Corbyn, This is democracy!!!! Options

[Simon Kirby]

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: there is no institutional anti-semitism in the Labour Party. 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.

[Turin Machine]

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

[je suis Charlie]

"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.

[Simon Kirby]

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.

[JeffG]

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?

[GMR]

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.

[GMR]

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.

[GMR]

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.

[On the edge]

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.

[Simon Kirby]

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.

[GMR]

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.

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.

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.

[GMR]

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?

[Simon Kirby]

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.

[On the edge]

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!

[je suis Charlie]

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!

[On the edge]

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!

[TallDarkAndHands...]

...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?

[On the edge]

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!

[Simon Kirby]

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.

[GMR]

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.