if you were not white?😄

I hear what you are saying and it would seem it is 'alright', but a racist will always be a racist, regardless of reason! wink.gif

Posted by: je suis Charlie Oct 7 2016, 09:15 AM

So, A racist, an anti Semite and a baroness walk into a bar, and the bartender says ? Feel free to add your own ending!

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 7 2016, 10:58 AM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Oct 7 2016, 10:15 AM) *
So, A racist, an anti Semite and a baroness walk into a bar, and the bartender says ? Feel free to add your own ending!

"Looks like you're heading for a party later?"
"No, we're just good friends."

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 7 2016, 12:25 PM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Oct 7 2016, 10:15 AM) *
So, A racist, an anti Semite and a baroness walk into a bar, and the bartender says ? Feel free to add your own ending!

"So Jeremy, what'll it be?"

"Ooh, I think we will have a bucket of whitewash thanks, with a side order of hypocrisy"

Posted by: On the edge Oct 7 2016, 01:40 PM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Oct 7 2016, 10:15 AM) *
So, A racist, an anti Semite and a baroness walk into a bar, and the bartender says ? Feel free to add your own ending!


Just here for the racing or do you live here?

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 7 2016, 09:12 PM

If anyone needs any evidence of the political indoctrination of the BBC, just watch Friday's hignfy Solid, turgid right bashing. So boring and all at our expense.

Posted by: x2lls Oct 7 2016, 10:29 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Oct 7 2016, 10:12 PM) *
If anyone needs any evidence of the political indoctrination of the BBC, just watch Friday's hignfy Solid, turgid right bashing. So boring and all at our expense.


In addition, the *** BBC will not allow HYS on real issues. Those fools still have an anti brexit agenda.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 8 2016, 06:48 AM

QUOTE (x2lls @ Oct 7 2016, 11:29 PM) *
In addition, the *** BBC will not allow HYS on real issues. Those fools still have an anti brexit agenda.


And it turns out 100s of BBC employees allegedly have not been paying the correct tax!! Hopefully HMRC will prosecute.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/37591366?client=ms-android-lge

Do as we say. Not as we do.....

Posted by: JeffG Oct 8 2016, 09:18 AM

QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Oct 8 2016, 07:48 AM) *
And it turns out 100s of BBC employees allegedly have not been paying the correct tax!! Hopefully HMRC will prosecute.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/37591366?client=ms-android-lge

Do as we say. Not as we do.....

Ah the evil IR35! The bane of contractors everywhere, making it virtually impossible to work as a self-employed person. Fortunately, its introduction roughly coincided with my retirement.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 8 2016, 10:11 AM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 8 2016, 10:18 AM) *
Ah the evil IR35! The bane of contractors everywhere, making it virtually impossible to work as a self-employed person. Fortunately, its introduction roughly coincided with my retirement.

I understand you can but you pay more tax than before.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 8 2016, 10:12 AM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 8 2016, 10:18 AM) *
Ah the evil IR35! The bane of contractors everywhere, making it virtually impossible to work as a self-employed person. Fortunately, its introduction roughly coincided with my retirement.

I understand you can but you pay more tax than before.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Oct 8 2016, 04:28 PM

"Russia has deployed nuclear-capable Iskander missiles in its Kaliningrad region, bordering Poland and Lithuania. Linas Linkevicius, foreign minister of Nato-member Lithuania, said that the aim of the move was to "seek concessions from the West".

So, still nothing to worry about is it Jeremy, only Russia using the threat of nuclear exchange, move along now, nothing to see here!

Posted by: newres Oct 8 2016, 04:39 PM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Oct 8 2016, 05:28 PM) *
"Russia has deployed nuclear-capable Iskander missiles in its Kaliningrad region, bordering Poland and Lithuania. Linas Linkevicius, foreign minister of Nato-member Lithuania, said that the aim of the move was to "seek concessions from the West".

So, still nothing to worry about is it Jeremy, only Russia using the threat of nuclear exchange, move along now, nothing to see here!

Muddled argument there. So why isn't the vast nuclear arsenal deterring them?

Posted by: je suis Charlie Oct 8 2016, 06:56 PM

Cos theirs is Bigger and they are aware of the rise of soft leftists in Europe. Ooh, nuclear weaponry is nasty! We don't want that!

Posted by: newres Oct 8 2016, 06:59 PM

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Oct 8 2016, 07:56 PM) *
Cos theirs is Bigger and they are aware of the rise of soft leftists in Europe. Ooh, nuclear weaponry is nasty! We don't want that!

Really? Donald Trump, May, Farage and Johnson? You're 'avin' a larff! laugh.gif

Posted by: je suis Charlie Oct 8 2016, 07:34 PM

Clinton, Corbyn. And that's not funny.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)