# Jeremy Corbyn



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 24, 2015)

Favourite to become the Labour leader........who would have called that one?

I knew Labour had to move to the left to become electable outwith Scotland but did not think it would happen that quickly.


----------



## Rooter (Jul 24, 2015)

I like him on A league of their own, Not watched his US chat show yet. will have to try and catch it. Nothing will beat Smiffy in Gavin and Stacey though..


----------



## guest100718 (Jul 24, 2015)

Rooter said:



			I like him on A league of their own, Not watched his US chat show yet. will have to try and catch it. Nothing will beat Smiffy in Gavin and Stacey though..
		
Click to expand...

My mrs loved gavin and stacy. Im not such a fan. It will be interesting to see how he manages running the labour party and his acting career.


----------



## Snelly (Jul 24, 2015)

Fingers crossed that he wins.  Labour will be unelectable as a government as a result.


----------



## Ethan (Jul 24, 2015)

I think a lot of Labour supporters don't necessarily see Corbyn as the ideal sort of leader, but they want to see the version of Labour ideology he espouses represented in the debate. The other candidates are all centre or centre-right and are more like the professional slippery politician with flexible and purchasable ideology that occupies the ranks of the Toey party and which many people despise. 

Shame on those in Labour who do not want this debate to happen or who want to deny what is clearly the will of a large share of the party. Shame on the other candidates who have not better recognised this crucial aspect of Labour. 

As for going back to the 80s, if that is to a time when Labour does not support faking documents to start unnecessary wars which destabilised the Middle East, doesn't support stealth privatization of the NHS and punitive PFI contracts, and won't support of the City leading to an economic meltdown, then I can't wait to get back there.


----------



## Hobbit (Jul 24, 2015)

Snelly said:



			Fingers crossed that he wins.  Labour will be unelectable as a government as a result.
		
Click to expand...

Wot he sez.

Labour will have returned to the days of Kinnock & Foot... we need viable opposition, irrespective of who's in govt, if only to stop the excesses of whoever is in power. Equally, a working majority to stop irritating gnats like the SNP - get it, (g)NATS... i'll get my coat.


----------



## jp5 (Jul 24, 2015)

Labour are probably unelectable for a generation anyway, so I hope he gets elected. Will make things a little more interesting to have actual opposition.


----------



## 6inchcup (Jul 24, 2015)

do what i and thousands of right wing voters did,pay Â£3 to join labour party and you can vote on the LEADER,they made the rules now they are moaning about not getting the person they wanted and are crying foul,tough luck.


----------



## Hobbit (Jul 24, 2015)

6inchcup said:



			do what i and thousands of right wing voters did,pay Â£3 to join labour party and you can vote on the LEADER,they made the rules now they are moaning about not getting the person they wanted and are crying foul,tough luck.
		
Click to expand...

Hahahahaha - heard this on Wednesday, sat around with a load of non-Labour voters. All bar two had joined up to vote for Corbyn - priceless!


----------



## jp5 (Jul 24, 2015)

6inchcup said:



			do what i and thousands of right wing voters did,pay Â£3 to join labour party and you can vote on the LEADER,they made the rules now they are moaning about not getting the person they wanted and are crying foul,tough luck.
		
Click to expand...

Would be quite funny if Labour somehow win the 2020 election with Corbyn as leader due to all the Tory votes.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jul 24, 2015)

6inchcup said:



			do what i and thousands of right wing voters did,pay Â£3 to join labour party and you can vote on the LEADER,they made the rules now they are moaning about not getting the person they wanted and are crying foul,tough luck.
		
Click to expand...

I really hope this isn't what you've actually done. That strikes me as exceptionally petty, and a really weird thing to do.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 24, 2015)

Snelly said:



			Fingers crossed that he wins.  Labour will be unelectable as a government as a result.
		
Click to expand...

and if Labour stayed left you'd really be happy with a one-party state - really?  God help us all if Westminster is Forever Tory-land


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 24, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Hahahahaha - heard this on Wednesday, sat around with a load of non-Labour voters. All bar two had joined up to vote for Corbyn - priceless!
		
Click to expand...

Not really funny - pretty pathetic actually


----------



## Ethan (Jul 24, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Hahahahaha - heard this on Wednesday, sat around with a load of non-Labour voters. All bar two had joined up to vote for Corbyn - priceless!
		
Click to expand...

Really? The Labour Party membership is about 250,000. There are about 20,000 registered supporters, of whom many are genuine supporters who will vote for a candidate they really believe in, and many more will be joining through the unions. There are probably many people who tell stories down the pub that they have joined. Many are probably telling porkies. 

Corbyn probably won't win, because he doesn't have enough first preferences and will get few second preferences, but his performance may help reposition the policies of Labour under a different leader and make them more electable, so your mates down the pub are doing something very useful indeed and their Â£3 donations will be spent wisely.


----------



## Rooter (Jul 24, 2015)

to be fair, i just heard him on radio 2 and he is the first labour MP i have ever heard talk a bit of sense! I quite liked him and i am a tory boy!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 24, 2015)

Rooter said:



			to be fair, i just heard him on radio 2 and he is the first labour MP i have ever heard talk a bit of sense! I quite liked him and i am a tory boy!
		
Click to expand...

I think this is a bit like what happened with the SNP after the referendum.
The meja and politco's totally out of touch with what is actually happening, making silly comments [like Blair], and adding to the momentum of the candidate.
The other three are followers, Corbyn is an independent thinker who seems fairly honest for a politician.  
Mr Beige may win the day


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jul 24, 2015)

All govts need decent opposition so Corbyn winning is not good for the country. Labour are currently going through the same problems that the tories did during the Blair years. The sooner they get back on track the better for everyone. Yes, really it is.

Corbyn is unelectable to the country as a whole. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded or a Tory laughing like mad behind their hands.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 24, 2015)

Lord Tyrion said:



			All govts need decent opposition so Corbyn winning is not good for the country. Labour are currently going through the same problems that the tories did during the Blair years. The sooner they get back on track the better for everyone. Yes, really it is.

Corbyn is unelectable to the country as a whole. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded or a Tory laughing like mad behind their hands.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure if Corbyn is electable to the country or not but he seems to be getting quite a bit of support from the Labour party members and union leaders  in England and Wales.
The question needing to be asked is why are the other three 'electable' candidates not getting that support?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 24, 2015)

Can anyone see Corbyn as Prime Minister?     He has and is entitled to his left wing views, he and his supporters can contemplate their 'Yurt Eating' philosophises and navals at will but they don't represent the majority of British voters and as such would press the 'self destruct' button once more for Labour.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 24, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Can anyone see Corbyn as Prime Minister?     He has and is entitled to his left wing views, he and his supporters can contemplate their 'Yurt Eating' philosophises and navals at will but they don't represent the majority of British voters and as such would press the 'self destruct' button once more for Labour.
		
Click to expand...

The Tory Party's 37% of support barely represents the majority of British voters.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 24, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			The Tory Party's 37% of support barely represents the majority of British voters.
		
Click to expand...

It doesn't work like that Doon and you know it.   Majority in constituencies is all that matters, those that don't vote don't matter.


----------



## cleanstrike (Jul 25, 2015)

I'd like to see Dennis Skinner in charge. PM's question time would worth watching then.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 25, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			It doesn't work like that Doon and you know it.   Majority in constituencies is all that matters, those that don't vote don't matter.
		
Click to expand...

I think the reason why they do not vote matters to the UK though.
Uninspired politicians, like the three Labour clones, four if you include Milliband, may be one of those reasons.


----------



## delc (Jul 25, 2015)

I think that the Tory Government would really have to muck things up in a big way before the Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn would have any chance of being elected!


----------



## bluewolf (Jul 25, 2015)

delc said:



			I think that the Tory Government would really have to muck things up in a big way before the Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn would have any chance of being elected!
		
Click to expand...


Yes.. And they almost never do that do they? As do all other Governments.. Quite often the elected party is more representative of the failings of the opposition rather than the coherence and success of their own policies.. Everything has a life cycle. The current Government will implode as have all others before them..

Oh, and non-voters are not irrelevant really, as the correct leader of the Labour Party should be aiming to energise the current non-voters and utilise them to make large gains at the next election.. It's pretty much the most important demographic, before even the SNP voters..


----------



## Ethan (Jul 25, 2015)

delc said:



			I think that the Tory Government would really have to muck things up in a big way before the Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn would have any chance of being elected!
		
Click to expand...

Corbyn is unlikely to be the leader and even less likely to take Labour into an election, but he may help them reframe their policies away from this awful pseudo Tory bilge and more towards a traditional Labour view. Labour have not presented such a narrative to the public since Blair arrived, but the SNP success in Scotland is based in part on them occupying exactly such a place and there is a demand out there for it. It is insane that some many people vote against their interests in the UK.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 25, 2015)

delc said:



			I think that the Tory Government would really have to muck things up in a big way before the Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn would have any chance of being elected!
		
Click to expand...

Like a second 1992 Black Wednesday.


----------



## delc (Jul 25, 2015)

In the UK we have the choice between The Nasty Party who would sell their own grandmothers and have other peoples' children working up chimneys, if they could get away with it, and a party of well meaning do-gooders who would be hard pushed to organise a drinking session in a brewery. No wonder we are slowly becoming a third world country!


----------



## bluewolf (Jul 25, 2015)

delc said:



			In the UK we have the choice between The Nasty Party who would sell their own grandmothers and have other peoples' children working up chimneys, if they could get away with it, and a party of well meaning do-gooders who would be hard pushed to organise a drinking session in a brewery. No wonder we are slowly becoming a third world country!
		
Click to expand...

It's not a bad summary of the way each party is represented by modern media outlets.. It's also complete BS in the main, with both parties having good and bad points..


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 25, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			It's not a bad summary of the way each party is represented by modern media outlets.. It's also complete BS in the main, with both parties having good and bad points..
		
Click to expand...

The media were a driver to the SNP in the general election
As I said earlier the bubble that exist[ed] between the politicians and the media is well and truly burst.
Social media won the SNP their 56 MP's and cost Labour dearly.


----------



## bluewolf (Jul 25, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			The media were a driver to the SNP in the general election
As I said earlier the bubble that exist[ed] between the politicians and the media is well and truly burst.
Social media won the SNP their 56 MP's and cost Labour dearly.
		
Click to expand...

I'd agree that Newspapers don't hold the power they used to. Just look at the money and coverage that Richard Desmond gave to UKIP. All that advantage and it turned to dust in front of him.

The SNP reference is a strange one. I'm not sure that the decrease in influence affected the result. I believe it was more the "them and us" rhetoric that was forwarded on every occasion by the SNP. At times it was quite insulting and simplistic. Constant references to "The English" and "The Westminster Government" fostered quite a xenophobic response on both sides of the wall.. It became almost self fuelling by the time the election came around.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 25, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			I'd agree that Newspapers don't hold the power they used to. Just look at the money and coverage that Richard Desmond gave to UKIP. All that advantage and it turned to dust in front of him.

The SNP reference is a strange one. I'm not sure that the decrease in influence affected the result. I believe it was more the "them and us" rhetoric that was forwarded on every occasion by the SNP. At times it was quite insulting and simplistic. Constant references to "The English" and "The Westminster Government" fostered quite a xenophobic response on both sides of the wall.. It became almost self fuelling by the time the election came around.
		
Click to expand...

The Westminster government needs to be said to separate it from the Scottish government.
The English......what is wrong with that, do the English not say.... The Scots.
I saw a lot more xenophobic stuff against SNP/Scots than I did the other way around. Many did not make any allowances for non SNP supporting Scots.
This was fueled by the Tory and Labour campaigns to keep the SNP from gaining any influence at Westminster.

What happened was that the Labour leadership Murphy,Kezdale and Curran said so many stupid things.
'It is easy to fool the SNP', 'We won't lose a single seat to the SNP' as examples. 
Mind you he was right about the single seat that they did not lose:lol:

These quotes were repeated thousands of times on social media, made them look like total numpties and cost them dearly.

 Which was the point I was making on my thread about the Labour leadership.


----------



## jp5 (Jul 25, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			I'd agree that Newspapers don't hold the power they used to. Just look at the money and coverage that Richard Desmond gave to UKIP. All that advantage and it turned to dust in front of him.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think you can say that - 4 million votes and 1 MP is a failing of the voting system, not the party.


----------



## delc (Jul 25, 2015)

Labour lost its traditional vote in Scotland because it was taken for granted, not helped by some inane comments by Ed Milliband that he would not make any deals with the SNP in the event of a hung Parlianent. More fool him!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 25, 2015)

delc said:



			Labour lost its traditional vote in Scotland because it was taken for granted, not helped by some inane comments by Ed Milliband that he would not make any deals with the SNP in the event of a hung Parlianent. More fool him!
		
Click to expand...

How could Millband form an alliance with the SNP when their aim is to break up the uk.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 25, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			How could Millband form an alliance with the SNP when their aim is to break up the uk.
		
Click to expand...

I think a Labour/SNP alliance seems to be the only way to keep Scotland in the UK.
That was why I was surprised when Milliband took the stance he did. He might have been PM if he had taken the gamble.


----------



## freddielong (Jul 25, 2015)

Snelly said:



			Fingers crossed that he wins.  Labour will be unelectable as a government as a result.
		
Click to expand...

Even more unelectable than the last leader who's name I have forgotten already,you wouldn't have thought that possible.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 25, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I think a Labour/SNP alliance seems to be the only way to keep Scotland in the UK.
That was why I was surprised when Milliband took the stance he did. He might have been PM if he had taken the gamble.
		
Click to expand...


No surprise at all really... With a SNP 'leading light' saying he wishes to punish Londoners... Might go down well north of the wall but doesn't make good listening in these parts... Strong labour vote in London don't forget...


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jul 25, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			No surprise at all really... With a SNP 'leading light' saying he wishes to punish Londoners... Might go down well north of the wall but doesn't make good listening in these parts... Strong labour vote in London don't forget...
		
Click to expand...

Doesn't go down well amongst us all here. The SNP are an embarrassment.


----------



## bluewolf (Jul 25, 2015)

jp5 said:



			I don't think you can say that - 4 million votes and 1 MP is a failing of the voting system, not the party.
		
Click to expand...

But, if you consider what Mr Desmond actually wanted/needed, then it was a massive failing. Let's not forget that the voting system was in place long before the election, so they knew exactly what they needed, and they got nowhere near getting it.


----------



## bluewolf (Jul 25, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			The Westminster government needs to be said to separate it from the Scottish government.
The English......what is wrong with that, do the English not say.... The Scots.
I saw a lot more xenophobic stuff against SNP/Scots than I did the other way around. Many did not make any allowances for non SNP supporting Scots.
This was fueled by the Tory and Labour campaigns to keep the SNP from gaining any influence at Westminster.

What happened was that the Labour leadership Murphy,Kezdale and Curran said so many stupid things.
'It is easy to fool the SNP', 'We won't lose a single seat to the SNP' as examples. 
Mind you he was right about the single seat that they did not lose:lol:

These quotes were repeated thousands of times on social media, made them look like total numpties and cost them dearly.

 Which was the point I was making on my thread about the Labour leadership.

Click to expand...

Stop being your usual obtuse self. You know exactly what point I was making, and being overly literal only makes you appear more of a WUM than everyone on here already knows you are..


----------



## jp5 (Jul 25, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			But, if you consider what Mr Desmond actually wanted/needed, then it was a massive failing. Let's not forget that the voting system was in place long before the election, so they knew exactly what they needed, and they got nowhere near getting it.
		
Click to expand...

The massive failing is the electoral system. You can get people to vote for a party (which Mr Desmond / Farage apparently did very well), but for that to translate into power you need a fair system.


----------



## c1973 (Jul 25, 2015)

Surprisingly the thread gets round to the snp. Who'd a thunk it? 

&#128564;


----------



## bluewolf (Jul 25, 2015)

jp5 said:



			The massive failing is the electoral system. You can get people to vote for a party (which Mr Desmond / Farage apparently did very well), but for that to translate into power you need a fair system.
		
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a fair system. Freedom to vote/not vote is a basic right, but the sheer amount of non voters means that no system is fair. What Desmond/Farage did is get people to talk about (and like) their policies. What they didn't do, is convert that positive energy into seats. Without seats, Farage doesn't get his Power, and Desmond doesn't get his much desired Knighthood.


----------



## jp5 (Jul 25, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			There is no such thing as a fair system. Freedom to vote/not vote is a basic right, but the sheer amount of non voters means that no system is fair. What Desmond/Farage did is get people to talk about (and like) their policies. What they didn't do, is convert that positive energy into seats. Without seats, Farage doesn't get his Power, and Desmond doesn't get his much desired Knighthood.
		
Click to expand...

Power might take another electoral cycle (depending on the EU referendum outcome!) for UKIP, with their 160 second places I think it was. Would expect them to convert a significant portion of those.

And there is no such thing as a completely fair system. But there are fairer, more representative options than we have right now - you only have to look at the numbers to see that.


----------



## bluewolf (Jul 25, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Power might take another electoral cycle (depending on the EU referendum outcome!) for UKIP, with their 160 second places I think it was. Would expect them to convert a significant portion of those.

And there is no such thing as a completely fair system. But there are fairer, more representative options than we have right now - you only have to look at the numbers to see that.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, but the electorate don't want them. A system that the majority don't want is, by definition, unfair.. 

I have a suspicion that the UKIP lifecycle might not last long enough to convert those 2nd places.. Infighting, and a perceived want to shift even further to the right by the rank and file membership might just cause an implosion. The timing of the implosion could be a significant factor in the next election.


----------



## jp5 (Jul 25, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Yes, but the electorate don't want them. A system that the majority don't want is, by definition, unfair.. 

I have a suspicion that the UKIP lifecycle might not last long enough to convert those 2nd places.. Infighting, and a perceived want to shift even further to the right by the rank and file membership might just cause an implosion. The timing of the implosion could be a significant factor in the next election.
		
Click to expand...

Your definition of unfair is wrong, but agree that nothing will change if it would disadvantage the Government of the day. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 25, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Stop being your usual obtuse self. You know exactly what point I was making, and being overly literal only makes you appear more of a WUM than everyone on here already knows you are..
		
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure I got your point which I thought a tad one sided.
Sometimes things can look differently from the other side of the fence.
Hence my reply.


----------



## bluewolf (Jul 25, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Your definition of unfair is wrong, .
		
Click to expand...

Forcing a unwanted system onto the electorate could be described as unjust, inequitable and/or discriminatory... Or, just unfair.. Educating them to want a different system would remove that barrier..


----------



## bluewolf (Jul 25, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I am pretty sure I got your point which I thought a tad one sided.
Sometimes things can look differently from the other side of the fence.
Hence my reply.
		
Click to expand...

How could my point be one sided when it clearly referenced the xenophobic outbursts from both sides of the wall.. The SNP played a blinder of a campaign. A campaign based on the "Look at them, not at us" agenda.. I have a lot of respect for the campaign they ran. It was a lesson in modern politics.


----------



## jp5 (Jul 25, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Forcing a unwanted system onto the electorate could be described as unjust, inequitable and/or discrminatory... Or, just unfair.. Educating them to want a different system would remove that barrier..
		
Click to expand...

Just because something is against the wishes of the electorate does not make it unfair, discriminatory etc.

Anyway the current system will disservice one of the major parties one day and then we may eventually see change.


----------



## bluewolf (Jul 25, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Just because something is against the wishes of the electorate does not make it unfair, discriminatory etc.
		
Click to expand...

In my humble opinion, forcing something onto a group of people that they do not want does make it unfair.. That's not to say that the system is not better, but if we don't want it, then it would be unfair to foist it upon us just because you want it (I use the word "you" as a name for the Minority.)
HOWEVER, we have descended into semantics and it's most likely adding nothing to the discussion


----------



## jp5 (Jul 25, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			In my humble opinion, *forcing something onto a group of people that they do not want does make it unfair.*. That's not to say that the system is not better, but if we don't want it, then it would be unfair to foist it upon us just because you want it (I use the word "you" as a name for the Minority.)
HOWEVER, we have descended into semantics and it's most likely adding nothing to the discussion 

Click to expand...

Aha, so child tax credit should not be cut? Under 25s should not be denied access to housing benefit? Doctors should not have to work weekends? (I know many do already)


----------



## bluewolf (Jul 25, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Aha, so child tax credit should not be cut? Under 25s should not be denied access to housing benefit? Doctors should not have to work weekends? (I know many do already)
		
Click to expand...

Lol, you appear to have mistaken me for someone who agrees with the current Government. Let me assure you that I am not, have never been, nor most likely will ever be a Tory voter.


----------



## jp5 (Jul 25, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Lol, you appear to have mistaken me for someone who agrees with the current Government. Let me assure you that I am not, have never been, nor most likely will ever be a Tory voter.
		
Click to expand...

Not presuming anything at all - simply pointing out that your logic was flawed.


----------



## bluewolf (Jul 25, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Not presuming anything at all - simply pointing out that your logic was flawed.
		
Click to expand...

Ok, so just because the government can introduce spending restrictions which will curb child tax credit, cut housing benefit and force Dictirs to do something which everyone knows they already do. Somehow, this proves that introducing something the electorate don't want is fair. It's not fair, government policy doesn't have to be fair. It can be totally unfair. It can be 100%, cast iron, bulletproof unfair. That's the system. Fairness doesn't even have to enter the equation.


----------



## jp5 (Jul 25, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Ok, so just because the government can introduce spending restrictions which will curb child tax credit, cut housing benefit and force Dictirs to do something which everyone knows they already do. Somehow, this proves that introducing something the electorate don't want is fair. It's not fair, government policy doesn't have to be fair. It can be totally unfair. It can be 100%, cast iron, bulletproof unfair. That's the system. Fairness doesn't even have to enter the equation.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, but with a fairer voting system our country might be more democratic. And a better democracy is something any government should seek, whether it benefits them or not.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 25, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Indeed, but with a fairer voting system our country might be more democratic. And a better democracy is something any government should seek, whether it benefits them or not.
		
Click to expand...

So you would be content with 50 UKIP MPs?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 26, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			So you would be content with 50 UKIP MPs?
		
Click to expand...

Which we may have had if the 4 million Kipper votes were all cast in Scotland.

The UK voting system is broke. 
It suits a two party system and will never change so long as we have a two party system.
Lib Dems in 2010 and Kippers and SNP in 2015 show up how flawed it is.

Is it not about time the people of the UK addressed this situation.


----------



## jp5 (Jul 26, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			So you would be content with 50 UKIP MPs?
		
Click to expand...

Not personally no, but that isn't a reason for maintaining an electoral system which disproportionately disadvantages smaller parties.

There is a huge anomaly between the number of votes cast for each party and the number of seats attained. Conservatives received only 3x as many votes as UKIP, but returned 330x more seats 

The way to nullify parties like UKIP is to win back voters on issues instead of a rigged voting system. I don't like their policies, but if 4 million people do then in a democracy their views should be represented.


----------



## 6inchcup (Jul 26, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Not really funny - pretty pathetic actually
		
Click to expand...

WHY is it pathetic,just because you say so?,they made the rules,i joined my local labour group,no problem no questions asked to any degree of interigation,asked for my forms and voted a week later,what i find strange now is how one of the contestants (its a game ) is telling the 2 women to stand down so he can win and stop CORBYN from winning,very democratic and not sexist in any way.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 27, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Not personally no, but that isn't a reason for maintaining an electoral system which disproportionately disadvantages smaller parties.

There is a huge anomaly between the number of votes cast for each party and the number of seats attained. Conservatives received only 3x as many votes as UKIP, but returned 330x more seats 

The way to nullify parties like UKIP is to win back voters on issues instead of a rigged voting system. I don't like their policies, but if 4 million people do then in a democracy their views should be represented.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe it's a problem because the Torys won but would be OK if Labour had?


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 27, 2015)

From reading (an admittedly right leaning Sunday paper) is seems the hard left are joining/using the voting system to their advantage rather than a few tory boys joining just to get Corbyn elected as the leader.  

It seems that the heart of the matter is if the party wants to gain power or if they want a leader who most closely represents traditional hard line labour values.  It would be nice if you could combine both, and may be there is a candidate out there that could do this better.  But if Corbyn is elected then Labour will be mostly unelectable at a general election in a lot of seats. You saw how a lot of voters panicked at the last minute in the last election when they thought about their wallets, so imagine what fear the Tories would spread if Corbyn was the leader.

There is a great danger that Labour could tear themselves apart here, which would mean the tory boys would swing even further to the right knowing they had no credible opposition, leading to an even more fractured society.  But I know a few on here would see that as the promised land....


----------



## Ethan (Jul 27, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Not personally no, but that isn't a reason for maintaining an electoral system which disproportionately disadvantages smaller parties.

There is a huge anomaly between the number of votes cast for each party and the number of seats attained. Conservatives received only 3x as many votes as UKIP, but returned 330x more seats 

The way to nullify parties like UKIP is to win back voters on issues instead of a rigged voting system. I don't like their policies, but if 4 million people do then in a democracy their views should be represented.
		
Click to expand...

There are other issues with the electoral system and constituency structure. Essentially it is designed to maintain a large degree of inter tai so that there isn't too much change. Many seats are pretty safe, one way or the other, and will probably remain so over decades. My own constituency, Wokingham, is exactly like that. John Redwood is as safe as houses, and even increased his majority this year - he is a bit UKIPpy at the edges. But he does;t bother campaigning, doesn't even send leaflets as far as I can tell. He could strangle kittens in the town square and still get returned. I hate the guy and wouldn't vote for him unless the alternative was Farage, so my vote doesn't really matter. 

And the Tories plan to gerrymander more constituencies this parliament, so it will get worse. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/115...aries-top-Conservative-government-agenda.html

This seems profoundly undemocratic to me. I would like to see quite the opposite. Constituency boundaries should be changed to impose a greater degree of uncertainty in every constituency, so that votes matter and are usually important throughout the UK. 

And the Government's proposals for unions should also apply. No election is valid unless 40$ of the eligible voters vote for the candidate. Likewise the national share of the vote and the Government. 

Is it more important that the RMT get a valid vote for one day's strike than we get a valid Government for 5 years?


----------



## jp5 (Jul 27, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Maybe it's a problem because the Torys won but would be OK if Labour had?
		
Click to expand...

Why would you think that?

The Labour voting figures were nearly as out of line as the Conservatives, with 2.5x more votes than UKIP but 232x more seats.

Anyone relatively perceptive can see that the current system could be improved upon, government could be more representative and therefore more democratic. Except if one's view is clouded by partisan allegiances I guess.


----------



## jp5 (Jul 27, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Is it more important that the RMT get a valid vote for one day's strike than we get a valid Government for 5 years?
		
Click to expand...

The difference being that the people the vote affects don't get the chance to vote in the case of the RMT, but do get to vote for a Government.

But apart from that agree with everything you say. It can only be better for democracy if people feel they are represented, even if that means 60 UKIP MPs.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jul 27, 2015)

Ethan said:



			John Redwood is as safe as houses <snip> He could strangle kittens in the town square and still get returned.
		
Click to expand...

He only does that in private.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 27, 2015)

Going back to Jeremy... Just watched his interview on Andrew Marr show from yesterday... Thought he interviewed well... Largely unknown outside of London I guess... Can't say I've seen too much of him on national TV until recently...


Confirmed which way I'll be voting....


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 27, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Going back to Jeremy... Just watched his interview on Andrew Marr show from yesterday... Thought he interviewed well... Largely unknown outside of London I guess... Can't say I've seen too much of him on national TV until recently...


Confirmed which way I'll be voting....
		
Click to expand...

It was quite refreshing watching Corbyn and Salmond on the Andrew Marr show.
Two politicians who actually answered questions intelligently, quite unnerved Marr I thought, never seen him so quiet.


----------



## jp5 (Jul 27, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			It was quite refreshing watching Corbyn and Salmond on the Andrew Marr show.
Two politicians who actually answered questions intelligently, quite unnerved Marr I thought, never seen him so quiet.
		
Click to expand...

Refreshing indeed, many politicians could learn a lot from Corbyn. Then again, it's much simpler when you're working from your own principles rather than those most likely to get you elected!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 27, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Why would you think that?

The Labour voting figures were nearly as out of line as the Conservatives, with 2.5x more votes than UKIP but 232x more seats.

Anyone relatively perceptive can see that the current system could be improved upon, government could be more representative and therefore more democratic. Except if one's view is clouded by partisan allegiances I guess.
		
Click to expand...

My point was that people tend to want to change the voting system when their party of preference loses but are content if they win.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 27, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Refreshing indeed, many politicians could learn a lot from Corbyn. Then again, it's much simpler when you're working from your own principles rather than those most likely to get you elected!
		
Click to expand...

No amount of naval gazing will make Corbyn electable as a Prime Minister and we all know it!


----------



## Ethan (Jul 27, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			No amount of naval gazing will make Corbyn electable as a Prime Minister and we all know it!
		
Click to expand...

What about some RAF gazing?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jul 27, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			No amount of naval gazing will make Corbyn electable as a Prime Minister and we all know it!
		
Click to expand...

Oh come on, SR, a few months examining your conscience and you never know......


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 27, 2015)

Five more years of having their wallets/purses emptied by Osborne might actually persuade those that normally can't be asked to actually give a ....

Don't believe I'll be around to see it though and as I've said before.... For ordinary working chaps/chapesses it matters not a jot who's in charge they are in for a screwing...


----------



## jp5 (Jul 27, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			My point was that people tend to want to change the voting system when their party of preference loses but are content if they win.
		
Click to expand...

Is it incomprehensible that some people may desire changes for the collective good, that will negatively affect their own interests?


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 27, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Is it incomprehensible that some people may desire changes for the collective good, that will negatively affect their own interests?
		
Click to expand...

If you are a tory then yes


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 27, 2015)

Me and my Mrs are both inclined to sign up and vote for Corbyn as when he talks about compassion we get the feeling that he understands what the word *really* means - the current lot in power certainly haven't a clue what it means - and actually give the impression that they don't care.  

Now whether Corbyn as Labour leader would ever be able to lead a Labour Party to kick the current shower out I don't know - but our country is knackered unless we get some politicians telling us that compassion and 'the other guy' are important if we are not going to implode as a fearful, resentful, angry and selfish country - a country we are well on the way to becoming at the moment.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 27, 2015)

6inchcup said:



			WHY is it pathetic,just because you say so?,they made the rules,i joined my local labour group,no problem no questions asked to any degree of interigation,asked for my forms and voted a week later,what i find strange now is how one of the contestants (its a game ) is telling the 2 women to stand down so he can win and stop CORBYN from winning,very democratic and not sexist in any way.
		
Click to expand...

It's rather pathetic that you feel it a hoot to do it, when you seem to have little interest in advancing the cause or general policy objectives of the Labour Party.  Rather you'd rather it was holed below the waterline by it choosing Corbyn -  which may or may not be the outcome were that to happen.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 27, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			If you are a tory then yes 

Click to expand...

oooh - that sort of talk about folk who might vote Tory didn't go down well in the lead up to the election - don't you know that conservatives are misunderstood and that caring and compassionate are core values - and it's not all about self.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 27, 2015)

Ethan said:



			What about some RAF gazing?
		
Click to expand...

Well done for picking up on my typo.   Give yourself a pat on the back!

Thinking Corbyn is Prime Minister material does require ones head to be in the clouds though!


----------



## c1973 (Jul 27, 2015)

Not a chance in hell I'd vote for a terrorist apologist like Corbyn. I've not forgotten about him inviting IRA terror chiefs Gerry Adams etc to the commons just weeks after the Brighton bombing. 
He also observed a minutes silence for the eight IRA members killed by the SAS in Co Armagh. Disgraceful. He should have been tried as a traitor imo, not given a seat in parliament. 

Don't bomb Iraq he cries.......but feel free to bomb the hell out of the UK! 

The man's a joke and an utter disgrace. Representative of a particular vein of the Labour party that I had hoped had been neutered, or at the least contained. Apparently, not so.

Imo of course.


----------



## Ethan (Jul 27, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Well done for picking up on my typo.   Give yourself a pat on the back!

Thinking Corbyn is Prime Minister material does require ones head to be in the clouds though!
		
Click to expand...

Who said I think he is PM material?


----------



## Ethan (Jul 27, 2015)

c1973 said:



			Not a chance in hell I'd vote for a terrorist apologist like Corbyn. I've not forgotten about him inviting IRA terror chiefs Gerry Adams etc to the commons just weeks after the Brighton bombing. 
He also observed a minutes silence for the eight IRA members killed by the SAS in Co Armagh. Disgraceful. He should have been tried as a traitor imo, not given a seat in parliament. 

Don't bomb Iraq he cries.......but feel free to bomb the hell out of the UK! 

The man's a joke and an utter disgrace. Representative of a particular vein of the Labour party that I had hoped had been neutered, or at the least contained. Apparently, not so.

Imo of course.
		
Click to expand...

I assume you have the same reaction about the British Army soldiers who with the help of MI5 and the UDR and RUC operated shoot to kill policies in NI, as well as then lying about it, losing or burning files and frustrating investigations. Not to mention Bloody Sunday, for which nobody was convicted and the UDR who collaborated with loyalist paramilitaries and murderers like The Shankill Butchers. 

Does that therefore make supporters of HFH also apologists for murderers and traitors?

Just saying the logic is the same. 

I guess that 'Boom!' in your avatar will resemble your response.


----------



## c1973 (Jul 27, 2015)

Ethan said:



			I assume you have the same reaction about the British Army soldiers who with the help of MI5 and the UDR and RUC operated shoot to kill policies in NI, as well as then lying about it, losing or burning files and frustrating investigations. Not to mention Bloody Sunday, for which nobody was convicted and the UDR who collaborated with loyalist paramilitaries and murderers like The Shankill Butchers. 

Does that therefore make supporters of HFH also apologists for murderers and traitors?

Just saying the logic is the same. 

I guess that 'Boom!' in your avatar will resemble your response.
		
Click to expand...

You'd guess wrong then. 

For the record there was no shoot to kill policy....ever! You don't shoot to wound, do you, so why have a shoot to kill 'policy'? 

But this thread is about Jeremy Corbyn. If you wish to discuss/defend/deflect terrorist atrocities inflicted on the UK I'd start another thread if I were you. :thup:


----------



## Ethan (Jul 27, 2015)

c1973 said:



			You'd guess wrong then. 

For the record there was no shoot to kill policy....ever! You don't shoot to wound, do you, so why have a shoot to kill 'policy'? 

But this thread is about Jeremy Corbyn. If you wish to discuss/defend/deflect terrorist atrocities inflicted on the UK I'd start another thread if I were you. :thup:
		
Click to expand...

If I wish to deflect. Oh no, I leave that to the master. You. You said that you'd never vote for, and would consider as traitors, terrorist apologists. What you meant was ones on the other side to you. 

As for shoot to kill, as you well know, that meant shooting people who were not posing a threat, and who were in some cases, entirely uninvolved with anything political. Often in the back. There was most certainly such a policy and few sensible people deny that. Ask John Stalker to see what he thinks, and there was recent coverage in the press about recent revelations of previously buried material. 

I know a few former Army soldiers who served in NI and some of them agree, sometimes with justifications, other times with regret. 

Back to Jeremy Corbyn. He associated with Adams et al because they initially espoused a Marxist policy. He was a supporter of a United Ireland, which is a legitimate point of view, but he also supported the peace process as a way to resolve the issue  and as part of that met with Sinn Fein. As did the Tory Governments of the 70s, 80s and 90s, except they did do in secret.


----------



## c1973 (Jul 27, 2015)

Ethan said:



			If I wish to deflect. Oh no, I leave that to the master. You. You said that you'd never vote for, and would consider as traitors, terrorist apologists. *What you meant was ones on the other side to you. *

As for shoot to kill, as you well know, that meant shooting people who were not posing a threat, and who were in some cases, entirely uninvolved with anything political. Often in the back. There was most certainly such a policy and few sensible people deny that. Ask John Stalker to see what he thinks, and there was recent coverage in the press about recent revelations of previously buried material. 

I know a few former Army soldiers who served in NI and some of them agree, sometimes with justifications, other times with regret. 

Back to Jeremy Corbyn. He associated with Adams et al because they initially espoused a Marxist policy. He was a supporter of a United Ireland, which is a legitimate point of view, but he also supported the peace process as a way to resolve the issue  and as part of that met with Sinn Fein. As did the Tory Governments of the 70s, 80s and 90s, except they did do in secret.
		
Click to expand...


I actually find that quite offensive. 

I assume (by the above comment) you believe me to be a supporter of terrorism then?  Or was it a pop at my (assumed by you) religion? 
It must have been one or the other, kindly explain which, if you please.

Shame on you for making such a misguided and ill informed judgement. 

I'd suggest you read up on the differences between loyalist, unionist and terrorist.....as you obviously don't have a clue what they are! 

Astonishingly offensive post, particularly from a moderator. Not for the first time either, is it. Poor show. 


Ill bow out and let others discuss Jeremy Corbyn.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 27, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			oooh - that sort of talk about folk who might vote Tory didn't go down well in the lead up to the election - don't you know that conservatives are misunderstood and that caring and compassionate are core values - and it's not all about self.
		
Click to expand...

Well; you do surprise me!   And here I was thinking you were paranoid and psychotic about all people and things Tory, then out of the blue you come out with these nice comments.  Bless.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 28, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			oooh - that sort of talk about folk who might vote Tory didn't go down well in the lead up to the election - don't you know that conservatives are misunderstood and that caring and compassionate are core values - and it's not all about self.
		
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention that the Tory's are also the party for hard working families. [unless you are on the minimum wage of course]


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 28, 2015)

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/polit...ll-to-punch-uks-last-coal-miner-2015052298524

Fact or fiction.......difficult to tell.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 28, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			You forgot to mention that the Tory's are also the party for hard working families. [unless you are on the minimum wage of course]
		
Click to expand...

..and the champion of hard working men and women - until they find themselves being exploited or unfairly treated and want to protest by withdrawing their labour.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 28, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/polit...ll-to-punch-uks-last-coal-miner-2015052298524

Fact or fiction.......difficult to tell.

Click to expand...

Pathetic!


----------



## c1973 (Jul 29, 2015)

It would explain a lot,if that's one of his sources.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 30, 2015)

I find it rather curious that as the government looks to weaken unions it looks to enforce it's minimum wage policy.  And who is best to support them in doing that - well of course they need the workers to 'speak up' without fear or prejudice against employers not complying.  And for that it's clearly best for these employees to get together and maybe get someone to represent their concerns to employers and escalate if employer ignores them.  Nah - can't have workers doing that sort of thing. Far Left wing policy that Corbyn might advocate?  Common sense actually.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jul 30, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I find it rather curious that as the government looks to weaken unions it looks to enforce it's minimum wage policy.  And who is best to support them in doing that - well of course they need the workers to 'speak up' without fear or prejudice against employers not complying.  And for that it's clearly best for these employees to get together and maybe get someone to represent their concerns to employers and escalate if employer ignores them.  Nah - can't have workers doing that sort of thing. Far Left wing policy that Corbyn might advocate?  Common sense actually.
		
Click to expand...

I've been a bit out of the loops. What is being done to weaken unions?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 30, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I find it rather curious that as the government looks to weaken unions it looks to enforce it's minimum wage policy.  And who is best to support them in doing that - well of course they need the workers to 'speak up' without fear or prejudice against employers not complying.  And for that it's clearly best for these employees to get together and maybe get someone to represent their concerns to employers and escalate if employer ignores them.  Nah - can't have workers doing that sort of thing. Far Left wing policy that Corbyn might advocate?  Common sense actually.
		
Click to expand...

Why do you suggest that the Government are banning Trade Unions?   They are only doing something about the numbers required to call a strike.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 30, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Why do you suggest that the Government are banning Trade Unions?   They are only doing something about the numbers required to call a strike.
		
Click to expand...


Setting a higher bar than they do for themselves... Bit questionable... If, at the same time, they made voting for government compulsory I'd support them... But, it isn't going to happen is it?

JC is unelectable as I doubt he won't support the shutting of the gate... Which, especially with current situation in Kent, is back to [for many] top of the shopping list... The fact DaveCam doesn't want it either is neither here nor there...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 30, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Why do you suggest that the Government are banning Trade Unions?   They are only doing something about the numbers required to call a strike.
		
Click to expand...

Did I suggest they were - no - I suggested that the government is looking to weaken the unions.  Please don't tell me it's not because we all really know that it is - starting with making it less likely that employees will be able to withdraw their labour under legal protection.  Corbyn would no doubt look to support the unions - whether he would reverse the current proposed legislation I don't know.  But that would hardly be policy that could be described as Far Left


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 30, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Setting a higher bar than they do for themselves... Bit questionable... If, at the same time, they made voting for government compulsory I'd support them... But, it isn't going to happen is it?

JC is unelectable as I doubt he won't support the shutting of the gate... Which, especially with current situation in Kent, is back to [for many] top of the shopping list... The fact DaveCam doesn't want it either is neither here nor there...
		
Click to expand...

In fact I believe that JC has not ruled out UK coming out of the EU - and certainly advocates change

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ws-fire-position-future-britain-eu-membership


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 30, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			In fact I believe that JC has not ruled out UK coming out of the EU...
		
Click to expand...


Well, that's good news... Was 'the left' that was anti joining first time round...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 30, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Well, that's good news... Was 'the left' that was anti joining first time round...
		
Click to expand...

So he could get your vote then on his EU stance


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 30, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			So he could get your vote then on his EU stance 

Click to expand...


Would find it easier to support an anti EU Labour party whereas I could never see myself voting UKIP...

Being only slightly left of the Tories has not helped Labour with being elected so might as well move back nearer in position to their roots...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 30, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Would find it easier to support an anti EU Labour party whereas I could never see myself voting UKIP...

Being only slightly left of the Tories has not helped Labour with being elected so might as well move back nearer in position to their roots...
		
Click to expand...

I think they may as well.  Maybe not electable today, but in 5 years time when a lot of folks will be sick to the teeth of the Tories - their broken promises and the hardship they'll have caused - you never know.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jul 30, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I think they may as well.  Maybe not electable today, but in 5 years time when a lot of folks will be sick to the teeth of the Tories - their broken promises and the hardship they'll have caused - you never know.
		
Click to expand...

Possibly so, but don't forget that in around 3 + 1/2 years time from now the Tory party will be hoping to have the economy sorted and start their pre-election tax giveaway. For a lot of people those two things will be enough for them to vote Conservative again.


----------



## Ethan (Aug 3, 2015)

Interesting article by Andrew Rawnsley in the Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/02/labour-split-corbyn-blairites?CMP=fb_gu


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 3, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Interesting article by Andrew Rawnsley in the Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/02/labour-split-corbyn-blairites?CMP=fb_gu

Click to expand...

Read that in the Observer yesterday.  As much as I thought I would support JC, I'm not so sure as the majority of the UK electorate don't seem at all interested in what he says as they simply think they'd be financially poorer off and that's all that seems to matter.  

Then again Ian Birrell suggests that many Labour supporters need to get their hankering for strictly left of centre policy out of their system - which they will do when come to understand over a few years of having JC as their leader the implication of what his policies would actually mean - and when they see how unpopular they are with the majority.  A very significant seismic shift and resetting of the social sensibilities of many UK voters is required for his policies to be even on their radar - and the start of that change is at least two Tory governments in the future.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 3, 2015)

Interesting piece in Wings as well.
Most popular candidate by the Party getting shafted by the three other candidates.....there's democracy at work Labour style.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/

An English Labour Party led by Corbyn would sort things out.


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 3, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Possibly so, but don't forget that in around 3 + 1/2 years time from now the Tory party will be hoping to have the economy sorted and start their pre-election tax giveaway. For a lot of people those two things will be enough for them to vote Conservative again.
		
Click to expand...


They were promising to have it [economy] sorted before recent GE and came up way short... Not quite sure why they believe they can find a fix any time soon...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 3, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Possibly so, but don't forget that in around 3 + 1/2 years time from now the Tory party will be hoping to have the economy sorted and start their pre-election tax giveaway. For a lot of people those two things will be enough for them to vote Conservative again.
		
Click to expand...

You mean do things like cancel the cap on social care costs for the elderly - I didn't spot that one in the manifesto.  And oh look - it'll be back later in the parliament in - April 2020. And when's the next GE?  What a disingenuous shower the Tories are - and they have the gall to call the SNP opportunist.


----------



## Ethan (Aug 9, 2015)

Have a look at this:

http://www.theguardian.com/business...ding-did-not-cause-financial-crisis?CMP=fb_gu


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 10, 2015)

Interesting - but will be pooh-poohed by the many who wish to use 'Labour caused the financial crisis' as their rationale for voting Tory and on an ongoing basis for being able to justify the hardships the Tories will be causing over the coming few years.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 10, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Interesting - but will be pooh-poohed by the many who wish to use 'Labour caused the financial crisis' as their rationale for voting Tory and on an ongoing basis for being able to justify the hardships the Tories will be causing over the coming few years.
		
Click to expand...


Hardships!   Give me a break, most people in this country don't have any idea of what real hardship is like.   

I asked you a question recently that you never replied to.   I ask you again:   If we had a Labour Government and all read the Guardian would we be living the life of Riley?


----------



## The Green Fairy (Aug 10, 2015)

When Labour are up against it they always resort to some lefty, hoping to appeal to the public sector who believe they will benefit by a more 'socialist' society. In other words the work shy who believe that the state should provide.

Corbyn will be as successful as Foot. Once again the party have misjudged the majority of British public, who these days would prefer someone more charismatic.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 10, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Hardships!   Give me a break, most people in this country don't have any idea of what real hardship is like.   

I asked you a question recently that you never replied to.   I ask you again:   If we had a Labour Government and all read the Guardian would we be living the life of Riley?
		
Click to expand...

Is "The life of Riley" what we're living now?  There is no perfect solution to the problems of today. Too many people not paying their fair share to support the Country. Those people live at both ends of the social spectrum. I'd like to see both extremes dealt with in the same way. I suspect I'll not get my wish anytime soon.


----------



## The Green Fairy (Aug 10, 2015)

We've never had it so good.

Well, not since Macmillan, Heath or Thatcher.    :fore:


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 10, 2015)

The Green Fairy said:



			We've never had it so good.

Well, not since Macmillan, Heath or Thatcher.    :fore:
		
Click to expand...

Can you define 'we' please.

I would imagine they do not include the hard working families who are sadly forced to use food banks.
That would be the food banks that no one used 5 years ago.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 10, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Can you define 'we' please.

I would imagine they do not include the hard working families who are sadly forced to use food banks.
That would be the food banks that no one used 5 years ago.
		
Click to expand...

Thats because they wernt there.  If food banks were available at any time in the past people would have used them.


----------



## The Green Fairy (Aug 10, 2015)

I've been unemployed for 14 years and never needed a food bank. Nor have I ever had any support from the state.
Just like all the guys at my golf clubs.

Weird that.


----------



## shagster (Aug 11, 2015)

how did you live then
ie food golf membership etc, just like to know

shagster


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 11, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Thats because they wernt there.  If food banks were available at any time in the past people would have used them.
		
Click to expand...

Ever thought that they were not there because no one needed them.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 11, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Ever thought that they were not there because no one needed them.
		
Click to expand...

Food banks would have been a Godsend as far back as I can remember for some


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 11, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Food banks would have been a Godsend as far back as I can remember for some
		
Click to expand...

For the unemployed yes.........not for the employed


----------



## chrisd (Aug 11, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			For the unemployed yes.........not for the employed
		
Click to expand...

Rubbish! ........ Not everyone was paid a living wage back in the 1950's and 60's when benefits were very restricted and often means tested


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 11, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Rubbish! ........ Not everyone was paid a living wage back in the 1950's and 60's when benefits were very restricted and often means tested
		
Click to expand...

I think pro rata the working poor were a lot better off in the 50/60's than they are now.
Remember they had unions in those days.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 11, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I think pro rata the working poor were a lot better off in the 50/60's than they are now.
Remember they had unions in those days.
		
Click to expand...

Presumably you didn't live through those times!


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Aug 11, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I think pro rata the working poor were a lot better off in the 50/60's than they are now.
Remember they had unions in those days.
		
Click to expand...

I wasn't around back then at all, on what basis do you judge this? Without being obtuse, but surely you were too young to judge back then as to what was really happening? (assuming you're less than 80?).


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 11, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Can you define 'we' please.

I would imagine they do not include the hard working families who are sadly forced to use food banks.
*That would be the food banks that no one used 5 years ago*.
		
Click to expand...




SocketRocket said:



*Thats because they wernt there*.  If food banks were available at any time in the past people would have used them.
		
Click to expand...

Google is your friend. They've been there for quite a while, even in Labour's last govt. There's a really good report on them and the increase, which is linear, and sadly spectacular. in 2008(longer than 5 yrs ago Doon) there were 49, and now over 400.

There's even an instruction to job centres to send people to them. Even the State recognises the support they now give, inc vouchers for gas and elec for those with card meters.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 11, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			I wasn't around back then at all, on what basis do you judge this? Without being obtuse, but surely you were too young to judge back then as to what was really happening? (assuming you're less than 80?).
		
Click to expand...


Not so much of the 80 !!
I was born 1952 and working at 15 as were many of us. Both the unemployed and the working poor had it tough compared to the 80's and onwards. My mother bought up 5 of us single handed, worked as best she could and would have benefited greatly from food banks


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Aug 11, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Not so much of the 80 !!
I was born 1952 and working at 15 as were many of us. Both the unemployed and the working poor had it tough compared to the 80's and onwards. My mother bought up 5 of us single handed, worked as best she could and would have benefited greatly from food banks
		
Click to expand...

Forgive me, I forgot the youngerworking age as was thinking of 25, before someone could really properly assess the situation in somewhere more than their own town.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 11, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Forgive me, I forgot the youngerworking age as was thinking of 25, before someone could really properly assess the situation in somewhere more than their own town.
		
Click to expand...

Obviously we only knew what we could see ourselves, televisions, for those that had them, were black and white, no internet or phones so gauging how life was in other parts of the country was almost impossible. I had a difficult time as a youngster but by no means as hard as some. I remember in winter going to bed when it got dark as we didn't have any money for the electric meter, or having bread and jam for dinner, without butter, as there wasn't money to buy anything by the end of the week. I used to have to put cardboard in my jumble sale shoes once they had a hole in the sole so I didn't get too wet and before my next secondhand pair arrived!

It was tough but, hey, I didn't come to any harm and did ok


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 11, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Hardships!   Give me a break, most people in this country don't have any idea of what real hardship is like.   

I asked you a question recently that you never replied to.   I ask you again:   If we had a Labour Government and all read the Guardian would we be living the life of Riley?
		
Click to expand...

Closed answer to a closed question - No.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 11, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Presumably you didn't live through those times!
		
Click to expand...

Born in 1948 to a relatively poor family [in those days]


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 11, 2015)

There is no doubt that the increased visibility of foodbanks is resulting in a proportion of the spectacular growth in their use. However, don't we, as a society, need to feel slightly alarmed at the fact that in one of the most forward thinking, socially responsible and progressive countries in the World we still require charity to feed our lowest 10%? 

As an aside. During my recent short spell of unemployment, I volunteered to work in my local foodbank. I was pleased to be told that due to the large number of volunteers there would only be a few hours a week available. In the end I didn't get chance to spend any time volunteering there, but in the short time I was walking around I can assure you that the people who came in were definitely in need of help. They were not "people taking advantage of the system".

An interesting (if slightly alarmist) article on my hometown - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/follow-george-orwells-road-wigan-5583390


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 11, 2015)

I wonder what Labour will do if Corbyn gets as big a first vote as they predict.

Interesting times ahead.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 11, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I wonder what Labour will do if Corbyn gets as big a first vote as they predict.

Interesting times ahead.
		
Click to expand...

I Don't see anything 'interesting' ahead, Labour we be unelectable and Conservatives will win the next election - life as it should be!


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 11, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Obviously we only knew what we could see ourselves, televisions, for those that had them, were black and white, no internet or phones so gauging how life was in other parts of the country was almost impossible. I had a difficult time as a youngster but by no means as hard as some. I remember in winter going to bed when it got dark as we didn't have any money for the electric meter, or having bread and jam for dinner, without butter, as there wasn't money to buy anything by the end of the week. I used to have to put cardboard in my jumble sale shoes once they had a hole in the sole so I didn't get too wet and before my next secondhand pair arrived!

It was tough but, hey, I didn't come to any harm and did ok
		
Click to expand...

Jam? You had jam?


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 11, 2015)

Alan Johnsons book 'This Boy' gives a good insight on growing up during the '50s for working class kids...


----------



## Ethan (Aug 11, 2015)

I support Corbyn because although I now have a good job and an excellent income, I came from a council house, benefitted from free education, a student grant to go to Uni and unlike many Tories, I do not think that the ladder should be pulled up behind me now. I also support a publicly owned NHS unlike the current pseudo-marketised version which is wasting loads of public money which could be spent on actual healthcare. 

I also do not like the war on welfare recipients and immigrants which is a mostly a distraction for the masses away from the wealthy who escaped the financial crash scot free and are now back to making loads more from such self-serving initiatives as the sale of RBS shares by their mate George (real name: Gideon, by the way), as well as an ideological crusade. 

If that causes a split in Labour and the neo-Blairites break off and clear off, so be it.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 11, 2015)

chrisd said:



			I Don't see anything 'interesting' ahead, Labour we be unelectable and Conservatives will win the next election - life as it should be!
		
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/20/newsid_3728000/3728225.stm

Like those days ehhh.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2015)

Ethan said:



			I support Corbyn because although I now have a good job and an excellent income, I came from a council house, benefitted from free education, a student grant to go to Uni and unlike many Tories, I do not think that the ladder should be pulled up behind me now. I also support a publicly owned NHS unlike the current pseudo-marketised version which is wasting loads of public money which could be spent on actual healthcare. 

I also do not like the war on welfare recipients and immigrants which is a mostly a distraction for the masses away from the wealthy who escaped the financial crash scot free and are now back to making loads more from such self-serving initiatives as the sale of RBS shares by their mate George (real name: Gideon, by the way), as well as an ideological crusade. 

If that causes a split in Labour and the neo-Blairites break off and clear off, so be it.
		
Click to expand...

Many things are different from the time you grew up in and went to University.   The population is much larger to start with and the numbers of people expecting a university education is massively larger.   How do you propose the current numbers of undergraduates be funded; solely by the taxpayer or as now, partially by the tax payer and partially by the graduate?

Do you accept that more money is being spent on the NHS now than at any other time in history.   Is there not huge amounts of waste in NHS procurement and spending priorities which have existed for a very long time now and not just under one political administration.

Do you believe that welfare should be available to the feckless, work shy and those who produce more children than they could afford even if working full time.   Do you think tax credits should be used as tool to subsidise low paying Employers and what it was originally designed for; to buy Labour votes. I think just about everyone supports a welfare state that provides a safety net to those in genuine need or with disabilities but anyone who does not think there are large numbers of people 'swinging the lead'  are very naive and taken in by the left wing press and politic. Just look around you in any town and city during working hours and see what goes on.

Maybe all these things could be funded by making very large tax increases to people like yourself so that you are punished for your own success and made to fund those that have no ambition or self determination.    I think many would be seeking to move to other countries where they would be thought better of.


----------



## Ethan (Aug 11, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Many things are different from the time you grew up in and went to University.   The population is much larger to start with and the numbers of people expecting a university education is massively larger.   How do you propose the current numbers of undergraduates be funded; solely by the taxpayer or as now, partially by the tax payer and partially by the graduate?

Do you accept that more money is being spent on the NHS now than at any other time in history.   Is there not huge amounts of waste in NHS procurement and spending priorities which have existed for a very long time now and not just under one political administration.

Do you believe that welfare should be available to the feckless, work shy and those who produce more children than they could afford even if working full time.   Do you think tax credits should be used as tool to subsidise low paying Employers and what it was originally designed for; to buy Labour votes. I think just about everyone supports a welfare state that provides a safety net to those in genuine need or with disabilities but anyone who does not think there are large numbers of people 'swinging the lead'  are very naive and taken in by the left wing press and politic. Just look around you in any town and city during working hours and see what goes on.

Maybe all these things could be funded by making very large tax increases to people like yourself so that you are punished for your own success and made to fund those that have no ambition or self determination.    I think many would be seeking to move to other countries where they would be thought better of.
		
Click to expand...

Typical shotgun rant, mixing prejudice and myth. 

Briefly, the population is not that much larger. Anyway, so what? More taxpayers. 

There has been a massive and unnecessary explosion in university courses and now the rubbish courses drag down the better ones. No evidence has ever been produced to show why 50% of the population should go to uni. In any case, the Student Loan system does not save the exchequer any money, and it would not cost any more to scrap it and restore direct funding. There is a graduate tax already. It is called income tax. If you earn more, you pay more. 

More money is spent within the NHS, but a much greater proportion is spent on the apparatus of Trust structures, PFI money, which is money completely pissed away, management consultants and unnecessary management of various other sorts. Procurement isn't high on the list of waste, nor are locum or staffing agencies. Loads of medical time is wasted on bureaucracy, much of which is to prepare the NHS for detailed billing systems. Do away with the Trust structures and internal market and that will free a ton of money for actual healthcare. 

Welfare should be available to those who need it and people shouldn't be demonised for being poor. Just because there are some feckless and workshy, although not as many as the Mail would have you believe, does not mean that others in society should be punished. The welfare state made this country what it is, and it is immoral for Govt to pull it away at the same time as they are lining the pockets of their friends in the city. This Govt believes in income redistribution, just the opposite direction to Jeremy. 

Don't know if you have seen the changing demographics of the population, but we desperately need people to produce many more babies pronto, before the number of retired non tax-payers exceed the number of tax payers. 

Tax rates used to be much higher in the UK, even under Tory Govts, and were higher still in the US under Reagan when the US was at its most productive. The Laffer Curve (which I assume you are driving at) has been shown to be rubbish, and even Laffer himself tacitly admits as much. The idea of trickle down economics has also been discredited. If you want to help the economy, give money to people who will spend it and recirculate it in the economy (the multiplicative effect) rather than those who will stick it in the Caymans.


----------



## The Green Fairy (Aug 11, 2015)

The 'art' of attaining wealth, is how to extract the most from the poor. Money only flows uphill.
Something 'eastern' countries, are extremely adept at and now a lot of 'western' nations are following suit. 
It is a no-brainer, that however much the poor are given, that money is quickly obtained by the rich.
There are many ways this can be achieved but generally those without financial savvy are an easy target for - gambling, drink, smoking, drugs, advertising, high interest rates on loans, desire to copy celebrity (tattoos, footy gear, and other 'fashion' statements) 

So for the rich to become richer, give the poor more freebies.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Typical shotgun rant, mixing prejudice and myth. 

Briefly, the population is not that much larger. Anyway, so what? More taxpayers. 

There has been a massive and unnecessary explosion in university courses and now the rubbish courses drag down the better ones. No evidence has ever been produced to show why 50% of the population should go to uni. In any case, the Student Loan system does not save the exchequer any money, and it would not cost any more to scrap it and restore direct funding. There is a graduate tax already. It is called income tax. If you earn more, you pay more. 

More money is spent within the NHS, but a much greater proportion is spent on the apparatus of Trust structures, PFI money, which is money completely pissed away, management consultants and unnecessary management of various other sorts. Procurement isn't high on the list of waste, nor are locum or staffing agencies. Loads of medical time is wasted on bureaucracy, much of which is to prepare the NHS for detailed billing systems. Do away with the Trust structures and internal market and that will free a ton of money for actual healthcare. 

Welfare should be available to those who need it and people shouldn't be demonised for being poor. Just because there are some feckless and workshy, although not as many as the Mail would have you believe, does not mean that others in society should be punished. The welfare state made this country what it is, and it is immoral for Govt to pull it away at the same time as they are lining the pockets of their friends in the city. This Govt believes in income redistribution, just the opposite direction to Jeremy. 

Don't know if you have seen the changing demographics of the population, but we desperately need people to produce many more babies pronto, before the number of retired non tax-payers exceed the number of tax payers. 

Tax rates used to be much higher in the UK, even under Tory Govts, and were higher still in the US under Reagan when the US was at its most productive. The Laffer Curve (which I assume you are driving at) has been shown to be rubbish, and even Laffer himself tacitly admits as much. The idea of trickle down economics has also been discredited. If you want to help the economy, give money to people who will spend it and recirculate it in the economy (the multiplicative effect) rather than those who will stick it in the Caymans.
		
Click to expand...

Initial line is a typical Socialist response to a debate.   Attack the integrity of anyone disagreeing with you.

The population has grown by a very large amount during the last 15 years and that increase does not automatically create increased tax revenue.   Most of the increase by far is due to immigration and births from immigrants.  Many of these people work for low wages and as such do not pay much tax, in fact in many cases benefits such as tax credits negate tax revenues.

I agree that much money in the NHS was and continues to to swallowed up by PFI costs.   We cant really blame all that on the Tories, can we.

Welfare should be available for those that deserve it, not who need it.   Anyone can need the tax payer to pass on their hard earned cash.   The welfare state was never designed to be used the way it currently is.  It was a National Insurance and based on you contributing.   Benefits were designed to help people back into employment where ever possible.

The idea of increasing population to pay for the old is self defeating.   The extra population grows old so you have to exponentially increase it to keep up and public services can never serve this model.

If you are happy to pay considerably more tax to support Corbyn's Socialist Utopia then vote for him.   Lets face it though, he wont ever be a Prime Minister.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2015)

The Green Fairy said:



			The 'art' of attaining wealth, is how to extract the most from the poor. Money only flows uphill.
Something 'eastern' countries, are extremely adept at and now a lot of 'western' nations are following suit. 
It is a no-brainer, that however much the poor are given, that money is quickly obtained by the rich.
There are many ways this can be achieved but generally those without financial savvy are an easy target for - gambling, drink, smoking, drugs, advertising, high interest rates on loans, desire to copy celebrity (tattoos, footy gear, and other 'fashion' statements) 

So for the rich to become richer, give the poor more freebies.
		
Click to expand...

So none of it is of their own doing!


----------



## shagster (Aug 11, 2015)

excellent words as always Ethan, and as usual the self righteous tory views
the only thing a tory government will do is look after its own
why don't the tory government crack down on tax avoidance and insider dealing etc oh if they did they would loose most of their doners

people who support a left of center labour party policies are not all dinosaurs, unlike some on here with their tory rhetoric, or against the creation of wealth, just the abuse of wealth and power

shagster


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 11, 2015)

shagster said:



			excellent words as always Ethan, and as usual the self righteous tory views
the only thing a tory government will do is look after its own
why don't the tory government crack down on tax avoidance and insider dealing etc oh if they did they would loose most of their doners

people who support a left of center labour party policies are not all dinosaurs, unlike some on here with their tory rhetoric, or against the creation of wealth, just the abuse of wealth and power

shagster
		
Click to expand...

Oh me sides! You're killing me... lol...

Remind me how many millions, yes millions, the banks have been fined in recent years for any number of transgressions? PPI, Libor... remind me how many private companies have been fined by the likes of Ofcom, ofgen etc...remind me which govt has brought in tough new laws on tax evasion.... 156 individuals fined in 2010/11, 565 in 12/13, and 1165 in 14/15, a very steep increase compared to what happened under Labour - all the details are out there if you searched for facts instead of thumping your chest and shouting political rubbish.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 11, 2015)

shagster said:



			excellent words as always Ethan, and as usual the self righteous tory views
the only thing a tory government will do is look after its own
why don't the tory government crack down on tax avoidance and insider dealing etc oh if they did they would loose most of their doners

people who support a left of center labour party policies are not all dinosaurs, unlike some on here with their tory rhetoric, or against the creation of wealth, just the abuse of wealth and power

shagster
		
Click to expand...

It goes something like this.   Maybe you've heard something like it before.

Usual self righteous Socialist views.  The only thing a Labour Government will do is look after it's own.
Why didn't the Labour Government clamp down on Tax avoidance and insider dealing etc. Oh! if they did they would lose most of their Labour donors.

People who support right of centre Tory party policies are not all dinosaurs, unlike some on here with their Socialist rhetoric, or against the creation of wealth, just the abuse of wealth and power.

Sockster


----------



## shagster (Aug 12, 2015)

Never said i was against the creation of wealth, that's  just your interpretation . I think making the best of your ability is a good thing and should be encouraged.

When was the last real labour government, as blairs shower was a poor tory imitation.
if john smith had not passed away we would never have had the a--hole that is blair.

Wow 1165 fined that's going to fill the debt the country is in. That really is tough and getting to the heart of the problem, at this rate we will be out of debt by the year dot.

The millions the banks have been fined will not make one bit of difference as they will still carry ripping customers off.

The point i made about dinosaurs is as soon as a left wing point of view is made, the usual suspects criticise their views and they must be wrong.
Why is a right wing point of view better than a left wing point of view and vice versa.
At the end of the day, very few politicians are actually in it for their real beliefs and to make the country a better place for everyone, the are just pigs at the trough getting what they can, regardless of which party they support.
Just my view, i hope it dose not offend, but no doubt it will

shagster


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 12, 2015)

shagster said:



			Never said i was against the creation of wealth, that's  just your interpretation . I think making the best of your ability is a good thing and should be encouraged.

When was the last real labour government, as blairs shower was a poor tory imitation.
if john smith had not passed away we would never have had the a--hole that is blair.

Wow 1165 fined that's going to fill the debt the country is in. That really is tough and getting to the heart of the problem, at this rate we will be out of debt by the year dot.

The millions the banks have been fined will not make one bit of difference as they will still carry ripping customers off.

The point i made about dinosaurs is as soon as a left wing point of view is made, the usual suspects criticise their views and they must be wrong.
Why is a right wing point of view better than a left wing point of view and vice versa.
At the end of the day, very few politicians are actually in it for their real beliefs and to make the country a better place for everyone, the are just pigs at the trough getting what they can, regardless of which party they support.
Just my view, i hope it dose not offend, but no doubt it will

shagster
		
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your view however wrong it may be.

You accuse others of being biased but are exactly that yourself.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 12, 2015)

shagster said:



			Never said i was against the creation of wealth, that's  just your interpretation . I think making the best of your ability is a good thing and should be encouraged.

When was the last real labour government, as blairs shower was a poor tory imitation.
if john smith had not passed away we would never have had the a--hole that is blair.

Wow 1165 fined that's going to fill the debt the country is in. That really is tough and getting to the heart of the problem, at this rate we will be out of debt by the year dot.

The millions the banks have been fined will not make one bit of difference as they will still carry ripping customers off.

The point i made about dinosaurs is as soon as a left wing point of view is made, the usual suspects criticise their views and they must be wrong.
Why is a right wing point of view better than a left wing point of view and vice versa.
At the end of the day, very few politicians are actually in it for their real beliefs and to make the country a better place for everyone, the are just pigs at the trough getting what they can, regardless of which party they support.
Just my view, i hope it dose not offend, but no doubt it will

shagster
		
Click to expand...

But do you know how much they were fined? No, you haven't bothered to look. So there's massive corporations being fined, and a significant increase in individuals being fined. All done by a Tory govt you said looks after its mates...

I don't have a problem with your political stance apart from it appears to be based on old fashioned political rhetoric, i.e. the Tories always do x, y, z for their mates. If Labour become credible again, and have characters who I feel are good enough they'll get my vote again - note, again. I've voted Labour more than I've voted Tory, but that vote has always been based on strength and credibility of what is in front of me. 

The current lot don't appear to know what they want to be. Some want to revive an era, Foot-like, that was a disaster for Labour, whilst others want to go down the progressive line of the Blair years. Unfortunately, mention Blair and you're mentioning something that is tainted and toxic. Have a look at what Blair achieved *within* the UK before he became Bush's lapdog. Some brilliant socialist reforms, and fulfilling election promises for social change. Have a look at how successful Labour were under that centre ground stance that included excellent social reforms - which are dismissed because of the "warmonger."

Have a look at Andy Burnham's CV. A better CV than David Miliband, who unfortunately hasn't yet returned to the fold. Burnham is a great candidate for a leader/pm. And then there's Corbyn, a supporter of the far left, inc. terrorist organisations etc. Whether we like it or not, the UK is a business and needs to be run on sound financial terms. I wouldn't trust Corbyn with the kid's piggy bank, but I would Andy Burnham.

Until Labour find some decent, middle ground, policies and are led by credible trustable politicians they're not getting my vote. But that doesn't mean I like a lot of what the Tories do, but they will continue to get my vote whilst they build their policies around getting the UK out of the financial mess whilst Labour just want to follow Greece's example of borrowing their way out of.


----------



## Ethan (Aug 12, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Initial line is a typical Socialist response to a debate.   Attack the integrity of anyone disagreeing with you.

The population has grown by a very large amount during the last 15 years and that increase does not automatically create increased tax revenue.   Most of the increase by far is due to immigration and births from immigrants.  Many of these people work for low wages and as such do not pay much tax, in fact in many cases benefits such as tax credits negate tax revenues.

I agree that much money in the NHS was and continues to to swallowed up by PFI costs.   We cant really blame all that on the Tories, can we.

Welfare should be available for those that deserve it, not who need it.   Anyone can need the tax payer to pass on their hard earned cash.   The welfare state was never designed to be used the way it currently is.  It was a National Insurance and based on you contributing.   Benefits were designed to help people back into employment where ever possible.

The idea of increasing population to pay for the old is self defeating.   The extra population grows old so you have to exponentially increase it to keep up and public services can never serve this model.

If you are happy to pay considerably more tax to support Corbyn's Socialist Utopia then vote for him.   Lets face it though, he wont ever be a Prime Minister.
		
Click to expand...

You always retort that whatever anyone who disagrees with you says is a typical socialist rant. Can you not see how hypocritical that is? Perhaps I should call yours a typical reactionary bluster. 

Immigrants to this country are mostly of working age or kids. They either pay tax, and usually by doing the jobs that locals think are beneath them, or help rebalance the unbalancing demographic. Nobody claims that will fix the demographics for ever, but may delay problems a bit. Welfare and national insurance have evolved. NI is just another form of income tax now, and is not hypothecated to pay for welfare and the NHS. It pays for roads, defence, foreign aid and all the usual stuff.  

Even people earning small amounts of money are important to the economy because they spend their money on food or clothes. Then that money is used to pay shop staff, who spend it again and so on and so forth, with tax paid at most stages along the way. Each Â£ paid to the first person driver Â£3 or 4 more spending in the economy and a couple of quid tax revenue too. This is the multiplier effect. http://study.com/academy/lesson/the...nding-multiplier-definition-and-examples.html Hedge fund people who get big payouts stick their money offshore and it does nobody any good, not even the HMRC. 

Corbyn does not promise a socialist utopia, but a fairer society and it does not take considerably more tax to provide it. It takes keeping considerably more money from leaking out of the economy to fat cats and private investors, though. David Cameron talks about letting those with the broadest shoulders bear more of the burden, seeing as how we* are all in this together. Corbyn means it.  


* he doesn't include him or his kind in we, because he really means you.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 12, 2015)

I've just waded through much of the thread and one thing occurs to me 


If the political parties were to help everyone the same, then a good centre ground course would be a perfect one to steer. We wouldn't need left and right wing policies because a safe middle ground would be fairer to everyone.


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 12, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Oh me sides! You're killing me... lol...

Remind me how many millions, yes millions, the banks have been fined in recent years for any number of transgressions? PPI, Libor... remind me how many private companies have been fined by the likes of Ofcom, ofgen etc...remind me which govt has brought in tough new laws on tax evasion.... 156 individuals fined in 2010/11, 565 in 12/13, and 1165 in 14/15, a very steep increase compared to what happened under Labour - all the details are out there if you searched for facts instead of thumping your chest and shouting political rubbish.
		
Click to expand...


But no one of any real significance has seen the inside of a prison though... A handful of lackeys and that's it... As for the fines these just get passed onto the customers in effect... And, I doubt many of the individuals fined have actually handed much over...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 12, 2015)

Interesting summary from Mathew Paris.

The Tories are really three parties and, with no political opponents, will tear each other apart

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnis...y-corbyn-could-destroy-the-tories-yes-really/


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 12, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Initial line is a typical Socialist response to a debate.   Attack the integrity of anyone disagreeing with you.

*The population has grown by a very large amount during the last 15 years and that increase does not automatically create increased tax revenue.   Most of the increase by far is due to immigration and births from immigrants.  Many of these people work for low wages and as such do not pay much tax, in fact in many cases benefits such as tax credits negate tax revenues.*

I agree that much money in the NHS was and continues to to swallowed up by PFI costs.   We cant really blame all that on the Tories, can we.

Welfare should be available for those that deserve it, not who need it.   Anyone can need the tax payer to pass on their hard earned cash.   The welfare state was never designed to be used the way it currently is.  It was a National Insurance and based on you contributing.   Benefits were designed to help people back into employment where ever possible.

The idea of increasing population to pay for the old is self defeating.   The extra population grows old so you have to exponentially increase it to keep up and public services can never serve this model.

If you are happy to pay considerably more tax to support Corbyn's Socialist Utopia then vote for him.   Lets face it though, he wont ever be a Prime Minister.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure you can provide the statistical data to back that statement up ?


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 12, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Initial line is a typical Socialist response to a debate.   Attack the integrity of anyone disagreeing with you.
.....
		
Click to expand...

Oh the irony!


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 12, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I'm sure you can provide the statistical data to back that statement up ?
		
Click to expand...

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/15.5

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/1.42

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/1.37


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 12, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			But no one of any real significance has seen the inside of a prison though... A handful of lackeys and that's it... As for the fines these just get passed onto the customers in effect... And, I doubt many of the individuals fined have actually handed much over...
		
Click to expand...

So what do you suggest? Where do you expect the fines to be passed onto? And yes, I agree that fines only end up costing the customer more... or do they? If a bank/business passed on millions of pounds in fines to its customers via greater charges etc what would a number of customers do? Vote with their feet?

And you doubt many of the individuals have paid their fines. Another, I can't be bothered to look coz it might hurt my argument? If you look you will find that those that were fined for non-payment/fraud have had their assets seized - one losing Â£700,000 and another Â£1.4mill.

Too many people quick to say this party hasn't and this party has. A few facts in the debate wouldn't do any harm... not as much fun tho.'


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 12, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			So what do you suggest? Where do you expect the fines to be passed onto? And yes, I agree that fines only end up costing the customer more... or do they? If a bank/business passed on millions of pounds in fines to its customers via greater charges etc what would a number of customers do? Vote with their feet?

And you doubt many of the individuals have paid their fines. Another, I can't be bothered to look coz it might hurt my argument? If you look you will find that those that were fined for non-payment/fraud have had their assets seized - one losing Â£700,000 and another Â£1.4mill.

Too many people quick to say this party hasn't and this party has. A few facts in the debate wouldn't do any harm... not as much fun tho.'
		
Click to expand...


I'd have liked to have seen the head honchos spend a few years behind bars after having had all their assets stripped... Not get healthy payoffs before toddling off to collect their pensions....


And, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...x-bill-as-settlement-is-torn-up-10268716.html

Think you'll find he's one of many...

Ever been allowed to get away paying no tax?  
Nor me either...


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Aug 12, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			I'd have liked to have seen the head honchos spend a few years behind bars after having had all their assets stripped... Not get healthy payoffs before toddling off to collect their pensions....


And, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...x-bill-as-settlement-is-torn-up-10268716.html

Think you'll find he's one of many...

Ever been allowed to get away paying no tax?  
Nor me either...
		
Click to expand...

Never done any work cash in hand?


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 12, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Never done any work cash in hand?
		
Click to expand...


I wish...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 12, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Never done any work cash in hand?
		
Click to expand...

Nope - never - well not since I was a scout.  You seem to suggest that in your experience most folk are on the tax fiddle not declaring income?

My Mrs used to do private nursing work - and I had to persuade her to claim valid allowances against her private work income as she worried that she might not pay enough tax.  We aren't all at it.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Aug 12, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Nope - never - well not since I was a scout.  You seem to suggest that in your experience most folk are on the tax fiddle not declaring income?

My Mrs used to do private nursing work - and I had to persuade her to claim valid allowances against her private work income as she worried that she might not pay enough tax.  We aren't all at it.
		
Click to expand...

I would never go so far as to say everyone, but a lot of people are happy to pay cash in hand for jobs, or take cash in hand for work when they can. How many bar staff do you think declare their tips?

I'm not justifying any tax evasion by any means, but I also think people can confuse avoidance with evasion in these kind of debates.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 12, 2015)

Whats much worse than tax avoidance is the wasting of it on the undeserving!


----------



## Ethan (Aug 12, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/15.5

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/1.42

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/1.37

Click to expand...

I think he meant data from a credible source rather than a right wing fear mongering group known to oppose immigration.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 12, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Whats much worse than tax avoidance is the wasting of it on the undeserving!
		
Click to expand...

What's much worse than wasting on the undeserving is denying it to the deserving!

I think you'd agree.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 12, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			What's much worse than wasting on the undeserving is denying it to the deserving!

I think you'd agree.
		
Click to expand...

I do agree.  Although what classifies the deserving  is a matter of opinion.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 12, 2015)

Ethan said:



			I think he meant data from a credible source rather than a right wing fear mongering group known to oppose immigration.
		
Click to expand...

They justify their data from credible sources.  Did you read any of it?
Heres a typical note to one of their papers explaining the source of their data:

Derived from 2012 Office of National Statistics population projections, using a net migration scenario of 298,000 a year http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/npp/national-population-projections/2012-based-projections/index.html

Heres some more:

Notes

URL: http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
URL: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings


There you go again.   Casting aspersions against something that opposes your personal view rather than explain where they may be wrong.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 13, 2015)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...attacks-on-labour-leader-rivals-10452587.html

Oh dear, desperation or what.

Don't do as I do, do as I say.


----------



## Ethan (Aug 13, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...attacks-on-labour-leader-rivals-10452587.html

Oh dear, desperation or what.

Don't do as I do, do as I say.
		
Click to expand...

The Labour management are really trying to derail Corbyn, so the dirty tricks campaign is now gathering momentum. Expect much more of this for the rest of the voting window.


----------



## Ethan (Aug 13, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			They justify their data from credible sources.  Did you read any of it?
Heres a typical note to one of their papers explaining the source of their data:

Derived from 2012 Office of National Statistics population projections, using a net migration scenario of 298,000 a year http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/npp/national-population-projections/2012-based-projections/index.html

Heres some more:

Notes

URL: http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf
URL: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings


There you go again.   Casting aspersions against something that opposes your personal view rather than explain where they may be wrong.
		
Click to expand...

If you can't see that data taken from a special interest group with an agenda is biased, then there really is no point in trying to discuss it any further with you. You are beyond reason.


----------



## TheDiablo (Aug 13, 2015)

I haven't read through all this thread, but has Corbyn's rather suspect 'associations' been discussed (if so, move on!!)

Below is the sort of media that is only going to heighten if he gets the leadership - the more mainstream Jewish media will crank up the pressure unbelievably. They are simply waiting for him to be elected to really go to town on Labour IMO. Could be an absolute disaster unless he comes out and addresses much of this with real clarity asap. 

I'm not Jewish and have next to zero knowledge on Corbyn so I'm certainly not pointing fingers, but it's interesting nonetheless.

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/142144/the-key-questions-jeremy-corbyn-must-answer


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 13, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			...
The population has grown by a very large amount during the last 15 years and that increase does not automatically create increased tax revenue.   Most of the increase by far is due to immigration and births from immigrants.  Many of these people work for low wages and as such do not pay much tax, in fact in many cases benefits such as tax credits negate tax revenues.
...
		
Click to expand...

Here's the summary from one of the 'other' links you quoted in Post 169.  http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf

<Quote>
We investigate the fiscal impact of immigration on the UK economy, with a focus on the period since
1995. Our findings indicate that, when considering the resident immigrant population in each year
from 1995 to 2011, immigrants from the European Economic Area (EEA) have made a positive fiscal
contribution, even during periods when the UK was running budget deficits, while Non-EEA
immigrants, not dissimilar to natives, have made a negative contribution. For immigrants that arrived
since 2000, contributions have been positive throughout, and particularly so for immigrants from
EEA countries. Notable is the strong positive contribution made by immigrants from countries that
joined the EU in 2004.
<End Quote>

Doesn't that contradict your statement (above) that Phil asked you to justify? At least for EEA Immigrants, which is what the major fuss is about!


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 13, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			Here's the summary from one of the 'other' links you quoted in Post 169.  http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf

<Quote>
We investigate the fiscal impact of immigration on the UK economy, with a focus on the period since
1995. Our findings indicate that, when considering the resident immigrant population in each year
from 1995 to 2011, immigrants from the European Economic Area (EEA) have made a positive fiscal
contribution, even during periods when the UK was running budget deficits, while Non-EEA
immigrants, not dissimilar to natives, have made a negative contribution. For immigrants that arrived
since 2000, contributions have been positive throughout, and particularly so for immigrants from
EEA countries. Notable is the strong positive contribution made by immigrants from countries that
joined the EU in 2004.
<End Quote>

Doesn't that contradict your statement (above) that Phil asked you to justify? At least for EEA Immigrants, which is what the major fuss is about!
		
Click to expand...

I have no intention of replying or commenting to any of your posts and you know why.   Please do not ask me to again.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 13, 2015)

TheDiablo said:



			I haven't read through all this thread, but has Corbyn's rather suspect 'associations' been discussed (if so, move on!!)

Below is the sort of media that is only going to heighten if he gets the leadership - the more mainstream Jewish media will crank up the pressure unbelievably. They are simply waiting for him to be elected to really go to town on Labour IMO. Could be an absolute disaster unless he comes out and addresses much of this with real clarity asap. 

I'm not Jewish and have next to zero knowledge on Corbyn so I'm certainly not pointing fingers, but it's interesting nonetheless.

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/142144/the-key-questions-jeremy-corbyn-must-answer

Click to expand...

That pressure was applied by the media to the SNP after referendum, that worked for them didnot it.
Labour and the right wing politicians do not seem to learn anything as the flounder on.


----------



## TheDiablo (Aug 13, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			That pressure was applied by the media to the SNP after referendum, that worked for them didnot it.
Labour and the right wing politicians do not seem to learn anything as the flounder on.
		
Click to expand...

Such different situations that it's almost an irrelevant comparison. There is a pretty stark contrast between nationalism and supporting terrorism/denying the holocaust.

At the election the rise of the SNP hurt the left far more than the right. I for one didn't notice much pressure in mainstream media against the SNP for the election, if anything the positivity toward the extremely talented Sturgeon was the standout SNP related media post-referendum. 

If the mainstream media really whip up a circus on these accusations after Corbyn gets elected it could end him (and possibly the Labour party) before he gets going. Better to address these now and nip them in the bud - I'm pretty sure most are either false or can be explained away by some savvy PR expert.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 13, 2015)

TheDiablo said:



			Such different situations that it's almost an irrelevant comparison. There is a pretty stark contrast between nationalism and supporting terrorism/denying the holocaust.

At the election the rise of the SNP hurt the left far more than the right. I for one didn't notice much pressure in mainstream media against the SNP for the election, if anything the positivity toward the extremely talented Sturgeon was the standout SNP related media post-referendum. 

If the mainstream media really whip up a circus on these accusations after Corbyn gets elected it could end him (and possibly the Labour party) before he gets going. Better to address these now and nip them in the bud - I'm pretty sure most are either false or can be explained away by some savvy PR expert.
		
Click to expand...


Point being that the huffing puffing national press were virtually ignored by the SNP supporters prior to the election, seems like Corbyn's supporters are doing the same.


----------



## TheDiablo (Aug 13, 2015)

right OK, with you. On that I completely agree. 

The problems will start when he is elected IMO, as the right wing press (who will be quite happy if he wins) will then go on the attack


----------



## Ethan (Aug 13, 2015)

TheDiablo said:



			I haven't read through all this thread, but has Corbyn's rather suspect 'associations' been discussed (if so, move on!!)

Below is the sort of media that is only going to heighten if he gets the leadership - the more mainstream Jewish media will crank up the pressure unbelievably. They are simply waiting for him to be elected to really go to town on Labour IMO. Could be an absolute disaster unless he comes out and addresses much of this with real clarity asap. 

I'm not Jewish and have next to zero knowledge on Corbyn so I'm certainly not pointing fingers, but it's interesting nonetheless.

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/142144/the-key-questions-jeremy-corbyn-must-answer

Click to expand...

Corbyn is a supporter of Palestine. That is not news nor particularly unusual on the left. He wants a fair and peaceful resolution to ease the plight of the Palestinians. He is not a holocaust denier, nor does he wish to see Israel exterminated. 

The Jewish Chronicle's view of what constitutes 'anti-semitic' may be different from that of an objective outsider. They have already advised their readers not to vote for him. Nothing he can say or do will change that now. 

All the rest is rhetoric. He need not, and should not, address all those accusations in detail.


----------



## c1973 (Aug 13, 2015)

TheDiablo said:



			I haven't read through all this thread, but *has Corbyn's rather suspect 'associations' been discussed* (if so, move on!!)

Below is the sort of media that is only going to heighten if he gets the leadership - the more mainstream Jewish media will crank up the pressure unbelievably. They are simply waiting for him to be elected to really go to town on Labour IMO. Could be an absolute disaster unless he comes out and addresses much of this with real clarity asap. 

I'm not Jewish and have next to zero knowledge on Corbyn so I'm certainly not pointing fingers, but it's interesting nonetheless.

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/142144/the-key-questions-jeremy-corbyn-must-answer

Click to expand...


It was mentioned, yes. Certainly one strand was at any rate. 

But tread carefully, you may fall victim to bigoted (inferred or otherwise) insinuations on your character and/or beliefs that go unchecked; and unanswered when questioned. 


Imvho of course.


----------



## TheDiablo (Aug 13, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Corbin is a supporter of Palestine. That is not news nor particularly unusual on the left. He wants a fair and peaceful resolution to ease the plight of the Palestinians. He is not a holocaust denier, nor does he wish to see Israel exterminated. 

The Jewish Chronicle's view of what constitutes 'anti-semitic' may be different from that of an objective outsider. They have already advised their readers not to vote for him. Nothing he can say or do will change that now. 

All the rest is rhetoric. *He need not, and should not, address all those accusations in detail*.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps not all of them. And I agree with what you say re the JC - my point is that this will become a real problem for him at some point when the mainstream right wing go after him (which wont be until after he is elected, and not until they need to). 

IMO he certainly should address point 1 and 2. Not directly to the JC obviously, as this would set a precedent for him and open a can of worms. But there's a HUGE difference between being a Palestine sympathiser and actively supporting (both financially and attendance) a group ran by 'Holocaust Revisioner' Paul Eiser. Let's take a look through his beliefs, which are exactly what Corbyn needs to disassociate himself from asap 

Â· I question that there ever was an official plan on the part of Hitler or any other part of the National Socialist regime systematically and physically to eliminate every Jew in Europe.
Â· I question that there ever existed homicidal gas-chambers.
Â· I question the figure of six million Jewish victims of the Nazi assault and I believe that the actual figure was significantly less.

Edit - font colour on cut/paste of quotes.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 13, 2015)

Ethan said:



			If you can't see that data taken from a special interest group with an agenda is biased, then there really is no point in trying to discuss it any further with you. You are beyond reason.
		
Click to expand...

They are using data from various sources including the ONS.   Of course they are a special interest group, one that has concerns for the levels of immigration and it's potential effects on the Nation, their views echo very large numbers of people and as such cannot be fobbed off as swivel eyed loons.  If that goes against your left wing viewpoint than so be it.


----------



## Ethan (Aug 13, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			They are using data from various sources including the ONS.   Of course they are a special interest group, one that has concerns for the levels of immigration and it's potential effects on the Nation, *their views echo very large numbers of people and as such cannot be fobbed off as swivel eyed loons*.  If that goes against your left wing viewpoint than so be it.
		
Click to expand...

Well that is not true, in either part. Their views represent the views of a small but rabidly obsessed minority.

They have also taken ONS data and applied some of their own assumptions and extrapolations to it. 

And they can most certainly be fobbed off as swivel eyed loons regardless of the number they claim, or actually, represent.

My viewpoint is that of someone who review data on all sorts of subjects and considers the province of the data when doing so, as any sensible person would.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 13, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Well that is not true, in either part. *Their views represent the views of a small but rabidly obsessed minority.*

They have also taken ONS data and applied some of their own assumptions and extrapolations to it. 

And they can most certainly be fobbed off as swivel eyed loons regardless of the number they claim, or actually, represent.

My viewpoint is that of someone who review data on all sorts of subjects and considers the province of the data when doing so, as any sensible person would.
		
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting there are not large numbers of the UK population with concerns over immigration?


----------



## Ethan (Aug 13, 2015)

TheDiablo said:



			Perhaps not all of them. And I agree with what you say re the JC - my point is that this will become a real problem for him at some point when the mainstream right wing go after him (which wont be until after he is elected, and not until they need to). 

IMO he certainly should address point 1 and 2. Not directly to the JC obviously, as this would set a precedent for him and open a can of worms. But there's a HUGE difference between being a Palestine sympathiser and actively supporting (both financially and attendance) a group ran by 'Holocaust Revisioner' Paul Eiser. Let's take a look through his beliefs, which are exactly what Corbyn needs to disassociate himself from asap 

Â· I question that there ever was an official plan on the part of Hitler or any other part of the National Socialist regime systematically and physically to eliminate every Jew in Europe.
Â· I question that there ever existed homicidal gas-chambers.
Â· I question the figure of six million Jewish victims of the Nazi assault and I believe that the actual figure was significantly less.

Edit - font colour on cut/paste of quotes.

Click to expand...

But who said Corbyn agrees with all the loony views of this guy Eiser? I doubt it. 

Most of this is coming from The Jewish Chronicle and The Daily Mail. What an alliance. The paper which supported Hitler and the Brownshirts is now a champion of anti-semitism? I rather doubt it. 

Just another smear campaign.


----------



## Ethan (Aug 13, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Are you suggesting there are not large numbers of the UK population with concerns over immigration?
		
Click to expand...

How many is 'large numbers'?


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 13, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			They are using data from various sources including the ONS.   Of course they are a special interest group, one that has concerns for the levels of immigration and it's potential effects on the Nation, their views echo very large numbers of people and as such cannot be fobbed off as swivel eyed loons.  If that goes against your left wing viewpoint than so be it.
		
Click to expand...

They obviously didn't use much, if any, of the data from one of the articles *you* quoted earlier 

http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf

which states in its Summary....

<Quote>
We investigate the fiscal impact of immigration on the UK economy, with a focus on the period since
1995. Our findings indicate that, when considering the resident immigrant population in each year
from 1995 to 2011, immigrants from the European Economic Area (EEA) have made a positive fiscal
contribution, even during periods when the UK was running budget deficits, while Non-EEA
immigrants, not dissimilar to natives, have made a negative contribution. For immigrants that arrived
since 2000, contributions have been positive throughout, and particularly so for immigrants from
EEA countries. Notable is the strong positive contribution made by immigrants from countries that
joined the EU in 2004.
<End Quote>

I give rather more credence to this article/paper, as it's published by The Royal Economic Society in their The Economic Journal, so more than likely subject to peer review, either before or afterwards!

Migration Watch is merely, imo, one of the many 'pressure groups' that are an essential freedom allowed in a democracy!


----------



## Ethan (Aug 13, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			They obviously didn't use much, if any, of the data from one of the articles you quoted earlier 

http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf

which states in its Summary....

<Quote>
We investigate the fiscal impact of immigration on the UK economy, with a focus on the period since
1995. Our findings indicate that, when considering the resident immigrant population in each year
from 1995 to 2011, immigrants from the European Economic Area (EEA) have made a positive fiscal
contribution, even during periods when the UK was running budget deficits, while Non-EEA
immigrants, not dissimilar to natives, have made a negative contribution. For immigrants that arrived
since 2000, contributions have been positive throughout, and particularly so for immigrants from
EEA countries. Notable is the strong positive contribution made by immigrants from countries that
joined the EU in 2004.
<End Quote>

I give rather more credence to this article/paper, as it's published by The Royal Economic Society in their The Economic Journal, so more than likely subject to peer review, either before or afterwards!

Migration Watch is merely, imo, one of the many 'pressure groups' that are an essential freedom allowed in a democracy!
		
Click to expand...

I defend Migration Watch's freedom to exist and publish their propaganda, just as I defend my right to criticise it. 

Peer reviewed journals are a generally more reliable source of data and interpretation than pressure groups which have already determined their view and only seek information to support it.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 13, 2015)

Ethan said:



			I defend Migration Watch's freedom to exist and publish their propaganda, just as I defend my right to criticise it. 

Peer reviewed journals are a generally more reliable source of data and interpretation than pressure groups which have already determined their view and only seek information to support it.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree with this! Those freedoms are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights - in Articles 11 and 10 respectively!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 13, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			They are using data from various sources including the ONS.   Of course they are a special interest group, one that has concerns for the levels of immigration and it's potential effects on the Nation, their views echo very large numbers of people and as such cannot be fobbed off as swivel eyed loons.  If that goes against your left wing viewpoint than so be it.
		
Click to expand...

So they are bias then - they are anti immigration then 

So have you any facts from "official" sources - maybe from customs or border control etc 

Some real hard facts as opposed to "scenarios" ?


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 13, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So they are bias then - they are anti immigration then 

So have you any facts from "official" sources - maybe from customs or border control etc 

Some real hard facts as opposed to "scenarios" ?
		
Click to expand...


If having a certain opinion is biased then I guess we are all biased.   Of course they are anti-immigration, what did you expect them to be.

Facts about what from Customs and Border Control?   I don't understand what you are talking about!


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 13, 2015)

Ethan said:



			How many is 'large numbers'?
		
Click to expand...

Three quarters of the UK population is a large number in my opinion.

Here is some data on the subject created by a group from Oxford University.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox....migration-overall-attitudes-and-level-concern


----------



## Ethan (Aug 13, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Three quarters of the UK population is a large number in my opinion.

Here is some data on the subject created by a group from Oxford University.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox....migration-overall-attitudes-and-level-concern

Click to expand...

You said that large numbers were concerned about immigration.

That survey shows that 3/4 think immigration should be reduced. 

Those two ideas are not necessarily the same. If asked to say what you think should be done about immigration, people may offer the view 'reduce it' without it necessarily being an important concern for them.

Also, if you look at the link you sent, scroll down to the graph of how many think it has 'gone too far', and you will see that percentage has been recurring more or less steadily since 1964. 

So shouldn't the headline be "British people less concerned about immigration now than any time in last 50 years!". 

Surveys are funny, a lot depends on the precise phraseology and tone of questions. 

Further material in that survey shows that immigration is being rated as a more important issue even as the percentage thinking it should recuse gets smaller. Counter-intuitive, no?

I suspect a lot has to do with the way these issues are put in the public's mind. If they are constantly told by politicians and the media that immigration is a big deal, they will begin to think it is.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 13, 2015)

Ethan said:



			You said that large numbers were concerned about immigration.

That survey shows that 3/4 think immigration should be reduced. 

Those two ideas are not necessarily the same. If asked to say what you think should be done about immigration, people may offer the view 'reduce it' without it necessarily being an important concern for them.

Also, if you look at the link you sent, scroll down to the graph of how many think it has 'gone too far', and you will see that percentage has been recurring more or less steadily since 1964. 

So shouldn't the headline be "British people less concerned about immigration now than any time in last 50 years!". 

Surveys are funny, a lot depends on the precise phraseology and tone of questions. 

Further material in that survey shows that immigration is being rated as a more important issue even as the percentage thinking it should recuse gets smaller. Counter-intuitive, no?

I suspect a lot has to do with the way these issues are put in the public's mind. If they are constantly told by politicians and the media that immigration is a big deal, they will begin to think it is.
		
Click to expand...

I think your suggestion that people thinking immigration should be reduced does not mean they have concerns about it is rather tentative.

You will notice that 56% wanted it reduced a lot.


----------



## c1973 (Aug 13, 2015)

Immigration won't really be an issue for Corbyn though, will it?

The guy is blatantly unelectable in the UK and has very little chance of being PM and forming a Government (thankfully).


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 13, 2015)

c1973 said:



			Immigration won't really be an issue for Corbyn though, will it?

The guy is blatantly unelectable in the UK and has very little chance of being PM and forming a Government (thankfully).
		
Click to expand...

His chances IMO are similar to Dennis Skinner.


----------



## c1973 (Aug 13, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			His chances IMO are similar to Dennis Skinner.
		
Click to expand...

Frank Skinner has more chance!


----------



## Ethan (Aug 13, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			I think your suggestion that people thinking immigration should be reduced does not mean they have concerns about it is rather tentative.

You will notice that 56% wanted it reduced a lot.
		
Click to expand...

Well, if you actually look at the data, you will see that over time, the percentage who think it has gone too far has reduced as the number who think it is an important issue (which are two different questions) has increased. It is a fact, not a matter of opinion. You will notice that that 56% was around 70% in 2007 and 90% in the 1970s. 

We may speculate on the explanation for the opposite direction of travel of these questions, and I have suggested it is at least partly due to the media and electoral narrative. Your explanation is what exactly?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 13, 2015)

c1973 said:



			Immigration won't really be an issue for Corbyn though, will it?

The guy is blatantly unelectable in the UK and has very little chance of being PM and forming a Government (thankfully).
		
Click to expand...


Not so sure, the guy certainly has momentum with him. He has a nice quiet common touch, which makes a change from being lectured to by folk who have never done a days work outside of politics.
I think he also has the youth behind him. The same youth who have switched off politics for over a decade now.
There is definitely change afoot in British politics, the Tories only got in as the slightly less worse option.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 13, 2015)

c1973 said:



			Immigration won't really be an issue for Corbyn though, will it?

The guy is blatantly unelectable in the UK and has very little chance of being PM and forming a Government (thankfully).
		
Click to expand...

That was said, by Labour, about Margaret Thatcher.


----------



## c1973 (Aug 13, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			That was said, by Labour, about Margaret Thatcher.
		
Click to expand...

Time will tell I suppose. 

Imo, he is thankfully unelectable to the majority of the UK electorate.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 13, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			That was said, by Labour, about Margaret Thatcher.
		
Click to expand...

It was also said about Michael Foot.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 13, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			It was also said about Michael Foot.
		
Click to expand...

Why do right wingers always bring up Michael Foot ?
That was a different era nearly 40 years ago.
How far back in history do you go to find a scapegoat, smacks a bit of desperation.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Aug 13, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Why do right wingers always bring up Michael Foot ?
That was a different era nearly 40 years ago.
How far back in history do you go to find a scapegoat, smacks a bit of desperation.
		
Click to expand...

Yet you haven't commented on Hobbit's post going back at least 36 years to before Margaret Thatcher was elected. Strange that you're setting your time scale to suit your agenda.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 13, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Why do right wingers always bring up Michael Foot ?
That was a different era nearly 40 years ago.
How far back in history do you go to find a scapegoat, smacks a bit of desperation.
		
Click to expand...

To be fair Doon, people can't go forward to find examples... But Ed Miliband was proven to be unelectable not quite 40yrs ago.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 13, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Yet you haven't commented on Hobbit's post going back at least 36 years to before Margaret Thatcher was elected. Strange that you're setting your time scale to suit your agenda.
		
Click to expand...

If the Labour Left want to go back 40 years with their leadership who am I to spoil the party.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 13, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			To be fair Doon, people can't go forward to find examples... But Ed Miliband was proven to be unelectable not quite 40yrs ago.
		
Click to expand...

Does that not prove that Labour need a different type of candidate to the three other lookee likees on offer.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 13, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Yet you haven't commented on Hobbit's post going back at least 36 years to before Margaret Thatcher was elected. Strange that you're setting your time scale to suit your agenda.
		
Click to expand...

I did not comment on Hobbits comments re Thatcher for the same reason.......a different era.
Don't quite understand the point you are trying to make!

Early Margaret Thatcher was OK, hell I voted for her twice, we cannot have the unions running the country.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Aug 13, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I did not comment on Hobbits comments re Thatcher for the same reason.......a different era. *(1)*

Don't quite understand the point you are trying to make!. *(2)*

Click to expand...

*(1)* Yet you felt the need to comment on the post about Michael Foot.

*(2)* My point was that you pulled up Socket Rocket for going back 40 years when he mentioned Michael Foot but didn't do the same for Hobbit's post going back at least 36 years mentioning Margaret Thatcher.


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 13, 2015)

Not quite sure why 'that woman' had to be brought into the thread :angry:...

And, Doon you should be hanging your head in shame...


----------



## The Green Fairy (Aug 13, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Why do right wingers always bring up Michael Foot ?
That was a different era nearly 40 years ago.
How far back in history do you go to find a scapegoat, smacks a bit of desperation.
		
Click to expand...

Aw c'mon Labour have a remarkable record of useless leaders. Foot, Kinnock, Smith, Beckett, Harman, Milliband and a couple of totally useless Browns  

It is so easy being Tory - all Management material.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 13, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Not quite sure why 'that woman' had to be brought into the thread :angry:...

And, Doon you should be hanging your head in shame...
		
Click to expand...

You mean the best Prime Minister we've had for 50yrs, although David C is coming up on the rails...:ears:


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 13, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			You mean the best Prime Minister we've had for 50yrs, although David C is coming up on the rails...:ears:
		
Click to expand...


----------



## c1973 (Aug 13, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			You mean the best Prime Minister we've had for 50yrs, although David C is coming up on the rails...:ears:
		
Click to expand...

Whole new thread right there.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 14, 2015)

The Green Fairy said:



			Aw c'mon Labour have a remarkable record of useless leaders. Foot, Kinnock, Smith, Beckett, Harman, Milliband and a couple of totally useless Browns  

It is so easy being Tory - all Management material.
		
Click to expand...

aye - and with not much idea of life on the shop floor...


----------



## Ethan (Aug 14, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			You mean the best Prime Minister we've had for 50yrs, although David C is coming up on the rails...:ears:
		
Click to expand...

An evil witch who was driven by hate, who put the NHS on the road to privatisation, started a war for electoral gain, set back the NI peace process, started the deregulation of the city, covered up the paedophiles in her cabinet and inner circle (including Savile) and destroyed what remained of UK manufacturing. 

Cameron is not remotely close to even a decent PM.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

Ethan said:



			An evil witch who was driven by hate, who put the NHS on the road to privatisation, started a war for electoral gain, set back the NI peace process, started the deregulation of the city, covered up the paedophiles in her cabinet and inner circle (including Savile) and destroyed what remained of UK manufacturing. 

Cameron is not remotely close to even a decent PM.
		
Click to expand...

Its funny Ethan, how you can be so wrong in one post !


----------



## Ethan (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Its funny Ethan, how you can be so wrong in one post !
		
Click to expand...

I don't know. Explain to me how, item by item.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

Ethan said:



			I don't know. Explain to me how, item by item.
		
Click to expand...

I can't be bothered Ethan but I lived through those times and IMO you are just so wrong!

Having said that, if I had absolute proof, you still wouldn't accept it!


----------



## The Green Fairy (Aug 14, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			aye - and with not much idea of life on the shop floor...
		
Click to expand...

Despite what the workers believe, companies are not run by the 'shop floor'.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			I can't be bothered Ethan but I lived through those times and IMO you are just so wrong!

Having said that, if I had absolute proof, you still wouldn't accept it!
		
Click to expand...

Ask the people north of Watford how they feel after living through her times - especially Cities she felt they should leave for controlled degradation I think she called it.


----------



## alexbrownmp (Aug 14, 2015)

Ethan said:



			An evil witch who was driven by hate, who put the NHS on the road to privatisation, started a war for electoral gain, set back the NI peace process, started the deregulation of the city, covered up the paedophiles in her cabinet and inner circle (including Savile) and destroyed what remained of UK manufacturing. 

*Cameron is not remotely close to even a decent PM*.
		
Click to expand...

Totally wrong imo. Who do you think was a good PM out of interest?


----------



## alexbrownmp (Aug 14, 2015)

Havent looked at all the posts but my take on Corbyn being in Scotland is he could possibly retake scots land for Labour again.

The referendum and then election saw snp supporters desperate for radical change and did this with an almost clean sweep.
A few months down the line we see the newly elected MP's out of their depth and as useful as a kilt made of spagetti.

They still want radical change though and they could flock in their thousands now to Corbyn.

Just my uninformed opinion and I have absolutely no affiliation to any party.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 14, 2015)

Quite an interesting time ahead for British politics if Corbyn is the chosen one. The Politicalarena could go in several distinct directions.

If Corbyn does prove to be a rallying call for the politically disaffected then he could (with the right media support) prove a tough opponent to a Party that has put all its eggs behind an economic recovery that is still more of a theory than a fact.

If Corbyn's election is the final nail in the coffin of a dwindling Labour support then it's entirely feasible that a Tory Party, bereft of any real opponent, and already divided by its attempts to move closer the the centre of British politics, could tear itself apart and form several breakaway Parties.

For people who enjoy watching Politics, it could be an interesting next 5 years..


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 14, 2015)

alexbrownmp said:



			Havent looked at all the posts but my take on Corbyn being in Scotland is he could possibly retake scots land for Labour again.

The referendum and then election saw snp supporters desperate for radical change and did this with an almost clean sweep.
A few months down the line we see the newly elected MP's out of their depth and as useful as a kilt made of spagetti.

They still want radical change though and they could flock in their thousands now to Corbyn.

Just my uninformed opinion and I have absolutely no affiliation to any party.
		
Click to expand...

You obviously missed the Speakers comments yesterday

Regards SLAB, if Dugdale is the best person they can find for leader, I need not say anymore.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Ask the people north of Watford how they feel after living through her times - especially Cities she felt they should leave for controlled degradation I think she called it.
		
Click to expand...

I know that there are loads who wouldn't agree on the question, but I get peed off with being asked to explain, in detail, my views when what I've answered was a load of cobblers in the first place, that was unsubstantiated too. Politics will always devide people and Ethan won't agree whatever I write, but I lived through that era from Harold Wilson and onwards and if you weren't there you can't really know what it was like , first hand, like we did. People always write history as they saw it or from the point of view of the winners of a battle and not necessarily retaining the truth


----------



## alexbrownmp (Aug 14, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



*You obviously missed the Speakers comments yesterday*

Regards SLAB, if Dugdale is the best person they can find for leader, I need not say anymore.
		
Click to expand...

I did, why dont you share what one person said yesterday?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			I know that there are loads who wouldn't agree on the question, but I get peed off with being asked to explain, in detail, my views when what I've answered was a load of cobblers in the first place, that was unsubstantiated too. Politics will always devide people and Ethan won't agree whatever I write, but I lived through that era from Harold Wilson and onwards and if you weren't there you can't really know what it was like , first hand, like we did. People always write history as they saw it or from the point of view of the winners of a battle and not necessarily retaining the truth
		
Click to expand...

My family lived through her time and suffered at her hands 

As I said she spilt the country up and if I took a guess her actions prob had a more negative effect on people in the country than positive effect.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 14, 2015)

Ethan said:



			An evil witch who was driven by hate, who put the NHS on the road to privatisation, started a war for electoral gain, set back the NI peace process, started the deregulation of the city, covered up the paedophiles in her cabinet and inner circle (including Savile) and destroyed what remained of UK manufacturing. 

Cameron is not remotely close to even a decent PM.
		
Click to expand...

First of all my post was tongue in cheek, albeit without a smiley. The groundbait didn't even hit the water before the salmon were leaping onto the bank.

Argentina started the Falklands war, not Maggie. Surely you don't think she invited them in? Anyway, if you accept the Argies kicked off first you've been proved wrong on one point which disproves your infallibility.

Destroyed manufacturing; remind me of all the strikes! Manufacturing was going to hell in a hand cart, driven by the unions.

And Labour have had a fair chance, through successive parliaments, to put the things you perceive to be wrong, right. The vast majority of changes I've seen in the NHS were all under Labour's watch. They didn't have to sell off large sections of renal care to a Canadian company. They didn't have to sell off op's to South African companies, who built treatment centres on NHS sites - the first example being on the Trafford General site where the very first NHS hospital is - hypocrites. They didn't have to create PFI's, and nor did they have to GIVE control of NHS procurement of devices/consumables/services to DHL.

Rose tinted or what!


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			My family lived through her time and suffered at her hands 

As I said she spilt the country up and if I took a guess her actions prob had a more negative effect on people in the country than positive effect.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry Phil, but for her the country was going to ruin, she turned it round and made it prosperous, I saw it first hand. Or in other words, like all politics, everyone is adamant they are right but I guess there is some truth from both sides. However the country was in a real bad state and it needed someone to sort it, she did, I accept there was winners and losers


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 14, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			You obviously missed the Speakers comments yesterday

Regards SLAB, if Dugdale is the best person they can find for leader, I need not say anymore.
		
Click to expand...

I thought the Speakers compliments of the SNP were excellent, and I hope the rest of the lazy no-shows take heed.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			My family lived through her time and suffered at her hands 

As I said she spilt the country up and if I took a guess her actions prob had a more negative effect on people in the country than positive effect.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry Phil, but a north of Watford Gapper here who thought she did a decent job in most things.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Sorry Phil, but a north of Watford Gapper here who thought she did a decent job in most things.
		
Click to expand...

I'd concede that her only real cock up was the poll tax


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 14, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Sorry Phil, but a north of Watford Gapper here who thought she did a decent job in most things.
		
Click to expand...

And another one here who is of the opinion that her biggest "success" was utilizing the predominantly Murdoch owned Media to turn the Middle Classes against the Working Class.. A policy that has been carried on by successive Conservative and New Labour Parties.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Sorry Phil, but for her the country was going to ruin, she turned it round and made it prosperous, I saw it first hand. Or in other words, like all politics, everyone is adamant they are right but I guess there is some truth from both sides. However the country was in a real bad state and it needed someone to sort it, she did, I accept there was winners and losers
		
Click to expand...

She didn't turn it around north of Watford Chris - she ruined people's lives and families - managed decline of one city. Didn't unemployment rose through the roof especially when many industry jobs were lost when mines etc were closed. People lost their homes and wives lost their husbands plus the clear cover up of what happened at Hillsboro 

The South may have been winners but it was at the cost of millions of others.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			She didn't turn it around north of Watford Chris - she ruined people's lives and families - managed decline of one city. Didn't unemployment rose through the roof especially when many industry jobs were lost when mines etc were closed. People lost their homes and wives lost their husbands plus the clear cover up of what happened at Hillsboro 

The South may have been winners but it was at the cost of millions of others.
		
Click to expand...

If that's your point of view you're welcome to it Phil! No words from me will change your view, however sweeping some of the statements, but then Harold Wilson and Tony Blair weren't the huge successes some socialists would claim. 

With Maggie, things had to change and they did and I'm sorry for the repetition, if you weren't there ...........


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			I'd concede that her only real cock up was the poll tax
		
Click to expand...

I thought the poll tax was a brilliant idea, it was just very badly sold, managed and implemented. 
Why should five wage earners living in one house pay the same as a little old lady living alone.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			If that's your point of view you're welcome to it Phil! No words from me will change your view, however sweeping some of the statements, but then Harold Wilson and Tony Blair weren't the huge successes some socialists would claim. 

With Maggie, things had to change and they did and I'm sorry for the repetition, if you weren't there ...........
		
Click to expand...

It's not a point of view Chris - it's seeing it first hand myself , it's seeing the effect it had on my family and the effect it had on friends families. - just to make it clear i was there as child in the 70's and 80's and can remember the day I was told my uncle was gone. Where you there in the cities of the North West ? If not then it doesn't take long to read up the actual accounts - factual accounts of what misery she caused for millions. 

It's not a point of view Chris - it's factual.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I thought the poll tax was a brilliant idea, it was just very badly sold, managed and implemented. 
Why should five wage earners living in one house pay the same as a little old lady living alone.
		
Click to expand...

On this one Doon I wholly agree

My wife and I lived in a house as a married couple and when the poll tax came in we were asked to pay more than we were currently paying. In a system whereby everyone was supposed to pay we thought our share would reduce, so, I felt it wasn't the idea that was wrong but the implementation


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It's not a point of view Chris - it's seeing it first hand myself , it's seeing the effect it had on my family and the effect it had on friends families. - just to make it clear i was there as child in the 70's and 80's and can remember the day I was told my uncle was gone. Where you there in the cities of the North West ? If not then it doesn't take long to read up the actual accounts - factual accounts of what misery she caused for millions. 

It's not a point of view Chris - it's factual.
		
Click to expand...

 Sorry Phil but you only saw it from one point of view, like me. I wasn't a child though and understood how the country prospered as a whole and why it was necessary.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Sorry Phil but you only saw it from one point of view, like me. I wasn't a child though and understood how the country prospered as a whole and why it was necessary.
		
Click to expand...

I'll say it again - it's not a point of view I'm seeing it from - it's seeing the actual damage that was caused and the lives that were ruined and in a number of cases were lost. 

If you believe it was "necessary" for people's lives to be ruined then that's a disappointing thing to read.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I'll say it again - it's not a point of view I'm seeing it from - it's seeing the actual damage that was caused and the lives that were ruined and in a number of cases were lost. 

If you believe it was "necessary" for people's lives to be ruined then that's a disappointing thing to read.
		
Click to expand...

Don't twist an argument to a ridiculous level Phil.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Don't twist an argument to a ridiculous level Phil.
		
Click to expand...

Not twisting anything Chris 

Her actions ruined people's lives and I witnessed it first hand 

You believe those actions were necessary ? Sorry but any action that results in such a poor effect on people isn't necessary - a lot of people still feel the effects of those actions to this day.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

V



Liverpoolphil said:



			Not twisting anything Chris 

Her actions ruined people's lives and I witnessed it first hand 

You believe those actions were necessary ? Sorry but any action that results in such a poor effect on people isn't necessary - a lot of people still feel the effects of those actions to this day.
		
Click to expand...

Actions of politicians can ruin people's lives during every term of office and no one condones that, decisions are made nationally, regional and even globally but we are talking the wider picture - were her 3 terms of office successful? I believe over all they were, you don't. It's just not on to accuse me of not being caring just to score points on a forum.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			V

Actions of politicians can ruin people's lives during every term of office and no one condones that, decisions are made nationally, regional and even globally but we are talking the wider picture - were her 3 terms of office successful? I believe over all they were, you don't. It's just not on to accuse me of not being caring just to score points on a forum.
		
Click to expand...

And it's not on to accuse me of looking to score points when I'm telling you that Thatchers actions weren't for the good of the whole country and I'm giving you facts that they effected millions in a negative way.

Managed decline is a disgraceful phrase - but that's exactly what was suggested by her cabinet in regards Liverpool.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And it's not on to accuse me of looking to score points when I'm telling you that Thatchers actions weren't for the good of the whole country and I'm giving you facts that they effected millions in a negative way.

Managed decline is a disgraceful phrase - but that's exactly what was suggested by her cabinet in regards Liverpool.
		
Click to expand...

I never said that what she did was for the good of the whole country or every person individually, but the country was going to the dogs when she was elected and she turned it round. If the majority believed as you did she would not have been elected for 3 terms of office. I quite understand the resentment against her in certain areas of the country but I'm keeping this as broad as possible - she was a great Prime Minister of her time


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 14, 2015)

I think one thing that few would dispute about Thatcher is that she was one of the most divisive prime ministers we've ever had. For that reason alone, IMO, she doesn't deserve to be considered a "great" leader.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			I never said that what she did was for the good of the whole country or every person individually, but the country was going to the dogs when she was elected and she turned it round. If the majority believed as you did she would not have been elected for 3 terms of office. I quite understand the resentment against her in certain areas of the country but I'm keeping this as broad as possible - she was a great Prime Minister of her time
		
Click to expand...

Because the way our elections are run you do not need to have the majority of the vote to be Prime Minister - believe Cameron only won just over 30% of the vote this time 

You said early that the country prospered as a whole because of he actions - that's not factually correct. 

A lot of areas in the country weren't turned around and in fact were left to rot or as her cabinet said - managed decline 

The reaction to her dying will tell you that the country was very much split in regards how they viewed her as a prime minister


----------



## Pin-seeker (Aug 14, 2015)

I've never heard anyone from my area say a good word about her. 
My Dad is an ex miner so obviously wasn't a fan.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 14, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			I think one thing that few would dispute about Thatcher is that she was one of the most divisive prime ministers we've ever had. For that reason alone, IMO, she doesn't deserve to be considered a "great" leader.
		
Click to expand...

IMO, her only real claim to greatness was that she opened the door for Women to rise to the very top of British politics. A door that shut right behind her. I'll let smarter minds than mine decide why the door shut again.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Because the way our elections are run you do not need to have the majority of the vote to be Prime Minister - believe Cameron only won just over 30% of the vote this time 

You said early that the country prospered as a whole because of he actions - that's not factually correct. 

A lot of areas in the country weren't turned around and in fact were left to rot or as her cabinet said - managed decline 

The reaction to her dying will tell you that the country was very much split in regards how they viewed her as a prime minister
		
Click to expand...

She was elected to serve 3 terms of office, if people who didn't like her, didn't vote, that's their fault, the system to vote her out was available to them

I know all the negatives about her reign but my comment about the country benefitting as a whole was just that - I was not meaning any particular city, town county, group of people or individual but the country itself.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			She was elected to serve 3 terms of office, if people who didn't like her, didn't vote, that's their fault, the system to vote her out was available to them

I know all the negatives about her reign but my comment about the country benefitting as a whole was just that - I was not meaning any particular city, town county, group of people or individual but the country itself.
		
Click to expand...

The country is the people - they are the ones affected by any choice or decision 

Her actions were not for the good of the whole country - the results of those actions prove that 

I know how the election works im just highlighting that you don't have to have a majority to be PM so your statement about "the majority wouldn't have voted for her 3 times" isn't factual correct


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The country is the people - they are the ones affected by any choice or decision 

Her actions were not for the good of the whole country - the results of those actions prove that 

I know how the election works im just highlighting that you don't have to have a majority to be PM so your statement about "the majority wouldn't have voted for her 3 times" isn't factual correct
		
Click to expand...

Should I have been more pedantic and said " the majority of those who voted" ? 
Whatever Phil, she was still PM over a long term and I believe her actions over all were " for the overall good of the country" - then there was Tony Blair!!


----------



## One Planer (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The country is the people - they are the ones affected by any choice or decision 

Her actions were not for the good of the whole country - the results of those actions prove that 

I know how the election works im just highlighting that you don't have to have a majority to be PM so your statement about "the majority wouldn't have voted for her 3 times" isn't factual correct
		
Click to expand...

Just a point here.

If she did such a poor job for the country, both nationally and regionally, why was she voted in for 3 terms?

Surely, if she did such a poor job on a national and regional level, this would never happened.

If someone could explain that I'd appreciate it.

I was born in 1982 so I'm not complacent with all the facts.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Should I have been more pedantic and said " the majority of those who voted" ? 
Whatever Phil, she was still PM over a long term and I believe her actions over all were " for the overall good of the country" - then there was Tony Blair!!
		
Click to expand...

Even then it's not the majority of those who voted - she may have got more votes than each other single candidate but unless she got more than 50% of the overall votes then she didn't have the majority supporting her. 

It's not being pedantic etc it's just being factual correct and highlighting to you that Thatcher wasn't good for the whole country but she was good for certain parts and her supporters. 

Same with Blair etc etc


----------



## Pin-seeker (Aug 14, 2015)

One Planer said:



			Just a point here.

If she did such a poor job for the country, both nationally and regionally, why was she voted in for 3 terms?

Surely, if she did such a poor job on a national and regional level, this would never happened.

If someone could explain that I'd appreciate it.

I was born in 1982 so I'm not complacent with all the facts.
		
Click to expand...

Great year to be born in.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

One Planer said:



			Just a point here.

If she did such a poor job for the country, both nationally and regionally, why was she voted in for 3 terms?

Surely, if she did such a poor job on a national and regional level, this would never happened.

If someone could explain that I'd appreciate it.

I was born in 1982 so I'm not complacent with all the facts.
		
Click to expand...

She was voted in by the people she did do a good job for 

Again just like Cameron etc none of them need the majority of the country to vote for them to be PM


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 14, 2015)

One Planer said:



			Just a point here.

If she did such a poor job for the country, both nationally and regionally, why was she voted in for 3 terms?

Surely, if she did such a poor job on a national and regional level, this would never happened.

If someone could explain that I'd appreciate it.

I was born in 1982 so I'm not complacent with all the facts.
		
Click to expand...

She was despised during her first term and seemingly had no chance of re-election but the country was pretty supportive of her handling of the Falklands so she was re-elected on a short term bubble of popularity.

Plus labour, as is often their way, put up pretty unelectable leaders against her at both her re-elections.


----------



## One Planer (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



*She was voted in by the people she did do a good job for *

Again just like Cameron etc none of them need the majority of the country to vote for them to be PM
		
Click to expand...

Does that not suggest she did right by most people then? 

Surely if the  reverse were true she would not have served servings and third terms?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

One Planer said:



			Does that not suggest she did right by most people then? 

Surely if the  reverse were true she would not have served servings and third terms?
		
Click to expand...

If by most you mean a majority of the country beyond 50% then the answer is no 

She gained 40% of the voting public support - that's not the majority of the country. 

Her second term was of the back of the Falklands and splits within Labour


----------



## One Planer (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			If by most you mean a majority of the country beyond 50% then the answer is no 

She gained 40% of the voting public support - that's not the majority of the country. 

Her second term was of the back of the Falklands and splits within Labour
		
Click to expand...

The voting public still had other candidates to vote for,  yes?

Why we're these not voted in if she did such a poor job regardless of how bad they were.

As per Karens post above. If the opposition are putting forward unlectable candidates, it only strengthens the position that she was the best person, at the time, to run the country and the voting public agreed. If they hadn't,  she would have been voted out.

Forget majorities.  She was elected based on receiving the most votes from the voting public, the same as any other election at any other time.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It's not a point of view Chris - it's seeing it first hand myself , it's seeing the effect it had on my family and the effect it had on friends families. - just to make it clear i was there as child in the 70's and 80's and can remember the day I was told my uncle was gone. Where you there in the cities of the North West ? If not then it doesn't take long to read up the actual accounts - factual accounts of what misery she caused for millions. 

It's not a point of view Chris - it's factual.
		
Click to expand...

Would you care to detail what actions and what effects or are you, as usual, merely repeating rhetoric.

As you say you were a child at the time whilst some of us were a little older and could see the effects of rampant inflation, poor labour relations, lack of investment and industrial decline that preceded her election in 1979.

Some of her Governments' actions were divisive but, perhaps sadly, at least until 1987 her style of governing was necessary for this country's survival.

As for the reference to Hillsborough that was  "covered up" by successive governments until the 2010 Coalition.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

The fact is that she was elected for 3 terms, if she didn't do a good job for the first two that wouldn't have happened. No Government do an altogether bad job in office, not even Tony Blair, although his decisions ultimately lead to many unnecessary deaths in the Iraq war which would mar his record for many people, he still had policies that were good ones. David Cameron will, at the end of his time will be loathed and liked by people, probably in equal measure. 

We mainly judge politicians on just a few crucial things during their tenure but forget the majority of things that their government do positively.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 14, 2015)

One Planer said:



			The voting public still had other candidates to vote for,  yes?

Why we're these not voted in if she did such a poor job regardless of how bad they were.

As per Karens post above. If the opposition are putting forward unlectable candidates, it only strengthens the position that she was the best person, at the time, to run the country and the voting public agreed. If they hadn't,  she would have been voted out.

Forget majorities.  She was elected based on receiving the most votes from the voting public, the same as any other election at any other time.
		
Click to expand...

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, just because a person was voted in by the "majority of the voting public" doesn't necessarily mean that said person was the best person for the job or the Country. You don't have to go too far back, or too far away to see that this is the case..


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

One Planer said:



			The voting public still had other candidates to vote for,  yes?

Why we're these not voted in if she did such a poor job regardless of how bad they were.

As per Karens post above. If the opposition are putting forward unlectable candidates, it only strengthens the position that she was the best person, at the time, to run the country and the voting public agreed. If they hadn't,  she would have been voted out.

Forget majorities.  She was elected based on receiving the most votes from the voting public, the same as any other election at any other time.
		
Click to expand...

But none of that backs the suggestion that she was a great leader and her actions were good for the whole country 

It's the same with any PM - because of the way our system works it doesn't always mean they end up being a great leader. 

A lot of areas in the country suffered because of her actions - that will never change 

She was voted back in by the people that gained from the conservatives being in power - that doesn't mean it's good for the whole country , just like right now or when Labour were winning .


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 14, 2015)

I have often wondered what kind of country we would have had if Heseltine had won that power struggle with Thatcher.
He was a really able man and IMO would have been a very successful leader.
Some decent cabinet members at that time as well, until they became popular and Thatcher sacked them.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

MetalMickie said:



			Would you care to detail what actions and what effects or are you, as usual, merely repeating rhetoric.

As you say you were a child at the time whilst some of us were a little older and could see the effects of rampant inflation, poor labour relations, lack of investment and industrial decline that preceded her election in 1979.

Some of her Governments' actions were divisive but, perhaps sadly, at least until 1987 her style of governing was necessary for this country's survival.

As for the reference to Hillsborough that was  "covered up" by successive governments until the 2010 Coalition.
		
Click to expand...

How much details would you like in regards the effects it had on my family or my friends family or their friends families - would you like to know that my uncle lost his job because of actions of her government , then struggled to maintain for his family losing their home and ultimately his pride and then his life - and i wouldn't be the only person to tell a story like that in regards the actions of the government in 1980/81


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			How much details would you like in regards the effects it had on my family or my friends family or their friends families - would you like to know that my uncle lost his job because of actions of her government , then struggled to maintain for his family losing their home and ultimately his pride and then his life - and i wouldn't be the only person to tell a story like that in regards the actions of the government in 1980/81
		
Click to expand...

What actions of the Government?

If you are to continue your claim that your point is factual then you will need to support it with facts.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			But none of that backs the suggestion that she was a great leader and her actions were good for the whole country 

It's the same with any PM - because of the way our system works it doesn't always mean they end up being a great leader. 

A lot of areas in the country suffered because of her actions - that will never change 

She was voted back in by the people that gained from the conservatives being in power - that doesn't mean it's good for the whole country , just like right now or when Labour were winning .
		
Click to expand...


Her actions were good for the country IMO, as a whole, you will never agree, but not the whole country. She was a great leader, but you will never agree. The country, using its tried and trusted voting system voted the Conservatives in to power on 3 consecutive terms, however you pick pedantically at the wording that was the end result of those elections. 

I'm more than happy to concede that she didn't do good for the whole country and, for certain, areas of the country suffered. I suffered during Gordon Browns cocking up the economy, I won't forgive him and, to me, he will never be considered a great leader - that's politics!


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			If by most you mean a majority of the country beyond 50% then the answer is no 

She gained 40% of the voting public support - that's not the majority of the country. 

Her second term was of the back of the Falklands and splits within Labour
		
Click to expand...

40% is irrelevant.  You know as well as anyone that our polling system is based on who gets the most votes so why make these comments that if they weren't voted in by a majority they don't have a mandate!


Anyhow.  As you don't vote your opinion is worthless.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Her actions were good for the country IMO, as a whole, you will never agree, but not the whole country. She was a great leader, but you will never agree. The country, using its tried and trusted voting system voted the Conservatives in to power on 3 consecutive terms, however you pick pedantically at the wording that was the end result of those elections. 

I'm more than happy to concede that she didn't do good for the whole country and, for certain, areas of the country suffered. I suffered during Gordon Browns cocking up the economy, I won't forgive him and, to me, he will never be considered a great leader - that's politics!
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but you can't call someone so devisive a "great leader" 

The fact people in her own country celebrated her dying to the point millions bought a record to get it to number one shows exactly how a lot of people felt about her - that's not the pen picture of a "great leader"


----------



## Snelly (Aug 14, 2015)

Mrs T?  I was only a lad but old enough to remember rubbish on the streets, power cuts and everyone on strike, holding the nation to ransom. 

The unions needed smashing to bits and and fair play to her for doing it. 

Shame she is not around today to destroy the closed shop that the Tube drivers operate.  Â£50K for driving an underground train is a joke.  Invest in automated trains (that exist in other city networks around the world) and get shot of them all.  Cameron doesn't have the minerals to deal with them effectively but the Iron Lady would have given them both barrels by now.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			40% is irrelevant.  You know as well as anyone that our polling system is based on who gets the most votes so why make these comments that if they weren't voted in by a majority they don't have a mandate!


Anyhow.  *As you don't vote your opinion is worthless.*

Click to expand...

Excuse me ? Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to voice their opinion regardless of if I voted or not 

When did I say she didn't have a mandate ?!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry but you can't call someone so devisive a "great leader" 

The fact people in her own country celebrated her dying to the point millions bought a record to get it to number one shows exactly how a lot of people felt about her - that's not the pen picture of a "great leader"
		
Click to expand...

I would suggest that the vast majority of those were not old enough to have any real knowledge of her policies or actions and based their actions upon popular rhetoric promoted by left-leaning journalists.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 14, 2015)

The Green Fairy said:



			Despite what the workers believe, companies are not run by the 'shop floor'.
		
Click to expand...

Not the point I was making.


----------



## One Planer (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			But none of that backs the suggestion that she was a great leader and her actions were good for the whole country 

It's the same with any PM - because of the way our system works it doesn't always mean they end up being a great leader. 

A lot of areas in the country suffered because of her actions - that will never change 

She was voted back in by the people that gained from the conservatives being in power - that doesn't mean it's good for the whole country , just like right now or when Labour were winning .
		
Click to expand...

Well if the majority vote makes you a great leader who does great things for their country,  the chap running North Korea deserves a medal!


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 14, 2015)

One Planer said:



			Well if the majority vote makes you a great leader who does great things for their country,  the chap running North Korea deserves a medal!
		
Click to expand...

I'm no longer sure who you are agreeing (or disagreeing) with now...


----------



## TheDiablo (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry but you can't call someone so devisive a "great leader" 

The fact people in her own country celebrated her dying to the point* millions* bought a record to get it to number one shows exactly how a lot of people felt about her - that's not the pen picture of a "great leader"
		
Click to expand...

For someone who loves 'facts' more than Rafa Benitez you also love an exaggeration!


----------



## Fyldewhite (Aug 14, 2015)

The Thatcher years. Big parallels to today. All the talk of Labour imploding and not much about what that will lead to......Thatcher years II.

Some want this. Most don't. It most certainly won't, like it didn't first time around, make Britain (as a whole) a better place.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 14, 2015)

Fyldewhite said:



			The Thatcher years. Big parallels to today. All the talk of Labour imploding and not much about what that will lead to......Thatcher years II.

Some want this. Most don't. It most certainly won't, like it didn't first time around, make Britain (as a whole) a better place.
		
Click to expand...

To be fair to those who believe that the Thatcher years made the whole Country better, I suppose we can only make informed judgements by what we see around us on a daily basis.

As a child of the 70's (and please don't condescend to tell me that your opinion is more informed than mine because you were older), the areas that surrounded me were kitchen sink Council estates, where poverty and unemployment were commonplace. My peers were teenagers with little or no prospects. Or ex-miners who had their livelihoods taken away...

My Father still won't have the word "Thatcher" said in his home. He wasn't someone who celebrated her death, but I don't think he shed a tear... 

the times may have been better in some areas, but they weren't better in mine.. However, at least we got a great music scene out of it..


----------



## TheDiablo (Aug 14, 2015)

Survival of the fittest - it applies not just a biology lesson about evolution, but also people, cities, regimes, businesses, countries etc etc

The manufacturing, mining, textiles etc etc industries and the cities that used to thrive on them were being artificially propped up at the detriment of the economy since the war - something had to change or we would have been left further behind than we are. Does anyone propose that we should still be active in these industries on a global scale?! 

Many suffered as a result of Thatcher, many others prospered. I'd argue that the national economy today is in a far better place than had a Labour/Trade Union govt been in power for those terms - and so the short term pain has led to long term gain for millions.

And this 'managed decline' term has been used more in this thread than the 15 years of Thatcher govt where it was used once in a private letter!!


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Excuse me ? Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to voice their opinion regardless of if I voted or not 

When did I say she didn't have a mandate ?!
		
Click to expand...

You are entitled to an opinion but when it comes to politics yours is worthless as you have left it to others to decide the Government for you.

You suggested she was not voted in by a majority of the voters and as such not worthy to hold mandate.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 14, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Not so sure, the guy certainly has momentum with him. He has a nice quiet common touch,* which makes a change from being lectured to by folk who have never done a days work outside of politics*.
I think he also has the youth behind him. The same youth who have switched off politics for over a decade now.
There is definitely change afoot in British politics, the Tories only got in as the slightly less worse option.
		
Click to expand...

Have you looked at his work history?   Not really one that inspires you to believe he has been at the coal face.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			You are entitled to an opinion but when it comes to politics yours is worthless as you have left it to others to decide the Government for you.

You suggested she was not voted in by a majority of the voters and as such not worthy to hold mandate.
		
Click to expand...

When did in say I left it to others to decide 

Appears your memory  is going as I voted and I made my decision 

So I will continue to post my views and opinions

I suspect after posting false information about someone an apology is normally forthcoming - will wait and see


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 14, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			at the coal face.
		
Click to expand...

Interesting terminology


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Aug 14, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			the areas that surrounded me were kitchen sink Council estates, where poverty and unemployment were commonplace.
		
Click to expand...

The poverty and unemployment to which you refer existed long before and continues after the Thatcher government.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 14, 2015)

MetalMickie said:



			The poverty and unemployment to which you refer existed long before and continues after the Thatcher government.
		
Click to expand...

If you're going to take 1 sentence out of context and base your response on it, then there are better ones to pick.. If you want to answer the post as a whole then your opinions would be welcomed..


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 14, 2015)

MetalMickie said:



			The poverty and unemployment to which you refer existed long before and continues after the Thatcher government.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps a great leader would have resolved that?


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			When did in say I left it to others to decide 

Appears your memory  is going as I voted and I made my decision 

So I will continue to post my views and opinions

I suspect after posting false information about someone an apology is normally forthcoming - will wait and see
		
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with my memory, all I remember is you making various posts saying you don't vote in elections.

If you actually did and have turned over a new leaf then good for you and I would gladly take my comment back.   The one on the validity of voting percentages still stands though.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Aug 14, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			If you're going to take 1 sentence out of context and base your response on it, then there are better ones to pick.. If you want to answer the post as a whole then your opinions would be welcomed..
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but that what was the basis of your previous post.

Yes she was divisive and I certainly am no devotee of many of her policies but the alternative open to us in 1979 meant her rise was inevitable.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Nothing to do with my memory, all I remember is you making various posts saying you don't vote in elections.

If you actually did and have turned over a new leaf then good for you and I would gladly take my comment back.   The one on the validity of voting percentages still stands though.
		
Click to expand...

If you read back through the thread you will see exactly why I mentioned that Thatcher got 40% of the votes and the context it was made into 

Someone suggested she must have done a good day for the majority because they voted her back in - where as the majority of the voters didn't - yes she got more votes than others etc etc and got a bigger majority than the others but it wasn't the majority of the voters


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 14, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Perhaps a great leader would have resolved that? 

Click to expand...

"The poor you will always have with you"


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Aug 14, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Perhaps a great leader would have resolved that? 

Click to expand...

Sadly no leader yet has looked like resolving that. Certainly not in a mixed or market economy and communism does not appear to have provided the answer.

Anyway I would never claim that she was a great leader but (until1987) and like Churchill in 1940 she was necessary for the nation's survival.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			If you read back through the thread you will see exactly why I mentioned that Thatcher got 40% of the votes and the context it was made into 

Someone suggested she must have done a good day for the majority because they voted her back in - where as the majority of the voters didn't - yes she got more votes than others etc etc and got a bigger majority than the others *but it wasn't the majority of the voters*

Click to expand...

I think you will find it was.    'The majority'  means more than any others in that case.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And it's not on to accuse me of looking to score points when I'm telling you that Thatchers actions weren't for the good of the whole country and I'm giving you facts that they effected millions in a negative way.

*Managed decline is a disgraceful phrase - but that's exactly what was suggested by her cabinet in regards Liverpool.*

Click to expand...

No it wasn't. It was suggested by Geoffrey Howe, but argued against by arghhh, the then Secretary of State for Industry... Westlands heli... got it, Heseltine. Margaret Thatcher visited Liverpool and meet with various civic leaders. It was found that it was Liverpool's police force that had behaved disgracefully. A force made up predominantly of Liverpudlians.

But just for a little bit of balance, and also learned first hand as I lived just over the border in nth Wales - commuting distance from L'pool. Liverpool, and most of the local industries were run by the unions. Local industry was ruined by them, not the Conservatives. It was a huge joke locally that all a docker had to do was pick a brush and someone would shout job demarcation. Everybody and their dog would down tools and go down the pub - usually every Friday morning, returning on Monday - repeat next weekend. And then there was the docker's threepenny bit, often given as a tip by a docker. 50p at a time when people were on less than Â£20 a week. Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port spent more time closed than open.... people were starving back then because the strength of the unions kept them out of work. That was the union power back then, and that was what Thatcher took on.

I remember Labour in govt in the late 60's and late 70's, and I remember what it was like in L'pool then. Don't tell me you want to blame the Cons for all the ills then, when they were in opposition.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			I think you will find it was.    'The majority'  means more than any others in that case.
		
Click to expand...

And if you read through the thread I had already said the majority I was saying means over 50% in the context of the conversation that was happening at the time.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 14, 2015)

MetalMickie said:



			Sadly no leader yet has looked like resolving that. Certainly not in a mixed or market economy and communism does not appear to have provided the answer.

Anyway I would never claim that she was a great leader but (until1987) and like Churchill in 1940 she was necessary for the nation's survival.
		
Click to expand...

Obviously I'm bandying words since it's a fairly intractable problem. I wonder if people were better or worse off under her, however? I guess there must be statistics we could refer to... unemployment numbers might be a good place to start?

I do think saying she was necessary for "the nation's survival" is a tad melodramatic, don't you agree?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 14, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			"The poor you will always have with you"
		
Click to expand...

Yes but we always seem to have a bit more when the Tories are in power


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Obviously I'm bandying words since it's a fairly intractable problem. I wonder if people were better or worse off under her, however? I guess there must be statistics we could refer to... unemployment numbers might be a good place to start?

I do think saying she was necessary for "the nation's survival" is a tad melodramatic, don't you agree?
		
Click to expand...

Unemployment reached record figures under Thatcher
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22070491


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			I do think saying she was necessary for "the nation's survival" is a tad melodramatic, don't you agree?
		
Click to expand...

Maybe, but the country needed someone really strong to take on the issues of the day. We had the winter of discontent, unions who were ruining the companies their members worked for, the 3 day week, tax bands up to 98%, and she waded into these problems and sorted them. She also sold off the hugely loss making privatised companies, sold council houses without which many of us wouldn't now own our own properties. She was influential in helping resolve the cold war. She worked on bringing in foreign investment to our country. 

She was a great leader!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Maybe, but the country needed someone really strong to take on the issues of the day. We had the winter of discontent, unions who were ruining the companies their members worked for, the 3 day week, tax bands up to 98%, and she waded into these problems and sorted them. She also sold off the hugely loss making privatised companies, sold council houses without which many of us wouldn't now own our own properties. She was influential in helping resolve the cold war. She worked on bringing in foreign investment to our country. 

She was a great leader!
		
Click to expand...

How can a great leader increase the employment levels to a record high - she led more people to the dole 

I believe this is a pro labour site so will be full of pro labour stuff but within the mix there appears to be some truths to dispelling some myths 
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/dispelling-the-thatcher-myths/


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

Pick anything you like Phil, it doesn't prove your argument. She wasn't Mother Theresa, she had to do unpopular things and we had our usual cyclical recession in the early 80's and unemployment soared but she was a great leader


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Pick anything you like Phil, it doesn't prove your argument. She wasn't Mother Theresa, she had to do unpopular things and we had our usual cyclical recession in the early 80's and unemployment soared but she was a great leader
		
Click to expand...

Stating "she was a great leader" every time you post doesn't make it factually correct 

As been mentioned a number of times - a great leader doesn't create such a clear division within the nation.

Yes she did some good things in regards council houses and reigning in the unions but that doesn't make her a great leader


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Pick anything you like Phil, it doesn't prove your argument. She wasn't Mother Theresa, she had to do unpopular things and we had our usual cyclical recession in the early 80's and unemployment soared but she was a great leader
		
Click to expand...

Drop the great leader mantra. That may be your opinion and its shared by many tories I'm sure. But not by many with a social conscience.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			How can a great leader increase the employment levels to a record high - she led more people to the dole 

I believe this is a pro labour site so will be full of pro labour stuff but within the mix there appears to be some truths to dispelling some myths 
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/dispelling-the-thatcher-myths/

Click to expand...

Some good stuff, and some spin. For example, the raft of Draconian laws the Tories brought in. Without a doubt there were more laws, but I remember Blair's second govt brought in over 110 laws. In many respects the major parties are the same, and many of the examples the posters have highlighted that fact, albeit from different ends of the political spectrum.

I want a strong Socialist party to bring balance to British politics. But Corbyn's history leaves a nasty taste. There's better than Corbyn.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 14, 2015)

Just ask folks north of the border about Thatcher being a 'great leader'.  All these years on mention of her name is still toxic for Tories.  She must have made quite an impression - a 'great' impression.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Stating "she was a great leader" every time you post doesn't make it factually correct 

As been mentioned a number of times - a great leader doesn't create such a clear division within the nation.

Yes she did some good things in regards council houses and reigning in the unions but that doesn't make her a great leader
		
Click to expand...

Doesn't make it wrong either Phil


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Some good stuff, and some spin. For example, the raft of Draconian laws the Tories brought in. Without a doubt there were more laws, but I remember Blair's second govt brought in over 110 laws. In many respects the major parties are the same, and many of the examples the posters have highlighted that fact, albeit from different ends of the political spectrum.

I want a strong Socialist party to bring balance to British politics. But Corbyn's history leaves a nasty taste. There's better than Corbyn.
		
Click to expand...

Can't disagree with any of that 

If Labour wanted a chance at the next election then they wouldn't go far wrong with Andy Burnham


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Just ask folks north of the border about Thatcher being a 'great leader'.  All these years on mention of her name is still toxic for Tories.  She must have made quite an impression - a 'great' impression.
		
Click to expand...

Ask the people in N Ireland as well


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Doesn't make it wrong either Phil
		
Click to expand...

It makes it an opinion Chris

To be a great leader for me would include bringing the nation together - Thatcher didn't do that , in fact no one has since Churchill and he IMO is our last great leader


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Ask the people in N Ireland as well
		
Click to expand...

...and those of the Midlands and the North of England


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It makes it an opinion Chris
		
Click to expand...

Point me to anywhere that it was stated as a fact!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 14, 2015)

I liked the comment from the Edinburgh pensioner re the three lookee likees

'They have just lost an election, who are they to tell us how to vote.'


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Point me to anywhere that it was stated as a fact!
		
Click to expand...

You didn't Chris hence why i said it's an opinion 

You appear to ignore the clear division that was created in a country she "led" - so how exactly can someone be classed as a great leader when a great deal amount of the country she was "leading" don't believe so ?


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You didn't Chris hence why i said it's an opinion 

You appear to ignore the clear division that was created in a country she "led" - so how exactly can someone be classed as a great leader when a great deal amount of the country she was "leading" don't believe so ?
		
Click to expand...

Because anyone who was around at the time and in favour of her leadership will think she was great at it - hence "a great leader" I acknowledged from the start that others wouldn't agree but 3 periods of office and the changes she made to the appalling state of the country does it for me. I'm sure some wouldn't think Winston Churchill was a great leader but they'd be wrong too! :lol:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Because anyone who was around at the time and in favour of her leadership will think she was great at it - hence "a great leader" I acknowledged from the start that others wouldn't agree but 3 periods of office and the changes she made to the appalling state of the country does it for me. I'm sure some wouldn't think Winston Churchill was a great leader but they'd be wrong too! :lol:
		
Click to expand...

That doesn't really answer the question does it Chris and I guess it's just a few looking at their own personal circumstances as opposed to our country as a whole and the effect she had on Scotland , North West , N Ireland , South Wales , Yorkshire - that's big areas she was supposed to lead but failed.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Unemployment reached record figures under Thatcher
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22070491

Click to expand...

Record since 1971 that is.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			That doesn't really answer the question does it Chris and I guess it's just a few looking at their own personal circumstances as opposed to our country as a whole and the effect she had on Scotland , North West , N Ireland , South Wales , Yorkshire - that's big areas she was supposed to lead but failed.
		
Click to expand...

The answer you are trying to get is never going to happen Phil. She didn't fail all people in all of those areas, that is a sweeping generalisation and frankly wrong.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			The answer you are trying to get is never going to happen Phil. She didn't fail all people in all of those areas, that is a sweeping generalisation and frankly wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Ok here is a simple question - Did Thatcher divide the nation ?


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			The answer you are trying to get is never going to happen Phil. She didn't fail all people in all of those areas, that is a sweeping generalisation and frankly wrong.
		
Click to expand...

I think the first thing you'd have to define is "wrong." And what's wrong for one person is so clearly right for the next. These are arguments with no winners, only opinions and fallouts.

C'mon guys, team hug!:cheers:


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Ok here is a simple question - Did Thatcher divide the nation ?
		
Click to expand...

Only as much as every PM. And even some of those that thought Blair was brilliant at the time of his first election win, hated him with a passion after Iraq.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Only as much as every PM. And even some of those that thought Blair was brilliant at the time of his first election win, hated him with a passion after Iraq.
		
Click to expand...


No arguments from me on that - hence why I think the last great leader the nation had was Churchill


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Ok here is a simple question - Did Thatcher divide the nation ?
		
Click to expand...

Answer - did Winston Churchill ?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Answer - did Winston Churchill ?
		
Click to expand...

I don't know - what I do know is he United the country at one stage in his reign as PM 

But I'll bow out at the stage of you avoiding the direct questions Chris.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I don't know - what I do know is he United the country at one stage in his reign as PM 

But I'll bow out at the stage of you avoiding the direct questions Chris.
		
Click to expand...

So did Maggie - she liberated the Falklands, that got her another term of office! He won the war and didn't get elected!


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Answer - did Winston Churchill ?
		
Click to expand...

Yes he did. He was an MP in a number of constituencies, thanks to either losing in elections or selection when he crossed the floor of the house. And he again crossed the floor later in his political career. There was also a number of serious strikes towards the end of the war, as people fell out with him and his policies. And he was severely shocked to lose the election immediately after the war. 

He, like many leaders, was a marmite person. Either loved or hated.... sound familiar?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			So did Maggie - she liberated the Falklands, that got her another term of office! He won the war and didn't get elected!
		
Click to expand...

Do you really think the Falklands United the country behind Thatcher ?!?

Yep I'm out on that note


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Do you really think the Falklands United the country behind Thatcher ?!?

Yep I'm out on that note
		
Click to expand...

Yes, she was losing popularity, and so were the Cons, in the run up to the Falklands. And when she went to the polls afterwards she won quite comfortably - suggests she won people over.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Yes, she was losing popularity, and so were the Cons, in the run up to the Falklands. And when she went to the polls afterwards she won quite comfortably - suggests she won people over.
		
Click to expand...

Winning people over isn't uniting the country behind her though

Edit : damn it said I was out


----------



## c1973 (Aug 14, 2015)

I opened a bottle of Lansing when Dorothys bucket of water done its job.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			But I'll bow out at the stage of you avoiding the direct questions Chris.
		
Click to expand...

I've seen it all before, ask the same points you've made throughout in the form of individual questions and then try to suggest that I support your arguments and therefore you're conclusion is right - I don't agree the initial premise that a great leader can't divide people, Field Marshall Montgomery was highly disliked but a great leader of his time


----------



## Pin-seeker (Aug 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Winning people over isn't uniting the country behind her though

Edit : damn it said I was out 

Click to expand...

You also said you wouldn't be posting on the forum anymore. 
The place wasn't the same without you.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Aug 14, 2015)

It's been mentioned a couple of times in this thread that if Corbyn gets the Labour leadership then Labour would become unelectable and the Tories without a credible opposition could tear themselves apart. Is it not possible that if Corbyn did become Labour leader that the Labour party could end up splitting with Corbyn leading a left wing Labour party and A N Other leading a centre left version of the Labour party/

For clarity I am not suggesting that either party would split as I have no idea but am simply asking the question.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 14, 2015)

I can't see them splitting immediately but if the forecast landslide GE win for ghe Tories in the next one then action like that coild happen and if it does then would it make the Tories even stronger ?


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 14, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			It's been mentioned a couple of times in this thread that if Corbyn gets the Labour leadership then Labour would become unelectable and the Tories without a credible opposition could tear themselves apart. Is it not possible that if Corbyn did become Labour leader that the Labour party could end up splitting with Corbyn leading a left wing Labour party and A N Other leading a centre left version of the Labour party/

For clarity I am not suggesting that either party would split as I have no idea but am simply asking the question.
		
Click to expand...

The Labour Party splitting has happened not that long ago, and pretty much on the back of Labour swinging to the left. After several disaterous elections New Labour emerged with a more centre stance under Blair and 3 election victories ensued. Seems like Labour are repeating their mistakes...


----------



## Fyldewhite (Aug 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			So did Maggie - she liberated the Falklands, that got her another term of office! He won the war and didn't get elected!
		
Click to expand...

Thatcher didn't win in 1983 on the crest of the Falklands wave (though it did her "iron lady" image no harm). She won because labour had lurched to the left, the centre left had gone their own way in the SDP and what was left under Michael Foot were frankly unelectable. They are in big danger of going down the same road.


----------



## Ethan (Aug 16, 2015)

chrisd said:



			I can't be bothered Ethan but I lived through those times and IMO you are just so wrong!

Having said that, if I had absolute proof, you still wouldn't accept it!
		
Click to expand...

I lived through those times too and can give you reasons why I said what I said, so I will accept your reply as a concession.


----------



## Ethan (Aug 16, 2015)

TheDiablo said:



*Survival of the fittest* - it applies not just a biology lesson about evolution, but also people, cities, regimes, businesses, countries etc etc

The manufacturing, mining, textiles etc etc industries and the cities that used to thrive on them were being artificially propped up at the detriment of the economy since the war - something had to change or we would have been left further behind than we are. Does anyone propose that we should still be active in these industries on a global scale?! 

Many suffered as a result of Thatcher, many others prospered. I'd argue that the national economy today is in a far better place than had a Labour/Trade Union govt been in power for those terms - and so the short term pain has led to long term gain for millions.

And this 'managed decline' term has been used more in this thread than the 15 years of Thatcher govt where it was used once in a private letter!!
		
Click to expand...

The Thatcher version was more like eugenics than evolution. Survival of the fittest occurs following random changes and mutations not planned ones.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 16, 2015)

Ethan said:



			I lived through those times too and can give you reasons why I said what I said, so I will accept your reply as a concession.
		
Click to expand...

It's not, but if it makes you happy!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 16, 2015)

Keiza gets the SLAB gig, another big boost for the SNP membership.

True to form she is quickly backtracking on her earlier negative comments about Corbyn.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 16, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Keiza gets the SLAB gig, another big boost for the SNP membership.

True to form she is quickly backtracking on her earlier negative comments about Corbyn.
		
Click to expand...

Give us a clue what that is in something other than child-speak...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 16, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Give us a clue what that is in something other than child-speak...
		
Click to expand...

.........and now for listeners in England [and any others who take little interest in UK politics.]
Keiza Dugdale [formerly known as Deputy Dug] is elected as Scottish Labour Party [SLAB] leader. 
Their fifth leader in eight years


----------



## chippa1909 (Aug 16, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			.........and now for listeners in England [and any others who take little interest in UK politics.]
Keiza Dugdale [formerly known as Deputy Dug] is elected as Scottish Labour Party [SLAB] leader. 
Their fifth leader in eight years
		
Click to expand...

No such thing as a Scottish Labour Party. 

It is Labour Party ( Scottish Branch ).


----------



## c1973 (Aug 16, 2015)

True to form?

There'll be plenty of examples of her backtracking then?


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 16, 2015)

Ethan said:



			The Thatcher version was more like eugenics than evolution. Survival of the fittest occurs following random changes and mutations not planned ones.
		
Click to expand...

Electing Corbyn would be a 'Mutation'


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 16, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			The Labour Party splitting has happened not that long ago, and pretty much on the back of Labour swinging to the left. After several disaterous elections New Labour emerged with a more centre stance under Blair and 3 election victories ensued. Seems like Labour are repeating their mistakes...
		
Click to expand...

This single post could pretty much sum up the entire thread - at least for me!

Corbyn has too much of the baggage that makes him and Labour unelectable. And that's even without the negative issues he has personally!


----------



## c1973 (Aug 16, 2015)

Something else that's not getting picked up on, He's getting on a bit now. 

Policies aside, all parties appear to be moving towards younger leaders who rightly or wrongly (rightly imo) are viewed as being more dynamic and energetic, go getters if you will. 
They're doing this for a reason, they are more electable than doddering old sexagenarians. 

The Geography teacher, pipe and slippers, looks like he might nod off and choke on a Werthers original appearance isn't really going to cut it in todays image conscious society.


----------



## Billythefish (Aug 16, 2015)

The Green Fairy said:



			When Labour are up against it they always resort to some lefty, hoping to appeal to the public sector who believe they will benefit by a more 'socialist' society. In other words the work shy who believe that the state should provide.

Corbyn will be as successful as Foot. Once again the party have misjudged the majority of British public, who these days would prefer someone more charismatic.
		
Click to expand...

That's because, even if the majority keep telling them otherwise (we haven't had a left wing government in 40 years), they still think they know better and will do anything to get into power, too many people remember the 70s and the winter of discontent that labour and their masters gave us, look at the tube strikes now, 50k a year, 43 days holiday, a 36 hour week and they still bring london to a standstill, harming the working majority they are supposed to represent, solidarity my arse,  imagine if milliband had won the election having to rely on the snp, we would all be dancing to their tune now.  Scary stuff.

Vote corbyn for labour leader, happy days for the mad lefties, and even happier days for us...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 16, 2015)

c1973 said:



			Something else that's not getting picked up on, He's getting on a bit now. 

Policies aside, all parties appear to be moving towards younger leaders who rightly or wrongly (rightly imo) are viewed as being more dynamic and energetic, go getters if you will. 
They're doing this for a reason, they are more electable than doddering old sexagenarians. 

The Geography teacher, pipe and slippers, looks like he might nod off and choke on a Werthers original appearance isn't really going to cut it in todays image conscious society.
		
Click to expand...

A large proportion of pensioner voters think Jeremy is some cool dude


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 16, 2015)

Billythefish said:



			That's because, even if the majority keep telling them otherwise (we haven't had a left wing government in 40 years), they still think they know better and will do anything to get into power, too many people remember the 70s and the winter of discontent that labour and their masters gave us, look at the tube strikes now, 50k a year, 43 days holiday, a 36 hour week and they still bring london to a standstill, harming the working majority they are supposed to represent, solidarity my arse,  imagine if milliband had won the election having to rely on the snp, we would all be dancing to their tune now.  Scary stuff.

Vote corbyn for labour leader, happy days for the mad lefties, and even happier days for us...
		
Click to expand...

Who exactly are 'us' ?


----------



## Billythefish (Aug 16, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Who exactly are 'us' ?
		
Click to expand...

Those that vote Conservative.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 16, 2015)

Billythefish said:



			Those that vote Conservative.
		
Click to expand...

Right, the 24% of the nation, glad you cleared that up.


----------



## Billythefish (Aug 16, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Right, the 24% of the nation, glad you cleared that up.
		
Click to expand...

A pleasure, and like I say, vote for Jez...


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 16, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Right, the 24% of the nation, glad you cleared that up.
		
Click to expand...

And what percentage of the UK voted SNP?


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 16, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			A large proportion of pensioner voters think Jeremy is some cool dude
		
Click to expand...

Please show some evidence of that.   I would suggest the vast majority of pensioners are Conservative.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Aug 16, 2015)

From what I have seen of Corbyn, he seems a decent bloke, His brother Piers is a well known eccentric weather forecaster.
However, if he became leader, then the labour party can kiss goodbye to any sort of power for the next 20 years, as the party would rip itself to shreds, as it is, the current infighting has killed off any chance they might have had at the 2020 election.

Im a conservative  voter. so im naturally happy at this, but we still need a realistic opposition to keep whoever is in power on their toes. and at the moment, Labour is in disarray , the SNP only speak for Scotland, so we do not have a credible opposition at this moment in time.

interesting times we live in


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 16, 2015)

PhilTheFragger said:



			From what I have seen of Corbyn, he seems a decent bloke, His brother Piers is a well known eccentric weather forecaster.
However, if he became leader, then the labour party can kiss goodbye to any sort of power for the next 20 years, as the party would rip itself to shreds, as it is, the current infighting has killed off any chance they might have had at the 2020 election.

Im a conservative  voter. so im naturally happy at this, but we still need a realistic opposition to keep whoever is in power on their toes. and at the moment, Labour is in disarray , the SNP only speak for Scotland, so we do not have a credible opposition at this moment in time.

interesting times we live in
		
Click to expand...

There is a credible argument, supported by some staunch Tory supporters, that the lack of a credible opposition will also tear apart the Conservative Party. So I wouldn't plan the victory party just yet.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Aug 16, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			There is a credible argument, supported by some staunch Tory supporters, that the lack of a credible opposition will also tear apart the Conservative Party. So I wouldn't plan the victory party just yet.
		
Click to expand...

Thats why I said it was important to have a credible opposition, to keep the party in power focused, young padawan


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 16, 2015)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Thats why I said it was important to have a credible opposition, to keep the party in power focused, young padawan  

Click to expand...

Phil, I think we both know that that isn't what you said. There was a lot of "we's" and quite a bit of triumphalism. There was also a smidgeon of smugness (as there is from a lot of Tory supporters)


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Aug 16, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Phil, I think we both know that that isn't what you said. There was a lot of "we's" and quite a bit of triumphalism. There was also a smidgeon of smugness (as there is from a lot of Tory supporters) 

Click to expand...

When I said "we" I meant "the Country", I didnt mean "the conservative party" ( im not a member either)
as for triumphalism, far from it, it was a warning note that , absolute power corrupts absolutely....... Good job im a moderate mod


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 16, 2015)

I feel a few are overlooking DaveCam won't be leading the tories at the next election...

Or, is that another 'porky'..


----------



## Billythefish (Aug 16, 2015)

PhilTheFragger said:



			When I said "we" I meant "the Country", I didnt mean "the conservative party" ( im not a member either)
as for triumphalism, far from it, it was a warning note that , absolute power corrupts absolutely....... Good job im a moderate mod  

Click to expand...

The country needs a crcedible opposition, however I don't see labour ever being credible. From gordoncashing in the pensions, to selling off the gold, to blairs illegal wars, to the winter of discontent, power cuts, rubbish in the streets, open door immigration. 

Look at the tube drivers for a vision of a corbyn government. 50k a year, 43 days holiday for a 36 hour week.     And the working people of our capital cant get to work. Solidarity at its finest. 

The country needs a good opposition, but is safer in blue hands rather than red.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 16, 2015)

Billythefish said:



			The country needs a crcedible opposition, however I don't see labour ever being credible. From gordoncashing in the pensions, to selling off the gold, to blairs illegal wars, to the winter of discontent, power cuts, rubbish in the streets, open door immigration. 

Look at the tube drivers for a vision of a corbyn government. 50k a year, 43 days holiday for a 36 hour week.     And the working people of our capital cant get to work. Solidarity at its finest. 

The country needs a good opposition, but is safer in blue hands rather than red.
		
Click to expand...

  introduction of the minimum wage, 78,000 more nurses, devolved power in Scotland, a Welsh assembly, the overseas aid budget doubled, 30,000 more teachers, winter fuel payments to pensioners, halved waiting times in the NHS, free school milk and fruit, the Disability Rights Commission, free entry to museums and galleries, the Good Friday agreement, paternity leave, civil partnerships.

and that's just a quick summary of the last Labour Government.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 16, 2015)

bluewolf said:





  introduction of the minimum wage, 78,000 more nurses, devolved power in Scotland, a Welsh assembly, the overseas aid budget doubled, 30,000 more teachers, winter fuel payments to pensioners, halved waiting times in the NHS, free school milk and fruit, the Disability Rights Commission, free entry to museums and galleries, the Good Friday agreement, paternity leave, civil partnerships.

and that's just a quick summary of the last Labour Government. 

Click to expand...

Yep but apart from that what did Labour ever do for us


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 16, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Yep but apart from that what did Labour ever do for us 

Click to expand...

The NHS, the Welfare State, the repeal of anti trade union laws etc etc etc. but then again, some on here would think these were bad things.


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 16, 2015)

Billythefish said:



			Look at the tube drivers for a vision of a corbyn government. 50k a year, 43 days holiday for a 36 hour week.     And the working people of our capital cant get to work. Solidarity at its finest.
		
Click to expand...

Yep, living in Wolverhampton, I am sure you are fully up to speed on what the current action is all about...


----------



## Billythefish (Aug 16, 2015)

S



bluewolf said:



			The NHS, the Welfare State, the repeal of anti trade union laws etc etc etc. but then again, some on here would think these were bad things.
		
Click to expand...

the nhs, in a right state, privatise it. Anti trade union laws. The tube drivers are showing exactly where the unions stand, solidarity?  

You keep voting for em


#votejezcomrade


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 16, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			And what percentage of the UK voted SNP?
		
Click to expand...

50% in the area where they had candidates.:lol:

62% in the latest polls for Holyrood 2016.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 16, 2015)

Billythefish said:



			S

the nhs, in a right state, privatise it. Anti trade union laws. The tube drivers are showing exactly where the unions stand, solidarity?  

You keep voting for em


#votejezcomrade
		
Click to expand...

It's such a shame there isn't a lower IQ limit to this thread....


----------



## Billythefish (Aug 16, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Yep, living in Wolverhampton, I am sure you are fully up to speed on what the current action is all about...
		
Click to expand...

clutching at straws? I don't live in london so have no opinion on how the people that are supposedly represented by the unions are being halted in trying to get to work? For 50 k a year?  

Try again brother 6/10 and thats being generous


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 16, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Please show some evidence of that.   I would suggest the vast majority of pensioners are Conservative.
		
Click to expand...

I was talking fashion wise.


----------



## Billythefish (Aug 16, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			It's such a shame there isn't a lower IQ limit to this thread....
		
Click to expand...

ok pal.  You copy and paste lefties are full of it. With no arguments. 

Tell me please, do you think the tube drivers are right, not in their right to strike, but in that they have a raw deal? 50k a year, 36 hour week, 43 (yes 43) days holiday. 

Simple yes or no will suffic


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 16, 2015)

What I do not get is that nearly all folks are saying that Labour will be powerless if Corbyn wins.

All he has to do is enter a mutual agreement with the SNP and the progressive coalition parties [inc Lib/Dems].
This will leave the Tories with a very small majority and virtually powerless.
The three parts of the Tory party will then soon start to eat themselves and consensus politics will rule.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 16, 2015)

Billythefish said:



			ok pal.  You copy and paste lefties are full of it. With no arguments. 

Tell me please, do you think the tube drivers are right, not in their right to strike, but in that they have a raw deal? 50k a year, 36 hour week, 43 (yes 43) days holiday. 

Simple yes or no will suffic
		
Click to expand...

i don't know enough about the dispute to use it as an argument for or against any particular Party or Organisation. 

However, in my working life so far, I have worked on the shop floor and in senior management. I've negotiated for and against Trade Unions. I've witnessed over zealous Union Representatives and belligerent bully boy company owners. I've witnessed numerous strike votes and seen the extent that people have been pushed to before they've even considered withholding their labour. I consider myself qualified enough to state that the World is a better place with Trades Unions, even though they don't always get it right.


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 16, 2015)

Billythefish said:



			clutching at straws? I don't live in london so have no opinion on how the people that are supposedly represented by the unions are being halted in trying to get to work? For 50 k a year?  

Try again brother 6/10 and thats being generous
		
Click to expand...


I guess you read the Mail as they only ever mention the drivers in their scribblings overlooking the fact that the majority taking action aren't drivers and are on considerably less than the 50K they [and you] like to keep quoting... London is looking forward to seeing the back of Boris next year and a considerable improvement in our lot..


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 16, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			What I do not get is that nearly all folks are saying that Labour will be powerless if Corbyn wins.

All he has to do is enter a mutual agreement with the SNP and the progressive coalition parties [inc Lib/Dems].
This will leave the Tories with a very small majority and virtually powerless.
The three parts of the Tory party will then soon start to eat themselves and consensus politics will rule.
		
Click to expand...

Why would any party enter into any agreement or coalition with a party whose main aim is to leave the UK ?! 

Lost count the amount of times you keep suggesting it


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 16, 2015)

Billythefish said:



			ok pal.  You copy and paste lefties are full of it. With no arguments. 

Tell me please, do you think the tube drivers are right, not in their right to strike, but in that they have a raw deal? 50k a year, 36 hour week, 43 (yes 43) days holiday. 

Simple yes or no will suffic
		
Click to expand...

I don't think the Clockwork Orange drivers are on that sort of money and terms, don't think that they are going on strike either.


----------



## Billythefish (Aug 16, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			i don't know enough about the dispute to use it as an argument for or against any particular Party or Organisation. 

However, in my working life so far, I have worked on the shop floor and in senior management. I've negotiated for and against Trade Unions. I've witnessed over zealous Union Representatives and belligerent bully boy company owners. I've witnessed numerous strike votes and seen the extent that people have been pushed to before they've even considered withholding their labour. I consider myself qualified enough to state that the World is a better place with Trades Unions, even though they don't always get it right.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for an argument rather the previous smear, no need.


----------



## Billythefish (Aug 16, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			I guess you read the Mail as they only ever mention the drivers in their scribblings overlooking the fact that the majority taking action aren't drivers and are on considerably less than the 50K they [and you] like to keep quoting... London is looking forward to seeing the back of Boris next year and a considerable improvement in our lot..
		
Click to expand...

guess again.


----------



## Billythefish (Aug 16, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I don't think the Clockwork Orange drivers are on that sort of money and terms, don't think that they are going on strike either.
		
Click to expand...

ok. 

As long as you 'think' that it was is going on we should all be ok.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 16, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Why would any party enter into any agreement or coalition with a party whose main aim is to leave the UK ?! 

Lost count the amount of times you keep suggesting it
		
Click to expand...

Why would they not if it meant having an actual say in running the country.

It will probably be 10 years until the SNP go for another referendum [unless Cameron takes the UK out of Europe]
Labour will have time to re-group in England by then, they also know that they are finished in Scotland now.


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 16, 2015)

Billythefish said:



			guess again.
		
Click to expand...

Anything other than the Morning Star ...


----------



## Billythefish (Aug 16, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Anything other than the Morning Star ...
		
Click to expand...

Pmsl.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 16, 2015)

Billythefish said:



			ok. 

As long as you 'think' that it was is going on we should all be ok.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, I do not understand that.


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 16, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Why would they not if it meant having an actual say in running the country.

It will probably be 10 years until the SNP go for another referendum [unless Cameron takes the UK out of Europe]
Labour will have time to re-group in England by then, they also know that they are finished in Scotland now.
		
Click to expand...


Jezza, representing a London constituency, will be wary [or at least he should be] of a party that has a senior member who has stated he wishes to 'punish' Londoners...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 17, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



*Why would they not if it meant having an actual say in running the country.*

It will probably be 10 years until the SNP go for another referendum [unless Cameron takes the UK out of Europe]
Labour will have time to re-group in England by then, they also know that they are finished in Scotland now.
		
Click to expand...

Read this slowly - Because the SNP want to split up the country they want to run - it really cant be any simpler for you to understand.

Not one single party will ever work alongside another party that wants to leave the UK.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 17, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Read this slowly - Because the SNP want to split up the country they want to run - it really cant be any simpler for you to understand.

Not one single party will ever work alongside another party that wants to leave the UK.
		
Click to expand...

But the SNP cannot split up the UK today or tomorrow, next month or next year - or probably not for another 5-10 yrs.  Meanwhile many aspects of what made the UK a great and compassionate place to live in are being ditched and destroyed by the Tories - and these things will difficult if not impossible to get back.  

So if it is necessary for Labour to get into bed with the SNP to stop the Tories and their destruction of our society, then that is surely what Labour must do.  And that does not suggest that Labour are one iota more supportive of the long term goals of the SNP - nor make the long term goals of the SNP more likely to come about. In fact it would make them more likely to recover their position against the SNP in Scotland, weakening the SNP, and also make Labour more likely to win a Westminster majority in the future.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 17, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Read this slowly - Because the SNP want to split up the country they want to run - it really cant be any simpler for you to understand.

Not one single party will ever work alongside another party that wants to leave the UK.
		
Click to expand...

How about Plaid Cmyru:lol:

Last time I looked Labour had quite a few more seats than the SNP so how will the SNP control Labour.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			But the SNP cannot split up the UK today or tomorrow, next month or next year - or probably not for another 5-10 yrs.  Meanwhile many aspects of what made the UK a great and compassionate place to live in are being ditched and destroyed by the Tories - and these things will difficult if not impossible to get back.  

So if it is necessary for Labour to get into bed with the SNP to stop the Tories and their destruction of our society, then that is surely what Labour must do.  And that does not suggest that Labour are one iota more supportive of the long term goals of the SNP - nor make the long term goals of the SNP more likely to come about. In fact it would make them more likely to recover their position against the SNP in Scotland, weakening the SNP, and also make Labour more likely to win a Westminster majority in the future.
		
Click to expand...

Good post.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 17, 2015)

And so whilst I might raise a cheer for Jeremy Corbyn - I'm hoping that Yvette Cooper wins the leadership.  With her Labour has at least got a chance in 2020 - no point in waiting for pigs to fly with Corbyn.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 17, 2015)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwEEunEgSeY

Sorry..to good to miss.

Kiss of death for the three lookee likee labour contenders.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			But the SNP cannot split up the UK today or tomorrow, next month or next year - or probably not for another 5-10 yrs.  Meanwhile many aspects of what made the UK a great and compassionate place to live in are being ditched and destroyed by the Tories - and these things will difficult if not impossible to get back.  

So if it is necessary for Labour to get into bed with the SNP to stop the Tories *and their destruction of our society*, then that is surely what Labour must do.  And that does not suggest that Labour are one iota more supportive of the long term goals of the SNP - nor make the long term goals of the SNP more likely to come about. In fact it would make them more likely to recover their position against the SNP in Scotland, weakening the SNP, and also make Labour more likely to win a Westminster majority in the future.
		
Click to expand...

"and their destruction of our society"    Oh dear!   Haa, haaaa, haaaaaaa!!!!   my sides are splitting.  You really are a drama queen.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 17, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			"and their destruction of our society"    Oh dear!   Haa, haaaa, haaaaaaa!!!!   my sides are splitting.  You really are a drama queen.
		
Click to expand...

We'll see.  Clearly as you find it sooo funny I don't suppose you give much of a stuff what happens to others seriously and painfully impacted by their policies.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Aug 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			We'll see.  Clearly as you find it sooo funny I don't suppose you give much of a stuff what happens to others seriously and painfully impacted by their policies.
		
Click to expand...

Long on rhetoric; short on facts.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 17, 2015)

MetalMickie said:



			Long on rhetoric; short on facts.
		
Click to expand...

let's see - 3 months in they've only just started.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			We'll see.  Clearly as you find it sooo funny I don't suppose you give much of a stuff what happens to others seriously and* painfully impacted *by their policies.
		
Click to expand...

You mean those policies that are creating a country where more and more people have the opportunity to get jobs and improve their lives.

"Painfully impacted" There you go again


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Aug 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			let's see - 3 months in they've only just started.
		
Click to expand...

Yet more rhetoric and still no facts.

I sometimes envy the politically one-eyed.

It must be so easy with one side always being right and the other to blame for all our troubles.

Sadly, perhaps, I take a more balanced view seeing good and bad on all sides of the political divide.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 17, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			You mean those policies that are creating a country where more and more people have the opportunity to get jobs and improve their lives.

"Painfully impacted" There you go again 

Click to expand...

yup - quite a lot of folk will get hurt by their policies - in a way very few on here will.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 17, 2015)

MetalMickie said:



			Yet more rhetoric and still no facts.

I sometimes envy the politically one-eyed.

It must be so easy with one side always being right and the other to blame for all our troubles.

Sadly, perhaps, I take a more balanced view seeing good and bad on all sides of the political divide.
		
Click to expand...

let's see where we are in a few years time.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			But the SNP cannot split up the UK today or tomorrow, next month or next year - or probably not for another 5-10 yrs.  Meanwhile many aspects of what made the UK a great and compassionate place to live in are being ditched and destroyed by the Tories - and these things will difficult if not impossible to get back.  

So if it is necessary for Labour to get into bed with the SNP to stop the Tories and their destruction of our society, then that is surely what Labour must do.  And that does not suggest that Labour are one iota more supportive of the long term goals of the SNP - nor make the long term goals of the SNP more likely to come about. In fact it would make them more likely to recover their position against the SNP in Scotland, weakening the SNP, and also make Labour more likely to win a Westminster majority in the future.
		
Click to expand...




Doon frae Troon said:



			Good post.
		
Click to expand...

In your opinions. 

Personally, what a load rubbish!

I've voted Labour in the past, and hope to again in the future. But with either Corbyn in, or most definitely if the ally themselves to the SNP, my vote will be blue. And I dare say there's quite a few who see it the same way.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			But the SNP cannot split up the UK today or tomorrow, next month or next year - or probably not for another 5-10 yrs.  Meanwhile many aspects of what made the UK a great and compassionate place to live in are being ditched and destroyed by the Tories - and these things will difficult if not impossible to get back.  

So if it is necessary for Labour to get into bed with the SNP to stop the Tories and their destruction of our society, then that is surely what Labour must do.  And that does not suggest that Labour are one iota more supportive of the long term goals of the SNP - nor make the long term goals of the SNP more likely to come about. In fact it would make them more likely to recover their position against the SNP in Scotland, weakening the SNP, and also make Labour more likely to win a Westminster majority in the future.
		
Click to expand...

There seems to an issue here with people not grasping reality 

SNP want independence from the UK - yes

Regardless of when they have their next chance their main aim is still quite clear for people 

No party will align themselves with a party whose sole aim is remove themselves from the UK - it would destroy the party and it doesn't align with their aims

The SNP will falter away at some point soon when they become the toothless party people expect them to be 

I'll say it again- SNP want independence - no party will join with them


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			let's see where we are in a few years time.
		
Click to expand...

The Sun will probably still come up in the morning and the poor will still be with us.   Oh! and the Nasty Tories who you can still blame for all the bad in the country.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 17, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			The Sun will probably still come up in the morning and the poor will still be with us.   Oh! and the Nasty Tories!
		
Click to expand...

I live in hope that we might eradicate poverty one day but I fully agree with you that it'll never happen under a tory government.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 17, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			There seems to an issue here with people not grasping reality 

SNP want independence from the UK - yes

Regardless of when they have their next chance their main aim is still quite clear for people 

No party will align themselves with a party whose sole aim is remove themselves from the UK - it would destroy the party and it doesn't align with their aims

The SNP will falter away at some point soon when they become the toothless party people expect them to be 

I'll say it again- SNP want independence - no party will join with them
		
Click to expand...

Cameron is adamant that the referendum last Sept was a once in a generation - so as far as he is concerned there's not going to be another for 25yrs or while the Tories are in power.  SNP may have independence as a goal but the Tories aren't going to sanction another referendum and the Labour party may not be in government until 2025 earliest with Corbyn boss in Labour HQ.  Indeed I am not sure that a Labour government themselves would sanction another referendum in the next 10 yrs.  

Another referendum is not something that the SNP can demand - they are powerless in that respect - only Westminster can grant Scotland another one.  So what do Labour really have to fear about working with the SNP?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 17, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			The Sun will probably still come up in the morning and the poor will still be with us.   Oh! and the Nasty Tories who you can still blame for all the bad in the country.
		
Click to expand...

I sometimes wonder how many folk on this forum have actually been affected and are hurting as a result of government austerity policy since 2008.  I can honestly say that I have not been affected.  That's how it is - some - many - of us are in that fortunate position.  And so I know that we are not all in it together - not by a long shot.  But someone must be suffering and I am not blind or blinkered to that.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Aug 17, 2015)

I think this forum should have a FPP (Frequently posted points) section.  So if you want to post about Sky TV v the BBC, The SNP, Scottish/English Football or Dress Codes you first must go to it to check if you have not made the same point many times before.

Yes and I do know that is very hypocritical coming from me .


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Cameron is adamant that the referendum last Sept was a once in a generation - so as far as he is concerned there's not going to be another for 25yrs or while the Tories are in power.  SNP may have independence as a goal but the Tories aren't going to sanction another referendum and the Labour party may not be in government until 2025 earliest with Corbyn boss in Labour HQ.  Indeed I am not sure that a Labour government themselves would sanction another referendum in the next 10 yrs.  

Another referendum is not something that the SNP can demand - they are powerless in that respect - only Westminster can grant Scotland another one.  So what do Labour really have to fear about working with the SNP?
		
Click to expand...

It's like a broken record 

Please read it even more slowly 

SNP want to break up the UK - simple 

Labour will not want to work alongside a party that wants to break up the UK - simple 

Can that be anymore simple for you


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 17, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It's like a broken record 

Please read it even more slowly 

SNP want to break up the UK - simple 

Labour will not want to work alongside a party that wants to break up the UK - simple 

Can that be anymore simple for you
		
Click to expand...

The SNP do not want to break up the UK - they want Scotland to become independent.  And that can never happen if Westminster do not grant the Scottish electorate another referendum.  In enabling the Sept 2014 referendum to happen it was actually Cameron that put the UK at risk.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Aug 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			The SNP do not want to break up the UK - they want Scotland to become independent.
		
Click to expand...

Please re read this a few times. How does it make sense?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



*The SNP do not want to break up the UK - they want Scotland to become independent.*

Click to expand...

Maybe it's just me but isn't that the same thing ?!


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			The SNP do not want to break up the UK - they want Scotland to become independent.  And that can never happen if Westminster do not grant the Scottish electorate another referendum.  In enabling the Sept 2014 referendum to happen it was actually Cameron that put the UK at risk.
		
Click to expand...




CheltenhamHacker said:



			Please re read this a few times. How does it make sense?
		
Click to expand...

lol and lol, and another lol....... and then it was Cameron's fault. Do you realise how mind numbingly stupid that sounds?

And do you really think the electorate would accept Labour working with the SNP? If Labour signed up for an alliance with the SNP how many current Labour voters would support them at the next election? The Cons would have a field day with that, and ensure yet another Con victory.

Are you really that naÃ¯ve?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 17, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			lol and lol, and another lol....... and then it was Cameron's fault. Do you realise how mind numbingly stupid that sounds?

And do you really think the electorate would accept Labour working with the SNP? If Labour signed up for an alliance with the SNP how many current Labour voters would support them at the next election? The Cons would have a field day with that, and ensure yet another Con victory.

Are you really that naÃ¯ve?
		
Click to expand...

Under Corbyn the chances are that Labour are going to struggle to win the 2020 election. and as you say I don't think they'd form a pact/coalition with the SNP to get a working majority.   But Labour working together with the SNP to defeat a post 2020 minority Tory government makes sense.


----------



## Radbourne2010 (Aug 17, 2015)

Head in the clouds politics. Totally un-costed & unaffordable social engineering. Labour are the new Liberals, sprouting policy on the hoof as only an unelectable Opposition are able to do. At least Corbyn as some guts unlike the other three contenders even if he is left of Karl Marx.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 17, 2015)

Radbourne2010 said:



			Head in the clouds politics. Totally un-costed & unaffordable social engineering. Labour are the new Liberals, sprouting policy on the hoof as only an unelectable Opposition are able to do. At least Corbyn as some guts unlike the other three contenders even if he is left of Karl Marx.
		
Click to expand...

Like the country could 'afford' to bail out the banks for screwing things up.  Though it has.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Under Corbyn the chances are that Labour are going to struggle to win the 2020 election. and as you say I don't think they'd form a pact/coalition with the SNP to get a working majority.   But Labour working together with the SNP to defeat a post 2020 minority Tory government makes sense.
		
Click to expand...

Might make sense to you but it ignores the fact that Labour would be signing their own death warrant by working with a party whose sole aim is independence that will lead to destabilising the UK's financial standing.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 17, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Might make sense to you but it ignores the fact that Labour would be signing their own death warrant by working with a party whose sole aim is independence that will lead to destabilising the UK's financial standing.
		
Click to expand...

so you say - and as far as destabilising the UK's financial standing - sorry - I'm wetting myself with that one (it was supposed to be tongue in cheek I hope)


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 17, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Might make sense to you but it ignores the fact that Labour would be signing their own death warrant by working with a party whose sole aim is independence that will lead to destabilising the UK's financial standing.
		
Click to expand...

Without wishing to go back over the Referendum garbage again, I fail to see how Scotland becoming would destabilise the UK's financial standing!

That was never an argument/consideration in the referendum. The only real argument was whether Scotland contributed more or less than its 'share' to the UK economy (with and/or without oil revenues) and whether it could stand/prosper on it's own - better than as part of the Union. By stating that an independent Scotland would lead to destabilising of (R)UK's financial standing, you seem to be implying that Scotland was contributing more than its share - something that was vehemently denied - quite the reverse even - by the 'Better Together' campaign!

Btw. An independent Scotland is definitely not the sole purpose of the SNP!


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			so you say - and as far as destabilising the UK's financial standing - sorry - I'm wetting myself with that one (it was supposed to be tongue in cheek I hope)
		
Click to expand...

mmm, understandable, you having a continence problem! But I'm sure you remember what the EU banks said would happen to the credit rating of the separate countries post-independence - or have you conveniently forgotten that too.

Notice you still won't acknowledge the damage it would do to Labour's standing with the electorate... but I guess that's the Scot in you believing in faeries...


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I sometimes wonder how many folk on this forum have actually been affected and are hurting as a result of government austerity policy since 2008.  I can honestly say that I have not been affected.  That's how it is - some - many - of us are in that fortunate position.  And so I know that we are not all in it together - not by a long shot.  But someone must be suffering and I am not blind or blinkered to that.
		
Click to expand...

I have lived trough poverty and know exactly what it is like in it's true form.  Have you?  Do you understand what real poverty feels like; I somehow doubt if you do.  Many people seem to think its not going abroad for a holiday or struggling to pay the mobile phone bill.

You keep saying how awful the nasty Tory Government are being and the way they are making all these people suffer.  Please can you explain exactly who these people are that are '*suffering*' from their policies and what you mean by that term?   I am genuinely interested!


----------



## c1973 (Aug 17, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			I live in hope that we might eradicate poverty one day but I fully agree with you that it'll never happen under a tory government.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed. Sadly I don't see it happening under any party.......ever, if I'm being honest.


----------



## c1973 (Aug 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



*The SNP do not want to break up the UK - they want Scotland to become independent. * And that can never happen if Westminster do not grant the Scottish electorate another referendum.  In enabling the Sept 2014 referendum to happen it was actually Cameron that put the UK at risk.
		
Click to expand...


Hahahahahahahahaha. :rofl: 

Not one in the same? No?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 17, 2015)

c1973 said:



			Hahahahahahahahaha. :rofl: 

Not one in the same? No? 



Click to expand...

Not quite - rest of UK remains together. Besides - breaking up the UK implies the SNP is principally anti UK when it is in fact more pro Scotland.

But anyway - I might be drawn to Corbyn but that way is i fear a road to nowhere for Labour and so I hope that Yvette Cooper gets the job if labour is to have any chance of taking advantage of the state we'll be in come the 2020 election.


----------



## c1973 (Aug 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			No - rest of UK Remains together. Besides - breaking up the UK implies the SNP is principally anti UK when it is in fact more pro Scotland.
		
Click to expand...

United Kingdom.  
There's an ever so subtle clue in the second word in particular actually. 

Think about it. 




P.S.  there really is, never has been, nor will be, anywhere called rest of UK.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 17, 2015)

c1973 said:



			United Kingdom.  
There's an ever so subtle clue in the second word in particular actually. 

Think about it. 




P.S.  there really is, never has been, nor will be, anywhere called rest of UK.
		
Click to expand...

Ok then - EWANI.


----------



## c1973 (Aug 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Ok then - EWANI.
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Not quite - rest of UK remains together. Besides - breaking up the UK implies the SNP is principally anti UK when it is in fact more pro Scotland.

But anyway - I might be drawn to Corbyn but that way is i fear a road to nowhere for Labour and so I hope that Yvette Cooper gets the job if labour is to have any chance of taking advantage of the state we'll be in come the 2020 election.
		
Click to expand...

You really are a broken record - time to stop , it really is time to stop before the hole you dig is too big to climb out


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 17, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You really are a broken record - time to stop , it really is time to stop before the hole you dig is too big to climb out
		
Click to expand...

That will be the hole that is me wanting Yvette cooper to become leader of the Labour Party is it - because I want an electable Labour Party for 2020 by which time I believe many and much will be in a sorry state as a result of Tory policy.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			That will be the hole that is me wanting Yvette cooper to become leader of the Labour Party is it - because I want an electable Labour Party for 2020 by which time I believe many and much will be in a sorry state as a result of Tory policy.
		
Click to expand...

No it's the one with you constantly dribbling about SNP and your various made up acronyms


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Not quite - rest of UK remains together. Besides - breaking up the UK implies the SNP is principally anti UK when it is in fact more pro Scotland.

But anyway - I might be drawn to Corbyn but that way is i fear a road to nowhere for Labour and so I hope that Yvette Cooper gets the job if labour is to have any chance of taking advantage of the state we'll be in come the 2020 election.
		
Click to expand...

ref your first point, if I wasn't a baldy .... I'd give you a hair to split. But 'specially for you and that frozen kingdom to the north...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0MK7qz13bU



SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			That will be the hole that is me wanting Yvette cooper to become leader of the Labour Party is it - because I want an electable Labour Party for 2020 by which time I believe many and much will be in a sorry state as a result of Tory policy.
		
Click to expand...

Is it a fluke or is there some sense hidden in there? She'll make a decent make weight and give Labour chance to bring in a credible leader... maybe David Miliband is waiting on a (political) gap between his brother and him returning.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 18, 2015)

Burnham now saying he would work with Corbyn, other way round surely.

Politicians eh, you could not make it up, Dugdale and Burnham now spinning round because they can now see the writing on the wall.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 19, 2015)

Paddy Power now paying out on Corbyn winning bets.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 19, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Paddy Power now paying out on Corbyn winning bets.
		
Click to expand...

What odds are they giving for him to win a General Election?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 19, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			You keep saying how awful the nasty Tory Government are being and the way they are making all these people suffer.  Please can you explain exactly who these people are that are '*suffering*' from their policies and what you mean by that term?   I am genuinely interested!
		
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...e-things-weve-learned-about-benefit-sanctions


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 19, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



http://www.theguardian.com/society/...e-things-weve-learned-about-benefit-sanctions

Click to expand...

But its a newspaper article. Its opinion, and does contradict itself occasionally. Not saying you're wrong, especially as the DWP have admitted elsewhere they've fabricated some of the responses from clients. But, equally, should benefit claimants be able to afford luxuries, or even the latest iphone - why not a Freeview box and a basic (Tesco) mobile instead of Sky and an iphone?

The benefits system is a lifestyle choice for some people. Totally agree that we need a system that helps people, especially the most needy. But it is the most needy that are suffering in the clampdown to catch those that are screwing the system.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 19, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			What odds are they giving for him to win a General Election?
		
Click to expand...

With many disenfranchised voters signing up to vote Labour I would not put it past Corbyn, in an alliance with the other parties, to hold a majority in 2020. 
I bet that will totally scunner the loony right wingers who thought it clever to join the Labour party and vote for him.:lol:


----------



## lex! (Aug 19, 2015)

I voted for Jeremy, my hero. Nationalise the means of production. All he needs is a donkey jacket for remembrance sunday and we are all done.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 19, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			But its a newspaper article. Its opinion, and does contradict itself occasionally. Not saying you're wrong, especially as the DWP have admitted elsewhere they've fabricated some of the responses from clients. But, equally, should benefit claimants be able to afford luxuries, or even the latest iphone - why not a Freeview box and a basic (Tesco) mobile instead of Sky and an iphone?

The benefits system is a lifestyle choice for some people. Totally agree that we need a system that helps people, especially the most needy. But it is the most needy that are suffering in the clampdown to catch those that are screwing the system.
		
Click to expand...

It's a newspaper article reporting *DWP guidelines *on the impact that sanctions have on the health of claimants.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 19, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			It's a newspaper article reporting *DWP guidelines *on the impact that sanctions have on the health of claimants.
		
Click to expand...

It's a newspaper article from a left wing rag that is an inverted Daily Mail.

People get sanctioned due to them not attending interviews at job centres or for jobs, not making efforts to look for employment etc.   There has to be a deterrent to people dodging their responsibilities in trying to get work.

That article has much subjective information and some of it supplied through trade unions who are going to be biased.   It's not reporting on DWP guide lines but someone's interpretation of them.

You take the view that anyone unemployed is a deserving case which is just wrong.   As mentioned previously; people that are genuine deserve support to get them back to work where ever possible.  The workshy don't deserve the same treatment.   I would imagine you would agree with that at least.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 19, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			It's a newspaper article from a left wing rag that is an inverted Daily Mail.

People get sanctioned due to them not attending interviews at job centres or for jobs, not making efforts to look for employment etc.   There has to be a deterrent to people dodging their responsibilities in trying to get work.

That article has much subjective information and some of it supplied through trade unions who are going to be biased.   It's not reporting on DWP guide lines but someone's interpretation of them.

You take the view that anyone unemployed is a deserving case which is just wrong.   As mentioned previously; people that are genuine deserve support to get them back is reporting DWP  to work where ever possible.  The workshy don't deserve the same treatment.   I would imagine you would agree with that at least.
		
Click to expand...

It is a report on the guidelines to DWP Decision Managers when considering applying sanctions.  It tells them that it is a fact that sanctions have an adverse affect on the health of those sanctioned, and that they should consider whether sanctions on more vulnerable claimants could be even more harmful.  You really do refuse to accept that some of this governments policies are actually harming individuals and families.  The government seems to find this acceptable - as it seems you do as you are happy for that harm to be brought about if it gets the swindlers and work-shy, and punishes those who stray.  That is not the action of a compassionate government.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 19, 2015)

Something that seems lost in the "Corbyn can't win the general election" line is that neither can any of the others, frankly.

Can't say I'm a great fan of George Monbiot but I think he makes a lot of decent points in this....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/18/jeremy-corbyn-rivals-chase-impossible-dream


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 19, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			It is a report on the guidelines to DWP Decision Managers when considering applying sanctions.  It tells them that it is a fact that sanctions have an adverse affect on the health of those sanctioned, and that they should consider whether sanctions on more vulnerable claimants could be even more harmful.  You really do refuse to accept that some of this governments policies are actually harming individuals and families.  The government seems to find this acceptable - as it seems you do as you are happy for that harm to be brought about if it gets the swindlers and work-shy, and punishes those who stray.  That is not the action of a compassionate government.
		
Click to expand...

You just don't seem to see the other side to this.  I have made it clear that we need to help the genuine to get back into employment but for some reason you keep ignoring that comment, why?    Regarding sanctions, as I said previously, these are applied where people don't turn up for interviews at job centres or for jobs and where they don't make a suitable effort to find employment.   Again: would you agree with this comment?

Please explain what you mean by "When people stray"  Does this mean 'when they don't try hard enough'?

Try to actually read and digest what is being said to you.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 19, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			It is a report on the guidelines to DWP Decision Managers when considering applying sanctions.  It tells them that it is a fact that sanctions have an adverse affect on the health of those sanctioned, and that they should consider whether sanctions on more vulnerable claimants could be even more harmful.  You really do refuse to accept that some of this governments policies are actually harming individuals and families.  The government seems to find this acceptable - as it seems you do as you are happy for that harm to be brought about if it gets the swindlers and work-shy, and punishes those who stray.  That is not the action of a compassionate government.
		
Click to expand...

As you say, "its a report on the guidelines," and although I do agree with some of the report I would contend that some of the language is biased to put a slant to the report.

But a direct question; do you agree that those on benefits should be able to afford Sky TV and an iphone? There's people who are working that can't afford Sky.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 19, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			As you say, "its a report on the guidelines," and although I do agree with some of the report I would contend that some of the language is biased to put a slant to the report.

But a direct question; do you agree that those on benefits should be able to afford Sky TV and an iphone? There's people who are working that can't afford Sky.
		
Click to expand...

all of which is the usual diversionary stuff to divert us away from my point that government policy that is actually and knowingly harmful to the health of individuals is wrong.  But since you asked a closed question on iPhones and Sky I'll answer in a closed way.  If they can afford it then yes.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 19, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			As you say, "its a report on the guidelines," and although I do agree with some of the report I would contend that some of the language is biased to put a slant to the report.

But a direct question; do you agree that those on benefits should be able to afford Sky TV and an iphone? There's people who are working that can't afford Sky.
		
Click to expand...

Sometimes life is just not that simple.........to help out, Dad may be paying for Sky and Grannie might be paying for the iphone.


----------



## Ethan (Aug 19, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Something that seems lost in the "Corbyn can't win the general election" line is that neither can any of the others, frankly.

Can't say I'm a great fan of George Monbiot but I think he makes a lot of decent points in this....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/18/jeremy-corbyn-rivals-chase-impossible-dream

Click to expand...

I am not a fan of Monbiot either but he is exactly right. All those arguing that Corbyn can't be PM are missing the point.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 19, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Sometimes life is just not that simple.........to help out, Dad may be paying for Sky and Grannie might be paying for the iphone.
		
Click to expand...

And some people are incredibly naive if they believe that.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 19, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			all of which is the usual diversionary stuff to divert us away from my point that government policy that is actually and knowingly harmful to the health of individuals is wrong.  But since you asked a closed question on iPhones and Sky I'll answer in a closed way.  If they can afford it then yes.
		
Click to expand...

So sanctioning peoples benefits can harm their health.  If thats the case then someone not attending interviews etc can be deliberately harming their own health, using your logic.

Do you honestly believe that the last Labour Government didn't punish people for these misdemeanours?


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 19, 2015)

I think Labour really does need to rediscover it's self.  If it's members want it to be further to the left and have policies similar to those Corbyn stands for then they need to vote for him and support him to redefine Labours routemap for the Nations future.

The Nation can and will decide if these policies are attractive to them at the next election.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 19, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			And some people are incredibly naive if they believe that.
		
Click to expand...

Not really, I follow the philosophy of 99% of the people living in the UK are great and I just ignore the 1%.
That is the 1% that always seem to rattle your cage.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 19, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			all of which is the usual diversionary stuff to divert us away from my point that government policy that is actually and knowingly harmful to the health of individuals is wrong.  But since you asked a closed question on iPhones and Sky I'll answer in a closed way.  If they can afford it then yes.
		
Click to expand...

But its the article you posted up that you said was a (newspaper) report on the guidelines. How is it the "usual diversionary stuff" when you were using it to reinforce your argument? But you've not decided... what?

So are you now saying that Govt policy is knowingly harmful, via the finger in the wind method, or are you quoting the article which is the "usual diversionary stuff" to reinforce your argument?

Alternatively, if people followed the rules they wouldn't get sanctioned... well that's just too complicated eh?


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 20, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Not really, I follow the philosophy of 99% of the people living in the UK are great and I just ignore the 1%.
That is the 1% that always seem to rattle your cage.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe you would like to re-read what you just posted!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 21, 2015)

http://wingsoverscotland.com/

Interesting summary by Wings...........3rd placed candidate may win.
What would happen next?


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 21, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



http://wingsoverscotland.com/

Interesting summary by Wings...........3rd placed candidate may win.
What would happen next?
		
Click to expand...

Quite an interesting read Doon. Not the usual frothing rant from WOS. However, and again well qualified by WOS, they do admit "Weâ€™ve deliberately made the example extreme."

In some ways, not dissimilar to the first past the post voting system we currently have in so much as the SNP can garner a way smaller % of the UK vote than the LibDems but end up with way more seats. And no, it's not a skit at the SNP, just using it as an example of the now flawed FPP system we have when there's more than 2 decent choices at the polls.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 21, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Quite an interesting read Doon. Not the usual frothing rant from WOS. However, and again well qualified by WOS, they do admit "Weâ€™ve deliberately made the example extreme."

In some ways, not dissimilar to the first past the post voting system we currently have in so much as the SNP can garner a way smaller % of the UK vote than the LibDems but end up with way more seats. And no, it's not a skit at the SNP, just using it as an example of the now flawed FPP system we have when there's more than 2 decent choices at the polls.
		
Click to expand...

On reflection it's a bit of a red herring to cite the number of SNP MPs as a failing if FPTP. They have a small %age of the uk vote because they only stood in a small %age of constituencies but they garnered a high %age of the vote in those constituencies.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 21, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			On reflection it's a bit of a red herring to cite the number of SNP MPs as a failing if FPTP. They have a small %age of the uk vote because they only stood in a small %age of constituencies but they garnered a high %age of the vote in those constituencies.
		
Click to expand...

But a greater say in parliament than a party that garnered way more votes... you're not wrong FD, I just think its unfair on a large % of the population that voted LD but have virtually no representation.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 21, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			But a greater say in parliament than a party that garnered way more votes... you're not wrong FD, I just think its unfair on a large % of the population that voted LD but have virtually no representation.
		
Click to expand...

I agree and don't like FPTP either just think a bit more nuance is required when looking at SNP results.


----------



## ger147 (Aug 21, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			I agree and don't like FPTP either just think a bit more nuance is required when looking at SNP results.
		
Click to expand...

It's a similar situation when you look at the other obvious extreme example i.e. a single issue independent candidate standing in their own constituency.  They may get 16,000 or so votes if the seat is a 3 way fight and just pinch the win.  Nationwide, their share of the vote would be less than the Monster Raving Looney party yet they have a seat and the Monster Raving Loonies don't.

At the risk of getting shot for mentioning Scotland, I believe the system up here is quite a good one i.e. a mix of constituency and other MSP's, so each area still has their own representative but the list allows parliament to be balanced out to a certain extent to ensure parties with a decent share of the vote but very few MSP's in the constituencies to also have MSP's in parliament to represent the large numbers of people who voted for them.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 21, 2015)

It amuses me when commentators compare SNP seats in Westminster to the UK based Lib/Dem and UKIP parties.
The SNP have a base of approx 4 million voters whereas the other two parties have a base of approx 40 million voters.


----------



## Ethan (Aug 21, 2015)

FPTP is an issue which has caused grief for different parts of the political spectrum at different times, so isn't a left-right issue. Right now UKIP has the greatest grounds for complaint but Labour have some issues too and they will get worse after planned gerrymandering, sorry boundary changes. 

In terms of the rights and wrongs, it all depends what you think the intent of an election should be. If it is to select a parliament which accurately reflects the will of the people, then the general election failed. If it is to select a single representative that best reflects the choice of a defined group, it works. people understand FPTP better than STV, AV or other PR systems. A second related issue is safe seats. Many, possibly most, people on the UK are on seats where the result is more or less a foregone conclusion. Their vote counts less than in seats where there is a more balanced vote. The politicians love this. I would like to see boundary changes which make every seat a real contest.


----------



## Ethan (Aug 21, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			But a greater say in parliament than a party that garnered way more votes... you're not wrong FD, I just think its unfair on a large % of the population that voted LD but have virtually no representation.
		
Click to expand...

You can't blame the SNP for an electoral quirk which had given them a significant degree of power. But you could say the Eurosceptic wing of the Tories are doing exactly the same. They are really a party within a party.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 21, 2015)

Ethan said:



			You can't blame the SNP for an electoral quirk which had given them a significant degree of power. But you could say the Eurosceptic wing of the Tories are doing exactly the same. They are really a party within a party.
		
Click to expand...

Not blaming them at all, and fully accept the election result as a whole as it was by the current rules. Just think it doesn't fit the multi-party system we now have.

It could also be said that the Labour party are a party within a party. The hard left wanting to renationalise and the other side wanting to gain the centre ground in British politics.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 21, 2015)

Ethan said:



			You can't blame the SNP for an electoral quirk which had given them a significant degree of power. But you could say the Eurosceptic wing of the Tories are doing exactly the same. They are really a party within a party.
		
Click to expand...

Power? I don't think so! Though it wouldn't have needed much (4 more Labour seats) for them to have significant power.

Presence? Yes. But no real power (currently!).


----------



## Ethan (Aug 21, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			Power? I don't think so! Though it wouldn't have needed much (4 more Labour seats) for them to have significant power.

Presence? Yes. But no real power (currently!).
		
Click to expand...

Aren't they the same thing in politics?


----------



## Ethan (Aug 21, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Not blaming them at all, and fully accept the election result as a whole as it was by the current rules. Just think it doesn't fit the multi-party system we now have.

It could also be said that the Labour party are a party within a party. The hard left wanting to renationalise and the other side wanting to gain the centre ground in British politics.
		
Click to expand...

Arguably Labour has several groups, the old Trots, the Fabians, a group who don't really know what is going on and the pro-market Blairires. The Tories have the liberal Euro-friendly wing, the One Nation group and the 1922/UKIPy wing. 

And the Lib Dema have ....... oh, who cares.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 21, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Aren't they the same thing in politics?
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely not!

Labour has just over 4 times as much 'presence' as SNP, but the same lack of (real) power!

In 2010, Lib Dems (remember them?) had 57 seats and DID end up with real power - though made a very poor job of using/advertising their use of it!


----------



## the smiling assassin (Aug 21, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			Absolutely not!

Labour has just over 4 times as much 'presence' as SNP, but the same lack of (real) power!

In 2010, Lib Dems (remember them?) had 57 seats and DID end up with real power - though made a very poor job of using/advertising their use of it!
		
Click to expand...

Tories are doing a great job showing how well the LDs actually did do 'in power'. LDs have been shafted for their fairly valiant efforts to keep the toryfest bonanza at bay.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Aug 21, 2015)

the smiling assassin said:



			Tories are doing a great job showing how well the LDs actually did do 'in power'. LDs have been shafted for their fairly valiant efforts to keep the toryfest bonanza at bay.
		
Click to expand...

Really going point there.  It was totally unrealistic to expect the LDs to get any of their policies through as that was never going to happen.  And their vital role was to stop the Tories lurching towards the hard right. And look what has happened now the LDs are no longer there and Labour are a complete unelectable shambles. I'd love the LDs to be in government with the tories now.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 21, 2015)

Are the Tories lurching to the right?   Seems to me they are taking more of a slightly right of centre stance and holding back on real right wing reform.   To me they seem very close to the Blairite new labour party in their earlier days.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 21, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Are the Tories lurching to the right?   Seems to me they are taking more of a slightly right of centre stance and holding back on real right wing reform.   To me they seem very close to the Blairite new labour party in their earlier days.
		
Click to expand...

Don't know if they're leaning either way. I do feel they are being true to their priniciples of giving back, or taking less, from those that earn it in the hope that it will stimulate the economy...trickedown which I think Ethan decried.  Far better than it disappearing into paying for a huge govt monolith. Bizarre that too many managers in the NHS is decried but some want more taxation that will need more managers to manage the trickledown from govt coffers.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 21, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Don't know if they're leaning either way. I do feel they are being true to their priniciples of giving back, or taking less, from those that earn it in the hope that it will stimulate the economy...trickedown which I think Ethan decried.  Far better than it disappearing into paying for a huge govt monolith. Bizarre that too many managers in the NHS is decried but some want more taxation that will need more managers to manage the trickledown from govt coffers.
		
Click to expand...

I agree.   Growing the state sector is a sure way of creating many new management roles along with the scribes, scribes of the scribes, scribes of the scribes of the scribes, even unto the seventh generation


----------



## the smiling assassin (Aug 22, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



http://wingsoverscotland.com/

Interesting summary by Wings...........3rd placed candidate may win.
What would happen next?
		
Click to expand...

Some interesting comments on there...
So let me get this right...the Labour Party are a joke because they may or may not be screwing lefty voters and denying Corbyn some potential 1st preference votes. However it's ok for the SNP to deny Scots living outside Scotland (except the rich ones with dual residence) their say in the independence referendum, whilst at the same time attempt to tip the scale in their favour by emfranchising the easily led 16/17 year olds...
#howblinkeredcanyeget 
I suppose 'wings' make a good substitute  for blinkers.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 22, 2015)

the smiling assassin said:



			Some interesting comments on there...
So let me get this right...the Labour Party are a joke because they may or may not be screwing lefty voters and denying Corbyn some potential 1st preference votes. However it's ok for the SNP to deny Scots living outside Scotland (except the rich ones with dual residence) their say in the independence referendum, whilst at the same time attempt to tip the scale in their favour by emfranchising the easily led 16/17 year olds...
#howblinkeredcanyeget 
I suppose 'wings' make a good substitute  for blinkers.
		
Click to expand...

Naw Wings is the antidote to the Telegraph.

Good attempted deflection though


----------



## the smiling assassin (Aug 22, 2015)

the smiling assassin said:



			#howblinkeredcanyeget
		
Click to expand...




Doon frae Troon said:



			Naw Wings is the antidote to the Telegraph.

Good attempted deflection though

Click to expand...

Er, didn't you just prove my point beyond any doubt...

Poor deflection attempt Doon


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 22, 2015)

the smiling assassin said:



			Er, didn't you just prove my point beyond any doubt...

Poor deflection attempt Doon 

Click to expand...

That would be half a nation blinkered, that takes some doing.
I think England, through the Corbyn campaign, are finally waking up to how the Scots have dealt with mainstream media and BBC bias.

Fourteen years in control of Scotland and the SNP are at 62% in predicted polls for Holyrood. 
How far does it have to go before 'SNP Bad' is seen as not very convincing or effective propaganda.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 22, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			That would be half a nation blinkered, that takes some doing.
I think England, through the Corbyn campaign, are finally waking up to how the Scots have dealt with mainstream media and BBC bias.

Fourteen years in control of Scotland and the SNP are at 62% in predicted polls for Holyrood. 
How far does it have to go before 'SNP Bad' is seen as not very convincing or effective propaganda.
		
Click to expand...

I thought this thread was about Corbyn and the Labour party elections.    It's very tiresome how you want to turn everything into an SNP issue.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 22, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			That would be half a nation blinkered, that takes some doing.
I think England, through the Corbyn campaign, are finally waking up to how the Scots have dealt with mainstream media and BBC bias.

Fourteen years in control of Scotland and the SNP are at 62% in predicted polls for Holyrood. 
How far does it have to go before 'SNP Bad' is seen as not very convincing or effective propaganda.
		
Click to expand...

What makes you think the English believe the Scots have dealt with a perceived (mythical) bias? BOO! They're behind you! Paranoid or what!

And just maybe it'll never be seen as a not very convincing or effective propaganda. Maybe the majority of English see the SNP for what they really are...there was plenty examples of their bully boy tactics and spin during the run up to the referendum vote. Shock! Even Scots saw through it and voted no!

Anyway, what has the SNP got to do with the Corbyn vote? Please do tell...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 23, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			What makes you think the English believe the Scots have dealt with a perceived (mythical) bias? BOO! They're behind you! Paranoid or what!

And just maybe it'll never be seen as a not very convincing or effective propaganda. Maybe the majority of English see the SNP for what they really are...there was plenty examples of their bully boy tactics and spin during the run up to the referendum vote. Shock! Even Scots saw through it and voted no!

Anyway, what has the SNP got to do with the Corbyn vote? Please do tell...
		
Click to expand...

Politely replying to post #472
Damned if I do dammed if I don't eh?.

The Corbyn Voters are natural allies to the SNP and would provide an effective combined Labour/SNP opposition to this heartless government.
So, in reply to your last question.....quite a lot.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 23, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			The Corbyn Voters are natural allies to the SNP and would provide an effective combined Labour/SNP opposition to this heartless government..
		
Click to expand...

Rubbish ...... most of the Corbyn voters are Conservatives having fun!


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 23, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Rubbish ...... most of the Corbyn voters are Conservatives having fun!
		
Click to expand...


Hopefully not ...


To coin a phrase... It's not big and it's not clever....


----------



## chrisd (Aug 23, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Hopefully not ...


To coin a phrase... It's not big and it's not clever....
		
Click to expand...

Dunno Steve, it's certainly clever!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 23, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Dunno Steve, it's certainly clever!
		
Click to expand...

I don't think so, especially if it backfires on them, then it will just be really funny.

The present Labour party are banning many left wing voters so the few hundered either side will probably balance out.


----------



## c1973 (Aug 23, 2015)

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...easiest-campaign-in-modern-political-history/


Quite possibly an accurate take on why Corbyn is unelectable to the UK electorate.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 23, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I don't think so, especially if it backfires on them, then it will just be really funny.

The present Labour party are banning many left wing voters so the few hundered either side will probably balance out.
		
Click to expand...


So, am I right that you can vote Labour all your life and now be banned as you're left wing, like a prospective leader who isn't banned?


----------



## 6inchcup (Aug 23, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Rubbish ...... most of the Corbyn voters are Conservatives having fun!
		
Click to expand...

Count me in best Â£3 i have spent for a long time:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 23, 2015)

c1973 said:



http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...easiest-campaign-in-modern-political-history/


Quite possibly an accurate take on why Corbyn is unelectable to the UK electorate.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree!

And that he got 35 fellow MPs to nominate him is equally scary! 

After changing the procedure when the 'excessive influence' of unions selected the wrong Miliband brother, this could well turn out to be a complete disaster for Labour's hopes for 2020 election success! Should he win, I predict he'll be deposed before 2020, but that won't help his successor. 

UK politics needs an effective opposition, with acceptable alternative policies. If led by Corbyn, Labour won't provide that!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 23, 2015)

c1973 said:



http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffee...easiest-campaign-in-modern-political-history/


Quite possibly an accurate take on why Corbyn is unelectable to the UK electorate.
		
Click to expand...

Or perhaps why he is..........someone had to start the peace process in NI 

I like his quote on wars/conflicts........... 'they all inevitably end in political compromise, why not start that process sooner'.


----------



## c1973 (Aug 23, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			Totally agree!

And that he got 35 fellow MPs to nominate him is equally scary! 

After changing the procedure when the 'excessive influence' of unions selected the wrong Miliband brother, this could well turn out to be a complete disaster for Labour's hopes for 2020 election success! Should he win, I predict he'll be deposed before 2020, but that won't help his successor. 

UK politics needs an effective opposition, with acceptable alternative policies. If led by Corbyn, Labour won't provide that!
		
Click to expand...

Correct.

And to think he would never have been nominated if most of those 35 hadn't loaned him their vote.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 23, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			The Corbyn Voters are natural allies to the SNP and would provide an effective combined Labour/SNP opposition to this heartless government.
So, in reply to your last question.....quite a lot.
		
Click to expand...

In your opinion. Personally, as someone who has voted Labour in the past, albeit not in the last two elections, a Labour/SNP would see hell freeze over before I'd vote Labour again. And to reiterate, if Labour allied themselves to the SNP I could see an awful lot of English Labour voters who'd feel similarly.


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 23, 2015)

6inchcup said:



			Count me in best Â£3 i have spent for a long time:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
		
Click to expand...


Supporting a party with a liar for a leader I suspect telling a porky [to get your vote] comes easy...

'Cheats' shouldn't prosper ask Justin Gatlin...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 24, 2015)

He's unelectable as UK PM as the bottom line is that the majority of folks in the UK don't really care for anything or anybody that would hurt their wallet.  Many won't want to admit this and so will use any and many other reasons for not supporting anyone or anything that might.  Many other issues might influence - but all secondary IMO.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 24, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			He's unelectable as UK PM as the bottom line is that the majority of folks in the UK don't really care for anything or anybody that would hurt their wallet.  Many won't want to admit this and so will use any and many other reasons for not supporting anyone or anything that might.  Many other issues might influence - but all secondary IMO.
		
Click to expand...

You're definitely not wrong there. And I'm one of those people that wants to control where my money goes. For example, I've recently set up another DD to another charity that does sterling work in the UK. 

And if Corbyn got in, he'd be choosing where my money goes. I don't like his ideas on who our "friends" would be, and I definitely don't want my money going in those directions, whether its via aid or direct support.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 24, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			You're definitely not wrong there. And I'm one of those people that wants to control where my money goes. For example, I've recently set up another DD to another charity that does sterling work in the UK. 

And if Corbyn got in, he'd be choosing where my money goes. I don't like his ideas on who our "friends" would be, and I definitely don't want my money going in those directions, whether its via aid or direct support.
		
Click to expand...

And that is where we have fundamental differences.  I find the figures for the last budget pretty disgraceful and shocking to be honest - but there will be lots of folk in the 7-9 decile thinking - hey great - we're all right,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-will-be-800-worse-off-by-2019-10379236.html


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 24, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And that is where we have fundamental differences.  I find the figures for the last budget pretty disgraceful and shocking to be honest - but there will be lots of folk in the 7-9 decile thinking - hey great - we're all right,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-will-be-800-worse-off-by-2019-10379236.html

Click to expand...

A few houses up the road from us there's a single parent family, mum and 3 children aged 18, 16 & 12. Wall mounted (huge)TV's in the kids bedrooms, inc Sky, Big double fridge freezer recently delivered. Takeaways delivered several nights a week, and in the pub with the kids several afternoons a week. Recently, she's complained bitterly that she's had to go out and get a part time job because her benefits have been cut. In other words, she sees benefits as a lifestyle choice she is happy with. Sorry, but she needs to get off her.... and get a full time job.

There are some failings with what the Tories are doing, but I don't want to go back to seeing benefits as a lifestyle choice people are happy with.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 24, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			A few houses up the road from us there's a single parent family, mum and 3 children aged 18, 16 & 12. Wall mounted (huge)TV's in the kids bedrooms, inc Sky, Big double fridge freezer recently delivered. Takeaways delivered several nights a week, and in the pub with the kids several afternoons a week. Recently, she's complained bitterly that she's had to go out and get a part time job because her benefits have been cut. In other words, she sees benefits as a lifestyle choice she is happy with. Sorry, but she needs to get off her.... and get a full time job.

There are some failings with what the Tories are doing, but I don't want to go back to seeing benefits as a lifestyle choice people are happy with.
		
Click to expand...

Have the same issue near us 

Married couple - she works in a nursing home and appears to leave every morning around 6 and is home late 

He hasn't worked a day since we moved there - have 4 kids - 3 cars , his car gets changed every 6 months 

He was going mental at someone recently because he was told his benefits were being cut and he had to go out and work


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 24, 2015)

It is always easy to find examples to prove the point you are trying to make - that there are feckless and work-shy out there.  We all know that.  But that does not excuse or justify policies that are hell bent on eviscerating public services and hammering the poorest of our society.  And all for the sake of the absolute necessity - so we are told - of cutting the deficit - a deficit that the Tories tell us came about through reckless spending by the last Labour government on public services (schools, hospitals?) and benefits - spending let us not forget fully endorsed by Osborne and his crew.  

When the truth is that the deficit was brought about by the financial crash and bailing out the banks; and the austerity measures are aimed at enabling the Tories to provide the better off of society (including I'd guess almost everyone on these board) with tax cuts prior to the next GE.  Meanwhile IDS has his eyes on disability allowances.

And since you mention the workshy - I can point at a friend about to move into a Â£1.5m house and who takes 3-4 holidays a year - whose daughter gets a grant of Â£7500 a year from the government because she doesn't have any income.  And that is a *grant* not a loan.  And I can give a number of similar examples of the wealthy fleecing us - and if I can then many others will be able to do likewise.

So Jeremy Corbyn's halt to austerity and 'leftist' policies? - maybe we do need a bit of readjusting in that direction


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 24, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			It is always easy to find examples to prove the point you are trying to make - that there are feckless and work-shy out there.  We all know that.  But that does not excuse or justify policies that are hell bent on eviscerating public services and hammering the poorest of our society.  And all for the sake of the absolute necessity - so we are told - of cutting the deficit - a deficit that the Tories tell us came about through reckless spending by the last Labour government on public services (schools, hospitals?) and benefits - spending let us not forget fully endorsed by Osborne and his crew.  

When the truth is that the deficit was brought about by the financial crash and bailing out the banks; and the austerity measures are aimed at enabling the Tories to provide the better off of society (including I'd guess almost everyone on these board) with tax cuts prior to the next GE.  Meanwhile IDS has his eyes on disability allowances.

And since you mention the workshy - I can point at a friend about to move into a Â£1.5m house and who takes 3-4 holidays a year - whose daughter gets a grant of Â£7500 a year from the government because she doesn't have any income.  And that is a *grant* not a loan.  And I can give a number of similar examples of the wealthy fleecing us - and if I can then many others will be able to do likewise.

So Jeremy Corbyn's halt to austerity and 'leftist' policies? - maybe we do need a bit of readjusting in that direction
		
Click to expand...

We'll never even come close to agreeing Hogie. All I read in your post is the cuddly, soft left wing rubbish the revolves around spending our way out of the deficit. I don't want to queue up at the hole in the wall like the Greeks.

Get yourself into Wetherspoon's any afternoon and then tell me there isn't enough money at the lower end of society.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 24, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Get yourself into Wetherspoon's any afternoon and then tell me there isn't enough money at the lower end of society.
		
Click to expand...

Not the worst statement ever on the forum, but pretty close. Really disappointing to read such a small-minded opinion.

Maybe after you check out Wetherspoon's you could try your local foodbank?


----------



## Ethan (Aug 24, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			He's unelectable as UK PM as the bottom line is that the majority of folks in the UK don't really care for anything or anybody that would hurt their wallet.  Many won't want to admit this and so will use any and many other reasons for not supporting anyone or anything that might.  Many other issues might influence - but all secondary IMO.
		
Click to expand...

But the majority of people in the UK regularly vote against their economic interest. They have been conned into thinking the economy works like a household budget but it doesn't. However it allows the Tories to prosecute their ideological campaign to reduce welfare spending based on a few rare and a few fictional examples that shock the readers if the Daily Mail. What they don't realise is that their pension and free at the point of use NHS is next on the list. The Tories don't give a toss for ordinary propel, never have, never will. 

Corbyn's economic proposals are considered by economists, who know the economy is not like a current account, to be fairly sound

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...anti-austerity-policies-corbynomics?CMP=fb_gu

As for meting Gerry Adams, Corbyn was a noted supporter of peace. At the same time as that 80s photo, Thatcher had officials meeting Adams in secret, afraid to tell the public, and were also protecting mass murderers like Pinochet and paedos like various politicians and celebs about whom they knew. 

I'll take Corbyn over the Tories every day of the week.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 24, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Not the worst statement ever on the forum, but pretty close. Really disappointing to read such a small-minded opinion.

Maybe after you check out Wetherspoon's you could try your local foodbank?
		
Click to expand...

I'm in the local food bank every month, working. What small minded thing do you do Kaz?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 24, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			I'm in the local food bank every month, working. What small minded thing do you do Kaz?
		
Click to expand...

You're a mass of contradictions then - how can you make such a terrible statement? I'd have believed it from others but genuinely shocked to see it from you.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 24, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			You're a mass of contradictions then - how can you make such a terrible statement? I'd have believed it from others but genuinely shocked to see it from you.
		
Click to expand...

That's how it is I fear.  I just don't see volunteering, charity work and donating to charities can in any meaningful way *replace* what government can do - as much as Cameron might like to pretend that it can.  It can only supplement what government funds through our taxes.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 24, 2015)

Strange. As someone who occasionally ventures into a Wetherspoons of an afternoon, what I mainly see is badly dressed pensioners with a drink problem...

wait, no.... Sorry, that's the golf club isn't it?  Easy to mix the 2 up.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 24, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Strange. As someone who occasionally ventures into a Wetherspoons of an afternoon, what I mainly see is badly dressed pensioners with a drink problem...

wait, no.... Sorry, that's the golf club isn't it?  Easy to mix the 2 up.
		
Click to expand...

stereotyping indeed   Just as the Daily Mail and it's ilk have stereotyped benefits claimants in the minds of some/many - for political expediency conveniently ignoring or dismissing the truth behind the stereotype.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 24, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			You're a mass of contradictions then - how can you make such a terrible statement? I'd have believed it from others but genuinely shocked to see it from you.
		
Click to expand...

None of us are perfect FD. Our W'spoons is a tadge rough to say the least. As for contradictions, you may well be right. Christmas Day lunch is spent serving in a soup kitchen. And, courtesy of a caring employer I, and several others, do quite a bit of volunteering/charity work every month.



SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			That's how it is I fear.  I just don't see volunteering, charity work and donating to charities can in any meaningful way *replace* what government can do - as much as Cameron might like to pretend that it can.  It can only supplement what government funds through our taxes.
		
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that helping out in the local food bank, serving in the local soup kitchen, helping out in the local autism school, helping out in the local Barnardo's home has no meaning? Coz if you are you're a typical champagne socialist who makes all the right noises before disappearing off home to a lovely dinner and a read of the Guardian. You want to abdicate your social responsibility to a govt coz its 'cleaner' and you won't get your own hands dirty.

Just because a Govt, of any political persausion, doesn't want to do it doesn't mean we should all turn our backs on those in need. Shame on you Hogie for that comment!


----------



## FairwayDodger (Aug 24, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			None of us are perfect FD. Our W'spoons is a tadge rough to say the least. As for contradictions, you may well be right. Christmas Day lunch is spent serving in a soup kitchen. And, courtesy of a caring employer I, and several others, do quite a bit of volunteering/charity work every month.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed we are not and good on you for your charitable exploits. It's just confusing that with your experiences of volunteering you are still able to effectively deny the existence of poverty based on a few folk in a pub.

Don't mean to criticise you but I just thought that was a terrible statement based on a massive generalisation.

Possibly I lost something in translation....


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 24, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			...
Are you suggesting that helping out in the local food bank, serving in the local soup kitchen, helping out in the local autism school, helping out in the local Barnardo's home has no meaning? Coz if you are you're a typical champagne socialist who makes all the right noises before disappearing off home to a lovely dinner and a read of the Guardian. You want to abdicate your social responsibility to a govt coz its 'cleaner' and you won't get your own hands dirty.

Just because a Govt, of any political persausion, doesn't want to do it doesn't mean we should all turn our backs on those in need. Shame on you Hogie for that comment!
		
Click to expand...

Kudos to you for doing so.

However...I believe there is a huge amount of work and fund-raising done by charities that I believe should really be done/funded directly by Government - in addition to the tax concessions that are provided. Central government - of either flavour - seems far too keen to ignore its responsibility and allow 'concerned citizens' to do its job for it - for their own reasons. While there will always be instances of needy, the simple fact that there are so many charity based food banks, soup kitchens and the like is an indication that something is fundamentally out of balance with society! I have no solution btw! 

These are actually similar concerns that Corbyn has. However, I don't believe his 'solution' will work either - and will actually do more damage to UK (and its society) than good!


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 24, 2015)

Anyone who believes the welfare system is not being taken advantage of by far too many are IMO extremely naive and must live rather sheltered lives.    Just take a walk around any town/city on a weekday and you will see the feckless in their droves, this is not a small issue as some lefty liberal elitist would make out, it's a serious matter than needs sorting out.

The armchair Socialists amongst us keep bleating the same old rhetoric about the nasty Tories and Daily Mail readers. they also completely ignore what people that disagree with them say and resort to the same old hackneyed diatribe. 

Lets try and make it clear once more!   *No one is suggesting the genuine unemployed or disabled should not be helped by the state and especially where they can be helped back into employment.   Those that are lazy and wasting our hard earned money need to be supported only to the point that they are also trying very hard to gain employment, even if it pays no more than benefits.*

I hope most can agree on this; as to condone the feckless and lazy or pretend it's only a small problem is very wrong.

I know some will cry "What about the children"  and "The Government should be ashamed there is a need for Food Banks"  These are difficult and sometime complex issues that are not easy to find a simple answer to but I do take my hat off to many of the charities and volunteers that do some great work here.


----------



## Ethan (Aug 25, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Anyone who believes the welfare system is not being taken advantage of by far too many are IMO extremely naive and must live rather sheltered lives.    Just take a walk around any town/city on a weekday and you will see the feckless in their droves, this is not a small issue as some lefty liberal elitist would make out, it's a serious matter than needs sorting out.

The armchair Socialists amongst us keep bleating the same old rhetoric about the nasty Tories and Daily Mail readers. they also completely ignore what people that disagree with them say and resort to the same old hackneyed diatribe. 

Lets try and make it clear once more!   *No one is suggesting the genuine unemployed or disabled should not be helped by the state and especially where they can be helped back into employment.   Those that are lazy and wasting our hard earned money need to be supported only to the point that they are also trying very hard to gain employment, even if it pays no more than benefits.*

I hope most can agree on this; as to condone the feckless and lazy or pretend it's only a small problem is very wrong.

I know some will cry "What about the children"  and "The Government should be ashamed there is a need for Food Banks"  These are difficult and sometime complex issues that are not easy to find a simple answer to but I do take my hat off to many of the charities and volunteers that do some great work here.
		
Click to expand...

Of course there are some who take the proverbial or just con it. But I do not believe that is as widespread a problem as portrayed in the right wing press and is not a reason to crash the whole system, it is just political cover. I am firmly in the "There shouldn't be food banks in a country like the UK" camp.

By the same reasoning we would treat all politicians and ex-Radio 1 DJs as sexual predators or paedophiles and all who work in the financial sector as corrupt change the entire systems within which they operate.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 25, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Of course there are some who take the proverbial or just con it. But I do not believe that is as widespread a problem as portrayed in the right wing press and is not a reason to crash the whole system, it is just political cover. I am firmly in the "There shouldn't be food banks in a country like the UK" camp.

By the same reasoning we would treat all politicians and ex-Radio 1 DJs as sexual predators or paedophiles and all who work in the financial sector as corrupt change the entire systems within which they operate.
		
Click to expand...

OMG! I feel myself wanting to agree with you... must go and have a cold shower. 

However, I do feel that the benefits system does need tweaking. Why should some get in excess of Â£25k in benefits/credits/discounts? Equally, the cutting of support for the youngsters who are of home leaving age, or have left, along with some severe cuts to the benefits to the disabled is distasteful to say the least. Closing Remploy was not good...! And then there's the bedroom tax...


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 25, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			OMG! I feel myself wanting to agree with you... must go and have a cold shower. 

However, I do feel that the benefits system does need tweaking. Why should some get in excess of Â£25k in benefits/credits/discounts? Equally, the cutting of support for the youngsters who are of home leaving age, or have left, along with some severe cuts to the benefits to the disabled is distasteful to say the least. Closing Remploy was not good...! And then there's the bedroom tax...
		
Click to expand...

I think that most reasonable people from either side of the Political centre will agree on the fundamentals of this argument. Yes, there are people who take advantage of the system. there are people who make "lifestyle" choices regarding the Benefits Culture. I think we might disagree on the extent of the problem however.

 I find the targeting of the Welfare state by large sections of the Media to be distasteful. Having a small group of Billionaires dictate how the Public should think is dangerous in the extreme. I'd like people who abuse the system to be prosecuted. Be they the "feckless welfare claimants" or the "Nasty Tax dodgers".


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 25, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Of course there are some who take the proverbial or just con it. But I do not believe that is as widespread a problem as portrayed in the right wing press and is not a reason to crash the whole system, it is just political cover. I am firmly in the "There shouldn't be food banks in a country like the UK" camp.

By the same reasoning we would treat all politicians and ex-Radio 1 DJs as sexual predators or paedophiles and all who work in the financial sector as corrupt change the entire systems within which they operate.
		
Click to expand...

Is there any developed country in the world (other than maybe a few like Monaco)  where if they had food banks no one would use them?    I would say that if Food Banks were available at any time in our developed history they would have been used, whatever form of Government was in power.

Your suggestion that the Government is ' crashing the whole system' is rather extreme to say the least.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 25, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Is there any developed country in the world (other than maybe a few like Monaco)  where if they had food banks no one would use them?    I would say that if Food Banks were available at any time in our developed history they would have been used, whatever form of Government was in power.
		
Click to expand...

I don't really understand the point you're making. I agree that foodbanks would have been used at most points in history. The important point is that they should not be required in a First World, Wealthy and progressive society.. I don't know if you've ever spent any time in a local Food Bank, but the people who visit them are not workshy, feckless chancers.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 25, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			I don't really understand the point you're making. I agree that foodbanks would have been used at most points in history. The important point is that they should not be required in a First World, Wealthy and progressive society.. I don't know if you've ever spent any time in a local Food Bank, but the people who visit them are not workshy, feckless chancers.
		
Click to expand...

Did I suggest anywhere they were workshy?    The point I made was quite clear, it suggested that if you supply a service such as food banks then there will always be someone who will use it, also, that there always would have been.

Regarding your comment that they "should not be required in a First World, Wealthy and progressive society"   I see this as rather naÃ¯ve. Do you honestly believe there is; or ever would be a Society whereby there were no poor or needy, I would suggest that will never happen.   I would also suggest that this country is still a very nice and supportive place to live, just ask the people in Calais trying to get here if you don't believe me.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 25, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Did I suggest anywhere they were workshy?    The point I made was quite clear, it suggested that if you supply a service such as food banks then there will always be someone who will use it, also, that there always would have been.

Regarding your comment that they "should not be required in a First World, Wealthy and progressive society"   I see this as rather naÃ¯ve. Do you honestly believe there is; or ever would be a Society whereby there were no poor or needy, I would suggest that will never happen.   I would also suggest that this country is still a very nice and supportive place to live, just ask the people in Calais trying to get here if you don't believe me.
		
Click to expand...

With all due respect, quite a lot of this thread has been squarely aimed at the perceived "workshy and feckless".. A typical target for the type of person who thinks that Foodbanks are a requirement in society. 

I'll take your "naive" comment as a compliment actually. I prefer to use the term "optimistic" regarding the abilities of the human race to reach for something exceptional. I am constantly amazed at the way we show our capacity for performing breathtaking acts of courage, innovation, compassion, intelligence etc. I believe that we are capable of "doing better" than our current system..

With regards to your Calais comment. I would suggest that reading certain posts on this forum alone would show that there are certain sections that are the exact opposite of "nice and supportive". The same section that constantly replaces the term Refugee with Migrant. The same section that wants to close the borders to people who are fleeing oppression. 

I know that we are often on different sides of the discussion, and I would never expect you to change your opinions. However, I'm still amazed at your ability to see things only in Black/White terms. You cannot possibly understand the incredibly complex situations that you comment upon. Neither can I in all honesty.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 25, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			With all due respect, quite a lot of this thread has been squarely aimed at the perceived "workshy and feckless".. A typical target for the type of person who thinks that Foodbanks are a requirement in society. 

I'll take your "naive" comment as a compliment actually. I prefer to use the term "optimistic" regarding the abilities of the human race to reach for something exceptional. I am constantly amazed at the way we show our capacity for performing breathtaking acts of courage, innovation, compassion, intelligence etc. I believe that we are capable of "doing better" than our current system..

With regards to your Calais comment. I would suggest that reading certain posts on this forum alone would show that there are certain sections that are the exact opposite of "nice and supportive". The same section that constantly replaces the term Refugee with Migrant. The same section that wants to close the borders to people who are fleeing oppression. 

I know that we are often on different sides of the discussion, and I would never expect you to change your opinions. However, I'm still amazed at your ability to see things only in Black/White terms. You cannot possibly understand the incredibly complex situations that you comment upon. Neither can I in all honesty.
		
Click to expand...

I don't believe I see things as only Black and White.  I have a bias in my opinions towards people needing to do as much as they can to help themselves and not expect the state to be a replacement to hard work.    If you actually read my posts you will see that I also believe in the state supporting those that fall on genuine hard times and who are not able to work through disabilities.

Your suggestion that 'I cannot possibly understand the incredibly complex situations that I comment upon' is based on what exactly?  You have no knowledge on what my experiences may be with such matters.   I have great faith in peoples ability to change their lives for the better if they have the desire to do so but in saying this it should always be as a result of their own efforts and not on the backs of others.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 25, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			I don't believe I see things as only Black and White.  I have a bias in my opinions towards people needing to do as much as they can to help themselves and not expect the state to be a replacement to hard work.    If you actually read my posts you will see that I also believe in the state supporting those that fall on genuine hard times and who are not able to work through disabilities.

Your suggestion that 'I cannot possibly understand the incredibly complex situations that I comment upon' is based on what exactly?  You have no knowledge on what my experiences may be with such matters.   I have great faith in peoples ability to change their lives for the better if they have the desire to do so but in saying this it should always be as a result of their own efforts and not on the backs of others.
		
Click to expand...

You cannot possibly understand all the complexities of the Global economy. No one can.. All the experts in the World don't fully comprehend the complexity of the system. And it's this Global Economy that directly affects virtually every discussion that is had on this forum. From the Welfare state, to Pensions, the NHS, Immigration, Emigration, Sport, TV etc.. We all have our bias, and discussion is fantastic, but not a single person on this forum can offer an answer to the problems we currently face. Nor the problems we will face in the near future..

With regards to the comment about people working hard. It's this camouflaged assumption that certain sections aren't working hard. That they aren't doing everything they can to drag themselves out situations they find themselves in. From the disabled who can't find employment, to the vulnerable and abused who can't find help. It's this assumption that rankles. 

Oh, and this comment "it should always be as a result of their own efforts and not on the backs of others." reads as though you are unwilling to offer help to those who need it, which contrasts with your earlier statement. It's a contradiction that makes your argument difficult to understand. You are either willing to help those who need it, or you're not..


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 25, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			I don't really understand the point you're making. I agree that foodbanks would have been used at most points in history. The important point is that they should not be required in a First World, Wealthy and progressive society.. I don't know if you've ever spent any time in a local Food Bank, but the people who visit them are not workshy, feckless chancers.
		
Click to expand...

Apologies for just picking on the food bank issue, but there's just a couple of points. 10yrs ago there were 49 food banks in the UK, and now there are close on 500. The increase has been pretty much linear each year since 2005, so no party is better or worse in addressing this issue. Worryingly, the DWP are now told to send their clients to food banks to help them get over the first week until their benefit claim can be processed - a good idea at first glance, to get over the hump, but why not sort the speed of the system out.

An increasing number of food banks are now also helping with gas and electric payments.

As to who goes to food banks; you get both ends of the spectrum from the workshy to those who are very genuine. Some of those that find their feet will be back helping restock the shelves themselves. There's some great people in this country but, equally, there's some bottom feeders.

The hardest thing to see/deal with; the person that turns up with their pride in tatters, laid bare before you. I'd love to see every single MP do a few days in a food bank...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 25, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Apologies for just picking on the food bank issue, but there's just a couple of points. 10yrs ago there were 49 food banks in the UK, and now there are close on 500. The increase has been pretty much linear each year since 2005, so no party is better or worse in addressing this issue. Worryingly, the DWP are now told to send their clients to food banks to help them get over the first week until their benefit claim can be processed - a good idea at first glance, to get over the hump, but why not sort the speed of the system out.

An increasing number of food banks are now also helping with gas and electric payments.

As to who goes to food banks; you get both ends of the spectrum from the workshy to those who are very genuine. Some of those that find their feet will be back helping restock the shelves themselves. There's some great people in this country but, equally, there's some bottom feeders.

The hardest thing to see/deal with; the person that turns up with their pride in tatters, laid bare before you. I'd love to see every single MP do a few days in a food bank...
		
Click to expand...

You may wish to add to your list of those attending foodbanks - those who have been sanctioned - for whatever reason - and have no money to feed themselves or their family. Or are they the 'bottom feeders' you refer to?


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 25, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Apologies for just picking on the food bank issue, but there's just a couple of points. 10yrs ago there were 49 food banks in the UK, and now there are close on 500. The increase has been pretty much linear each year since 2005, so no party is better or worse in addressing this issue. Worryingly, the DWP are now told to send their clients to food banks to help them get over the first week until their benefit claim can be processed - a good idea at first glance, to get over the hump, but why not sort the speed of the system out.

An increasing number of food banks are now also helping with gas and electric payments.

As to who goes to food banks; you get both ends of the spectrum from the workshy to those who are very genuine. Some of those that find their feet will be back helping restock the shelves themselves. There's some great people in this country but, equally, there's some bottom feeders.

The hardest thing to see/deal with; the person that turns up with their pride in tatters, laid bare before you. I'd love to see every single MP do a few days in a food bank...
		
Click to expand...

i think we are about 99% in agreement. Having spent a few hours recently at my local food bank, I've witnessed the utter desperation of those who attend. There will always be those who will take advantage of the good will of others. It's slightly ironic that we are talking about the relatively wealthy taking advantage of the desperate and downtrodden though. 
Im hoping to be able to go back soon to help stocking shelves. It's an eye opening experience that certainly didn't change my view of the UK.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 25, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You may wish to add to your list of those attending foodbanks - those who have been sanctioned - for whatever reason - and have no money to feed themselves or their family. Or are they the 'bottom feeders' you refer to?
		
Click to expand...

Why not go along there and do a few hours to find out first hand...


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 25, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You may wish to add to your list of those attending foodbanks - those who have been sanctioned - for whatever reason - and have no money to feed themselves or their family. Or are they the 'bottom feeders' you refer to?
		
Click to expand...

Why are they sanctioned?     If I failed to turn up for work or didn't bother filling in expense sheets then I would be sanctioned by my company and have no money;  I guess that would be my own fault though!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 26, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Why are they sanctioned?     If I failed to turn up for work or didn't bother filling in expense sheets then I would be sanctioned by my company and have no money;  I guess that would be my own fault though!
		
Click to expand...

Yes - that's right - not getting your expenses paid to you as quickly as you'd like is just the same as being sanctioned. Of course it is.  Unfortunately too many make such disingenuous comparisons to justify their support of the policy - a policy which is actually pretty damn odious.  

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...e-were-never-real-to-the-tories-10461688.html

The UK a mostly caring, compassionate and tolerant society?  Forget it - that went years ago - and was going through the Blair years of government.  The government you get reflects the feelings of the people who put it in power.  And that is why Corbyn is sounding attractive to many Labour voters - his thoughts reflect much closer what might form the basis of such a society.  So call me naive if you wish, but it is a route that some of us find some hope in.  The current path is one of misery and hopelessness for many.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 26, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Yes - that's right - not getting your expenses paid to you as quickly as you'd like is just the same as being sanctioned. Of course it is.  Unfortunately too many make such disingenuous comparisons to justify their support of the policy - a policy which is actually pretty damn odious.  

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...e-were-never-real-to-the-tories-10461688.html

The UK a mostly caring, compassionate and tolerant society?  Forget it - that went years ago - and was going through the Blair years of government.  The government you get reflects the feelings of the people who put it in power.  And that is why Corbyn is sounding attractive to many Labour voters - his thoughts reflect much closer what might form the basis of such a society.  So call me naive if you wish, but it is a route that some of us find some hope in.  The current path is one of misery and hopelessness for many.
		
Click to expand...

I definitely wouldn't say you're naive, far from it. And I would hope that many would like to see the UK aspire to such a caring, giving society. But is it affordable? If it is, it gets my vote, but if it isn't it has to be a no.

Corbyn is selling a vision/policies without any funding details, as are all the candidates. I find his more fanciful than the others, plus he's way too far left for my taste.


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 26, 2015)

What Labour need to do is get the 'can't be asked' to be asked...
Of the current quartet Corbyn is the most likely to achieve this...
All the others are classic spin doctor creations...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 26, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			I definitely wouldn't say you're naive, far from it. And I would hope that many would like to see the UK aspire to such a caring, giving society. But is it affordable? If it is, it gets my vote, but if it isn't it has to be a no.

Corbyn is selling a vision/policies without any funding details, as are all the candidates. I find his more fanciful than the others, plus he's way too far left for my taste.
		
Click to expand...

The country can afford what the government chooses...the current austerity programme and it's timescales have been determined by the government for their own political means - as is much of what the government chooses to do or not do.

So such as the pledge on capping Social Care costs - let's forget that promise whilst everyone is distracted by everything else going on - and instead delay it until early 2020 - when we'll also find tax cuts for the better off - all good election winning stuff.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 26, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Yes - that's right - not getting your expenses paid to you as quickly as you'd like is just the same as being sanctioned. Of course it is.  Unfortunately too many make such disingenuous comparisons to justify their support of the policy - a policy which is actually pretty damn odious.  

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...e-were-never-real-to-the-tories-10461688.html

The UK a mostly caring, compassionate and tolerant society?  Forget it - that went years ago - and was going through the Blair years of government.  The government you get reflects the feelings of the people who put it in power.  And that is why Corbyn is sounding attractive to many Labour voters - his thoughts reflect much closer what might form the basis of such a society.  So call me naive if you wish, but it is a route that some of us find some hope in.  The current path is one of misery and hopelessness for many.
		
Click to expand...

Either I didn't put my point over clearly enough for you or you just failed to get it!

What I was trying to say was that people are sanctioned for a reason, normally they don't turn up for meetings at the job centre or job interviews.  My parallel was suggesting that if I did the same I would probably end up with the sack and thereby have no money.   So would you consider this to be my own fault or the fault of my nasty employer?


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 26, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			The country can afford what the government chooses...the current austerity programme and it's timescales have been determined by the government for their own political means - as is much of what the government chooses to do or not do.

So such as the pledge on capping Social Care costs - let's forget that promise whilst everyone is distracted by everything else going on - and instead delay it until early 2020 - when we'll also find tax cuts for the better off - all good election winning stuff.
		
Click to expand...

I find you a bit of an enigma!    You make a lot of comments on how nasty the Government are regarding welfare but don't explain how an alternative would work or how it would be paid for.   Are you suggesting we should have unlimited welfare on demand, without justifying why it's paid and if that's not given then we are an uncaring and uncompassionate society?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 26, 2015)

How's about deciding that you don't help the poor by making them poorer or by beating them with a stick.  How about extending period to clear the deficit - maybe don't even aim to clear it - after all it wasn't the poor or users of public services who created the deficit in the first place (and neither was it the last Labour government).How about having budgets that hit the wealthier amongst us rather than just the poor; so dump the shibboleth and forget tax cuts for the better of planned for prior to the next election.  After all - we are all in it together - apparently.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 26, 2015)

I tried to volunteer to help at my local food bank only to be politely told that they had more than enough volunteers already.
I would bet a few pounds that none of those volunteers voted Conservative.


----------



## Beezerk (Aug 26, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I tried to volunteer to help at my local food bank only to be politely told that they had more than enough volunteers already.
I would bet a few pounds that none of those volunteers voted Conservative.
		
Click to expand...

Gets my vote for the "Sweeping Statement of 2015" award.


----------



## Old Skier (Aug 26, 2015)

Beezerk said:



			Gets my vote for the "Sweeping Statement of 2015" award.
		
Click to expand...

Seconded


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 26, 2015)

Beezerk said:



			Gets my vote for the "Sweeping Statement of 2015" award.
		
Click to expand...

Whilst it may be a sweeping statement, and not one I would particularly agree with. It does echo my own experience of attempting to volunteer at a foodbank, and being told that they didn't need any more volunteers at the moment. Quite a pleasing situation.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 26, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			How's about deciding that you don't help the poor by making them poorer or by beating them with a stick.  How about extending period to clear the deficit - maybe don't even aim to clear it - after all it wasn't the poor or users of public services who created the deficit in the first place (and neither was it the last Labour government).How about having budgets that hit the wealthier amongst us rather than just the poor; so dump the shibboleth and forget tax cuts for the better of planned for prior to the next election.  After all - we are all in it together - apparently.
		
Click to expand...

It wasn't the last Labour govt? No they weren't to blame for the crash, but were they culpable of its effect on the UK. Who was the Chancellor that presided over much of the deregulation of the banks, along similar lines as those in the US, that exposed the UK to greater risk if there was a meltdown? The meltdown started in the US but it was the last Labour govt that left us exposed to the madness in the US. Which chancellor sold our best buffer at knockdown prices, selling our gold reserve, just so they could carry on spending extravagantly?

Which govt 'developed' the welfare state to the extent that it was possible to get Â£25k's worth of benefits whilst sitting on your backside? And which govt had 13yrs to develop social housing, and to NOT privatise the NHS by the back door?

Yes the Tories are going too far, but I'd vote for them again before I'd risk the UK becoming the second Greece under a Corbyn led Labour. Find me a funded middle ground and I'll vote for it. Offer me a left wing Corbyn Labour and I won't.

I agree with some of things you'd like to see, e.g. no tax cuts for the extremely well off. And I'd even vote for some tax rises. But I wouldn't vote for them if it meant the looney left were managing the spending of those taxes.


----------



## Old Skier (Aug 26, 2015)




----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 27, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			How's about deciding that you don't help the poor by making them poorer or by beating them with a stick.  How about extending period to clear the deficit - maybe don't even aim to clear it - after all it wasn't the poor or users of public services who created the deficit in the first place (and neither was it the last Labour government).How about having budgets that hit the wealthier amongst us rather than just the poor; so dump the *shibboleth *and forget tax cuts for the better of planned for prior to the next election.  After all - we are all in it together - apparently.
		
Click to expand...

'Shibboleth'  Now thats a fancy word and one that has a multiple of meanings and as such only used by someone who has decided to muddy the water rather than keep it clear and to the point.

Here you go again dodging the points made in reply and going off on a tangent to try and enforce a rather poor argument.  You do seem to have a rather blur and polarised view of politics and especially on welfare and it's limits.

'Shibboleth'   Good try!


----------



## Fyldewhite (Aug 27, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Which govt 'developed' the welfare state to the extent that it was possible to get Â£25k's worth of benefits whilst sitting on your backside?
		
Click to expand...

Much talk of these Â£25k figures.....here's some numbers.

I completed a "benefits calculator" (www.entitledto.co.uk/benefits-calculator) assuming a married couple aged 36/35 with 3 children aged 1, 4, 8 with no income renting from a private landlord in London. I used London because it always seems to me that these high benefit numbers seem worse there due to higher rents etc. 

Estimate (per week):
Tax Credits      - Â£170.96
JSA                 -  Â£114.85
Council Tax       - Â£13.82
Housing Benefit - Â£272.50
Child Benefit     - Â£48.10
*Total - Â£620.33*

Sounds pretty good so far for sitting on my arse. Over Â£32k for doing nothing....bring it on. Looking a little closer though and the first thing you see is that over Â£14k of that doesn't go to me at all, it goes to my landlord.....so let's look a little closer.

The Housing Benefit is the highest possible and is based on geographical area....the actual rent may be more....and often is.
The new benefit cap kicks in and the above is limited to Â£513.82 per week.

So, taking the HB out of it I would have Â£347.83 to actually live on but with the cap this is nowadays reduced to Â£241.42 as obviously the rent still needs to be paid.

Now, that is still an amount most people could live on....Gas, Electric (often metered and costing over the odds), Food, Clothes. Things would certainly be tight but I think I could just about manage. Mind you......
Knock off the Sky TV that they "all" have @Â£20pw
The fags that "all" benefit claimants seem to smoke a packet a day@ say Â£140
A couple of nights out, as we all know poor people need a social life too.... say Â£30 x 2 = Â£60
Hmmmm, how would that work then?   Just possibly a perception rather than a reality?

Of course there are people who abuse the system, there are at all levels (tax evasion for example) but for the massive majority of those on benefits the above is the reality. The single biggest reasons for these seemingly massive benefits amounts are the lack of reasonably priced social housing and more importantly the lack of legislation to stop greedy landlords milking the system which by far outweighs any amount you want to put on the so called scroungers. You convert a house into 3 flats each with a family like the imaginary one above.....just do the math.....the phrase "a licence to print money" comes to mind and that's where the real benefit cheats are making the killing.

Incidently, the calculator goes on to show how much better off I would be in work. Even at minimum wage and 40 hours I'd be Â£209 a week better off overall but taking the rent out of it I'd have more than twice the about of money coming in. If I'm capable of work why on earth would I choose the "life on benefits"?


----------



## Hacker Khan (Aug 27, 2015)

Fyldewhite said:



			Much talk of these Â£25k figures.....here's some numbers.

I completed a "benefits calculator" (www.entitledto.co.uk/benefits-calculator) assuming a married couple aged 36/35 with 3 children aged 1, 4, 8 with no income renting from a private landlord in London. I used London because it always seems to me that these high benefit numbers seem worse there due to higher rents etc. 

Estimate (per week):
Tax Credits      - Â£170.96
JSA                 -  Â£114.85
Council Tax       - Â£13.82
Housing Benefit - Â£272.50
Child Benefit     - Â£48.10
*Total - Â£620.33*

Sounds pretty good so far for sitting on my arse. Over Â£32k for doing nothing....bring it on. Looking a little closer though and the first thing you see is that over Â£14k of that doesn't go to me at all, it goes to my landlord.....so let's look a little closer.

The Housing Benefit is the highest possible and is based on geographical area....the actual rent may be more....and often is.
The new benefit cap kicks in and the above is limited to Â£513.82 per week.

So, taking the HB out of it I would have Â£347.83 to actually live on but with the cap this is nowadays reduced to Â£241.42 as obviously the rent still needs to be paid.

Now, that is still an amount most people could live on....Gas, Electric (often metered and costing over the odds), Food, Clothes. Things would certainly be tight but I think I could just about manage. Mind you......
Knock off the Sky TV that they "all" have @Â£20pw
The fags that "all" benefit claimants seem to smoke a packet a day@ say Â£140
A couple of nights out, as we all know poor people need a social life too.... say Â£30 x 2 = Â£60
Hmmmm, how would that work then?   Just possibly a perception rather than a reality?

Of course there are people who abuse the system, there are at all levels (tax evasion for example) but for the massive majority of those on benefits the above is the reality. The single biggest reasons for these seemingly massive benefits amounts are the lack of reasonably priced social housing and more importantly the lack of legislation to stop greedy landlords milking the system which by far outweighs any amount you want to put on the so called scroungers. You convert a house into 3 flats each with a family like the imaginary one above.....just do the math.....the phrase "a licence to print money" comes to mind and that's where the real benefit cheats are making the killing.

Incidently, the calculator goes on to show how much better off I would be in work. Even at minimum wage and 40 hours I'd be Â£209 a week better off overall but taking the rent out of it I'd have more than twice the about of money coming in. If I'm capable of work why on earth would I choose the "life on benefits"?
		
Click to expand...

Fine post there sir.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 27, 2015)

Fyldewhite said:



			Much talk of these Â£25k figures.....here's some numbers.

I completed a "benefits calculator" (www.entitledto.co.uk/benefits-calculator) assuming a married couple aged 36/35 with 3 children aged 1, 4, 8 with no income renting from a private landlord in London. I used London because it always seems to me that these high benefit numbers seem worse there due to higher rents etc. 

Estimate (per week):
Tax Credits      - Â£170.96
JSA                 -  Â£114.85
Council Tax       - Â£13.82
Housing Benefit - Â£272.50
Child Benefit     - Â£48.10
*Total - Â£620.33*

Sounds pretty good so far for sitting on my arse. Over Â£32k for doing nothing....bring it on. Looking a little closer though and the first thing you see is that over Â£14k of that doesn't go to me at all, it goes to my landlord.....so let's look a little closer.

The Housing Benefit is the highest possible and is based on geographical area....the actual rent may be more....and often is.
The new benefit cap kicks in and the above is limited to Â£513.82 per week.

So, taking the HB out of it I would have Â£347.83 to actually live on but with the cap this is nowadays reduced to Â£241.42 as obviously the rent still needs to be paid.

Now, that is still an amount most people could live on....Gas, Electric (often metered and costing over the odds), Food, Clothes. Things would certainly be tight but I think I could just about manage. Mind you......
Knock off the Sky TV that they "all" have @Â£20pw
The fags that "all" benefit claimants seem to smoke a packet a day@ say Â£140
A couple of nights out, as we all know poor people need a social life too.... say Â£30 x 2 = Â£60
Hmmmm, how would that work then?   Just possibly a perception rather than a reality?

Of course there are people who abuse the system, there are at all levels (tax evasion for example) but for the massive majority of those on benefits the above is the reality. The single biggest reasons for these seemingly massive benefits amounts are the lack of reasonably priced social housing and more importantly the lack of legislation to stop greedy landlords milking the system which by far outweighs any amount you want to put on the so called scroungers. You convert a house into 3 flats each with a family like the imaginary one above.....just do the math.....the phrase "a licence to print money" comes to mind and that's where the real benefit cheats are making the killing.

Incidently, the calculator goes on to show how much better off I would be in work. Even at minimum wage and 40 hours I'd be Â£209 a week better off overall but taking the rent out of it I'd have more than twice the about of money coming in. If I'm capable of work why on earth would I choose the "life on benefits"?
		
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head I cant see how you would be better off on minimum wage which would be around 13K PA whilst losing a number of your benefits.    Also take into account that to earn a similar amount you would be paying income tax and National Insurance so would need to earn much more to reach that net pay.

Regarding your final point, you would prefer it if you were lazy and/or unemployable.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Aug 27, 2015)

Fyldewhite said:



			Much talk of these Â£25k figures.....here's some numbers.

Estimate (per week):
Tax Credits      - Â£170.96
JSA                 -  Â£114.85
Council Tax       - Â£13.82
Housing Benefit - Â£272.50
Child Benefit     - Â£48.10
*Total - Â£620.33*

Sounds pretty good so far for sitting on my arse. Over Â£32k for doing nothing....bring it on. Looking a little closer though and the first thing you see is that over Â£14k of that doesn't go to me at all, it goes to my landlord.....so let's look a little closer.

The Housing Benefit is the highest possible and is based on geographical area....the actual rent may be more....and often is.
The new benefit cap kicks in and the above is limited to Â£513.82 per week.

So, taking the HB out of it I would have Â£347.83 to actually live on but with the cap this is nowadays reduced to Â£241.42 as obviously the rent still needs to be paid.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with much of your post but why would you take housing benefit out of the equation? It is still money that is being paid to them (albeit not actually going to them directly). I rent from a private landlord but that doesn't affect the amount of money that comes to me, it just affects how the money I earn is spent.


----------



## Fyldewhite (Aug 27, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			I agree with much of your post but why would you take housing benefit out of the equation? It is still money that is being paid to them (albeit not actually going to them directly). I rent from a private landlord but that doesn't affect the amount of money that comes to me, it just affects how the money I earn is spent.
		
Click to expand...

Take your point. But it's not negotiable, it's not really a measure of how well off you are, your disposable income after essentials is a better reflection. The press, and many on here try to paint a picture of relative affluence by quoting the high figures when in reality this simply isn't true.


----------



## Fyldewhite (Aug 27, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			Off the top of my head I cant see how you would be better off on minimum wage which would be around 13K PA whilst losing a number of your benefits.    Also take into account that to earn a similar amount you would be paying income tax and National Insurance so would need to earn much more to reach that net pay.
		
Click to expand...


[TABLE="width: 700"]
[TR]
[TD]Income[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"]Income on benefits[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"]Income in work[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]per year[/TD]
[TD]per week[/TD]
[TD]per year[/TD]
[TD]per week[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Child Tax Credit[/TD]
[TD]Â£8,890.14[/TD]
[TD]Â£170.96[/TD]
[TD]Â£8,890.14[/TD]
[TD]Â£170.96[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Working Tax Credit[/TD]
[TD]Â£0.00[/TD]
[TD]Â£0.00[/TD]
[TD]Â£3,895.83[/TD]
[TD]Â£74.92[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Jobseeker's Allowance (income-based)[/TD]
[TD]Â£6,005.01[/TD]
[TD]Â£114.85[/TD]
[TD]Â£0.00[/TD]
[TD]Â£0.00[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Council Tax Support[/TD]
[TD]Â£722.63[/TD]
[TD]Â£13.82[/TD]
[TD]Â£0.00[/TD]
[TD]Â£0.00[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Housing Benefit[/TD]
[TD]Â£14,170.00[/TD]
[TD]Â£272.50[/TD]
[TD]Â£10,055.39[/TD]
[TD]Â£193.37[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Child Benefit[/TD]
[TD]Â£2,501.20[/TD]
[TD]Â£48.10[/TD]
[TD]Â£2,501.20[/TD]
[TD]Â£48.10[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Client Earned Income (net)[/TD]
[TD]Â£0.00[/TD]
[TD]Â£0.00[/TD]
[TD]Â£12,269.40[/TD]
[TD]Â£235.95[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Totals[/TD]
[TD]Â£32,288.98[/TD]
[TD]Â£620.24[/TD]
[TD]Â£37,611.96[/TD]
[TD]Â£723.31[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]




			Regarding your final point, you would prefer it if you were lazy and/or unemployable.
		
Click to expand...

Well, I can again see your point but do you genuinely believe that's a big number?  It may be as a proportion of town centre layabouts but that's a very small proportion of a city or towns unemployed you know.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 27, 2015)

Fyldewhite said:



			[TABLE="width: 700"]
[TR]
[TD]Income[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"]Income on benefits[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"]Income in work[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]per year[/TD]
[TD]per week[/TD]
[TD]per year[/TD]
[TD]per week[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Child Tax Credit[/TD]
[TD]Â£8,890.14[/TD]
[TD]Â£170.96[/TD]
[TD]Â£8,890.14[/TD]
[TD]Â£170.96[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Working Tax Credit[/TD]
[TD]Â£0.00[/TD]
[TD]Â£0.00[/TD]
[TD]Â£3,895.83[/TD]
[TD]Â£74.92[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Jobseeker's Allowance (income-based)[/TD]
[TD]Â£6,005.01[/TD]
[TD]Â£114.85[/TD]
[TD]Â£0.00[/TD]
[TD]Â£0.00[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Council Tax Support[/TD]
[TD]Â£722.63[/TD]
[TD]Â£13.82[/TD]
[TD]Â£0.00[/TD]
[TD]Â£0.00[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Housing Benefit[/TD]
[TD]Â£14,170.00[/TD]
[TD]Â£272.50[/TD]
[TD]Â£10,055.39[/TD]
[TD]Â£193.37[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Child Benefit[/TD]
[TD]Â£2,501.20[/TD]
[TD]Â£48.10[/TD]
[TD]Â£2,501.20[/TD]
[TD]Â£48.10[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Client Earned Income (net)[/TD]
[TD]Â£0.00[/TD]
[TD]Â£0.00[/TD]
[TD]Â£12,269.40[/TD]
[TD]Â£235.95[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Totals[/TD]
[TD]Â£32,288.98[/TD]
[TD]Â£620.24[/TD]
[TD]Â£37,611.96[/TD]
[TD]Â£723.31[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]



Well, I can again see your point but do you genuinely believe that's a big number?  It may be as a proportion of town centre layabouts but that's a very small proportion of a city or towns unemployed you know.
		
Click to expand...

An earned income of Â£12K+ would induce some tax and national Insurance.   Also your numbers show that for many they will see it as not worth getting up in the morning to go to work.

Yes, I believe it's a big number.   You dont need to go to city/town centres, just walk along your own high street.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 27, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			An earned income of Â£12K+ would induce some tax and national Insurance....
		
Click to expand...

That's probably what the '(Net)' is all about!


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 27, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			That's probably what the '(Net)' is all about! 

Click to expand...

I repeat!   I do not wish to be involved with you or your comments and would be grateful if you did the same.   You know the reason why and the potential outcome.


----------



## Ethan (Aug 27, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			I repeat!   I do not wish to be involved with you or your comments and would be grateful if you did the same.   You know the reason why and the potential outcome.
		
Click to expand...

You can block another user's posts and therefore not see them but you can't decide who comments. Please don't repeat the request. If the comment breaches Ts and Cs report it and the Mods will sort it out. Otherwise it is a public forum.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 27, 2015)

I see the Darling boy got his seat in the Lords.

A few more votes going Corbyn's way I suspect.


----------



## Fyldewhite (Aug 27, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			An earned income of Â£12K+ would induce some tax and national Insurance.   Also your numbers show that for many they will see it as not worth getting up in the morning to go to work.

Yes, I believe it's a big number.   You dont need to go to city/town centres, just walk along your own high street.
		
Click to expand...

There really is no point is there?

As already pointed out, it says (net). As for town centres....isn't that where High Streets are? Besides that though my point is that for every scumbag you see on the High Street there are many, many times that number who are not there, who are honest people, wanting to make a go of their lives and not really needing to be tarred as scroungers by people who (clearly) know very little about the system or the demographic of people who need it. They've just fallen on hard times and need some support......as the numbers show, not the huge amounts most people believe.

They are not my numbers by the way, I just thought I'd try checking up on what this Â£25k figure often quoted may actually mean..... I haven't analysed it too much tbh, just saying what I found out in probably 15 mins and thought it added to the overall debate about scroungers etc. You could do the same, test some of your opinions and see if they stand up? Or maybe just keep swallowing the pill and believing what you read.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 27, 2015)

Fyldewhite said:



			There really is no point is there?

As already pointed out, it says (net). As for town centres....isn't that where High Streets are? Besides that though my point is that for every scumbag you see on the High Street there are many, many times that number who are not there, who are honest people, wanting to make a go of their lives and not really needing to be tarred as scroungers by people who (clearly) know very little about the system or the demographic of people who need it. They've just fallen on hard times and need some support......as the numbers show, not the huge amounts most people believe.

They are not my numbers by the way, I just thought I'd try checking up on what this Â£25k figure often quoted may actually mean..... I haven't analysed it too much tbh, just saying what I found out in probably 15 mins and thought it added to the overall debate about scroungers etc. You could do the same, test some of your opinions and see if they stand up? Or maybe just keep swallowing the pill and believing what you read.
		
Click to expand...

OK I admit I never noticed your (net) comment, sorry about that.   I wont debate your post further as unfortunately you seem to prefer to throw insults rather than constructive discussion.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 27, 2015)

UKipper voting for Corbyn on the One Show.
Says he does not wish to be named/identified then gives a dreadful 3 minute interview to explain why he is an unprincipled idiot.

Deary me, are they all like that.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 27, 2015)

SocketRocket said:



			OK I admit I never noticed your (net) comment, sorry about that.   I wont debate your post further as unfortunately you seem to prefer to throw insults rather than constructive discussion.
		
Click to expand...

Careful Socketrocket mate.. If you keep refusing to debate with posters, there'll only be me left to talk to!!! And I'm not on here anywhere near as much as I used to be..


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 27, 2015)

Â£620 a week?!?!

That's Â£32k a year!!!

No doubt those are extreme numbers/examples. But that probably means there's quite a few close on Â£20k! 

No wonder it's a lifestyle choice.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 28, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			UKipper voting for Corbyn on the One Show.
Says he does not wish to be named/identified then gives a dreadful 3 minute interview to explain why he is an unprincipled idiot.

Deary me, are they all like that.
		
Click to expand...

 Seemed pretty principled to me, he said he'd do anything to stop Labour getting into power, no bad principal as far as I'm concerned!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 28, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Seemed pretty principled to me, he said he'd do anything to stop Labour getting into power, no bad principal as far as I'm concerned!
		
Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of 'anything'.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 28, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			Careful Socketrocket mate.. If you keep refusing to debate with posters, there'll only be me left to talk to!!! And I'm not on here anywhere near as much as I used to be.. 

Click to expand...

I'm happy to debate with him but not on his response to this thread.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 9, 2015)

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-her-name-was-margaret-thatcher-10482479.html

Interesting read, compares Corbyn to Thatcher.

Second last para needs to be read twice:lol:


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 12, 2015)

not been following this thread and not really interested but just heard something on telly that has left me gobsmacked.

David Lammy who said he is next door MP to Jeremy Corbyn was being interviewed. He said he asked Mr Corbyn to help launch his General election campaign. Corbyn agreed and cycled down Tottenham high St to help launch Mr Lammys campaign.

Mr Lammy then said two minutes later he would/ could not support Mr Corbyn because he has differant views even though they are in same party. 

hypocrite springs to mind. No wonder people cannot relate to Labour. Am positive he's not the only one, but what a comment to make.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 12, 2015)

Tashyboy said:



			not been following this thread and not really interested but just heard something on telly that has left me gobsmacked.

David Lammy who said he is next door MP to Jeremy Corbyn was being interviewed. He said he asked Mr Corbyn to help launch his General election campaign. Corbyn agreed and cycled down Tottenham high St to help launch Mr Lammys campaign.

Mr Lammy then said two minutes later he would/ could not support Mr Corbyn because he has differant views even though they are in same party. 

hypocrite springs to mind. No wonder people cannot relate to Labour. Am positive he's not the only one, but what a comment to make.
		
Click to expand...

Yup, you're right Tashyboy.. And we all know that the Conservatives are just like one big Family.. They can't do enough for each other and all pull in the same direction on every policy.. Such a harmonious bunch.. A bit like the Partridge Family, but without the Popstrel interludes..


----------



## ger147 (Sep 12, 2015)

It looks like we're about to find out just how many of those currently on the Labour front bench who have said they will refuse to serve under Corbyn will actually walk away. I'd wager it will be significantly fewer than those who said so...


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 12, 2015)

ger147 said:



			It looks like we're about to find out just how many of those currently on the Labour front bench who have said they will refuse to serve under Corbyn will actually walk away. I'd wager it will be significantly fewer than those who said so...
		
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree.. Whilst I don't think that Jezza is a viable option, I can't help but think that a short term lurch to the left might leave the Party in a better place than it currently stands.. The Party just can't inhabit the same centre right of British Politics as the Conservatives and make any headway with the traditional Labour voters..


----------



## chrisd (Sep 12, 2015)

Well it looks pretty certain that Labour won't get the chance to cock up the economy for at least 10 years and that Doon won't have to concern himself with Labour doing a deal with the SNP!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 12, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Well it looks pretty certain that Labour won't get the chance to cock up the economy for at least 10 years and that Doon won't have to concern himself with Labour doing a deal with the SNP!
		
Click to expand...

With the amount of Tory rebels sticking their heads above the parapet I am not so sure, anyway isn't the economy cocked up already, Harold Wilson's fault probably.:lol:

Let's wait and see, I think you may get a surprise.
Laughing my socks off about those loony Tory/Labour voters though.


----------



## Ethan (Sep 12, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Well it looks pretty certain that Labour won't get the chance to cock up the economy for at least 10 years and that Doon won't have to concern himself with Labour doing a deal with the SNP!
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so sure either. The current narrative is one that sits firmly in the Tory comfort zone and allows them to keep their several sub-parties together and keep Labour on the back foot. That will change if Corbyn wins. OK,  a few Labour types will complain and even leave, but that is fine.


----------



## bluewolf (Sep 12, 2015)

I'm also of the opinion that one of the worst things for the Tory Party would be to be in power with no viable opposition.. As it is they just about hold on to some sort of unity, take away the opposition and it'll be a free for all with all the factions vying for power.. Politics, like life, is about balance..

Note, this is not an attack on the Conservatives. I think the same would happen if Labour had no viable opposition..


----------



## chrisd (Sep 12, 2015)

bluewolf said:



			I'm also of the opinion that one of the worst things for the Tory Party would be to be in power with no viable opposition.. As it is they just about hold on to some sort of unity, take away the opposition and it'll be a free for all with all the factions vying for power.. Politics, like life, is about balance..

Note, this is not an attack on the Conservatives. I think the same would happen if Labour had no viable opposition..
		
Click to expand...


Spot on ^


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 12, 2015)

I think the Right of UK politics should heed 'you got to be careful about what you wish for'.  Under Corbyn it is no doubt that Labour will be portrayed as Far Left, and I think that they will stay that way for as long as Corbyn is leader - some years I guess - maybe until defeat at next election.  Then a new leader and a move away from his position - and that move (though it may not be huge) will be seen as positive amongst many voters and their perception of Labour and likelihood to vote Labour could well change.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 12, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I think the Right of UK politics should heed 'you got to be careful about what you wish for'.  Under Corbyn it is no doubt that Labour will be portrayed as Far Left, and I think that they will stay that way for as long as Corbyn is leader - some years I guess - maybe until defeat at next election.  Then a new leader and a move away from his position - and that move (though it may not be huge) will be seen as positive amongst many voters and their perception of Labour and likelihood to vote Labour could well change.
		
Click to expand...

Irrespective of who is the UK Labour leader I cannot see Labour ever having a majority in England/Wales.
Cameron is playing right into the SNP's hand, all he needs to do is more of the same and you can guarantee that Scotland will be an independent country within 10 years. Could be sooner if the Europe vote goes in favour of the Tories/UKIP. 

Interesting times.
The only way the UK can survive IMVHO is with a Labour government and that will not happen without the Scots Labour votes.


----------



## Ethan (Sep 12, 2015)

Wow. Corbyn comfortably wins in round 1.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 12, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Wow. Corbyn comfortably wins in round 1.
		
Click to expand...

That's not a win it's a massacre. 59.5%


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 12, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			That's not a win it's a massacre. 59.5%
		
Click to expand...

Hamas, Moscow and Sinn Fein already booked seats at the celebration party.


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 12, 2015)

Not quite sure why folk have got the idea the Tories want out of Europe... 
Their paymasters simply wouldn't tolerate an exit policy...


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 12, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Cameron is playing right into the SNP's hand, all he needs to do is more of the same and you can guarantee that Scotland will be an independent country within 10 years. Could be sooner if the Europe vote goes in favour of the Tories/UKIP
		
Click to expand...

As you continually appear to have no respect for the Scotish voter who have already stated quite strongly in a democratic vote that they didn't want independence you should ensure next time that the whole of the UK get a vote because the noisey minority like yourself do your country no good and you could get your wish.


----------



## Ethan (Sep 12, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Hamas, Moscow and Sinn Fein already booked seats at the celebration party.
		
Click to expand...

Oh what a wit you are. Although you have a rather limited grasp of politics.


----------



## Ethan (Sep 12, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Not quite sure why folk have got the idea the Tories want out of Europe... 
Their paymasters simply wouldn't tolerate an exit policy...
		
Click to expand...

Not their official policy but then again many of their other official policies like supporting the NHS aren't their true plan. Plenty of individual Tory MPs want out of Europe, though.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 12, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Although you have a rather limited grasp of politics.
		
Click to expand...

Bugger I appear to have joined your club


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 12, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Not quite sure why folk have got the idea the Tories want out of Europe... 
Their paymasters simply wouldn't tolerate an exit policy...
		
Click to expand...

Be interested if Corbyn does an about face on this as it is his life long wish to get out. The man that will demand loyalty after spending most of his political career voting against his party.


----------



## Ethan (Sep 12, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Bugger I appear to have joined your club
		
Click to expand...

Is that the best you can come up with, really?

You are not in my club in so many ways.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 12, 2015)

Ethan said:



			You are not in my club in so many ways.
		
Click to expand...

I know, it's my inability to sink so low as you. Are you really a mod or are you just on here as a wind up merchant.

I enjoy reading your one sided bias view on life. Did you have to move because of you inability to get on with anyone or is your avatar just a wish.


----------



## delc (Sep 12, 2015)

He's been elected as leader, so that's the end of the Labour Party for the next few years!  
 :whoo:


----------



## jp5 (Sep 12, 2015)

delc said:



			He's been elected as leader, so that's the end of the Labour Party for the next few years!  

:whoo:
		
Click to expand...

Couldn't be further from the truth!


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 12, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Plenty of individual Tory MPs want out of Europe, though.
		
Click to expand...

I am sure they do but come the day of reckoning they'll mostly toe the party line...
At least Carswell had the balls to crossover to UKIP...




Old Skier said:



			Be interested if Corbyn does an about face on this as it is his life long wish to get out. The man that will demand loyalty after spending most of his political career voting against his party.
		
Click to expand...

The left of the party were outspoken about joining in the first place...
Hopefully Corbyn will return party to this stance...
Part of why I voted for him...

Labour needs to disassociate itself from the right wing policies of its recent history...


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 12, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Couldn't be further from the truth!
		
Click to expand...

Dont you think there will be a split. Even some of those that nominated the man didn't vote for him.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 12, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Couldn't be further from the truth!
		
Click to expand...

I agree - I think politics will be much more interesting and I look forward to Cameron and Osborne being exposed by Corbyn at the dispatch box as flanneling and superficial lightweights having limited principles upon which they base government policy.


----------



## jp5 (Sep 12, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Dont you think there will be a split. Even some of those that nominated the man didn't vote for him.
		
Click to expand...

No chance of a split. Entirely right to nominate someone if you think they will add to the debate, but not vote for them.


----------



## delc (Sep 12, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			I am sure they do but come the day of reckoning they'll mostly toe the party line...
At least Carswell had the balls to crossover to UKIP...




The left of the party were outspoken about joining in the first place...
Hopefully Corbyn will return party to this stance...
Part of why I voted for him...

Labour needs to disassociate itself from the right wing policies of its recent history...
		
Click to expand...

It needs to disassociate itself from Messrs Blair and Brown, but no reason why it has to be a party of the hard left!


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 12, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I agree - I think politics will be much more interesting and I look forward to Cameron and Osborne being exposed by Corbyn at the dispatch box as flanneling and superficial lightweights having limited principles upon which they base government policy.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately Corbyns inability to give a half decent speech may limit his impact. He's got to stop blaming everyone else for the ills of the country. As someone who has already spent 30+ years in Parliament and his party have had periods in power he has to start taking some responsibility.


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 12, 2015)

delc said:



			It needs to disassociate itself from Messrs Blair and Brown, but no reason why it has to be a party of the hard left!
		
Click to expand...

Not in any way seeking a move to the 'hard left' whatever that really means...

just policies that don't see PAYE person footing the bill for the whole damn show...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 12, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Unfortunately Corbyns inability to give a half decent speech may limit his impact. He's got to stop blaming everyone else for the ills of the country. As someone who has already spent 30+ years in Parliament and his party have had periods in power he has to start taking some responsibility.
		
Click to expand...

Well - my Mrs just commented that she listenend to his speech on being announced winner and she thought it was excellent.  So maybe he isn't as bad at speeching as he is portrayed.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 12, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Well - my Mrs just commented that she listenend to his speech on being announced winner and she thought it was excellent.  So maybe he isn't as bad at speeching as he is portrayed.
		
Click to expand...

Already stated that he will get others to stand in for him during some PMQs, not the actions of a confident man.

I listened to his speech and we just have different views. It was poor and did nothing but blame others seeming to forget the 11 years of Labour.


----------



## jp5 (Sep 12, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Already stated that he will get others to stand in for him during some PMQs, not the actions of a confident man.

I listened to his speech and we just have different views. It was poor and did nothing but blame others seeming to forget the 11 years of Labour.
		
Click to expand...

Not unusual to have stand-ins at PMQs, is it?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 12, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Not unusual to have stand-ins at PMQs, is it?
		
Click to expand...

maybe he thinks it's a bit of a waste of time - he can only wind up Cameron so many times - so best get on with something more worthwhile than listen to cameron prattle on.


----------



## ger147 (Sep 12, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I agree - I think politics will be much more interesting and I look forward to Cameron and Osborne being exposed by Corbyn at the dispatch box as flanneling and superficial lightweights having limited principles upon which they base government policy.
		
Click to expand...




SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			maybe he thinks it's a bit of a waste of time - he can only wind up Cameron so many times - so best get on with something more worthwhile than listen to cameron prattle on.
		
Click to expand...

That was a seriously quick u-turn, mind you don't bang your head!!


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 12, 2015)

Labour may have been buried in Scotland at the last election, and now it looks like it'll happen in England. #a return to the days of foot and Kinnock??


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 12, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Not unusual to have stand-ins at PMQs, is it?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, when PM is at PMQs the leader of the opposition is normally at the opposite despatch box.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 12, 2015)

ger147 said:



			That was a seriously quick u-turn, mind you don't bang your head!!
		
Click to expand...

have a like.


----------



## jp5 (Sep 12, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Yes, when PM is at PMQs the leader of the opposition is normally at the opposite despatch box.
		
Click to expand...

Also normal for DC to start taking sly digs at questioners, I think 'normal' will be going out the window from now on!


----------



## Beezerk (Sep 12, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Labour may have been buried in Scotland at the last election, and now it looks like it'll happen in England. #a return to the days of foot and Kinnock??
		
Click to expand...

I wonder when Chuka Amunna will get his title shot, I guess he'll be waiting in the wings until the time is right.


----------



## Imurg (Sep 12, 2015)

Beezerk said:



			I wonder when Chuka Amunna will get his title shot, I guess he'll be waiting in the wings until the time is right.
		
Click to expand...

Several whisperings, apparently, that there could be another leadership battle by this time next year...
Maybe why Chuka pulled out.....


----------



## The Green Fairy (Sep 12, 2015)

Snap election now would really screw 'em  


Never seen a time when the opposition parties were so out of touch with public opinion.


----------



## Beezerk (Sep 12, 2015)

Imurg said:



			Several whisperings, apparently, that there could be another leadership battle by this time next year...
Maybe why Chuka pulled out.....
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I certainly think it was a long term plan rather than the excuse he gave at the time. Press harassment wasn't it?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 12, 2015)

ger147 said:



			That was a seriously quick u-turn, mind you don't bang your head!!
		
Click to expand...

Nope - nothing at all inconsistent with my two statements.


----------



## jp5 (Sep 12, 2015)

Imurg said:



			Several whisperings, apparently, that there could be another leadership battle by this time next year...
Maybe why Chuka pulled out.....
		
Click to expand...

I highly doubt it; Corbyn has a greater mandate than even Blair did.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 12, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Not in any way seeking a move to the 'hard left' whatever that really means...

just policies that don't see PAYE person footing the bill for the whole damn show...
		
Click to expand...

Well said.

Corbyns policies and economics have been likened the the old Lib Dems of David Steel and Shirley Williams.

Can anyone remember why did they broke away from the Labour party ?
Oh yes..Labour were too far to the left.


----------



## ger147 (Sep 12, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Nope - nothing at all inconsistent with my two statements.
		
Click to expand...

As long as you believe that, that's all that counts...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 12, 2015)

The Green Fairy said:



			Snap election now would really screw 'em  


Never seen a time when the opposition parties were so out of touch with public opinion.
		
Click to expand...

I think you will find that we have moved to 5 year terms now.

Corbyn has a near 60% rating from ALL sides of the Labour party [not just the MP's]
It would be very foolish for anyone to stand against him for a few years.

Why do the Tories on here all of a sudden want someone to stand against him:lol:


----------



## The Green Fairy (Sep 12, 2015)

ALL sides of the Labour party means what? 


 Which of us Tories give a damn?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 12, 2015)

The Green Fairy said:



			ALL sides of the Labour party means what? 


 Which of us Tories give a damn? 

Click to expand...

1] The established members, the union members and the new Â£3 members.
They are saying that the bulk of the new members are young. [plus a few dozen chinless wonders ]

2] The ones on here who seem to be squealing.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 12, 2015)

7 resignations already from what are being called senior MP's saying they cannot serve under Jeremy Corbyn. Looks like things aren't quite as rosy in the Labour garden as some on here want to believe. Yvette Cooper, Chuka Umunna, Rachael Reeves, Tristram Hunt, Emma Reynolds, Jamie Reed and Liz Kendall have all resigned. I wonder how many more will follow suit.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 12, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			7 resignations already from what are being called senior MP's saying they cannot serve under Jeremy Corbyn. Looks like things aren't quite as rosy in the Labour garden as some on here want to believe. Yvette Cooper, Chuka Umunna, Rachael Reeves, Tristram Hunt, Emma Reynolds, Jamie Reed and Liz Kendall have all resigned. I wonder how many more will follow suit.
		
Click to expand...

They are all wolves in sheeps clothing.......well the ones that I have heard of anyway.

Reminds me of the proud mother at the march past........'oh look, they are all out of step except my John.'


----------



## jp5 (Sep 12, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			7 resignations already from what are being called senior MP's saying they cannot serve under Jeremy Corbyn. Looks like things aren't quite as rosy in the Labour garden as some on here want to believe. Yvette Cooper, Chuka Umunna, Rachael Reeves, Tristram Hunt, Emma Reynolds, Jamie Reed and Liz Kendall have all resigned. I wonder how many more will follow suit.
		
Click to expand...

A handful of MPs resigning from their shadow cabinet posts is pretty minor compared to the 200,000 new party members since the 2015GE - most of which will have joined to support JC.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 12, 2015)

jp5 said:



			A handful of MPs resigning from their shadow cabinet posts is pretty minor compared to the 200,000 new party members since the 2015GE - most of which will have joined to support JC.
		
Click to expand...

How many of them were people joining just to get Corbyn in ?


----------



## jp5 (Sep 12, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			How many of them were people joining just to get Corbyn in ?
		
Click to expand...

The 'infiltrators' were a very small number that ended up wasting their time and money.

The rest - genuine supporters I imagine.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 12, 2015)

jp5 said:



			The 'infiltrators' were a very small number that ended up wasting their time and money.

The rest - genuine supporters I imagine.
		
Click to expand...

You imagine ? 

Would ask why those supporters weren't around earlier when Labour needed them 

I'm very suspicious as the Tories now have a free run at the next election as Corbyn is unelectable as a PM


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 12, 2015)

jp5 said:



			The 'infiltrators' were a very small number that ended up wasting their time and money.

The rest - genuine supporters I imagine.
		
Click to expand...

Interested in how you know this as according to some in the party it was quite large.

Giving the fact that he will also now have to tow the unions line to maintain their support he will never lead the party as a PM.


----------



## jp5 (Sep 12, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You imagine ? 

Would ask why those supporters weren't around earlier when Labour needed them 

I'm very suspicious as the Tories now have a free run at the next election as Corbyn is unelectable as a PM
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps they didn't like the direction of the Labour party, but would support one lead by Corbyn?

Don't buy the unelectable line - Corbyn apparently was unelectable as Labour leader.

Also we don't know who will lead the Tories in 2020, or the state of the party. Boris could be leader. Economy might have stumbled. Etc. etc.


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 12, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Would ask why those supporters weren't around earlier when Labour needed them
		
Click to expand...


Perhaps this is the wake up call the party required...
An indication 'the rank and file' were not happy with the direction the party was taking...

Easy to say Corbyn is unelectable...
Not that long ago many would have argued he didn't stand a chance in the contest he has, more or less, just romped away with...


----------



## jp5 (Sep 12, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Interested in how you know this as according to some in the party it was quite large.

Giving the fact that he will also now have to tow the unions line to maintain their support he will never lead the party as a PM.
		
Click to expand...

It's all relative isn't it. Over 500,000 voters, the number of marauders will have been very small.

Compared to the number of grown ups that anyone would expect to be pathetic enough to engage in such a practice, I imagine it would be described as a high number.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 12, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Perhaps they didn't like the direction of the Labour party, but would support one lead by Corbyn?

Don't buy the unelectable line - Corbyn apparently was unelectable as Labour leader.

Also we don't know who will lead the Tories in 2020, or the state of the party. Boris could be leader. Economy might have stumbled. Etc. etc.
		
Click to expand...

All clutching at straws really though isn't it 

Can anyone on here bar the far left Labour supporters see Corbyn as PM ? Really ? 


Corbyn got in because of those "200,000" Â£3 votes.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 12, 2015)

ger147 said:



			As long as you believe that, that's all that counts...
		
Click to expand...

I said I think Corbyn at PMQs will show Cameron up for what he is; but that maybe Corbyn doesn't think it necessary or worthwhile doing PMQs all the time.  Whats contradictory about that?


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 12, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I said I think Corbyn at PMQs will show Cameron up for what he is; but that maybe Corbyn doesn't think it necessary or worthwhile doing PMQs all the time.  Whats contradictory about that?
		
Click to expand...

Might as well cancel it altogether then. Pointless in making him accountable for what he says then.  Apart from the budget it's the only time that anyone hears from an opposition leader. It's a chance for him to get his points across - or is it that his advisers don't want him to get HIS points across for fear of what he might say.


----------



## jp5 (Sep 12, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			All clutching at straws really though isn't it 

Can anyone on here bar the far left Labour supporters see Corbyn as PM ? Really ? 


Corbyn got in because of those "200,000" Â£3 votes.
		
Click to expand...

Did you actually look at the results? He nearly won 50% outright on full member votes.

And not clutching at straws at all - what brings down governments? "Events, dear boy"


----------



## ger147 (Sep 12, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I said I think Corbyn at PMQs will show Cameron up for what he is; but that maybe Corbyn doesn't think it necessary or worthwhile doing PMQs all the time.  Whats contradictory about that?
		
Click to expand...

Spinning around so fast has obviously left you a little confused. I suggest a wee lie down.


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 12, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Can anyone on here bar the far left Labour supporters see Corbyn as PM ? Really ?
		
Click to expand...


About as likely as DaveCam stepping down ahead of the next election [as he keeps promising]...

Jezza will be 70+ by time of the next election so unlikely to be leading the party...
However this should be the wake up call the party needs with where it is heading...

And yes please to a snap election...
Momentum is a good thing in politics...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 12, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Did you actually look at the results? He nearly won 50% outright on full member votes.

And not clutching at straws at all - what brings down governments? "Events, dear boy"
		
Click to expand...


Would need some catastrophic event for people to even think about having Corbyn as PM.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 12, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			About as likely as DaveCam stepping down ahead of the next election [as he keeps promising]...

Jezza will be 70+ by time of the next election so unlikely to be leading the party...
However this should be the wake up call the party needs with where it is heading...

And yes please to a snap election...
Momentum is a good thing in politics...
		
Click to expand...

I can't see a reason why the Tories would even contemplate a snap election


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 12, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Would need some catastrophic event for people to even think about having Corbyn as PM.
		
Click to expand...

Did some on here not call him unelectable as Labour leader.
As said, political momentum is a strange thing, ask Jim Murphy?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 12, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I can't see a reason why the Tories would even contemplate a snap election
		
Click to expand...

Arghhhhhhhhhh, you cannot have a snap election nowadays.
Do you politicos not know the rules.


----------



## ger147 (Sep 12, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I can't see a reason why the Tories would even contemplate a snap election
		
Click to expand...

They would need to change the law first since the Fixed Term Parliaments Act of 2011.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 12, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			All clutching at straws really though isn't it 


Corbyn got in because of those "200,000" Â£3 votes.
		
Click to expand...

He did not
Read the result and stop guessing to suit your political orientation.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 12, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Did some on here not call him unelectable as Labour leader.
As said, political momentum is a strange thing, ask Jim Murphy?
		
Click to expand...

I have no idea what some called him on here.

He won't be PM - the Tories have been secured another election victory


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 12, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			He did not
Read the result and *stop guessing to suit your political orentation.*

Click to expand...


Coming from you that must be compliment 

That's what you have been doing for the past two years.

*An overwhelming 85% of people who signed up as affiliated supporters for Â£3 voted for Mr Corbyn - but he also topped the ballot among party members and trade unionists.
*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34223157


----------



## c1973 (Sep 12, 2015)

I've not read today's posts yet.........how long did it take him to turn/attempt to turn it into another SNP/independence debate?


----------



## ger147 (Sep 12, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Coming from you that must be compliment 

That's what you have been doing for the past two years.

*An overwhelming 85% of people who signed up as affiliated supporters for Â£3 voted for Mr Corbyn - but he also topped the ballot among party members and trade unionists.
*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34223157

Click to expand...

If you discount the new Registered Supporters category, he still got 51.4% so would still have won in the 1st round.


----------



## Imurg (Sep 12, 2015)

I just find it quite interesting that the Labour Party have backed Corbyn with nigh on 60% of the vote - a guy who in his 30 odd years as an MP has rarely voted with his Party, has stayed firmly on the back benches, has never "lead" anything,  seems to have spent a lot of his time associating with dubious groups/people and will be 70 come the next election.........

Let's see how he does when the dust settles.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 12, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			7 resignations already from what are being called senior MP's saying they cannot serve under Jeremy Corbyn. Looks like things aren't quite as rosy in the Labour garden as some on here want to believe. Yvette Cooper, Chuka Umunna, Rachael Reeves, Tristram Hunt, Emma Reynolds, Jamie Reed and Liz Kendall have all resigned. I wonder how many more will follow suit.
		
Click to expand...

And now the shadow chancellor Chris Leslie has gone as well taking the number to 8 resignations. I can only imagine the glee from Labour supporters if this was happening to the Conservatives. Constant predictions from some on here of the Tories tearing themselves apart. Looks like Labour are going to beat them to it.


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 12, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			And now the shadow chancellor Chris Leslie has gone as well taking the number to 8 resignations. I can only imagine the glee from Labour supporters if this was happening to the Conservatives. Constant predictions from some on here of the Tories tearing themselves apart. Looks like Labour are going to beat them to it.
		
Click to expand...

There is almost always some blood letting following a leadership election...

Bit disappointed in 1 or 2 that have chosen to leave the fold but there'll be plenty willing to take their place...

Onward and upward...


----------



## c1973 (Sep 12, 2015)

No doubt 'socialist' Dianne Abbott will pop up in his shadow cabinet.

http://order-order.com/2014/12/22/d...00-of-licence-fee-payer-cash/#:X2ETr_jpyvwPVA


----------



## Sweep (Sep 12, 2015)

And to think, this is the party that just 4 months ago were telling us all they were centre left. Glad I wasn't fooled.


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 12, 2015)

Sweep said:



			And to think, this is the party that just 4 months ago were telling us all they were centre left. Glad I wasn't fooled.
		
Click to expand...


What they actually said was "We own the middle ground"...

That is marginally left of DaveCams mob...


----------



## chrisd (Sep 12, 2015)

An absolutely superb choice



For the Conservatives!


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 12, 2015)

One thing, that is for sure, no Aussie born media man is going to walk into Jezzas office and tell him what his policies will be...


----------



## jp5 (Sep 12, 2015)

chrisd said:



			An absolutely superb choice



For the Conservatives!
		
Click to expand...

You seem to have made that point once already?

And as before... JC is the only candidate that is dangerous to the Conservatives. The rest were unremarkable and would be beaten by anything with a blue rosette.

Why else would they have started on the propaganda wagon so early!


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 12, 2015)

jp5 said:



			You seem to have made that point once already?

And as before... *JC is the only candidate that is dangerous to the Conservatives.* The rest were unremarkable and would be beaten by anything with a blue rosette.

Why else would they have started on the propaganda wagon so early!
		
Click to expand...

Would be interested to hear why you think that. I have voted for both Tory and Labour in the past and could possibly see myself voting Labour again if any of the other three had won today but can't see myself ever voting for JC.


----------



## TheDiablo (Sep 12, 2015)

People who think Corbyn has even the slightest chance of being a PM have very short memories! You've only got to look back a few months!!

Bookies favourite, poll favourite Ed Milliband failed, because when it came down to it Middle England swing voters who decide in the last week looked at 2 things - 1) Who do I trust with my money? and 2) Which of the 2 options would make a good PM?

To have ANY chance whatsoever of winning the next election - these were the voters that Labour need to win back. Absolutely no chance of that with Corbyn! I'd be amazed if he made it more than 3 years. Good luck to him though, it will certainly make politics more interesting over the next year or so.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 12, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Would be interested to hear why you think that. I have voted for both Tory and Labour in the past and could possibly see myself voting Labour again if any of the other three had won today but can't see myself ever voting for JC.
		
Click to expand...

Ditto. I've probably voted Lab more than Con, but it's going to take something very special before I vote for them whilst he's at the helm.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 12, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Coming from you that must be compliment 

That's what you have been doing for the past two years.

*An overwhelming 85% of people who signed up as affiliated supporters for Â£3 voted for Mr Corbyn - but he also topped the ballot among party members and trade unionists.
*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34223157

Click to expand...

I might suggest that many of the affiliated supporters voted because they could do it on line. Get them to walk down to a polling station might be a tad more difficult.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 12, 2015)

Well it didn't take long for the right wing press to start going after JC.........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oosted-Corbyn-s-campaign-coffers-100-000.html


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 12, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Well it didn't take long for the right wing press to start going after JC.........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oosted-Corbyn-s-campaign-coffers-100-000.html

Click to expand...

You must have heard the speech, the media are just picking on him and his friends.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 12, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			I might suggest that many of the affiliated supporters voted because they could do it on line. Get them to walk down to a polling station might be a tad more difficult.
		
Click to expand...

Looks like you missed post # 633


----------



## c1973 (Sep 12, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Well it didn't take long for the right wing press to start going after JC.........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oosted-Corbyn-s-campaign-coffers-100-000.html

Click to expand...

No doubt the spin doctors will be hard at work to put him in a positive light over this.............if there's any left that will work with him that is. 

Sandinista?   It was a decent album.


----------



## The Green Fairy (Sep 12, 2015)

Storm in a tea cup - after all it is just the elected opposition leader to 'The Management'

Which, quite honestly, in these times means absolutely nothing.

Nothing to see here, move along please.


----------



## freddielong (Sep 13, 2015)

A move back to old labour and old labour socialist views, the ones they had to abandon in order to be elected.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 13, 2015)

freddielong said:



			A move back to old labour and old labour socialist views, the ones they had to abandon in order to be elected.
		
Click to expand...

If so many think that, and I'm one of them, why do they keep repeating the same mistake - seem to remember Michael Foot was in his late 60's when he was chosen to lead Labour. I well remember Labour drifting towards the far left in the late 70's and early 80's. That saw a number of MP's leave, 4 of which helped form the SDP. Groundhog day?


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 13, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Looks like you missed post # 633
		
Click to expand...

No, just suggesting that if it came down to vote for anything significant (like an election) a fair few wouldn't bother their arrse.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 13, 2015)

JC seems to have stirred up a bit of fairly desperate Tory comments on here.
How many times have we heard Michael Foot being quoted, he has about as much reference to the debate as Sir Alex Douglas Home.
That was half a century ago.

JC will win back Labour seats in Scotland and Wales, if he can also retain Milliband's recent effort in the English cities he will be a player.
He seems to have energised the youth of England and Wales, something that has not happened in my lifetime.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 13, 2015)

Like the muppet before him, without the union block votes he wouldn't be there. Cannot even muster the support or respect of the sitting MPs. How does he expect to lead.


----------



## Fish (Sep 13, 2015)

I think for as many new followers he may win, he will equally lose just as many, if not more.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 13, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Like the muppet before him, without the union block votes he wouldn't be there. Cannot even muster the support or respect of the sitting MPs. How does he expect to lead.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps by mustering nearly 60% of the membership votes:lol:
The people have spoken, not the MP's


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 13, 2015)

TheDiablo said:



			To have ANY chance whatsoever of winning the next election - these were the voters that Labour need to win back. Absolutely no chance of that with Corbyn! I'd be amazed if he made it more than 3 years. Good luck to him though, it will certainly make politics more interesting over the next year or so.
		
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. If he gets the millions who didn't vote due to disillusionment with bland politicians pushing very similar policies, he might mount a challenge even without regaining those lost votes.


----------



## delc (Sep 13, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Perhaps by mustering nearly 60% of the membership votes:lol:
The people have spoken, not the MP's
		
Click to expand...

But not 60% of the whole population. Labour activists only make up a tiny proportion of the UK population, and their views are at odds with the generally aspirational majority, who don't want socialist ideals and the country flooded with immigrants!


----------



## jp5 (Sep 13, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Would be interested to hear why you think that. I have voted for both Tory and Labour in the past and could possibly see myself voting Labour again if any of the other three had won today but can't see myself ever voting for JC.
		
Click to expand...

I see JC as having the potential to both lose and gain a large number of supporters. The interesting thing to see will be whether he can do the latter without so much of the former.

I don't see any of the others being able to garner that level of support. Watched a few hustings and didn't seem to me to be much alternative to the Tories - so if I was a swing voter having voted Conservative, there wouldn't be much to attract me back to the other side.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 13, 2015)

Labour need Milliband back.


----------



## jp5 (Sep 13, 2015)

delc said:



			But not 60% of the whole population. Labour activists only make up a tiny proportion of the UK population, and their views are at odds with the generally aspirational majority, who don't want socialist ideals and the country flooded with immigrants!
		
Click to expand...

How are those net migration figures looking currently?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 13, 2015)

jp5 said:



			I see JC as having the potential to both lose and gain a large number of supporters. The interesting thing to see will be whether he can do the latter without so much of the former.

I don't see any of the others being able to garner that level of support. Watched a few hustings and didn't seem to me to be much alternative to the Tories - so if I was a swing voter having voted Conservative, there wouldn't be much to attract me back to the other side.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with this. He might be a disaster, it's true, but far too early to write him off.


----------



## delc (Sep 13, 2015)

jp5 said:



			How are those net migration figures looking currently?
		
Click to expand...

Not good, but that is largely due to the war activities of Tony Blair a few years ago!  Without those, we probably wouldn't now have Islamic State, etc!


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 13, 2015)

delc said:



			Not good, but that is largely due to the war activities of Tony Blair a few years ago!  Without those, we probably won't have Islamic State, etc!
		
Click to expand...

Amazing that after 6 years of Tory rule some still think they can blame labour for all the country's problems.


----------



## jp5 (Sep 13, 2015)

delc said:



			Not good, but that is largely due to the war activities of Tony Blair a few years ago!  Without those, we probably wouldn't now have Islamic State, etc!
		
Click to expand...

Think you probably need to put down the Daily Mail - you're getting a few concepts mixed up in your head.


----------



## delc (Sep 13, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Amazing that after 6 years of Tory rule some still think they can blame labour for all the country's problems.
		
Click to expand...

All the opponents of the Iraq War, including myself, pointed out that attacking a Muslim country was likely to produce a terrorist backlash. We have been proved right in Spades!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 13, 2015)

delc said:



			But not 60% of the whole population. Labour activists only make up a tiny proportion of the UK population, and their views are at odds with the generally aspirational majority, who don't want socialist ideals and the country flooded with immigrants!
		
Click to expand...

I think that Labour now have more members than ever, and, as I am sure you know, only Labour members can vote in a Labour election.
If aspirational mean greedy and uncaring perhaps that is why Corbyn is so strongly supported.

BTW I think you are right about the Iraq war, Bush jnr and Blair are responsible for much of the current problems.


----------



## delc (Sep 13, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I think that Labour now have more members than ever, and, as I am sure you know, only Labour members can vote in a Labour election.
If aspirational mean greedy and uncaring perhaps that is why Corbyn is so strongly supported.

BTW I think you are right about the Iraq war, Bush jnr and Blair are responsible for much of the current problems.
		
Click to expand...

Aspirational means working hard and earning good money, not scrounging off The State!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 13, 2015)

ger147 said:



			Spinning around so fast has obviously left you a little confused. I suggest a wee lie down.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry - but you've lost me.  You don't have to be at PMQs every time to show someone up when you are.  You are going to have to explain the 'spinning around' in that rather than just say it please.


----------



## ger147 (Sep 13, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Sorry - but you've lost me.  You don't have to be at PMQs every time to show someone up when you are.  You are going to have to explain the 'spinning around' in that rather than just say it please.
		
Click to expand...

No I don't.

Now let's not derail everyone else's thread because you insist on having the last word.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 13, 2015)

ger147 said:



			No I don't.

Now let's not derail everyone else's thread because you insist on having the last word.
		
Click to expand...

OK - you've had it


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 13, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Perhaps by mustering nearly 60% of the membership votes:lol:
The people have spoken, not the MP's
		
Click to expand...

And how many of the 60% came from union block votes


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 13, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I think that Labour now have more members than ever, and, as I am sure you know, only Labour members can vote in a Labour election.
		
Click to expand...

Not true, the Â£3 mob are not members of the Labour Party and can still vote on Labour matters.  Not sure where you had your info from.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 13, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Sorry - but you've lost me.  You don't have to be at PMQs every time to show someone up when you are.  You are going to have to explain the 'spinning around' in that rather than just say it please.
		
Click to expand...

Let's not worry about PMQs, if Corbyn has his way he would get rid of it. He's so worried about it that he has asked for next weeks to be cancelled.

Great leader.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 13, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			And how many of the 60% came from union block votes
		
Click to expand...

Er....None!

Direct influence by Unions in the Leadership Election process was eliminated 18 months ago!


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 13, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			Er....None!
		
Click to expand...

So they didn't use their block vote as they did to ensure David Miliband binned. Good to hear. :lol:


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 13, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			Er....None!

Direct influence by Unions in the Leadership Election process was eliminated 18 months ago!
		
Click to expand...

I take it you listened to his acceptance speech.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 13, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			So they didn't use their block vote as they did to ensure David Miliband got in. Good to hear. :lol:
		
Click to expand...

You seem confused! Try 'Ed'!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2015

Check out the 'Procedure' section!


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 13, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			You seem confused! Try 'Ed'!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2015

Check out the 'Procedure' section!
		
Click to expand...

Not confused finger trouble - the union block vault made sure DAVID lost.

Im presume you are basing your assumptions on Wiki not the relevant part of Corbyns speech specifically referring to all the support help and assistance that the various unions gave him.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 13, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Not confused finger trouble - the union block vault made sure DAVID lost.

Im presume you are basing your assumptions on Wiki not the relevant part of Corbyns speech specifically referring to all the support help and assistance that the various unions gave him.
		
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with his speech!

You posted 'Union block vote' which no longer exists in Leadership Election process.

More finger trouble? Or simply the inability to admit to being wrong! Or (more sinister) knowingly misleading!


----------



## c1973 (Sep 13, 2015)

I think old skier might be alluding to union support influencing union/party members in their choice. 

Might be wrong though.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 13, 2015)

c1973 said:



			I think old skier might be alluding to union support influencing union/party members in their choice. 

Might be wrong though.
		
Click to expand...

Correct, on labour issues it is my understanding that members can sign their vote over to the union (as they do in congress ) to use as the union exec sees fit.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 13, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Correct, on labour issues it is my understanding that members can sign their vote over to the union (as they do in congress ) to use as the union exec sees fit.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure tbh.  

Not paid any attention to union correspondence on this one, been too busy with other projects, that, coupled with no desire to see any of the 4 candidates leading the party has led to me switching off a little.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 13, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			Nothing to do with his speech!

You posted 'Union block vote' which no longer exists in Leadership Election process.

More finger trouble? Or simply the inability to admit to being wrong! Or (more sinister) knowingly misleading!
		
Click to expand...

If im wrong I'm wrong.  It is my understanding that most on here are sensible adults with the ability to make up their own mind so I don't understand why I would be accused of misleading anyone.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 13, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Correct, on labour issues it is my understanding that members can sign their vote over to the union (as they do in congress ) to use as the union exec sees fit.
		
Click to expand...

That would be a 'proxy vote', not a 'block' one.

Didn't exist for the Leadership Election. You *are* confused!


----------



## c1973 (Sep 13, 2015)

It's a sign of the times that the left wing Labour, man of the people, poster boy has never done a days work in his life outside of politics. Well, he done a wee bit of voluntary work for a year or two.......I'll give him that.


Point being. He is just another full time politician that is out of touch with the reality of working and struggling. 
I'd rather Labour were led by a geezer that knew what it was like to choose between paying the 'leccy bill or eating for that week. One that had struggled but worked hard and got on in life, improving his station but still with a knowledge of hardship and what it's like. 

What do we get?  Another poncey, student and full time politico. 

Like I say, sign of the times.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 13, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			That would be a 'proxy vote', not a 'block' one.

Didn't exist for the Leadership Election. You *are* confused!
		
Click to expand...

And it states that where. It's not in your Wiki doc, something that can be edited by anyone by the way.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 13, 2015)

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-experts/#more-75409

Rate the experts in the UK press.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 13, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-experts/#more-75409

Rate the experts in the UK press.

Click to expand...

Good one they all add up with the "not in this generation" quote by a certain individual up amongst the greats. :lol:


----------



## chrisd (Sep 13, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-experts/#more-75409

Rate the experts in the UK press.

Click to expand...

Who gives a stuff - the best result since Michael Foot!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 13, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Good one they all add up with the "not in this generation" quote by a certain individual up amongst the greats. :lol:
		
Click to expand...

You seem to be obsessed with Nicola Sturgeon.

BTW the post was about the intelligence level and foresight of some British journalists and politicians.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 13, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			You seem to be obsessed with Nicola Sturgeon.

BTW the post was about the intelligence level and foresight of some British journalists and politicians.
		
Click to expand...

I never mentioned her or even indicated it was her, which it wasn't.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 13, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			And it states that where. It's not in your Wiki doc, something that can be edited by anyone by the way.
		
Click to expand...

It doesn't state it because (just like all sorts of other things that it doesn't state) it doesn't exist! Same applies to any/all the other sources for the procedure!

And the fact that Wiki can be edited by anyone means that, at least after a short period, it's likely to be both spot on for accuracy (or with disclaimer/notes) and up-to-date. Lydia Ko's win from today is already on there; I'd bet the Wiki entry for the Walker Cup gets updated before midnight tonight!

While Unions have block votes at some arts of the Labour Party, there is no longer a 'Union block vote' for the Leadership!


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 13, 2015)

Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 13, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			I never mentioned her or even indicated it was her, which it wasn't.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps you might want to comment on the post now rather than try to hijack it ?


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 13, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Perhaps you might want to comment on the post now rather than try to hijack it ?
		
Click to expand...

Your the expert.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 13, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Your the expert.
		
Click to expand...

That's a no then.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 13, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			That's a no then.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure as I don't have a scoobie about what your point is.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 13, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Not sure as I don't have a scoobie about what your point is.
		
Click to expand...

Shall I help you out.
Post 690
I asked to rate the accuracy of the British press/ politicians comments on Corbyn.

You replied, true to form, with your usual anti SNP thingy.
It was nothing to do with the post.
The Wings site probably confused you and set you on automatic pilot.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 13, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Shall I help you out.
The Wings site probably confused you and set you on automatic pilot.
		
Click to expand...

Yep it did as the stuff you publish doesn't normally bother with democracy and British politics .

Anyway must watch another Scot now on the red button.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 13, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Yep it did as the stuff you publish doesn't normally bother with democracy and British politics .
		
Click to expand...

Aye right.
Last time i looked Scotland, Wales and Yorkshire were still part of Britian.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 13, 2015)

Will there be any MP's left for him to form a shadow cabinet


----------



## chippa1909 (Sep 13, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I can't see a reason why the Tories would even contemplate a snap election
		
Click to expand...

Snap election can't happen due to the fixed term parliament act 2011.


----------



## Imurg (Sep 13, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Will there be any MP's left for him to form a shadow cabinet
		
Click to expand...

Hope they have enough room on those back benches........


----------



## delc (Sep 14, 2015)

c1973 said:



			Labour need Milliband back.
		
Click to expand...

Which one? Ed was a disaster, so I can only assume you mean David!


----------



## jp5 (Sep 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Will there be any MP's left for him to form a shadow cabinet
		
Click to expand...

Only 200-odd to choose from, let's not be overly dramatic now.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 14, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Only 200-odd to choose from, let's not be overly dramatic now.
		
Click to expand...

So it's not an issue that multiple MP's turning down roles in the shadow cabinet then ? 

Well he does have Diane Abbott I understand - her past makes interesting reading - Labour are getting more and more electable as the days go by


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 14, 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn going to be 'saviour of the Union' as he pulls Scottish lefties back to Labour from the SNP; halts the march of the SNP; and so in 2020 Labour get a load of their MPs back from the SNP and the SNP power wanes; with their high point being the present.  Cameron will be ever grateful


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 14, 2015)

Don't forget that Scottish Labour/Labour are in their present pickle because London head office told them to vote No.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 14, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Don't forget that Scottish Labour/Labour are in their present pickle because London head office told them to vote No.
		
Click to expand...

So is JC the Fairy Godfather to Kezia Dugdale, the Fairy Godfather who will help KD break the spell that the wicked witch Nicola has cast over much of the Scottish electorate.  Indeed will JC bother or have the time,  as he will be so tied up sorting out Westminster Labour?  And even if he did offer KD limitless support would she accept it?


----------



## c1973 (Sep 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So it's not an issue that multiple MP's turning down roles in the shadow cabinet then ? 

*Well he does have Diane Abbott* I understand - her past makes interesting reading - Labour are getting more and more electable as the days go by
		
Click to expand...

Frightening. 

It doesn't get much better when you look at comments attributed to Corbyn and some of those who support him (John McDonnell in particular) and are now our 'shadow Government'. 

They might attract those that can't see past the headlines, but I'd be worried if these clowns get a chance at running the UK. 


Looks like I need to have a good long think about who I'll be voting for in the foreseeable future.  My union membership may well be falling by the wayside as well. 
A great pity, I had hoped this particular strain of the Labour movement had been consigned to history.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 14, 2015)

I'm loving the way that they made a big deal about him cycling everywhere and not having a car................whilst he clambers into the back of a black cab!!  





Has Wolfie Smith been handed a cabinet position yet?


----------



## jp5 (Sep 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So it's not an issue that multiple MP's turning down roles in the shadow cabinet then ? 

Well he does have Diane Abbott I understand - her past makes interesting reading - Labour are getting more and more electable as the days go by
		
Click to expand...

Nah, possibly the most unsurprising thing I've ever heard. Of course there are MPs that don't want to be associated with Corbyn - that's part of his charm to the 60% of the Labour party that voted for him.

And Abbott is a bit of a nutcase, but then again you'd probably be hard pushed to throw a net in the commons and not catch someone who's barmy.


----------



## jp5 (Sep 14, 2015)

c1973 said:



			I'm loving the way that they made a big deal about him cycling everywhere and not having a car................whilst he clambers into the back of a black cab!!  



Click to expand...

Probably got fed up of being harassed by journalists... and who can blame him!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 14, 2015)

Angela Eagle was very impressive when I watched her being interviewed by the EVEL select committee. I think she will go far, maybees next PM.

Can't say the same about Chris Grayling, what a smug, arrogant piece of doggies doings he is.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 14, 2015)

c1973 said:



			I'm loving the way that they made a big deal about him cycling everywhere and not having a car................whilst he clambers into the back of a black cab!!  





Has Wolfie Smith been handed a cabinet position yet?
		
Click to expand...

Security...as he is PM in waiting:lol:

 Woolfie Smith .....40 years ago...goodness you do go a long way backwards sometimes.
Most on here will not have a clue.


----------



## Sweep (Sep 14, 2015)

What a fine man we have in our new Shadow Chancellor. It appears he once said he would like to assassinate Margaret Thatcher and that the IRA should be commended for their bravery. So Labour wants us to vote a man who advocates murder of those you disagree with and supports terrorists who try to kill our armed forces and innocent civilians into number 11 Downing Street. I can't really see him having much to say on ISIS, but if he does he can't possibly be treated as credible, unless of course he speaks out in their support, which wouldn't actually surprise me. He says the economy will be safe in his hands, but it appears his only qualification for the job is that he is Jeremy Corbyn's mate.
Seriously, I know there are those who would vote Labour if they put a monkey up for election, but anyone who casts a vote for this lot needs their head testing. The fact that the Labour Party have actually elected Corbyn as their leader really does beggar belief. They really are the laughing stock of British politics.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 14, 2015)

Seems another interesting choice as chancellor ?!

Is it all some big wind up ?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 14, 2015)

Of course the flip side to Corbyn - him of the leftie inclination and hence potentially attractive to leftie Scottish voters - is that a split and chaotic labour party plays into wicked Queen Nicola's hands.  She can simply cast her withering gaze southwards and point out that with an opposition in Westminster like _that_, then what point voting Scottish Labour when Labour haven't a hope in hades chance of winning a Westminster GE - for how long?  Next election? - one after that?  Maybe not even that.  So could be 2025 - maybe 2030 before the next Labour Government.


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 14, 2015)

Sweep said:



			Seriously, I know there are those who would vote Labour if they put a monkey up for election,
		
Click to expand...


Seriously, I know there are those who would vote Conservative if they put a monkey up for election...
Only possible explanation for the MP I have...


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 14, 2015)

Neil Hamilton, Anne Winterton, Nicholas Winterton. Three of the most repulsive MP's we have ever seen, all close to each other in the heartland of Tory Cheshire back in the day. All 3 were repeatedly voted in by their constituents. Up here in the NE we have utterly inept MP's with red rossettes. Both parties will have nailed on seats where no matter how awful or inept the MP people will keep on voting for them.

Neil Hamilton was my MP for a while and I would happily have campaigned for any monkey that stood against him.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 14, 2015)

The trouble is you'll never get a candidate or political party whose views entirely match your own. You need to pick the best match based on your subjective view of how their beliefs and policies align to your own.

Labour certainly didn't excite me last time round but they got my vote because all the other options were so unpalatable to me.

Next time, who knows, I don't see the tories or SNP becoming any less despicable so the question is will Corbyn make Labour more or less appealing.

Looking at this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34209478

I'd have to say I agree with most of the 24 points on this list. But I also disagree strongly on some of them. So it's a case of wait and see, which seems a rational point of view that any "floating" voter should take.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 14, 2015)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Neil Hamilton, Anne Winterton, Nicholas Winterton. Three of the most repulsive MP's we have ever seen, all close to each other in the heartland of Tory Cheshire back in the day. All 3 were repeatedly voted in by their constituents. Up here in the NE we have utterly inept MP's with red rossettes. Both parties will have nailed on seats where no matter how awful or inept the MP people will keep on voting for them.

Neil Hamilton was my MP for a while and I would happily have campaigned for any monkey that stood against him.
		
Click to expand...

Which is rather like the Scottish Labour MPs - voted in - election after GE - until - en masse they weren't.  You'd have thought they'd have spotted the tsunami coming - but denial is a strong emotion.  Perhaps as the Indy referendum defeat was seen as being the beginning of the end of the SNP...this election of Corbyn to leader of Labour...


----------



## Hacker Khan (Sep 14, 2015)

He is a man with principals and he sticks to them, which is to be applauded in a modern politician. But once the Tory propaganda machine, ie most of the written press, gets on his case he will stand no chance of election.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 14, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Probably got fed up of being harassed by journalists... and who can blame him!
		
Click to expand...

So, he's not being just a wee bit smug yet hypocritical at the same time, nah? 


'Look at me I'm ever so green.........Ill just get a taxi to travel over here to pick me up and then go where I'm going'.       
More environmentally friendly to take a car in the first place!


----------



## c1973 (Sep 14, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Security...as he is PM in waiting:lol:

 Woolfie Smith .....40 years ago...goodness you do go a long way backwards sometimes.
Most on here will not have a clue.
		
Click to expand...

Well his politics are from 40yrs back, I kinda felt it was appropriate.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 14, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



*The trouble is you'll never get a candidate or political party whose views entirely match your own. You need to pick the best match based on your subjective view of how their beliefs and policies align to your own.*

Labour certainly didn't excite me last time round but they got my vote because all the other options were so unpalatable to me.

Next time, who knows, I don't see the tories or SNP becoming any less despicable so the question is will Corbyn make Labour more or less appealing.

Looking at this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34209478

I'd have to say I agree with most of the 24 points on this list. But I also disagree strongly on some of them. So it's a case of wait and see, which seems a rational point of view that any "floating" voter should take.
		
Click to expand...


100% agree. 

But I'll never vote for republicans that praised the murdering scumbags that terrorised and killed innocent UK citizens........I'd like to think that would be a red line for any sane minded individual to be perfectly frank.

I'd vote Conservative just to keep them out of power.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 14, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			He is a man with principals and he sticks to them, which is to be applauded in a modern politician. But once the Tory propaganda machine, ie most of the written press, gets on his case he will stand no chance of election.
		
Click to expand...


Good.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 14, 2015)

c1973 said:



			But I'll never vote for republicans that praised the murdering scumbags that terrorised and killed innocent UK citizens........I'd like to think that would be a red line for any sane minded individual to be perfectly frank.
		
Click to expand...

This has been alluded to quite a lot but I must admit that I don't know the truth of it. I'd like to see not only precisely what was said but also understand the context before forming an opinion.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 14, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			This has been alluded to quite a lot but I must admit that I don't know the truth of it. I'd like to see not only precisely what was said but also understand the context before forming an opinion.
		
Click to expand...

From the BBC website.

There were controversies along the way - in 2003 he told a gathering to commemorate the IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands: "It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table."


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 14, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			This has been alluded to quite a lot but I must admit that I don't know the truth of it. I'd like to see not only precisely what was said but also understand the context before forming an opinion.
		
Click to expand...

Here's quote from his now No 2

It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA." He later said that the "deaths of innocent civilians in IRA attacks is a real tragedy, but it was as a result of British occupation in Ireland. Because of the bravery of the IRA and people like Bobby Sands we now have a peace process.[SUP][12][/SUP]


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 14, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Here's quote from his now No 2

It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA." He later said that the "deaths of innocent civilians in IRA attacks is a real tragedy, but it was as a result of British occupation in Ireland. Because of the bravery of the IRA and people like Bobby Sands we now have a peace process.[SUP][12][/SUP]
		
Click to expand...

I wonder where that quote came from! :rofl:

While abhoring the use of terror by the IRA (and others), there's a certain amount of truth about the statement! Would there have been anything like the progress towards unification otherwise? I can't believe there would have!


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 14, 2015)

Yeah, that's pretty bad.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 14, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			This has been alluded to quite a lot but I must admit that I don't know the truth of it. I'd like to see not only precisely what was said but also understand the context before forming an opinion.
		
Click to expand...

There's lots of reported stuff out there in cyberland. The problem is deciphering fact from fiction. I support his view on getting around a table with the various factions where there's a conflict but would question why he legitmizes some of the more extreme organisations by inviting their supporters to speak at rallies. The UK Govt, both Labour and Cons has had a clear foriegn policy yet he's continued to fly in the face of those policies.

He clearly supports Hamas and Hezbollah, yet won't invite politicians from Isreal to respond. He argued for Iran to continue its nuclear programme yet argues that Isreal must stop their's. He ignores the rights of the Falkland islanders in favour of shared ownership with Argentina. And wants to pull out of NATO and buddy up with Putin.

Hopefully I'll get the chance to vote again for a party with a socialist heart, but it won't be Labour whilst Corbyn is at the helm.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 14, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Yeah, that's pretty bad. 

Click to expand...

Yep. I thought so too. 

Inexcusable for me. Honouring murdering terrorists.........unbelievable, just unbelievable.


Edit: just so it's crystal clear. I'm referring to John McDonnell here.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 14, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			I wonder where that quote came from! :rofl:

While abhoring the use of terror by the IRA (and others), there's a certain amount of truth about the statement! Would there have been anything like the progress towards unification otherwise? I can't believe there would have!
		
Click to expand...

I thought you would appreciate it.

The rest of your post may in the future come to pass but there is still a generation of people in Britain who have to many raw memories, so IMHO politically it was a statement to far.  Oh and the fact that the police force in NI are still dealing with terrorist related incidents daily.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 14, 2015)

I liked this snippet, overhead by a beeb reporter, when the shadow cabinet was being chosen......

With John McDonnell as shadow chancellor, the top posts taken by men, one backbencher tweeted "Labour needed to be better than this," while another called the appointments "a disgrace".
Then, close to midnight, a new voice, we thought it could be Simon Fletcher: "We're taking a fair amount of **** out there about womenâ€¦ let's make Angelaâ€¦ shadow first minister of State, like Mandelson, she can do PMQsâ€¦ do the Angela bit now."
Then, as if on cue, a text from a Labour source: "Angela Eagle will be shadow First Secretary of State as well as Shadow Secretary for BIS. She will deputise for Jeremy Corbyn in PMQs when David Cameron is away."


So, apparently you don't get positions based on talent at all, it's all about perception..........We're getting flack for not having enough women, quick shove a woman into a decent position now.......ah, equal opportunities for all.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 15, 2015)

c1973 said:



			I liked this snippet, overhead by a beeb reporter, when the shadow cabinet was being chosen......

With John McDonnell as shadow chancellor, the top posts taken by men, one backbencher tweeted "Labour needed to be better than this," while another called the appointments "a disgrace".
Then, close to midnight, a new voice, we thought it could be Simon Fletcher: "We're taking a fair amount of **** out there about womenâ€¦ let's make Angelaâ€¦ shadow first minister of State, like Mandelson, she can do PMQsâ€¦ do the Angela bit now."
Then, as if on cue, a text from a Labour source: "Angela Eagle will be shadow First Secretary of State as well as Shadow Secretary for BIS. She will deputise for Jeremy Corbyn in PMQs when David Cameron is away."


So, apparently you don't get positions based on talent at all, it's all about perception..........We're getting flack for not having enough women, quick shove a woman into a decent position now.......ah, equal opportunities for all. 

Click to expand...

I would have thought any woman (or man for that matter) would be best avoiding a shadow cabinet post in what is going to be the most farcical of parties!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 15, 2015)

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
USA, South Africa, Israel, Republic of Ireland etc are just a few examples of states founded on 'terrorism'.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 15, 2015)

So you condone his comments then?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 15, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
USA, South Africa, Israel, Republic of Ireland etc are just a few examples of states founded on 'terrorism'.
		
Click to expand...

Does that make his comments ok then ?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 15, 2015)

Interesting to note the Labour Leadership Poll on my Scottish Fitba forum [started a couple of months ago] called the result Corbyn 67% Burnham 20% and the other two 7 and 6%.
These Scottish fitba fans really have turned into hard core politicos.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 15, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Does that make his comments ok then ?
		
Click to expand...

I guess as a backbencher who is a rebel would (and I'm not condoning it) be free to express his views, but now he's the head honcho it'll all come back to haunt him - and rightly so! I just wonder what the press will dig up over the coming weeks and months?? It's beyond the press's wildest dreams dos lets just sit back and enjoy the fun!


----------



## Spuddy (Sep 15, 2015)

To add to Doon's point.... Nelson Mandela was implicated in the deaths of many more people than Bobby Sands.  I wonder if there would be an uproar if any UK politician made similar comments about him.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 15, 2015)

I take it you'll condone his comments then?


Edit:  And whether we like it or not, the ira atrocities were a lot closer to home than Mandelas bombing of school busses, perhaps affecting people in the UK a lot more.

But it's a cracking piece of deflection from an extremely uncomfortable , unpalatable and imo unforgivable comment from a member of the shadow cabinet.


----------



## Spuddy (Sep 15, 2015)

c1973 said:



			I take it you'll condone his comments then?
		
Click to expand...

Is that a question to me?


----------



## c1973 (Sep 15, 2015)

Spuddy said:



			Is that a question to me?
		
Click to expand...

It was, yes.


----------



## delc (Sep 15, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Which is rather like the Scottish Labour MPs - voted in - election after GE - until - en masse they weren't.  You'd have thought they'd have spotted the tsunami coming - but denial is a strong emotion.  Perhaps as the Indy referendum defeat was seen as being the beginning of the end of the SNP...this election of Corbyn to leader of Labour...
		
Click to expand...

I could never understand why the Scots felt so hard done by, when all Labour Governments were really elected by the block vote in Scotland and there were always plenty of Scottish ministers. On the whole the Scots were much better represented than the other UK countries, AND they had their own Parliament as well. The Labour Party only lost the last election because they lost most of their seats in Scotland!


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Sep 15, 2015)

delc said:



			I could never understand why the Scots felt so hard done by, when all Labour Governments were really elected by the block vote in Scotland and there were always plenty of Scottish ministers. On the whole the Scots were much better represented than the other UK countries, AND they had their own Parliament as well. The Labour Party only lost the last election because they lost most of their seats in Scotland!
		
Click to expand...


Not accurate Del, even if they had won every seat in Scotland they would still be in opposition although granted in a stronger position.

However it is true that to get back into power, Labour need to regain all those SNP seats and win "Middle England". I  just dont see it happening under Corbyn


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 15, 2015)

delc said:



			I could never understand why the Scots felt so hard done by, when all Labour Governments were really elected by the block vote in Scotland and there were always plenty of Scottish ministers. On the whole the Scots were much better represented than the other UK countries, AND they had their own Parliament as well. The Labour Party only lost the last election because they lost most of their seats in Scotland!
		
Click to expand...

You're not wrong Delc. Scots whinging about being hard done by by successive Govts. Unless I'm much mistaken the previous Labour Govts were leds by Scots, and had a Scottish Chancellor... Blair/Brown/Darling. As for being hard done by? What did Labour ever do for northern England? Maybe there should be a Barnett Formula for northern England? But what about the midlands...? Ah, but the south east is paved with streets of gold. Yeh, right. But if it satisfies the woe is me brigade...


----------



## Spuddy (Sep 15, 2015)

c1973 said:



			It was, yes.
		
Click to expand...

He's perfectly entitled to his opinion, and there's plenty of people who would agree with him.  Personally, I think the murder of any 'non combatants', regardless of location is abhorrent.  I would rather reflect on history and learn from it rather than airbrush out the bits that don't fit with a certain image.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 15, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Does that make his comments ok then ?
		
Click to expand...

There is always two sides to every story.
Perhaps if you had been brought up in Bobby Sands neighbourhood you may have thought differently.
There was a lot of violence on both sides of that divide.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 15, 2015)

Spuddy said:



			He's perfectly entitled to his opinion, and there's plenty of people who would agree with him.  Personally, I think the murder of any 'non combatants', regardless of location is abhorrent.  I would rather reflect on history and learn from it rather than airbrush out the bits that don't fit with a certain image.
		
Click to expand...

Fair enough. At least you replied.

Non combatants?  One would assume from this that the murder (because it was murder) of UK soldiers was not abhorrent to you, or am I misreading your post? 

And I don't think you can airbrush the blowing up of supermarkets, pubs, town centres and killing of civilians to be honest. 

Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread too much, his thoughts and politics have been highlighted (as have some posters imo), which was in keeping with the main thrust of the thread.
Points have been made and countered (by some), so Ill let others draw their own conclusions on this particular matter.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 15, 2015)

Spuddy said:



			He's perfectly entitled to his opinion, and there's plenty of people who would agree with him.  Personally, I think the murder of any 'non combatants', regardless of location is abhorrent.  I would rather reflect on history and learn from it rather than airbrush out the bits that don't fit with a certain image.
		
Click to expand...

You would hope Labour would learn too. Returning to the left, where they went in the Kinnock and Foot years, may well see them have loud support from Union Executives but will it really garner support from the man in the street? It certainly didn't 30 years ago, and the UK 'enjoyed' years of Tory rule because of it.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 15, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			You would hope Labour would learn too. Returning to the left, where they went in the Kinnock and Foot years, may well see them have loud support from Union Executives but will it really garner support from the man in the street? It certainly didn't 30 years ago, and the UK 'enjoyed' years of Tory rule because of it.
		
Click to expand...

The past appears to have been lost on some with regards to the loony left of Labour imo. 
Perhaps they are too young to remember and are still idealistic, or they may be remnants of the Trotskyist or militant fringe that should have been knocked into touch  by now. Who knows, but I actually feel ashamed to be a Labour supporter when I look at who is in charge of the party today.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 15, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			There is always two sides to every story.
Perhaps if you had been brought up in Bobby Sands neighbourhood you may have thought differently.
There was a lot of violence on both sides of that divide.
		
Click to expand...

Two wrongs don't make a right, especially if violence is involved. I'm genuinely disappointed in you Doon. Irrespective of your political views I thought you would at least condemn violence.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 15, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			There is always two sides to every story.
Perhaps if you had been brought up in Bobby Sands neighbourhood you may have thought differently.
There was a lot of violence on both sides of that divide.
		
Click to expand...

Half my family grew up in Belfast - one of my cousins at the age of 2 was caught in a blast and lost one eye and an arm so I'll ask again - do you think his comments are ok then ?


----------



## delc (Sep 15, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			You're not wrong Delc. Scots whinging about being hard done by by successive Govts. Unless I'm much mistaken the previous Labour Govts were leds by Scots, and had a Scottish Chancellor... Blair/Brown/Darling. As for being hard done by? What did Labour ever do for northern England? Maybe there should be a Barnett Formula for northern England? But what about the midlands...? Ah, but the south east is paved with streets of gold. Yeh, right. But if it satisfies the woe is me brigade...
		
Click to expand...

The streets in the South-East may well be paved with gold, if you are a City Banker or a Member of the House of Lords, but for everybody else it's an expensive dung heap!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 15, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			You would hope Labour would learn too. Returning to the left, where they went in the Kinnock and Foot years, may well see them have loud support from Union Executives but will it really garner support from the man in the street? It certainly didn't 30 years ago, and the UK 'enjoyed' years of Tory rule because of it.
		
Click to expand...

Do you ever consider that sometimes things just change.
Nothing ever remains the same.

Earlier in this thread I posted a thread about the Loony Left of Ken Livingstone's GLC time.
Nearly all of his Loony Left policies such as Gay rights, subsidised travel, cycle paths, emission restrictions etc are now seen as 'normal'.


----------



## Spuddy (Sep 15, 2015)

c1973 said:



			Fair enough. At least you replied.

Non combatants?  One would assume from this that the murder (because it was murder) of UK soldiers was not abhorrent to you, or am I misreading your post? 

And I don't think you can airbrush the blowing up of supermarkets, pubs, town centres and killing of civilians to be honest. 

Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread too much, his thoughts and politics have been highlighted (as have some posters imo), which was in keeping with the main thrust of the thread.
Points have been made and countered (by some), so Ill let others draw their own conclusions on this particular matter.
		
Click to expand...

I dont agree with killing at all (except in self defence) whether that be soldiers in a barracks, off duty RUC officers doing their shopping, blowing up kids on an English high street or gunning down civilians at a civil rights march.

The airbrushing refers to South Africa.  A lot of people worldwide will be completely unaware of the terrible attoricites carried out there by people who are now so revered.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 15, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Do you ever consider that sometimes things just change.
Nothing ever remains the same.

Earlier in this thread I posted a thread about the Loony Left of Ken Livingstone's GLC time.
Nearly all of his Loony Left policies such as Gay rights, subsidised travel, cycle paths, emission restrictions etc are now seen as 'normal'.
		
Click to expand...

And once upon a time it was ok to keep slaves/bonded serfs. Sorry Doon but I have to disagree with you. And there is a difference between the building of cycle paths and gay rights, the latter being about ending unfair discrimination. That was achieved without car bombs and troops on the streets of London.

And you still fail to condemn terrorist violence! Change via the ballot box not by gun law. At least via the ballot box its about engagement with the population, but via the bullet its about bullying in the extreme.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 15, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Two wrongs don't make a right, especially if violence is involved. I'm genuinely disappointed in you Doon. Irrespective of your political views I thought you would at least condemn violence.
		
Click to expand...

Please stop trying to mimic Paxman/liverpoolphil. It fails.

Of course I think the violence and killings on both sides of the divide in NI is dreadful.
I would always support people like Corbyn/Mowlem etc who seek all avenues of brokering a lasting peace in that region.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 15, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Please stop trying to mimic Paxman/liverpoolphil. It fails.

Of course I think the violence and killings on both sides of the divide in NI is dreadful.
I would always support people like Corbyn/Mowlem etc who seek all avenues of brokering a lasting peace in that region.
		
Click to expand...

So I'll ask the question again as you have avoided it

Do you think what he has said is acceptable


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 15, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So I'll ask the question again as you have avoided it

Do you think what he has said is acceptable
		
Click to expand...

Sorry.........I'm not playing silly games.
And before you go all Paxman again.
That is neither a yes or no.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 15, 2015)

c1973 said:



			...
Edit:  And whether we like it or not, the ira atrocities were a lot closer to home than Mandelas bombing of school busses, perhaps affecting people in the UK a lot more.
...
		
Click to expand...

Can you just explain how proximity to the deeds actually makes any difference to the to the degree or the atrocity?

Seems to me it's a case of 'it doesn't affect me, so not a big deal!'!


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 15, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Please stop trying to mimic Paxman/liverpoolphil. It fails.

Of course I think the violence and killings on both sides of the divide in NI is dreadful.
I would always support people like Corbyn/Mowlem etc who seek all avenues of brokering a lasting peace in that region.
		
Click to expand...

Not trying to mimic anyone, just trying to get you to answer a straight question that you seemed to be avoiding. If you don't make your opinions clear, you'll always get people questioning them. Why are your opinions a secret when you're asked to confirm them?

I'll agree with your support of Mo Mowlem 110%, and I agree that dialogue is the only way to achieve a lasting peace, but not Corbyn and his support of Hamas, Hezbollah, the IRA, Argentina and Putin. Personally, I think he crosses the line... imo.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 15, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Sorry.........I'm not playing silly games.
And before you go all Paxman again.
That is neither a yes or no.
		
Click to expand...

It's not about playing silly games - its once again you posting comments and people asking to a question to clarify your standpoint and you once again avoiding the direct question. It was a simple question that a few people have asked you 

Do you think his comments about the IRA are acceptable


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 15, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Not trying to mimic anyone, just trying to get you to answer a straight question that you seemed to be avoiding. If you don't make your opinions clear, you'll always get people questioning them. Why are your opinions a secret when you're asked to confirm them?
		
Click to expand...

I suppose that would be people like you who only seem to see one side of a conflict. 

or

People like the BBC reporter who just asked the Shadow Chancellor if he will wear a poppy on 11th Nov.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 15, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It's not about playing silly games - its once again you posting comments and people asking to a question to clarify your standpoint and you once again avoiding the direct question. It was a simple question that a few people have asked you 

Do you think his comments about the IRA are acceptable
		
Click to expand...

Time to let this die Phil - just as you've successfully avoided numerous 'direct questions' yourself in the past!

Perhaps you should ask whether his 'diplomatic' efforts assisted the peace process - or do you not believe in that process? That's a direct question btw!


----------



## c1973 (Sep 15, 2015)

Spuddy said:



*I dont agree with killing at all (except in self defence) whether that be soldiers in a barracks, off duty RUC officers doing their shopping, blowing up kids on an English high street or gunning down civilians at a civil rights march.*

The airbrushing refers to South Africa.  A lot of people worldwide will be completely unaware of the terrible attoricites carried out there by people who are now so revered.
		
Click to expand...


Well, we agree on that anyway.


----------



## Crazyface (Sep 15, 2015)

freddielong said:



			A move back to old labour and old labour socialist views, the ones they had to abandon in order to be elected.
		
Click to expand...

THIS......IN SPADES !!!!! Is the correct post and cannot be disputed. TB changed Labour's outlook and trade union voting and clause 4 or summat to make them electable and now they've reverted back. LMAO !!!!!


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 15, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I suppose that would be people like you who only seem to see one side of a conflict. 

or

People like the BBC reporter who just asked the Shadow Chancellor if he will wear a poppy on 11th Nov.
		
Click to expand...

Lol... i'm half Irish, brought up and educated in Ireland. And I manage a mixed staff north and south of the border. I have a Higher in Irish history, and I could quote you chapter and verse on that conflict going way back to the 1700's. I see both sides of that on-going conflict pretty much every day.

But I notice you leave out the second half of my post which included Corbyn's support of Hamas, Hezbollah etc... says a lot about your understanding of legitimising paramilitary organisations...


----------



## c1973 (Sep 15, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			Can you just explain how proximity to the deeds actually makes any difference to the to the degree or the atrocity?

Seems to me it's a case of 'it doesn't affect me, so not a big deal!'!
		
Click to expand...

Pretty much hit the nail on the head for most........would they be honest enough to admit it?  I very much doubt it. 

I'd assume proximity (not necessarily geographical btw) to an atrocity would have an effect on your feelings, particularly if someone had lost a close friend or family member to such atrocities. Would you not?

And this has nothing to do with South Africa. The thread is about Corbyn and by extension his politics and shadow cabinet. If you wish to get my views on S.A then start a thread, unlike some I'll actually give my opinion.


His comments for a UK politician are imo, and plenty others, indefensible. That is the point being discussed.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 15, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Lol... i'm half Irish, brought up and educated in Ireland. And I manage a mixed staff north and south of the border. I have a Higher in Irish history, and I could quote you chapter and verse on that conflict going way back to the 1700's. I see both sides of that on-going conflict pretty much every day.

But I notice you leave out the second half of my post which included Corbyn's support of Hamas, Hezbollah etc... says a lot about your understanding of legitimising paramilitary organisations...
		
Click to expand...

Very good post. Well said sir.


As an aside, if you could recommend any readily available decent material on the subject matter I'd appreciate a pm. I've had a passing interest in the subject, particularly around ' the troubles' and the UK involvement with paramilitaries (not to your standard btw) for a good few years now.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 15, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Lol... i'm half Irish, brought up and educated in Ireland. And I manage a mixed staff north and south of the border. I have a Higher in Irish history, and I could quote you chapter and verse on that conflict going way back to the 1700's. I see both sides of that on-going conflict pretty much every day.

But I notice you leave out the second half of my post which included Corbyn's support of Hamas, Hezbollah etc... says a lot about your understanding of legitimising paramilitary organisations...
		
Click to expand...

Very good post :thup:


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 15, 2015)

Spuddy said:



			...
The airbrushing refers to South Africa.  A lot of people worldwide will be completely unaware of the terrible attoricites carried out there by people who are now so revered.
		
Click to expand...

To me, South Africa was quite a different type of situation - though there was indeed terrorism!

The oppressive nature of the SA Government, Laws and Police in maintaining Apartheid were obscene! As an 'interested party' via sporting connections, I never had any faith in the SA Government's stance until FW DeClerk started negotiation with ANC after Mandela's release. The death of Steve Biko, and subsequent 'cover-up', was probably the most damning demonstration of that oppression!

Edit: Just seen the 'this ain't about SA' post and indeed it's not. But Corbyn's attitude has been consistent that there has to be dialog with certain levels of 'opponents' in order to find some resolution to the conflict. In that regard, he should also have made some sort of contact with Israel. McDonnell subsequently explained his 'honour IRA' speech in equivalent, but more eloquent text to my attitude!


----------



## Spuddy (Sep 15, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/jun/03/northernireland.labourT

this is John McDonnell's explanation of his comments.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 15, 2015)

"negotiations on the future of Northern Ireland would not be taking place if it had not been for the military action of the IRA."


"There needs to be an honest admission that their position can no longer be sustained by a combination of paramilitary violence and the force of the British army"


The irony is not lost on me.  

I'm afraid his explanation does not wash with me. 
Particularly when it is the IRA who stand accused of being active at this point (by the PSNI) and not loyalist paramilitaries. 

Telling Unionists they just need to accept things will change is hardly a sound base for negotiations, is it? That is the politics of confrontation. 

And with that explanation (not apology, let it be noted) Labour have just lost a lifetime supporter as has the Union that supported these idiots. My mind has now been made up on the matter. I shall never again vote Labour until this element of the party has been expunged.  A great shame.



Gandhi was pretty successful in achieving his aims without violence btw. Just saying.


----------



## DCB (Sep 15, 2015)

Well, if his first official engagement, at St Pauls today for a commemorative service for the Battle of Britain is anything to go by, Mr Corbyn isn't going to turn over a new leaf. A distinct lack of respect IMO.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 15, 2015)

DCB said:



			Well, if his first official engagement, at St Pauls today for a commemorative service for the Battle of Britain is anything to go by, Mr Corbyn isn't going to turn over a new leaf. A distinct lack of respect IMO.
		
Click to expand...

And if he doesn't swear an oath of allegiance he won't become a member of the Privy Council, which means he won't be at many important briefings. This is the politics of political anarchy. Engage with the system and change it from within, you can't achieve anything if you stand outside of the room... Wonder if he knows how many Labour supporters are ex/current armed forces, and how many more votes he's just tossed away?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 15, 2015)

DCB said:



			Well, if his first official engagement, at St Pauls today for a commemorative service for the Battle of Britain is anything to go by, Mr Corbyn isn't going to turn over a new leaf. A distinct lack of respect IMO.
		
Click to expand...

He didn't sing the national anthem.  If you hadn't sung it for decades - if ever - why would you change?  Would strike me as being hypocritical for him to sing it if he hasn't in the past.  Not a big deal.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 15, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			He didn't sing the national anthem.  If you hadn't sung it for decades - if ever - why would you change?  Would strike me as being hypocritical for him to sing it if he hasn't in the past.  Not a big deal.
		
Click to expand...

If he was still a backbencher I'd agree with you, but he's now the leader of that party. His behaviour reflects on the party. Strong character, without a doubt, but naÃ¯ve in this instance. He's tossing votes away like confetti...


----------



## Spuddy (Sep 15, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			If he was still a backbencher I'd agree with you, but he's now the leader of that party. His behaviour reflects on the party. Strong character, without a doubt, but naÃ¯ve in this instance. He's tossing votes away like confetti...
		
Click to expand...

I'm glad he is sticking to his principles.  To be honest, he couldn't win either way.  If he sang it then he would be called a hypocrite.  If he doesn't sing it then the royalists get all upity.


----------



## Imurg (Sep 15, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			He didn't sing the national anthem.  If you hadn't sung it for decades - if ever - why would you change?  Would strike me as being hypocritical for him to sing it if he hasn't in the past.  Not a big deal.
		
Click to expand...

Because he can't really be totally anti-establishment any more - he's right in the middle of it.
He's Leader of a major political party and obviously has a view to being the next PM.
Should the miracle happen and he wins, he has to go to Liz2 to be asked to form a Government
She's going to tell him to get on his bike unless he swears allegiance..
The whole thing is farcically comical....


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 15, 2015)

Anyone who is even slightly bothered whether someone does/doesn't sing the national anthem is just looking to find fault. Complete non-issue IMO.


----------



## DCB (Sep 15, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			He didn't sing the national anthem.  If you hadn't sung it for decades - if ever - why would you change?  Would strike me as being hypocritical for him to sing it if he hasn't in the past.  Not a big deal.
		
Click to expand...

He could at least have worn a proper suit and had his shirt properly buttoned and his tie properly knotted. Lack of respect given the occasion.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 15, 2015)

DCB said:



			He could at least have worn a proper suit and had his shirt properly buttoned and his tie properly knotted. Lack of respect given the occasion.
		
Click to expand...

He looks perfectly respectfully dressed in the pictures I've seen.

Anyway - I 'doffed my cap' about half hour ago as I watched what looked like half doz Hurricanes fly over my house.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 15, 2015)

Jeremy Corbyn is not going to change just because he is leader. Many people like him because he does not conform and does not toe the line. He doesn't like to wear a tie so he doesn't. Not wearing a tie is not showing a lack of respect. If he goes out and buys a new suit, smart tie etc then that would look like the spin doctors had got hold of him. This is Jeremy Corbyn, accept it or just get angry but he is not going to change.

Being a Republican means he will not swear allegiance to the monarch and in the unlikely event that he wins the next election then there is frankly nothing the monarch can do about that. The monarchy is there for ceremonial purposes only, nothing more.

Corbyn is not my cup of tea but some of the complaints about him are ridiculous. Fine if he was on parade ground but he is a civilian, not a Private. If you are getting upset at this point then some people are really going to have to get some beta blockers over the next few months.


----------



## Spuddy (Sep 15, 2015)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Jeremy Corbyn is not going to change just because he is leader. Many people like him because he does not conform and does not toe the line. He doesn't like to wear a tie so he doesn't. Not wearing a tie is not showing a lack of respect. If he goes out and buys a new suit, smart tie etc then that would look like the spin doctors had got hold of him. This is Jeremy Corbyn, accept it or just get angry but he is not going to change.

Being a Republican means he will not swear allegiance to the monarch and in the unlikely event that he wins the next election then there is frankly nothing the monarch can do about that. The monarchy is there for ceremonial purposes only, nothing more.

Corbyn is not my cup of tea but some of the complaints about him are ridiculous. Fine if he was on parade ground but he is a civilian, not a Private. If you are getting upset at this point then some people are really going to have to get some beta blockers over the next few months.
		
Click to expand...

I actually think some people will spontaneously combust if he turns up at the cenotaph wearing a white poppy rather than a red one.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 15, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Anyone who is even slightly bothered whether someone does/doesn't sing the national anthem is just looking to find fault. Complete non-issue IMO.
		
Click to expand...

Agree if it's Joe Public.

Disagree when you are representing a national party/organisation etc. No individual is bigger than who they represent an all that.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 15, 2015)

Well, he managed to get General Franco mentioned in his maiden (as leader) speech.

I wonder how long before we get the Sandinistas, Che Guevara, Pol Pot and other student union staples of days gone by mentioned.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 15, 2015)

Spuddy said:



			I actually think some people will spontaneously combust if he turns up at the cenotaph wearing a white poppy rather than a red one.
		
Click to expand...

Well let them combust he'd say.  And many will applaud him for sticking by his principles.  He probably thinks he could have a short shelf life - so will absolutely not want to compromise in his beliefs and principles for what could be short term expediency.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 15, 2015)

c1973 said:



			Agree if it's Joe Public.

Disagree when you are representing a national party/organisation etc. No individual is bigger than who they represent an all that.
		
Click to expand...

But we all need to be mindlessly obeisant to a privileged family? Don't think so, this is still a democracy. He's opposed to the monarchy so good on him for sticking to his principles.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 15, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Well let them combust he'd say.  And many will applaud him for sticking by his principles.  He probably thinks he could have a short shelf life - so will absolutely not want to compromise in his beliefs and principles for what could be short term expediency.
		
Click to expand...


Yes, agree with him or not at least he is going to stick to his beliefs and principles. That is why people voted for him and I suspect his opinion will be that the people who are offended by his lack of tie or dislike of the monarchy are unlikely to vote for him anyway. You can't lose voters who wouldn't vote for you anyway.

The Cenotaph questions have already started so Spuddy is correct. That is going to be an interesting one. I don't expect him to compromise but we shall see.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 15, 2015)

I don't care if he doesn't wear a tie but if he's going to wear one could someone ask his mummy to put it on properly and do his top button up.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 15, 2015)

Lord Tyrion said:



			The Cenotaph questions have already started so Spuddy is correct. That is going to be an interesting one. I don't expect him to compromise but we shall see.
		
Click to expand...

The same thing came out when Foot attended.  Although he stuck to his smelly donkey jacket a red poppy did appear.  I think with all that has gone on this year it would take a very foolish leader of the opposition to go against that particular trend.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 15, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			But we all need to be mindlessly obeisant to a privileged family? Don't think so, this is still a democracy. He's opposed to the monarchy so good on him for sticking to his principles.
		
Click to expand...

Of course we don't. 

Democracy is a system of Governance, nothing to do with national anthems and whether you sing them tbf. 

It's a 'national' anthem though. For the 'nation', representing the 'nation'.  Fair do's HRH does get a wee mention......but it is the recognised national anthem. 

If he were to somehow end up representing the nation then I'd say it's a poor show if he won't sing said nations national anthem. But that ain't gonna happen, so no need to worry on that score I suppose.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 15, 2015)

c1973 said:



			Of course we don't. 

Democracy is a system of Governance, nothing to do with national anthems and whether you sing them tbf. 

It's a 'national' anthem though. For the 'nation', representing the 'nation'.  Fair do's HRH does get a wee mention......but it is the recognised national anthem. 

If he were to somehow end up representing the nation then I'd say it's a poor show if he won't sing said nations national anthem. But that ain't gonna happen, so no need to worry on that score I suppose.
		
Click to expand...

Na, you can't ignore the lyrics, not buying that one.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 15, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			The same thing came out when Foot attended.  Although he stuck to his smelly donkey jacket a red poppy did appear.  I think with all that has gone on this year it would take a very foolish leader of the opposition to go against that particular trend.
		
Click to expand...

I believe his 'people' have already stated he'll wear a Red one......although I'm sure I came across a report saying he 'might not' attend.  Who knows.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 15, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Na, you can't ignore the lyrics, not buying that one.
		
Click to expand...

It was a decent attempt though. 

I get your point and agree with your take on it to an extent. I just feel that the individual is not above the occasion. 

He's quite willing to stomach talking to murderers for the greater good, but can't sing the nation's anthem? Nah, I'm not buying that. He's stuck somewhere between the student union bar and the backbenches if you ask me. 

It'll be interesting to see if he can cope with being inside the tent pissing out as opposed to outside it pissing in.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 15, 2015)

c1973 said:



			It'll be interesting to see if he can cope with being inside the tent pissing out as opposed to outside it pissing in.
		
Click to expand...

That I can agree with!


----------



## c1973 (Sep 15, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			That I can agree with!
		
Click to expand...

There ye go.  Conflict resolution in action, right there.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 15, 2015)

When he was Welsh Secretary, John Redwood trying to sing the Welsh National Anthem was absolutely hilarious...perhaps the Oppo Leader does not know the words to GSTQ.

Goodness can you smell the media desperation, terrorists, songs, poppies, donkey jackets.
Just for fun how about Corbyns attitude to Europe, in line with the right wing section of the Tory party and UKIP I see.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 15, 2015)

It's hardly desperation being concerned with his views on terrorist organisations, is it!

:mmm:


----------



## Spuddy (Sep 15, 2015)

c1973 said:



			It's hardly desperation being concerned with his views on terrorist organisations, is it!

:mmm:
		
Click to expand...

The quotes from earlier regarding the IRA were made by John McDonnell, not Corbyn.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 15, 2015)

Spuddy said:



			The quotes from earlier regarding the IRA were made by John McDonnell, not Corbyn.
		
Click to expand...

As pointed out by myself earlier for the avoidance of doubt.


----------



## Spuddy (Sep 15, 2015)

c1973 said:



			As pointed out by myself earlier for the avoidance of doubt.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't see that :thup: . What are Jeremy Corbyn's views on terrorist organisations that you have concerns with?  As far as I can see he doesn't condone them but realises that in order to move forward you need to open a dialogue with them.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 15, 2015)

Spuddy said:



			Sorry, I didn't see that :thup: . What are Jeremy Corbyn's views on terrorist organisations that you have concerns with?  As far as I can see he doesn't condone them but realises that in order to move forward you need to open a dialogue with them.
		
Click to expand...

Well, referring to the death of bin Laden as being a tragedy is a concern.  Accepting free holidays for him and his wife to Gazza, funded by a charity banned by the U.S. Government for being a fund raiser for terrorism. His links with republicans. 

That's enough to concern me, without delving too deep. 

Not sure what the press are concerned about though, as that is what my post was in response to. 


Look, if you think he's leadership material fair enough. I don't.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 15, 2015)

Spuddy said:



			Sorry, I didn't see that :thup: . What are Jeremy Corbyn's views on terrorist organisations that you have concerns with?  As far as I can see he doesn't condone them but realises that in order to move forward you need to open a dialogue with them.
		
Click to expand...

I could go with this, the only flaw is it is one sided dialogue with no effort to speak to Falkland Islanders, the NI Protestants or the people of  Isreal to name but a few.

All this fawning over career politicians (off all party's) makes I laugh. They find their market wether it be left or right and do and say what appeases that side. They have no interest in U.S., just hanging on to their overpaid life style.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 15, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Just for fun how about Corbyns attitude to Europe, in line with the right wing section of the Tory party and UKIP I see.
		
Click to expand...

The parliamentary Labour Party cabinet members have stated today that the Labour Party will be campaigning to stay in Europe so the mans principles may well take a back seat on this one or split the party making the rumblings of the Torys seem minor.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 15, 2015)

c1973 said:



			Well, referring to the death of bin Laden as being a tragedy is a concern.  Accepting free holidays for him and his wife to Gazza, funded by a charity banned by the U.S. Government for being a fund raiser for terrorism. His links with republicans. 

That's enough to concern me, without delving too deep. 

Not sure what the press are concerned about though, as that is what my post was in response to. 


Look, if you think he's leadership material fair enough. I don't.
		
Click to expand...

It would have helped if you had continued to mention that the 'tragedy quote' was that bin Laden was executed and not brought to trial.
I am inclined to agree with him, we have more than enough martyrs already.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 15, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			It would have helped if you had continued to mention that the 'tragedy quote' was that bin Laden was executed and not brought to trial.
*I am inclined to agree with him, *we have more than enough martyrs already.
		
Click to expand...

Aye. On more than this one would suspect.


----------



## USER1999 (Sep 15, 2015)

So bin Laden goes to a show case trial, three months of spouting his prejudicial rubbish,  and some posh twit gets him off on a technicality.

Justice?

Or just ping him when you get the chance?


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 15, 2015)

murphthemog said:



			So bin Laden goes to a show case trial, three months of spouting his prejudicial rubbish,  and some posh twit gets him off on a technicality.

Justice?

Or just ping him when you get the chance?
		
Click to expand...


You missed out the upsurge in kidnapping, beheadings and ransoms to bargain for his freedom.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 15, 2015)

murphthemog said:



			So bin Laden goes to a show case trial, three months of spouting his prejudicial rubbish,  and some posh twit gets him off on a technicality.

Justice?

Or just ping him when you get the chance?
		
Click to expand...

Not the best solution, ask Alex Blackman.


----------



## TheDiablo (Sep 15, 2015)

I'm no fan of Corbyn, or Labour for that matter, but this national anthem malarkey confuses me. He has been put in a position through a democratic process because a huge number of people of that ilk support his beliefs. So why would he then, within days, suddenly become something that has is not?! Just to tow a line and look good on the telly? Doesn't seem that concerns him, and certainly won't concern any people who would have voted for him. 

Personally, I respect him more for sticking to his principles in the face of media pressure. Even though I in no way whatsoever agree with him on the topic!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 15, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			You missed out the upsurge in kidnapping, beheadings and ransoms to bargain for his freedom.
		
Click to expand...

Or to look at it in another way, an upsurge in kidnapping, beheadings and ransoms to avenge his execution. 

A trial would have turned it into a world event and shown the world's disapproval of a bunch of murdering cowards.
Instead they lost that opportunity and racked up the terrorism.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 15, 2015)

The singing of the national anthem is something that I believe shouldn't be forced upon people - if you don't sing the anthem it shouldn't mean anything about how you feel about your country etc 

But Corbyn I understand has a very big dislike for the military - wants to leave NATO , remove our nuclear arsenal and even disband the armed forces. 

I don't think there is anything to judge from his lack of singing the anthem - looking a mess whilst others are showing respect isn't right though. 

But the right people in the country will show the respect our heroes from the Battle of Britian. Only have to read up the story about Prince Harry giving up his chance to fly with the BBMF for a war veteran


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 15, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Or to look at it in another way, an upsurge in kidnapping, beheadings and ransoms to avenge his execution. 

A trial would have turned it into a world event and shown the world's disapproval of a bunch of murdering cowards.
Instead they lost that opportunity and racked up the terrorism.
		
Click to expand...

Bin Laden was killed during the raid to capture him as opposed to being executed - the intention was to capture him if he surrendered and for him to stand trial.

Was there an upsurge in beheadings etc ?


----------



## The Green Fairy (Sep 15, 2015)

I am leaving Britain, because of what it has become.

All my life, as I have become wealthier, I have striven to live in communities within which I feel secure. This has meant constant moves away from cities, towns and now villages, that have become too 'multicultural' for me. This is my choice, my decision and does not deserve any criticism. I do what I want.

It has come to the point, that I now choose to be a stranger in another country, rather than a stranger in my own. Again, my choice, I am able to do what I want.

However, for those that remain here - if Corbyn , or anyone of his ilk ever gets elected to a position of power in the UK, it will *only* be because the rest of us have left the building.


----------



## Fyldewhite (Sep 15, 2015)

The Green Fairy said:



			I am leaving Britain, because of what it has become.

All my life, as I have become wealthier, I have striven to live in communities within which I feel secure. This has meant constant moves away from cities, towns and now villages, that have become too 'multicultural' for me. This is my choice, my decision and does not deserve any criticism. I do what I want.

It has come to the point, that I now choose to be a stranger in another country, rather than a stranger in my own. Again, my choice, I am able to do what I want.

However, for those that remain here - if Corbyn , or anyone of his ilk ever gets elected to a position of power in the UK, it will *only* be because the rest of us have left the building.
		
Click to expand...

Oh, get over yourself. Where are you moving to? The 1950's that never really existed? Sure Britain has changed. It always has, mostly for the better. I for one think that there's a better life with more equality and opportunity now than there was 30 or 40 years ago. Yes, despite all this damned immigration! One thing's for sure, it's still one of the best places in the world to live and will continue to be so.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 15, 2015)

The Green Fairy said:



			I am leaving Britain, because of what it has become.

All my life, as I have become wealthier, I have striven to live in communities within which I feel secure. This has meant constant moves away from cities, towns and now villages, that have become too 'multicultural' for me. This is my choice, my decision and does not deserve any criticism. I do what I want.

It has come to the point, that I now choose to be a stranger in another country, rather than a stranger in my own. Again, my choice, I am able to do what I want.

However, for those that remain here - if Corbyn , or anyone of his ilk ever gets elected to a position of power in the UK, it will *only* be because the rest of us have left the building.
		
Click to expand...

Leaves a space for someone who will appreciate what a wonderful and diverse country we live in - enjoy Aus and don't let the door hit you on the way out :thup:


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 15, 2015)

The Green Fairy said:



			I am leaving Syria, because of what it has become.

All my life, as I have become wealthier, I have striven to live in communities within which I feel secure. This has meant constant moves away from cities, towns and now villages, that have become too 'multicultural' for me. This is my choice, my decision and does not deserve any criticism. I do what I want.

It has come to the point, that I now choose to be a stranger in another country, rather than a stranger in my own. Again, my choice, I am able to do what I want.

However, for those that remain here - if ISIS , or anyone of their ilk ever gets to a position of power in Syria it will *only* be because the rest of us have left the building.
		
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you as it could be written by those you worry about coming here.  Byeeeeee


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 16, 2015)

The Green Fairy said:



			I am leaving Britain, because of what it has become.

All my life, as I have become wealthier, I have striven to live in communities within which I feel secure. This has meant constant moves away from cities, towns and now villages, that have become too 'multicultural' for me. This is my choice, my decision and does not deserve any criticism. I do what I want.

It has come to the point, that I now choose to be a stranger in another country, rather than a stranger in my own. Again, my choice, I am able to do what I want.

However, for those that remain here - if Corbyn , or anyone of his ilk ever gets elected to a position of power in the UK, it will *only* be because the rest of us have left the building.
		
Click to expand...

Surely it has become what it has because that is what the majority want. And if you want something different in the UK, why not stay and campaign for that rather than run away.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 16, 2015)

The Green Fairy said:



			I am leaving Britain, because of what it has become.

All my life, as I have become wealthier, I have striven to live in communities within which I feel secure. This has meant constant moves away from cities, towns and now villages, that have become too 'multicultural' for me. This is my choice, my decision and does not deserve any criticism. I do what I want.

It has come to the point, that I now choose to be a stranger in another country, rather than a stranger in my own. Again, my choice, I am able to do what I want.

However, for those that remain here - if Corbyn , or anyone of his ilk ever gets elected to a position of power in the UK, it will *only* be because the rest of us have left the building.
		
Click to expand...

Well, I live in a village close to the Channel Tunnel and I don't see much multiculturalism here or in any other village around me. The price of houses here in the South east precludes young families from moving out of town and it seems to me that village life is now firmly for the older generations who have little or no mortgage. It's a shame as we don't have many young families with children despite the fact we have two top notch primary schools within a mile.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 16, 2015)

Smart move by old Labour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34264009


----------



## Crazyface (Sep 16, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Anyone who is even slightly bothered whether someone does/doesn't sing the national anthem is just looking to find fault. Complete non-issue IMO.
		
Click to expand...

WHAT ?????????????????????????????????


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 16, 2015)

I for one applaud Corbyn for wearing a tie.
As it was maroon in colour my only fear is that it will cause dissent in the great Hearts-Hibs divide and will start street riots in Edinburgh.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 16, 2015)

Looks like he/his team are fostering a good relationship with the media.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerp...fter-altercation-outside-jeremy-corbyns-home/


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 16, 2015)

c1973 said:



			Looks like he/his team are fostering a good relationship with the media.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerp...fter-altercation-outside-jeremy-corbyns-home/

Click to expand...

I thought I read that the problem was with the goverment officer who was driving his car.
I would imagine that he is security/military trained.

Bending the truth if you see that as Corbyn or one of his team members.
But. hey ho as you know, we are used to this kind of reporting in Scotland.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 16, 2015)

Just seen his interview on Daily Politics. 

He's not even got the courage of his conviction with regard to the National anthem. If he ain't going to sing the National anthem (and he's perfectly entitled to do so) because he's a republican, at least have the balls to say so. 
Man up and state your position so we can all see you as you really are. Or are you just another career politician? 

He's got the politicians ability to avoid the question and fudge the answer, ill give him that. 


I hope DC tears him a new one at PMQ today. I really do.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 16, 2015)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34267886


Interesting read.


----------



## Jimaroid (Sep 16, 2015)

"He pushed me"
"Your tie is wrong"
"Not singing in assembly"
"He's weird"

It seems that some people can't ever graduate past primary school.

Vive la diffÃ©rence.


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 16, 2015)

c1973 said:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34267886


Interesting read.
		
Click to expand...


As they are all fighting for space up Murdoch's rear end I wouldn't be surprised...

What I like about Jezza is that you can absolutely guarantee he won't be taking any instruction from The Turd...


----------



## ger147 (Sep 16, 2015)

I thought JB did very well. By using other people's names and questions, the PM couldn't attack the questioner which is a very common response from this and most previous PM's, so he had to have a go at trying to answer the questions.

A good start for JB IMO.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 16, 2015)

Jimaroid said:



			"He pushed me"
"Your tie is wrong"
"Not singing in assembly"
"He's weird"

It seems that some people can't ever graduate past primary school.

Vive la diffÃ©rence.
		
Click to expand...

brilliant:lol:

PS the tie thingy was me trying to  be ironic.

Back footed Cameron with his 'questions from the public'.
Professional and dignified start from Corbyn at PQT, you could not say the same for the baying hounds opposite.


----------



## jp5 (Sep 16, 2015)

Jimaroid said:



			"He pushed me"
"Your tie is wrong"
"Not singing in assembly"
"He's weird"

It seems that some people can't ever graduate past primary school.

Vive la diffÃ©rence.
		
Click to expand...

Hah, brilliant. Never realised how many people cared so much about the national anthem.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 16, 2015)

I have not sung the British national Anthem for about 20 years, neither has my English wife.
So old fashioned and twee for the 21st Century.

To add to the assembly list, they are also not allowed to clap. Baying and yah boos are allowed though.


----------



## Sweep (Sep 16, 2015)

The thing about the National Anthem is that it doesn't matter if he is a republican or not. It is our National Anthem. If he doesn't like the Queen, then maybe he should reconsider being the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. He didn't seem to have too many issues over singing "The Red Flag" on Saturday afternoon.
 Added to this and of a far more serious matter is the fact that the occasion was a service to mark the pivotal day in the Battle of Britain. If young men of the ages of 18,19,20,21 can lay down their lives for the sake of their nation, to help save us from Fascism, then it is a sad indictment of the man when the left wing Leader of the Opposition who stands against fascism with every thread of his being can't open his mouth to sing the National Anthem of the country they died for.
I know many will say that those who are offended by this and the media are all making too much out of it. To coin the phrase, "no-one died". Except in this case, many did.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 16, 2015)

Tbf he handled PMQ well (what's PQT by the way?, the preamble quality threshold?).  

Not a fan of the "Steve is a brickie from Kent and.............; Stacey is a single parent from Wrexham with 3 kids..................."  e.g, questioning style though. 
There's 60million folk in this country or thereabouts, the questions should be broader imo. I want answers to the bigger picture, that affect the nation as a whole, not Steve and Staceys questions.

If Steve and Stacey are really that concerned about an answer to their question and are so concerned that they're voice should be heard above all others then perhaps they should correspond directly with their MP or the  PM for a personal response?  No? 


Nice put down by Cameron when the opposition benches started to jeer and deride him, "is this the new prime minister's questions then".


----------



## jp5 (Sep 16, 2015)

Sweep said:



			The thing about the National Anthem is that it doesn't matter if he is a republican or not. It is our National Anthem. If he doesn't like the Queen, then maybe he should reconsider being the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. He didn't seem to have too many issues over singing "The Red Flag" on Saturday afternoon.
 Added to this and of a far more serious matter is the fact that the occasion was a service to mark the pivotal day in the Battle of Britain. If young men of the ages of 18,19,20,21 can lay down their lives for the sake of their nation, to help save us from Fascism, then it is a sad indictment of the man when the left wing Leader of the Opposition who stands against fascism with every thread of his being can't open his mouth to sing the National Anthem of the country they died for.
I know many will say that those who are offended by this and the media are all making too much out of it. To coin the phrase, "no-one died". Except in this case, many did.
		
Click to expand...

If there is any disrespect in not singing your national anthem (which I don't think there is), it is dwarfed by the medias attempts to turn an act of commemoration into a political point scoring exercise.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 16, 2015)

c1973 said:



			Tbf he handled PMQ well (what's PQT by the way?, the preamble quality threshold?).  

Not a fan of the "Steve is a brickie from Kent and.............; Stacey is a single parent from Wrexham with 3 kids..................."  e.g, questioning style though. 
There's 60million folk in this country or thereabouts, the questions should be broader imo. I want answers to the bigger picture, that affect the nation as a whole, not Steve and Staceys questions.

If Steve and Stacey are really that concerned about an answer to their question and are so concerned that they're voice should be heard above all others then perhaps they should correspond directly with their MP or the  PM for a personal response?  No? 


Nice put down by Cameron when the opposition benches started to jeer and deride him, "is this the new prime minister's questions then".
		
Click to expand...

I thought Cameron's retort to the LAbour jeers was his usual smarmy sneering stuff.  But then I would think that.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 16, 2015)

Saw a video of one backbencher critisizing the shadow chancellors views on our military and the IRA etc - very good speech and good response from Cameron


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 16, 2015)

jp5 said:



			If there is any disrespect in not singing your national anthem (which I don't think there is), it is dwarfed by the medias attempts to turn an act of commemoration into a political point scoring exercise.
		
Click to expand...

Very good post......I cannot believe all this hype about singing a song.
I never heard my father sing GStQ and he went though the worst of WW2 and was a staunch member of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 16, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I thought I read that the problem was with the goverment officer who was driving his car.
I would imagine that he is military trained.
		
Click to expand...

Not a chance, he would have driven over the right person


----------



## c1973 (Sep 16, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Not a chance, he would have driven over the right person 

Click to expand...

:rofl:

I like that.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 16, 2015)

jp5 said:



			If there is any disrespect in not singing your national anthem (which I don't think there is).
		
Click to expand...

Try it in Russia, China and North Korea.

Doreen from Basingstoke bets your life that very few if any of those questions were from everyday members of the public.

The man always wore a smart tie done up correctly as a back bencher. Strange how he now adopts the Greek style of dress.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 16, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Very good post......I cannot believe all this hype about singing a song.
I never heard my father sing GStQ and he went though the worst of WW2 and was a staunch member of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party.
		
Click to expand...

Sweeps post summed it up very well 

Corbyn is the leader of the opposition to HM Government - he was at an official ceremony to remember hundreds who put their lives on the line so that we could all be here - the very least you would expect is for him to look respectable 

What your father did or didn't do is irrelevant


----------



## c1973 (Sep 16, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Try it in Russia, China and North Korea.

Doreen from Basingstoke bets your life that very few if any of those questions were from everyday members of the public.

The man always wore a smart tie done up correctly as a back bencher. Strange how he now adopts the Greek style of dress.
		
Click to expand...

It's not really when you think about it though, is it? :thup: 

James from Dalkeith wants to know if he's trying to appear less ministerial in order to appeal to the disenfranchised. 

Mary from Possil wants to know why the chip van only comes round on a Thursday, as she gets her pension on a Tuesday.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 16, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Very good post......I cannot believe all this hype about singing a song.
I never heard my father sing GStQ and he went though the worst of WW2 and was a staunch member of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party.
		
Click to expand...

Most Scots cannot sing anyway  however he would have sworn an oath of allegiance to the crown.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 16, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Most Scots cannot sing anyway  however he would have sworn an oath of allegiance to the crown.
		
Click to expand...

As usual I see you totally have missed the point.

Tell me,
In Devon do the still stand up for GStQ when the film ends at the cinema?
If not, why not?

BTW there is a dress code in the commons that requires a jacket and tie for men.


----------



## pokerjoke (Sep 16, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			As usual I see you totally have missed the point.

Tell me,
In Devon do the still stand up for GStQ when the film ends at the cinema?
If not, why not?

BTW there is a dress code in the commons that requires a jacket and tie for men.
		
Click to expand...

Come on in Scotland they still sing the Proclaimers 500 miles 25 years after it was a hit as if its an Anthem[probably is in Scotland].


----------



## The Green Fairy (Sep 16, 2015)

pokerjoke said:



			Come on in Scotland they still sing the Proclaimers 500 miles 25 years after it was a hit as if its an Anthem[probably is in Scotland].
		
Click to expand...

Proclaimers ?????  

Good grief that's a bit cutting edge, every time I've been to Scotland, they're still playing Jimmy bloody Shand.

 :lol:


----------



## c1973 (Sep 16, 2015)

pokerjoke said:



			Come on in Scotland they still sing the Proclaimers 500 miles 25 years after it was a hit as if its an Anthem[probably is in Scotland].
		
Click to expand...

Think they're bad?  Go to a wedding up here and you'll be shot if you're not up singing  and dancing to bloody Runrig at the end of the night!


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 16, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			As usual I see you totally have missed the point.

Tell me,
In Devon do the still stand up for GStQ when the film ends at the cinema?
If not, why not?

BTW there is a dress code in the commons that requires a jacket and tie for men.
		
Click to expand...

Or perhaps you never wish to see a point which doesn't match your 1930s view of how the left was lost.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 16, 2015)

pokerjoke said:



			Come on in Scotland they still sing the Proclaimers 500 miles 25 years after it was a hit as if its an Anthem[probably is in Scotland].
		
Click to expand...

Not got anything better TBH.


----------



## TheDiablo (Sep 16, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Try it in Russia, China and North Korea.

Doreen from Basingstoke bets your life that very few if any of those questions were from everyday members of the public.

The man always wore a smart tie done up correctly as a back bencher. Strange how he now adopts the Greek style of dress.
		
Click to expand...

To be fair, I actually know the 'Marie' who 'asked' the first question. An old school acquaintance who I am friends with on Fb. Other than a couple of Corbyn posts, she's not overly political nor does she seem to have any close link to the labour party.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 16, 2015)

The Green Fairy said:



			Proclaimers ?????  

Good grief that's a bit cutting edge, every time I've been to Scotland, they're still playing *Jimmy bloody Shand*.

 :lol:
		
Click to expand...

I think you mean Jimmy _bloody miserable_ Shand - but he played cracking dance tunes - though I'm more of a 'Bobby' man myself.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 16, 2015)

Goodness, they are now insisting that poor old Jeremy kneels down in panto gear.

This is beginning to reach Blackadder script standards.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 16, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Goodness, they are now insisting that poor old Jeremy kneels down in panto gear.

This is beginning to reach Blackadder script standards.
		
Click to expand...

Not too unlike what trousers and shirts we have to wear at golf clubs. Not unlike what gear we have to wear out on the course. Not unlike what we have to wear to presentation nights. If we join a club we abide by the rules and change them from within. There's a dress code, and although it might be muppet-ish, its the code. The guy at your club that was out of step got how much support?

Rub someone up the wrong way, and they won't buy into your argument. Engage with them and you stand a chance.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 17, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Not too unlike what trousers and shirts we have to wear at golf clubs. Not unlike what gear we have to wear out on the course. Not unlike what we have to wear to presentation nights. If we join a club we abide by the rules and change them from within. There's a dress code, and although it might be muppet-ish, its the code. The guy at your club that was out of step got how much support?

Rub someone up the wrong way, and they won't buy into your argument. Engage with them and you stand a chance.
		
Click to expand...

I doubt it, I have only worn a tie about five times in the last 20 years, having previously been a blazer and tie man for 25 years.
It does not seem to have stopped me 'engaging' with people. I cannot recall one instance where I have rubbed someone up the wrong way for not wearing a tie
I can never understand the UK's obsession with ties. They seem to have no function whatsoever.

It will be interesting to see in Jeremy refuses to join the security council if he has to kneel before the Queen.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 17, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I doubt it, I have only worn a tie about five times in the last 20 years, having previously been a blazer and tie man for 25 years.
It does not seem to have stopped me 'engaging' with people. I cannot recall one instance where I have rubbed someone up the wrong way for not wearing a tie
I can never understand the UK's obsession with ties. They seem to have no function whatsoever.

It will be interesting to see in Jeremy refuses to join the security council if he has to kneel before the Queen.
		
Click to expand...

If its the required dress code then it doent matter what anyones personal beliefs are. He is no longer the scruffy anti establishment back bencher rebelling against the system - he is now the leader of the opposition and must act appropiatly.


----------



## c1973 (Sep 17, 2015)

As a confirmed snp supporter, one has to applaud your engagement in the labour leadership debate and continued interest.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 17, 2015)

c1973 said:



			As a confirmed snp supporter, one has to applaud your engagement in the labour leadership debate and continued interest.
		
Click to expand...

I am only an SNP supporter because Labour have been so utterly useless in Scotland.
If Labour had remained a centre left party I would probably still be a Labour supporter.
At the moment the SNP are the nearest fit to my political beliefs.

I would like to see Scotland remain within a federal UK led SNP.
Cameron and his cronies are working hard to ensure that does not happen.
It is more likely to happen under a centre left Labour government.
Watch this space.


----------



## banacek303 (Sep 17, 2015)

Yes, have to agree, it's a joke, very underwhelming.


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 17, 2015)

Seemingly two about faces already...

One, he'll [in future] be singing the National Anthem.. Which, for me, is no biggie...

Two, he'll now be supporting staying in the EU... Arse! :angry::angry:

Jezza... Those of us on the left didn't want to join in the first place... What are you playing at?


Think I'll be dashing off a letter to that nice Mr McDonnell...


----------



## c1973 (Sep 17, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Seemingly two about faces already...

One, he'll [in future] be singing the National Anthem.. Which, for me, is no biggie...

Two, he'll now be supporting staying in the EU... Arse! :angry::angry:

Jezza... Those of us on the left didn't want to join in the first place... What are you playing at?


Think I'll be dashing off a letter to that nice Mr McDonnell...
		
Click to expand...

Send Corbyn an e-mail, he's all for that inclusive politics, sure he'll explain his position in detail for ya.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 17, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			If its the required dress code then it doent matter what anyones personal beliefs are. He is no longer the scruffy anti establishment back bencher rebelling against the system - he is now the leader of the opposition and must act appropiatly.
		
Click to expand...

I don't wholly disagree - but blinking heck - try making this argument about golf club dress code and you get laughed at by the modernistas who want it their own way,


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I don't wholly disagree - but blinking heck - try making this argument about golf club dress code and you get laughed at by the modernistas who want it their own way,
		
Click to expand...

I have heard that some clubs are even allowing jeans in the clubhouse now.
Not sure if that is a good look with a jacket and tie, especially if you have a big beer belly.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 17, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I have heard that some clubs are even allowing jeans in the clubhouse now.
Not sure if that is a good look with a jacket and tie, especially if you have a big beer belly.
		
Click to expand...

Interestingly - or not - when I have worn jeans in the clubhouse I have received more glances from visiting members of other clubs than from members of my own.  So what is acceptable to one group can clearly be unacceptable to another - even when the dress is appropriate to the dress code of the environment you are in.  And so back to JC and St  Paul's.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 18, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Goodness, they are now insisting that poor old Jeremy kneels down in panto gear.

This is beginning to reach Blackadder script standards.
		
Click to expand...

He will do exactly what is required for a man in his position. Simple


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 16, 2015)

Not commented on this topic/bloke once because basically I never knew anything about him. Since he has become the leader of the opposition he has done nothing but rub me up the wrong way.

How this man has become leader of the opposition is beyond me. 

His latest comments about "not happy about shoot to kill". Is he oblivious about what has gone off in Paris.

I would love him to explain what the alternative is.

Re his comments, " I would of prefered to capture Jihadi John". Does he think John was walking through a park.

 If he carries on the Torys will be in for the next 10 yr


----------



## Fish (Nov 16, 2015)

Tashyboy said:



			Not commented on this topic/bloke once because basically I never knew anything about him. Since he has become the leader of the opposition he has done nothing but rub me up the wrong way.

How this man has become leader of the opposition is beyond me. 

His latest comments about "not happy about shoot to kill". Is he oblivious about what has gone off in Paris.

I would love him to explain what the alternative is.

Re his comments, " I would of prefered to capture Jihadi John". Does he think John was walking through a park.

 If he carries on the Torys will be in for the next 10 yr
		
Click to expand...

All hail JC, the futures blue &#128526;


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 16, 2015)

The "Shoot to kill " saying always made we wonder, if you shoot someone how do you ensure that person doesn't die?


----------



## Fish (Nov 16, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			The "Shoot to kill " saying always made we wonder, if you shoot someone how do you ensure that person doesn't die?
		
Click to expand...

Depends on the circumstances, situation & offence, although we were always told not to maim, if close enough without causing wider issues then take the head shot, otherwise hit the largest body mass, depending on the situation would be dependent on whether a double tap once down was justified!


----------



## freddielong (Nov 16, 2015)

Fish said:



			All hail JC, the futures blue &#128526;
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely he is a muppet all conservatives should love him.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 16, 2015)

Fish said:



			Depends on the circumstances, situation & offence, although we were always told not to maim, if close enough without causing wider issues then take the head shot, otherwise hit the largest body mass, depending on the situation would be dependent on whether a double tap once down was justified!
		
Click to expand...

Always aim for center of mass however I saw a guy hit with a 7.62 in the hip and the exit wound was through the shoulder.

Our ability with a 120mm to be so selective was not an option.


----------



## Ethan (Nov 16, 2015)

Tashyboy said:



			Not commented on this topic/bloke once because basically I never knew anything about him. Since he has become the leader of the opposition he has done nothing but rub me up the wrong way.

How this man has become leader of the opposition is beyond me. 

His latest comments about "not happy about shoot to kill". Is he oblivious about what has gone off in Paris.

I would love him to explain what the alternative is.

Re his comments, " I would of prefered to capture Jihadi John". Does he think John was walking through a park.

 If he carries on the Torys will be in for the next 10 yr
		
Click to expand...

Dear me, what a disgrace, Corbyn prefers proper justice, gathering intelligence from these people and a court trial rather than politically expedient quick kills. I thought the Tories were the law and order party. Guess not. 

By the way, he didn't say 'I would OF ..' because he is literate, and that sentence makes no sense. He may have said 'I would HAVE ...'.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 16, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Dear me, what a disgrace, Corbyn prefers proper justice, gathering intelligence from these people and a court trial rather than politically expedient quick kills. I thought the Tories were the law and order party. Guess not. 

By the way, he didn't say 'I would OF ..' because he is literate, and that sentence makes no sense. He may have said 'I would HAVE ...'.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, it would have been nice for a local bobby to have hopped on a flight to Syria. Jumped in a taxi at the airport and driven up country to Raqqa and asked Jihadi John would he mind accompanying him to the station to answer a few questions...


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 16, 2015)

Tashyboy said:



			Not commented on this topic/bloke once because basically I never knew anything about him. Since he has become the leader of the opposition he has done nothing but rub me up the wrong way.

How this man has become leader of the opposition is beyond me. 

His latest comments about "not happy about shoot to kill". Is he oblivious about what has gone off in Paris.

I would love him to explain what the alternative is.

Re his comments, " I would of prefered to capture Jihadi John". Does he think John was walking through a park.

 If he carries on the Torys will be in for the next 10 yr
		
Click to expand...

Similar opinion to yourself reference Corbyn and after your post I decided to search internet for the interview rather than comment blind, he did not say he's against "shoot to kill" he explained it should not be a blanket policy as he's against that, the same question was then asked to the PM whose spokesman said it is a decision for the guy on the ground and that is what Corbyn was saying, it should not be a blanket policy. 
For me? It's a very dificult split second decision for the guy on the ground and unfortunately look how many members of the security services have been dragged through the courts when they've got it wrong.
As for Jihadi John, fantastic they got him, but there were family members of some of his victims interviewed saying they got no solace in his death and would of liked him brought to a court to stand trial and explain why he'd done it.
Still don't trust Corbyn, but trust the media less


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 16, 2015)

Trouble with locking up terrorists is some political nut job decides to give them a get out of jail free card and a pardon in the end.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 16, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Trouble with locking up terrorists is some political nut job decides to give them a get out of jail free card and a pardon in the end.
		
Click to expand...

If it's a terrorist, then I have no issue with a shoot to kill policy, difficult to explain that policy to the family of the brazilian bloke killed after the London Tube bombings.


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 16, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Similar opinion to yourself reference Corbyn and after your post I decided to search internet for the interview rather than comment blind, he did not say he's against "shoot to kill" he explained it should not be a blanket policy as he's against that, the same question was then asked to the PM whose spokesman said it is a decision for the guy on the ground and that is what Corbyn was saying, it should not be a blanket policy. 
For me? It's a very dificult split second decision for the guy on the ground and unfortunately look how many members of the security services have been dragged through the courts when they've got it wrong.
As for Jihadi John, fantastic they got him, but there were family members of some of his victims interviewed saying they got no solace in his death and would of liked him brought to a court to stand trial and explain why he'd done it.
Still don't trust Corbyn, but trust the media less
		
Click to expand...

Whole heartedly agree with everything you have said, the problem is that at some stage someone is going to be in a situation where they will " have to shoot to kill". Be it with a drone or a gun. Not suggesting at all that it is a blanket decision, but each and every scenario is differant. 
It is not just the last couple days that have rubbed me up. The chief of defence spoke of his support for trident. this upset JC. Why ? Just because he does not agree with it.
If someone who works in a specific business is not allowed to voice an opinion on that business then we are screwed.
Not all bad news though, thanks for the help with me literature Ethan &#128077;


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 16, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Trouble with locking up terrorists is some political nut job decides to give them a get out of jail free card and a pardon in the end.
		
Click to expand...

Caught up with an old friend and his wife a couple of months ago and and a good meal out with them. Him and his wife are both prison officers over 20 yrs each.
They have both said that prisons are becoming a breeding ground for religious extremism.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 16, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			If it's a terrorist, then I have no issue with a shoot to kill policy, difficult to explain that policy to the family of the brazilian bloke killed after the London Tube bombings.
		
Click to expand...

When people and guns are involved things like this will happen. Unfortunate but true.

Give a doctor a scrapple and occasionally they will cut the wrong bit.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 16, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Similar opinion to yourself reference Corbyn and after your post I decided to search internet for the interview rather than comment blind, he did not say he's against "shoot to kill" he explained it should not be a blanket policy as he's against that, the same question was then asked to the PM whose spokesman said it is a decision for the guy on the ground and that is what Corbyn was saying, it should not be a blanket policy.
		
Click to expand...

Have you got a link to his full interview? I've tried googling it but can only find his comment that he's "not happy with the shoot to kill policy in general" and a couple of other selected quotes and would like to hear/read what he actually said before making further comment it.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 16, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			When people and guns are involved things like this will happen. Unfortunate but true.

Give a doctor a scrapple and occasionally they will cut the wrong bit.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I'm sure that makes that innocent mans family feel so much better that their son was shot for no justifiable reason.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 16, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Yes I'm sure that makes that innocent mans family feel so much better that their son was shot for no justifiable reason.
		
Click to expand...

I havnt said its right but when humans are involved these things will happen.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 16, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Have you got a link to his full interview? I've tried googling it but can only find his comment that he's "not happy with the shoot to kill policy in general" and a couple of other selected quotes and would like to hear/read what he actually said before making further comment it.
		
Click to expand...

It's on the BBC News website, 9 minute long video.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 17, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Dear me, what a disgrace, Corbyn prefers proper justice, gathering intelligence from these people and a court trial rather than politically expedient quick kills. I thought the Tories were the law and order party. Guess not. 

By the way, he didn't say 'I would OF ..' because he is literate, and that sentence makes no sense. He may have said 'I would HAVE ...'.
		
Click to expand...

This^^^


----------



## Crazyface (Nov 17, 2015)

Tashyboy said:



			Caught up with an old friend and his wife a couple of months ago and and a good meal out with them. Him and his wife are both prison officers over 20 yrs each.
They have both said that prisons are becoming a breeding ground for religious extremism.
		
Click to expand...

How? Surely they are housed separately from proper criminals and played christian rock songs 24 hours a day, and made to go to christian bible readings.  Have we no idea how to treat these bloomin' flippin' idiots?


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 17, 2015)

Having watched the full interview I'm more concerned with his refusal to answer a question because it was hypothetical. Surely a large part of the Prime Minister's job is to be prepared for events that might happen. If he gets into number 10 is he going to refuse to prepare for a situation because until it happens it's all hypothetical.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 17, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Having watched the full interview I'm more concerned with his refusal to answer a question because it was hypothetical. Surely a large part of the Prime Minister's job is to be prepared for events that might happen. If he gets into number 10 is he going to refuse to prepare for a situation because until it happens it's all hypothetical.
		
Click to expand...

The cynic in me says it's another example of the media trying to trip a Politician up,


----------



## Ethan (Nov 17, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Having watched the full interview I'm more concerned with his refusal to answer a question because it was hypothetical. Surely a large part of the Prime Minister's job is to be prepared for events that might happen. If he gets into number 10 is he going to refuse to prepare for a situation because until it happens it's all hypothetical.
		
Click to expand...

Sounds like an uncommon streak of common sense.


----------



## Fish (Nov 17, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Dear me, what a disgrace, Corbyn prefers proper justice, gathering intelligence from these people and a court trial rather than politically expedient quick kills. I thought the Tories were the law and order party. Guess not. 

By the way, he didn't say 'I would OF ..' because he is literate, and that sentence makes no sense. He may have said 'I would HAVE ...'.
		
Click to expand...




SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			This^^^
		
Click to expand...

 So are you both saying your against the air strikes and bombing of their training camps and HQ and you'd rather observe them after they've been trained and track them until they are about to commit a terrorist act and then catch them at it & prosecute them through the courts?


----------



## Ethan (Nov 17, 2015)

Fish said:



			So are you both saying your against the air strikes and bombing of their training camps and HQ and you'd rather observe them after they've been trained and track them until they are about to commit a terrorist act and then catch them at it & prosecute them through the courts?
		
Click to expand...

Did I say that? Where?

Democratic and moral authority rest on the rule of law and administration of justice. It is therefore preferable to detain and prosecute people rather than summarily bomb or drone them. Sometimes it isn't possible to do the former, but sometimes it is just politically expedient to drone them and avoid questions and answers.

Nobody here weeps any tears for this waste of oxygen, but the drone hit him and he probably didn't even know about it. Would it not be better, if possible, to arrest him, drag him back for trial and then throw him in a tin box for the duration?


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 17, 2015)

Crazyface said:



			How? Surely they are housed separately from proper criminals and played christian rock songs 24 hours a day, and made to go to christian bible readings.  Have we no idea how to treat these bloomin' flippin' idiots?
		
Click to expand...

That would certainly turn most into 'zealots'! 

I'd have been happy to 'shoot to kill' when sited too near a mosque for a few days many year ago!


----------



## freddielong (Nov 17, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Did I say that? Where?

Democratic and moral authority rest on the rule of law and administration of justice. It is therefore preferable to detain and prosecute people rather than summarily bomb or drone them. Sometimes it isn't possible to do the former, but sometimes it is just politically expedient to drone them and avoid questions and answers.

Nobody here weeps any tears for this waste of oxygen, but the drone hit him and he probably didn't even know about it. Would it not be better, if possible, to arrest him, drag him back for trial and then throw him in a tin box for the duration?
		
Click to expand...

And risk the lives of our soldiers, just blow him to bits with a drone, hopefully take out a handful or two of his mates and be done with it.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 17, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Sounds like an uncommon streak of common sense.
		
Click to expand...

If he is going to refuse to answer hypothetical questions how can his party ever get elected? "So what will you do about the NHS if you get elected?" "I'm sorry I can't answer that as it's hypothetical". 

Or do you support his right to only answer questions he wants to answer and refuse to answer the more difficult ones?


----------



## Fish (Nov 17, 2015)

freddielong said:



			And risk the lives of our soldiers, just blow him to bits with a drone, hopefully take out a handful or two of his mates and be done with it.
		
Click to expand...

I am starting to feel uncomfortable agreeing with you just lately :smirk:


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 17, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Or do you support his right to only answer questions he wants to answer and refuse to answer the more difficult ones?
		
Click to expand...

Like every other politician in the world you mean?


----------



## freddielong (Nov 17, 2015)

Fish said:



			I am starting to feel uncomfortable agreeing with you just lately :smirk:
		
Click to expand...

Don't worry its just maths, after 3300 posts 1 had to strike a cord. &#128522;


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 17, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Like every other politician in the world you mean?
		
Click to expand...

I've heard and seen politicians of all parties avoiding answering questions or answering a different question than the one that was asked but have never seen one refuse to answer because the question was hypothetical.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 17, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			I've heard and seen politicians of all parties avoiding answering questions or answering a different question than the one that was asked but have never seen one refuse to answer because the question was hypothetical.
		
Click to expand...

He explained his position, it's the same as current governmebt policy and this attention is no more than a dig at Corbyn, 
The man or woman on the ground is the only one who can make the decision and I prefer to trust them way more than some hypothetical answer from some politician, you can't bring him to account if his hypothetical answer to the hypothetical question is wrong.


----------



## Ethan (Nov 17, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			If he is going to refuse to answer hypothetical questions how can his party ever get elected? "So what will you do about the NHS if you get elected?" "I'm sorry I can't answer that as it's hypothetical". 

Or do you support his right to only answer questions he wants to answer and refuse to answer the more difficult ones?
		
Click to expand...

I doubt he would deliver such a facile answer. Answering a general policy question is fine, but detailed questions sometimes depend on the prevailing circumstances and budget situation. Hypothetical questions on taking out terrorists very much depend on the circumstances.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 17, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			I've heard and seen politicians of all parties avoiding answering questions or answering a different question than the one that was asked but have never seen one refuse to answer because the question was hypothetical.
		
Click to expand...

I certainly have, it's quite a common deflection.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 17, 2015)

freddielong said:



			And risk the lives of our soldiers, just blow him to bits with a drone, hopefully take out a handful or two of his mates and be done with it.
		
Click to expand...

This isn't how it happens all the time though, it's not that simple, if the opportunity had arisen to send troops in and grab these people, Military Commanders will discuss this option with Politicians, they tried to capture Bin Laden with the authority to use lethal force if required, sometimes the public humiliation of these people can have a better impact than simply removing them off the face of the earth and turning them into martyrs.


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 17, 2015)

Whatever answer is given to a 'hypothetical' question you'll be demonised by one quarter or another...

So, they are most probably best ignored...


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 17, 2015)

Ethan said:



			I doubt he would deliver such a facile answer. Answering a general policy question is fine, but detailed questions sometimes depend on the prevailing circumstances and budget situation. Hypothetical questions on taking out terrorists very much depend on the circumstances.
		
Click to expand...

I bet he'd have no problem with shoot to kill if a bloke in a bomb vest carrying an AK47 was walking towards him and his family.


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 17, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			I bet he'd have no problem with shoot to kill if a bloke in a bomb vest carrying an AK47 was walking towards him and his family.
		
Click to expand...


I suspect the family of Jean Charles de Menezes are less than chuffed with a 'shoot to kill' policy...

When it all goes wrong the 'powers that be' always seem to go AWOL...


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 17, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			I bet he'd have no problem with shoot to kill if a bloke in a bomb vest carrying an AK47 was walking towards him and his family.
		
Click to expand...

Again you're over reacting and sensationalising this, it was discussed on Radio 2 at lunchtime by a Labour MP and George Galloway, he never said he's against shoot to kill in the scenario you mention.
Even Galloway who is another clown who goes on about peace said if he was in that situation he would shoot first ask questions later.

If the Police have an opportunity to arrest a terrorist on his way to commit a crime you're saying we should shoot him, no questions asked, that's crazy, the chance to get information from him could be invaluable to prevent other outrages! Why can't you accept it's a judgement only the person in that situation can make.
There's a time to shoot first and there's a time when a pause can be more productive


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 17, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			I suspect the family of Jean Charles de Menezes are less than chuffed with a 'shoot to kill' policy...
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure they aren't, but if it comes down to a choice between a guy blowing himself up in a crowd or a police officer stopping him by force then I'll always come down on the side of putting  a bullet between his eyes every time.


----------



## Fyldewhite (Nov 17, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Again you're over reacting and sensationalising this, it was discussed on Radio 2 at lunchtime by a Labour MP and George Galloway, he never said he's against shoot to kill in the scenario you mention.
Even Galloway who is another clown who goes on about peace said if he was in that situation he would shoot first ask questions later.

If the Police have an opportunity to arrest a terrorist on his way to commit a crime you're saying we should shoot him, no questions asked, that's crazy, the chance to get information from him could be invaluable to prevent other outrages! Why can't you accept it's a judgement only the person in that situation can make.
There's a time to shoot first and there's a time when a pause can be more productive
		
Click to expand...

Fully agree, I think all he's actually said from the bits I've heard is that any actions should be lawful. Not an unreasonable view, and the law regarding the use of lethal force in confrontational situations is clear and well established. One more murky area is the legality of drone strikes, a relatively new innovation and less well established legally which is why he said he was not convinced the Jihadi John strike was legal......I'm not to be honest but I don't particularly care in those circumstances. Maybe he has to care, because he, or Cameron for that matter, unlike me or you has to be accountable.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 17, 2015)

Any time live rounds are fired then that person must ensure they follow correct rules of engagement and are able to fully justify their actions of firing live rounds. Lots of rules govern the use of firearms in this country. Before pulling the trigger - got to make sure that you can back up the actions or face jail


----------



## freddielong (Nov 17, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			This isn't how it happens all the time though, it's not that simple, if the opportunity had arisen to send troops in and grab these people, Military Commanders will discuss this option with Politicians, they tried to capture Bin Laden with the authority to use lethal force if required, sometimes the public humiliation of these people can have a better impact than simply removing them off the face of the earth and turning them into martyrs.
		
Click to expand...

Again why risk our soldiers and then pick up the bill for flying him back, lawyers, security and his upkeep in a jail when you can smash him into little pieces and take out some of his allies at the same time.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 17, 2015)

freddielong said:



			Again why risk our soldiers and then pick up the bill for flying him back, lawyers, security and his upkeep in a jail when you can smash him into little pieces and take out some of his allies at the same time.
		
Click to expand...

Like I replied before, the humiliation of capture, look at Saddam's pathetic pictures, the information you may get from interrogation, what if the risk of  8-20 Soldiers attempting a capture could've prevented 9/11. Nobody makes these calls before all avenues have been explored, a situation like Paris, absolutely shoot to kill, give them no chance,


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 17, 2015)

Fyldewhite said:



			Fully agree, I think all he's actually said from the bits I've heard is that any actions should be lawful. Not an unreasonable view, and the law regarding the use of lethal force in confrontational situations is clear and well established. One more murky area is the legality of drone strikes, a relatively new innovation and less well established legally which is why he said he was not convinced the Jihadi John strike was legal......I'm not to be honest but I don't particularly care in those circumstances. Maybe he has to care, because he, or Cameron for that matter, unlike me or you has to be accountable.
		
Click to expand...

Good to hear some sense on this thread.
Drones have a 90% chance of failure to hit the targeted individual, so nine times out of ten innocent and guilty bystanders are killed.
It is rather like spraying a rail carriage with a machine gun in the hope of killing the one guilty individual.

To me drones are unproductive. They will only add more fuel to the fire.

The constant miss-quoting of Corbyn by the British press and senior political and establishment figures makes me wonder about the direction our country is heading.


----------



## Fish (Nov 17, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Good to hear some sense on this thread.
*Drones have a 90% chance of failure* to hit the targeted individual, *so nine times out of ten innocent and guilty bystanders are killed.*
It is rather like spraying a rail carriage with a machine gun in the hope of killing the one guilty individual.

To me drones are unproductive. They will only add more fuel to the fire.

The constant miss-quoting of Corbyn by the British press and senior political and establishment figures makes me wonder about the direction our country is heading.
		
Click to expand...

Can you provide some proof and evidence of these quoted statistics please?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 17, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Good to hear some sense on this thread.
Drones have a 90% chance of failure to hit the targeted individual, so nine times out of ten innocent and guilty bystanders are killed.
It is rather like spraying a rail carriage with a machine gun in the hope of killing the one guilty individual.

To me drones are unproductive. They will only add more fuel to the fire.

The constant miss-quoting of Corbyn by the British press and senior political and establishment figures makes me wonder about the direction our country is heading.
		
Click to expand...

Drones 90% chance of failure to hit the target ?!

Is that a guess or from actual evidence ? 

Drones have been very productive and have reduced the risk of our own pilots whilst also saving lives of other people.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 17, 2015)

Fish said:



			Can you provide some proof and evidence of these quoted statistics please?
		
Click to expand...

DFT's figures are, of course, incorrect. It's more like 96% of people killed are not the intended target....

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 17, 2015)

Fish said:



			Depends on the circumstances, situation & offence, although we were always told not to maim, if close enough without causing wider issues then take the head shot, otherwise hit the largest body mass, depending on the situation would be dependent on whether a double tap once down was justified!
		
Click to expand...

Fish, if you've got a guy in a suicide vest, does the body shot risk setting off the explosives; by which I mean the bullet itself acting as the detonator if it hits the explosive, rather than the target's lack of consciousness releasing the trigger?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 17, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Drones 90% chance of failure to hit the target ?!

Is that a guess or from actual evidence ? 

Drones have been very productive and have reduced the risk of our own pilots whilst also saving lives of other people.
		
Click to expand...

The figure was quoted on the radio by an military 'expert'.
The 'uncomfirmed hits' was one in ten........sounds like the troops are either guessing or being deliberately misled by the target posters.

How many confirmed hits do we actually know of?
No bodies no proof.
Why did they not use a drone against bin Laden?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 17, 2015)

Blue in Munich said:



			Fish, if you've got a guy in a suicide vest, does the body shot risk setting off the explosives; by which I mean the bullet itself acting as the detonator if it hits the explosive, rather than the target's lack of consciousness releasing the trigger?
		
Click to expand...

A lot of the guys in Afghan with the suicide vests were fitted with dead man's triggers - snipers were told to aim for the forehead which I believe didn't give them enough time to release the trigger - hit to the body and the the trigger could be released.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 17, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			The figure was quoted on the radio by an military 'expert'.
The 'uncomfirmed hits' was one in ten........sounds like the troops are either guessing or being deliberately misled by the target posters.

How many confirmed hits do we actually know of?
No bodies no proof.
Why did they not use a drone against bin Laden?
		
Click to expand...

When was this radio broadcast - would expect that something mentioned like that would cause a Journo to react and add it to a national paper - quite a scandal to have only one in ten actually hit the intended target. 

Drones are no different to air strikes.

They didn't use a drone against Bin Laden because at no time did they 100% know where he was.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 17, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			A lot of the guys in Afghan with the suicide vests were fitted with dead man's triggers - snipers were told to aim for the forehead which I believe didn't give them enough time to release the trigger - hit to the body and the the trigger could be released.
		
Click to expand...

My understanding of the dead man's trigger was precisely the opposite; the suicide bomber had to actively keep pressure on the switch to avoid detonation, thus in the event of being rendered unconscious or killed the vest detonated.


----------



## Fish (Nov 17, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			DFT's figures are, of course, incorrect. It's more like 96% of people killed are not the intended target....

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147

Click to expand...

That report clearly doesn't state as dft was alluding to that the drones themselves have a 90% failure to hit the intended target, as that biased report shows, they've hit the target which was fed to them by intelligence but at times the individual wasn't there, but that's not to say that the drone wasn't 100% accurate, it can only hit the target that's fed into it.  The problem with these kind of terrorist they will hide themselves and even set up missile launches in and around schools, hospitals and heavily populated areas, if they have to be a casualty of war, then that's unfortunate, notice is usually given in extreme circumstances so innocents can move, nobody wants to see it but then nobody wants to see repeats of all the murders they do across Europe, so, whilst there isn't an easy liberal answer, if intelligence states that Mr Murderer is in position A, then we bomb position A, simples, it's for the greater good and will save far more innocent lives along the line.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 17, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Did I say that? Where?

Democratic and moral authority rest on the rule of law and administration of justice. It is therefore preferable to detain and prosecute people rather than summarily bomb or drone them. Sometimes it isn't possible to do the former, but sometimes it is just politically expedient to drone them and avoid questions and answers.

Nobody here weeps any tears for this waste of oxygen, but the drone hit him and he probably didn't even know about it. Would it not be better, if possible, to arrest him, drag him back for trial and then throw him in a tin box for the duration?
		
Click to expand...

Still with you^^^


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 17, 2015)

Blue in Munich said:



			My understanding of the dead man's trigger was precisely the opposite; the suicide bomber had to actively keep pressure on the switch to avoid detonation, thus in the event of being rendered unconscious or killed the vest detonated.
		
Click to expand...

There is something about hitting a specific area in the brain that keeps the finger or hand locked in position -


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 17, 2015)

Blue in Munich said:



			My understanding of the dead man's trigger was precisely the opposite; the suicide bomber had to actively keep pressure on the switch to avoid detonation, thus in the event of being rendered unconscious or killed the vest detonated.
		
Click to expand...

Is the norm


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 17, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Like I replied before, the humiliation of capture, look at Saddam's pathetic pictures, the information you may get from interrogation, what if the risk of  8-20 Soldiers attempting a capture could've prevented 9/11. Nobody makes these calls before all avenues have been explored, a situation like Paris, absolutely shoot to kill, give them no chance,
		
Click to expand...

Capturing him would seem a lot more beneficial use of JJs life than taking him out as had been done.  Militarily he was nothing and the risk he himself posed to British (if we have to refer to 'our' forces) lives was minimal.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Capturing him would seem a lot more beneficial use of JJs life than taking him out as had been done.  *Militarily he was nothing and the risk he himself posed to British (if we have to refer to 'our' forces) lives was minimal.*

Click to expand...

What provides the basis for that statement ?

How did you conclude that the risk was minimal ?


----------



## Fish (Nov 17, 2015)

Blue in Munich said:



			My understanding of the dead man's trigger was precisely the opposite; the suicide bomber had to actively keep pressure on the switch to avoid detonation, thus in the event of being rendered unconscious or killed the vest detonated.
		
Click to expand...

The vests I came into contact with were not that sophisticated, it was a trigger in the full sense of the word, they had to press it or pull it, not sure if they've advanced much over the last few years to reverse pressures, I'd always go for a headshot if a known declared bomber with a vest on was in good enough range, my rules of engagement gave me that right, you can't bring him down only for him to detonate as you approach him, its all or nothing sometimes and you have a split second to make that call, not take time to review everything, there's usually more than 1 of them so take the shot and move...!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 17, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			The figure was quoted on the radio by an military 'expert'.
The 'uncomfirmed hits' was one in ten........sounds like the troops are either guessing or being deliberately misled by the target posters.

How many confirmed hits do we actually know of?
No bodies no proof.
Why did they not use a drone against bin Laden?
		
Click to expand...

They tried to capture Bin Laden, but as said before they had authority to use lethal force if required, plus they/we got computers and other intelligence material that you don't get from a Drone.
Nobody is saying Drones are the only option, they are safer, for us and your analogy of the train carriage, if the train carriage itself is the target then it's a 100% success, no method is fall proof, it just depends on the situation as to what weapon you choose.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Capturing him would seem a lot more beneficial use of JJs life than taking him out as had been done.  Militarily he was nothing and the risk he himself posed to British (if we have to refer to 'our' forces) lives was minimal.
		
Click to expand...

Totally disagree, there are situations were you have no choice, he was legitimate target and at times Drones will be the only option, I'm 100% convinced all other options would of been discussed and ruled out.


----------



## Fish (Nov 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Still with you^^^
		
Click to expand...

You 2 just need to get a room....


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 17, 2015)

JJ was a modern day Lord Haw Haw.
Nothing to prove that he was anywhere near or involved in the killings. They probably just used his voice.

By targets, I meant the individual targeted not the geographical position.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 17, 2015)

Fish said:



			You 2 just need to get a room....
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 17, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			JJ was a modern day Lord Haw Haw.
Nothing to prove that he was anywhere near or involved in the killings. They probably just used his voice.

By targets, I meant the individual targeted not the geographical position.
		
Click to expand...

So JJ wasn't in the beheading videos then ?

The drone is the same as any air strike - they can only act on the intelligence given and go for that target 

If the individual that was the target leaves before the drone gets there that's not a fault of the drone - it would be no different to an air strike doing the same thing.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 17, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			JJ was a modern day Lord Haw Haw.
Nothing to prove that he was anywhere near or involved in the killings. They probably just used his voice.

By targets, I meant the individual targeted not the geographical position.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure if you have seen the vids but I suppose they could have been doctored


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 17, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Capturing him would seem a lot more beneficial use of JJs life than taking him out as had been done.  Militarily he was nothing and the risk he himself posed to British (if we have to refer to 'our' forces) lives was minimal.
		
Click to expand...

From what little I've read on his death he was approaching Raqqa in a vehicle. How do you propose getting a force to Raqqa, bearing in mind it is a major HQ for IS, and do you think it safe to send a kidnap squad, sorry arresting officer, in to a place like that?

I would prefer capture, questioning and trial too but I don't think JJ was that spotty teenager guilty of anti social behaviour on the local village green.


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 17, 2015)

Crazyface said:



			How? Surely they are housed separately from proper criminals and played christian rock songs 24 hours a day, and made to go to christian bible readings.  Have we no idea how to treat these bloomin' flippin' idiots?
		
Click to expand...

Sadly not, but they said that, the main targets of the religious grooming are young white males who are lets say not of the highest intelligence.

Not quite sure where the term "shoot to kill" policy came from but with the government stating that it has stopped X number of terrorist activities over the last few months. Would it suggest that there is not a " shoot to kill " policy anyway.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 17, 2015)

Tashyboy said:



			Sadly not, but they said that, the main targets of the religious grooming are young white males who are lets say not of the highest intelligence.

Not quite sure where the term "shoot to kill" policy came from but with the government stating that it has stopped X number of terrorist activities over the last few months. Would it suggest that there is not a " shoot to kill " policy anyway.
		
Click to expand...

Rules of engagement dictate that if lethal force is to be used they you shoot to kill as opposed to shoot to main etc


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 17, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			JJ was a modern day Lord Haw Haw.
Nothing to prove that he was anywhere near or involved in the killings. They probably just used his voice.

By targets, I meant the individual targeted not the geographical position.
		
Click to expand...

Having seen some of the vids and the reports that followed, he did some of the beheadings, he was identified from the videos, not just voice recognition.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 17, 2015)

Even Hilary Benn, Corbyn's own Shadow Foreign Sec has said Corbyn is wrong. And Corbyn got a very rough ride from his own MP's at last night's PLP meeting over a number of his comments surrounding foreign policy in the middle east. Not quite uniting the Labour Party... Bring in David Milliband before its too late to pull the party together before the next election.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 17, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Even Hilary Benn, Corbyn's own Shadow Foreign Sec has said Corbyn is wrong. And Corbyn got a very rough ride from his own MP's at last night's PLP meeting over a number of his comments surrounding foreign policy in the middle east. Not quite uniting the Labour Party... Bring in David Milliband before its too late to pull the party together before the next election.
		
Click to expand...

He may be a very principled and honest man, just can't believe he Party leader material, never mind a remotely possible PM, if he can't unite his Party, he could be doing irreversible damage, still doesn't excuse the behaviour of others in Politics and the media.


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 17, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Even Hilary Benn, Corbyn's own Shadow Foreign Sec has said Corbyn is wrong. And Corbyn got a very rough ride from his own MP's at last night's PLP meeting over a number of his comments surrounding foreign policy in the middle east. Not quite uniting the Labour Party... Bring in David Milliband before its too late to pull the party together before the next election.
		
Click to expand...


This^^^&#128521;


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 17, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			He may be a very principled and honest man, just can't believe he Party leader material, never mind a remotely possible PM, if he can't unite his Party, he could be doing irreversible damage, still doesn't excuse the behaviour of others in Politics and the media.
		
Click to expand...

You cannot just ignore the massive vote Corbyn got from the Labour membership.
He was chosen to lead the party not the even more unelectable sulking shadow front benchers


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 17, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			You cannot just ignore the massive vote Corbyn got from the Labour membership.
He was chosen to lead the party not the even more unelectable sulking shadow front benchers
		
Click to expand...

The vote doesn't mean that the party isn't split apart and tearing more and more each week. 

He is not the person to unite them or to take them to an election win. The party will continue to fight between themselves whilst the stories rub their hands with glee at the lack of a credible opposition.

And back to JJ - did you see the beheading videos that he starred in ?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 17, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			You cannot just ignore the massive vote Corbyn got from the Labour membership.
He was chosen to lead the party not the even more unelectable sulking shadow front benchers
		
Click to expand...

I'm not, but there's currently not enough of them to get him to No 10, and with his own MP's moaning and the media being mischevious, he doesn't seem to be winning more people over.


----------



## Fish (Nov 17, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			You cannot just ignore the massive vote Corbyn got from the Labour membership.
He was chosen to lead the party not the even more unelectable sulking shadow front benchers
		
Click to expand...

I watched him live today after DC's speech in parliament and he doesn't come across very well, he fluffs his words, loses the thread of what he's reading and has to constantly re-compose himself, he couldn't rally anything, he's not believable in any way, although he did acknowledge and gave mutual support to everything Dave stated, after coming under attack from within that wasn't a surprise but you could sense and feel he didn't mean it!


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 17, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Favourite to become the Labour leader........who would have called that one?

I knew Labour had to move to the left to become electable outwith Scotland but did not think it would happen that quickly.
		
Click to expand...

This was the OPs original post, my comments which seemed to have sparked a recent surge in comments re JC both anti and pro were for one reason only.

I never knew a single thing about him, I had never heard of him, and as the OP said, who would of called that one.

correct me if I am wrong ( and I am in the right place for that one), but the post was about a new unlikely leader of the opposition Labour Party who would give the Tories a run for there money up to and including the next election. 

He is not capable of uniting his own party, never mind the electorate and for that reason his comments "rub me up the wrong way" and he will not be getting my support at the next election.


----------



## freddielong (Nov 17, 2015)

I don't get the last two labour leaders at all, it's almost as if labour are throwing a few elections to give the conservatives a chance to sort out the economy  (again). Then they will try to swoop in and bankrupt the country again like they normally do.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 17, 2015)

The mans a lightweight around a very poor bunch of current politicians. Poor speaker and tends to ramble. Needs to start acting like an opposition leader with united strong policies. He may have a niche group of support outside of Parliament but if he cannot cannot bring his sitting MPs with him he's had it.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 17, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			The mans a lightweight around a very poor bunch of current politicians. Poor speaker and tends to ramble. Needs to start acting like an opposition leader with united strong policies. He may have a niche group of support outside of Parliament but if he cannot cannot bring his sitting MPs with him he's had it.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed.


----------



## toyboy54 (Nov 17, 2015)

Wish for someone with some character and presence(plus political nous)as John Smith....Definetly not the charlatans  that came after

Jimbo


----------



## Billythefish (Nov 17, 2015)

freddielong said:



			I don't get the last two labour leaders at all, it's almost as if labour are throwing a few elections to give the conservatives a chance to sort out the economy  (again). Then they will try to swoop in and bankrupt the country again like they normally do.
		
Click to expand...


Always been the same. Labour spend and give out benefits like sweets until the money runs out. Brown selling the gold, the pensions. All money wasted. Oh by the way, there is no money left' remember that?

labour will love being in opposition fora few years (i will love them being in opposition as well). Gives em a chance to moan about everything while not having to do a tap to remedy anything

i see mr blair purchased his 34th property the other day. It was his illegal war that helped start the mess the world is in.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 18, 2015)

Billythefish said:



			Always been the same. Labour spend and give out benefits like sweets until the money runs out. Brown selling the gold, the pensions. All money wasted. Oh by the way, there is no money left' remember that?

labour will love being in opposition fora few years (i will love them being in opposition as well). Gives em a chance to moan about everything while not having to do a tap to remedy anything

i see mr blair purchased his 34th property the other day. *It was his illegal war that helped start the mess the world is in.*

Click to expand...

Slight exaggeration there to suggest that Iraq II was Blair's war.  I think I spotted others involved in decision making - or am I mistaken.  No I'm not - looks like Bush also had a hand in it.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 18, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Slight exaggeration there to suggest that Iraq II was Blair's war.  I think I spotted others involved in decision making - or am I mistaken.  No I'm not - looks like Bush also had a hand in it.
		
Click to expand...

Bush didn't tell us we had to go to war, Blair did. Blair was part of the gang that took us into an illegal war, defying the UN at that time. What is the difference between Argentina invading the Falklands and the UK being part of a coalition that invaded Iraq?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 18, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Bush didn't tell us we had to go to war, Blair did. Blair was part of the gang that took us into an illegal war, defying the UN at that time. What is the difference between Argentina invading the Falklands and the UK being part of a coalition that invaded Iraq?
		
Click to expand...

I was commenting on the statement _*It was his illegal war that helped start the mess the world is in.*_


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 18, 2015)

Funny all the condemnation for Blair's illegal war and the condemnation of Corbyn for wanting to do things legally. Damned if you do and damned if you don't, it would appear.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 18, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			The mans a lightweight around a very poor bunch of current politicians. Poor speaker and tends to ramble. Needs to start acting like an opposition leader with united strong policies. He may have a niche group of support outside of Parliament but if he cannot cannot bring his sitting MPs with him he's had it.
		
Click to expand...

The loud shouty speakers always think that they speak for the majority when they do not.
The quiet ones tend to listen to the majority and allow them to speak.

You only have to listen to your fellow golf club members to understand that one.

Classic big voice/little voice from OS
He says Corbyn has a niche support.....that niche support was nearly 60% of the membership and I believe it was the biggest winning margin of any Labour leader.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			The loud shouty speakers always think that they speak for the majority when they do not.
The quiet ones tend to listen to the majority and allow them to speak.

You only have to listen to your fellow golf club members to understand that one.

Classic big voice/little voice from OS
He says Corbyn has a niche support.....that niche support was nearly 60% of the membership and I believe it was the biggest winning margin of any Labour leader.
		
Click to expand...

Do you think that Corbyn will unite Labour ?

Do you think that he has the support of the majority of labour "Mp's"


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Do you think that Corbyn will unite Labour ?

Do you think that he has the support of the majority of labour "Mp's"
		
Click to expand...

That's not the point Phil, the majority of Labour Supporters wanted him to lead the Party, there wishes should be respected, The MP's are there to serve there constituents, they should be backing him and showing a United front as a Party, not squabbling.
Does any Leader unite the whole Party, other Parties Leaders have their critics.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 18, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			The loud shouty speakers always think that they speak for the majority when they do not.
The quiet ones tend to listen to the majority and allow them to speak.

You only have to listen to your fellow golf club members to understand that one.

Classic big voice/little voice from OS
He says Corbyn has a niche support.....that niche support was nearly 60% of the membership and I believe it was the biggest winning margin of any Labour leader.
		
Click to expand...

Labour MPs are lining up in media to condemn the man. If he cannot unite the party within parliament he can have the largest support ever held by a Labour leader, his undoing is that his supporters don't have any say at the moment. If it leads to a split he might end up leading a party of 6.

He is also that nieve he wasted a question at PMQs today knowing that a question on the budget statement would never be answer before the statement is officially made.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Do you think that Corbyn will unite Labour ?

Do you think that he has the support of the majority of labour "Mp's"
		
Click to expand...

1] Much too early to say.
2] I do not know.......I know the shadow ministers who resigned [who were roundly rejected by the electorate] are upset about losing all of their additional perks. They were the people who did not come up with any policies except.........tell us what you want and we will do it....... No leadership or guidance whatsoever.
As I said you cannot just ignore the support Corbyn has from the people.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 18, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			That's not the point Phil, the majority of Labour Supporters wanted him to lead the Party, there wishes should be respected, The MP's are there to serve there constituents, they should be backing him and showing a United front as a Party, not squabbling.
Does any Leader unite the whole Party, other Parties Leaders have their critics.
		
Click to expand...

Good point, some of these MP's think they are untouchable.
It will be interesting to see how the membership view then, disloyal to the party, worthy of deselection?
Many Scottish Labour MP's thought they were untouchable.
Only one left now.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 18, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Good point, some of these MP's think they are untouchable.
It will be interesting to see how the membership view then, disloyal to the party, worthy of deselection?
Many Scottish Labour MP's thought they were untouchable.
Only one left now.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure the Scottish Labour MP's losing their seats was down solely to Milliband, more down to a surge in SNP Support


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			1] Much too early to say.
2] I do not know.......I know the shadow ministers who resigned [who were roundly rejected by the electorate] are upset about losing all of their additional perks. They were the people who did not come up with any policies except.........tell us what you want and we will do it....... No leadership or guidance whatsoever.
As I said you cannot just ignore the support Corbyn has from the people.
		
Click to expand...

Think you need to quantify your last statement a bit - which people are you talking about exactly in regards the support he has ?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			That's not the point Phil, the majority of Labour Supporters wanted him to lead the Party, there wishes should be respected, The MP's are there to serve there constituents, they should be backing him and showing a United front as a Party, not squabbling.
Does any Leader unite the whole Party, other Parties Leaders have their critics.
		
Click to expand...

It wasn't the majority of Labour supporters who voted for him - it was member of the Labour Party - there is a big difference between the two 

The MP's are crucial to him - if he doesn't have their backing then he is leading a party of nobody


----------



## Billythefish (Nov 18, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Funny all the condemnation for Blair's illegal war and the condemnation of Corbyn for wanting to do things legally. Damned if you do and damned if you don't, it would appear.
		
Click to expand...

Difference being this enemy does have weapons which they are using on innocent people going about their business, so I think this is a lot more 'legal' than Blairs (oh and bush obviously)


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

Billythefish said:



			Difference being this enemy does have weapons which they are using on innocent people going about their business, so I think this is a lot more 'legal' than Blairs (oh and bush obviously)
		
Click to expand...

Hussain was also using weapons including chemical weapons on innocent people - tens of thousands innocent people died at the hands of Saddam Hussain


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It wasn't the majority of Labour supporters who voted for him - it was member of the Labour Party - there is a big difference between the two 

The MP's are crucial to him - if he doesn't have their backing then he is leading a party of nobody
		
Click to expand...

It was how the leaders are elected, we don't hold general elections for Party leaders, also Labour MP's are also members of the Labour Party, you bang on here about Scottish Yes Voters not accepting the No vote, what's the difference, the MP's should accept the result of a vote they took part in.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			It was how the leaders are elected, we don't hold general elections for Party leaders, also Labour MP's are also members of the Labour Party, you bang on here about Scottish Yes Voters not accepting the No vote, what's the difference, they should accept the result of a vote they took part in.
		
Click to expand...

I haven't said I don't accept the leader vote ? 

Just said that it wasn't the majority of Labour supporters who voted for him - nor was it the majority of Labour supporters who wanted him as leader - it was members of the Labour Party - there is a clear difference between the two


----------



## ger147 (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I haven't said I don't accept the leader vote ? 

Just said that it wasn't the majority of Labour supporters who voted for him - nor was it the majority of Labour supporters who wanted him as leader - it was members of the Labour Party - there is a clear difference between the two
		
Click to expand...

Actually that is not correct. The people entitled to vote in the Labour Party leadership elections are members of the Labour party, affiliated suporters of the Labour party and registered supporters of the Labour party.  The 2nd and 3rd groups aren't members of the Labour party.

http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/how-to-vote-for-our-next-leader-and-deputy-leader


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I haven't said I don't accept the leader vote ? 

Just said that it wasn't the majority of Labour supporters who voted for him - nor was it the majority of Labour supporters who wanted him as leader - it was members of the Labour Party - there is a clear difference between the two
		
Click to expand...

Didn't say you personally didn't accept the vote, it's the principle, there is no clear difference though, if anyone wants to be involved in having a say in who leads the Labour Party it's simple, join the party and have a say, it's like your saying the majority of the Country didn't want a Tory Government because they didn't vote for one by not turning up to vote. Should we start listening to the silent majorities then?


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 18, 2015)

ger147 said:



			Actually that is not correct. The people entitled to vote in the Labour Party leadership elections are members of the Labour party, affiliated suporters of the Labour party and registered supporters of the Labour party.  The 2nd and 3rd groups aren't members of the Labour party.

http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/how-to-vote-for-our-next-leader-and-deputy-leader

Click to expand...

Next time round they can sack all the current Labour MPs and vote in Corbyns people - job jobbed. Until then he's had it. Already move to get Benn in as an interim leader if you believe some people.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

ger147 said:



			Actually that is not correct. The people entitled to vote in the Labour Party leadership elections are members of the Labour party, affiliated suporters of the Labour party and registered supporters of the Labour party.  The 2nd and 3rd groups aren't members of the Labour party.

http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/how-to-vote-for-our-next-leader-and-deputy-leader

Click to expand...

Ok I'll word it differently 

9 million voted for labour at the last election 

240,000 voted for Corbyn - members and affiliated members who paid a Â£3 to vote 

The majority of Labour supporters didn't vote for Corbyn or indeed anyone in the Leader poll


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Didn't say you personally didn't accept the vote, it's the principle, there is no clear difference though, if anyone wants to be involved in having a say in who leads the Labour Party it's simple, join the party and have a say, it's like your saying the majority of the Country didn't want a Tory Government because they didn't vote for one by not turning up to vote. Should we start listening to the silent majorities then?
		
Click to expand...

I just asked Doon a couple of relevant questions - will he be able to unite Labour and does he have the backing of the Labour MP's 

I believe the answer to both those questions is a clear no - now and in the future 

It's just false to say that the majority of labour supporters wanted Corbyn as leader


----------



## ger147 (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:





ger147 said:



			Actually that is not correct. The people entitled to vote in the Labour Party leadership elections are members of the Labour party, affiliated suporters of the Labour party and registered supporters of the Labour party.  The 2nd and 3rd groups aren't members of the Labour party.

http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/how-to-vote-for-our-next-leader-and-deputy-leader[/QUOTE
Ok I'll word it differently 

9 million voted for labour at the last election 

240,000 voted for Corbyn - members and affiliated members who paid a Â£3 to vote 

The majority of Labour supporters didn't vote for Corbyn or indeed anyone in the Leader poll
		
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as an affiliated member. There are members, affiliated supporters and registered supporters. And supporters are NOT members.

And affiliated supporters did not pay Â£3 to vote, that was the registered supporters.

The link I posted above explains it all very clearly.

I am merely correcting your statement that it was only members of the Labour party that elected Corbyn - it was not. Non party members who are Labour supporters also voted.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

ger147 said:





Liverpoolphil said:



			There is no such thing as an affiliated member. There are members, affiliated supporters and registered supporters. And supporters are NOT members.

And affiliated supporters did not pay Â£3 to vote, that was the registered supporters.

The link I posted above explains it all very clearly.

I am merely correcting your statement that it was only members of the Labour party that elected Corbyn - it was not. Non party members who are Labour supporters also voted.
		
Click to expand...

Ok :thup:
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Ok I'll word it differently 

9 million voted for labour at the last election 

240,000 voted for Corbyn - members and affiliated members who paid a Â£3 to vote 

The majority of Labour supporters didn't vote for Corbyn or indeed anyone in the Leader poll
		
Click to expand...

That's daft looking at it like that, out of 300,000 Conservative members eleigible to vote for their Leader last time, Cameron got 134,000 votes and won but 166,000 didn't vote for him and at the election they got over 11,000,000 votes, double proof they don't want Cameron.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			That's daft looking at it like that, out of 300,000 Conservative members eleigible to vote for their Leader last time, Cameron got 134,000 votes and won but 166,000 didn't vote for him and at the election they got over 11,000,000 votes, double proof they don't want Cameron.
		
Click to expand...

Ok I'll ask a simple question - 

Did the majority of Labour Supporters vote for Corbyn as the leader ?


----------



## ger147 (Nov 18, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			That's daft looking at it like that, out of 300,000 Conservative members eleigible to vote for their Leader last time, Cameron got 134,000 votes and won but 166,000 didn't vote for him and at the election they got over 11,000,000 votes, double proof they don't want Cameron.
		
Click to expand...

Members of the Conservative party don't get to choose a new leader in leadership elections, the MP's get to decide.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Nov 18, 2015)

Im afraid that they got who they voted for, those millions of "supporters" who didnt register to vote should have got off their backsides and done something about it.

I have no sympathy whatsoever with the bleeding hearts who are whining that Corbyn won, it was very well publicised in the weeks leading up to the leadership election that Corbyn was in with a real chance, 

labour are a dead duck, to get back into office they are going to have to turn over the SNP in Scotland, cant see that happening any time soon AND beat the Tories in the rest of the UK and with Corbyn as leader they can kiss that goodbye too


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 18, 2015)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Im afraid that they got who they voted for, those millions of "supporters" who didnt register to vote should have got off their backsides and done something about it.

I have no sympathy whatsoever with the bleeding hearts who are whining that Corbyn won, it was very well publicised in the weeks leading up to the leadership election that Corbyn was in with a real chance, 

labour are a dead duck, to get back into office they are going to have to turn over the SNP in Scotland, cant see that happening any time soon AND beat the Tories in the rest of the UK and with Corbyn as leader they can kiss that goodbye too
		
Click to expand...

Well I didn't get off my backside to do anything about it and, on balance, I'm relatively happy with JC. Especially so when I think who the alternatives are.

Only time will tell if Labour are a dead duck but I think the SNP are about to come a bit unstuck given the bombshell their former policy chief detonated this week so there is light at the end of the tunnel.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

I'm struggling to think of any politician who stands out and looks like they could be a beacon in bad times 

I think right now our politicians are at a worse standard than I have witnessed but then again I can't remember the last time one did inspire anyone or anything - it allways appears to be what they can get out of it as opposed to what good they can do 

Andy Burnham has a lot of respect from people in Liverpool for the work he did in regards JFT96 campaign but struggles with policies.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 18, 2015)

ger147 said:



			Members of the Conservative party don't get to choose a new leader in leadership elections, the MP's get to decide.
		
Click to expand...

Have a look at this, this says different, MP's vote for final 2 then members vote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2005


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Ok I'll ask a simple question - 

Did the majority of Labour Supporters vote for Corbyn as the leader ?
		
Click to expand...

It's a nothing question, you are looking for a answer that isn't coming


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			It's a nothing question, you are looking for a answer that isn't coming
		
Click to expand...

If it's a nothing question why did you previously state that the majority of Labour Supporters wanted him as Labour leader ? 

That won't be known until they ask them all.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Ok I'll word it differently 

9 million voted for labour at the last election 

240,000 voted for Corbyn - members and affiliated members who paid a Â£3 to vote 

The majority of Labour supporters didn't vote for Corbyn or indeed anyone in the Leader poll
		
Click to expand...




pauldj42 said:



			That's daft looking at it like that, out of 300,000 Conservative members eleigible to vote for their Leader last time, Cameron got 134,000 votes and won but 166,000 didn't vote for him and at the election they got over 11,000,000 votes, double proof they don't want Cameron.
		
Click to expand...

It think Phil answered it perfectly. Unless he can unite the party and attract *millions *of Labour voters, not members, voters, he's nothing more than a paper tiger.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			It think Phil answered it perfectly. Unless he can unite the party and attract *millions *of Labour voters, not members, voters, he's nothing more than a paper tiger.
		
Click to expand...

Which was precisely my point and why i asked the first question 

The labour leader needs to unite a party ripped apart - if Corbyn can't do that which IMO it looks like he can't then the Labour Party will not be a credible opposition to the Tories


----------



## Fish (Nov 18, 2015)

Appointing Red Ken to oversee defence issues was a great move.....not :rofl:

Immediately gets into controversy and at first refuses to apologise but has now had to succumb to pressure, the Labour Party should start a soap, its priceless :smirk:


----------



## jp5 (Nov 18, 2015)

Long time until the next GE.

All this commotion will no doubt be just a footnote by 2020.


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 18, 2015)

Labour got well and truly mullered at the last election.

So much so the leader had to resign. Hardly anyone, especially floating voters were interested in what Labour promised with its manifesto.

So Labour elects a new leader, the very people that Joe public were not interested in, Labour MPs and supporters elected someone who was anonymous, who people had never heard of. 

The same guy has to somehow, unite his party, win over millions of voters in Scotland, Wales and England, and he is further from achieving that than labour ever have been.

I cannot remember the last time I saw such a poor opposition to the government.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 18, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			It think Phil answered it perfectly. Unless he can unite the party and attract *millions *of Labour voters, not members, voters, he's nothing more than a paper tiger.
		
Click to expand...

Phil used statistics and those same statisitics apply to Cameron, what is the difference? More Labour people voted for Corbyn than Tories voted for Cameron, does that make Corbyn more popular?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 18, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Long time until the next GE.

All this commotion will no doubt be just a footnote by 2020.
		
Click to expand...

Wise words.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Which was precisely my point and why i asked the first question 

The labour leader needs to unite a party ripped apart - if Corbyn can't do that which IMO it looks like he can't then the Labour Party will not be a credible opposition to the Tories
		
Click to expand...

Hindsight is a wonderful thing Phil, it's your point now he's been the leader a short while, there was a process and he won, it wasn't underhand or fixed, the candidates gave talks and point there points of view over, those eligible or interested voted, to now say the rest of labour Supporters didn't want him is amute point, hence my post about votes in the General election etc, by the way I don't support Corbyn and agree about uniting a Party, my point is, the childish behaviour of MP's not accepting democratically elected people.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 18, 2015)

Tashyboy said:



			Labour got well and truly mullered at the last election.

So much so the leader had to resign *If you look at History virtually every leader of the main opposition party has resigned when he's lost an election*. Hardly anyone, especially floating voters were interested in what Labour promised with its manifesto.

So Labour elects a new leader, the very people that Joe public were not interested in, Labour MPs and supporters elected someone who was anonymous, who people had never heard of. 

*Bit simplistic way of describing it, all candidates had the same opportunity and it either proves he was the most succesful speaker or the others were spectacularly weak.*
The same guy has to somehow, unite his party, win over millions of voters in Scotland, Wales and England, and he is further from achieving that than labour ever have been. *Some of this responsibility has to lay with the Labour MP's all they are doing is more damage.*

I cannot remember the last time I saw such a poor opposition to the government.
		
Click to expand...

Very poor opposition


----------



## JCW (Nov 18, 2015)

Fish said:



			Appointing Red Ken to oversee defence issues was a great move.....not :rofl:

Immediately gets into controversy and at first refuses to apologise but has now had to succumb to pressure, the Labour Party should start a soap, its priceless :smirk:
		
Click to expand...


They will not be in power for a long time and that is not good for the UK as long as he is Head of the Labour Party , we be a one party state ..................not good at all


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Hindsight is a wonderful thing Phil, it's your point now he's been the leader a short while, there was a process and he won, it wasn't underhand or fixed, the candidates gave talks and point there points of view over, those eligible or interested voted, to now say the rest of labour Supporters didn't want him is amute point, hence my post about votes in the General election etc, by the way I don't support Corbyn and agree about uniting a Party, my point is, the childish behaviour of MP's not accepting democratically elected people.
		
Click to expand...

I believe you keep missing the point 

I asked Doon - does he think Corbyn can unite Labour and does he think the Labour MP's are behind him 

You responded by saying "that's not the point" "the majority of Labour Supporters wanted him as leader" and their wishes should be respected 

First - you don't know the majority of Labour supporters wanted him as leader - no one has asked them 

Secondly - that still has no relevance to the questions I asked 

I just wanted to see if Doon felt Corbyn was the person to unite Labour - not discuss how he became leader ?!?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 18, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Well I didn't get off my backside to do anything about it and, on balance, I'm relatively happy with JC. Especially so when I think who the alternatives are.

Only time will tell if Labour are a dead duck but I think the SNP are about to come a bit unstuck given the bombshell their former policy chief detonated this week so there is light at the end of the tunnel.
		
Click to expand...

I believe that the former policy chief said the YES campaigns financial model has come apart due to the collapse in the price of oil.  But as I understand it the YES campaign did not base their case for an independent Scotland being financially feasible on oil revenue - they stated all along that there are many countries getting along fine without oil.  

Anyway - the way England is going I suspect the next YES campaign won't have to rely too much on financial feasibility built on oil for them to have a strong attraction for many, one key aspect of that being the perceived weakness of Labour in England and the prospect of 'forever Tory'


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 18, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I believe that the former policy chief said the YES campaigns financial model has come apart due to the collapse in the price of oil.  But as I understand it the YES campaign did not base their case for an independent Scotland being financially feasible on oil revenue - they stated all along that there are many countries getting along fine without oil.  

Anyway - the way England is going I suspect the next YES campaign won't have to rely too much on financial feasibility built on oil for them to have a strong attraction for many, one key aspect of that being the perceived weakness of Labour in England and the prospect of 'forever Tory'
		
Click to expand...

He said the economic case had always been built on "wishful thinking" and was completely ridiculous now. And that it was "morally repugnant" for the SNP to continue to claim that Scotland can have higher public spending without increasing taxes to pay for it. That's from memory so might not be the exact quotes..... I'll try and find the original article, it's well worth a read. Surprised DFT hasn't already posted it....


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I believe that the former policy chief said the YES campaigns financial model has come apart due to the collapse in the price of oil.  But as I understand it the YES campaign did not base their case for an independent Scotland being financially feasible on oil revenue - they stated all along that there are many countries getting along fine without oil.  

Anyway - the way England is going I suspect the next YES campaign won't have to rely too much on financial feasibility built on oil for them to have a strong attraction for many, one key aspect of that being the perceived weakness of Labour in England and the prospect of 'forever Tory'
		
Click to expand...

If anyone votes Yes without relying on financial feasibility then they will get exactly what they deserve. 

And it was clear that the financial future of Scotland as an independent country was heavily weighted towards oil money.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			He said the economic case had always been built on "wishful thinking" and was completely ridiculous now. And that it was "morally repugnant" for the SNP to continue to claim that Scotland can have higher public spending without increasing taxes to pay for it. That's from memory so might not be the exact quotes..... I'll try and find the original article, it's well worth a read. Surprised DFT hasn't already posted it.... 

Click to expand...

I'm sure DFT will get round to it when it hits the wings mag but here it is
https://www.holyrood.com/articles/n...s-alex-salmonds-former-policy-chief-alex-bell


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 18, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Phil used statistics and those same statisitics apply to Cameron, what is the difference? More Labour people voted for Corbyn than Tories voted for Cameron, does that make Corbyn more popular?
		
Click to expand...

The difference is very clear. Cameron has been good enough to lead the Tories into office twice. Its beginning to look like Corbyn couldn't lead a dog.

I don't doubt for a minute he won the leadership in a fair and square battle within the rules the Labour Party have but even his own cabinet, which he struggled to form because of his unpopularity amongst the Labour leadership, is openly saying he's wrong.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			If anyone votes Yes without relying on financial feasibility then they will get exactly what they deserve. 

And it was clear that the financial future of Scotland as an independent country was heavily weighted towards oil money.
		
Click to expand...

The blue print issued by the SNP even quoted the price of a barrel of oil as part of its budget. Seem to remember people on here asking several times about the black hole in that budget but "William Wallace" wouldn't answer.


----------



## Fish (Nov 18, 2015)

I wonder if the proper Milliband would ever come back to the fold, I think he could get a grip of Labour, although it would take a bit of time to rebuild and lick its wounds, I don't think there is anyone else currently out there that the Conservatives would be concerned about at the helm.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I believe you keep missing the point 

I asked Doon - does he think Corbyn can unite Labour and does he think the Labour MP's are behind him 

You responded by saying "that's not the point" "the majority of Labour Supporters wanted him as leader" and their wishes should be respected 

First - you don't know the majority of Labour supporters wanted him as leader - no one has asked them 

Secondly - that still has no relevance to the questions I asked 

I just wanted to see if Doon felt Corbyn was the person to unite Labour - not discuss how he became leader ?!?
		
Click to expand...

I get the point you are trying/are making, my point back was that I believe it's a loaded question, Corbyn is not being backed by the MP's and they are not respecting the voters wish, we can run round in circles as to what we see as the labour supporters and who has a say, outwardly it certainly looks like Corbyn cannot unite the party and he won't be able to until he has the support of all MP's


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 18, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			The difference is very clear. Cameron has been good enough to lead the Tories into office twice. Its beginning to look like Corbyn couldn't lead a dog.

I don't doubt for a minute he won the leadership in a fair and square battle within the rules the Labour Party have but even his own cabinet, which he struggled to form because of his unpopularity amongst the Labour leadership, is openly saying he's wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Cameron is now and that's after 10 years at the helm, Cameron was not the favourite before or after the first round of MP's votes, he was second or third and not the popular choice, once he was elected the Tory party supported him publicly, that's the big difference to how Corbyn is being treated by a lot of labour MP's


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			I get the point you are trying/are making, my point back was that I believe it's a loaded question, Corbyn is not being backed by the MP's and they are not respecting the voters wish, we can run round in circles as to what we see as the labour supporters and who has a say, outwardly it certainly looks like Corbyn cannot unite the party and he won't be able to until he has the support of all MP's
		
Click to expand...

So the MP's should blindly go along with what Corbyn wants because he was voted in ?!? 
Why they heck would they do that if they don't believe in what he is doing or saying ? 

Surely that's the bigger problem - his own MP's have no faith in him , he struggled to get a shadow cabinet because they didn't believe in him.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 18, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Long time until the next GE.

All this commotion will no doubt be just a footnote by 2020.
		
Click to expand...

Unless Jeremy Corbyn is a footnote well before 2020 we will almost certainly be subjected to at least another 5 years of a Tory government.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So the MP's should blindly go along with what Corbyn wants because he was voted in ?!? 
Why they heck would they do that if they don't believe in what he is doing or saying ? 

Surely that's the bigger problem - his own MP's have no faith in him , he struggled to get a shadow cabinet because they didn't believe in him.
		
Click to expand...

Never suggested they blindly follow, but at the moment it's making the whole opposition laughable, leaks from private meetings etc, it's something Corbyn has to get a grip off, but at the same time some of the MP's are acting like children because they didn't get their own way.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Never suggested they blindly follow, but at the moment it's making the whole opposition laughable, leaks from private meetings etc, it's something Corbyn has to get a grip off, but at the same time some of the MP's are acting like children because they didn't get their own way.
		
Click to expand...

I'm really struggling here to see what your point is ? 

It is laughable but that's because of the MP's - that's because the people who voted in the leadership campaign voted in someone who is unable to unite the party and is so far behind the times he would struggle in the 60's. 

Corbyn won't be able to get a grip because he hasn't got that ability or know how to see that he needs to change. 

Labour are at the moment unelectable


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 18, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Cameron is now and that's after 10 years at the helm, Cameron was not the favourite before or after the first round of MP's votes, he was second or third and not the popular choice, once he was elected the Tory party supported him publicly, that's the big difference to how Corbyn is being treated by a lot of labour MP's
		
Click to expand...

Think about what Corbyn has done since becoming Labour leader. He's ploughed his own furrow, being his own man and pushing the far left's dogma. Cameron supported party policy, promoted party policy and listened to the party. that is how to unite a party. Not hard to see why so many Labour MP's don't support him, and its understandable why they are not cuddling up to him.

I like many of the guy's social policies, and I think he speaks really well in that area. But his foriegn policy is way too far left to find traction with the electorate or his own party.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I'm sure DFT will get round to it when it hits the wings mag but here it is
https://www.holyrood.com/articles/n...s-alex-salmonds-former-policy-chief-alex-bell

Click to expand...

He 'left his post' in July 2013 before the white paper was released.

I read his blog a few days ago.........agree with some of his points, disagree with others.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			He 'left his post' in July 2013 before the white paper was released.

I read his blog a few days ago.........agree with some of his points, disagree with others.
		
Click to expand...

So did he have something to do with the white paper or not ?

It was released in November and I'm guessing they took a couple of years to publish it so he wasn't around for the last couple of months


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Nov 18, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Never suggested they blindly follow, but at the moment it's making the whole opposition laughable, leaks from private meetings etc, it's something Corbyn has to get a grip off, but at the same time some of the MP's are acting like children because they didn't get their own way.
		
Click to expand...

Of course, a bigger issue is that any government needs an articulate and robust opposition to keep it focussed and every so often kept in check. I don't think under Corbyn, Labour are capable of offering this. Not saying they won't be but I just don't see them doing so with Corbyn at the helm


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 18, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Of course, a bigger issue is that any government needs an articulate and robust opposition to keep it focussed and every so often kept in check. I don't think under Corbyn, Labour are capable of offering this. Not saying they won't be but I just don't see them doing so with Corbyn at the helm
		
Click to expand...

I'd go further and add that whilst the focus is on Corbyn's failings it isn't on whatever strides Labour are making to become credible. When he is as one with the party... but will that happen?


----------



## Billythefish (Nov 18, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Unless Jeremy Corbyn is a footnote well before 2020 we will almost certainly be subjected to at least another 5 years of a Tory government.
		
Click to expand...

Happy days then..


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I'm really struggling here to see what your point is ? 

It is laughable but that's because of the MP's - that's because the people who voted in the leadership campaign voted in someone who is unable to unite the party and is so far behind the times he would struggle in the 60's. 

Corbyn won't be able to get a grip because he hasn't got that ability or know how to see that he needs to change. 

Labour are at the moment unelectable
		
Click to expand...

My point Phil, the Labour membership had the chance to elect a leader, they have put there faith in Corbyn (rightly or wrongly) If the MP's are now stamping their feet it shows a complete lack of respect to the members who voted for him, if they are not happy they should be doing their business in private through correct procedures. All the problems are being labelled at Corbyn, there are more than him at fault and actually if you look closely at him, he's not changed because he's suddenly become leader.
Totally agree it's a shambles and totally unelectable.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 18, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Think about what Corbyn has done since becoming Labour leader. He's ploughed his own furrow, being his own man and pushing the far left's dogma. Cameron supported party policy, promoted party policy and listened to the party. that is how to unite a party. Not hard to see why so many Labour MP's don't support him, and its understandable why they are not cuddling up to him.

I like many of the guy's social policies, and I think he speaks really well in that area. But his foriegn policy is way too far left to find traction with the electorate or his own party.
		
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing with anything you say, apart from this has always been Corbyn, and the MP's should not, in my opinion be so publicly vocal, basically they're saying they know better than the Labour members, maybe the mebers want to go backwards in there opposition, crazy yes! bu they can reap what they've sown.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			My point Phil, the Labour membership had the chance to elect a leader, they have put there faith in Corbyn (rightly or wrongly) If the MP's are now stamping their feet it shows a complete lack of respect to the members who voted for him, if they are not happy they should be doing their business in private through correct procedures. All the problems are being labelled at Corbyn, there are more than him at fault and actually if you look closely at him, he's not changed because he's suddenly become leader.
Totally agree it's a shambles and totally unelectable.
		
Click to expand...

Again are the MP's supposed to go with what 200,000 want or their 9 million voters - it's quiet clear a good majority of MP's didn't want him as leader and each day goes by its seems it's clear why 

Just because he was voted in by a small percentage of labour supporters ( around 5% ) doesn't mean they have to sit back and follow him blindly 

What exactly is the correct procedure you speak off ? It's politics - it's always played out in the open 

The blame for labour isn't just with Corbyn and I don't recall anyone saying it is 

The blame lays with the people who voted for him - I'm not sure exactly what their thinking was because they caused their party to be unelectable even with the GE not until 2020


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Nov 18, 2015)

Possibly Labour may look at how they elect future leaders, How much should the members (often die hard supporters and campaigners) views be taken into account , How much influence should the unions have?

At the end of the day, it doesnt matter which party you discuss, but If the party leader does not have the support of a good majority of that parties MP's , then that leader is not going to be a happy bunny.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Nov 18, 2015)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Possibly Labour may look at how they elect future leaders, How much should the members (often die hard supporters and campaigners) views be taken into account , How much influence should the unions have?

At the end of the day, it doesnt matter which party you discuss, but If the party leader does not have the support of a good majority of that parties MP's , then that leader is not going to be a happy bunny.
		
Click to expand...

Good point well made. I think the labour leadership battle highlighted that the process and the union vote may possibly be a little out of date. Whether it's right or wrong, they are where they are having got Corbyn into office. However as time goes on, if the party's MP's don't support him fully, Labour is going to be splintered and that cannot bode well when it transfers into votes and seats at the next election


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 18, 2015)

So red ken has to apologise, and eventually after political pressure and originally stating he wont, he does.

He was put into a position by Mr Corbyn as co chair of the defence review. Nowt wrong there. MR Livingstone is anti nuke, I don't have issue with that. The other co chair Maria Eagle is pro nuke. I don't have issue with that either.

What I do have issue with is that Mr Corbyn out of common decency did not consult with Ms Eagle, who is said to be livid re Mr livingstones appointment. Yup I know where she is coming from. Now I would like to think that you might of got a balanced review of our defence from labour, with them two co chairing. Not a cat in hells chance. They are both a million miles apart in there policy. Where's the thinking in that.

At this moment in time, Defence of this country is paramount in most people's thoughts and Mr Corbyn is once more making a pigs ear in the leading of his party.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 18, 2015)

Corbyn has spent his whole political career going against his party policies where it mattered, he was always a maverick along with the likes of Livingstone. He's now got a real problem as the majority of his MPs are the Mavericks and he has no answer to it.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Again are the MP's supposed to go with what 200,000 want or their 9 million voters - it's quiet clear a good majority of MP's didn't want him as leader and each day goes by its seems it's clear why 

Just because he was voted in by a small percentage of labour supporters ( around 5% ) doesn't mean they have to sit back and follow him blindly 

What exactly is the correct procedure you speak off ? It's politics - it's always played out in the open 

The blame for labour isn't just with Corbyn and I don't recall anyone saying it is 

The blame lays with the people who voted for him - I'm not sure exactly what their thinking was because they caused their party to be unelectable even with the GE not until 2020
		
Click to expand...

You keep mentioning 9 million voters, it's irrelevant, he wasn't the leader, it's the next GE we will see his impact, if he is or is not still the leader, so Labour is a democratic party and your saying if MP's don't agree with those who vote they can ignore it! Not very democratic in my opinion.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 18, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			You keep mentioning 9 million voters, it's irrelevant, he wasn't the leader, it's the next GE we will see his impact, if he is or is not still the leader, so Labour is a democratic party and your saying if MP's don't agree with those who vote they can ignore it! Not very democratic in my opinion.
		
Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate here but what if those MP's that are going against Jeremy Corbyn have been told by their constituents that they don't agree with Corbyn's policies? Surely in that case they are doing what they were elected to do and that is to represent their constituencies.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 18, 2015)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Possibly Labour may look at how they elect future leaders, How much should the members (often die hard supporters and campaigners) views be taken into account , How much influence should the unions have?

At the end of the day, it doesnt matter which party you discuss, but If the party leader does not have the support of a good majority of that parties MP's , then that leader is not going to be a happy bunny.
		
Click to expand...

Unions didn't have a block vote in this leadership campaign, it was changed from previous years to ome man one vote. None of the final 4 candidates had a majority of MP's backing them, Andy Burnham had the most with 68, Corbyn had 52 and I think the others were in the 20's, 3 were seen as similar to Miliband and each other, none of them would back down and lend their support to each other which meant it was stick to Miliband/Blair or vote left wing,


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 18, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			You keep mentioning 9 million voters, it's irrelevant, he wasn't the leader, it's the next GE we will see his impact, if he is or is not still the leader, so Labour is a democratic party and your saying if MP's don't agree with those who vote they can ignore it! Not very democratic in my opinion.
		
Click to expand...

Of course the 9 mil is relevant - that's how many people voted labour - that's how many supported the Labour Party not just the 400 thousand that voted for a leader. You are getting hung up on a small percentage 

Again do you expect the MP's to follow him even when they don't agree with his policies ? Or do you expect them to show they are able to think for themselves and protect their constituency ?

Make your mind on what path you believe the MP's should follow because it appears you are mixing yourself up


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 18, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Of course the 9 mil is relevant - that's how many people voted labour - that's how many supported the Labour Party not just the 400 thousand that voted for a leader. You are getting hung up on a small percentage 

Again do you expect the MP's to follow him even when they don't agree with his policies ? Or do you expect them to show they are able to think for themselves and protect their constituency ?

Make your mind on what path you believe the MP's should follow because it appears you are mixing yourself up
		
Click to expand...

No I'm not getting mixed up, 9 million people did not vote with Corbyn in mind they voted on Miliband and his policies, are you saying Labour should've sent a letter to the 9 million and ask their opinion?
As for MP's they should be showing a united front and addressing any concerns about Corbyn to the Labour Party Chief Whip.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 18, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Playing devil's advocate here but what if those MP's that are going against Jeremy Corbyn have been told by their constituents that they don't agree with Corbyn's policies? Surely in that case they are doing what they were elected to do and that is to represent their constituencies.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely they should represent their constituents, but there is an expected way to behave and what if it works the other way, they might not support Corbyn but the constituents do, should the MP shut up and support him?


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 18, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Playing devil's advocate here but what if those MP's that are going against Jeremy Corbyn have been told by their constituents that they don't agree with Corbyn's policies? Surely in that case they are *doing what they were elected to do and that is to represent their constituencies.*

Click to expand...

An extremely rare/unlikely event!

As for the 9 mill vs a couple of hundred thousand....Cameron was elected leder on even less, but has united his party.

Corbyn's job is to unite his and get more than the 9 mill to vote for him - that was what he was elected to do, irrespective of how many actually voted for him! That's how democracy works (in UK). Cameron and the Conservatives are running the country because they won more seats, not because a majority of eligible voters voted for them!


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 19, 2015)

Think this thread kind of indicates there are far too many folk basing their vote on the colour of the rosette rather than the quality of the person wearing it... No surprise then we always get dross government...


----------



## freddielong (Nov 19, 2015)

It does make the Labour party appear weak and pathetic if they cannot organise a leadership vote were they get a leader that they actually want, how can they run the country.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 19, 2015)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Possibly Labour may look at how they elect future leaders, How much should the members (often die hard supporters and campaigners) views be taken into account , How much influence should the unions have?

At the end of the day, it doesnt matter which party you discuss, but If the party leader does not have the support of a good majority of that parties MP's , then that leader is not going to be a happy bunny.
		
Click to expand...




freddielong said:



			It does make the Labour party appear weak and pathetic if they cannot organise a leadership vote were they get a leader that they actually want, how can they run the country.
		
Click to expand...

Is the right answer. Ed Milliband's election surprised many, and Corbyn's election more so. The 'experts' in parliament, i.e. the MP's, are almost sidelined in the leadership selection process by a system that places too much sway with those that don't necessarily understand party politics.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 19, 2015)

freddielong said:



			It does make the Labour party appear weak and pathetic if they cannot organise a leadership vote were they get a leader that they actually want, how can they run the country.
		
Click to expand...

63% of the Country didn't vote for a conservative to lead the country, so the country must be weak and pathetic by your logic, the issue isn't the vote, it's the man.
Foxholer got it correct!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 19, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Is the right answer. Ed Milliband's election surprised many, and Corbyn's election more so. The 'experts' in parliament, i.e. the MP's, are almost sidelined in the leadership selection process by a system that places too much sway with those that don't necessarily understand party politics.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry Brian but not factually correct, Milliband actually increased Labours vote from 2010, it was the impact of the SNP and the demise of Liberals that made the last election so different. To simply blame the voter because MP's are behaving petulant is a bit unfair.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 19, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Sorry Brian but not factually correct, Milliband actually increased Labours vote from 2010, it was the impact of the SNP and the demise of Liberals that made the last election so different. To simply blame the voter because MP's are behaving petulant is a bit unfair.
		
Click to expand...

That's playing with numbers though. That's like saying scoring 4 out of 10 is way better than 2 out of 10. Doubled your score but still failed. In 2010 the Tories needed a Coalition. Labour did so well with the increased vote they lost all but one seat in Scotland, and ended up even further from being elected..

I'm not blaming anyone. What I am saying is the MP's understand how parliament works way better than those that voted for Corbyn. That's like us on here voting to oust Hodgson from the England job coz we don't like him yet he's qualified for the Euro's with 8 wins out of 8. As for the MP's being petulant; I don't think they are. They are being very Labour. They have always been more open and honest than the dodgy handshake in dark corners party. And just maybe they recognise they are unelectable with Corbyn in charge, and want him to either play ball with all the party or go.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 19, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Playing devil's advocate here but what if those MP's that are going against Jeremy Corbyn have been told by their constituents that they don't agree with Corbyn's policies? Surely in that case they are doing what they were elected to do and that is to represent their constituencies.
		
Click to expand...

And that is the crux of the matter = they are their to represent their constituents not those that decided Corbyn was the right man for the job.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 19, 2015)

Don't expect a Labour comeback in Scotland any time soon.
Labour have made a complete horlicks of their selection process for MSP's and it looks like none of the failed Westminster MP's will get a look in.
There will therefore be massive infighting to oust existing list MSP's.

There is talk of an SNP wipe out with Labour and the Tories only represented by a handful of list MSP's


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 19, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Think this thread kind of indicates there are far too many folk basing their vote on the colour of the rosette rather than the quality of the person wearing it... No surprise then we always get dross government...
		
Click to expand...

Fortunately steve I am not One of them, always been a "floater". At this moment in time If there was an election tomorrow I would seriously think about voting Tory. Something I have never done.
Cant believe I have said that. I am off for a bath to cleanse myself.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 19, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			And that is the crux of the matter = they are their to represent their constituents not those that decided Corbyn was the right man for the job.
		
Click to expand...

So how do you suggest any Party elects a Leader, Labour was no different to the Tories, MP's chose candidates, members voted!!


----------



## jp5 (Nov 19, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			And that is the crux of the matter = they are their to represent their constituents not those that decided Corbyn was the right man for the job.
		
Click to expand...

Every one of the 9 million Labour voters had the right to pay Â£3 and vote on who they wanted to lead the party.

Most chose not to have a say, so they've been represented by those who did want a say.

Same as the GE - no point complaining about the result if one didn't engage in the process.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 19, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			That's playing with numbers though. That's like saying scoring 4 out of 10 is way better than 2 out of 10. Doubled your score but still failed. In 2010 the Tories needed a Coalition. Labour did so well with the increased vote they lost all but one seat in Scotland, and ended up even further from being elected..

I'm not blaming anyone. What I am saying is the MP's understand how parliament works way better than those that voted for Corbyn. That's like us on here voting to oust Hodgson from the England job coz we don't like him yet he's qualified for the Euro's with 8 wins out of 8. As for the MP's being petulant; I don't think they are. They are being very Labour. They have always been more open and honest than the dodgy handshake in dark corners party. And just maybe they recognise they are unelectable with Corbyn in charge, and want him to either play ball with all the party or go.
		
Click to expand...

There's no doubt he is the wrong man, just don't believe there is no other way for the MP's to behave, as you say they are making themselves look worse and unelectable, which ever party is in power, we need acredible opposition


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 19, 2015)

Does anyone on here believe that there will be another Labour Government?


----------



## jp5 (Nov 19, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Does anyone on here believe that there will be another Labour Government?
		
Click to expand...

Of course. Probably not for another decade at least though.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 19, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Does anyone on here believe that there will be another Labour Government?
		
Click to expand...

Definitely, and then back to Conservative ad infinitum, the real question is how long the voters will put up with each party till they vote for change, personally don't think we'll see Labour next time........


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 19, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Of course. Probably not for another decade at least though.
		
Click to expand...

Ditto, wrong man up front, no unity in party.

Labour of 2015 is similar to labour of 1980's, a decade that Margaret Thatcher and her party decimated British industry. industry's that had Labour voters at its core. Labour could not once more get its act together and appeal to the very people who's lives were being decimated.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 19, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			So how do you suggest any Party elects a Leader, Labour was no different to the Tories, MP's chose candidates, members voted!!
		
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that any party changes its current policy although Labours method of paying Â£3 and getting a vote was daft IMHO as I know quite a few people who just for a laugh paid and voted just to show how easy it was to do.


----------



## freddielong (Nov 19, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			63% of the Country didn't vote for a conservative to lead the country, so the country must be weak and pathetic by your logic, the issue isn't the vote, it's the man.
Foxholer got it correct!
		
Click to expand...

The election of a government has to be seen to be democratic, I am sure the system to elect the party leader is put in place by the party and just needs to come up with the correct answer. The system labour have in place has been way off certainly the last two times, I am not sure how Brown got in but you could argue the last 3 have been awful choices.

If they can't even get this right how can you expect them to .........................etc etc


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 19, 2015)

I do not see Labour ever getting a full UK majority without the Scottish vote.
At the moment Labour in Scotland are even more toxic than the Tories were under Thatcher.

Both Milliband and Corbyn rejected an 'arrangement' with the SNP.
I can understand Milliband's stance but Corbyn has made a tactical mistake IMO.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 19, 2015)

With the Tories in Scotland dismissed as an irrelevance (at best - as much as many Scots have more of a liking for Ruth Davidson than will ever care to admit to); and with Labour in England seemingly unelectable under Corbyn - the impression that I have got from spending most of the last 3 months in Scotland is that, right or wrongly, much of the Scottish electorate view the SNP as a shield against, and counter to, a 'forever-Tory' Westminster government.  

For as long as that lasts - and the Nicola factor prevails - all the mess ups by the SNP government (Holyrood) and any concerns about financially viable of independence will not I think have much impact on SNP support in the electorate.  

Does this then become a self-sustaining situation - in that without a large number (25+?) Scottish Labour MPs, Labour will not be able to win a Westminster majority, and as long as that persists then Labour will not win 25+ seats in Scotland?  Dunno.


----------



## ger147 (Nov 19, 2015)

freddielong said:



			The election of a government has to be seen to be democratic, I am sure the system to elect the party leader is put in place by the party and just needs to come up with the correct answer. The system labour have in place has been way off certainly the last two times, I am not sure how Brown got in but you could argue the last 3 have been awful choices.

If they can't even get this right how can you expect them to .........................etc etc
		
Click to expand...

Brown was in effect "crowned" leader i.e. there was no leadership vote, he was the only candidate on the ballot paper and therefore was simply declared the new leader.  Milliband got in via the old union block vote system which he then abolished and move to "one member one vote" which may have been the best idea except that many "non-members" also got a vote with the introduction of the 2 categories of supporters, one of which was the infamous "Â£3 to become a registered supporter" group.

Arguably, Corbyn's was the most democratic as it's based on one person one vote, but true democracy isn't really that popular amongst the political classes in the UK.  For the best description of what UK democracy really is and how it works, I would urge you to re-visit Yes Prime Minister Seires 2 Episode 5, "Power to the People".  It's almost as funny as it is scary because it is IMHO also deadly accurate.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 19, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			With the Tories in Scotland dismissed as an irrelevance (at best - as much as many Scots have more of a liking for Ruth Davidson than will ever care to admit to); and with Labour in England seemingly unelectable under Corbyn - the impression that I have got from spending most of the last 3 months in Scotland is that, right or wrongly, much of the Scottish electorate view the SNP as a shield against, and counter to, a 'forever-Tory' Westminster government.  

For as long as that lasts - and the Nicola factor prevails - all the mess ups by the SNP government (Holyrood) and any concerns about financially viable of independence will not I think have much impact on SNP support in the electorate.  

Does this then become a self-sustaining situation - in that without a large number (25+?) Scottish Labour MPs, Labour will not be able to win a Westminster majority, and as long as that persists then Labour will not win 25+ seats in Scotland?  Dunno.
		
Click to expand...

You've got exactly the same problem in Scotland we in England have, i.e. a one party system. The SNP can do pretty much what they want as there's next to nobody to argue against them. And they've got it even better in so much as they can blame all the failures on Westminster, e.g. the state of the NHS when in fact Scotland controls its NHS budget... God help Scotland too with its one party system...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 19, 2015)

I think Ruth Davidson is beginning to win over new Tory voters.
I heard her on 'Off the Ball' the other weekend and she performed well against a couple of fierce presenters. :lol:
Knows her fitba as well.
She has placed the Scottish Tories apart from Westminster.
I would not be surprised if the Tories win a few seats in 2016.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Nov 19, 2015)

ger147 said:



			Arguably, Corbyn's was the most democratic as it's based on one person one vote, .
		
Click to expand...

To a certain extent, but it is probably fair to say that most people in the UK don't belong to a particular party, they might support and vote for it, but they are not members.

Members are often party workers, fervent supporters or canvassers, They tend to be a very vocal minority and often are to the far left or right of whichever party they belong to.and its these people who voted Corbyn in, rather than the casual supporter.

It represents a shift to the Left in the Labour Membership, but that labour membership is possibly out of step with the normal Labour voter


----------



## ger147 (Nov 19, 2015)

PhilTheFragger said:



			To a certain extent, but it is probably fair to say that most people in the UK don't belong to a particular party, they might support and vote for it, but they are not members.

Members are often party workers, fervent supporters or canvassers, They tend to be a very vocal minority and often are to the far left or right of whichever party they belong to.and its these people who voted Corbyn in, rather than the casual supporter.

It represents a shift to the Left in the Labour Membership, but that labour membership is possibly out of step with the normal Labour voter
		
Click to expand...

Not arguing with any of your points re. the membership, but just to be clear you don't have to be a member of the Labour party to vote in their Leadership elections, and many non-members did vote last time out.

Whether they should have is another argument entirely, especially the Â£3 registered supporters.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 19, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I do not see Labour ever getting a full UK majority without the Scottish vote.
At the moment Labour in Scotland are even more toxic than the Tories were under Thatcher.

Both Milliband and Corbyn rejected an 'arrangement' with the SNP.
I can understand Milliband's stance but Corbyn has made a tactical mistake IMO.
		
Click to expand...

Depends on voter apathy, looking at the last GE, Labour were 2 million votes behind, how much the Liberal collapse gave to Lab/Con is difficult to workout next time round, if they regain seats it coukd be to the Conservative detriment, Liberals lost 28 seats, Cons gained 26 and Lab 2, 
Conservatives have a good opportunity to strengthen their position, but they too will be having a leadership election if Cameron is true to his word before the GE


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 19, 2015)

I voted for Jezza in the hope he could engage with the can't be asked and get them to be asked... Generally considered, should that happen, it'll be a goodly victory for the left...

Sick and tired of puppet politicians who talk the talk but don't actually walk the walk... The current pair of muppets, in charge, are only a slightly bluer tinged duo than the last pair...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 19, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I think Ruth Davidson is beginning to win over new Tory voters.
I heard her on 'Off the Ball' the other weekend and she performed well against a couple of fierce presenters. :lol:
Knows her fitba as well.
She has placed the Scottish Tories apart from Westminster.
I would not be surprised if the Tories win a few seats in 2016.
		
Click to expand...

She was good wasn't she - a Dunfermline Athletic supporter...getting the 3rd degree from St Johnstone and Motherwell supporters.  You can't beat Off the Ball. Cracking listen.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 19, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I do not see Labour ever getting a full UK majority without the Scottish vote.
*At the moment Labour in Scotland are even more toxic than the Tories were under Thatcher.*

Both Milliband and Corbyn rejected an 'arrangement' with the SNP.
I can understand Milliband's stance but Corbyn has made a tactical mistake IMO.
		
Click to expand...

Oh come on, not even close!


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 19, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			With the Tories in Scotland dismissed as an irrelevance (at best - as much as many Scots have more of a liking for Ruth Davidson than will ever care to admit to)
		
Click to expand...

I like her a lot but she's in the wrong party, it's very perplexing! Friends of mine met her and told her exactly that!


----------



## freddielong (Nov 19, 2015)

ger147 said:



			Brown was in effect "crowned" leader i.e. there was no leadership vote, he was the only candidate on the ballot paper and therefore was simply declared the new leader.  Milliband got in via the old union block vote system which he then abolished and move to "one member one vote" which may have been the best idea except that many "non-members" also got a vote with the introduction of the 2 categories of supporters, one of which was the infamous "Â£3 to become a registered supporter" group.

Arguably, Corbyn's was the most democratic as it's based on one person one vote, but true democracy isn't really that popular amongst the political classes in the UK.  For the best description of what UK democracy really is and how it works, I would urge you to re-visit Yes Prime Minister Seires 2 Episode 5, "Power to the People".  It's almost as funny as it is scary because it is IMHO also deadly accurate.
		
Click to expand...

The point I was trying to make is I am not sure the process needs to be democratic it needs to work, they keep getting the wrong answer.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 19, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Oh come on, not even close!
		
Click to expand...

I agree.  The Tories remain the utterly 'untouchables' for most folk in Scotland - despite nice and wryly amusing Ruth.  Labour is more like the prodigal son -  it 'left home' and lost it's way; it is dead to many of the Scottish electorate but will it become alive again and find it's way back into their hearts.  Probably in time - if time Labour had aplenty.  But how much time do Labour in Scotland actually have before they are forgotten or someone else takes their place.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 19, 2015)

freddielong said:



			The point I was trying to make is *I am not sure the process needs to be democratic* it needs to work, they keep getting the wrong answer.
		
Click to expand...

Iraq was a lot safer under Sadam


----------



## ger147 (Nov 19, 2015)

freddielong said:



			The point I was trying to make is I am not sure the process needs to be democratic it needs to work, they keep getting the wrong answer.
		
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting anything about what the system should or shouldn't be. I was merely replying to your comment that you weren't sure how Milliband and Brown got it, now you do.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 19, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Iraq was a lot safer under Sadam

Click to expand...

Not sure how safe it was for everyone and as very little information came out I'm not sure how we would know.


----------



## JCW (Nov 19, 2015)

JC is a tory plant in the Labour camp , tories will rule for a long time now


----------



## freddielong (Nov 19, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Iraq was a lot safer under Sadam

Click to expand...

Ha ha of course any actual election needs to be democratic just not the leadership contest.

Or it could just be that the labour party has no electable leader candidate at the moment which Is a whole new problem.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 19, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Iraq was a lot safer under Sadam

Click to expand...

Not if you were Kurdish, a Marsh Arab, a Shi'ite, or from one of the many other groups that wasn't actually in his favour!

Estimates of those murdered under this oppression range from 70 to 200 thousand!

While I believe Iraq2 was illegal, the world is well rid of Saddam Hussein!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 19, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			Not if you were Kurdish, a Marsh Arab, a Shi'ite, or from one of the many other groups that wasn't actually in his favour!

Estimates of those murdered under this oppression range from 70 to 200 thousand!

While I believe Iraq2 was illegal, the world is well rid of Saddam Hussein!
		
Click to expand...

Wasn't a serious post, flipant reply to an odd comment, &#128515;


----------



## Jacko_G (Nov 19, 2015)

Corbyn will damage the Labour Party even more he'll drive a wedge right through the party.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 22, 2015)

Interesting new tactic, actually letting the membership have a say in big issues.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...on-in-labour-party/ar-BBnhwAQ?ocid=spartandhp


----------



## sawtooth (Nov 22, 2015)

Jacko_G said:



			Corbyn will damage the Labour Party even more he'll drive a wedge right through the party.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with this, as long as he is leader Labour wont have a prayer.  He isn't credible opposition to Cameron.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 22, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Interesting new tactic, actually letting the membership have a say in big issues.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...on-in-labour-party/ar-BBnhwAQ?ocid=spartandhp

Click to expand...

Not really surprising as it appears that's where the majority of his support comes from. It more or less guarantees he'll get what he wants rather than ask the MP's and get little support.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 22, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			Not really surprising as it appears that's where the majority of his support comes from. It more or less guarantees he'll get what he wants rather than ask the MP's and get little support.
		
Click to expand...

I think that, under Harriot Harman's leadership, abstaining from the welfare bill was the final straw for most of Labour's membership.
It will be interesting to see where this takes us.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 22, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I think that, under Harriot Harman's leadership, abstaining from the welfare bill was the final straw for most of Labour's membership.
It will be interesting to see where this takes us.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, it'll be interesting to see where it takes Labour. But in terms of government, it's just a side show. Labour have a lot to do before they become viable opposition or govt.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 22, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			I agree, it'll be interesting to see where it takes Labour. But in terms of government, it's just a side show. Labour have a lot to do before they become viable opposition or govt.
		
Click to expand...

Agree ...but......I have a feeling in my water that they are going to surprise a lot of people.
I have a Tory voting [last time] friend who seems quite impressed with Jeremy's quiet manner and tactics.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 22, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Agree ...but......I have a feeling in my water that they are going to surprise a lot of people.
I have a Tory voting [last time] friend who seems quite impressed with Jeremy's quiet manner and tactics.
		
Click to expand...

I like a lot of his social ideas, and wouldn't mind seeing him in govt as a Social Services minister, but not PM.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 22, 2015)

sawtooth said:



			I agree with this, as long as he is leader Labour wont have a prayer.  He isn't credible opposition to Cameron.
		
Click to expand...

If so then it's just as well that Cameron is a goner after this parliament


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 22, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			If so then it's just as well that Cameron is a goner after this parliament
		
Click to expand...

Goodness that is worrying....... Bonking Boris is now clear favourite.
Is that not a bit like Trump becoming US President


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 22, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Goodness that is worrying....... Bonking Boris is now clear favourite.
Is that not a bit like Trump becoming US President
		
Click to expand...

Boris Bluster, Georgie Boy or Merry May.  Plenty of attractive choices there to counter Corbyn


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 22, 2015)

Unlike Labour the Tories will not allow the great unwashed to participate in anything as important as the leadership vote...

Personally can't see DaveCam walking away but should he surprise me and do so...
Can't see beyond Georgie Boy getting the nod...


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 22, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Unlike Labour the Tories will not allow the great unwashed to participate in anything as important as the leadership vote...

Personally can't see DaveCam walking away but should he surprise me and do so...
Can't see beyond Georgie Boy getting the nod...
		
Click to expand...

The great unwashed  did for Cameron, why would they change it next time?


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Nov 23, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I have a Tory voting [last time] friend who seems quite impressed with Jeremy's quiet manner and tactics.
		
Click to expand...

As a Tory voter for the last few elections, this whole thing is frustrating me. 

I much much prefer JC's "style" with regards to seemingly honest politics, not being "bluster" or doing things for the media. If only he had Tory policies, I would gladly vote for them. Unfortunately, I will continue to vote Tory (despite all the rubbish PR and political gesturing), while I agree with their policies.

My only hope is that JC's popularity can change the face of politics in the Uk, for the good.


----------



## Jacko_G (Nov 26, 2015)

Corbyn, surely he's a Tory plant. Destroying Labour day by day.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 26, 2015)

Jacko_G said:



			Corbyn, surely he's a Tory plant. Destroying Labour day by day.
		
Click to expand...

Very clever man and about to force a major split in his cabinet with a support me or leave option.

He knows exactly what he's doing and if you have never followed his career and his political views, which most people won't haven't, sound s like a real pukker guy.


----------



## Jacko_G (Nov 26, 2015)

I can't for the life of me see how the Labour party which is already licking it's wounds can see a split in it's cabinet as a good thing. A number of his shadow cabinet are already talking about leaving.


----------



## Fish (Nov 27, 2015)

Could or Corbyn resign, what happens then, who steps in and how long would that take for the party to recover, especially if the new leader then backed the bombings! 

I'm a leader get me out of here.....&#128514;&#128514;&#128514;


----------



## delc (Nov 27, 2015)

Not that I am likely to vote for JC as Prime Minister, but at least he is sticking to his left wing pacifist views. From his party's point of view he should just allow his MP's to have a free vote on bombing Syria, rather than risking a big split.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 27, 2015)

delc said:



			Not that I am likely to vote for JC as Prime Minister, but at least he is sticking to his left wing pacifist views. From his party's point of view he should just allow his MP's to have a free vote on bombing Syria, rather than risking a big split.
		
Click to expand...

Mr Livingstone assured the British public last night on QT that Labour MPs will have a free vote on the Syrian engagement.

So it's nice to know that Red Ken is making the decisions within the Shadow Cabinet.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 27, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Mr Livingstone assured the British public last night on QT that Labour MPs will have a free vote on the Syrian engagement.

So it's nice to know that Red Ken is making the decisions within the Shadow Cabinet.
		
Click to expand...

I was quietly amused to see most of the panel agreeing with Red Ken on many questions.... even Tory Boy a couple of times.
The Blairite comedian [sic] seemed totally out of touch.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 27, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I was quietly amused to see most of the panel agreeing with Red Ken on many questions.... even Tory Boy a couple of times.
The Blairite comedian [sic] seemed totally out of touch.
		
Click to expand...

PS Ken was repeating Corbyn's comment on a free vote.


----------



## Crazyface (Nov 27, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			PS Ken was repeating Corbyn's comment on a free vote.
		
Click to expand...

Fatty Abbot seemed to be saying that the Labour lefties will have to follow what JC says. 

He'll be gone before Xmas. laf laf laf !!!


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 27, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			PS Ken was repeating Corbyn's comment on a free vote.
		
Click to expand...

Not seen or heard it from Corbyn, in fact he was stating the exact opposite this week. Monday may be interesting.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Nov 27, 2015)

JC rarely followed what his leaders told him to do so his ability to whip his MP's is highly limited. Dianne Abbott is just about the worst MP I have ever come across, awful person. Ignore anything she says.

I think his views on this are interesting and it is good for the country that someone is questioning the endless need to bomb people in this region of the world. We have been doing it for years and I don't see that we have made much progress. I don't know that he is right on this but the fact that he is raising the argument is good. I suspect a good number of the public are with JC on this.

When JC was elected I gave him 18 months max before his own MP's kicked him out / forced him to resign. It could be this subject or another but I don't see that he can last until the next election.


----------



## jp5 (Nov 27, 2015)

Don't see the harm in JC allowing Labour MPs a free vote.

Ideally, shouldn't every vote be free instead of whipping members to a party line?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 27, 2015)

Free vote by all parties is the right thing to do.

In 5 years time we can then see what individuals were responsible for whatever outcome.


----------



## lex! (Nov 27, 2015)

Didn't Jezza used to give Fatty Abbott one? I bet he wasn't a pacifist when they went at it.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 27, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Don't see the harm in JC allowing Labour MPs a free vote.

Ideally, shouldn't every vote be free instead of whipping members to a party line?
		
Click to expand...

The man was very clever in getting his letter out even when it appears to contravene protocol within cabinet meetings.  He knows that his activists are 100% behind him and if MPs go against his wishes he will then be in a position to sack any MP he wants.

Benn appears to be positioning himself for a takeover.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 27, 2015)

He seems to be a dangerous person oh regards his views and the position he holds - being a pacifist it's a noble thing, fully understand it but i don't think there is a place for a pacifist in modern leadership unfortunately


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 27, 2015)

Is this the pacifist that openly supported some of the biggest murdering terrorists that this and other countries have ever had to deal with.  I'm sure he is quite happy to have his armed close protection detail around him these days.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 27, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			He seems to be a dangerous person oh regards his views and the position he holds - being a pacifist it's a noble thing, fully understand it but i don't think there is a place for a pacifist in modern leadership unfortunately
		
Click to expand...

I would like to think that all politicians would want peace. And I'd like to think that they would all recognise that sometimes you have to fight for it.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 27, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			I would like to think that all politicians would want peace. And I'd like to think that they would all recognise that sometimes you have to fight for it.
		
Click to expand...

I think that is spot on and summed up better than what I can say


----------



## drdel (Nov 27, 2015)

I don't doubt that JC is an honourable man and international affairs could be a whole lot simpler were we dealing with other honourable people. 

Sadly the other side are not playing by the 'rules' and have no interest in settling their differences the main aim being religious and the secondary aim is to have a 'state' which would take part of Turkey - faced with pacifism they will simply exploit it to their advantage.

Turkey is led by a ruler who has been duplicitous for decades and extremists are funded/supported by many similar others that use backdoor avenues/methods that do not respect 'honour' and moral codes. 

I suspect the die was caste too long ago to reverse the trend and conflict in the region will last many more decades and become more asymmetric which will make it harder for JC and other pacifists to ignore.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 27, 2015)

jp5 said:



			Don't see the harm in JC allowing Labour MPs a free vote.

Ideally, shouldn't every vote be free instead of whipping members to a party line?
		
Click to expand...

Except on published Manifesto items (where the whip should be obeyed), this would be my preference. But it's never going to happen!


----------



## Ethan (Nov 27, 2015)

drdel said:



			I suspect the die was caste too long ago to reverse the trend and conflict in the region will last many more decades and become more asymmetric which will make it harder for JC and other pacifists to ignore.
		
Click to expand...

So is that the 'OK, we are in a [self censored] hole but it is too late now to stop digging' doctrine?


----------



## Ethan (Nov 27, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Is this the pacifist that openly supported some of the biggest murdering terrorists that this and other countries have ever had to deal with.  I'm sure he is quite happy to have his armed close protection detail around him these days.
		
Click to expand...

He didn't support them, he thought that the best way to peace was to talk to them. Turned out he was right. 

At the same time as Jeremy Corbyn was talking to Gerry Adams in public, the Tory Govt was talking to them in private.


----------



## Fish (Nov 27, 2015)

Ethan said:



			He didn't support them, he thought that the best way to peace was to talk to them. Turned out he was right. 

At the same time as Jeremy Corbyn was talking to Gerry Adams in public, the Tory Govt was talking to them in private.
		
Click to expand...

Send him to Syria to talk to ISIS then.


----------



## Ethan (Nov 27, 2015)

Fish said:



			Send him to Syria to talk to ISIS then.
		
Click to expand...

Gerry Adams wanted to talk. Not sure if ISIS have declared the same.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Nov 27, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			I would like to think that all politicians would want peace. And I'd like to think that they would all recognise that sometimes you have to fight for it.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed and sometimes the answer would seem to be staring you in the face. Not sure we'll ever get a unified response though.


----------



## delc (Nov 28, 2015)

Fish said:



			Send him to Syria to talk to ISIS then.
		
Click to expand...

He might lose his head in more than one way!  :mmm:


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 29, 2015)

...and so I hear someone in the middle of his castigation of JC over his position on Syria decide to support his argument by throwing in Trident renewal as further evidence of the need to bomb Daesh.  They want to obtain a nuclear bomb and so we must keep ours.  That isn't  great logic and seems to typicfy the loginc of those that support bombing.  It's emotional, historic and histrionic - almost hysterical.  I do wonder if Daesh got a bomb and used it - who and where would we attack with our Trident missiles.  Too much of the logic just doesn;t work.

All I need to know is:

(a) in what way will the UK joining USA, France and Russia in the current and ongoing bombing campaign change anything in Syria for the better (forget the tosh the Tory-boy on QT spouted about UKs super-duper accurate Brimstone missiles as if the US or France don't have the same capability as he pretended they don't) and...

(b) precisely *how *bombing Daesh targets in Syria will reduce the risk of atrocity on UK mainland.


----------



## Paperboy (Nov 29, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			...and so I hear someone in the middle of his castigation of JC over his position on Syria decide to support his argument by throwing in Trident renewal as further evidence of the need to bomb Daesh.  They want to obtain a nuclear bomb and so we must keep ours.  That isn't  great logic and seems to typicfy the loginc of those that support bombing.  It's emotional, historic and histrionic - almost hysterical.  I do wonder if Daesh got a bomb and used it - who and where would we attack with our Trident missiles.  Too much of the logic just doesn;t work.

All I need to know is:

(a) in what way will the UK joining USA, France and Russia in the current and ongoing bombing campaign change anything in Syria for the better (forget the tosh the Tory-boy on QT spouted about UKs super-duper accurate Brimstone missiles as if the US or France don't have the same capability as he pretended they don't) and...

(b) precisely *how *bombing Daesh targets in Syria will reduce the risk of atrocity on UK mainland.
		
Click to expand...

Having worked on Brimstone missiles, the yanks have nothing similar to them. They are a very good piece of kit against armoured targets. They can change targets after being fired if they detect a bigger threat.

Saw the videos of them at work, where the tank I between two building gets destroyed and virtually no damage to the buildings its between.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 29, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			...and so I hear someone in the middle of his castigation of JC over his position on Syria decide to support his argument by throwing in Trident renewal as further evidence of the need to bomb Daesh.  They want to obtain a nuclear bomb and so we must keep ours.  That isn't  great logic and seems to typicfy the loginc of those that support bombing.  It's emotional, historic and histrionic - almost hysterical.  I do wonder if Daesh got a bomb and used it - who and where would we attack with our Trident missiles.  Too much of the logic just doesn;t work.

All I need to know is:

(a) in what way will the UK joining USA, France and Russia in the current and ongoing bombing campaign change anything in Syria for the better (forget the tosh the Tory-boy on QT spouted about UKs super-duper accurate Brimstone missiles as if the US or France don't have the same capability as he pretended they don't) and...

(b) precisely *how *bombing Daesh targets in Syria will reduce the risk of atrocity on UK mainland.
		
Click to expand...

The yanks etc don't have anything like the Brimstone - so "Tory boy" wasn't spouting tosh at all

Here is a couple of articles you prob should have read before posting your statement 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...in-Iraq-is-so-sought-after-in-60-seconds.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...missile-envied-by-the-US-for-war-on-Isil.html


----------



## Fish (Nov 29, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The yanks etc don't have anything like the Brimstone - so "Tory boy" wasn't spouting tosh at all

Here is a couple of articles you prob should have read before posting your statement 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...in-Iraq-is-so-sought-after-in-60-seconds.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...missile-envied-by-the-US-for-war-on-Isil.html

Click to expand...

Amazing bit of kit it and far more clinical so it's excellent in these circumstance to knock out ISIS strongholds who cowardly hide themselves amongst civilian populations, or maybe we should only hit them back when they hit us and just allow them to plot their next murderous atrocities 

Prevention rather than cure, although were a bit past that in some ways for a lot of victims as British Nationals are at risk where ever we are in the world and where ISIS are prepared to strike, to think otherwise is naive and dangerous, they need wiping out, period, so bomb there strongholds, training camps, HQ,s and anything that keeps disrupting them and reducing their numbers.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 29, 2015)

Fish said:



			Amazing bit of kit it and far more clinical so it's excellent in these circumstance to knock out ISIS strongholds who cowardly hide themselves amongst civilian populations, or maybe we should only hit them back when they hit us and just allow them to plot their next murderous atrocities 

Prevention rather than cure, although were a bit past that in some ways for a lot of victims as British Nationals are at risk where ever we are in the world and where ISIS are prepared to strike, to think otherwise is naive and dangerous, they need wiping out, period, so bomb there strongholds, training camps, HQ,s and anything that keeps disrupting them and reducing their numbers.
		
Click to expand...

Spot on Robin :thup:


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 29, 2015)

Some reports are saying that IS in Syria are using the same tactics as the Viet Cong and living in tunnel communes under the villages.

Re bombing.
The Paris bombers were French and lived in Paris, the London Bombers were English and lived in London.
Does that mean the allies should start bombing those two cities.

Loved the comment from a Glasgwegian when the defense minister mentioned Glasgow may be a possible target.

'The only terrorist attack in Scotland was dealt with by a baggage handler and a traffic warden.'


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 29, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			All I need to know is:

(a) in what way will the UK joining USA, France and Russia in the current and ongoing bombing campaign change anything in Syria for the better (forget the tosh the Tory-boy on QT spouted about UKs super-duper accurate Brimstone missiles as if the US or France don't have the same capability as he pretended they don't) and...
.
		
Click to expand...

Beaten to it, perhaps this is an area where you need to do a little homework or refrain from commenting.

Crabs always loved to show us the effects of this bit of kit on a Panzer, of course we never were overly concerned as we only seem to go out when it was raining so we knew we were safe.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 29, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Loved the comment from a Glasgwegian when the defense minister mentioned Glasgow may be a possible target.

'The only terrorist attack in Scotland was dealt with by a baggage handler and a traffic warden.'
		
Click to expand...

And I bet he'd be the first to complain when he found out that we didn't have enough traffic wardens and baggage handlers.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 29, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			...and so I hear someone in the middle of his castigation of JC over his position on Syria decide to support his argument by throwing in Trident renewal as further evidence of the need to bomb Daesh.  They want to obtain a nuclear bomb and so we must keep ours.  That isn't  great logic and seems to typicfy the loginc of those that support bombing.  It's emotional, historic and histrionic - almost hysterical.  I do wonder if Daesh got a bomb and used it - who and where would we attack with our Trident missiles.  Too much of the logic just doesn;t work.

All I need to know is:

(a) in what way will the UK joining USA, France and Russia in the current and ongoing bombing campaign change anything in Syria for the better (forget the tosh the Tory-boy on QT spouted about UKs super-duper accurate Brimstone missiles as if the US or France don't have the same capability as he pretended they don't) and...

(b) precisely *how *bombing Daesh targets in Syria will reduce the risk of atrocity on UK mainland.
		
Click to expand...

So, when the Ford Transit van driving through central London explodes with the nuclear bomb IS are striving to gain, and 4 million people die. And then another 4 million, including those in Farnham start dying from radiation poisoning in the next month... IS consider you, your family, your neighbours and your fellow countrymen to be legitimate targets. And before you say you're not on the frontline, go and ask a Parisienne or someone who was on the Tube during 7/7.

What would bombing achieve? It might, with the intelligence gathered, hit the nuclear buying team. It might hit the group being trained to deliver terror to european cities. It might hit the next group of terrorists that would behead hostages. It might hit a group that would be guilty of genocide in the next town they invade.

There will be collateral damage, but I'd rather choose collateral damage in Syria than 129 Londoners gunned down and blown to bits whilst they were at a concert or out for a meal.

America practiced isolationism in the 30's and early 40's, and look what happened to the Far East and Europe. Don't be so naive as to think that a head in the sand attitude will see the problem go away. As for negotiating with them. Negotiate with who? Who is their leader(s)? What country do they represent? Anyone who can behead the 72 yr old Head of Antiquities and then blow the ancient city to bits isn't rational. Best thing to do with a rabid dog is kill it.


----------



## Fish (Nov 29, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Re bombing.
The Paris bombers were French and lived in Paris, the London Bombers were English and lived in London.
Does that mean the allies should start bombing those two cities..'
		
Click to expand...

What a stupid comment, many of the home grown terrorists have traveled to Syria for training and returned, this is an area which needs plugging, hopefully the bombing of training camps and HQ's does this whilst their over there and coupled with a better worldwide tracking and ID alert system with No Fly sanctions against "known" individuals we can all go about our daily business without s second thought.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Nov 29, 2015)

Y



Doon frae Troon said:



			Some reports are saying that IS in Syria are using the same tactics as the Viet Cong and living in tunnel communes under the villages.

Re bombing.
The Paris bombers were French and lived in Paris, the London Bombers were English and lived in London.
Does that mean the allies should start bombing those two cities.

Loved the comment from a Glasgwegian when the defense minister mentioned Glasgow may be a possible target.

'The only terrorist attack in Scotland was dealt with by a baggage handler and a traffic warden.'
		
Click to expand...

One should really check ones facts, the 7/7 bombers all lived well outside London. Leeds , Aylesbury , they met up at Luton before travelling to London.

Fortunately the terrorist attack at Glasgow airport was foiled partially by the terrorists own incompetence , but if those gas canisters had gone off, I doubt you would be so smug.  Scotland got lucky that day


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 29, 2015)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Y

One should really check ones facts, the 7/7 bombers all lived well outside London. Leeds , Aylesbury , they met up at Luton before travelling to London.

Fortunately the terrorist attack at Glasgow airport was foiled partially by the terrorists own incompetence , but if those gas canisters had gone off, I doubt you would be so smug.  Scotland got lucky that day
		
Click to expand...

And while three of them were British born to Pakistani immigrants the other was Jamaican. And I'm fairly sure that some of the Paris bombers were living in Belgium. But let's not let the facts get in the way.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Nov 29, 2015)

Ok just for Doon's benefit, This is an Elbow


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 29, 2015)

Judging by the words of Michael Fallon the governments main concern is "loosing face on the international stage"...


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 29, 2015)

Nice friendly chat between him and Marr today, shame Marr wouldn't press him on what his solution to the Syria problem is.  That's  Andrew Marr card carrying Labour member.


----------



## rosecott (Nov 29, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Judging by the words of Michael Fallon the governments main concern is "loosing face on the international stage"...
		
Click to expand...

You put the phrase "loosing face on the international stage" in parenthesis suggesting a direct quote. I don't recall Mr Fallon saying that.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 29, 2015)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Ok just for Doon's benefit, This is an Elbow 
	View attachment 17754





Click to expand...

Oops sorry I forgot the English terrorists lived in the Midlands/Yorkshire and traveled down to London.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 29, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Oops sorry I forgot the English terrorists lived in the Midlands/Yorkshire and traveled down to London.
		
Click to expand...

And also that one of the "English" terrorists was Jamaican.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 29, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			And also that one of the "English" terrorists was Jamaican.
		
Click to expand...

Just trying to make a simple point ..........at what source do the UK start bombing ?


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 29, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Just trying to make a simple point ..........at what source do the UK start bombing ?
		
Click to expand...

It's easy to make any point you like if the facts you are using to make that point are wrong. 

For instance, Colchester United are the best football team in the world because they won the Premier League and Champions League double last season.

To answer your question we start bombing in Syria and continue until we have wiped out the training camps and all the murdering scum that are part of or support IS. 

And to answer SiLH's question.... 

"precisely how bombing Daesh targets in Syria will reduce the risk of atrocity on UK mainland"

If we take out all the murdering scum that are in the training camps and HQ's we are bombing then there are less of them to carry out attacks. Less people to carry out attacks = fewer attacks.*

*


----------



## Jacko_G (Nov 29, 2015)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Y

One should really check ones facts, the 7/7 bombers all lived well outside London. Leeds , Aylesbury , they met up at Luton before travelling to London.

*Fortunately the terrorist attack at Glasgow airport was foiled partially by the terrorists own incompetence , but if those gas canisters had gone off, I doubt you would be so smug.  Scotland got lucky that day*

Click to expand...

Yip I agree 100% and find it very crass that it's now a topic of humour.


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 29, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Nice friendly chat between him and Marr today, shame Marr wouldn't press him on what his solution to the Syria problem is.  That's  Andrew Marr card carrying Labour member.
		
Click to expand...


Possibly because there isn't actually a solution to the Syria problem...

As you have pointed out yourself, I believe, the politics of the region change on an almost daily basis...


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 29, 2015)

rosecott said:



			You put the phrase "loosing face on the international stage" in parenthesis suggesting a direct quote. I don't recall Mr Fallon saying that.
		
Click to expand...


Apologies, improper use of parenthesis on my part...

But Mr Fallon did say something very similar....


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 29, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Possibly because there isn't actually a solution to the Syria problem...

As you have pointed out yourself, I believe, the politics of the region change on an almost daily basis...
		
Click to expand...

Exactly, but Corbyn fails to say what he considers are our options as per Wings and his tribute band. Walking away won't work IMHO but maybe that's exactly what Corbyn wants to do. Until he and his supporters say, we will never know.

Bombing is is not the final solution but it is an option until a final solution (if there is one) can be achieved.


----------



## Ethan (Nov 29, 2015)

Fish said:



			What a stupid comment, many of the home grown terrorists have traveled to Syria for training and returned, this is an area which needs plugging, hopefully the bombing of training camps and HQ's does this whilst their over there and coupled with a better worldwide tracking and ID alert system with No Fly sanctions against "known" individuals we can all go about our daily business without s second thought.
		
Click to expand...

But do you consider it a stupid comment when someone frames the pro-bombing argument as necessary to prevent 8 million deaths in the UK with nukes? 

Gee, I would guess we should bomb today. They might be getting the nukes with Amazon Prime. 

Also, lets assume these weapons are very accurate. They hit exactly what you aim at, no collateral. Fine. That only leaves the question of how sure you are that you are aiming at who you think you are aiming at, and that they are whatever yup of baddy you think they are. That all relies on intelligence which hasn't proven to be too clever in the recent past. 

Much of the anxiety against bombing isn't that anyone is concerned for the welfare of these scumbags, but rather that we doubt, based on experience, that it will be as easy as it sounds to surgically remove all the key people and leave an improved situation. 

If IS are taken out, where does the west stand on Assad and the various factions fighting him? Do we then say, up to you guys now. Seeya!


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 29, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Exactly, but Corbyn fails to say what he considers are our options as per Wings and his tribute band. Walking away won't work IMHO but maybe that's exactly what Corbyn wants to do. Until he and his supporters say, we will never know.

Bombing is is not the final solution but it is an option until a final solution (if there is one) can be achieved.
		
Click to expand...


Think its fairly safe to assume the 'solution' Ken has been pedalling over the last few days will be similar/same to Jezza's views...


----------



## Ethan (Nov 29, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Think its fairly safe to assume the 'solution' Ken has been pedalling over the last few days will be similar/same to Jezza's views...
		
Click to expand...

Corbin doesn't advocate walking away. He advocates not causing mass civilian causalities in Raqqa. His plan is to achieve a political settlement in Syria by cutting off Isis funding, oil trading and weapons supply. Do you disagree that would be an effective thing to do?


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 29, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Corbin doesn't advocate walking away. He advocates not causing mass civilian causalities in Raqqa. His plan is to achieve a political settlement in Syria by cutting off Isis funding, oil trading and weapons supply. Do you disagree that would be an effective thing to do?
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that IS would accept any kind of political settlement. What is the plan after cutting off the funding, oil trading and weapons supply? These people aren't suddenly going to change their minds and become reasonable human beings.


----------



## Ethan (Nov 29, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			I'm not sure that IS would accept any kind of political settlement. What is the plan after cutting off the funding, oil trading and weapons supply? These people aren't suddenly going to change their minds and become reasonable human beings.
		
Click to expand...

They will be a bit easier to deal with when their funding and supplies are cut off. They will never be reasonable people, but if the plan is to bomb all unreasonable people .....


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 29, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Corbin doesn't advocate walking away. He advocates not causing mass civilian causalities in Raqqa. His plan is to achieve a political settlement in Syria by cutting off Isis funding, oil trading and weapons supply. Do you disagree that would be an effective thing to do?
		
Click to expand...


Neither has Ken been advocating 'walking away'... Nobody should really be comfortable with potentially causing mass civilian casualties as part of an attempt at seeking a solution...

Sitting here, in comfortable suburbia, I have no real idea of what would be the best way of achieving peace... Largely because who can really be sure of what we see/hear in the media is actually fact or just propaganda...


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 29, 2015)

Ethan said:



			They will be a bit easier to deal with when their funding and supplies are cut off. They will never be reasonable people, but if the plan is to bomb all unreasonable people .....
		
Click to expand...

So how do we deal with them once the funding and supplies have been cut off?

And we aren't bombing them because they are unreasonable, we're bombing them to try to stop them committing mass murder against anyone that doesn't share their warped view of the world.


----------



## Ethan (Nov 29, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			So how do we deal with them once the funding and supplies have been cut off?

And we aren't bombing them because they are unreasonable, we're bombing them to try to stop them committing mass murder against anyone that doesn't share their warped view of the world.
		
Click to expand...

I would refer you to the post to which I replied earlier.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 29, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			So how do we deal with them once the funding and supplies have been cut off.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure how it's going to be possible to go for all of their funding. Terrorist will revert to type when required.

IRA/Sinn Fein got most of their funding through criminal acts including intimidation, robbery, and drug sales along with funding from its supporters in America, IS have found a way of distributing oil but a way has been found to limit this, oh wait it requires bombing, best not do that. And like the IRA there will be those only to willing to chuck money at them.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 29, 2015)

Ethan said:



			I would refer you to the post to which I replied earlier.
		
Click to expand...

Which post is that then? The question hasn't been asked or answered before as you've only just brought up cutting off funding etc.

What do we do after the funding and supplies have been cut off? What is the next step in the process of dealing with IS after that has been done?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 29, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Corbin doesn't advocate walking away. He advocates not causing mass civilian causalities in Raqqa. His plan is to achieve a political settlement in Syria by cutting off Isis funding, oil trading and weapons supply. Do you disagree that would be an effective thing to do?
		
Click to expand...

Do you not think all these options have been discussed ? 

ISIS are interested in political settlements - it's not a political war they are fighting - they won't stop until the Western world is suffering every day and then they will keep going. These guys won't sit around a campfire with western leaders having a cuddle and a chat - they want them all to die a very horrible death 

You can't cut of their funding - they will always find a way to get their weapons to kill their targets - it's time for us to stand up to them and do our bit to fight people who don't respect other people's right to live peacefully.


----------



## Ethan (Nov 29, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Which post is that then? The question hasn't been asked or answered before as you've only just brought up cutting off funding etc.

What do we do after the funding and supplies have been cut off? What is the next step in the process of dealing with IS after that has been done?
		
Click to expand...

If I must spell it out for you, which it seems i must, you said:

"These people aren't suddenly going to change their minds and become reasonable human beings."

So I said:

"They will never be reasonable people, but if the plan is to bomb all unreasonable people ....."

So you said:

"And we aren't bombing them because they are unreasonable, we're bombing them to try to stop them committing mass murder against anyone that doesn't share their warped view of the world."

So I said:

"I would refer you to the post to which I replied earlier."

........

OK?


----------



## Ethan (Nov 29, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Do you not think all these options have been discussed ? 

ISIS are interested in political settlements - it's not a political war they are fighting - they won't stop until the Western world is suffering every day and then they will keep going. These guys won't sit around a campfire with western leaders having a cuddle and a chat - they want them all to die a very horrible death 

You can't cut of their funding - they will always find a way to get their weapons to kill their targets - it's time for us to stand up to them and do our bit to fight people who don't respect other people's right to live peacefully.
		
Click to expand...

As I said before, few people care if IS people are evaporated in a drive strike. It is the risk that others, already victims, will also be killed, and that it may not be possible to actually execute, so to speak, the objectives. If you remember, Iraq2 was expected to be a short campaign, and it was, but that unleashed a whole tsunami of disaster throughout the region. It also killed more civilians than Saddam had killed. Corbin and others are right to be concerned the same will happen again, and this one has the complication of Assad and the various groups, some of which are rather dodgy opposing him, will both be strengthened. 

The US, UK and European allies should pressure Saudi and Jordan to lead this fight. If the west goes in, it only encourages others to believe what IS are saying, that this is a Christian crusade against Islam and the fight must be taken to the west.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/29/raqqa-exiles-bashar-al-assad-isis-bombing?CMP=fb_gu

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-war-terror-defeat-muslim-world-equal-partner

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...l-in-Syria-former-military-chief-signals.html


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 29, 2015)

Ethan said:



			As I said before, few people care if IS people are evaporated in a drive strike. It is the risk that others, already victims, will also be killed, and that it may not be possible to actually execute, so to speak, the objectives. If you remember, Iraq2 was expected to be a short campaign, and it was, but that unleashed a whole tsunami of disaster throughout the region. It also killed more civilians than Saddam had killed. Corbin and others are right to be concerned the same will happen again, and this one has the complication of Assad and the various groups, some of which are rather dodgy opposing him, will both be strengthened. 

The US, UK and European allies should pressure Saudi and Jordan to lead this fight. If the west goes in, it only encourages others to believe what IS are saying, that this is a Christian crusade against Islam and the fight must be taken to the west.
		
Click to expand...

Well we can just sit back and let them continue attacking the west then murdering innocent victims as they go on their merry way of destruction. 

I'm not talking drone strikes im talking precision bombing at specific targets. 

IS don't care about risks , they just want to inflict suffering and we need to stand up to them - Corbyn can go over and lead the peace talks - he can then become the next British citizen to lose their head. 

Corbyn and all the other pacifists have failed to come up with an alternative workable solution to ISIS - until it's time for force to used


----------



## Ethan (Nov 29, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Well we can just sit back and let them continue attacking the west then murdering innocent victims as they go on their merry way of destruction. 

I'm not talking drone strikes im talking precision bombing at specific targets. 

IS don't care about risks , they just want to inflict suffering and we need to stand up to them - Corbyn can go over and lead the peace talks - he can then become the next British citizen to lose their head. 

Corbyn and all the other pacifists have failed to come up with an alternative workable solution to ISIS - until it's time for force to used
		
Click to expand...

People who oppose this aren't necessarily pacifists. They are just not stupid gung-ho Rambos. 

If you are so smart and knowledgeable about military strategy and capability, tell me why the Telegraph article below is wrong. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...l-in-Syria-former-military-chief-signals.html


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 29, 2015)

Ethan said:



			People who oppose this aren't necessarily pacifists. They are just not stupid gung-ho Rambos. 

If you are so smart and knowledgeable about military strategy and capability, tell me why the Telegraph article below is wrong. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...l-in-Syria-former-military-chief-signals.html

Click to expand...

And people who would like more forcable action aren't "stupid gung ho Rambos" as you so eloquently put it 

Still waiting for a workable alternative action to UK getting involved in military action and helping in the fight against ISIS

And the U.K. Military has this nasty habit of getting the job done regardless of what people think about their capabilities and will ensure there is enough A/C capable of delivering effective presicion targeted bombing - as they have always done. The UK military is good like that - quality over quantity


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 29, 2015)

Apologies to Hobbit&#128515;
Why are people on opposite sides labelled as Pacifists and Rambo gunho's, actually both want the same outcome, IS wiped off the face of this earth.
Took the time out to listen to Corbyn this morning and was actually a little impressed, especially with the question he was asking Cameron to explain and that is, how will the bombing of Syria make us safer in the UK?
In the long term it would, I've no doubt, in the short term, I genuinely believe it could increase the risk. I don't have the answer, none of us do, and I take points from a few on here that we need a mix of strategy.
Yes I think we should help in the bombing of IS Targets in Syria, we need to put immense pressure on Saudi and other Middle East powers to step up and thirdly we need to increase security both from a visible perspective and covert in the UK, also putting a lot of effort in getting all religions and faiths to clme together.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 29, 2015)

Ethan said:



			If I must spell it out for you, which it seems i must, you said:

"These people aren't suddenly going to change their minds and become reasonable human beings."

So I said:

"They will never be reasonable people, but if the plan is to bomb all unreasonable people ....."

So you said:

"And we aren't bombing them because they are unreasonable, we're bombing them to try to stop them committing mass murder against anyone that doesn't share their warped view of the world."

So I said:

"I would refer you to the post to which I replied earlier."

........

OK?
		
Click to expand...

So you don't have an answer to the question then? Just copying and pasting previous comments isn't spelling anything out. It's just a petty attempt at being condescending. You have simply refused to answer the question I asked you.

So I'll try once more.....

 After we have cut of the funding and supplies as you suggested what should we do then?


----------



## Ethan (Nov 29, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And people who would like more forcable action aren't "stupid gung ho Rambos" as you so eloquently put it 

Still waiting for a workable alternative action to UK getting involved in military action and helping in the fight against ISIS

And the U.K. Military has this nasty habit of getting the job done regardless of what people think about their capabilities and will ensure there is enough A/C capable of delivering effective presicion targeted bombing - as they have always done. The UK military is good like that - quality over quantity
		
Click to expand...

OK, so senior military say they don't have the air capability and will need ground troops, but a guy on a golf forum disagrees. OK, time to attack!


----------



## Ethan (Nov 29, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			So you don't have an answer to the question then? Just copying and pasting previous comments isn't spelling anything out. It's just a petty attempt at being condescending. You have simply refused to answer the question I asked you.

So I'll try once more.....

 After we have cut of the funding and supplies as you suggested what should we do then?
		
Click to expand...

I will try to answer it once again, since it is not getting through the fog of war obscuring your vision and bloodlust.

This has to be sorted out by local regional actors, not the west. When it becomes sufficiently critical, Saudi and Jordan *will* get involved. Israel may do so too, although that would be much less welcome. We need to persuade them to bring that schedule forward.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 29, 2015)

Ethan said:



			I will try to answer it once again, since it is not getting through the fog of war obscuring your vision and bloodlust.

This has to be sorted out by local regional actors, not the west. When it becomes sufficiently critical, Saudi and Jordan *will* get involved. Israel may do so too, although that would be much less welcome. We need to persuade them to bring that schedule forward.
		
Click to expand...

I agree they should, what do we do until it becomes sufficiently critical though, that's the immediate problem as IS are here and now.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 29, 2015)

Love the fact that anyone that disagrees with you has bloodlust or is a gung ho Rambo. I was just trying to have a debate and look at alternatives. 

Why would Saudi and Jordan get involved? What do you believe would be the trigger event for them to take action?

For the record I am not yet convinced of the benefits of bombing IS targets in Syria but do try to listen to both sides of the argument before forming an opinion.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 29, 2015)

Ethan said:



			OK, so senior military say they don't have the air capability and will need ground troops, but a guy on a golf forum disagrees. OK, time to attack!
		
Click to expand...

I believe they are both "former" military aides and have heard many statements from former military aides that have been false. 

As I said when the UK military is asked to do something then they do it regardless of what equipment short falls they have - the guys and girls will keep the Tonkas going and active and their life will be extended to ensure their keep on mission - it's not the first time it's done and won't be the last time. When you work in the military for 20 plus years you witness the job being done even when not corrected equipped 

And when did I suggest they wouldn't need ground troops as well ?

And I'm still yet to hear and alternative to presicion targeting to take out high value targets ? As our RAF have done of the decades with little collateral damage


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 29, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Apologies to Hobbit&#62979;
Why are people on opposite sides labelled as Pacifists and Rambo gunho's, actually both want the same outcome, IS wiped off the face of this earth.
Took the time out to listen to Corbyn this morning and was actually a little impressed, especially with the question he was asking Cameron to explain and that is, how will the bombing of Syria make us safer in the UK?
In the long term it would, I've no doubt, in the short term, I genuinely believe it could increase the risk. I don't have the answer, none of us do, and I take points from a few on here that we need a mix of strategy.
Yes I think we should help in the bombing of IS Targets in Syria, we need to put immense pressure on Saudi and other Middle East powers to step up and thirdly we need to increase security both from a visible perspective and covert in the UK, also putting a lot of effort in getting all religions and faiths to clme together.
		
Click to expand...

No need to apologise to me. I'm up for nuking anything east of Corfu and west of Delhi I've increased the RAM on my X-Box!

Unfortunately, the political vacuum caused by Iraq2 has been filled by several different groups, and splinter groups, that want pretty much the same thing. ISIS, led by Al-Baghdadi, wants a Caliphate that stretches from northern Pakistan to the Atlantic coast of north Africa, i.e. an Islamic state. The major rule laid down is you succumb to ISIS and its version of Muslim law or lose your head, even if you are already a Muslim. And if you are an infidel...

The hoped result, by the western nations, of the Arab Spring was greater democracy in the middle east but, apart from a brief foray by Egypt, the opposite has occured. And now Europe wants to force regime change and put an end to the spread of the Caliphte. As the original aggressors, ISIS see the west as standing in their way, hence the attacks on europe.

Do "we" risk a terrorist attack of the proportions of the Twin Towers/Paris or a ricin attack on the tube? Do we risk that ISIS could buy a nuclear device? Or do "we" take a huge step back and let the locals sort themselves out?

So what happens if this great Caliphate comes into being and they control most of the world's oil? Do "we" push Saudi to lead an Arab Coalition in defeating ISIS? Bearing in mind 2/3's of Muslims in the region want a Caliphate, albeit it not ISIS led? Saudi are walking a tightrope. Do we want the collatoral damage of 25 yrs of flawed foreign policy to be our own citizens or do we, with a heavy heart, pull the trigger on innocent people in the region.

A half hearted response will only perpetuate the current crisis, and ignoring it will see the Caliphate come into being and the world's economies bounce around as the oil supplies become an even bigger tool/weapon than they are now. Irrespective of the benevolence or otherwise of the previous regimes we are to blame for the mess in the middle east. The answer; a world (UN) backed police force... God knows, whichever version that is?

With regard to the funding that ISIS has, its reported to be in the region or $2,000,000 a day. So bombing a few tankers and refineries won't do much to harm it. If the west continue with its current goal, boots on the ground will be needed. And to limit those casualties, a softening up campaign from the air is required.

Worryingly, you have Russia wanting one particular group in power and the west wants another. ISIS are hated by both. But what happens when western troops come into direct contact with Russia's troops... hopefully not a 2nd Korea.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 29, 2015)

Ethan said:



			OK, so senior military say they don't have the air capability and will need ground troops, but a guy on a golf forum disagrees. OK, time to attack!
		
Click to expand...

Reading your link it's a veteran and not a serving member of the forces and like us he can come up with any old guff.

Nobody ever listens to senior officers


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 29, 2015)

Ethan said:



			I will try to answer it once again, since it is not getting through the fog of war obscuring your vision and bloodlust.

This has to be sorted out by local regional actors, not the west. When it becomes sufficiently critical, Saudi and Jordan *will* get involved. Israel may do so too, although that would be much less welcome. We need to persuade them to bring that schedule forward.
		
Click to expand...

What do we do if they/will not/don't get involved. 

I believe you'll find that Jordon is involved in air strikes and lost one of their pilots.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 29, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			No need to apologise to me. I'm up for nuking anything east of Corfu and west of Delhi I've increased the RAM on my X-Box!

Unfortunately, the political vacuum caused by Iraq2 has been filled by several different groups, and splinter groups, that want pretty much the same thing. ISIS, led by Al-Baghdadi, wants a Caliphate that stretches from northern Pakistan to the Atlantic coast of north Africa, i.e. an Islamic state. The major rule laid down is you succumb to ISIS and its version of Muslim law or lose your head, even if you are already a Muslim. And if you are an infidel...

The hoped result, by the western nations, of the Arab Spring was greater democracy in the middle east but, apart from a brief foray by Egypt, the opposite has occured. And now Europe wants to force regime change and put an end to the spread of the Caliphte. As the original aggressors, ISIS see the west as standing in their way, hence the attacks on europe.

Do "we" risk a terrorist attack of the proportions of the Twin Towers/Paris or a ricin attack on the tube? Do we risk that ISIS could buy a nuclear device? Or do "we" take a huge step back and let the locals sort themselves out?

So what happens if this great Caliphate comes into being and they control most of the world's oil? Do "we" push Saudi to lead an Arab Coalition in defeating ISIS? Bearing in mind 2/3's of Muslims in the region want a Caliphate, albeit it not ISIS led? Saudi are walking a tightrope. Do we want the collatoral damage of 25 yrs of flawed foreign policy to be our own citizens or do we, with a heavy heart, pull the trigger on innocent people in the region.

A half hearted response will only perpetuate the current crisis, and ignoring it will see the Caliphate come into being and the world's economies bounce around as the oil supplies become an even bigger tool/weapon than they are now. Irrespective of the benevolence or otherwise of the previous regimes we are to blame for the mess in the middle east. The answer; a world (UN) backed police force... God knows, whichever version that is?

With regard to the funding that ISIS has, its reported to be in the region or $2,000,000 a day. So bombing a few tankers and refineries won't do much to harm it. If the west continue with its current goal, boots on the ground will be needed. And to limit those casualties, a softening up campaign from the air is required.

Worryingly, you have Russia wanting one particular group in power and the west wants another. ISIS are hated by both. But what happens when western troops come into direct contact with Russia's troops... hopefully not a 2nd Korea.
		
Click to expand...

Good post.  With regards to your last para, it would never happen, we just send in James Blunt. (Sorry an Armoured Corps joke which I know many will know about )


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 29, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			No need to apologise to me. I'm up for nuking anything east of Corfu and west of Delhi I've increased the RAM on my X-Box!

Unfortunately, the political vacuum caused by Iraq2 has been filled by several different groups, and splinter groups, that want pretty much the same thing. ISIS, led by Al-Baghdadi, wants a Caliphate that stretches from northern Pakistan to the Atlantic coast of north Africa, i.e. an Islamic state. The major rule laid down is you succumb to ISIS and its version of Muslim law or lose your head, even if you are already a Muslim. And if you are an infidel...

The hoped result, by the western nations, of the Arab Spring was greater democracy in the middle east but, apart from a brief foray by Egypt, the opposite has occured. And now Europe wants to force regime change and put an end to the spread of the Caliphte. As the original aggressors, ISIS see the west as standing in their way, hence the attacks on europe.

Do "we" risk a terrorist attack of the proportions of the Twin Towers/Paris or a ricin attack on the tube? Do we risk that ISIS could buy a nuclear device? Or do "we" take a huge step back and let the locals sort themselves out?

So what happens if this great Caliphate comes into being and they control most of the world's oil? Do "we" push Saudi to lead an Arab Coalition in defeating ISIS? Bearing in mind 2/3's of Muslims in the region want a Caliphate, albeit it not ISIS led? Saudi are walking a tightrope. Do we want the collatoral damage of 25 yrs of flawed foreign policy to be our own citizens or do we, with a heavy heart, pull the trigger on innocent people in the region.

A half hearted response will only perpetuate the current crisis, and ignoring it will see the Caliphate come into being and the world's economies bounce around as the oil supplies become an even bigger tool/weapon than they are now. Irrespective of the benevolence or otherwise of the previous regimes we are to blame for the mess in the middle east. The answer; a world (UN) backed police force... God knows, whichever version that is?

With regard to the funding that ISIS has, its reported to be in the region or $2,000,000 a day. So bombing a few tankers and refineries won't do much to harm it. If the west continue with its current goal, boots on the ground will be needed. And to limit those casualties, a softening up campaign from the air is required.

Worryingly, you have Russia wanting one particular group in power and the west wants another. ISIS are hated by both. But what happens when western troops come into direct contact with Russia's troops... hopefully not a 2nd Korea.
		
Click to expand...

Good post Hobbit :thup:


----------



## delc (Nov 29, 2015)

How do you deal with a group who have been brainwashed into considering that it is their religious duty to kill anybody who does not believe in their particular version of Islam, and have significant military and financial capability?


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 29, 2015)




----------



## Ethan (Nov 29, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			No need to apologise to me. I'm up for nuking anything east of Corfu and west of Delhi I've increased the RAM on my X-Box!

Unfortunately, the political vacuum caused by Iraq2 has been filled by several different groups, and splinter groups, that want pretty much the same thing. ISIS, led by Al-Baghdadi, wants a Caliphate that stretches from northern Pakistan to the Atlantic coast of north Africa, i.e. an Islamic state. The major rule laid down is you succumb to ISIS and its version of Muslim law or lose your head, even if you are already a Muslim. And if you are an infidel...

The hoped result, by the western nations, of the Arab Spring was greater democracy in the middle east but, apart from a brief foray by Egypt, the opposite has occured. And now Europe wants to force regime change and put an end to the spread of the Caliphte. As the original aggressors, ISIS see the west as standing in their way, hence the attacks on europe.

Do "we" risk a terrorist attack of the proportions of the Twin Towers/Paris or a ricin attack on the tube? Do we risk that ISIS could buy a nuclear device? Or do "we" take a huge step back and let the locals sort themselves out?

So what happens if this great Caliphate comes into being and they control most of the world's oil? Do "we" push Saudi to lead an Arab Coalition in defeating ISIS? Bearing in mind 2/3's of Muslims in the region want a Caliphate, albeit it not ISIS led? Saudi are walking a tightrope. Do we want the collatoral damage of 25 yrs of flawed foreign policy to be our own citizens or do we, with a heavy heart, pull the trigger on innocent people in the region.

A half hearted response will only perpetuate the current crisis, and ignoring it will see the Caliphate come into being and the world's economies bounce around as the oil supplies become an even bigger tool/weapon than they are now. Irrespective of the benevolence or otherwise of the previous regimes we are to blame for the mess in the middle east. The answer; a world (UN) backed police force... God knows, whichever version that is?

With regard to the funding that ISIS has, its reported to be in the region or $2,000,000 a day. So bombing a few tankers and refineries won't do much to harm it. If the west continue with its current goal, boots on the ground will be needed. And to limit those casualties, a softening up campaign from the air is required.

Worryingly, you have Russia wanting one particular group in power and the west wants another. ISIS are hated by both. But what happens when western troops come into direct contact with Russia's troops... hopefully not a 2nd Korea.
		
Click to expand...

I agree that is a good post. But you have also explained the fatal flaws in the hawk strategy. First, that air strikes are only to soften them up for a ground offensive. That is clearly wher it would go. Then to occupation, presumably. Didn't hear David Caneron mention any if that. Second, that their ideology is shared by many. That predicts the difficulty of sorting it out from outside and suggests what a quagmire it will become. And the more western troops do there, the greater the risk of another Paris-like attack on the west.


----------



## chippa1909 (Nov 29, 2015)

Cameron says there are 70000 moderate rebels just waiting on the word to get stuck into ISIS.

Unfortunately, moderate rebels are only a couple of misplaced bombs from becoming radical rebels.

It's one big total mess and I don't think the government has a clue what to do about it apart from bomb them and see what happens.


----------



## Hobbit (Nov 29, 2015)

Ethan said:



			I agree that is a good post. But you have also explained the fatal flaws in the hawk strategy. First, that air strikes are only to soften them up for a ground offensive. That is clearly wher it would go. Then to occupation, presumably. Didn't hear David Caneron mention any if that. Second, that their ideology is shared by many. That predicts the difficulty of sorting it out from outside and suggests what a quagmire it will become. And the more western troops do there, the greater the risk of another Paris-like attack on the west.
		
Click to expand...

But would/should it be an occupation with a plan for regime change? Yes, the Caliphate ideology is shared by a huge amount of people but, as posted, they don't want something as radical as ISIS. The idea of a Caliphate might have some merit if, and its a huge if, it developed along the lines of an old fashioned Common Market. It would also put right the great wrong going back many years, i.e. just who drew the lines on the map that decided which country had which territory.

In truth, the only "police action" that actually worked was the Malay insurgency, and even that was brutal. Will this version work? Probably not. Will negotiating work? Probably not. Is it safe to do nothing? Probably not. 

But, bearing mind who has the greater resources, who would wear who down first? Without a doubt there'll be more Paris-style attacks. Maybe a more robust  action is required, but I don't see less being the answer.

Its going round in circles but without stepping up the action, what is the answer?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 29, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			But would/should it be an occupation with a plan for regime change? Yes, the Caliphate ideology is shared by a huge amount of people but, as posted, they don't want something as radical as ISIS. The idea of a Caliphate might have some merit if, and its a huge if, it developed along the lines of an old fashioned Common Market. It would also put right the great wrong going back many years, i.e. just who drew the lines on the map that decided which country had which territory.

In truth, the only "police action" that actually worked was the Malay insurgency, and even that was brutal. Will this version work? Probably not. Will negotiating work? Probably not. Is it safe to do nothing? Probably not. 

But, bearing mind who has the greater resources, who would wear who down first? Without a doubt there'll be more Paris-style attacks. Maybe a more robust  action is required, but I don't see less being the answer.

Its going round in circles but without stepping up the action, what is the answer?
		
Click to expand...

Good luck getting an answer on this one&#128515;


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 30, 2015)

Russians bombed a market place and town yesterday killing 40-60 civilians.
Strangely this is not being reported on the BBC.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 30, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Russians bombed a market place and town yesterday killing 40-60 civilians.
Strangely this is not being reported on the BBC.
		
Click to expand...

Interesting, I usually go to Al Jazeera News for things like this but cannot see any mention of it.  Have you got a link.  Or are you on about the bakery attack on Sunday http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/turkish-group-russians-targeted-bakery-syria-151130060654874.html


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Russians bombed a market place and town yesterday killing 40-60 civilians.
Strangely this is not being reported on the BBC.
		
Click to expand...

No doubt because it's not confirmed and more an allegation is it not ?


----------



## rosecott (Nov 30, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Russians bombed a market place and town yesterday killing 40-60 civilians.
Strangely this is not being reported on the BBC.
		
Click to expand...

The BBC generally reports confirmed news, not rumours.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 30, 2015)

Fancy Corbyns going to demand his MPs vote his way on Syria.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 30, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Fancy Corbyns going to demand his MPs vote his way on Syria.
		
Click to expand...

So do I and I hope he sacks his front bench rebels if they vote for bombing.
With the Tory rebels, Labour, SNP and waifs and strays I don't think Cameron would risk a vote.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			So do I and I hope he sacks his front bench rebels if they vote for bombing.
With the Tory rebels, Labour, SNP and waifs and strays I don't think Cameron would risk a vote.
		
Click to expand...

And you think that's a good thing ?

Have you come up with an alternative workable action to tackle ISIL ?


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 30, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And you think that's a good thing ?

Have you come up with an alternative workable action to tackle ISIL ?
		
Click to expand...


Thought it was up to government to prove their plan of action as being 'workable'....

Clearly they haven't, as they wouldn't be needing to petition the opposition for support, if they had...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Thought it was up to government to prove their plan of action as being 'workable'....

Clearly they haven't, as they wouldn't be needing to petition the opposition for support, if they had...
		
Click to expand...

Well just thought that people who said that it isn't workable to conduct air strikes would have come up with alternative actions in the government and indeed on here

But it appears no one can come up with something else to try first


----------



## Fyldewhite (Nov 30, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And you think that's a good thing ?

Have you come up with an alternative workable action to tackle ISIL ?
		
Click to expand...

If I were to answer that then I'd say "I'm not sure". Which I think is the point......not enough people are convinced that the proposals on the table are a workable solution.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2015)

Fyldewhite said:



			If I were to answer that then I'd say "I'm not sure". Which I think is the point......not enough people are convinced that the proposals on the table are a workable solution.
		
Click to expand...

So then do nothing ? And let them continue to terrorise the world ?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 30, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And you think that's a good thing ?

Have you come up with an alternative workable action to tackle ISIL ?
		
Click to expand...

Yes it is the same as Corbyn/Sturgeon/SLAB and the Tory rebels.

Do you think we should bomb Syria when the country and Westminster MP's are totally undecided about what action to take


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Yes it is the same as Corbyn/Sturgeon/SLAB and the Tory rebels.
		
Click to expand...

Which is what ?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 30, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Which is what ?
		
Click to expand...

Surely you must have read/listened to them.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Surely you must have read/listened to them.
		
Click to expand...

Nope - you can post a link if you wish


----------



## Ethan (Nov 30, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So then do nothing ? And let them continue to terrorise the world ?
		
Click to expand...

The current plan seems to be to do something that will make them terrorise the world more.

The options here are only bad and worse. Many think bombing without a clear plan (other than to blow lots of stuff and civilians up) is the worse idea.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2015)

Ethan said:



			The current plan seems to be to do something that will make them terrorise the world more.

The options here are only bad and worse. Many think bombing without a clear plan (other than to blow lots of stuff and civilians up) is the worse idea.
		
Click to expand...

Always a risk when force is use - the risk could be bigger doing nothing. The terrorists with freedoms of no direct action against them could up their campaign 

When did anyone suggest bombing without a clear plan ? Every target will be from the best intelligence source and will be done for a reason - specific targets will be found 

So what is the alternative ?


----------



## Fyldewhite (Nov 30, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So then do nothing ? And let them continue to terrorise the world ?
		
Click to expand...

No, not saying that at all. We are not "doing nothing" at the moment either. Syria is complicated and I for one see no strategy on the table to eradicate ISIL and bring stability to the country. The biggest "pull" for me is that we should be supporting our allies and it's a big step not to do that. However, recent history shows it's not always the right course. What I am saying is that I think there may be a case to come back with better proposals with better predictability and likely outcomes that will support a sustainable solution. I know that's difficult, all this is very, very hard but to send in the bombers just because the "we must do something" view prevails may be an error.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2015)

But the bombers won't be sent in "just to do something"

They will be sent to target specific areas to start nullifying ISIL - hit training camps , target leaders , target ammunition dumps etc - all tactical targets that would be hit for a reason 

Right now ISIL are planning their next attacks , they are recruiting from all round the globe , they are training those in camps that we know about , they are stockpiling weapons , trading in arms 

We need to blunt that , we need to disrupt their plans , stop them recruiting and hit their training camps.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 30, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Nope - you can post a link if you wish
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:





Click to expand...

What's wrong ? 

What would be your plan to tackle IS as it appears you don't want the UK to take part in the coalition air strikes ?


----------



## Ethan (Nov 30, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			But the bombers won't be sent in "just to do something"

They will be sent to target specific areas to start nullifying ISIL - hit training camps , target leaders , target ammunition dumps etc - all tactical targets that would be hit for a reason 

Right now ISIL are planning their next attacks , they are recruiting from all round the globe , they are training those in camps that we know about , they are stockpiling weapons , trading in arms 

We need to blunt that , we need to disrupt their plans , stop them recruiting and hit their training camps.
		
Click to expand...

Lets take it as read that IS are building and are up to no good. We all agree on that. 

What we don't agree on is that you can surgically take them out just like that. We heard the same in Iraq2 and the first stage was over quick but careened loads of problems including helping the rise of IS and a nuclear Iran. Do you think they might be spreading heir camps out a bit as we speak? Maybe moving munitions out of easy reach? 

The intelligence is not good enough and IS can melt away into the civilian population. One misplaced bomb and you recruit thousand more who cross over from supporters to warriors. 

We are in a hole. We should stop digging.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Lets take it as read that IS are building and are up to no good. We all agree on that. 

What we don't agree on is that you can surgically take them out just like that. We heard the same in Iraq2 and the first stage was over quick but careened loads of problems including helping the rise of IS and a nuclear Iran. Do you think they might be spreading heir camps out a bit as we speak? Maybe moving munitions out of easy reach? 

The intelligence is not good enough and IS can melt away into the civilian population. One misplaced bomb and you recruit thousand more who cross over from supporters to warriors. 

We are in a hole. We should stop digging.
		
Click to expand...

Yes we can surgically take out specific targets with presicion air strike with minimal collateral damage - the RAF have been doing that for a while on specific targets - that's why the Brimstone is so important - it's not carpet bombing. 

Again Ethan you still have come up with your plan - what you think we should do instead of air strikes


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 30, 2015)

Ethan said:



			Lets take it as read that IS are building and are up to no good. We all agree on that. 

We are in a hole. We should stop digging.
		
Click to expand...

So IS are building but you want to give up.

Everone knows that there is no feasible plan other than, at the moment, a campaign to reduce the capability of IS. Perhaps when their ability have been significantly reduced a plan could be produced.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 30, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Again Ethan you still have come up with your plan - what you think we should do instead of air strikes
		
Click to expand...

From his post it looks like do nothing.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 30, 2015)

Corbyn now wants a 2 day debate on the Syria bombing issue according to BBC 24. Thought as further delaying tactics as no time in the Parlimentary calendar this side of 2015.


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 30, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Again Ethan you still have come up with your plan - what you think we should do instead of air strikes
		
Click to expand...


It's not for 'Joe Public' to come up with a plan...

That's the 'work' of government and then get the required support..
Failure to do so means a plan B needs to be formulated...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			It's not for 'Joe Public' to come up with a plan...

That's the 'work' of government and then get the required support..
Failure to do so means a plan B needs to be formulated...
		
Click to expand...

But "Joe Public" appear to be ok to dismiss the current plan put forward by the government 

Just trying to find out whilst they dismiss the plan the government have put forward what their suggestions are that should be done to tackle IS ? 

I think though it's clear that no one has an alternative to the UK joining in the Air Strikes


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 30, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			It's not for 'Joe Public' to come up with a plan......
		
Click to expand...

That's a bit like the current leader of the opposition poo poo the plan but not come up with an alternative.

Anyway it's a discussion forum which would be pretty sparse if we didn't all run the world from the comfort of our armchairs.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 30, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			But "Joe Public" appear to be ok to dismiss the current plan put forward by the government 

Just trying to find out whilst they dismiss the plan the government have put forward what their suggestions are that should be done to tackle IS ? 

I think though it's clear that no one has an alternative to the UK joining in the Air Strikes
		
Click to expand...

Be fair Mr Corbyn and I think it might have been either Wings or the Doc suggested stopping the supply of oil leaving the country. Thats without bombs or boots on the ground. It's all done by magic don't you know.


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 30, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			But "Joe Public" appear to be ok to dismiss the current plan put forward by the government 

Just trying to find out whilst they dismiss the plan the government have put forward what their suggestions are that should be done to tackle IS ? 

I think though it's clear that no one has an alternative to the UK joining in the Air Strikes
		
Click to expand...



Virtually impossible for the man on the street to be sure he has all the necessary facts to come up with a solution/plan...

How can anyone truly be sure of what is fact and what is propaganda...


----------



## FairwayDodger (Nov 30, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Corbyn now wants a 2 day debate on the Syria bombing issue according to BBC 24. Thought as further delaying tactics as no time in the Parlimentary calendar this side of 2015.
		
Click to expand...

Regardless of your view, there must be a debate on it?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Virtually impossible for the man on the street to be sure he has all the necessary facts to come up with a solution/plan...

How can anyone truly be sure of what is fact and what is propaganda...
		
Click to expand...

So again no plan of action whilst the terrorists continue in their journey to destroy the western world. 

Whilst people decide and debate and go round in circle ISIL get stronger - they don't stop and wait for us to make a choice


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 30, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Regardless of your view, there must be a debate on it?
		
Click to expand...

There was a debate last week.
Latest from BBC is that a free vote is now likely for Labour MPs


----------



## MegaSteve (Nov 30, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So again no plan of action whilst the terrorists continue in their journey to destroy the western world. 

Whilst people decide and debate and go round in circle ISIL get stronger - they don't stop and wait for us to make a choice
		
Click to expand...


When/if I come up with a plan I'll forward it to DaveCam for his consideration...

Like yourself I don't get to vote on this...
That's up to the folk in the Palace of Westminster...

How they deal with this, along with all the other matters that come before them during their five years of being there, will be a large part of my decision making on how I vote at the next GE...


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 30, 2015)

No sooner has Mr Corbyns poll been exposed as selective and the man caves in. (The above was done on TV so no link)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34967024


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 30, 2015)

I'm all for us supporting the effort in bombing IS, but it must be inconjunction with a follow on/side by side plan.
The options are not as simple as bomb or don't bomb as some seem to be suggesting, let's not kid ourselves we are already fighting IS in Syria and if the RAF don't join in, we'll still be involved in a fight against them, No to bombing Syria does not mean we've give up and are coming home.
I don't want to lose any more friends overseas, I know the risk, this time though I'd like the bombing to be part of a long term strategy.


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 30, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Regardless of your view, there must be a debate on it?
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree with this!

@Old Skier. What debate was that? Cameron has stated that there will be no 'debate' until he is sure that he has the support he needs - for the decision he wants (is another 'dodgy dossier' being created?)!

Personally, I don't see what benefit UK actually joining those bombing Syria will achieve, though I am all for supplying 'experts' to plan and even target ISIL sites for those committed to bombing to act upon! There's enough congestion in the area already imo, and another force will simply increase the likelihood of tragic accidents!

Has anything really been achieved by the bombing of ISIL in Iraq? Because if that hasn't been 95+% effective (with the far greater freedom for the good guys to act), then I very much doubt that attempting to doing the same in the much more restricted area of Syria will be effective!

And, of course, there needs to be an exit/post success strategy created/agreed too! That, or at least the options, needs to be provided to and agreed by Parliament before bombing starts!


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 30, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			Absolutely agree with this!

@Old Skier. What debate was that?

Has anything really been achieved by the bombing of ISIL in Iraq? Because if that hasn't been 95+% effective (with the far greater freedom for the good guys to act), then I very much doubt that attempting to doing the same in the much more restricted area of Syria will be effective!

And, of course, there needs to be an exit/post success strategy created/agreed too! That, or at least the options, needs to be provided to and agreed by Parliament before bombing starts!
		
Click to expand...

Sorry to much Lemsip, the only debate I heard was during the SDSR and Paris episode.

I think you will find that with the support of local ground forces the RAF have achieved quite a lot in Iraq with IS being pushed many miles back to the north and west from both Ramadi and Mosul.


----------



## Fish (Nov 30, 2015)

Talk is cheap, meanwhile........

Allen Henning, Peter Kassig, both aid workers and both beheaded along with Jim Foley, Steve Sotloff and many others, too many to mention in fact, ISIS, ISIL or whatever just revel in the slaughter of innocents, including fellow Muslims and are hell bent only on sowing death & destruction, but hey, let's not think about what's going on now and just dwell on the past and let's cuddle around a table whilst they watch and hear our every move being discussed openly, whilst probably laughing at us as they prepare and build another wave of terror!

Brimstone is the way forward, hit everything with the best intelligence afforded to us that will slow and disrupt them, hopefully taking out key personnel also, harping on about the past and past mistakes gets us nowhere, we've learnt from those situations so move on, don't look back as the body count of more innocent people just rises otherwise and IS just get better dug in making the fight to them even harder.


----------



## chippa1909 (Nov 30, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			Absolutely agree with this!

@Old Skier. What debate was that? Cameron has stated that there will be no 'debate' until he is sure that he has the support he needs - for the decision he wants (is another 'dodgy dossier' being created?)!

Personally, I don't see what benefit UK actually joining those bombing Syria will achieve, though I am all for supplying 'experts' to plan and even target ISIL sites for those committed to bombing to act upon! There's enough congestion in the area already imo, and another force will simply increase the likelihood of tragic accidents!

Has anything really been achieved by the bombing of ISIL in Iraq? Because if that hasn't been 95+% effective (with the far greater freedom for the good guys to act), then I very much doubt that attempting to doing the same in the much more restricted area of Syria will be effective!

And, of course, there needs to be an exit/post success strategy created/agreed too! That, or at least the options, needs to be provided to and agreed by Parliament before bombing starts!
		
Click to expand...

Well said.


----------



## Ethan (Nov 30, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			It's not for 'Joe Public' to come up with a plan...

That's the 'work' of government and then get the required support..
Failure to do so means a plan B needs to be formulated...
		
Click to expand...

I did say what I thought we should so some pages ago.


----------



## Ethan (Nov 30, 2015)

Fish said:



			Talk is cheap, meanwhile........

Allen Henning, Peter Kassig, both aid workers and both beheaded along with Jim Foley, Steve Sotloff and many others, too many to mention in fact, ISIS, ISIL or whatever just revel in the slaughter of innocents, including fellow Muslims and are hell bent only on sowing death & destruction, but hey, let's not think about what's going on now and just dwell on the past and let's cuddle around a table whilst they watch and hear our every move being discussed openly, whilst probably laughing at us as they prepare and build another wave of terror!

Brimstone is the way forward, hit everything with the best intelligence afforded to us that will slow and disrupt them, hopefully taking out key personnel also, harping on about the past and past mistakes gets us nowhere, we've learnt from those situations so move on, don't look back as the body count of more innocent people just rises otherwise and IS just get better dug in making the fight to them even harder.
		
Click to expand...


So your plan is to avenge the bodycount of innocent people by increasing the bodycount of innocent people a hundred or thousand-fold?

Why not just nuke it and be done?


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 30, 2015)

Ethan said:



			So your plan is to avenge the bodycount of innocent people by increasing the bodycount of innocent people a hundred or thousand fold?
		
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting that because the RAF are bombing the collateral damage will kill hundreds and possibly thousands of innocent people.


----------



## richy (Nov 30, 2015)

Haven't had a chance to read this whole thread and not sure if it's been covered but what are the thoughts from those who are for bombing Syria on the innocent people who will no doubt be caught up in this?


----------



## chippa1909 (Nov 30, 2015)

G



richy said:



			Haven't had a chance to read this whole thread and not sure if it's been covered but what are the thoughts from those who are for bombing Syria on the innocent people who will no doubt be caught up in this?
		
Click to expand...

There won't be because the RAF have magic missiles that only kill terrorists.


----------



## richy (Nov 30, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			G

There won't be because the RAF have magic missiles that only kill terrorists.
		
Click to expand...

WOW. They should put some of that technology into not losing your bags when you go on tour.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2015)

Ethan said:



			I did say what I thought we should so some pages ago.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry I missed it - which post was it ?


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 30, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			G

There won't be because the RAF have magic missiles that only kill terrorists.
		
Click to expand...

You don't drive a ball 300 yrd as well do you.


----------



## chippa1909 (Nov 30, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			You don't drive a ball 300 yrd as well do you.
		
Click to expand...

Aye. And never miss a fairway. :rofl:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			G

There won't be because the RAF have magic missiles that only kill terrorists.
		
Click to expand...

Wow that's good

So what's your plan ? Another stand back and doing nothing ?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2015)

richy said:



			Haven't had a chance to read this whole thread and not sure if it's been covered but what are the thoughts from those who are for bombing Syria on the innocent people who will no doubt be caught up in this?
		
Click to expand...

Innocent people always get caught up in conflict

The main aim when bombing will be to ensure the collateral damage is minimal 

Understand in Iraq using the brimstone at the moment that damage is at zero


----------



## chippa1909 (Nov 30, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Wow that's good

So what's your plan ? Another stand back and doing nothing ?
		
Click to expand...

Well until a coherent plan is put forward that looks further than the end of peoples noses, then yes. And proud to say so.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Nov 30, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Innocent people always get caught up in conflict

The main aim when bombing will be to ensure the collateral damage is minimal 

Understand in Iraq using the brimstone at the moment that damage is at zero
		
Click to expand...

That is a massive claim. Anything behind that?


----------



## richy (Nov 30, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Innocent people always get caught up in conflict

The main aim when bombing will be to ensure the collateral damage is minimal 

Understand in Iraq using the brimstone at the moment that damage is at zero
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for replying. I thought and hoped more of the pro bombing lot would've answered. 

So if we bomb them and they retaliate by killing more innocents you'd have the same view?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			That is a massive claim. Anything behind that?
		
Click to expand...

It was from a defence aid on the radio last week when talking about Brimstone - to clarify its IsIS in Iraq as opposed to Iraq War

http://recentworldnews.org/news/uk/623038/Brimstone-missiles-Islamic-State-militants-Iraq-Syria

Edit - micheal Fallon


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Nov 30, 2015)

I dont understand the reasoning here.

The status quo is not to do anything. No bombing, no nothing.

Surely it's on those who want to change that to justify it. I.e. If you think we should bomb, you have to have a damn good reason, well thought out and justified to support it.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2015)

richy said:



			Thanks for replying. I thought and hoped more of the pro bombing lot would've answered. 

So if we bomb them and they retaliate by killing more innocents you'd have the same view?
		
Click to expand...

Well they are already killing innocents and will continue to kill innocent people 

It's a risk to take and you would hope that the presicion bombing will reduce their capability


----------



## Foxholer (Nov 30, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Innocent people always get caught up in conflict

The main aim when bombing will be to ensure the collateral damage is minimal 

Understand in Iraq using the brimstone at the moment that damage is at zero
		
Click to expand...

It's actually BECAUSE of innocent people being caught up in the conflict that we are considering action in the first place. So it's essential that we do/cause as little harm to other innocents as possible!

US targetting of the MSF hospital in Afghanistan was apparently pretty accurate too!


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Nov 30, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It was from a defence aid on the radio last week when talking about Brimstone - to clarify its IsIS in Iraq as opposed to Iraq War

http://recentworldnews.org/news/uk/623038/Brimstone-missiles-Islamic-State-militants-Iraq-Syria

Edit - micheal Fallon
		
Click to expand...

Ahhh cheers. That's damn impressive!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Ahhh cheers. That's damn impressive!
		
Click to expand...

That is how good the Brimstone is - some of the trial videos have seen are amazing - putting it through car windows from thousands of feet and just blowing up that single car in a queue of 10


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 30, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			I dont understand the reasoning here.

The status quo is not to do anything. No bombing, no nothing.

Surely it's on those who want to change that to justify it. I.e. If you think we should bomb, *you have to have a damn good reason*, well thought out and justified to support it.
		
Click to expand...

Aren't the murders of innocent people in Paris a damn good reason?


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Nov 30, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Aren't the murders of innocent people in Paris a damn good reason?
		
Click to expand...

I believe that the murderers are all dead (or captured).

Either way, "punishment" isn't a reason. A reason is needs to be more than a knee jerk reaction. Will bombing them make things better? I have no issue at all with bombing, but i'm yet to hear a well thought out reason behind it, that considers more than the next 1-2 months. Short term thinking (from the 1940's up to the current day) has got us into this mess, can't we just think a little bit more?


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Nov 30, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			Aren't the murders of innocent people in Paris a damn good reason?
		
Click to expand...

Just to add, we (the west as a whole) have killed innocent people in the middle east, in their hundreds/thousands. It doesn't justify them bombing us now, does it...


----------



## chippa1909 (Nov 30, 2015)

It's not the accuracy of Brimstone that worries me, it's the accuracy of the "intelligence" that picks the targets that worries me.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 30, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			I believe that the murderers are all dead (or captured).

Either way, "punishment" isn't a reason. A reason is needs to be more than a knee jerk reaction. Will bombing them make things better? I have no issue at all with bombing, but i'm yet to hear a well thought out reason behind it, that considers more than the next 1-2 months. Short term thinking (from the 1940's up to the current day) has got us into this mess, can't we just think a little bit more?
		
Click to expand...

Bombing will make things better IF we are able to take out the guys running the training camps and HQ's and planning future attacks. Then it would be about prevention rather than punishment.

To flip things around, what if there is another attack in London in the next few months that can be undeniably traced back to a training camp in Syria that we have intelligence of and know the location. Ten potential suicide bombers go to this camp to train for an attack and we know they are there. We have the option to take them out but don't and they go on to carry out their attacks in London killing hundreds of innocents. Isn't it exactly that situation that we should be prepared and planning for and having the option to eliminate the problem at source in Syria?


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 30, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Just to add, we (the west as a whole) have killed innocent people in the middle east, in their hundreds/thousands. It doesn't justify them bombing us now, does it...
		
Click to expand...

In their thousands. When did that happen or are we going back to the crusades


----------



## delc (Nov 30, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			In their thousands. When did that happen or are we going back to the crusades
		
Click to expand...

Iraq 2!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			It's not the accuracy of Brimstone that worries me, it's the accuracy of the "intelligence" that picks the targets that worries me.
		
Click to expand...

That intelligence seems to be working very well finding targets in Iraq 

And it's helping the Iraq army fight back against ISIS


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Nov 30, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			In their thousands. When did that happen or are we going back to the crusades
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but have you actually looked at numbers of civilian deaths in iraq, caused by the west? Different sources have put this number at over 100,000. I understand that the US are much bigger than us, but if you're going to dismiss my use of the word thousands out of hand, then i dont know what to say


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 30, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			I'm sorry, but have you actually looked at numbers of civilian deaths in iraq, caused by the west? Different sources have put this number at over 100,000. I understand that the US are much bigger than us, but if you're going to dismiss my use of the word thousands out of hand, then i dont know what to say
		
Click to expand...

Not a figure I have seen but if your source is good then it must be correct


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Nov 30, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Not a figure I have seen but if your source is good then it must be correct
		
Click to expand...

Going on a couple of different places, there was a telegraoh article (
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ears-on-at-least-116000-civilians-killed.html )

And the websites 
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3750.htm
https://www.iraqbodycount.org

Athough the latter do look a tad biased, the DT article iseems a bit more neutral


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Going on a couple of different places, there was a telegraoh article (
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ears-on-at-least-116000-civilians-killed.html )

And the websites 
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3750.htm
https://www.iraqbodycount.org

Athough the latter do look a tad biased, the DT article iseems a bit more neutral
		
Click to expand...

Guess it doesnt break down the amount killed by which side etc ?


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 30, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Going on a couple of different places, there was a telegraoh article (
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ears-on-at-least-116000-civilians-killed.html )

And the websites 
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3750.htm
https://www.iraqbodycount.org

Athough the latter do look a tad biased, the DT article iseems a bit more neutral
		
Click to expand...

Any deaths are to many but the wikileaks document from 2004-2009 gives 66,081 civilian deaths. Now given the length of time given I would suspect a large number could go down to Iraq on Iraq.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 30, 2015)

If these figures are to be believed it seems that Jeremy Corbyn's views are pretty much identical to a large majority of the labour membership when it comes to the question of bombing IS in Syria.......




Apologies for the image from the Daily Mail.


----------



## USER1999 (Nov 30, 2015)

100,000 for a missile to take out a 5 grand beaten up old pick up truck. 

Value for money?


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 30, 2015)

murphthemog said:



			100,000 for a missile to take out a 5 grand beaten up old pick up truck. 

*Value for money?*

Click to expand...

I suppose that depends on what value you put on preventing a few hundred (or more) innocent civilians in a major European city from being murdered.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 30, 2015)

murphthemog said:



			100,000 for a missile to take out a 5 grand beaten up old pick up truck. 

Value for money?
		
Click to expand...

 Beaten up old truck carries an ISIS leader or the next suicide bomber - how much is it worth then ?


----------



## USER1999 (Dec 1, 2015)

Or it carries some local, who has no idea what is going on.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2015)

murphthemog said:



			Or it carries some local, who has no idea what is going on.
		
Click to expand...

Then the vehicle won't be targeted if it's just carrying a local.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 1, 2015)

Defense Minister admitting that we will not destroy IS by bombing alone.....we all know now what that means.

Defense committee guy stating that a lot of the weapons and vehicles used by IS are produced in the USA. 
Perhaps they are also using some of the old UK stuff when we supplied both Iran and Iraq.


----------



## richy (Dec 1, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Then the vehicle won't be targeted if it's just carrying a local.
		
Click to expand...

Can you say that for sure 100%?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2015)

richy said:



			Can you say that for sure 100%?
		
Click to expand...

Why would the RAF target an innocent person ?


----------



## Sweep (Dec 1, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Defense Minister admitting that we will not destroy IS by bombing alone.....we all know now what that means.

Defense committee guy stating that a lot of the weapons and vehicles used by IS are produced in the USA. 
Perhaps they are also using some of the old UK stuff when we supplied both Iran and Iraq.
		
Click to expand...

Who ever said that bombing alone would destroy IS completely? No-one.
If ground troops are needed after targets are taken out, so be it. We have to do whatever it takes to rid ourselves of this evil cancer. Those who oppose action MUST come up with a credible alternative to solve this issue or just be quiet.
We are talking about protecting innocent people the world over. That is what we have a military for, and thank God we do.


----------



## Fish (Dec 1, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Defense Minister admitting that we will not destroy IS by bombing alone.....we all know now what that means.

Defense committee guy stating that a lot of the weapons and vehicles used by IS are produced in the USA. 
Perhaps they are also using some of the old UK stuff when we supplied both Iran and Iraq.
		
Click to expand...

Which is why it's important to continue to bomb them, this softens them and reduces their mobility to take over other cities/towns and grab more weapons and more importantly ammunition which is the hardest thing for them to acquire, whilst stunting their mobility this also allows the Kurds to protect their borders and push back ISIS where possible, they can't achieve this without us bombing and the Brimstone is the perfect weapon for that as it's a very clinical and precise bomb and as such can make a huge impact on reducing their (ISIS) mobility.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Dec 1, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Why would the RAF target an innocent person ?
		
Click to expand...

By mistake?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			By mistake?
		
Click to expand...

In the presicion bombing carried out by the RAF in the fight against IS in Iraq - mistakes = zero , collateral damage = zero

The RAF are not the US who clearly regualry make mistakes.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Dec 1, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			In the presicion bombing carried out by the RAF in the fight against IS in Iraq - mistakes = zero , collateral damage = zero

The RAF are not the US who clearly regualry make mistakes.
		
Click to expand...

Aye, right.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Aye, right.
		
Click to expand...

What do you mean ?


----------



## FairwayDodger (Dec 1, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			What do you mean ?
		
Click to expand...

I mean I don't share your confidence in the infallibility of the RAF.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			I mean I don't share your confidence in the infallibility of the RAF.
		
Click to expand...

That's shame then as the facts from their bombing back up my confidence


----------



## FairwayDodger (Dec 1, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			That's shame then as the facts from their bombing back up my confidence
		
Click to expand...

The RAF never make mistakes? Never kill civilians? Never have done, just not recently or never again?


----------



## richy (Dec 1, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Why would the RAF target an innocent person ?
		
Click to expand...

By mistake or incorrect intelligence


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			The RAF never make mistakes? Never kill civilians? Never have done, just not recently or never again?
		
Click to expand...

I never said that did I 

We might as well close the military then for fear of a human mistake or mis information

Over a year and half of presicion bombing and it's working in Iraq - right now they aren't making mistakes with both the intelligence and the actions 

If you don't trust the people to do their job then I can't change that - i do trust them


----------



## chippa1909 (Dec 1, 2015)

And I dare say the Syrian father who is surveying the wreckage of his children's school which the US or Russia has just bombed by mistake will say " Oh, that can't be the UK that did this, they don't make mistakes".


----------



## Sweep (Dec 1, 2015)

Labour are now a laughing stock under Corbyn. TBH I thought it was quite funny when they elected him, but now it beggars belief and is actually becoming quite offensive.
He can't decide about Syria, has open arguments with his shadow cabinet, polls his members and THEN decides to give MP's a free vote.
He promotes an admirer of the IRA to the position of Shadow Chancellor.
He stands up The Queen.
He refuses to sing the National Anthem at a memorial service for soldiers who died for him and us.
He brings back Ken Livingstone, who we all thought we had seen the last of, who within minutes of his appointment insults the mentally ill and then says that the 7/7 bombers laid down their lives! Completely forgetting the 52 innocent Londoners whose lives they also laid down - while he was mayor of London.
He blames every new shambles on a "new way of doing politics" that us mere mortals cannot be expected to understand.
It hard to believe that anyone can make such a mess in just 11 weeks.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Dec 1, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I never said that did I 

We might as well close the military then for fear of a human mistake or mis information

Over a year and half of presicion bombing and it's working in Iraq - right now they aren't making mistakes with both the intelligence and the actions 

If you don't trust the people to do their job then I can't change that - i do trust them
		
Click to expand...

All I said was that they might target an innocent civilian by mistake. With the best will in the world mistakes happen and you can't choose not to act for fear of those mistakes. However, the real problems begin if and when people start to think they are infallible. 

They might be on a good run (as usual you seem well informed) but I presume you do concede that the RAF can make mistakes, have made mistakes and will do so again in the future?


----------



## Sweep (Dec 1, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			And I dare say the Syrian father who is surveying the wreckage of his children's school which the US or Russia has just bombed by mistake will say " Oh, that can't be the UK that did this, they don't make mistakes".
		
Click to expand...

Given the IS view on education, how many schools do you think there are left in Raqqa?
Whats the alternative? Leave them under IS rule? Is that what you would want for your kids?


----------



## Sweep (Dec 1, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			All I said was that they might target an innocent civilian by mistake. With the best will in the world mistakes happen and you can't choose not to act for fear of those mistakes. However, the real problems begin if and when people start to think they are infallible. 

They might be on a good run (as usual you seem well informed) but I presume you do concede that the RAF can make mistakes, have made mistakes and will do so again in the future?
		
Click to expand...

The difference is that IS target civilians by no mistake. Them or us. You decide.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			All I said was that they might target an innocent civilian by mistake. With the best will in the world mistakes happen and you can't choose not to act for fear of those mistakes. However, the real problems begin if and when people start to think they are infallible. 

They might be on a good run (as usual you seem well informed) but I presume you do concede that the RAF can make mistakes, have made mistakes and will do so again in the future?
		
Click to expand...

So then the question is because mistakes have happened and could happen in the future - do nothing ? 

Stop the bombing ? 

The RAF and indeed all three services use the best people , the best training , the best equipment to ensure that the risk of a mistake happening is at the lowest possible 

Using the best intelligence and equipment like the Brimstone is why innocents aren't being killed in Iraq right now


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 1, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			The RAF never make mistakes? Never kill civilians? Never have done, just not recently or never again?
		
Click to expand...

Best take the guns of the police then


----------



## FairwayDodger (Dec 1, 2015)

Sweep said:



			The difference is that IS target civilians by no mistake. Them or us. You decide.
		
Click to expand...

I haven't actually expressed a view on airstrikes but I reject the premise of your question. It's just not that simple.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 1, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			I haven't actually expressed a view on airstrikes but I reject the premise of your question. It's just not that simple.
		
Click to expand...

It never is when you have to start thinking about killing people and the British Military above all know that. However targeted air strikes on know weaponry and positions/people is required whether we like it or not.  Nobody, whether it is the 70,000 + know coalition fighters on the ground or our own boots there is the need before any ground attack can happen.  Some of the worst bombing on record had to be carried out by the RAF and its allies to bring an end to WW2. Its not pretty, there are now easy answers but doing nothing is not an option and the world knows that IS and other so called Islamic regimes are openly stating that they not going to stop.

If the question has been "Should the RAF attack IS to neutralise their effect to allow ground forces to attack" nobody would ask the questions that at present are impossible to answer.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 1, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So then the question is because mistakes have happened and could happen in the future - do nothing ? 

Stop the bombing ? 

The RAF and indeed all three services use the best people , the best training , the best equipment to ensure that the risk of a mistake happening is at the lowest possible 

Using the best intelligence and equipment like the Brimstone is why innocents aren't being killed in Iraq right now
		
Click to expand...

But they are. It's shown on the news regularly and you cannot possibly sit behind your keyboard and categorically prove that no innocent party has been killed as part of any RAF bomb strike to date in this. To be honest, it makes not one iota of difference who drops the bombs, innocents will be killed. Whether this "collateral" can be seen as necessary depends on your point of view but please don't say unequicably it isnt happening.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Dec 1, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So then the question is because mistakes have happened and could happen in the future - do nothing ? 

Stop the bombing ? 

The RAF and indeed all three services use the best people , the best training , the best equipment to ensure that the risk of a mistake happening is at the lowest possible 

Using the best intelligence and equipment like the Brimstone is why innocents aren't being killed in Iraq right now
		
Click to expand...

Did you even read the post you quoted?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Did you even read the post you quoted?
		
Click to expand...

I most certainly did - hence the part about reducing the risks of making mistakes.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Dec 1, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Best take the guns of the police then
		
Click to expand...

Well that's another question entirely but all I am looking for is an acknowledgement that mistakes happen and a genuine desire to minimise the chances of mistakes.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Dec 1, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Well that's another question entirely but all I am looking for is an acknowledgement that mistakes happen and a genuine desire to minimise the chances of mistakes.
		
Click to expand...

Mistakes certainly can and do happen but I think the Brimstone missiles are the attempt to minimise the mistakes. I'm not an expert but believe they can pretty much post it through the window of a car and it is only the contents of the car that gets destroyed meaning less risk of civilians in the area being injured or killed by shrapnel.

EDIT - obviously if the intelligence is wrong and you post it through the wrong car window then there is still the risk of mistakes


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Well that's another question entirely but all I am looking for is an acknowledgement that mistakes happen and a genuine desire to minimise the chances of mistakes.
		
Click to expand...

Of course mistakes happen - they have happened in the past 

That's why things like brimstone are introduced - to reduce the risk of collateral damage and why joint intelligence sections created from the brightest and best people and only acting on the best intelligence that can be found 

If something has been targeted then everything possible humanly has been done to minimise the risk and to ensure the intelligence is correct 

That hasn't always been the case before with too much been relied on foriegn intelligence


----------



## FairwayDodger (Dec 1, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I most certainly did - hence the part about reducing the risks of making mistakes.
		
Click to expand...

I suggest you read it more closely before accusing me of suggesting we "do nothing".


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			I suggest you read it more closely before accusing me of suggesting we "do nothing".
		
Click to expand...

I wasn't accusing you of suggesting we do nothing - was a question.

If it came out that way I apologise


----------



## FairwayDodger (Dec 1, 2015)

On a slight tangent I am struck by the irony of our desire to blow up Islamic State with Brimstone missiles while we also sell them to Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			On a slight tangent I am struck by the irony of our desire to blow up Islamic State with Brimstone missiles while we also sell them to Saudi Arabia.
		
Click to expand...

That is the big question that needs answering - Saudi have Typhoon jets capable of delivering the Brimstone - so what course of action will they take. They need to be involved


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 1, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Well that's another question entirely but all I am looking for is an acknowledgement that mistakes happen and a genuine desire to minimise the chances of mistakes.
		
Click to expand...

Humans are involved, mistakes will always happen. People have to be realistic and acknowledge that and it would help if those above would admit it as well. That doesn't mean nothing should be done to neutralise the effect that IS is having.


----------



## MegaSteve (Dec 1, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			That is the big question that needs answering - Saudi have Typhoon jets capable of delivering the Brimstone - so what course of action will they take. They need to be involved
		
Click to expand...


Quite, what we should be saying is 'after you'...

NOT... 'Follow us _please_'...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2015)

MegaSteve said:



			Quite, what we should be saying is 'after you'...

NOT... 'Follow us _please_'...
		
Click to expand...

Or at the very least - come with us 

It's needs to be joint action


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 1, 2015)

Let us just hope that the Saudi's do not change sides then, like the UK did with Syria.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Let us just hope that the Saudi's do not change sides then, like the UK did with Syria.
		
Click to expand...

What side do you think they would change too ?!?


----------



## chippa1909 (Dec 1, 2015)

Just a thought for the mods.
Should this not be in Ask The Experts?


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 1, 2015)

Must be serious the Germans are in.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			Just a thought for the mods.
Should this not be in Ask The Experts?


Click to expand...

Hear they have found a suspect package in London 

What would it take for you to think it's time to act against terrorists ?


----------



## ger147 (Dec 1, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Must be serious the Germans are in.
		
Click to expand...

Germans "assisting" i.e. not bombing and no active combat for their troops.

http://news.sky.com/story/1597558/germany-joins-campaign-against-is-in-syria


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 1, 2015)

I would suspect IS to take a low profile this week as votes going on around Europe about joining in.


----------



## chippa1909 (Dec 1, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Hear they have found a suspect package in London 

What would it take for you to think it's time to act against terrorists ?
		
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting that bombing terrorists (a) in Syria is going to prevent terrorists (b) planting bombs in London?
If this is the case, why did we not bomb Ireland when the IRA were bombing London and Birmingham?


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 1, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			Are you seriously suggesting that bombing terrorists (a) in Syria is going to prevent terrorists (b) planting bombs in London?
If this is the case, why did we not bomb Ireland when the IRA were bombing London and Birmingham?
		
Click to expand...

Why would bombing Ireland have an affect.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			Are you seriously suggesting that bombing terrorists (a) in Syria is going to prevent terrorists (b) planting bombs in London?
If this is the case, why did we not bomb Ireland when the IRA were bombing London and Birmingham?
		
Click to expand...

I just asked at what stage would you think the use of force is needed as right now you would prefer to do nothing

And taking out suicide bombers will reduce their capability to harm innocent lives .


----------



## chippa1909 (Dec 1, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Why would bombing Ireland have an affect.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly!


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 1, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I just asked at what stage would you think the use of force is needed as right now you would prefer to do nothing

And taking out suicide bombers will reduce their capability to harm innocent lives .
		
Click to expand...

Even though there are undoubtedly cells already spread across the globe, especially in Europe as Paris showed. Bombing "may" have a place but it won't get rid of the threat, won't exclude the need for troops on the ground, and the inevitable casualties that will bring, on an very long term operation, and certainly won#t stop those cells already trained and being trained around the world. I fear that while intelligence may have a handle on some, it won't stop others, eithe as part of an organised strategy or as lone operators to continue to deliver their brand of terrorism


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 1, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			Exactly!
		
Click to expand...

As most IRA terrorist came from N Ireland I just found your argument strange.


----------



## chippa1909 (Dec 1, 2015)

D


Old Skier said:



			As most IRA terrorist came from N Ireland I just found your argument strange.
		
Click to expand...

Really?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2015)

The conflict in N Ireland is a massively different situation and it's a road of debate that's prob not somewhere we should go 

ISIL is a global issue - their actions right now harm innocent people all over the world - western nationalitys are being harmed , Brits have been killed by ISIS

You at the moment want to sit back and do nothing 

So I'm asking at what stage do you think force should be used.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 1, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			D

Really?
		
Click to expand...

Very


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 1, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Even though there are undoubtedly cells already spread across the globe, especially in Europe as Paris showed. Bombing "may" have a place but it won't get rid of the threat, won't exclude the need for troops on the ground, and the inevitable casualties that will bring, on an very long term operation, and certainly won#t stop those cells already trained and being trained around the world. I fear that while intelligence may have a handle on some, it won't stop others, eithe as part of an organised strategy or as lone operators to continue to deliver their brand of terrorism
		
Click to expand...

Fair points, but what is being lost in this tgread is people are focussing on Bomb or don't bomb, no one has said if we bomb Syria IS disappear! that is just one part of the vote in parliament, Personally feel we should get involved 
and join in with the allies and we must have a clear strategy, all this talk of Brimstone to me is smoke and mirrors, if we don't join in, the bombing will continue, the targets will be targeted, we happen to have technology that will help immmensley and that's not just the bombs.
It won't stop IS tomorrow, but it might next week/month/year.
Oh and Saudi are involved and are on the IS target list, they've executed more terrorists this year already than the whole of last year and have been fighting IS and AQ in the Yemen for a while now.


----------



## Sweep (Dec 1, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			I haven't actually expressed a view on airstrikes but I reject the premise of your question. It's just not that simple.
		
Click to expand...

Do IS not intentionally kill civilians then? Do you not think they would kill you if they could?


----------



## Sweep (Dec 1, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			Are you seriously suggesting that bombing terrorists (a) in Syria is going to prevent terrorists (b) planting bombs in London?
If this is the case, why did we not bomb Ireland when the IRA were bombing London and Birmingham?
		
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting that NOT bombing in Syria is (a) going to prevent terrorists (b) planting bombs in London?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 1, 2015)

Some very straightforward (perhaps too simple for some) article on pros and cons

http://news.sky.com/story/1597537/should-uk-go-to-war-in-syria-pros-and-cons


----------



## Sweep (Dec 1, 2015)

If ever confirmation was needed that political correctness has gone way too far, this debate is it. Here we are in 2015, faced with evil personified and we can't even decide if we should do anything about it at all, wringing our hands wondering if we do nothing, maybe it will all just go away. We have all gone soft. To all the do nothing brigade I can only say get ready to live your life under sharia law, or in a communist state or a nazi dictatorship or any other regime anyone who is prepared to have a go at us fancies. And get ready to tell your kids why you consigned them to such a life. IS is evil. You know it and so do I. How can you stand there and advocate doing nothing?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 1, 2015)

Sweep said:



			If ever confirmation was needed that political correctness has gone way too far, this debate is it. Here we are in 2015, faced with evil personified and we can't even decide if we should do anything about it at all, wringing our hands wondering if we do nothing, maybe it will all just go away. We have all gone soft. To all the do nothing brigade I can only say get ready to live your life under sharia law, or in a communist state or a nazi dictatorship or any other regime anyone who is prepared to have a go at us fancies. And get ready to tell your kids why you consigned them to such a life. IS is evil. You know it and so do I. How can you stand there and advocate doing nothing?
		
Click to expand...

Strong words. I don't necessarily agree with it especially the part about living under sharia law. The thing is while something has to be done, it has to be done properly, cohesively and decisively and that takes co-operation, planning and implementaton


----------



## richy (Dec 1, 2015)

Sweep said:



			If ever confirmation was needed that political correctness has gone way too far, this debate is it. Here we are in 2015, faced with evil personified and we can't even decide if we should do anything about it at all, wringing our hands wondering if we do nothing, maybe it will all just go away. We have all gone soft. To all the do nothing brigade I can only say get ready to live your life under sharia law, or in a communist state or a nazi dictatorship or any other regime anyone who is prepared to have a go at us fancies. And get ready to tell your kids why you consigned them to such a life. IS is evil. You know it and so do I. How can you stand there and advocate doing nothing?
		
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone on here has said do nothing


----------



## FairwayDodger (Dec 1, 2015)

Sweep said:



			Do IS not intentionally kill civilians then? Do you not think they would kill you if they could?
		
Click to expand...

Of course. Does that mean I should be less concerned about bombing innocents?


----------



## Sweep (Dec 1, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Strong words. I don't necessarily agree with it especially the part about living under sharia law. The thing is while something has to be done, it has to be done properly, cohesively and decisively and that takes co-operation, planning and implementaton
		
Click to expand...

Strong words indeed, for a serious situation. Do you not think IS would put us under sharia law if they could?
I absolutely agree that things have to be done properly and with a coalition. But to do nothing is not an option without serious consequences. Those who oppose fighting IS must come up with a viable alternative. As yet I have to hear one.
The West and the Middle East countries have known about this for years and done nothing and this has allowed the rise of IS. We cannot let it go on and I can't believe we are even debating it tbh.


----------



## Sweep (Dec 1, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Of course. Does that mean I should be less concerned about bombing innocents?
		
Click to expand...

No, but I think you will agree its the lesser of two "evils".


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 1, 2015)

Sweep said:



			Strong words indeed, for a serious situation. Do you not think IS would put us under sharia law if they could?
I absolutely agree that things have to be done properly and with a coalition. But to do nothing is not an option without serious consequences. Those who oppose fighting IS must come up with a viable alternative. As yet I have to hear one.
The West and the Middle East countries have known about this for years and done nothing and this has allowed the rise of IS. We cannot let it go on and I can't believe we are even debating it tbh.
		
Click to expand...

Of course they would if they could but the point is they won't. They won't invade and there's not enough already in the UK to take control or would ever be allowed to


----------



## Sweep (Dec 1, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Of course they would if they could but the point is they won't. They won't invade and there's not enough already in the UK to take control or would ever be allowed to
		
Click to expand...

Oh, I didn't realise. That's OK then.

Sorry Homer, I am being flippant, but what makes you think they won't? When do we take them as a serious threat? When they have their own nation? When they have an Air Force? When they have a nuclear bomb? How many more have to die at their hands before we sit up and take notice? How many more beheadings, crucifixions, burning alive, rapes, tortures?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 1, 2015)

Sweep said:



			Oh, I didn't realise. That's OK then.

Sorry Homer, I am being flippant, but what makes you think they won't? When do we take them as a serious threat? When they have their own nation? When they have an Air Force? When they have a nuclear bomb? How many more have to die at their hands before we sit up and take notice? How many more beheadings, crucifixions, burning alive, rapes, tortures?
		
Click to expand...

Are you talking here, Syria, across Europe or worldwide. As I've said the problem is they are already across the globe so going in with air strikes and perhaps troops in time will perhaps solve the issues in Syria (to a degree, not sure it's a definitive answer) but it won't eradicate the worldwide threat. How do you propose that happens?


----------



## Sweep (Dec 1, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Are you talking here, Syria, across Europe or worldwide. As I've said the problem is they are already across the globe so going in with air strikes and perhaps troops in time will perhaps solve the issues in Syria (to a degree, not sure it's a definitive answer) but it won't eradicate the worldwide threat. How do you propose that happens?
		
Click to expand...

You are right, it won't eradicate the worldwide threat, but we can and should hit them at their heart while we can. If you take out the command and keep on taking out the command that replaces it, then that is your best chance of IS losing momentum and eventually and hopefully see it whither on the vine. I think it will take coalition, ground troops and a lot of diplomacy, not with IS because they won't talk and indeed never have, but between nations in the coalition. Maybe it may even bring us closer together, which would be great, but tbh I have my doubts.
The alternative is to do nothing, watch them rise, safe in the knowledge that they can hit us on demand and we will do nothing. There will be no retaliation, no price to pay. We can rely on others to save us with no rights to complaint if they don't. We can continue to live in fear. Is that what you want? Is that the life you want for your kids?
i repeat, there is nothing wrong with taking the fight to evil. The usual argument would be whether the force we are fighting really is evil and in such a case there would be a debate. Surely, no-one is suggesting IS is not evil?


----------



## chippa1909 (Dec 1, 2015)

I'll support further military action when I'm convinced that it won't make things worse.
No one has been able to do that so far.


----------



## Fish (Dec 1, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			I'll support further military action when I'm convinced that it won't make things worse.
No one has been able to do that so far.
		
Click to expand...

Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better, you have to fight for freedom, if you allow IS to grow whilst we debate and debate, they will take over more towns & cities and increase their weaponry and much needed ammunition and take more transport and travel more killing & murdering anyone who doesn't agree with their warped ideals, whereas if we continue to bombard them you stunt all that movement & growth and starve them of all that so, eventually, ground forces can take them on easier and eradicate the world of their cancer!


----------



## daverollo (Dec 1, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			How do you propose that happens?
		
Click to expand...

The same way you eat an elephant, small bite sizes chunks at a time.

IS have grown rapidly in the last 24 months and have spread the net further in the middle east.  They have been halted and slowed in Iraq as a direct result of air strikes and other measures.  While they don't recognise borders, it is convenient for them that we do.  They stick two fingers up laughing at our ineptitude to suppress and eradicate them while we debate the morale issues of whether it is right to bomb them in their hide outs in Syria.

They will without doubt continue to rain as much mayhem on the West as is possible, training up terrorists to return to Europe and hit the populations anywhere, the more vulnerable the better in their eyes.  There is no negotiating to be had with them.

The laughable thing about Corbyns stance is to 'take the moral high unrealistic ground' and say that France and the US should be seeking a peaceful solution to the civil war in Syria.  I agree, however, no peace will be found until IS are removed from the equation.  The longer they continue to stay in Syria and Iraq, unchallenged the stronger they will get and the more protracted and lengthy any campaign will be.

I'd love to hear what Corbyns solution is for dealing with IS, can't seem to find that anywhere, anyone care to provide a link?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			I'll support further military action when I'm convinced that it won't make things worse.
No one has been able to do that so far.
		
Click to expand...

Has military action made things worse when we started targeting IS in Iraq ?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 1, 2015)

daverollo said:



			The same way you eat an elephant, small bite sizes chunks at a time.

IS have grown rapidly in the last 24 months and have spread the net further in the middle east.  They have been halted and slowed in Iraq as a direct result of air strikes and other measures.  While they don't recognise borders, it is convenient for them that we do.  They stick two fingers up laughing at our ineptitude to suppress and eradicate them while we debate the morale issues of whether it is right to bomb them in their hide outs in Syria.

They will without doubt continue to rain as much mayhem on the West as is possible, training up terrorists to return to Europe and hit the populations anywhere, the more vulnerable the better in their eyes.  There is no negotiating to be had with them.

The laughable thing about Corbyns stance is to 'take the moral high unrealistic ground' and say that France and the US should be seeking a peaceful solution to the civil war in Syria.  I agree, however, no peace will be found until IS are removed from the equation.  The longer they continue to stay in Syria and Iraq, unchallenged the stronger they will get and the more protracted and lengthy any campaign will be.

I'd love to hear what Corbyns solution is for dealing with IS, can't seem to find that anywhere, anyone care to provide a link?
		
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying and to a point agree with you. My concern, supported by the Sky News article I posted earlier, is that you'd need to put significant troops on the ground at some point and how long do you keep them there for. When is the job done? While some on here seem to have the whole thing mapped out already, it's a terrifyingly difficult area to manage and to find a cohesive and viable long term solution


----------



## chippa1909 (Dec 1, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Has military action made things worse when we started targeting IS in Iraq ?
		
Click to expand...

Well yes, I would say there has been a lot more ISIS attacks worldwide in the past 18 months than previously.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			Well yes, I would say there has been a lot more ISIS attacks worldwide in the past 18 months than previously.
		
Click to expand...

And you link that to the bombing in Iraq where ISIS is being driven away and their capabilities in that country has been reduced.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Dec 1, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			Well yes, I would say there has been a lot more ISIS attacks worldwide in the past 18 months than previously.
		
Click to expand...

And you would be correct, but maybe not for the reasons you expect. Until April 2013 ISIS (IS/ISIL/Daesh etc) did not exist. Up to that point they were Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) so prior to Apr 2013 any attacks would have been put down to Al Qaeda not ISIS and it wasn't until Feb 2014 that ISIS officially became a separate entity. 

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/19/9760284/isis-history

To be clear - this info has come from a Google search and I'm not claiming to be the font of all knowledge on ISIS but I was interested in finding out if the frequency of ISIS attacks had increased in the last 18 months.


----------



## Jimaroid (Dec 1, 2015)

I've been hoping that something posted in this thread would help sway my feelings on the situation one way or another but unfortunately nothing has. I just think it's an impossible situation, one where both action and inaction will lead to different types of bad outcomes.

My emotional response to IS atrocities, like the Paris attacks, is that we have to step up our action against IS. But I don't see any logic in being drawn further into the war that IS crave. The airstrike strategy hasn't been very effective in Syria, the USA has bombed IS targets more than 3000 times in the last year. Airpower alone can't win this war and I'm disappointed that the case to fight IS is being presented (mostly) in terms of airstrikes when there are number of senior political and military officials saying that it's a war that can only be won on the ground.

We either have to fight all-in or not at all. I don't see the sense in fighting half a war. 

Given all that, and in the context of *still* not knowing the results of Chilcott inquiry, which could help us better understand the decision facing us, I can't help but feel we are about to make another mistake.

I want IS destroyed and I want us involved in that fight but I don't feel the case has been made that the proposed action is the right path. It feels to me like "We can't do nothing, let's do something!" which is the same type of decision making that has led to many lost battles in the past.

Oh well, this time tomorrow, we will at least have one part of the debate resolved.


----------



## chippa1909 (Dec 1, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And you link that to the bombing in Iraq where ISIS is being driven away and their capabilities in that country has been reduced.
		
Click to expand...

So we're now supposed to be glad that things in Iraq are better since bombing started, but attacks in the rest of the world have increased.
Whoopee.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 1, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			So we're now supposed to be glad that things in Iraq are better since bombing started, but attacks in the rest of the world have increased.
Whoopee.
		
Click to expand...

Thats because their aim is to rule the rest of the world, there not going to do that from a sand hill in the Middle East.

If they were just interested in the normal in fighting that occurs in those parts then let them crack on and leave them to it this time, but that's not what they want.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			So we're now supposed to be glad that things in Iraq are better since bombing started, but attacks in the rest of the world have increased.
Whoopee.
		
Click to expand...

What it does show that presicion strikes in Iraq are helping blunt the capabilty of ISIS in that area and aiding the Iraq army to re take control of the areas that ISIS took over.

They have show to be effective and can be effective in Syria to help reduce their capabilty to train and command attacks.


----------



## ger147 (Dec 1, 2015)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/1/gen-joseph-dunford-us-has-not-contained-isis/


----------



## chippa1909 (Dec 1, 2015)

Ha ha. 
Cameron's idiotic "terrorist sympathisers" comment has already led to 20 Labour MP's who were going to back him to change their minds.
The man's an absolute fool.


----------



## richy (Dec 1, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			Ha ha. 
Cameron's idiotic "terrorist sympathisers" comment has already led to 20 Labour MP's who were going to back him to change their minds.
The man's an absolute fool.
		
Click to expand...

He must read The Sun. Ridiculous comment and sounds like he's flapping.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 1, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			Ha ha. 
Cameron's idiotic "terrorist sympathisers" comment has already led to 20 Labour MP's who were going to back him to change their minds.
The man's an absolute fool.
		
Click to expand...

Cameron seems to have lost the plot completely.
What an astonishingly crass choice of words.


----------



## chippa1909 (Dec 1, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Cameron seems to have lost the plot completely.
What an astonishingly crass choice of words.
		
Click to expand...

Obvious now why he didn't want a two day debate. New poll in The Times tomorrow shows public support for military action has fallen from 59% to 48%.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Dec 1, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			Ha ha. 
Cameron's idiotic "terrorist sympathisers" comment has already led to 20 Labour MP's who were going to back him to change their minds.
The man's an absolute fool.
		
Click to expand...

I agree that it is a ridiculous thing to say but is it any worse than Corbyn talking about bombing Syria (that's not what it's about it's about bombing IS targets in Syria) or suggesting that those that are in favour of airstrikes are supporting "the killing of innocent civilians" or "on their heads be it" if airstrikes cause an IS attack in the UK?


----------



## Sweep (Dec 1, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			I'll support further military action when I'm convinced that it won't make things worse.
No one has been able to do that so far.
		
Click to expand...

129 innocent people in Paris have just been murdered in cold blood. 99 are fighting for their lives. Innocent people in cities across the world are living in fear they will be next. IS is beheading, murdering, raping, crucifying, ethnically cleansing... How much worse do you think it should get before we do anything?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 1, 2015)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Cameron seems to have lost the plot completely.
What an astonishingly crass choice of words.
		
Click to expand...

Just heard that on the news - staggering thing to say

And I remain absolutely not convinced.  I have heard nothing in respect of an outcome that amounts to much more than wishful thinking.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Just heard that on the news - staggering thing to say

And I remain absolutely not convinced.  I have heard nothing in respect of an outcome that amounts to much more than wishful thinking.
		
Click to expand...

Ah welcome back - thought after your statement in regards the brimstone you had disappeared


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 1, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Ah welcome back - thought after your statement in regards the brimstone you had disappeared
		
Click to expand...

ah - we are believing that Brimstone is that much more accurate than anything the French or the USA have that it will make a difference. Well OK,  we can believe (btw - context for my statement - I used to be a missile guidance, control and navigation systems engineer - I designed these things so know how they work)


----------



## chippa1909 (Dec 1, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			I agree that it is a ridiculous thing to say but is it any worse than Corbyn talking about bombing Syria (that's not what it's about it's about bombing IS targets in Syria) or suggesting that those that are in favour of airstrikes are supporting "the killing of innocent civilians" or "on their heads be it" if airstrikes cause an IS attack in the UK?
		
Click to expand...

Of course it's worse. The guy is supposed to be a statesman.
The pig thing was bad enough, but to suggest that millions of the electorate are terrorist sympathisers takes it to a whole new level.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Dec 1, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			Of course it's worse. The guy is supposed to be a statesman.
The pig thing was bad enough, but to suggest that millions of the electorate are terrorist sympathisers takes it to a whole new level.
		
Click to expand...

So why is it worse to suggest that millions of the electorate are "terrorist sympathisers" than to suggest that millions of the electorate "support the killing of innocent civilians"?


----------



## Sweep (Dec 1, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			Of course it's worse. The guy is supposed to be a statesman.
The pig thing was bad enough, but to suggest that millions of the electorate are terrorist sympathisers takes it to a whole new level.
		
Click to expand...

And Corbyn is supposed to be a statesman in waiting. Now That IS funny.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			ah - we are believing that Brimstone is that much more accurate than anything the French or the USA have that it will make a difference. Well OK,  we can believe (btw - context for my statement - I used to be a missile guidance, control and navigation systems engineer - I designed these things so know how they work)
		
Click to expand...

There is nothing about believing - it's the truth 
For someone who knows how they work you appeared to blurt out a statement that was false

Every bit of information tells you the ability of Brimstone and how no one else has the capability - Paperboy who worked on it confirms it , Defence Journals confirm it , the US and UK defence confirm it


----------



## Sweep (Dec 1, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Just heard that on the news - staggering thing to say

And I remain absolutely not convinced.  I have heard nothing in respect of an outcome that amounts to much more than wishful thinking.
		
Click to expand...

Wishful thinking is that we do nothing and the problem will go away and those nice IS peeps will be all turn out to be quite a nice friendly bunch after all, leave us alone and may even send us a Christmas card.


----------



## USER1999 (Dec 1, 2015)

I still can't believe that adding our 6 knackered old tornados to the full might of the US, Russia, and a bit of France, is really going to make a difference, even if, and it's a big if to me, our missiles are more accurate. 
And they probably all work off the same intelligence, which is inherently flawed. Well the Russians and French do anyway!


----------



## Sweep (Dec 1, 2015)

chippa1909 said:



			Of course it's worse. The guy is supposed to be a statesman.
The pig thing was bad enough, but to suggest that millions of the electorate are terrorist sympathisers takes it to a whole new level.
		
Click to expand...

What he is actually reported to have said is don't walk through the lobby with terrorist sympathisers. No reference to those who don't support air strikes as terrorist sympathisers. Harsh thing to say, but when Corbyn promotes an IRA admirer to the job of Shadow Chancellor and brings back Livingstone who says the 7/7 bombers laid down their lives, I have to admit I was beginning to think the same thing myself. That's how far Corbyn has dragged down Labour in 11 weeks.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 1, 2015)

murphthemog said:



			I still can't believe that adding our 6 knackered old tornados to the full might of the US, Russia, and a bit of France, is really going to make a difference, even if, and it's a big if to me, our missiles are more accurate. 
And they probably all work off the same intelligence, which is inherently flawed. Well the Russians and French do anyway!
		
Click to expand...

Won't work of the same intelligence and the middles are that much accurate


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 2, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			There is nothing about believing - it's the truth 
For someone who knows how they work you appeared to blurt out a statement that was false

Every bit of information tells you the ability of Brimstone and how no one else has the capability - Paperboy who worked on it confirms it , Defence Journals confirm it , the US and UK defence confirm it
		
Click to expand...

To trot out your well used phrase, prove it. Where's the evidence other than you repeating it ad nauseum


Originally Posted by Liverpoolphil image: http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png
In the presicion bombing carried out by the RAF in the fight against IS in Iraq - mistakes = zero , collateral damage = zero. The RAF are not the US who clearly regualry make mistakes.

Show me where there are zero mistake, zero collateral damange and more importantly no innocent victims. Otherwise you seem to be building a stance to simply continue arguing with others on here, who like me differ in their opinion


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Dec 2, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			To trot out your well used phrase, prove it. Where's the evidence other than you repeating it ad nauseum


Originally Posted by Liverpoolphil image: http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png
In the presicion bombing carried out by the RAF in the fight against IS in Iraq - mistakes = zero , collateral damage = zero. The RAF are not the US who clearly regualry make mistakes.

Show me where there are zero mistake, zero collateral damange and more importantly no innocent victims. Otherwise you seem to be building a stance to simply continue arguing with others on here, who like me differ in their opinion
		
Click to expand...

I already asked Phil this question (albeit in a slightly less argumentative way I hope). He referred to a defence secretary on the radio, which was then backed up by my own searching. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/michael-fallon-claims-been-zero-6922729


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 2, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			ah - we are believing that Brimstone is that much more accurate than anything the French or the USA have that it will make a difference. Well OK,  we can believe (btw - context for my statement - I used to be a missile guidance, control and navigation systems engineer - I designed these things so know how they work)
		
Click to expand...

Happy to draw a wage for design the kit that wipes people out but not happy if they are used.  Quite a jump from systems engineer to the NHS.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 2, 2015)

murphthemog said:



			I still can't believe that adding our 6 knackered old tornados to the full might of the US, Russia, and a bit of France, is really going to make a difference, even if, and it's a big if to me, our missiles are more accurate. 
And they probably all work off the same intelligence, which is inherently flawed. Well the Russians and French do anyway!
		
Click to expand...

#
If you think the Tornado is a knackered bit of kit you obviously are not aware of the AC that Russia is using in Syria.


----------



## daverollo (Dec 2, 2015)

Too many people (politicians mostly) are trying to over analyse what is being asked and allowing mission creap to step in and use it as a political football to undermine the government.

Put simply:
"Do you support our allies request to extend the targeted bombing, against IS, that we are doing in Iraq to be extended into Syria"

It's not a case of how effective it will be, it's as much about showing solidarity and support with our allies against an evil that is intend on wiping out the West and imposing medieval laws on all that come under their control.

What annoys me more is the rhetoric about what the end game will look like, how will we remove Assad.  Do they not remember that parliament debated that 2 years ago and decided against getting involved with another regime change in the middle east, taking the view that the Syrians can sort it out themselves.

OUTCOME?
Close to 300,000 killed and 5,000,000 displaced and making a hasty retreat to Europe!

How much worse can it get if we do nothing? and how bad does it need to get before we do something?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 2, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			There is nothing about believing - it's the truth 
For someone who knows how they work you appeared to blurt out a statement that was false

Every bit of information tells you the ability of Brimstone and how no one else has the capability - Paperboy who worked on it confirms it , Defence Journals confirm it , the US and UK defence confirm it
		
Click to expand...

Ah - apologies - it's dual mode these days - with laser guidance.  That does make a difference - though laser targeting does rely on the delivery platform hanging around for a bit after missile launch or their being a target designator on the ground; and laser guidance is subject to the same issues that laser range finders have in respect of attenuation - in Syria that would be airborne sand.  The active RF seeker is certainly impressive - beyond that I cannot say even if I could recall any further details - which I can't.  

I note that the seeker was designed for the North German Plain scenario against a assault by thousands of Russian tanks when discrimination between tanks was not any issue - it would take out a tank - and the scenario gave plenty to choose from - hence the addition of laser guidance to give a dual-mode function that enables individual vehicles to be targeted.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 2, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			To trot out your well used phrase, prove it. Where's the evidence other than you repeating it ad nauseum


Originally Posted by Liverpoolphil image: http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png
In the presicion bombing carried out by the RAF in the fight against IS in Iraq - mistakes = zero , collateral damage = zero. The RAF are not the US who clearly regualry make mistakes.

Show me where there are zero mistake, zero collateral damange and more importantly no innocent victims. Otherwise you seem to be building a stance to simply continue arguing with others on here, who like me differ in their opinion
		
Click to expand...

Accepting that Brimstone can be more accurate at hitting specific vehicles - you have to target the correct vehicle and then make sure that that information gets to the missile before it is launched - though there will be an uplink to the missile associated with the laser guidance.  

The wider issue is simply that those civilians on the ground finding themselves collateral damage will not be too worried - even if they knew - about the nationality of the aircraft that bombed them.  We the UK will be blamed for the death of innocent civilians under collective responsibility.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 2, 2015)

Sweep said:



*What he is actually reported to have said is don't walk through the lobby with terrorist sympathisers.* No reference to those who don't support air strikes as terrorist sympathisers. Harsh thing to say, but when Corbyn promotes an IRA admirer to the job of Shadow Chancellor and brings back Livingstone who says the 7/7 bombers laid down their lives, I have to admit I was beginning to think the same thing myself. That's how far Corbyn has dragged down Labour in 11 weeks.
		
Click to expand...

Though Corbyn has been blasted by the press and the Tories by his not dissimilar comments being twisted and taken out of context, and Cameron enjoyed that happening and making hay out of it.  Tough Davie.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 2, 2015)

Cameron Was an idiot to say it but there are enough quotes and interviews out there that support the view that some of our present political Ã©lite were only to happy to show support for various terrorist groups.  When your a minor minion you can get away with it but move up the ladder and all your quotes and little picture opportunities come home to bite you.

One of the things about Corbyn you have got to admire is how openly two faced he can be having spent the whole of his political career openly defying party policy and the whip he now complains that others are not following the wishes of the party.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 2, 2015)

Why would Corbyn and the SNP want a 2 day debate when they have already decided to vote action the action.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 2, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Ah - apologies - it's dual mode these days - with laser guidance.  That does make a difference - though laser targeting does rely on the delivery platform hanging around for a bit after missile launch or their being a target designator on the ground; and laser guidance is subject to the same issues that laser range finders have in respect of attenuation - in Syria that would be airborne sand.  The active RF seeker is certainly impressive - beyond that I cannot say even if I could recall any further details - which I can't.  

I note that the seeker was designed for the North German Plain scenario against a assault by thousands of Russian tanks when discrimination between tanks was not any issue - it would take out a tank - and the scenario gave plenty to choose from - hence the addition of laser guidance to give a dual-mode function that enables individual vehicles to be targeted.
		
Click to expand...

I'm amazed that someone with such knowledge blurted out that initial statement now


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 2, 2015)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			I already asked Phil this question (albeit in a slightly less argumentative way I hope). He referred to a defence secretary on the radio, which was then backed up by my own searching. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/michael-fallon-claims-been-zero-6922729

Click to expand...

Read that with interest. The tone of the article did seem to cast doubt and I personally don't believe it can happen. It isn't good spin to say of course there will be innocents killed but I would argue that absolutely zeron innocents, zero collateral damage etc, is simply unachievable no matter what our resident weapons experts and the politicians say


----------



## ColchesterFC (Dec 2, 2015)

How can Jeremy Corbyn continue as a credible Labour leader now that even his own Shadow defence Secretary has spoken against him in the debate to day on attacking IS in Syria? Will JC need to sack those in his shadow cabinet that don't agree with him and bring in others that share his views? Is the Labour party heading for a split as it seems that a lot of the membership back JC and his views?


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 3, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			How can Jeremy Corbyn continue as a credible Labour leader now that even his own Shadow defence Secretary has spoken against him in the debate to day on attacking IS in Syria? Will JC need to sack those in his shadow cabinet that don't agree with him and bring in others that share his views? *Is the Labour party heading for a split* as it seems that a lot of the membership back JC and his views?
		
Click to expand...

Heading for???? You have been watching the news since he was elected haven't you?

Depends how you look at it, he offered his MPs a free vote on such a controversial issue. You could argue that this is a very mature way to operate and if we had more of it we could reach a consensus a lot more and move on to make this country a better place. Instead of the constant gladiatorial bickering and instantly opposing anything the other party says just for the sake of it, that politics has mostly descended into.


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 3, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			How can Jeremy Corbyn continue as a credible Labour leader now that even his own Shadow defence Secretary has spoken against him in the debate to day on attacking IS in Syria? Will JC need to sack those in his shadow cabinet that don't agree with him and bring in others that share his views? Is the Labour party heading for a split as it seems that a lot of the membership back JC and his views?
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read have this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34967024


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 3, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			Perhaps you should read have this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34967024

Click to expand...

Earlier last week even his Shadow Chancellor was saying his was in favour of supporting the government, funny how when it became clear that the motion would get through he changed his mind.  How many others bottled it just to show a modicum of support for their leader knowing it wouldn't make a difference.

Politics is a funny old game - hate the lot of them - Guy Fawkes had the right idea.


----------



## Crazyface (Dec 3, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			How can Jeremy Corbyn continue as a credible Labour leader now that even *his own Shadow defence Secretary has spoken against him in the debate to day on attacking IS in Syria*? Will JC need to sack those in his shadow cabinet that don't agree with him and bring in others that share his views? Is the Labour party heading for a split as it seems that a lot of the membership back JC and his views?
		
Click to expand...

And WHAT A SPEECH !!!!!! His dad must be looking down chuffed to bits!!!! It made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up!!!! And then shooved Corbin out of the way as he sat down DIRECTLY BEHIND THE DESPATCH BOX in Corbins place. Sheer brilliance. GET OUT OF MY WAY YOU MUPPET YOU'RE DONE HERE !!!!! Brilliant !!!!


----------



## Scoobiesnax (Dec 3, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			You could argue that this is a very mature way to operate and if we had more of it we could reach a consensus a lot more and move on to make this country a better place. Instead of the constant gladiatorial bickering and instantly opposing anything the other party says just for the sake of it, that politics has mostly descended into.
		
Click to expand...

I'll think you'll find out that was a ploy to root out the MPs and show them up to the Labour members - watch the bullying begin......


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 6, 2016)

Good for him with his re-shuffle.
Probably a mistake to start with some of those who were so against his principles.

The arrogance of some of the folk he has sacked is almost comical.
Four and a half years in politics with a big public mandate.......somehow the fools managed to ignore that.


----------



## Old Skier (Jan 6, 2016)

I presume you find it acceptable that he refuses to play the party line with regard to trident and other policies adopted by the national council but tries to sack those who disagree with his personnel point of view. A bit of a hypocrite really.

I see he didn't have the gonads to take on Mr Benn.


----------



## Imurg (Jan 6, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Good for him with his re-shuffle.
Probably a mistake to start with some of those who were so against his principles.

The arrogance of some of the folk he has sacked is almost comical.
Four and a half years in politics with a big public mandate.......somehow the fools managed to ignore that.
		
Click to expand...

He may have a huge public mandate but he obviously doesn't have the backing of many of his MPs which is going to make life a tad tricky...


----------



## Old Skier (Jan 6, 2016)

Imurg said:



			He may have a huge public mandate but he obviously doesn't have the backing of many of his MPs which is going to make life a tad tricky...
		
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why he couldn't get the backing to bin Benn.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Jan 6, 2016)

Doesn't matter what Corbyn does now, he is and always will be unelectable to the county at large.
Amusing he sees fit to sack  those who don't agree with him, seeing how many times he went against the leadership when he was just a backbencher.


----------



## Old Skier (Jan 6, 2016)

Funny how the unions that got him power are now telling him to wind back on Trident as too many of their members would end up losing their jobs.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 6, 2016)

The next few by elections are going to be quite interesting.


----------



## Old Skier (Jan 6, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			The next few by elections are going to be quite interesting.
		
Click to expand...

Only if people vote which gets more unlikely every election.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 6, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			Only if people vote which gets more unlikely every election.
		
Click to expand...

......in England and Wales.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 6, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Good for him with his re-shuffle.
Probably a mistake to start with some of those who were so against his principles.

The arrogance of some of the folk he has sacked is almost comical.
Four and a half years in politics with a big public mandate.......somehow the fools managed to ignore that.
		
Click to expand...

Cannae be a re-shuffle as he hadn't previously done a shuffle...  If anything it's a revamp.


----------



## Fish (Jan 6, 2016)

It's a hire & fire...totally unelectable, the future's blue :whoo:


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 6, 2016)

Fish said:



			It's a hire & fire...totally unelectable, the future's blue :whoo:
		
Click to expand...

...it'll be nightmare of the incompetencies for the next 15yrs then


----------



## Fish (Jan 6, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			...it'll be nightmare of the incompetencies for the next 15yrs then 

Click to expand...

Incompetencies :rofl: yeah let's let the lunatics back in the asylum shall we to have another go at Boom & Bust tactics, they've never learn't from any term of office and never will because Labour puts too much emphasis on spending rather than reform, that leads to billions being spent with very little impact on society. That was proved when labour turned John Majors legacy into a Â£100bn deficit, labour are irresponsible and with this leftie at the helm they are now also dangerous!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 6, 2016)

Fish said:



			Incompetencies :rofl: yeah let's let the lunatics back in the asylum shall we to have another go at Boom & Bust tactics, they've never learn't from any term of office and never will because Labour puts too much emphasis on spending rather than reform, that leads to billions being spent with very little impact on society. That was proved when labour turned John Majors legacy into a Â£100bn deficit, labour are irresponsible and with this leftie at the helm they are now also dangerous!
		
Click to expand...

Funny how Major seldom gets credit for being one of the best PM's in the last 60 years.
It was the other branch of the Tories wot got rid of him as well.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 8, 2016)

http://evolvepolitics.com/bbc-admit...corbyn-leadership-contrived-live-resignation/

Interesting?

Nick Robinson seems to have also learned from earlier mistakes.:lol:


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 8, 2016)

Have you got anything from a reliable media source as this is the first I've seen of this.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 8, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			Have you got anything from a reliable media source as this is the first I've seen of this.
		
Click to expand...

That is seriously funny.......well done you.


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 8, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



http://evolvepolitics.com/bbc-admit...corbyn-leadership-contrived-live-resignation/

Interesting?

Nick Robinson seems to have also learned from earlier mistakes.:lol:
		
Click to expand...

Interesting?  I don't find the opinions of a coalition of Trotsky, Yoghurt knitting Yurt dwellers very interesting


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 8, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



http://evolvepolitics.com/bbc-admit...corbyn-leadership-contrived-live-resignation/

Interesting?

Nick Robinson seems to have also learned from earlier mistakes.:lol:
		
Click to expand...

Where in the article does it say the BBC admit? And I'm pretty sure the comment in the article about Nick Robinson expressed concerns about the bias *TOWARDS *
Corbyn, not against. 

Have ve you missed your mess again Doon?


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 8, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			That is seriously funny.......well done you.
		
Click to expand...

Give us a serious link and people might take you seriously. Simple


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 8, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			Give us a serious link and people might take you seriously. Simple
		
Click to expand...

There are no 'serious links' anymore, they all just seem to make it up in the hope that you will swallow it. 

Perhaps you could give me a clue as to which form of media news outlets I would find serious honest and believable.


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 9, 2016)

The Beeb was certainly giving the next Mayor of London a hard time yesterday... 
With the reporter and Sadiq getting rather fractious with each other...


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 9, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			There are no 'serious links' anymore, they all just seem to make it up in the hope that you will swallow it. 

Perhaps you could give me a clue as to which form of media news outlets I would find serious honest and believable.
		
Click to expand...

You seem to be the one that swallows while the rest of us prefer to ignore.


----------



## Ethan (Feb 9, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			Where in the article does it say the BBC admit? And I'm pretty sure the comment in the article about Nick Robinson expressed concerns about the bias *TOWARDS *
Corbyn, not against. 

Have ve you missed your mess again Doon?
		
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand, possibly intentionally. Bias towards does not mean bias in favour. If you followed the link to which the comment referred it was Nick Robinson complaining of anti-Corbyn bias. And Nick Robinson was head of the Oxford Uni Conservative Association, so no bleeding heart liberal. 

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/nick-robinson-tackles-anti-corbyn-bias-at-the-bbc/


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 9, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			You seem to be the one that swallows while the rest of us prefer to ignore.
		
Click to expand...

We are all waiting for you to supply the 'serious' media news links you talk about.
Perhaps you have writers block?

I quite like the wee ginger dug, he tells it like it is. Tends to pee on things a bit though.
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/

Worth reading the start of the second para twice........what a great insult.:lol:


----------



## Ethan (Feb 9, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			We are all waiting for you to supply the 'serious' media news links you talk about.
Perhaps you have writers block?

I quite like the wee ginger dug, he tells it like it is. Tends to pee on things a bit though.
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/

Worth reading the start of the second para twice........what a great insult.:lol:
		
Click to expand...

Is the Spectator not a serious media source?


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 9, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			We are all waiting for you to supply the 'serious' media news links you talk about.
Perhaps you have writers block?

I quite like the wee ginger dug, he tells it like it is. Tends to pee on things a bit though.
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/

Worth reading the start of the second para twice........what a great insult.:lol:
		
Click to expand...

Your the one with the quotes so I'm not sure why you want me to find something that only you seems to think has been said. I haven't found any from a reliable source.


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 9, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Is the Spectator not a serious media source?
		
Click to expand...

None about according to DfT.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 9, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Is the Spectator not a serious media source?
		
Click to expand...

To me it is, but I gather that it's content is sometimes deliberately misunderstood others.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 9, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			None about according to DfT.
		
Click to expand...

Still waiting for your contribution?


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 9, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Still waiting for your contribution?
		
Click to expand...

On what, you have published a link that is unsubstantiated by any other news outlet that I can find so I'm unsure what you expect me to provide a link for.

Try this if you are after just any old link 
http://www.adamelloski.com/en/webcam/


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 9, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			On what, you have published a link that is unsubstantiated by any other news outlet that I can find so I'm unsure what you expect me to provide a link for.

Try this if you are after just any old link 
http://www.adamelloski.com/en/webcam/

Click to expand...

Once again you are avoiding the question and trying to cover your bottom.

[In the style of liverpoolphil]
Can you give me a list of news media outlets that you consider to be 'serious'.

I forgot about The Spectator and the wee i and perhaps Channel 4 news.
That's your start, now all you have to do is add to the list


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 9, 2016)

Not sure why you keep banging on about it as your the one that stated non can be considered serious.

I do on the main trust the BBC (and would assume as your linking to a story that concerns them they would cover it), Al Jazeera is usefully as well and perhaps the Times.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Mar 18, 2016)

Worry that Jeremy has peaked too early.
Still four years to an election.

http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/shock-poll-puts-labour-in-front-of-tories/18/03/


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 18, 2016)

JC wore a smart blue jacket and nice red tie for his budget response - but I'm not a fan of black trousers with blue jacket.


----------



## SocketRocket (Mar 18, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			JC wore a smart blue jacket and nice red tie for his budget response - but I'm not a fan of black trousers with blue jacket.
		
Click to expand...

He really doesn't scrub up well.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 18, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			He really doesn't scrub up well.
		
Click to expand...

I thought he looked smart at the despatch box - from the front.  I was a wee bit disappointed when a side view revealed black trousers with the blue jacket.  But smart - yes - I thought so.  As it happens I thought that for a lot of the time during Corbyn's response that Osborne looked like a rather discomforted and embarrassed teenager.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jun 27, 2016)

With Alan Johnson's claim that he undermined the official Labour remain campaign I think his time is up.
Shame really, decent guy, but he neither seems to be a team player or team leader.


----------



## harpo_72 (Jun 27, 2016)

They did not like how he got there... He isn't one of them. There comes a time where distinguishing which party they represent gets too difficult...


----------



## delc (Jun 27, 2016)

I hear that Jeremy Corbyn visited a furniture factory today.


To order a new Cabinet!


----------



## MegaSteve (Jun 28, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			With Alan Johnson's claim that he undermined the official Labour remain campaign I think his time is up.
Shame really, decent guy, but he neither seems to be a team player or team leader.
		
Click to expand...


Still plenty of rank and file support for him...
Not wanting to see the return of the tory boys/girls to the top table...


----------



## delc (Jun 28, 2016)

MegaSteve said:



			Still plenty of rank and file support for him...
Not wanting to see the return of the tory boys/girls to the top table...
		
Click to expand...

In the Labour Party?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jun 28, 2016)

Yes, it now appears we have four sections of the Tory party at Westminster ranging from extreme right, farfar right, far right and right.
As politics, like fashion runs in cycles I just hope that the eventual return of the Left does not involve too much aggro.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jun 28, 2016)

How bad must the Liberals be at the moment? They should be making hay with all the carnage going on and you simply do not see or hear them.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jun 28, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			How bad must the Liberals be at the moment? They should be making hay with all the carnage going on and you simply do not see or hear them.
		
Click to expand...

Scottish Libs seem to be coming round to Indyref2.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jun 28, 2016)

That will be why no one takes them seriously then.


----------



## harpo_72 (Jun 28, 2016)

Liberals shot them selves in the foot, they were weak in govt with the Tories controlling them. No point voting for them they are not distinct enough. Labour or conservative. Unless the SNP contest more seats!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 28, 2016)

I rather fear for Labour.  Witness Scottish Labour.  

They thought it couldn't get any worse after the Holyrood elections - until the Westminster elections wiped them out of there also.  But surely that was rock bottom for Scottish Labour - the only way is up - shoorly!  But then there came the EU referendum; and Scotland voted to stay whilst the UK vote was to Leave - and so polling support for YES jumps 5-10% - and even the oldies are starting to move to YES
 - support for the SNP won't fall with that - and support for Scottisg Labour unlikely to soar.  But shoorly that has to be rock bottom!  Until most of the Westminster shadow cabinet resigns and the chance of a future Labour government under Corbyn looks like a very forlorn hope - with estimates of a snap GE with Labour under Corbyn losing 150 of their 225 seats - and so what point Scottish Labour Westminster representation full stop!

So for Scottish Labour - events conspire such that as soon as Kezia thinks it can't get worse - it does.

And so also with Corbyn and Labour in general - it could get much much worse - and if a snap GE does result in loss of something like 150 seats - even that might not be then end of the bad things.


----------



## harpo_72 (Jun 28, 2016)

The next term will be pants .... It's kick off article 50 or not. Not will lead to no end of back biting and moaning. To kick article 50 off could point to a gruesome reality that will go down in history. Stand up Boris follow through on your win, stop back peddling and bring your mate Gove as well ... Anyway there will be two Tory candidates one for leave one for stay ...watch the selection process.


----------



## delc (Jun 28, 2016)

Every time the Labour Party has been in power, they have almost bankrupted the country. The Blair/Brown Government involved us in an illegal Middle-Eastern war and sold off most of our gold reserves at a rock bottom price. They are very good at electing totally useless left-wing leaders such as Foot, Kinnock, Miliband, and now Corbyn. I hope we never trust them with power again!


----------



## Tashyboy (Jun 28, 2016)

delc said:



			Every time the Labour Party has been in power, they have almost bankrupted the country. The Blair/Brown Government involved us in an illegal Middle-Eastern war and sold off most of our gold reserves at a rock bottom price. They are very good at electing totally useless left-wing leaders such as Foot, Kinnock, Miliband, and now Corbyn. I hope we never trust them with power again!
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately delc, as much as you are correct the " Young uns" of today do not know of mesters Foot and Kinnock. They still think that Corbyn is a viable alternative.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 28, 2016)

harpo_72 said:



			The next term will be pants .... It's kick off article 50 or not. Not will lead to no end of back biting and moaning. To kick article 50 off could point to a gruesome reality that will go down in history. Stand up Boris follow through on your win, stop back peddling and bring your mate Gove as well ... Anyway there will be two Tory candidates one for leave one for stay ...watch the selection process.
		
Click to expand...

I thought this was about Corbyn    Are you posting in the wrong thread?


----------



## Old Skier (Jun 28, 2016)

delc said:



			The Blair/Brown Government involved us in an illegal Middle-Eastern war
		
Click to expand...

Have you had an unofficial peek at the Chilcot report, were did you get it from?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 28, 2016)

Tashyboy said:



			Unfortunately delc, as much as you are correct the " Young uns" of today do not know of mesters Foot and Kinnock. They still think that Corbyn is a viable alternative.
		
Click to expand...

Kinocchio and the Legend in his own time.    Lovely, Lovely, Lovely!


----------



## harpo_72 (Jun 28, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			I thought this was about Corbyn    Are you posting in the wrong thread?
		
Click to expand...

Your all hung up on Corbyn, forget him forget the labour candidate .. Makes no difference it will be a person wanting to stay "in" who has a social conscience- totally unacceptable. This is a distraction, get your plan together !!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 28, 2016)

harpo_72 said:



			Your all hung up on Corbyn, forget him forget the labour candidate .. Makes no difference it will be a person wanting to stay "in" who has a social conscience- totally unacceptable. This is a distraction, get your plan together !!
		
Click to expand...

Have you been drinking ?


----------



## Old Skier (Jun 28, 2016)

Will Corbyn get the 50 MPs/MEPs to nominat him.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jun 28, 2016)

Can Corbin not see that labour under his leadership are unelectable? He's giving the most inept and obscenely self-interested Tory government a free run to ruin our country as a side effect of their petty personal ambitions.

Time to go we need a credible opposition before the country goes completely down the tubes.


----------



## ger147 (Jun 28, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			Will Corbyn get the 50 MPs/MEPs to nominat him.
		
Click to expand...

Does he need to be nominated or does he get on the ballot paper automatically if he wants to as current leader?


----------



## Old Skier (Jun 28, 2016)

ger147 said:



			Does he need to be nominated or does he get on the ballot paper automatically if he wants to as current leader?
		
Click to expand...

God knows, I've still got my cheap labour ticket to vote him back in :lol:


----------



## ger147 (Jun 28, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			God knows, I've still got my cheap labour ticket to vote him back in :lol:
		
Click to expand...

If only we had someone on the forum who could Google it for us...


----------



## MegaSteve (Jun 29, 2016)

If Jezza holds his ground then he, as 'sitting tenant', doesn't need to seek nominations...
Just the challengers...

What the red rosette wearing tories need to bear in mind is...
That when dragging out their two grandees to lend weight to their remain stance...
Nobody took a blind bit of notice of them...


----------



## Beedee (Jun 29, 2016)

MegaSteve said:



			If Jezza holds his ground then he, as 'sitting tenant', doesn't need to seek nominations...
		
Click to expand...

...is the Corbynite stance anyway.

According to the BBC News site, the only time a Labour leader has been challenged in office since WW2 was in 1988 when Tony Benn challenged Neil Kinnock, and Kinnock had to get nominations from the Parliamentary Labour Party to be allowed on to the ballet paper.  If that's taken as precedent then it's not looking too good for Jezza.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jun 30, 2016)

Chilcot report comes out next week.

I don't think the candidates who voted for the Iraq war be looking forward to that.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jun 30, 2016)

Ms Eagle's constituents are currently seeking to de-select her....


----------



## User62651 (Jun 30, 2016)

MegaSteve said:



			Ms Eagle's constituents are currently seeking to de-select her....
		
Click to expand...

Saw that, good on them, power to the people - ordinary people sense her and others like her stirring and making moves as inappropriate and opportunistic given the turmoil instigated by the Conservatives after all and tbh if image of a leader is what concerns Labour what on earth is she doing standing, makes Jezza look like James Bond!


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jun 30, 2016)

We need a credible opposition. During the current void of challenge, the tories have irrevocably damaged the country and given they are still eating themselves instead of actually doing something constructive about the mess they have got us into they need to be brought into check.

Love him or hate him, labour under corbyn is unelectable. they need to get their act together before it's too late.


----------



## Jacko_G (Jun 30, 2016)

Corbyn is a puppet for the trade unions.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jun 30, 2016)

Jacko_G said:



			Corbyn is a puppet for the trade unions.
		
Click to expand...

Funny that [sort of] as it is some of the trade unions that are behind the manoeuvring to remove him...


----------



## MegaSteve (Jun 30, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			Love him or hate him, labour under corbyn is unelectable. they need to get their act together before it's too late.
		
Click to expand...


Sadly, there is only one person within the Labour group anywhere near 'electable'...

And, has [understandably] declared them self to be not interested in the job...

Sad sad times when working folk have to turn to the far right to get heard...


----------



## User62651 (Jun 30, 2016)

MegaSteve said:



			Sadly, there is only one person within the Labour group anywhere near 'electable'...

And, has [understandably] declared them self to be not interested in the job...

Sad sad times when working folk have to turn to the far right to get heard...
		
Click to expand...

Who's that then - Tom Watson? Good name for a golf forum!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 30, 2016)

maxfli65 said:



			Who's that then - Tom Watson? Good name for a golf forum!
		
Click to expand...

Alan Johnson

...until Chuka Umunna gets a bit rougher around the edges


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jun 30, 2016)

Gordon Brown?




:lol: For the UKIP2


----------



## chippa1909 (Jul 1, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Chilcot report comes out next week.

I don't think the candidates who voted for the Iraq war be looking forward to that.
		
Click to expand...

Corbyn will push for Blair to be tried for war crimes, this is the main reason that the Blairites in Labour want Corbyn out before Chilcot is published.


----------



## chippa1909 (Jul 2, 2016)

I see Corbyn has appointed English MP Dave Anderson as Shadow Secretary for Scotland AND Northern Ireland.
This Westminster malarky is descending into a bigger farce every day.


----------



## Hobbit (Jul 3, 2016)

Jeremy, you may well have the support of the rank and file members but your management team, i.e. the Labour MP's, don't want you. Please call an election for the leadership. This will either endorse your position, and put the MP's in their place, or you'll get a clear message to go.

Westminster is in turmoil, and Labour aren't in a position to take advantage of it. You are the one delaying it.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 3, 2016)

He is waiting for Chilcot which may be a game changer.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 3, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			Jeremy, you may well have the support of the rank and file members but your management team, i.e. the Labour MP's, don't want you. Please call an election for the leadership. This will either endorse your position, and put the MP's in their place, or you'll get a clear message to go.

Westminster is in turmoil, and Labour aren't in a position to take advantage of it. You are the one delaying it.
		
Click to expand...


We are in need of a 'credible' opposition but I'd rather it not be at the expense of the party taking a step to the right... Back to its recent[ish] Blair/Brown positioning...

Not sure if Eagle or Smith are any more 'electable' than Jezza either...


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 3, 2016)

Jacko_G said:



			Corbyn is a puppet for the trade unions.
		
Click to expand...

I voted for him and will again, does that make him my puppet as well :lol:


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 3, 2016)

No. it just makes you a person with a conscious. [maybe]


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jul 3, 2016)

You can only actually change things if you are in power. The conservatives have always known this, Tony Blair worked it out and managed to convince the rest of the party. Corbyn and his followers would rather have glorious failure as Labour did in the past. That is the reality of the situation.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 3, 2016)

When Corbyn got the party leadership I thought his main task was to convince the can't be asked to be asked...

However, from the referendum, it would now appear many of the party's natural supporters are taking their votes elsewhere... Need to get those back first before returning to the main task...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 4, 2016)

Meanwhile
Labour membership keeps rising, 50,000 in the last few months. Many of them young first time voters.
Former leaders, who have lost many elections, tell Corbyn he is doing it wrong, less than a year into his leadership.
Many Labour MP's face deselection by their constituants in two years. 
Blairite MP's who signed us up to the Iraq war are wetting themselves.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jul 4, 2016)

Unfortunately most MP's signed up for the war, on all sides. Blairites are no more panicking than any other MP's.

Labour has a hard core rank and file who love Corbyn but the wider population will never vote for him. Classic self destruction. It reminds me of the Socialist Worker people when I was a student. Totally passionate and committed but never going to be able to do anything as outside of their circle no one will touch them. You need to appeal to more than one small group to win an election.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 4, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Meanwhile
Labour membership keeps rising, 50,000 in the last few months. Many of them young first time voters.
Former leaders, who have lost many elections, tell Corbyn he is doing it wrong, less than a year into his leadership.
Many Labour MP's face deselection by their constituants in two years. 
Blairite MP's who signed us up to the Iraq war are wetting themselves.
		
Click to expand...

I really hope you are right that Labour will sack all their best and sensible MPs and be left with a Corbynesqe bunch of Trots who will never have a chance of winning an election as they are not what the country wants.  You would think Labour would have learned better by now (but obviously not) they only stand a chance of Government if they position slightly left of centre and no amount of extreme lefty navel gazing will  make them electable.    Great news for the Conservatives.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 4, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			I voted for him and will again, does that make him my puppet as well :lol:
		
Click to expand...

No, it makes you his Bitch


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 5, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			No, it makes you his Bitch 

Click to expand...

More likely my bitch. I love the left. NUT call a strike, 25% vote to go on strike and the rest of the sheep follow.


----------



## Crazyface (Jul 6, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Meanwhile
Labour membership keeps rising, 50,000 in the last few months. Many of them young first time voters.
Former leaders, who have lost many elections, tell Corbyn he is doing it wrong, less than a year into his leadership.
Many Labour MP's face deselection by their constituants in two years. 
Blairite MP's who signed us up to the Iraq war are wetting themselves.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe this is why Corbyn is waiting. Members de-select all the MP's who signed up for the war, then put in Corbynites in their place, and he's off and running........into a brick wall, but hey it'll be fun to watch.


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 6, 2016)

Crazyface said:



			Maybe this is why Corbyn is waiting. Members de-select all the MP's who signed up for the war, then put in Corbynites in their place, and he's off and running........into a brick wall, but hey it'll be fun to watch.
		
Click to expand...

It seems Blair and his pet poodle Allister and a few of their mates came up with a cunning plan and then sold the rest of the HOC a pup.

Corbyn himself came out with a great line to point the finger at the forces involved during the knock about in the HOC.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 6, 2016)

Crazyface said:



			Maybe this is why Corbyn is waiting. Members de-select all the MP's who signed up for the war, then put in Corbynites in their place, and he's off and running........into a brick wall, but hey it'll be fun to watch.
		
Click to expand...

You are correct, perhaps it will be fun to watch.
Especially the faces of the Tory/UKIP numptys who bought Corbyn votes:lol:
Two years in politics is an awfully long time. Just look what has happened in the last two weeks.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 7, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			You are correct, perhaps it will be fun to watch.
Especially the faces of the Tory/UKIP numptys who bought Corbyn votes:lol:
Two years in politics is an awfully long time. Just look what has happened in the last two weeks.
		
Click to expand...

Thats right, so much!  Nicola returning from the EU 'Persona Non Grata' and after all that head nodding.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 7, 2016)

128,000 new members for the Labour party in the last 11 days.

Last time I looked I think the Tory party were neck and neck with the SNP on about 130,000 members.

Just checked Tories 140,000, SNP 110,000.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 7, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			128,000 new members for the Labour party in the last 11 days.

Last time I looked I think the Tory party were neck and neck with the SNP on about 130,000 members.

Just checked Tories 140,000, SNP 110,000.
		
Click to expand...

So what does that say about them all.  Out of a population of 65 million and growing by half a million a year such a piddling few want to be members of political parties.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 8, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			So what does that say about them all.  Out of a population of 65 million and growing by half a million a year such a piddling few want to be members of political parties.
		
Click to expand...

Labour numbers are growing fast, [480,000 full members quoted now] others, with the exception of the SNP, are falling.
It is an indicator of which party is ascending and which is failing. Who is popular, who is not.

Perhaps the Con Club members who bought Corbyn votes have created this momentum.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 12, 2016)

Hope the link works.
This is a crowdfunder for the Labour members who have been denied a vote by the Labour NEC on voting for a Labour leader.
Deserves some support IMO


https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/labour-party-membership/


----------



## BesCumber (Aug 12, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Hope the link works.
This is a crowdfunder for the Labour members who have been denied a vote by the Labour NEC on voting for a Labour leader.
Deserves some support IMO


https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/labour-party-membership/

Click to expand...

I'll donate if you do.. 

I had you down as one of them SNPers'. 
A Corbynista eh ? Well i never.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 12, 2016)

BesCumber said:



			I'll donate if you do.. 

I had you down as one of them SNPers'. 
A Corbynista eh ? Well i never.
		
Click to expand...

I have just got a bit of sympathy for the future of England and Wales to be honest.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Aug 12, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I have just got a bit of sympathy for the future of England and Wales to be honest.

Click to expand...

That's very kind of you but the vast majority do not seem to think that Mr Corbyn will be to the benefit of that future.


----------



## IanM (Aug 12, 2016)

One day, one of these idiots will actually find the Money Tree, then that'll show you,


----------



## BesCumber (Aug 12, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I have just got a bit of sympathy for the future of England and Wales to be honest.

Click to expand...

Really?
All strong democracies need an effective opposition. An opposition lead by JC is a tory wet dream.Effectively condemning the UK to a one party dictatorship. I fail to see how any true democrat could desire this. Oh well.   
  Of  course it also guarantees a SNP majority in Holyrood. I suspect a motive..


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 13, 2016)

The man who could be Scotland's last ever Labour MP tells Corbyn where he is going wrong:lol:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...litical_dynamic_in_Scotland__says_Ian_Murray/


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 13, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I have just got a bit of sympathy for the future of England and Wales to be honest.

Click to expand...

Surely the electorate decides who governs them. If whatever country's electorate decides on a particular political path they are actually getting what they want.

You could, perhaps, extend that sympathy to Scotland. Now there's another one party country if ever there was one. No viable opposition to curb the excesses of a spendthrift government.


----------



## BesCumber (Aug 13, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			The man who could be Scotland's last ever Labour MP tells Corbyn where he is going wrong:lol:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...litical_dynamic_in_Scotland__says_Ian_Murray/

Click to expand...

I agree with him DFT.
For a political party with less than 1.5 million votes (4.7%) to effectively control the balance of power in the Uk would be completely unacceptable to the vast majority of the electorate.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 13, 2016)

BesCumber said:



			I agree with him DFT.
For a political party with less than 1.5 million votes (4.7%) to effectively control the balance of power in the Uk would be completely unacceptable to the vast majority of the electorate.
		
Click to expand...

Good tag line for an  independent Scotland that. 
Now if only you could persuade Owen Smith to use it.


----------



## BesCumber (Aug 13, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Good tag line for an  independent Scotland that. 
Now if only you could persuade Owen Smith to use it.

Click to expand...

I thought that after i posted it. 
The fact remains though Doon that you're not independent, so my point stands. The SNP will never hold the balance of power in the UK.
In my opinion of course. :thup:


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 17, 2016)

Beginning to think that JC may well  have more to offer than OS


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 18, 2016)

Owen Smith wants to begin talks with ISIS and everyone shrugs their shoulders.

Now if Jeremy had said that I wonder what the reaction would have been ?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 18, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Owen Smith wants to begin talks with ISIS and everyone shrugs their shoulders.

Now if Jeremy had said that I wonder what the reaction would have been ?
		
Click to expand...

I heard quite a fuss being made by some over what OS said about negotiating with ISIS.  But those folks critisising him seemingly ignoring the fact that were the west ever to be sitting down to negotiate with ISIS, that would only be because the west had ISIS on the ropes.  As you can destroy people but you can't destroy an idea then at that point I can see the logic of sitting down with ISIS to see what could be agreed in accommodating ISIS to minimise the risk of future atrocities.  That said - if the 'idea' behind ISIS is destruction of the west, then those talks would very most likely be fruitless - but they would surely be worth a go.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 26, 2016)

Owen Smith at the Glasgow hustings for the Labour Party leadership says, 'I think Keiza Dugdale [SLab leader] is doing a great job'
The audience of Labour Party members burst out laughing.

Totally out of touch with Scotland. [all three of them!]


----------



## Hacker Khan (Aug 26, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Owen Smith wants to begin talks with ISIS and everyone shrugs their shoulders.

Now if Jeremy had said that I wonder what the reaction would have been ?
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that is exactly what he said.  I believe he was heavily involved in the NI peace talks in the past, so he was making the point that you should never rule out sitting down with a group or faction at some stage.  No doubt some clever journalist was trying to trap him into saying he was an ISIS sympathiser or something like that, but any serious negotiator will never rule out talking to some people at some hypothetical stage in the future.  Which is basically all he said.

And I am neither pro or con him, just pro the facts and stories not getting manipulated by the press


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 26, 2016)

Hacker Khan said:



			I'm not sure that is exactly what he said.  I believe he was heavily involved in the NI peace talks in the past, so he was making the point that you should never rule out sitting down with a group or faction at some stage.  No doubt some clever journalist was trying to trap him into saying he was an ISIS sympathiser or something like that, but any serious negotiator will never rule out talking to some people at some hypothetical stage in the future.  Which is basically all he said.

And I am neither pro or con him, just pro the facts and stories not getting manipulated by the press
		
Click to expand...

Quite - I didn't get what the fuss was all about re OS and ISIS other than it was yet another over-egged news story that was picked up and used to confect exaggerated shock/horrow/how could he headlines and statements.

In any case - whether OS or JC it most likely matters not a jot as Labour will have to win back most Scottish seats to have any chance of getting into government once the Tories have finished with their gerrymandering of the Westminster constituencies.


----------



## Oohmeoldbacksknackered (Aug 27, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Quite - I didn't get what the fuss was all about re OS and ISIS other than it was yet another over-egged news story that was picked up and used to confect exaggerated shock/horrow/how could he headlines and statements.

In any case - whether OS or JC it most likely matters not a jot as Labour will have to win back most Scottish seats to have any chance of getting into government once the Tories have finished with their gerrymandering of the Westminster constituencies.
		
Click to expand...

Smith has said that he won't back leaving the EU until we have another referendum, I believe.
That may do him some good in Scotland, but I think he's forgetting that a huge number of labour constituencies voted Brexit.
I think that saying his supporters are stupid and their decisions can't be trusted may put more votes back in Corbyn's camp than it'll win for him.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 27, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Quite - I didn't get what the fuss was all about re OS and ISIS other than it was yet another over-egged news story that was picked up and used to confect exaggerated shock/horrow/how could he headlines and statements.

In any case - whether OS or JC it most likely matters not a jot as Labour will have to win back most Scottish seats to have any chance of getting into government *once the Tories have finished with their un-gerrymandering of the Westminster constituencies*.
		
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 27, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Fixed that for you
		
Click to expand...

whichever - the new boundaries will make it ever harder for Labour in England - well that's how I understand it, and without Scotland a Labour Westminster government seems to be a very long way off.  Labour might as well have JC in that case.


----------



## Old Skier (Aug 28, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			whichever - the new boundaries will make it ever harder for Labour in England - well that's how I understand it, and without Scotland a Labour Westminster government seems to be a very long way off.  Labour might as well have JC in that case.
		
Click to expand...

Boundary changes have nothing to do with whichever government is in power, they are set by the Boundaries Commision who are supposed to be independent .


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 28, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			whichever - the new boundaries will make it ever harder for Labour in England - well that's how I understand it, and without Scotland a Labour Westminster government seems to be a very long way off.  Labour might as well have JC in that case.
		
Click to expand...

I believe the proposed boundary changes level up the current ones that give  Labour an advantage.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 28, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			I believe the proposed boundary changes level up the current ones that give  Labour an advantage.
		
Click to expand...

thought they might - doesn't change fact that Labour don;t appear to have an earthly without getting back their Scottish seats - at least 40 - or the Brexit negotiations and economy go pear-shaped.


----------



## BesCumber (Aug 28, 2016)

Under the proposed changes, the NW of England, the NE, London and the East Midlands ( traditional labour heartlands, if you like ), will loose 22 seats.
The whole of the South, ( except London ), and the whole of the East up to the Humber ( Tory central ? ), Will loose 5 seats.
Make of that what you will, but in my vho, there's only one winner here.


----------



## Old Skier (Aug 28, 2016)

BesCumber said:



			Under the proposed changes, the NW of England, the NE, London and the East Midlands ( traditional labour heartlands, if you like ), will loose 22 seats.
The whole of the South, ( except London ), and the whole of the East up to the Humber ( Tory central ? ), Will loose 5 seats.
Make of that what you will, but in my vho, there's only one winner here.
		
Click to expand...

The tax payer if they reduce the amount of non jobs for a start &#128520;


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 28, 2016)

BesCumber said:



			Under the proposed changes, the NW of England, the NE, London and the East Midlands ( traditional labour heartlands, if you like ), will loose 22 seats.
The whole of the South, ( except London ), and the whole of the East up to the Humber ( Tory central ? ), Will loose 5 seats.
Make of that what you will, but in my vho, there's only one winner here.
		
Click to expand...

Democracy!

As the variance in reduction reflects (or at least goes some way to reflect) the 'population drift'!

Anyone who believes that changes are made *in order* to level up previous changes is questioning the integrity of the Electoral Commission, a body that is absolutely squeaky clean - as it's a fundamental part of the UK's version of democracy! 

It is pretty obvious though that losing 5 Scottish seats will have a greater effect on Labour - in Scotland! - than on the Conservatives. However, as the elections are for a, supposedly, United Kingdom, the overall effect should be neutral.


----------



## BesCumber (Aug 29, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			Anyone who believes that changes are made *in order* to level up previous changes is questioning the integrity of the Electoral Commission, a body that is absolutely squeaky clean - as it's a fundamental part of the UK's version of democracy!
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for putting my mind at rest FH.
I'll sleep better tonight, knowing our democracy is in the safe hands of such esteemed individuals.

Can't see how the loss of 5 probable SNP seats in Scotland balances out the loss of 22 seats in still strong Labour heartlands though. The overall effect is far from neutral. In fact Lord Hayward (tory), believes 30 of the 50 constituencies to go will be labour held, and 85% of the remaining labour seats will be adversely affected.
Still as you say democracy is in safe hands, and half the country will probably think the changes are an excellent idea. A permanent tory government, whats not to like. :mmm:

PS.
I agree that boundaries need to change to reflect the population drift from the inner cities. What i don't agree with is the lowering in representation in a rising population. Imho.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 29, 2016)

BesCumber said:



			...
PS.
I agree that boundaries need to change to reflect the population drift from the inner cities. What i don't agree with is the lowering in representation in a rising population. Imho.
		
Click to expand...

Given that the House of Commons is overcrowded, something had to be done!

This way each MP now has more influence (1/600th vs 1/650th)! And the cost of Parliament is (theoretically) reduced! Getting MPs to work harder in their surgeries - to give voters the same service as previously - might be difficult to apply though!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 29, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			Democracy!

As the variance in reduction reflects (or at least goes some way to reflect) the 'population drift'!

Anyone who believes that changes are made *in order* to level up previous changes is questioning the integrity of the Electoral Commission, a body that is absolutely squeaky clean - as it's a fundamental part of the UK's version of democracy! 

It is pretty obvious though that losing 5 Scottish seats will have a greater effect on Labour - in Scotland! - than on the Conservatives. However, as the elections are for a, supposedly, United Kingdom, the overall effect should be neutral.
		
Click to expand...

How many Scottish Labour MP's does it take to change a lightbulb............all of them:lol:

Losing 5 seats when they hold one will not make much difference.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 29, 2016)

BesCumber said:



			Under the proposed changes, the NW of England, the NE, London and the East Midlands ( traditional labour heartlands, if you like ), will loose 22 seats.
The whole of the South, ( except London ), and the whole of the East up to the Humber ( Tory central ? ), Will loose 5 seats.
Make of that what you will, but in my vho, there's only one winner here.
		
Click to expand...

Why is there an assumption that a seat is a safe seat? I appreciate that there are traditional areas/seats but history clearly shows that what was a safe seat at one election isn't necessarily the case at the next election.

I used to live in what was considered to a dyed in the wool safe Labour seat going back into the mists of time. The previous election saw it lost. And I'm sure there's any number of ex-MP's down the years were shocked to lose their (safe) seats.

Blair's original win and Labour's shocking loss at the last election clearly shows that parties doing the right things, having the right policies, connecting with the electorate can lead to wins, even shock ones.

As an ex-Labour voter, Labour won't be getting my vote whilst they continue down the road of rehashing the Foot/Kinnock rubbish. And they definitely won't get it whilst Corbyn is anywhere near being leader.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 29, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			Blair's original win and Labour's shocking loss at the last election clearly shows that parties doing the right things, having the right policies, connecting with the electorate can lead to wins, even shock ones.
		
Click to expand...

Blimey, never thought I would see Hobbit endorsing the SNP on hear.


----------



## Old Skier (Aug 29, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Blimey, never thought I would see Hobbit endorsing the SNP on hear.

Click to expand...

He also said there's no such thing as a safe seat.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 29, 2016)

........and I can't spell here.oo:


----------



## Old Skier (Aug 29, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			........and I can't spell here.oo:
		
Click to expand...

One of life's minor problems.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 29, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Blimey, never thought I would see Hobbit endorsing the SNP on hear.

Click to expand...

Think I've been assimilated... or my hearing aid is on a go slow....


----------



## JCW (Aug 30, 2016)

Snelly said:



			Fingers crossed that he wins.  Labour will be unelectable as a government as a result.
		
Click to expand...

Hahahaha , very true unless you a left wing union member who still think he will be PM , each to his own ?..............EYG


----------



## BesCumber (Sep 3, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			Given that the House of Commons is overcrowded, something had to be done!

This way each MP now has more influence (1/600th vs 1/650th)! And the cost of Parliament is (theoretically) reduced! Getting MPs to work harder in their surgeries - to give voters the same service as previously - might be difficult to apply though! 

Click to expand...

Mmm.... useful things, statistics.
I hope your right FH regarding them working harder.
As you imply (i guess), time will tellg:thup:



Hobbit said:



			Why is there an assumption that a seat is a safe seat? I appreciate that there are traditional areas/seats but history clearly shows that what was a safe seat at one election isn't necessarily the case at the next election.
As an ex-Labour voter, Labour won't be getting my vote whilst they continue down the road of rehashing the Foot/Kinnock rubbish. And they definitely won't get it whilst Corbyn is anywhere near being leader.
		
Click to expand...

No assumption Hobbit just an opinion based on the historical norm, but as you say, no guarantees.
As for JC, as i have previously stated. I've been a member just less than 33yr, man an boy, but if he wins again I'm oot. 
I will not vote for militant tendency :angry:


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 14, 2016)

Watched the JC /OS debate this evening.  Being quite strongly left-leaning, I rather despaired at some of views and attitudes towards OS on show.  I really struggle to see myself voting for a Labour Party led by JC given what I saw and heard from his supporters.  They are deluded if they think that a Labour Party under JC could ever be elected into government to put into practice his largely laudable views and 'policies'.  Not a hope in hell.  

Labour needs to be an opposition worthy of, and able to, govern - not a vocal protest movement that under continuing Tory government would be almost irrelevant.  Labour needs England to vote them in - they cannot expect anything from Scotland for some time if Labour is led by JC - because under JC, Scots will see no hope in Labour getting sufficient English MPs for Scots Labour MPs to make the difference - and so they won't move in great numbers from SNP for fear of letting in the Tories.


----------



## jp5 (Sep 14, 2016)

Every public figure attracts nutters of some sort.

Can't disagree with much of what Corbyn said.

And can't see anyone else in the Labour party that has a better chance than he does!


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 14, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Watched the JC /OS debate this evening.  Being quite strongly left-leaning, I rather despaired at some of views and attitudes towards OS on show.  I really struggle to see myself voting for a Labour Party led by JC given what I saw and heard from his supporters.  They are deluded if they think that a Labour Party under JC could ever be elected into government to put into practice his largely laudable views and 'policies'.  Not a hope in hell.  

Labour needs to be an opposition worthy of, and able to, govern - not a vocal protest movement that under continuing Tory government would be almost irrelevant.  Labour needs England to vote them in - they cannot expect anything from Scotland for some time if Labour is led by JC - because under JC, Scots will see no hope in Labour getting sufficient English MPs for Scots Labour MPs to make the difference - and so they won't move in great numbers from SNP for fear of letting in the Tories.
		
Click to expand...

Going off on a tangent, do you worry about such a one sided political landscape in Scotland?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 15, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			Going off on a tangent, do you worry about such a one sided political landscape in Scotland?
		
Click to expand...

How on earth can it be one sided when the SNP do not have a majority at Holyrood ?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 15, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			Going off on a tangent, do you worry about such a one sided political landscape in Scotland?
		
Click to expand...

As DfT says - where the numbers really matter is in Holyrood - and SNP does not have a majority.  And to be honest I have a feeling that under Ruth Davidson the Scottish Tories could easily become the 2nd party in Scotland for quite some time - and she will provide a strong voice in opposition to Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP in Holyrood.


----------



## JCW (Sep 15, 2016)

Man is a waste of space , never ever be PM and labour will never be in a position to challenge


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 15, 2016)

JCW said:



			Man is a waste of space , never ever be PM and labour will never be in a position to challenge
		
Click to expand...

This I fear to be true.  JC also comes across as rather arrogant and condescending.  Her certainly did when debating with OS.


----------



## jp5 (Sep 15, 2016)

JCW said:



			Man is a waste of space , never ever be PM and labour will never be in a position to challenge
		
Click to expand...

Brexit was also never going to happen. Trump was never meant to win the Republican nomination (let alone the presidency...).

At 6% behind in the polls, if the party unite behind him I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen.


----------



## drdel (Sep 15, 2016)

As time goes by it seems JC becomes an even better asset for the Conservatives.

The unfortunate issue is that we could do with a strong opposition for better Government


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 15, 2016)

JC and OS do not represent the views of the working classes and as such will not bring Labor to Government.   Labour needs to root out the Trots.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 15, 2016)

jp5 said:



			Brexit was also never going to happen. Trump was never meant to win the Republican nomination (let alone the presidency...).

At 6% behind in the polls, if the party unite behind him I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen.
		
Click to expand...


As of last week-end Labour were 11% behind in the polls. Considering how unpopular many of the Government's policies appear to be that is truly amazing and depressing.


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 15, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			As of last week-end Labour were 11% behind in the polls. Considering how unpopular many of the Government's policies appear to be that is truly amazing and depressing.
		
Click to expand...

Yup to all that, and quite frankly I think politics is in a bad place at the moment. the Tory leadership battle was a farce, the Labour leadership battle is an even bigger farce that is taking an eternity, Jimmy Krankie north of the border seems to be the female equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn. UKIP don't appear to be taking advantage of the dire Labour Party. liberals, are they still a party.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 15, 2016)

Tashyboy said:



			Yup to all that, and quite frankly I think politics is in a bad place at the moment. the Tory leadership battle was a farce, the Labour leadership battle is an even bigger farce that is taking an eternity, *Jimmy Krankie north of the border* seems to be the female equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn. UKIP don't appear to be taking advantage of the dire Labour Party. liberals, are they still a party.
		
Click to expand...

Ooooh, you're going to be in trouble for that with some of our forummers from north of the border. Apparently it's childish and not funny to call her that. Which obviously means that this image is chilidish and isn't funny at all..........


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 15, 2016)

Tashyboy said:



			Yup to all that, and quite frankly I think politics is in a bad place at the moment. the Tory leadership battle was a farce, the Labour leadership battle is an even bigger farce that is taking an eternity, Jimmy Krankie north of the border seems to be the female equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn. UKIP don't appear to be taking advantage of the dire Labour Party. liberals, are they still a party.
		
Click to expand...

Oh Yes!   UKIP is still around 

[video=youtube;yQgFdSFBtxo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQgFdSFBtxo[/video]


----------



## chippa1909 (Sep 16, 2016)

ColchesterFC said:



			Ooooh, you're going to be in trouble for that with some of our forummers from north of the border. Apparently it's childish and not funny to call her that. Which obviously means that this image is chilidish and isn't funny at all..........

View attachment 20782

Click to expand...

It also means that you are a half wit.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 16, 2016)

Tashyboy said:



			Yup to all that, and quite frankly I think politics is in a bad place at the moment. the Tory leadership battle was a farce, the Labour leadership battle is an even bigger farce that is taking an eternity, *Jimmy Krankie north of the border seems to be the female equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn.* UKIP don't appear to be taking advantage of the dire Labour Party. liberals, are they still a party.
		
Click to expand...

In quite what way is Nicola Sturgeon the female equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn?  I'm not getting the similarities you allude to.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 16, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			In quite what way is Nicola Sturgeon the female equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn?  I'm not getting the similarities you allude to.
		
Click to expand...

As much as I dislike Sturgeon I do feel she's a good leader, and does appear to lead a united party. Apart from having similar socialist policies I don't feel she's the car crash Corbyn is.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 16, 2016)

chippa1909 said:



			It also means that you are a half wit.
		
Click to expand...

You are being too kind:lol:

Love to know the thought process behind calling Sturgeon the equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn.
Have you been at the cooking sherry Tashy.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 16, 2016)

chippa1909 said:



			It also means that you are a half wit.
		
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I've been called far worse by far better people than you.


----------



## BesCumber (Sep 16, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Oh Yes!   UKIP is still around 

Click to expand...

So is Yersinia Pestis. 
Still can't decide which is worse.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 16, 2016)

BesCumber said:



			So is Yersinia Pestis. 
Still can't decide which is worse. 

Click to expand...

I think the Plague was wiped out in the UK, very unlike UKIP who are spreading gradually through the UK.  Wales has now a large outbreak as well as many of the Labour Heartlands.  There is chance of it spreading North of the Border as it mutates into a form that attacks the immune system of the SNP.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 16, 2016)

chippa1909 said:



			It also means that you are a half wit.
		
Click to expand...


Would that be a Wi or an It?


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 16, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			You are being too kind:lol:

Love to know the thought process behind calling Sturgeon the equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn.
Have you been at the cooking sherry Tashy.
		
Click to expand...

Easy.  Both are Manipulative Political Chancers with spendthrift policies that will ruin the economy.     How can you fail to see it Doom, have you been on the Tennent's .

View attachment 20797


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 16, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Easy.  Both are Manipulative Political Chancers with spendthrift policies that will ruin the economy.     How can you fail to see it Doom, have you been on the Tennent's .

View attachment 20797

Click to expand...

Is that a picture of Catweazle on the Super Brew?


----------



## BesCumber (Sep 17, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			I think the Plague was wiped out in the UK, very unlike UKIP who are spreading gradually through the UK.  Wales has now a large outbreak as well as many of the Labour Heartlands.  There is chance of it spreading North of the Border as it mutates into a form that attacks the immune system of the SNP.
		
Click to expand...

Mmm, perhaps i should of said rabies.
Certainly seams to have similar symptoms. . :ears:


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 17, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			I think the Plague was wiped out in the UK, very unlike UKIP who are spreading gradually through the UK.  Wales has now a large outbreak as well as many of the Labour Heartlands.  There is chance of it spreading North of the Border as it mutates into a form that attacks the immune system of the SNP.
		
Click to expand...

Really, the party with one UK MP, and he is a rebel
They will be an irrelevance in two years....I see some are jumping to the Tories already.

Mind you, David Cockburn is building a big following in Scotland. [On the comedy circuit]


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 17, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Really, the party with one UK MP, and he is a rebel
They will be an irrelevance in two years....I see some are jumping to the Tories already.

Mind you, David Cockburn is building a big following in Scotland. [On the comedy circuit]
		
Click to expand...

UKIP had three times the percentage increase of votes than the SNP in the last General Election.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 17, 2016)

BesCumber said:



			Mmm, perhaps i should of said rabies.
Certainly seams to have similar symptoms. . :ears:
		
Click to expand...

It does, it really does.  Tends to give a nasty bite to the arses of those that ignore them.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 17, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			UKIP had three times the percentage increase of votes than the SNP in the last General Election.
		
Click to expand...

Pretty poor, as the have 11 times the number of available voters than the SNP.


----------



## BesCumber (Sep 17, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			It does, it really does.  Tends to give a nasty bite to the arses of those that ignore them.
		
Click to expand...

Kevlar undies me, Socket.


----------



## chippa1909 (Sep 18, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Really, the party with one UK MP, and he is a rebel
They will be an irrelevance in two years....I see some are jumping to the Tories already.

Mind you, David Cockburn is building a big following in Scotland. [On the comedy circuit]
		
Click to expand...

Bit of a Freudian slip there Doon, it's Coburn. :rofl:


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 18, 2016)

I prefer the authentic spelling of the name.....it seems to suit him better


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 18, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Pretty poor, as the have 11 times the number of available voters than the SNP.

Click to expand...

Whats that got to do with it.  I said they had *three times a bigger percentage increase *than the SNP.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 18, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Whats that got to do with it.  I said they had *three times a bigger percentage increase *than the SNP.
		
Click to expand...

Lies, damned lies and statistics again!

What did UKIP actually achieve with this 'massive' increase? 1 (extra) seat! While SNP achieved an additional 50 seats - *an 8-fold increase!* 

In overall voter numbers, UKIP actually received over 50% more than Lib-Dems, yet, even while they were decimated, Lib-Dems achieved 8 MPs to UKIP's 1 - *8 times as many as UKIP*! Doug Carswell retained the seat he won in the by-election he triggered when he defected from Cons, while Mark Reckless actually lost the one he had won under similar circumstances! So, UKIP actually ended up with 1 less MP than they had prior to the election - a *50% DECREASE*! 

L,DL & S!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 18, 2016)

Or in other figures.........

1.45 million votes from  roughly 4 million voters 
4 million votes from roughly 44 million voters 

I shall let SR work out the % as it is beyond poor old me.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 18, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Or in other figures.........

1.45 million votes from  roughly 4 million voters 
4 million votes from roughly 44 million voters 

I shall let SR work out the % as it is beyond poor old me.
		
Click to expand...

The numbers are irrelevant, I only mentioned the % increases.  Seems like you are not able to grasp that.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 18, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			Lies, damned lies and statistics again!

What did UKIP actually achieve with this 'massive' increase? 1 (extra) seat! While SNP achieved an additional 50 seats - *an 8-fold increase!* 

In overall voter numbers, UKIP actually received over 50% more than Lib-Dems, yet, even while they were decimated, Lib-Dems achieved 8 MPs to UKIP's 1 - *8 times as many as UKIP*! Doug Carswell retained the seat he won in the by-election he triggered when he defected from Cons, while Mark Reckless actually lost the one he had won under similar circumstances! So, UKIP actually ended up with 1 less MP than they had prior to the election - a *50% DECREASE*! 

L,DL & S! 

Click to expand...

What an odd post.

Look! I still dont fancy you and to be honest I probably never will fancy you.   I know this may be a harsh reality but I think you need to be told.

Night sweet Cheeks!


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 18, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Really, the party with one UK MP, and he is a rebel
They will be an irrelevance in two years....I see some are jumping to the Tories already.

Mind you, David Cockburn is building a big following in Scotland. [On the comedy circuit]
		
Click to expand...




chippa1909 said:



			Bit of a Freudian slip there Doon, it's Coburn. :rofl:
		
Click to expand...




Doon frae Troon said:



			I prefer the authentic spelling of the name.....it seems to suit him better

Click to expand...

So just to be clear, it's OK to make a joke about an MPs name but not about a lookalike because that would be childish and not funny? Because that obviously wouldn't be double standards at all would it?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 19, 2016)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockburn

For your info.........the normal Scottish version of spelling Cockburn.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Sep 19, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockburn

For your info.........the normal Scottish version of spelling Cockburn.
		
Click to expand...

But that isn't actually his name, ergo it's still immature. His name wouldn't change between being in Scotland or England.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 19, 2016)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			But that isn't actually his name, ergo it's still immature. His name wouldn't change between being in Scotland or England.
		
Click to expand...

His spelling is very unusual [In Scotland] even though it is pronounced exactly the same as the 'correct' Cockburn.
An honest mistake Guv. [not that I care a toot]


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 19, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			The numbers are irrelevant, I only mentioned the % increases.  Seems like you are not able to grasp that.
		
Click to expand...

I grasp it alright, along with the desperation that goes with it.:lol:
How is your new leader doing?
Can't quite remember her name, she is a dynamic ex County Councillor I believe.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 19, 2016)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			But that isn't actually his name, *ergo it's still immature*...
		
Click to expand...

Only if it was deliberate!

In Doon's case, it was, presumably, an error.

Edit: As you can see from his post above, he's not great at names!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 19, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I grasp it alright, along with the desperation that goes with it.:lol:
How is your new leader doing?
Can't quite remember her name, she is a dynamic ex County Councillor I believe.
		
Click to expand...

I getting a wee bit feeling she's not up to it.  I thought she would be - but now doubting that thought.  Just imagine mind - if either Andrea Loathsome or Boris Jokeson were PM (oh I know it's childish and I really shouldn't *******ise names)


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 19, 2016)

I see that most of the 'resigned' shadow Labour MP's have suddenly come to the conclusion that they can now work with Jeremy.
Wonder if they will 'un-resign' one at a time.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 19, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I grasp it alright, along with the desperation that goes with it.:lol:
How is your new leader doing?
Can't quite remember her name, she is a dynamic ex County Councillor I believe.
		
Click to expand...

She's not my leader. I'm a paid up member of the Genghis Khan National Front Party for Foxhunting.   We don't have any MP's yet but watch this space.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 19, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			She's not my leader. I'm a paid up member of the Genghis Khan National Front Party for Foxhunting.   We don't have any MP's yet but watch this space.
		
Click to expand...

Don't be shy like DfT, she's both your leaders for now.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 21, 2016)

What is it about JCs arrogant and condescending manner; his uselessness and incompetence as a party leader, and his unelectable unsuitability for PM do his acolytes not get.  Then again - they do seem to be acolytes...

I am despairing for the future of the Labour Party.  Disappointed to hear Owen Jones say he'll vote - this one last time - for JC - but at least he said that things must change and that this is otherwise his final fling with JC.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 23, 2016)

The tide has turned.

BTW Interesting way of recording the results table where the 5th placed party finds itself in 3rd place. 

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/09/15/voting-intention-conservatives-38-labour-31/


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 23, 2016)

And there will be another poll out in a couple of days showing the exact opposite trend. Surely after the last election and the referendum you should have learned not to use the polls as an indicator of anything. And to use a single poll to try and make a point is quite frankly ridiculous.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 23, 2016)

On that showing a Labour/SNP 'arrangement' would probably overtake the Tories......good news at last.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 23, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			On that showing a Labour/SNP 'arrangement' would probably overtake the Tories......good news at last.
		
Click to expand...

Only you know how you can reach that conclusion.

Nationally Labour are seven points behind and the constituency changes will further diminish them. The Government are apparently unpopular and yet the Opposition are still behind in the polls.

But you think a coalition between two parties that are illiterate on the economy would be good news.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 23, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Only you know how you can reach that conclusion.

Nationally Labour are seven points behind and the constituency changes will further diminish them. The Government are apparently unpopular and yet the Opposition are still behind in the polls.

But you think a coalition between two parties that are illiterate on the economy would be good news.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps they could do with a bit of canny Scottish financial knowledge.
Last time I looked the UK national debt stood around Â£1.46trillion.
I wonder what the repayment levels are on that?


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 23, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Perhaps they could do with a bit of canny Scottish financial knowledge.
Last time I looked the UK national debt stood around Â£1.46trillion.
I wonder what the repayment levels are on that?
		
Click to expand...

That would be the Scotland that, proportionately, is running a greater deficit than the remainder of the UK. Would that also be where there was a recent indy referendum and the supporters of "Out" were basing their campaign upon oil prices?

And is that also home to the two UK banks that had to be bailed out?

Canny Scottish financial knowledge!!

That's a good one!


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 23, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Perhaps they could do with a bit of canny Scottish financial knowledge.
Last time I looked the UK national debt stood around Â£1.46trillion.
I wonder what the repayment levels are on that?
		
Click to expand...

And a part of that National Debt is Scotland's as they are still part of the UK.  Actually they are creating proportionally more debt that the rest of the UK.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 23, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			And a part of that National Debt is Scotland's as they are still part of the UK.  Actually they are creating proportionally more debt that the rest of the UK.
		
Click to expand...

Just for clarity
Scotland's share of that debt is about 8.5% of the total.
Ruk responsible for the other 91.5% of the debt.

You last sentence only makes sense if you have an extremely short memory.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 23, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			You last sentence only makes sense if you have an extremely short memory.
		
Click to expand...

What, all the way back to the reason behind the Act of Union? Who is it with the short memory?


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 23, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Just for clarity
Scotland's share of that debt is about 8.5% of the total.
Ruk responsible for the other 91.5% of the debt.

You last sentence only makes sense if you have an extremely short memory.
		
Click to expand...

Did you find the comment "Part of that National Debt" difficult to understand?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 23, 2016)

Just can't see Labour under Corbyn getting anywhere near government 2020 or indeed 2025 if he is still leader.  And my goodness me - now until 2031 is an awful long time to be under Tory government.  Chuka Umunna - we need you.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 23, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Did you find the comment "Part of that National Debt" difficult to understand?
		
Click to expand...

Not at all, I was just putting a scale to it so overexcited UKIP type members don't get carried away.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 23, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			What, all the way back to the reason behind the Act of Union? Who is it with the short memory?
		
Click to expand...

Last 30 years will do.....check it out, you may get a surprise.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 23, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Not at all, I was just putting a scale to it so overexcited UKIP type members don't get carried away.
		
Click to expand...


Just checking that we are still talking about the Scotland whose expenditure continues to exceed its revenue at a greater rate than the remainder of the UK? (That's reported in that well known pro-UKIP publication, The Guardian).


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 23, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Just for clarity
Scotland's share of that debt is about 8.5% of the total.
Ruk responsible for the other 91.5% of the debt.

You last sentence only makes sense if you have an extremely short memory.
		
Click to expand...

Doon, Been partaking too much of Scotland's fine product? 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/gers-figures-scotland-s-deficit-at-14-8-billion-1-4211076

Meantime - back on topic!!! - Labour doesn't even seem capable of shooting itself in the foot properly! It seems to want to blow away an entire leg! Even the Miliband that should have been leader, had the Unions not demonstrated how daftly self-seekingly stupid they still were/are, appears to despair for the party! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37438120


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 24, 2016)

Lengthy post on the leadership campaign....good read.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/the-corbyn-supremacy


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 24, 2016)

Inside source saying Smith has won.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 24, 2016)

Now someone else on Facebook saying Corbyn has increased his majority. 

I love a good ITK.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 24, 2016)

I just looked at the BBC News web page to see if the result was in yet. There's just a photo of the two candidates and beside Corbyn a poster saying "help choose Labours next Prime Minister" and it just occurred to me that if either of these two numpties are elected its highly likely the next Labour Prime Minister probably hasn't been born yet.   :lol:


----------



## spongebob59 (Sep 24, 2016)

62:38 to worzel gummidge


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 24, 2016)

The Guardian are reporting a Corbyn  62% of the vote.


----------



## Imurg (Sep 24, 2016)

So, how long until a "New Labour" party arrives..?


----------



## jp5 (Sep 24, 2016)

Kellfire said:



			Inside source saying Smith has won.
		
Click to expand...

Oops


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 24, 2016)

Love it, just Love It


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 24, 2016)




----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 24, 2016)

Old Skier said:



View attachment 20854

Click to expand...

Biggest political party in Europe now.
Much as you wish it, I don't think so


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 24, 2016)

Imurg said:



			So, how long until a "New Labour" party arrives..?
		
Click to expand...

We have had that, next one must be Even Newer Labour.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 24, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Biggest political party in Europe now.
Much as you wish it, I don't think so
		
Click to expand...

Could be, how do you know, most of the newest members have no interest in the labour part. Even so there is no point being the biggest of anything if you cannot use your size to provide an effective political force.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 24, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			Could be, how do you know, most of the newest members have no interest in the labour part. Even so there is no point being the biggest of anything if you cannot use your size to provide an effective political force.
		
Click to expand...

I am afraid I have to concur.  As much as I might agree with many if not most of JCs policies (barring defence) and have the basic christian/ socialist values he espouses at my core of my own beliefs - he just cannot IMO get enough Kippers/LibDems and Tories to vote Labour and for JC as PM.  I heard one JC supporter on radio today tell that she knew of Lib Dems and Tories moving to Labour because of JC - and that Labour under JC were on their way.  She is totally deluded - as so many who support KJC seem to be also.  I just can't see it - I just don't get it.


----------



## Fish (Sep 24, 2016)

Great news if your a Tory, Labour are unelectable with Corbyn at the helm, so, I struggle to understand the big leftie following of him as he'll never get the job that can change things!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 24, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			Could be, how do you know, most of the newest members have no interest in the labour part. Even so there is no point being the biggest of anything if you cannot use your size to provide an effective political force.
		
Click to expand...

68% of vote.
Is that not just what they have done.
Corbyn is hoovering up all the disillusioned who have not voted for decades. No party fitted their agenda.
We have been living in a political vacuum for 20+ years. No real visible difference between Tory/Lab/Lib Dem.
One of the reasons the SNP gained so many supporters.


----------



## jp5 (Sep 24, 2016)

JC has won more elections than the current PM has so don't buy this "unelectable" business.

Ultimately if the Labour MPs provide constituents with the best option he'll end up PM. We elect a party not a PM, as people were happy to point out when May took over!

UKIP will be spent by 2020 and I reckon JC has got as good a chance as anyone else in recouping their votes.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 24, 2016)

jp5 said:



			JC has won more elections than the current PM has so don't buy this "unelectable" business.

Ultimately if the Labour MPs provide constituents with the best option he'll end up PM. We elect a party not a PM, as people were happy to point out when May took over!

UKIP will be spent by 2020 and I reckon JC has got as good a chance as anyone else in recouping their votes.
		
Click to expand...

Getting 300,000 votes from labour party members does not make Labour electable as a Government. In fact having GC as leader I think it will have the effect of pushing a large number of traditional Labour voters into other camps, whether those camps will be Tory, Lib Dem or UKIP who knows?  Local MP candidates will have to offer policies that Corbynites demand and that will not be the policies that the majority of voters agree with.


----------



## Imurg (Sep 24, 2016)

Regardless of the number of Party members or the number of votes he got in the leadership election, he has to regain the support of the MPs who triggered the whole election process in the first place.
Nothing has changed on that front.
The bulk of the Labour MPs don't want him as their leader. Will they try again or just defect or set up a new party...?


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 24, 2016)

How can the Labour supporters be so deluded that JC will lead his party to govern this country. It is people like me that he has to convince and quite frankly If I thought I could have any connection to that political dinosaur I would sooner buy a timeshare in Syria. He is a pathetic excuse of a politician. If I had to praise him for anything it would be that " what you see is what you get" unfortunately what you get is Rammel.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Sep 24, 2016)

Imurg said:



			Regardless of the number of Party members or the number of votes he got in the leadership election, he has to regain the support of the MPs who triggered the whole election process in the first place.
Nothing has changed on that front.
The bulk of the Labour MPs don't want him as their leader. Will they try again or just defect or set up a new party...?
		
Click to expand...

Either option seem viable sooner rather than later. How long would it take for a breakaway party to be formed? SUrely then, it only dilutes labour support even further and makes a Tory win at the next election seem a formality. I guess the easier option would be start a new election fight. Again how long has to pass before this happens but will the party mainstay simply vote for Corbyn again? Surely the best Labour outcome would be for him to simply walk away but I can't see that happening


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 24, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Getting 300,000 votes from labour party members does not make Labour electable as a Government. In fact having GC as leader I think it will have the effect of pushing a large number of traditional Labour voters into other camps, whether those camps will be Tory, Lib Dem or UKIP who knows?  Local MP candidates will have to offer policies that Corbynites demand and that will not be the policies that the majority of voters agree with.
		
Click to expand...

I believe the traditional Labour voters have been voting for the Tories for the last decade.
Corbyn is re-engaging the modern 'traditional Labour voters'.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 24, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I believe the traditional Labour voters have been voting for the Tories for the last decade.
Corbyn is re-engaging the modern 'traditional Labour voters'.
		
Click to expand...

I think it's the exact opposite Doon. Those traditional Labour voters who've been voting Tory are at best centre-ist, or right of centre. Corbyn and many of his supporters are left of centre. 

Far from bringing in the disenfranchised traditional Labour voters, he's driving them away. What he is attracting is the far left as Michael Foot did.

Labour is becoming a protest party, and not fit to govern.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Sep 24, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I believe the traditional Labour voters have been voting for the Tories for the last decade.
Corbyn is re-engaging the modern 'traditional Labour voters'.
		
Click to expand...

I swear you get more and more barmy the older you get!  (happens to the best of us.)

Have you seen the type of people who have been attracted as members. No likelihood of the vast majority of them ever voting Conservative, many of them are barely old enough to vote. 

Certainly they seem to have little or nothing in common with Labour's traditional core vote.

Strength of numbers in party membership rarely has an effect upon election results, if you added all these new members to the total who voted Labour in 2015 it still would not be enough.

The party has to connect with those who are not committed, something that Blair (like him or not) was very good at and something that, so far, Corbyn seems incapable of doing.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 24, 2016)

Imurg said:



			Regardless of the number of Party members or the number of votes he got in the leadership election, he has to regain the support of the MPs who triggered the whole election process in the first place.
Nothing has changed on that front.
The bulk of the Labour MPs don't want him as their leader. Will they try again or just defect or set up a new party...?
		
Click to expand...

Umunna stated today that he wouldn't serve in the shadow cabinet.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 24, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Corbyn is re-engaging the modern 'traditional Labour voters'.
		
Click to expand...

All he's done is re engage the ultra left of the Labour Party, some who this afternoon are still insisting on deselecting democratically elected politicians.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 24, 2016)

Heard one Corbyn supporter tell today that JC will be attractive to the disenfranchised young voter - and that he only needs to get a reasonable part of that group out to vote Labour and the next election is in the bag for Labour - and a majority government.  That's what he really believed.  I just don't - and I'm what might be referred to as a Christian democrat leftie.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 24, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I believe the traditional Labour voters have been voting for the Tories for the last decade.
Corbyn is re-engaging the modern 'traditional Labour voters'.
		
Click to expand...

Completely deluded!



Hobbit said:



			I think it's the exact opposite Doon. Those traditional Labour voters who've been voting Tory are at best centre-ist, or right of centre. Corbyn and many of his supporters are left of centre. 

Far from bringing in the disenfranchised traditional Labour voters, he's driving them away. What he is attracting is the far left as Michael Foot did.

Labour is becoming a protest party, and not fit to govern.
		
Click to expand...

This is far more likely to be the case imo!


----------



## JCW (Sep 25, 2016)

Lots of deluded labour members , JC as PM , as much chance as the dodo being found alive in New Zealand , It just means if you don`t vote tory then you have a long time to wait to see another labour Government , maybe not in many of our life times ......................EYG


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 25, 2016)

JCW said:



			Lots of deluded labour members , JC as PM , as much chance as the dodo being found alive in New Zealand , It just means if you don`t vote tory then you have a long time to wait to see another labour Government , maybe not in many of our life times ......................EYG
		
Click to expand...

And many of those who are not deluded are rather despairing

Only way I can see Labour even having a sniff at a minority gov in 2020 would be if Brexit was a mess - and even then I suspect the electorate would give the Tories more time than elect Labour led by JC.  And so to 2025 and for Labour to get in I think Brexit would have to be a real mess - and I really don't want that - despite what Brexiteers claim that we once-remainers want to see happen


----------



## JCW (Sep 25, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And many of those who are not deluded are rather despairing

Only way I can see Labour even having a sniff at a minority gov in 2020 would be if Brexit was a mess - and even then I suspect the electorate would give the Tories more time than elect Labour led by JC.  And so to 2025 and for Labour to get in I think Brexit would have to be a real mess - and I really don't want that - despite what Brexiteers claim that we once-remainers want to see happen
		
Click to expand...


We need a strong Labour party or 2nd party to keep the government in power honest ..........sadly we will not see that ...............EYG


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 25, 2016)

JCW said:



			We need a strong Labour party or 2nd party to keep the government in power honest ..........sadly we will not see that ...............EYG
		
Click to expand...

Coalitions usually work well, we really need to break up the two party system. 

At the mo Labour and Tories are basically four political groups.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Sep 25, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Coalitions usually work well,
		
Click to expand...

Tell that to the lib Dems, 

No doubt the coalition was good for the country, 

Labour has 2 problems
Firstly they are split and the parliamentary party are out of touch with the rank & file members, I Forsee a huge lurch to the left, 
That's going to work isn't it.

Secondly the SNP need to lose Scotland to labour to stand even a remote chance.

Think Mrs May is rubbing her hands with glee


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 25, 2016)

I am old enough to know that 'what goes round comes around'.
[Mary Quant dresses and 1970's furniture popular ATM]

At present there is a political void on the left and I think it will be filled. 

SNP are popular as the are basically centre left.
I would not call the present Labour PPL centre left.


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 25, 2016)

So JC calls for unity within the Labour Party. Ok. The labour Mayor or London has gone on record and said this will split the Labour Party in half. Seems to me the London Mayor is a bit more in touch than JC and his supporters.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 25, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Coalitions usually work well, we really need to break up the two party system. 

At the mo *Labour and Tories are basically four political groups*.
		
Click to expand...

So they must be Coalitions which you suggest normally work well.


----------



## harpo_72 (Sep 25, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			At the mo Labour and Tories are basically four political groups.
		
Click to expand...

i agree with this but both parties are not strong enough to separate and differentiate. Meaning there is a left wing that is moderate and one that is a little stronger in it's views ... Like the Tories have their moderates and their hardliners. 
I suspect that the hardliners are attached to their moderate side to acquire power, but in labours case their hardliners have the reigns, it would be quite ballsey to separate .. Something Cameron did not do with his leave and stay issues within his party.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 25, 2016)

If the labour party split it would end up splitting their resources which would mean they would never be able to form an opposition. Corbyn now wants his power house to set labour policy which will turn the majority of labour supporters away.  He seems to forget that the majority of people who vote labour are not members of the party in the same way that the SNP majority voters are not SNP members.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 25, 2016)

Quite ironic that Labour's Â£25.000,000 debt, built up over the Blair years has finally been paid up on Corbyn's watch.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Sep 25, 2016)

I could not vote for JC..period. Do I think all those new voters who joined the Labour party have done so to be part of the Labour party?.....no. Most I feel have joined to muddy the waters and keep the Conservatives in power, which will be for a long time coming the way it looks. 
So many go on about the "working man"...but where are they? Where are the heavy industries that label applies to? I don't see people wanting to do the "old fashioned" jobs of yore, working hard doing back breaking jobs. No they're all above that and those industries dead and buried, so why does JC and his supporters think the Country wants to go back to a political party that is based on those days of yore?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 26, 2016)

The more I listen to Corbyn acolytes - the more I hear delusion and paranoia.  Maybe the two are easy bed-fellows - certainly seem to be so for these folks.

Putting aside Scotland an NI for the moment (and the effect of boundary changes).  There are Westminster 573 seats covering England and Wales - so 287 needed for an E&W majority.   Currently  Labour have 230 MPs - they need to win 57 more seats than they currently have to have a majority in E&W.  Add in 75 seats for NI and Scotland and Labour need to win 132 seats in E&W and lose none - NEVER EVER going to happen under JC - maybe might never happen under ANY Labour leader.  Labour have got to knock SNP completely and utterly off their perch in Scotland to even have an outsiders.  And that isn't going to happen whilst Labour look unelectable as a government across E&W - and under JC that is how they look - Catch 22


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 26, 2016)

I always thought Corbyn was the Shadow Chancellors puppet (muppet) but after watching the news today it seems it's the other way around, he had to tell the man when to wave at conference.

I see from his speech it's all about:

Borrowing billions more

Introducing laws to ban tax dodgers - shame they couldn't be bothered to do it when they were in power rather than talk about it when they have no power.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 26, 2016)

I read John McDonnell's comments on the BBC News site this morning. He said "Be certain that the next Labour government will be an interventionist government". 

How the hell does he know? Has he discovered the ability to foresee the future? With Corbyn in charge, the electoral boundary changes and Labour seemingly having very little chance of taking enough votes away from the SNP in Scotland to get themselves elected McDonnell will have retired long before there is a next Labour government.


----------



## JollyRedDevil (Sep 26, 2016)

I actually think, a lot torie supporters paid the Â£25 just to vote JC in.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 26, 2016)

Great result for the Conservatives. The worry is that when Labour get trounced at the next election and Corbyn goes then a Corbyn lite person will get voted in as the next leader by the same hard core supporters. The party could be stuck for a while with unelectable leaders.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 26, 2016)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Great result for the Conservatives. The worry is that when Labour get trounced at the next election and Corbyn goes then a Corbyn lite person will get voted in as the next leader by the same hard core supporters. The party could be stuck for a while with unelectable leaders.
		
Click to expand...

Without Scotland, Labour have to win big across England - and under JC I just don't see that happening - maybe not even under another leader - though Chuka Umunna might have a chance - but only of getting Labour into minority gov in 2025.   And only way Labour will do that would be if by 2025 things were seen to have gone badly awry with Brexit - and I don't want that to happen. Next Labour gov 2030 anyone?


Am I being way too pessimistic about Labour?  Someone convince me that I am please.


----------



## jp5 (Sep 26, 2016)

I think you're being overly optimistic of anyone else's chances in Labour relative to Corbyn.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 26, 2016)

jp5 said:



			I think you're being overly optimistic of anyone else's chances in Labour relative to Corbyn.
		
Click to expand...

You mean Chuka Umunna leading a Labour Party in a minority gov following 2025 election?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 26, 2016)

Umunna is a very good option and ideally I see him taking over after the next election. With the way the voting system is set up and the current make up of the membership I don't see Corbyn being removed before the next election. 2025 is the earliest I can see Labour having any influence again. 

The Conservatives could dominate for some time but history shows these things seem to go in cycles as a long term govt often run out of power and steam unless the leader is replaced every so often and new blood brought in with new ideas, rarely happens. Labour's best chance is that the Conservatives run out of ideas and Chukka offers a new approach, as happened with Blair after the Thatcher / Major era.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 26, 2016)

JollyRedDevil said:



			I actually think, a lot torie supporters paid the Â£25 just to vote JC in.
		
Click to expand...

They didn't need to this time around as they knew the far left was going to grab the party with Corbyns backing - he's been praying for this for a while but as with normal Labour maths he doesn't realise that his support is tiny compared to the people who actually vote so nothing adds up.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 27, 2016)

Labour seem to be following the EVEL lead by trying to kick out Scots and Welsh representation from their NEC.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 27, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Labour seem to be following the EVEL lead by trying to kick out Scots and Welsh representation from their NEC.
		
Click to expand...

I wonder if that is because the Scots on the NEC realise that Labour in Westminster is stuffed unless it brings on board Labour voters in Scotland - and they know that that requires a big migration of voters from the SNP and that just won't happen with JC leading the way (to oblivion?) and looking hopeless in respect of electability to Westminster government.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 27, 2016)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Labour seem to be following the EVEL lead by trying to kick out Scots and Welsh representation from their NEC.
		
Click to expand...

Keep fishing Doom


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 27, 2016)

A leader who refuses to accept party policy. You couldn't make it up.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 27, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I wonder if that is because the Scots on the NEC realise that Labour in Westminster is stuffed unless it brings on board Labour voters in Scotland - and they know that that requires a big migration of voters from the SNP and that just won't happen with JC leading the way (to oblivion?) and looking hopeless in respect of electability to Westminster government.
		
Click to expand...

They have no chance of attracting the vote from the mainstream who are not the hundreds of thousands of naÃ¯ve or ill-informed individuals who have  happily signed up to a Labour Party captured by a Marxist clique devoted  to class warfare and the revolutionary/idealistic breakdown of our society.


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 27, 2016)

Just listened to him when asked about would he still bomb the IS forces. How his supporters can listen to that and think " he is the man". Pathetic excuse for a party leader. If this is how labour picks its leaders the. They ain't gonna be in power for a long time.


----------



## Hobbit (Oct 6, 2016)

An interesting shadow cabinet. Diane Abbott as shadow Home Secretary. Now there's a well balanced and fair individual. Obviously no favouritism.


----------



## chippa1909 (Oct 7, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I wonder if that is because the Scots on the NEC realise that Labour in Westminster is stuffed unless it brings on board Labour voters in Scotland - and they know that that requires a big migration of voters from the SNP and that just won't happen with JC leading the way (to oblivion?) and looking hopeless in respect of electability to Westminster government.
		
Click to expand...

20% swing from labour to SNP in Glasgow by election today. Doesn't look like that 'migration' is happening anytime soon.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Oct 7, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			An interesting shadow cabinet. Diane Abbott as shadow Home Secretary. Now there's a well balanced and fair individual. Obviously no favouritism.
		
Click to expand...

Described as spiteful and vindictive by some within the party so Labour a long way from being a unified party. Abbott was a Corbin supporter so was this reward for her loyalty?


----------



## Hobbit (Oct 7, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Described as spiteful and vindictive by some within the party so Labour a long way from being a unified party. Abbott was a Corbin supporter so was this reward for her loyalty?
		
Click to expand...

If you Google Diane Abbott you'll find out she was more than a supporter...

And the Youtube clips of the 'car crashes' she's had are unbelievable.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 7, 2016)

The worst politician currently in Westminster. Abbott is awful, truly awful. Hobbit is right, they were "special friends"

I am very surprised at Shami Chakrabati taking a position. I am not a fan at all but I thought she was smarter than this. Anyone linked to Corbyn so strongly will be tainted and dispensed of immediately this car crash experiment finally ends. Others are playing the long game and staying away. She has jumped in and ended her political career before it has stopped. At least some good news comes out of all this


----------



## spongebob59 (Oct 7, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			If you Google Diane Abbott you'll find out she was more than a supporter...

And the Youtube clips of the 'car crashes' she's had are unbelievable.
		
Click to expand...

http://news.sky.com/story/diane-abbotts-history-of-gaffes-10482258


----------



## Crazyface (Oct 7, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			An interesting shadow cabinet. Diane Abbott as shadow Home Secretary. Now there's a well balanced and fair individual. Obviously no favouritism.
		
Click to expand...

You couldn't make it up. Mrs May must be in tears....


----------



## Crazyface (Oct 7, 2016)

and UKIP having a actual scrap over their leadership. The liberals....do they still exist...nowhere. I could start a party now and be in opposition after the next election by doing a Tony Blair and saying the right things just to get in power.


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 10, 2017)

He has not changed his mind on immigration and thinks that there are not to many migrants that have come to the UK.

well at least he is honest. Which is why he and his party will not govern for another generation. Have not spoken to one person who agrees with anything that comes out of his cakehole.

looks like we will be governed by the also out of touch Tories for a long time to come.


----------



## drdel (Jan 10, 2017)

Have to agree ^^^

The lack of a credible opposition party is not good for the UK.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 10, 2017)

They were talking on the radio today about him wanting to have a salary cap as well so you could only earn up to a certain amount per year and no more than that. Surely people should be encouraged to earn as much as they can as long as they are paying the correct level of tax on their earnings.


----------



## Beezerk (Jan 10, 2017)

The more I hear about him the more I think he's miles out of touch with the country. Wage caps? Brilliant, you couldn't make it up.


----------



## Tiger man (Jan 10, 2017)

He is a total dreamer and unelectable which is scary for the future, with no opposition for the Tories up to their usual tricks of dividing the country through class brackets, NHS being run into the ground well on the way to privatisation and brexit looming.


----------



## spongebob59 (Jan 10, 2017)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ion-state-funded-salary-and-pension-revealed/


----------



## Old Skier (Jan 10, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			They were talking on the radio today about him wanting to have a salary cap as well so you could only earn up to a certain amount per year and no more than that. Surely people should be encouraged to earn as much as they can as long as they are paying the correct level of tax on their earnings.
		
Click to expand...

By the afternoon he was changing his story on this and immigration. He seems to have a very short attention span.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 10, 2017)

Old Skier said:



			By the afternoon he was changing his story on this and immigration. He seems to have a very short attention span.
		
Click to expand...

ADHD?


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 10, 2017)

Old Skier said:



			By the afternoon he was changing his story on this and immigration. He seems to have a very short attention span.
		
Click to expand...

Or doesn't want the electorate to know what he'd do if he ever gained office. Wonder if he's a card carrying commie?


----------



## delc (Jan 10, 2017)

I've heard that Jeremy Corbyn is very good at making pancakes.
.
.
.
.
.
In fact he's a complete tosser! &#128514;


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 10, 2017)

Tashyboy said:



			He has not changed his mind on immigration and thinks that there are not to many migrants that have come to the UK.

well at least he is honest. W*hich is why he and his party will not govern for another generation. *Have not spoken to one person who agrees with anything that comes out of his cakehole.

looks like we will be governed by the also out of touch Tories for a long time to come.
		
Click to expand...

...and (without wishing to take this off topic) this should be a major worry for unionists in Scotland.  

Sturgeon herself is quite clear that one very significant consideration for Scots voters will be Labour's prospects in England.  If these look poor, and a Tory Westminster government for the next 20yrs is on the cards that will 1) not encourage much in the way of a Labour revival in Scotland for Westminster - why bother if even with Scottish Labour MPs Labour is feeble and cannot be realistically seen as a party of government (Labour in Holyrood may be a different matter) and, 2) the prospect of 20yrs of Tory government with Scotland in a United Kingdom may not be that attractive a proposition to many Scots voters.

The United Kingdom *needs* a strong and effective Labour Party and LP representation in Westminster for more than just Westminster considerations.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 10, 2017)

ColchesterFC said:



			They were talking on the radio today about him wanting to have a salary cap as well so you could only earn up to a certain amount per year and no more than that. Surely people should be encouraged to earn as much as they can as long as they are paying the correct level of tax on their earnings.
		
Click to expand...

So 95% tax on earnings over Â£5million?

Actually - as much as a cap might sound attractive emotionally to many - my feeling is that it would not address the issues that the poorer have to deal with on a day-to-day basis.  To me a salary cap would be little more than vacuous and populist gesture politics - though unfortunately we know that that sort of politics does seem to work (at least in the short term) for many these days.


----------



## Beezerk (Jan 10, 2017)

Tashyboy said:



			well at least he is honest. Which is why he and his party will not govern for another generation.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a generation thing at all, the general population is far too fickle nowadays. It just takes the right person to say the right things, at the right time obviously, and they have a great chance of getting in power. I give you Donald Trump as an example


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 11, 2017)

Beezerk said:



			I don't think it's a generation thing at all, the general population is far too fickle nowadays. It just takes the right person to say the right things, at the right time obviously, and they have a great chance of getting in power. I give you Donald Trump as an example 

Click to expand...

Beezerk I don't mean it as a generation, eg young uns. I mean it as a generation 10-15 yrs. That aside I have always said that a strong opposition makes a strong government. I think this is the weakest/ worst opposition in my living memory.


----------



## delc (Jan 11, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			So 95% tax on earnings over Â£5million?

Actually - as much as a cap might sound attractive emotionally to many - my feeling is that it would not address the issues that the poorer have to deal with on a day-to-day basis.  To me a salary cap would be little more than vacuous and populist gesture politics - though unfortunately we know that that sort of politics does seem to work (at least in the short term) for many these days.
		
Click to expand...

Actually Corbyn made an interesting point there. The rich are getter richer whilst the poor are getting even poorer. Unless you happen to make luxury cars, boats or aeroplanes, I can't see much 'trickle down'. It also forgets the Keynesian truth that workers are also consumers, which many of them can only be on credit these days. Personal debt is increasing at an alarming rate! Companies seem to be run for the benefit of their senior executives, rather than their shareholders, workers or customers!


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jan 11, 2017)

Corbyn leaves, Chukka or the right Milliband comes back and suddenly Labour are a different party. That could happen in the next few years. I'm not saying it will but it could. Then all the useless Labour MP's currently holding Shadow Minister jobs can clear off back to oblivion and the decent ones with more than 1/2 a clue can start speaking sense again. I cringe each time I hear a Shadow Minister speak. Not a decent one amongst the lot and some are worse than useless.

Corbyn is an irrelevance. He sits alongside Tim Farron in that sense, both seem very nice but no one is listening to them. No greater crime when you are leader of an opposition party.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 11, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Corbyn leaves, Chukka or the right Milliband comes back and suddenly Labour are a different party. That could happen in the next few years. I'm not saying it will but it could. Then all the useless Labour MP's currently holding Shadow Minister jobs can clear off back to oblivion and the decent ones with more than 1/2 a clue can start speaking sense again. I cringe each time I hear a Shadow Minister speak. *Not a decent one amongst the lot *and some are worse than useless.

Corbyn is an irrelevance. He sits alongside Tim Farron in that sense, both seem very nice but no one is listening to them. No greater crime when you are leader of an opposition party.
		
Click to expand...

I have time for most of what Keir Starmer says.


----------



## Fish (Jan 11, 2017)

Hmm, some of the biggest moaners about money and affordability on here tend to be on the golf course at least 3 times a week and are always posting in the 'what have you bought today' thread' so there's plenty of 'trickle down' going on around the country from what I can see ðŸ¤”

Also, and this is not aimed at everyone or in general as I appreciate there is real poverty out there, but, the main money moaners again tend to be those who go abroad on holiday, run 2 cars and yet sit at home all day watching Sky TV, some people dont really know or have experienced real hard times or poverty, they think it's not being able to have the weekly curry or go to the pub for the 4th time that week, although they still spend circa Â£250 a month on fags! 

We have a culture currently that believes it's owed something even though some have never contributed or put anything  into the system along with living in a 'claim society', I think this culture & society will get worse and create greater divides over the next decade. 

If personal debt is increasing as you state at an alarming rate, I would bet that a large proportion of that is people living beyond their means, and that transfers to their kids attitudes, who from what I have seen of late have no appreciation of value and just expect everything and the latest gizmo, and then the merry go round keeps going.........


----------



## Beezerk (Jan 11, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Corbyn leaves, Chukka or the right Milliband comes back and suddenly Labour are a different party.
		
Click to expand...

That's what I was getting at in my previous post, I don't believe it is a 10-15 year thing at all as Tashy suggested.
Imo Chukka dropping out of the race a few years ago was purely tactical, I don't swallow his "the attention he received was more than his family wanted" (paraphrasing there slightly obviously) excuse at all . He was well advised, stood well back to let the rest of them hang themselves, and will come back in x years as the new messiah, save the party and the country and we all live happily ever after until the next scandal


----------



## delc (Jan 11, 2017)

Fish said:



			Hmm, some of the biggest moaners about money and affordability on here tend to be on the golf course at least 3 times a week and are always posting in the 'what have you bought today' thread' so there's plenty of 'trickle down' going on around the country from what I can see ðŸ¤”

Also, and this is not aimed at everyone or in general as I appreciate there is real poverty out there, but, the main money moaners again tend to be those who go abroad on holiday, run 2 cars and yet sit at home all day watching Sky TV, some people dont really know or have experienced real hard times or poverty, they think it's not being able to have the weekly curry or go to the pub for the 4th time that week, although they still spend circa Â£250 a month on fags! 

We have a culture currently that believes it's owed something even though some have never contributed or put anything  into the system along with living in a 'claim society', I think this culture & society will get worse and create greater divides over the next decade. 

If personal debt is increasing as you state at an alarming rate, I would bet that a large proportion of that is people living beyond their means, and that transfers to their kids attitudes, who from what I have seen of late have no appreciation of value and just expect everything and the latest gizmo, and then the merry go round keeps going.........
		
Click to expand...

When I was a kid, if your parents couldn't afford it, they didn't buy it. Now they do buy it on credit and risk bankruptcy later on. Also when I started working as a lab rat in the 1960's, the top management in my company earned about 10 times what I did. Now the difference would be several hundred times. I was pointing out the growing income inequality in this country!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 11, 2017)

Fish said:



			Hmm, some of the biggest moaners about money and affordability on here tend to be on the golf course at least 3 times a week and are always posting in the 'what have you bought today' thread' so there's plenty of 'trickle down' going on around the country from what I can see ðŸ¤”

Also, and this is not aimed at everyone or in general as I appreciate there is real poverty out there, but, the main money moaners again tend to be those who go abroad on holiday, run 2 cars and yet sit at home all day watching Sky TV, some people dont really know or have experienced real hard times or poverty, they think it's not being able to have the weekly curry or go to the pub for the 4th time that week, although they still spend circa Â£250 a month on fags! 

*We have a culture currently that believes it's owed something even though some have never contributed or put anything  into the system along with living in a 'claim society', I think this culture & society will get worse and create greater divides over the next decade. 
*
If personal debt is increasing as you state at an alarming rate, I would bet that a large proportion of that is people living beyond their means, and that transfers to their kids attitudes, who from what I have seen of late have no appreciation of value and just expect everything and the latest gizmo, and then the merry go round keeps going.........
		
Click to expand...

This attitude of entitlement is not limited to the poorest of society. And IMO entitlement and the resentments and anger that arise from that attitude/feeling - either personally or towards others - is what is undermining our society.


----------



## Beezerk (Jan 11, 2017)

delc said:



			When I was a kid, if your parents couldn't afford it, they didn't buy it. Now they do buy it on credit and risk bankruptcy later on.
		
Click to expand...

Wow, how little you think of people.


----------



## delc (Jan 11, 2017)

Beezerk said:



			Wow, how little you think of people.
		
Click to expand...

I personally know of at least two lowly paid people who have gone bankrupt due to credit card debts! One was a girl I used to work with, who is a single mother! &#9785;&#65039;


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jan 11, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I have time for most of what Keir Starmer says.
		
Click to expand...


He is a notable exception. I was amazed he took the post as everyone linked to Corbyn is likely to be tarred with the same brush when he goes. There will be a near total purge. I hope Starmer survives but he may not.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jan 11, 2017)

Beezerk said:



			Wow, how little you think of people.
		
Click to expand...

 
Not as rare as you think. I know a number of people who have gone down this route, others who are heading this way with their eyes wide open. It is relatively easy to go bankrupt and you come out of it fairly unscathed within a short period of time. In the meantime you have filled your boots and had a whale of a time. Not my way but for some people they see it as a viable option. Consumerist society, must have, entitlement etc. Very sad.


----------



## Beezerk (Jan 11, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Not as rare as you think. I know a number of people who have gone down this route, others who are heading this way with their eyes wide open. It is relatively easy to go bankrupt and you come out of it fairly unscathed within a short period of time. In the meantime you have filled your boots and had a whale of a time. Not my way but for some people they see it as a viable option. Consumerist society, must have, entitlement etc. Very sad.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah of course mate, I know plenty myself, it's the tarring of everyone with the same brush thing though.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jan 11, 2017)

Agreed. Ironically I know a couple who are heading down this route at the moment at a fair rate of knots. Not single parents, not youngsters. Two elderly people who are playing the credit card game. Maxed out 3 cards, now doing 0% balance transfers to free up existing ones. They have virtually no assets, income is fixed and not huge but with over Â£30k on cards. They are still spending. I am certain they are going down the bankruptcy route without a care in the world, they have no other way out. Not the usual stereotype.

The idiots here are the credit card companies who are still throwing them out to people without any real checks on their ability to repay.


----------



## Crazyface (Jan 11, 2017)

delc said:



			Actually Corbyn made an interesting point there.* The rich are getter richer whilst the poor are getting even poorer*. Unless you happen to make luxury cars, boats or aeroplanes, I can't see much 'trickle down'. It also forgets the Keynesian truth that workers are also consumers, which many of them can only be on credit these days. Personal debt is increasing at an alarming rate! Companies seem to be run for the benefit of their senior executives, rather than their shareholders, workers or customers!
		
Click to expand...

It's what happens under the Tories. The longer they are in power the worse it gets.  The poor are then chasing rainbows...and end up in debt.


----------



## Crazyface (Jan 11, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Agreed. Ironically I know a couple who are heading down this route at the moment at a fair rate of knots. Not single parents, not youngsters. Two elderly people who are playing the credit card game. Maxed out 3 cards, now doing 0% balance transfers to free up existing ones. They have virtually no assets, income is fixed and not huge but with over Â£30k on cards. They are still spending. I am certain they are going down the bankruptcy route without a care in the world, they have no other way out. Not the usual stereotype.

The idiots here are the credit card companies who are still throwing them out to people without any real checks on their ability to repay.
		
Click to expand...

If I had no assets and was of a certain age, I'd do the same.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jan 11, 2017)

I can see their logic. Why struggle in old age when they can have one last hurrah with no consequences for them. No house to speak of so no asset to lose. They will die before it catches up with them or they will go bankrupt, have no assets to lose and so their lifestyle will not really change other than they will have to live within their budget for once. Consequence free spending for them


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jan 13, 2017)

Tristram Hunt has resigned to take a job at the V & A. May not mean much to many but he is a very sensible bloke and exactly the type of MP Labour need. He clashed with Corbyn and could not bring himself to tow the Corbyn line. A lost talent and I hope not too many more like him go before the Corbyn experiment finally ends.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 13, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Tristram Hunt has resigned to take a job at the V & A. May not mean much to many but he is a very sensible bloke and exactly the type of MP Labour need. He clashed with Corbyn and could not bring himself to tow the Corbyn line. A lost talent and I hope not too many more like him go before the Corbyn experiment finally ends.
		
Click to expand...

Yup - Labour really didn't need to lose TH to the V&A - when I heard that news this morning my thoughts were exactly yours.  Worrying the fact that he has decided to jilt Labour and get out of politics - hopefully not for good.  Maybe he just feels he needs out of the Labour chaos for 5-10yrs - let Labour sort themselves out; crash and burn; or be completely dumped by the electorate, then look at whether he wants to come back.


----------



## delc (Jan 13, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Yup - Labour really didn't need to lose TH to the V&A - when I heard that news this morning my thoughts were exactly yours.  Worrying the fact that he has decided to jilt Labour and get out of politics - hopefully not for good.  Maybe he just feels he needs out of the Labour chaos for 5-10yrs - let Labour sort themselves out; crash and burn; or be completely dumped by the electorate, then look at whether he wants to come back.
		
Click to expand...

At the moment the Labour Party has less chance of forming the next Government than a snowflake in a furnace. I predict that more people will vote Lib-Dem, UKIP (assuming that they don't self destruct again) and SNP than Labour under Corbyn's leadership!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 13, 2017)

delc said:



			At the moment the Labour Party has less chance of forming the next Government than a snowflake in a furnace. I predict that more people will vote Lib-Dem, UKIP (assuming that they don't self destruct again) and SNP than Labour under Corbyn's leadership!
		
Click to expand...

And Conservative.


----------



## delc (Jan 13, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			And Conservative.
		
Click to expand...

That goes without saying!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 13, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Tristram Hunt has resigned to take a job at the V & A. May not mean much to many but he is a very sensible bloke and exactly the type of MP Labour need. He clashed with Corbyn and could not bring himself to tow the Corbyn line. A lost talent and I hope not too many more like him go before the Corbyn experiment finally ends.
		
Click to expand...

...and I note that he gets an uplift in his salary from Â£71k to about Â£240k - hmmm - battle with Corbyn and Momentum or move to the V&A on 3x the money - let me think...


----------



## Paperboy (Jan 13, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			...and I note that he gets an uplift in his salary from Â£71k to about Â£240k - hmmm - battle with Corbyn and Momentum or move to the V&A on 3x the money - let me think...
		
Click to expand...

Also probably not quite as much responsibility, but a lot more stress.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 13, 2017)

delc said:



			That goes without saying!
		
Click to expand...

Then why didn't you say it


----------



## delc (Jan 14, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			Then why didn't you say it 

Click to expand...

Because I was only comparing Labour to the more minor political parties - at the moment anyway. &#128512;


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 14, 2017)

delc said:



			Because I was only comparing Labour to the more minor political parties - at the moment anyway. &#62976;
		
Click to expand...

No! You were suggesting who their disillusioned supporters would change their vote for.


----------



## delc (Jan 14, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			No! You were suggesting who their disillusioned supporters would change their vote for.
		
Click to expand...

That as well! &#128512;


----------



## Old Skier (Jan 14, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			...and I note that he gets an uplift in his salary from Â£71k to about Â£240k - hmmm - battle with Corbyn and Momentum or move to the V&A on 3x the money - let me think...
		
Click to expand...

And a very big wedge for his time as an MP.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 3, 2017)

Listening to a firm supporter of Jeremy Corbyn on LBC extoll his virtues to Shelagh Fogerty - and he doesn't get it.  

OK - the path that Jeremy Corbyn is mapping out *may *be the right path for many of centre or centre-left or left views; and that he has the full and enthusiastic support of Labour Party members.  But that matters not a jot if the electorate do not believe; trust or connect with him.  

I for one might believe in much of what he says - but I just do not connect with him at all - not at all.  And I don't think I ever will.  And this isn't about what I read or hear about him - it is not the media.  When I see and hear him speak I just do not connect with him at all.  

And because of that (exacerbated by his position on Brexit/Art50) I struggle to see me voting Labour while he is LP leader.  And that is the problem Labour have.  I have voted Labour for most of the last 30yrs - but unless something changes drastically with him I can't see me voting Labour again while he is leading.


----------



## delc (Mar 3, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Listening to a firm supporter of Jeremy Corbyn on LBC extoll his virtues to Shelagh Fogerty - and he doesn't get it.  

OK - the path that Jeremy Corbyn is mapping out *may *be the right path for many of centre or centre-left or left views; and that he has the full and enthusiastic support of Labour Party members.  But that matters not a jot if the electorate do not believe; trust or connect with him.  

I for one might believe in much of what he says - but I just do not connect with him at all - not at all.  And I don't think I ever will.  And this isn't about what I read or hear about him - it is not the media.  When I see and hear him speak I just do not connect with him at all.  

And because of that (exacerbated by his position on Brexit/Art50) I struggle to see me voting Labour while he is LP leader.  And that is the problem Labour have.  I have voted Labour for most of the last 30yrs - but unless something changes drastically with him I can't see me voting Labour again while he is leading.
		
Click to expand...

Regarding the Article 50 vote in Parliament, about 90% of all MP's supported the Remain side before the referendum, and that was no different in the Labour Party. The vast majority of the ardent Leavers were right wing Tories plus the one UKIP MP. Labour's manifesto supported staying as members of the EU, and I understand that about 56% of their voters voted Remain. That being the case Jeremy Corbyn should have either allowed his MP's to vote with their consciences or the wishes of their constituents, or as leader of HM Opposition whip them to vote against the A50 Bill. In fact he whipped to support the Bill, which is why he got so many resignations from the Shadow Cabinet. The Tories probably would have got the Bill passed anyway with their majority in Parliament, but Corbyn effectively rubber stamped it and made himself look ridiculous!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 3, 2017)

delc said:



			Regarding the Article 50 vote in Parliament, about 90% of all MP's supported the Remain side before the referendum, and that was no different in the Labour Party. The vast majority of the ardent Leavers were right wing Tories plus the one UKIP MP. Labour's manifesto supported staying as members of the EU, and I understand that about 56% of their voters voted Remain. That being the case Jeremy Corbyn should have either allowed his MP's to vote with their consciences or the wishes of their constituents, or as leader of HM Opposition whip them to vote against the A50 Bill. In fact he whipped to support the Bill, which is why he got so many resignations from the Shadow Cabinet. The Tories probably would have got the Bill passed anyway with their majority in Parliament, but Corbyn effectively rubber stamped it and made himself look ridiculous!
		
Click to expand...

Dismayed by Corbyn and Labour stance on Art50.  How can I respect an MP/leader who changes their position on such a critical matter for the country - all in the interests of short-termist self-preservation. Any MP worth their salt would have voted according to their conscience and made their case in the next GE.


----------



## Hobbit (Mar 3, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Listening to a firm supporter of Jeremy Corbyn on LBC extoll his virtues to Shelagh Fogerty - and he doesn't get it.  

OK - the path that Jeremy Corbyn is mapping out *may *be the right path for many of centre or centre-left or left views; and that he has the full and enthusiastic support of Labour Party members.  But that matters not a jot if the electorate do not believe; trust or connect with him.  

I for one might believe in much of what he says - but I just do not connect with him at all - not at all.  And I don't think I ever will.  And this isn't about what I read or hear about him - it is not the media.  When I see and hear him speak I just do not connect with him at all.  

And because of that (exacerbated by his position on Brexit/Art50) I struggle to see me voting Labour while he is LP leader.  And that is the problem Labour have.  I have voted Labour for most of the last 30yrs - but unless something changes drastically with him I can't see me voting Labour again while he is leading.
		
Click to expand...




SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Dismayed by Corbyn and Labour stance on Art50.  How can I respect an MP/leader who changes their position on such a critical matter for the country - all in the interests of short-termist self-preservation. Any MP worth their salt would have voted according to their conscience and made their case in the next GE.
		
Click to expand...

Oh no! I have to give you two likes.

I tend to vote in who and what I believe is right/trustworthy. Sometimes its been Cons(twice), most of the time its been LibDems, but there's also been a few votes gone to Labour. 

I won't be voting Labour whilst Corbyn and the far left are leading the party. I like some of what he says but I think he'll have to do so much horse trading with the far left he'll become their puppet. Its Michael Foot time all over again...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Mar 3, 2017)

I have always believed that Corbyn was the stalking horse until the new fresh guy/gal popped up a year before the election.

Trouble now is that there is no obvious guy/gal to pop up.
I thought Khan may have been the Messiah but he just lost Scotland with one stoopid sentence.


----------



## SocketRocket (Mar 3, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Dismayed by Corbyn and Labour stance on Art50.  How can I respect an MP/leader who changes their position on such a critical matter for the country - all in the interests of short-termist self-preservation. Any MP worth their salt would have voted according to their conscience and made their case in the next GE.
		
Click to expand...

He probably did vote with his conscience, Corbyn has never been a Europhile.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 20, 2017)

Corbyn ruling out a post election alliance with the SNP, silly boy.
He is now totally powerless and is going down the same road as Milliband.

Scotland also moves one step closer to Independence.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 20, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Corbyn ruling out a post election alliance with the SNP, silly boy.
He is now totally powerless and is going down the same road as Milliband.

Scotland also moves one step closer to Independence.
		
Click to expand...

If he agrees anything for post election now the opposition will use it against him, why give the narrow minded nationalists more ammunition!


----------



## gmhubble (Apr 20, 2017)

I hear that George, Geoffrey or Bungle may be free to replace Corbyn if needs be

Step up in either case


----------



## MegaSteve (Apr 20, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Corbyn ruling out a post election alliance with the SNP, silly boy.
		
Click to expand...


Whilst Salmond is still part of the SNP leadership he cannot risk Labours London seats by tying in with the SNP...


----------



## shewy (Apr 21, 2017)

I used to regard myself as a staunch Labour supporter, and while I agree with a lot of what he says there's an awful lot I don't agree with. Never going to vote conservative as any good Scot would, so where does it leave me? I recon there's millions like me undecided. I honestly can't see me voting for any of the main parties. Corbyn is electable and until that changes I won't be casting my vote for him.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Apr 21, 2017)

shewy;1682370.  Corbyn is electable and until that changes I won't be casting my vote for him.[/QUOTE said:
			
		


			Surely you mean unelectable
		
Click to expand...


----------



## shewy (Apr 21, 2017)

Haha stupid spell check


----------



## Crazyface (Apr 21, 2017)

They class "rich" as earning Â£70K plus and will tax them accordingly. Good vote winner there.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Apr 21, 2017)

Crazyface said:



			They class "rich" as earning Â£70K plus and will tax them accordingly. Good vote winner there.
		
Click to expand...

Or potentially one way of making society a little bit fairer in his view. As if all your policies are purely aimed at 'winning votes' as opposed to what you think is right then you just end up with pseudo populist policies and politicians flip flopping based purely on the whims of the latest opinion poll or headline in The Daily Mail.  And believe it or not, 70K is quite rich for a lot of the population.


----------



## Crazyface (Apr 21, 2017)

TB did alright doing this!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 21, 2017)

Â£70k is Â£43k more than the average British salary, so yea Â£70k is rich in my book.
Perhaps not average on a middle class golfers forum though.


----------



## IanM (Apr 21, 2017)

Hold up....wasn't the Left attacking  Populist Politics last summer?

Â£70k isn't a bad salary.... everyone should pay their fair share of tax ok, but 1970 politics of envy is a bit "1970s" even for Corbyn,


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Apr 21, 2017)

It is a lot but if you are single it doesn't buy much of a house nowadays. Sobering thought.


----------



## USER1999 (Apr 21, 2017)

The usual rubbish though. A couple on 60 k each escape, and a person with a stay at home partner and a couple of kids pays more tax.


----------



## Crazyface (Apr 21, 2017)

murphthemog said:



			The usual rubbish though. A couple on 60 k each escape, and a person with a stay at home partner and a couple of kids pays more tax.
		
Click to expand...

ok they maybe should revise this to a more realistic figure, say 90K. If you really think the same argument works for 90K then you spend too much.


----------



## Crazyface (Apr 21, 2017)

And the footballers? I'd tax them at 100% on all money earnt over 50K per week if they are not already.


----------



## spongebob59 (Apr 21, 2017)

At least his mate, red Len, got reelected.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 21, 2017)

spongebob59 said:



			At least his mate, red Len, got reelected.
		
Click to expand...

I quite like him since he has come out in favour of Scottish workers rights to be devolved to Scotland.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 21, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I quite like him since he has come out in favour of Scottish workers rights to be devolved to Scotland.
		
Click to expand...

Only Scotland?


----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 21, 2017)

Five of us ex Colliers were Sat at a table yesterday and a PP said " what's that all about wi TM calling an election".
Another PP said exactly what my thoughts were. The Tories shut over 200 pits since 1984, over 200thousand mining jobs were lost. Villages, now called communities have been devastated. Yet Theresa May and the Tories are more attractive than Jeremy Corbyn and his pathetic Labour Party. He went onto say that he is a Labour man through and through and for the first time ever he will not vote for Him and Labour.
There in lies a massive problem for me and it appears quite a few others. Outside of Jeremy Corbyns close friends, he is simply unelectable.
It sticks in my throat that with all the problems that the Tories have caused me throughout my adult life. They are the only ones that are prepared to fight for us in the EU and and on a world stage when it is full of crackpots. 
The sooner Labour and JC have there butts kicked and " New Labour " are reborn again after the election, we may finally have a decent opposition to fight the Tory government. If not the Torys will be in for a long long time. Especially if the Get Brexit right.
Quite frankly at this moment in time I would not trust Jeremy Corbyn to post a letter, never mind run the country.


----------



## delc (Apr 22, 2017)

Sorry, but just can't see Corbyn as a Prime Minister, in the same way as I couldn't see Ed Miliband as PM. Mind you, I also have doubts about Theresa May!


----------



## jp5 (Apr 22, 2017)

Tashyboy said:



			Villages, now called communities have been devastated. Yet Theresa May and the Tories are more attractive than Jeremy Corbyn and his pathetic Labour Party. He went onto say that he is a Labour man through and through and for the first time ever he will not vote for Him and Labour.
		
Click to expand...

I don't understand that - you've seen first hand what Tory policy does to areas like yours.

Surely the alternative has to be better?


----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 22, 2017)

jp5 said:



			I don't understand that - you've seen first hand what Tory policy does to areas like yours.

Surely the alternative has to be better?
		
Click to expand...

That is what is troubling us that we know what the Tories are capable of. I have seen things happen on this green and pleasant land ( Orgreave and other picket lines) that quite frankly where horrific. They were carried out under the orders of a previous Tory female prime minister. At the pit reunion last night it was brought up again. A comment was said that Labour is no longer for the working class, but more for the non working. Not one ex collier spoke highly of Corbyn. Don't get me wrong, I lived in Notts and the miners were split right down the middle re striking and working. There were hard core people on both sides. Some of these people danced and went to parties in Yorkshire when Maggie Thatcher died. I kid you not. But not one miner spoke well of Corbyn or the Labour Party.
We have crackpots in North Korea doin there best to get nukes and Corbyn don't want ours.
The trouble is that Labour had there chance under Mr Blair and quite frankly it was dire. The Labour Party just do not and cannot connect with the common man.
 For the first time ever I can see me not voting &#128543;


----------



## Papas1982 (Apr 22, 2017)

jp5 said:



			I don't understand that - you've seen first hand what Tory policy does to areas like yours.

Surely the alternative has to be better?
		
Click to expand...

Im not old enough to rememeber all the pits closing. But imo, most polictial parties deal with the hand they are dealt. If labour were in power when the outs were closed, I'm not convinced they'd have done any different. They may have said so at the time to gain brownie points. But by and large in my time of paying any attention to politics. All parties in power look after themselves first and foremost.

Thatcher is hated by many for her stance in regards unions (as well as other things that have come to light) but Blair was at one point massively popular and no some call him a war criminal. 

Imo, no matter the party we will still all basically get what they decide. But imo, much as I'm not overly impressed by her. I'd rather May was around a table with world leaders tha the others. Irrespective of so called policie differences between parties.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 22, 2017)

jp5 said:



			I don't understand that - you've seen first hand what Tory policy does to areas like yours.

*Surely the alternative has to be better?*

Click to expand...

Bankrupt Country, High Taxes, High unemployment, Nanny State, anti business, Union domination of politics.  Oh yes! I'm sure that would be better.


----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 22, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			Bankrupt Country, High Taxes, High unemployment, Nanny State, anti business, Union domination of politics.  Oh yes! I'm sure that would be better.
		
Click to expand...

I have always classed myself as a floating voter. Sitting on a fence looking at both sides. Worst that happens is you get splinters in yer ass. Over the years I have seen some Rammel Labour leaders, Foot, Kinnock, Blair and this prat that is in now. In that time I have seen John Smith who unfortunately had an Heart attack and passed away before his time. He for me was the man, the man that could of changed politics for Labour in the same way that Tony Blair should of done.
Jeremy Corbyn and his deluded followers are turning me off politics.

Without sounding condescending,  I voted for Brexit. I asked the question what the EU does for me. It could of saved my job but it didn't so for me it was easy. I would love to know what Jeremy Corbyn and his Party would try to do for me because I am not seeing it.


----------



## MegaSteve (Apr 22, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			Bankrupt Country, High Taxes, High unemployment, Nanny State, anti business, Union domination of politics.  Oh yes! I'm sure that would be better.
		
Click to expand...


Think you'll find we are pretty well bankrupt already...

Too many tax concessions to the already rich and big business methinks...


----------



## MegaSteve (Apr 22, 2017)

Tashyboy said:



			Jeremy Corbyn and his deluded followers...
		
Click to expand...


I quite like the state of being deluded...

Beats, hands down, the feeling of being reamed out by the tories any day of the week...


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 22, 2017)

MegaSteve said:



			I quite like the state of being deluded...

Beats, hands down, the feeling of being reamed out by the tories any day of the week...
		
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, and I'm not sure where I'm going with this, just how have the Tories reamed you? Have they increased your taxes? Have they been in office during a high period of inflation driven by a spending policy, with food prices etc going through the roof?

I feel the stereotyping of any of the major parties should be consigned to the dustbin.

Are Labour a party for the working man? Are they a party that sees nothing wrong with a life on benefits being a life style choice?

There's a whole heap of things wrong with the Tories philosophy of trickle down economics, but I'd rather that than the choices Labour offer.


----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 22, 2017)

MegaSteve said:



			I quite like the state of being reamed out by the tories any day, ok
		
Click to expand...

Thats what can happen when you pick one sentance out and twist it. Hope you like being reamed out steve.

For those that did not quite get it I said JC and his deluded followers are turning me off politics.
I did also ask what JC and the Labour Party could do for me. but if you would sooner be deluded, than respond to my question that's your choice


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 22, 2017)

MegaSteve said:



			I quite like the state of being deluded...

Beats, hands down, the feeling of being reamed out by the tories any day of the week...
		
Click to expand...

Engineering considers 'Reaming' to be the action of converting a rough surface into a precision high quality one.   In that respect then I am quite happy to have been 'Reamed' by the Tories.  Labour are better at converting high quality into, (now what would Tash call it ?)  Rammel, that's it Rammel


----------



## ScienceBoy (Apr 23, 2017)

Raising the number of bank holidays may get votes but it won't benefit the country.

In this modern age we need flexible time out of work, not ones decided for us.

The only ones who would benefit are those paid double to work those days.


----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 23, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			Engineering considers 'Reaming' to be the action of converting a rough surface into a precision high quality one.   In that respect then I am quite happy to have been 'Reamed' by the Tories.  Labour are better at converting high quality into, (now what would Tash call it ?)  Rammel, that's it Rammel 

Click to expand...

Off to Wembley in five mins and that has put a right smile on me face &#128513;


----------



## Old Skier (Apr 23, 2017)

The man now backs away from his "fixed election" statement. Loves his sound bites.


----------



## User62651 (Apr 23, 2017)

ScienceBoy said:



			Raising the number of bank holidays may get votes but it won't benefit the country.

In this modern age we need flexible time out of work, not ones decided for us.

The only ones who would benefit are those paid double to work those days.
		
Click to expand...

It is a cheap vote winner but a lot of companies, mine included, these days give you the public holidays as part of your overall annual leave, up to you if you take them on the actual public hol days or use them when you want. I'd love a few more holidays, still think the work/life balance here is wrong. Happy workers are more productive workers.:thup:


----------



## Old Skier (Apr 23, 2017)

It's about time political commentators stop interviews with ALL politicians who refuse to answer the question put to them.


----------



## jp5 (Apr 23, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			Bankrupt Country, High Taxes, High unemployment, Nanny State, anti business, Union domination of politics.  Oh yes! I'm sure that would be better.
		
Click to expand...

The country is already bankrupt, what are we - Â£1.8 TRILLION in debt? Has rocketed during the Tory years despite the austerity cuts. Perhaps it's not the right way to go about things.

Higher taxes? The Tories have confirmed they will raise them anyway.

Higher unemployment? The Tories have done well to stretch the definition of employment. Take away those underemployed, those on zero hour contacts and those on tax credits and it would look rather different!

A Nanny State? Think we've got that one already!

Don't think asking businesses to pay their fair share of tax is "anti-business".

Don't think unions will ever dominate politics as they have in the past - the demographic is simply no longer there.

Don't have any allegiance with any of the parties particularly, but am concerned the damage to our society that May's wing of the Conservatives would cause over five years.

Seems like people are forgetting that - it's not just a re-run of the Brexit referendum, but a fully-fledged GE that will dictate the direction of the country for the next half a decade. Or perhaps just for a year or two before they feel like having another one.


----------



## delc (Apr 23, 2017)

jp5 said:



			The country is already bankrupt, what are we - Â£1.8 TRILLION in debt? Has rocketed during the Tory years despite the austerity cuts. Perhaps it's not the right way to go about things.

Higher taxes? The Tories have confirmed they will raise them anyway.

Higher unemployment? The Tories have done well to stretch the definition of employment. Take away those underemployed, those on zero hour contacts and those on tax credits and it would look rather different!

A Nanny State? Think we've got that one already!

Don't think asking businesses to pay their fair share of tax is "anti-business".

Don't think unions will ever dominate politics as they have in the past - the demographic is simply no longer there.

Don't have any allegiance with any of the parties particularly, but am concerned the damage to our society that May's wing of the Conservatives would cause over five years.

Seems like people are forgetting that - it's not just a re-run of the Brexit referendum, but a fully-fledged GE that will dictate the direction of the country for the next half a decade. Or perhaps just for a year or two before they feel like having another one.
		
Click to expand...

Don't forget sending 50% of our young people to study useless degrees at Universities and getting them massively into debt as another way of massaging the unemployment figures!


----------



## jp5 (Apr 23, 2017)

delc said:



			Don't forget sending 50% of our young people to study useless degrees at Universities and getting them massively into debt as another way of massaging the unemployment figures!
		
Click to expand...

Aye, all parties have failed on that one.

Labour's initiative to get half of people in University.

Then the Tories + LD to hit them with Â£50k of debt on graduation, accruing interest at Â£3k a year at the moment! Need to earn Â£55k just to keep up with the interest at the moment. 

Someone needs to put a stop to that before it spirals out of control.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 23, 2017)

jp5 said:



			Aye, all parties have failed on that one.

Labour's initiative to get half of people in University.

Then the Tories + LD to hit them with Â£50k of debt on graduation, accruing interest at Â£3k a year at the moment! Need to earn Â£55k just to keep up with the interest at the moment. 

Someone needs to put a stop to that before it spirals out of control.
		
Click to expand...

So who should be paying this money then?


----------



## jp5 (Apr 23, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			So who should be paying this money then?
		
Click to expand...

Personally I'd favour reducing University places, increasing vocational training, and bringing it all under general taxation.


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 23, 2017)

jp5 said:



			Personally I'd favour reducing University places, increasing vocational training, and bringing it all under general taxation.
		
Click to expand...

I'll vote for that!!

I benefited from a number of courses, inc. residential, all paid for by the state. There were City & Guilds, BTEC ONC & HNC - the degree was paid for by my employer. If the country could afford it once upon a time, why can't a version of that be available now? Why can't my tax dollars, increased if needs be, fund better education and the NHS?

Many of those in higher positions now were funded FOC, and its embarrassing to get into a conversation with a youngster and hear how they are struggling.


----------



## Old Skier (Apr 23, 2017)

jp5 said:



			Personally I'd favour reducing University places, increasing vocational training, and bringing it all under general taxation.
		
Click to expand...

Good idea however I find it very strange that there are many high end degrees like engineering that have sponsored offered places that today's students don't want to take up. So many just seem to want the "University " experience and don't seem to take the debt into consideration.


----------



## shewy (Apr 23, 2017)

there's too many mickey mouse degree's these days, need to get back to basics, I'm all for education but tbh some of the people getting into uni these days wouldn't have got in a few years back, they would have had to go to tech college and become a tradesman, possibly why a good tradesman are like hens teeth.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 23, 2017)

jp5 said:



			Personally I'd favour reducing University places, increasing vocational training, and bringing it all under general taxation.
		
Click to expand...

I can go with that.  The problem with funding started when many Polytechnics were given University status and a target made where 50% of young people should go to University.   This created an obvious funding problem, where exactly should the money come from. Should working people have to subsidise people further than they do already or should the Undergraduate pay part of their costs themselves. Lets not forget that tuition fees are a small part of the cost and the rest is still paid by the tax payer.

I would support assisted tuition fee funding for certain degree courses but not all.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 24, 2017)

Getting back on topic a good read from Craig Murray

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/04/the-corbyn-conundrum/

IMO he is basically saying that many folk in England are struggling to find a party to support.


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 24, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Getting back on topic a good read from Craig Murray

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/04/the-corbyn-conundrum/

IMO he is basically saying that many folk in England are struggling to find a party to support.
		
Click to expand...

I feel the article started well but then fell into the very thing he was decrying, i.e. how the media is opinion driven rather than seeking the truth.

And then he goes on an attack on Marr's ability to question May with the same ferocity. I think Marr did an excellent job on May 6-8 weeks back in exposing her inability to be truthful.

However, I do feel he is right when he says there's no credible opposition in England, and it does seriously need one. Equally, even with proportional representation in Scotland, is there really a credible opposition north of the border?

Corbyn's past is littered with examples that scare the general electorate, and the opposition to Labour quite rightly highlight those. Dealings with Hamas and Hezbollah aren't the ideal people to have on your CV, especially at the time when he was running contrary to British foreign policy.

I'll be honest, I'd like to vote for a New Labour style party, but the current version is old Labour with strong links to the far left. The thought of the triumvirate of Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott scare the hell out of me, and until that changes they won't get my vote.


----------



## Old Skier (Apr 24, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Getting back on topic a good read from Craig Murray

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/04/the-corbyn-conundrum/

IMO he is basically saying that many folk in England are struggling to find a party to support.
		
Click to expand...

Army Navy Twickenham this weekend. No problem supporting that party.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 24, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Getting back on topic a good read from Craig Murray

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/04/the-corbyn-conundrum/

*IMO he is basically saying that many folk in England are struggling to find a party to support*.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for telling us that, we would never have known.

When did Trotskyites  get swapped for the term 'Progressive'?


----------



## Tashyboy (May 26, 2017)

I see Jez has made a comment re this country and terrorism.

Strange thing is that him having a chance of being primeminister worries me more than any terrorist.


----------



## Old Skier (May 26, 2017)

Tashyboy said:



			I see Jez has made a comment re this country and terrorism.

Strange thing is that him having a chance of being primeminister worries me more than any terrorist.
		
Click to expand...

Fair do's. he has first hand knowledge of terrorists.


----------



## IanM (May 26, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			Thanks for telling us that, we would never have known.

When did Trotskyites  get swapped for the term 'Progressive'?
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely.  I love it when these folk tell me what I am thinking....


----------



## Old Skier (May 26, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			.....and someone who played a significant part in a peaceful resolution to the NI 'Troubles'.
		
Click to expand...

Absolute tosh. An active member of troops out. Nothing to do with any peace process.  And a very minor thorn in the side of those trying to negotiate peace.


----------



## Hobbit (May 26, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			.....and someone who played a significant part in a peaceful resolution to the NI 'Troubles'.
		
Click to expand...

Mo Mowlem! 

Perhaps one of the greatest politicians to ever grace Westminster, sadly taken too soon.

Jeremy Who? Oh, that tosser! Instrumental in wrecking a great party.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (May 26, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			Mo Mowlem! 

Perhaps one of the greatest politicians to ever grace Westminster, sadly taken too soon.

Jeremy Who? Oh, that tosser! Instrumental in wrecking a great party.
		
Click to expand...

That would be the party who have a record number of members.:lol:


----------



## Old Skier (May 26, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			That would be the party who have a record number of members.:lol:
		
Click to expand...

Most in a demographic age group unlikely to vote.


----------



## Old Skier (May 26, 2017)

Jeeza finally admits he never had anything to do with the peace process.


----------



## Hobbit (May 26, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			That would be the party who have a record number of members.:lol:
		
Click to expand...

Don't be anymore obtuse than you already are, its becoming decidedly wearing. Record numbers? Yeh, that'll get them elected with a massive majority won't it? Even by narrowing the gap as you've pointed out as some sort of hallelujah moment is still going to see them in opposition. 

The stats for popularity between Corbyn and May haven't changed at all.


----------



## User62651 (May 26, 2017)

Currently getting a roasting off Andrew Neill on bbc1 but staying cool under pressure and answering *all *questions put, not deflecting any, calm and assured, unflustered, not like his primary opponent! Just saying!


----------



## Hobbit (May 26, 2017)

maxfli65 said:



			Currently getting a roasting off Andrew Neill on bbc1 but staying cool under pressure and answering *all *questions put, not deflecting any, calm and assured, unflustered, not like his primary opponent! Just saying!

Click to expand...

Hardly gave a straight answer all the way through. How many times did Andrew Neil ask him what his position was on nuclear weapons and trident? How many times did he ask him why he refused to condemn the IRA? And why had he said 'we' should honour the IRA dead?

His answer to the first one above, repeatedly was to refer to Labour's position. He didn't answer the second two, preferring to generalise along the lines of wanting peace. Everyone wants peace... it was trite at best.

Were you watching it with the sound off?


----------



## Old Skier (May 26, 2017)

maxfli65 said:



			Currently getting a roasting off Andrew Neill on bbc1 but staying cool under pressure and answering *all *questions put, not deflecting any, calm and assured, unflustered, not like his primary opponent! Just saying!

Click to expand...

Must have watched the substitute one. Bugger.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (May 27, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			Hardly gave a straight answer all the way through. How many times did Andrew Neil ask him what his position was on nuclear weapons and trident? How many times did he ask him why he refused to condemn the IRA? And why had he said 'we' should honour the IRA dead?

His answer to the first one above, repeatedly was to refer to Labour's position. He didn't answer the second two, preferring to generalise along the lines of wanting peace. Everyone wants peace... it was trite at best.

Were you watching it with the sound off?
		
Click to expand...

He never said honour the IRA dead......he said all of the people [on both sides] killed in the 'Troubles'.
Of course many anti Jeremey souls interpreted that as supporting the IRA dead.


----------



## Hobbit (May 27, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			He never said honour the IRA dead......he said all of the people [on both sides] killed in the 'Troubles'.
Of course many anti Jeremey souls interpreted that as supporting the IRA dead.
		
Click to expand...

You need to get your facts right. To quote CORBYN, when he stood at the Wolfe Tone society meeting in May 1987, "I am happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for Irish independence." His words.

Have you got any flimsy defence for that, or did he "misspoke?"


----------



## Old Skier (May 27, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			You need to get your facts right. To quote CORBYN, when he stood at the Wolfe Tone society meeting in May 1987, "I am happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for Irish independence." His words.

Have you got any flimsy defence for that, or did he "misspoke?"
		
Click to expand...

The guy has no idea of what was going on and continues to post in the hope he catches a bite.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (May 27, 2017)

30 years ago. Well done.
Some of us have moved on.

Adams and McGuiness were elected UK MP's and have shaken the Queens hand.


----------



## Hobbit (May 27, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			30 years ago. Well done.
Some of us have moved on.

Adams and McGuiness were elected UK MP's and have shaken the Queens hand.
		
Click to expand...

And when asked several times yesterday by Andrew Neil he still wouldn't condemn the IRA. Obviously Corbyn hasn't moved on.

You only have to go back 3 years to read about his links to Hamas, and the Â£thousands in gifts given to him for his support. You only have to go back 2 years to see he was working with Interpal, Hamas's funding organisation, who also publish anti-Semitism.

Next month he's scheduled to speak at a MEMO meeting, an organisation he's had numerous dealings with and received money from. The 2 leaders of MEMO are also senior figures in Hamas.

If you think Corbyn is a safe pair of hands you are sadly deluded.

I'll vote Labour again when Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott are gone, not before.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (May 27, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			And when asked several times yesterday by Andrew Neil he still wouldn't condemn the IRA. Obviously Corbyn hasn't moved on.

You only have to go back 3 years to read about his links to Hamas, and the Â£thousands in gifts given to him for his support. You only have to go back 2 years to see he was working with Interpal, Hamas's funding organisation, who also publish anti-Semitism.

Next month he's scheduled to speak at a MEMO meeting, an organisation he's had numerous dealings with and received money from. The 2 leaders of MEMO are also senior figures in Hamas.

If you think Corbyn is a safe pair of hands you are sadly deluded.

I'll vote Labour again when Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott are gone, not before.
		
Click to expand...

Did I completely make it up, or did he not unequivocally condemn both sides of the Troubles? How do you reconcile that with not condemning one of them?


----------



## Fish (May 27, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			30 years ago. Well done.
Some of us have moved on.

Adams and McGuiness were elected UK MP's and have shaken the Queens hand.
		
Click to expand...

Your so full of crap it begs belief.


----------



## FairwayDodger (May 27, 2017)

I think some on both sides are determined only to hear what they want to hear.

For my part, what he's saying now seems fairly reasonable. I have no recollection of what he may have said or done 30-odd years ago but I keep an open mind. There are lots of allegations flying around here I guess there might be some basis of truth in some of them. Others are clearly being twisted to suit an agenda.

I'm not a fan, I wish he wasn't the labour leader as I think he hurts their chances but that alone wouldn't influence my vote.


----------



## Old Skier (May 27, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			I think some on both sides are determined only to hear what they want to hear.

For my part, what he's saying now seems fairly reasonable. I have no recollection of what he may have said or done 30-odd years ago but I keep an open mind. There are lots of allegations flying around here I guess there might be some basis of truth in some of them. Others are clearly being twisted to suit an agenda.

I'm not a fan, I wish he wasn't the labour leader as I think he hurts their chances but that alone wouldn't influence my vote.
		
Click to expand...

His statement to the BBC was a clear indication that he felt SF were fair game in NI. First he tried to cover his talks with the IRA by suggesting he was involved in the peace process, then he claimed he never met with the IRA which was contradicted by Abbot in less than 2 hours.

His pure hatred of those that Parliament sent to try and maintain the rule of law beggars belief.

Perhaps one or two of us on here may seem to be abit OTT when this mans name pops up but I can assure you, I, and the others, may have good reason to.

Untill Labour Party kick this man out of the party I and many who I know will never vote for them again.


----------



## Old Skier (May 27, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Adams and McGuiness were elected UK MP's and have shaken the Queens hand.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunatly if you look back over time she has had to shake hands with many undesirables. I suspect history, like geography isn't one of your strong points.


----------



## Hobbit (May 27, 2017)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Did I completely make it up, or did he not unequivocally condemn both sides of the Troubles? How do you reconcile that with not condemning one of them?
		
Click to expand...

He didn't condemn them, he said "I didn't support them." He also said he didn't meet with the IRA yet there is a long list of IRA members he met, including taking one of them(McLachlin?) into the HoC 2 weeks after the Brighton bombing. 

That list was quoted to Diane Abbott earlier today in a radio interview. During that interview Abbott was asked why she, Corbyn and McDonnell refused to back a Bill outlawing Al Quaeda as they rose to power. That showed great judgement didn't it?

He also said in the Andrew Neil interview that he hasn't changed his mind on NATO being a Frankenstein. With a shrinking defence force he wants to alienate NATO? He did say if NATO were called to arms he might not support it. 

He's soft on national security and he's an apologist for terror organisations.


----------



## FairwayDodger (May 27, 2017)

Old Skier said:



			His statement to the BBC was a clear indication that he felt SF were fair game in NI. First he tried to cover his talks with the IRA by suggesting he was involved in the peace process, then he claimed he never met with the IRA which was contradicted by Abbot in less than 2 hours.

His pure hatred of those that Parliament sent to try and maintain the rule of law beggars belief.

Perhaps one or two of us on here may seem to be abit OTT when this mans name pops up but I can assure you, I, and the others, may have good reason to.

Untill Labour Party kick this man out of the party I and many who I know will never vote for them again.
		
Click to expand...

Problem is you and the others make no bones about how much you hate him, you cite numerous incidents but you have an agenda so a neutral reader can't take anything you say on the subject at face value. I'm not saying "show us a link" but I'd be interested in reading more about those times from a reliable source.


----------



## Hobbit (May 27, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			Problem is you and the others make no bones about how much you hate him, you cite numerous incidents but you have an agenda so a neutral reader can't take anything you say on the subject at face value. I'm not saying "show us a link" but I'd be interested in reading more about those times from a reliable source.
		
Click to expand...

I don't hate him. I like his passion and, at times his honesty, albeit backhanded by refusing deny comments he made in the past. However, I very definitely don't like his far left politics.

Bring back David Milliband and Andy Burnham et al, and I'll vote Labour every day and twice on Sunday.


----------



## User62651 (May 27, 2017)

For me whatever Corbyn has or hasnt done or said or not said in the past wrt British Imperialsim and his view of not liking it, they are or were his views, as we all know it has been a very divisive issue. Bottom line is May is going to win on 8th June but a strong opposition is more important than ever given the ineptitude and far right views of this leader and government so Corbyn has to get seats for Labour, the smaller May's majority the better for some temperance to the worst of Tory extremities. As long as cocky May's wings are clipped and Brexit is given the full parliamentary examination and consideration it needs as the process goes forward then that's a good thing. Giving May a free hand moving forward would be a terrible thing........... weak and wobbly etc etc


----------



## Old Skier (May 27, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			Problem is you and the others make no bones about how much you hate him, you cite numerous incidents but you have an agenda so a neutral reader can't take anything you say on the subject at face value. I'm not saying "show us a link" but I'd be interested in reading more about those times from a reliable source.
		
Click to expand...

The man has lied, I may have an agenda but you would have heard his lies on Andrew Neil when he changed his story about only meeting those in the IRA to forward the peace process to "I've never met with the IRA"   His contempt for those SF that went to NI is currently available on the BBC site and the Abbot interview is available on the tinternet.

So yes I have a personal agenda but all of his flip flopping is available to anyone who genuinly is interested on the BBC and genuine sites. You never know, our blogger might put it on his wings site.


----------



## Hobbit (May 27, 2017)

maxfli65 said:



			For me whatever Corbyn has or hasnt done or said or not said in the past wrt British Imperialsim and his view of not liking it, they are or were his views, as we all know it has been a very divisive issue. Bottom line is May is going to win on 8th June but a strong opposition is more important than ever given the ineptitude and far right views of this leader and government so Corbyn has to get seats for Labour, the smaller May's majority the better for some temperance to the worst of Tory extremities. As long as cocky May's wings are clipped and Brexit is given the full parliamentary examination and consideration it needs as the process goes forward then that's a good thing. Giving May a free hand moving forward would be a terrible thing........... weak and wobbly etc etc
		
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of that but having Corbyn as leader of the opposition just helps the Tories. Nicola Sturgeon is a more accomplished politician than Corbyn, and she'd definitely not on my Christmas card list.

There are any number of quotes from the current top 3 in Labour that send shivers down my spine. Enough to get a really good feel for how they will direct a Cabinet.


----------



## User62651 (May 27, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			I don't disagree with any of that but having Corbyn as leader of the opposition just helps the Tories. Nicola Sturgeon is a more accomplished politician than Corbyn, and she'd definitely not on my Christmas card list.

There are any number of quotes from the current top 3 in Labour that send shivers down my spine. Enough to get a really good feel for how they will direct a Cabinet.
		
Click to expand...

I agree leadership on all sides isn't great at the mo hence need some balance at least.
Re Corbyn for whatever reason he has handsomely won 2 labour leadership processes knocking out guys like Burnham with ease, to be frank from being a figure of almost ridicule he has risen above it, been a breath of fresh air in many ways and come out with a decent manifesto. He has a common touch that many have warmed to, even if they secretly think he's a bit of a liability, but disdain for May is so high (she's got the Thatchers about her) with a lot of people they will look past his faults I think.

I feel we're all coming together on here:clap:


----------



## SocketRocket (May 27, 2017)

maxfli65 said:



			I agree leadership on all sides isn't great at the mo hence need some balance at least.
Re Corbyn for whatever reason he has handsomely won 2 labour leadership processes knocking out guys like Burnham with ease, to be frank from being a figure of almost ridicule he has risen above it, been a breath of fresh air in many ways and come out with a decent manifesto. He has a common touch that many have warmed to, even if they secretly think he's a bit of a liability, but disdain for May is so high (she's got the Thatchers about her) with a lot of people they will look past his faults I think.

I feel we're all coming together on here:clap:
		
Click to expand...

Glad you are seeing the light :thup:


----------



## Hobbit (May 27, 2017)

maxfli65 said:



			I agree leadership on all sides isn't great at the mo hence need some balance at least.
Re Corbyn for whatever reason he has handsomely won 2 labour leadership processes knocking out guys like Burnham with ease, to be frank from being a figure of almost ridicule he has risen above it, been a breath of fresh air in many ways and come out with a decent manifesto. He has a common touch that many have warmed to, even if they secretly think he's a bit of a liability, but disdain for May is so high (she's got the Thatchers about her) with a lot of people they will look past his faults I think.

I feel we're all coming together on here:clap:
		
Click to expand...

But in terms of credibility as a leader May is still way out in front on 55%, with Corbyn miles away he's not even in the same street.

Everyone makes a big thing about Labour's membership being at an all time high of 520,000. The Tories is only 150,000 yet they're miles ahead in the polls. That clearly suggests that having a large % of the membership voting for him hides the fact he's unelectable as a PM.


----------



## larmen (May 27, 2017)

In 2005 a certain Angela Merkel seemed very unelectible in Germany. And even after the general election, when Schroeder lost the election against her, he said that she will never be chancellor of Germany. So why not Corbyn as well.


----------



## FairwayDodger (May 27, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			But in terms of credibility as a leader May is still way out in front on 55%, with Corbyn miles away he's not even in the same street.

Everyone makes a big thing about Labour's membership being at an all time high of 520,000. The Tories is only 150,000 yet they're miles ahead in the polls. That clearly suggests that having a large % of the membership voting for him hides the fact he's unelectable as a PM.
		
Click to expand...

I disagree. When she called the election, despicable policies aside, I thought May was a much better potential pm than Corbyn and it was the work of an evil genius that would bury the Labour Party for years. Instead she's been revealed as unprincipled, inept and incapable. For all his faults JC now seems much better option than her. A complete own goal on her part.


----------



## SocketRocket (May 28, 2017)

He will crucify Labour in the election.  When people stand with their pencil poised they will turn away from Labour in their drones.   Will Labour learn the lesson, I think they will have to ditch him pretty quick after.


----------



## FairwayDodger (May 28, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			He will crucify Labour in the election.  When people stand with their pencil poised they will turn away from Labour in their drones.   Will Labour learn the lesson, I think they will have to ditch him pretty quick after.
		
Click to expand...

Funny as it would be for TM to end up with a smaller majority it could be the worst thing for labour in the long run if it means JC is able to hang on. Trouble is I'm not sure he would walk away even after a big defeat.


----------



## Foxholer (May 28, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			Funny as it would be for TM to end up with a smaller majority it could be the worst thing for labour in the long run if it means JC is able to hang on. Trouble is I'm not sure he would walk away even after a big defeat.
		
Click to expand...

To me, Labour's JC problem is that their (520k+) members don't see things the same way as the Parliamentary arm - and in their attempt to make themselves 'more democratic' they made themselves unelectable!

JC certainly seems to reflect the 'better society' views/hopes/aspirations of party members. But, like it or not,  UK politics is very 'presidential', where it's The Leader that is the focus of comparison. JC *seems* very much a weaker choice for anyone in that huge 'uncommitted' area! I'm sure he's just as capable as May, but UK seems to want far more pushy leaders - at least up to a point! Labour's parliamentary wing know this, but are, at least currently, impotent to change the rules!

That's not to say May is actually any good either! It seems to me that her attitude is too far the other way! 

Still, I believe she'll get 'her' increased majority - and the Brexit process will be smoother because of it!


----------



## FairwayDodger (May 28, 2017)

The main thing we've learned over the last few weeks is that May has flattered to deceive and is certainly not capable of providing the strong and stable leadership of which she so oft boasts.


----------



## SocketRocket (May 28, 2017)

Foxholer said:



			To me, Labour's JC problem is that their (520k+) members don't see things the same way as the Parliamentary arm - and in their attempt to make themselves 'more democratic' they made themselves unelectable!

JC certainly seems to reflect the 'better society' views/hopes/aspirations of party members. But, like it or not,  UK politics is very 'presidential', where it's The Leader that is the focus of comparison. JC *seems* very much a weaker choice for anyone in that huge 'uncommitted' area! I'm sure he's just as capable as May, but UK seems to want far more pushy leaders - at least up to a point! Labour's parliamentary wing know this, but are, at least currently, impotent to change the rules!

That's not to say May is actually any good either! It seems to me that her attitude is too far the other way! 

Still, I believe she'll get 'her' increased majority - and the Brexit process will be smoother because of it!
		
Click to expand...

I agree with that


----------



## Hobbit (May 28, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			The main thing we've learned over the last few weeks is that May has flattered to deceive and is certainly not capable of providing the strong and stable leadership of which she so oft boasts.
		
Click to expand...

I'm neither sure I agree nor disagree with that. More worrying, for me, is that behind May is a large political organisation that should run as a well oiled machine, including creating a manifesto that would not cause the furore we've seen in the last 2 weeks. To produce something so out of touch with the electorate is just plain ignorant, and maybe arrogant.

Is it that the country is in that much of a mess that it needs a radically painful manifesto? That would suggest that 7 years of Tory governance hasn't worked. But we could go back to a (Labour) party that would bankrupt the country again...

What a sad choice, a Tory party that has no real comforting answer for the social needs of the electorate, or a Labour party that WILL turn the UK economy into a pale shadow of the Greek economy. 

At least I now get the opportunity to vote SNP, and independence.


----------



## Kellfire (May 28, 2017)

Well I've sent my postal vote in and I've gone for labour. I'm in a heavily Tory constituency so it'll be irrelevant but labour have my support.


----------



## shagster (May 28, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			I'm neither sure I agree nor disagree with that. More worrying, for me, is that behind May is a large political organisation that should run as a well oiled machine, including creating a manifesto that would not cause the furore we've seen in the last 2 weeks. To produce something so out of touch with the electorate is just plain ignorant, and maybe arrogant.

Is it that the country is in that much of a mess that it needs a radically painful manifesto? That would suggest that 7 years of Tory governance hasn't worked. But we could go back to a (Labour) party that would bankrupt the country again...

What a sad choice, a Tory party that has no real comforting answer for the social needs of the electorate, or a Labour party that WILL turn the UK economy into a pale shadow of the Greek economy. 

At least I now get the opportunity to vote SNP, and independence.

Click to expand...

how will labour bankrupt us
the tories have doubled the debt in 7 years of failure
the labour party were in power in the worse recession we have faced, and the tories took over when the economy had bottomed out and was just starting to rise
in 7 years they have achieved one thing and that is more and more debt, their policies have not worked and as for mays leadership, well its a joke, most probably only slightly better than boris would have been but that would have been below the barrel


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 28, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			I disagree. When she called the election, despicable policies aside, I thought May was a much better potential pm than Corbyn and it was the work of an evil genius that would bury the Labour Party for years. Instead she's been revealed as unprincipled, inept and incapable. For all his faults JC now seems much better option than her. A complete own goal on her part.
		
Click to expand...

I have stated that I am no fan of Corbyn and also that I had hopes for May when she was elected Tory Party leader and became PM.  I am still thinking Corbyn remains a significant a liability with many of the electorate - but as his stock has risen with me over the last few weeks so May's has plummeted.  See appears to frankly be rather hopeless.   Strong & Stable heading rapidly towards Weak & Wobbly.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (May 28, 2017)

My vote has gone in today, I voted for the party who seemed least concerned about Scottish Independence.


----------



## FairwayDodger (May 28, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			My vote has gone in today, I voted for the party who seemed least concerned about Scottish Independence.
		
Click to expand...

And you are as disingenuous about it as they are!


----------



## Old Skier (May 28, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			My vote has gone in today, I voted for the party who seemed least concerned about Scottish Independence.
		
Click to expand...

UKIP then


----------



## GG26 (May 29, 2017)

shagster said:



			how will labour bankrupt us
the tories have doubled the debt in 7 years of failure
the labour party were in power in the worse recession we have faced, and the tories took over when the economy had bottomed out and was just starting to rise
in 7 years they have achieved one thing and that is more and more debt, their policies have not worked and as for mays leadership, well its a joke, most probably only slightly better than boris would have been but that would have been below the barrel
		
Click to expand...

Of course the debt has doubled.  Down to the fiscal incompetence of Gordon 'no more boom and bust' Brown, who left the country's finances in an absolutely shocking state.  The coalition and Tory cuts have simply tried to slow the rate at which this debt is growing.  Under Labour the debt would now be significantly greater.   

Most us us probably believe that the cuts have gone further than we would like, but how else are they going to get the finances under control?  It a difficult balancing act.  Unfortunately Labour just want to spend more money that we haven't got.  Jam today and let the future generations pay for it.


----------



## Hobbit (May 29, 2017)

shagster said:



			how will labour bankrupt us
the tories have doubled the debt in 7 years of failure
the labour party were in power in the worse recession we have faced, and the tories took over when the economy had bottomed out and was just starting to rise
in 7 years they have achieved one thing and that is more and more debt, their policies have not worked and as for mays leadership, well its a joke, most probably only slightly better than boris would have been but that would have been below the barrel
		
Click to expand...

When the Tories took over the debt was growing at Â£157bn a year. They've reduced that growth in debt to Â£53bn a year.

If the UK had carried on spending at the then Labour levels it would be at over Â£2.8trillion, not the current level of Â£1.7trillion.

Under Labour the UK had a greater level of borrowing than Greece, but with a better GDP. And due to inheriting that level of spending the UK lost its triple A credit rating, making borrowing even more expensive.

Like a supertanker, turning that around was difficult. Was the level of austerity imposed the right thing to do? Not for me but it would have been a far greater mess if it had stayed under Labour.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jun 6, 2017)

I started this thread in June 2015...........it might be interesting for some posters to flip back to their original posts to see if the may have either changed their minds of called it totally wrong.

Now thought that Corbyn will gather more votes than either Blair, Brown or Milliband in the last three elections


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 6, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			I don't disagree with any of that but having Corbyn as leader of the opposition just helps the Tories. Nicola Sturgeon is a more accomplished politician than Corbyn, and she'd definitely not on my Christmas card list.

There are any number of quotes from the current top 3 in Labour that send shivers down my spine. Enough to get a really good feel for how they will direct a Cabinet.
		
Click to expand...

But on Brexit I would absolutely trust Sir Keir Starmer - more so than any of Dave Davies, Boris Johnson or Dr Fox (where's he gone?)


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 6, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			I disagree. When she called the election, despicable policies aside, I thought May was a much better potential pm than Corbyn and it was the work of an evil genius that would bury the Labour Party for years. Instead she's been revealed as unprincipled, inept and incapable. For all his faults JC now seems much better option than her. A complete own goal on her part.
		
Click to expand...

I am with you 100% on this - from where they started to where they are now.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 6, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			I'm neither sure I agree nor disagree with that. More worrying, for me, is that behind May is a large political organisation that should run as a well oiled machine, including creating a manifesto that would not cause the furore we've seen in the last 2 weeks. To produce something so out of touch with the electorate is just plain ignorant, and maybe arrogant.

Is it that the country is in that much of a mess that it needs a radically painful manifesto? That would suggest that 7 years of Tory governance hasn't worked. But we could go back to a (Labour) party that would bankrupt the country again...

What a sad choice, a Tory party that has no real comforting answer for the social needs of the electorate, or a Labour party that WILL turn the UK economy into a pale shadow of the Greek economy. 

At least I now get the opportunity to vote SNP, and independence.

Click to expand...

With a National Debt of Â£1300Bn cf Â£700Bn when the Tories came to power with the LibDems the Tories haven't exactly managed to get the country in the greatest of health themsleves.

And it wasn't Gordie wot caused it - in fact I have heard it said that it was the measures that he took that prevented a total collapse of the banks - and perhaps even the economy - in 2008


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 6, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			But on Brexit I would absolutely trust Sir Keir Starmer - more so than any of Dave Davies, Boris Johnson or Dr Fox (where's he gone?)
		
Click to expand...

What I cant understand is what he is doing hanging around with Corbyn and his mates, he seems a Normal Person.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 6, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			What I cant understand is what he is doing hanging around with Corbyn and his mates, he seems a Normal Person.
		
Click to expand...

True - but on your Normal Person comment I'm struggling with that on the Tory front...

Amber Rudd comes to mind...after that


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jun 6, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			True - but on your Normal Person comment I'm struggling with that on the Tory front...

Amber Rudd comes to mind...after that
		
Click to expand...

She always seems to be in a state of permanent rage to me..........similar to a couple of posters I could name on here


----------



## Hobbit (Jun 6, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			With a National Debt of Â£1300Bn cf Â£700Bn when the Tories came to power with the LibDems the Tories haven't exactly managed to get the country in the greatest of health themsleves.

And it wasn't Gordie wot caused it - in fact I have heard it said that it was the measures that he took that prevented a total collapse of the banks - and perhaps even the economy - in 2008
		
Click to expand...

If only he hadn't sold off the gold reserve, borrowed a fortune, raided pension funds to fund reckless spending in the first place the UK wouldn't have been so vulnerable when the prime loans and mortgages in the USA brought on the financial crash.... remind me who deregulated the banks??


----------



## Hobbit (Jun 6, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			She always seems to be in a state of permanent rage to me..........similar to a couple of posters I could name on here

Click to expand...

I don't like her for that very reason.... is she related to you by any chance


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jun 6, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			Hahahahaha - heard this on Wednesday, sat around with a load of non-Labour voters. All bar two had joined up to vote for Corbyn - priceless!
		
Click to expand...

Are they still laughing:lol:


----------



## Hobbit (Jun 6, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Are they still laughing:lol:
		
Click to expand...

I'll ask


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 6, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			With a National Debt of Â£1300Bn cf Â£700Bn when the Tories came to power with the LibDems the Tories haven't exactly managed to get the country in the greatest of health themsleves.

And it wasn't Gordie wot caused it - in fact I have heard it said that it was the measures that he took that prevented a total collapse of the banks - and perhaps even the economy - in 2008
		
Click to expand...

You are a Mathematician I believe, surely you can understand if a Government inherits a National Defecit of Â£150 Billion per year then the National Debt is going to increase massively even if you cut it progressively by two thirds over seven years.   It amuses me how people like yourself say that the Tories haven't even removed the deficit on one hand and then complain about the methods they have been forced to take to reduce State spending on the other.  Would you be happier with their performance by completely removing the deficit by applying massively more cuts to spending, somehow I think not, you would still be whinging about austerity.  If you want to see the deficit and national debt increase out of control then just put Corbyn and his crew into government, the country will be in the same state as Greece after a term of office, how do you think Greece got it's self into such a state of debt?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jun 6, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			She always seems to be in a state of permanent rage to me
		
Click to expand...

Ha ha. That is so  true. I bet there is not a picture out there of her smiling. She's also another one who in incapable of going off script. Flounders like so many now.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jun 6, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			You are a Mathematician I believe, surely you can understand if a Government inherits a National Defecit of Â£150 Billion per year then the National Debt is going to increase massively even if you cut it progressively by two thirds over seven years.   It amuses me how people like yourself say that the Tories haven't even removed the deficit on one hand and then complain about the methods they have been forced to take to reduce State spending on the other.  Would you be happier with their performance by completely removing the deficit by applying massively more cuts to spending, somehow I think not, you would still be whinging about austerity.  If you want to see the deficit and national debt increase out of control then just put Corbyn and his crew into government, the country will be in the same state as Greece after a term of office, how do you think Greece got it's self into such a state of debt?
		
Click to expand...

I am no mathematician but I seem to recall the last Tory Chancellor vowed to straighten up the economy within 3 years, which then changed to 5 years and now it is 10 years.
Perhaps it is just the Tories Chancellors who struggle with the maths.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 6, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I am no mathematician but I seem to recall the last Tory Chancellor vowed to straighten up the economy within 3 years, which then changed to 5 years and now it is 10 years.
Perhaps it is just the Tories Chancellors who struggle with the maths.
		
Click to expand...

So how much more austerity would you like to see?   He could have done it but every time his Government tried to cut State Spending people like you started howling how horrible they were being.


----------



## Kraxx68 (Jun 6, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			If only he hadn't sold off the gold reserve, borrowed a fortune, raided pension funds to fund reckless spending in the first place the UK wouldn't have been so vulnerable when the prime loans and mortgages in the USA brought on the financial crash.... remind me who deregulated the banks??
		
Click to expand...

:clap:


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 6, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			So how much more austerity would you like to see?   He could have done it but every time his Government tried to cut State Spending people like you started howling how horrible they were being.
		
Click to expand...

Osborne was the Chancellor for all the time and the Tories were in power.  They knew what they told the electorate they had to do to balance the books and clear the deficit - what went wrong?  Were there sums wrong to start with?  Did they make the wrong assumptions?  Were the assumptions they made at the outset valid but things went wrong on their watch?  Or did they know all along that they'd never clear the deficit but knew that they wouldn't get away with all the cuts unless they had an acceptable objective?

Whatever it was it was all on the Tories watch; they had complete control.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 6, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Osborne was the Chancellor for all the time and the Tories were in power.  They knew what they told the electorate they had to do to balance the books and clear the deficit - what went wrong?  Were there sums wrong to start with?  Did they make the wrong assumptions?  Were the assumptions they made at the outset valid but things went wrong on their watch?  Or did they know all along that they'd never clear the deficit but knew that they wouldn't get away with all the cuts unless they had an acceptable objective?

Whatever it was it was all on the Tories watch; they had complete control.
		
Click to expand...

I can only repeat.  They wanted to do more but were thwarted by the howls of people like you calling them nasty.   How do you think the deficit could be cleared, they have removed two thirds of it by the way?


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jun 7, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			I can only repeat.  They wanted to do more but were thwarted by the howls of people like you calling them nasty.   How do you think the deficit could be cleared, they have removed two thirds of it by the way?
		
Click to expand...

Does SILH have more power over the government than I realised?


----------



## Hobbit (Jun 7, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Osborne was the Chancellor for all the time and the Tories were in power.  They knew what they told the electorate they had to do to balance the books and clear the deficit - what went wrong?  Were there sums wrong to start with?  Did they make the wrong assumptions?  Were the assumptions they made at the outset valid but things went wrong on their watch?  Or did they know all along that they'd never clear the deficit but knew that they wouldn't get away with all the cuts unless they had an acceptable objective?

Whatever it was it was all on the Tories watch; they had complete control.
		
Click to expand...

They inherited a runaway train or a rudderless supertanker with, in their first term, a crew member(Libdems) who had significant control on how much the wheel was turned.

I can think of two budgets that had U-turns in them as they wouldn't have got through Parliament.

Lets not forget, the Labour option at that time was to borrow more and spend their way out of debt. Greece tried that business model!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jun 7, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			They inherited a runaway train or a rudderless supertanker with, in their first term, a crew member(Libdems) who had significant control on how much the wheel was turned.

I can think of two budgets that had U-turns in them as they wouldn't have got through Parliament.

Lets not forget, the Labour option at that time was to borrow more and spend their way out of debt. Greece tried that business model!
		
Click to expand...

So austerity under the Tories would have been much more severe if they were not in partnership with the LibDems.
Sobering thought.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 7, 2017)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Does SILH have more power over the government than I realised?
		
Click to expand...

Was "People like you" a difficult concept to understand?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 7, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			They inherited a runaway train or a rudderless supertanker with, in their first term, a crew member(Libdems) who had significant control on how much the wheel was turned.

I can think of two budgets that had U-turns in them as they wouldn't have got through Parliament.

Lets not forget, the Labour option at that time was to borrow more and spend their way out of debt. Greece tried that business model!
		
Click to expand...

Very good point and well made.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jun 7, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			Was "People like you" a difficult concept to understand?
		
Click to expand...

I understand the concept of 'People not like us' much easier.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 7, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I understand the concept of 'People not like us' much easier.

Click to expand...

Most people aren't like you fortunately


----------



## Crazyface (Jun 7, 2017)

http://http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/813899/Diane-Abbott-Womans-Hour-cancel-Oxford-Circus-Tube-General-Election

I couldn't vote for any party that puts this horrible horrible (change this to read as bad as you like in your head and you won't be even close to how I fell about her) woman in their cabinet.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jun 7, 2017)

Crazyface said:



http://http://www.express.co.uk/new...ur-cancel-Oxford-Circus-Tube-General-Election

I couldn't vote for any party that puts this horrible horrible (change this to read as bad as you like in your head and you won't be even close to how I fell about her) woman in their cabinet.
		
Click to expand...

lucky she has been replaced today then!


----------



## Crazyface (Jun 7, 2017)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			lucky she has been replaced today then!
		
Click to expand...

"Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour party, has asked Lyn Brown to stand in for Diane Abbott as shadow home secretary for the period of her ill health.â€

Not permanently. Is being a parasite and thick an illness? (none related question).


----------



## Khamelion (Jun 7, 2017)

I saw her latest Sky News interview, good grief what a hopeless inept clueless moronic display she showed the viewing audience. Doesn't matter which way you intend to vote but having her as a potential Home Secretary doesn't bare thinking about, if labour do win, then surely they cannot keep her in her current role.


----------



## Crazyface (Jun 7, 2017)

Khamelion said:



			I saw her latest Sky News interview, good grief what a hopeless inept clueless moronic display she showed the viewing audience. Doesn't matter which way you intend to vote but having her as a potential Home Secretary doesn't bare thinking about, if labour do win, then surely they cannot keep her in her current role.
		
Click to expand...

And yet she was JC's choice as Home Sec. Just shows his judgement is seriously flawed and this will have affected his chances of winning.


----------



## Crazyface (Jun 7, 2017)

And to then blatantly lie about her being "ill". He should have stood up and said words like, good God who knew she was that bad? I've fired her and she will NEVER get anywhere near the front benches again.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jun 7, 2017)

Khamelion said:



			I saw her latest Sky News interview, good grief what a hopeless inept clueless moronic display she showed the viewing audience. Doesn't matter which way you intend to vote but having her as a potential Home Secretary doesn't bare thinking about, if labour do win, then surely they cannot keep her in her current role.
		
Click to expand...

I agree that interview was a disgrace and as it was the last interview before it was announced, maybe, just maybe we should show a little compassion.

Doesn't excuse her previous inept displays though.


----------



## Khamelion (Jun 7, 2017)

When it comes to politics, politicians and voting, the people who are after your vote will do anything, say anything to garner favour. Every politician no matter the colour of their rosette are duplicitous, two faced, disingenuous, people who only have their own interests at heart. 

Yes they may put in the odd white paper or ass the odd law that on the surface appears to support this that or the other, but not without making sure they are going to get something out of it. Nothing a politician does is done without having an ulterior motive.

At the end of the day, no matter what the parties manifestos have written, no matter what the leaders spout forth, it's nothing but false platitudes aimed at getting your vote.


----------



## Khamelion (Jun 7, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			I agree that interview was a disgrace and as it was the last interview before it was announced, maybe, just maybe we should show a little compassion.

Doesn't excuse her previous inept displays though.
		
Click to expand...

There was another interviewed that surfaced with Abbott on the Brexit vote where she didn't vote because it was claimed she had a migraine and went home, the interviewer told Abbott that another politician had just undergone a bout of chemo therapy and made the vote in a wheel chair and asked what her why she couldn't vote.

I guess we'll not really know if she is ill or not, regardless of what is reported, so to show her compassion, nope, not when on the surface it appears to be smoke and mirrors to hide the fact she is woefully inept at the role she has/had.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jun 7, 2017)

Khamelion said:



			There was another interviewed that surfaced with Abbott on the Brexit vote where she didn't vote because it was claimed she had a migraine and went home, the interviewer told Abbott that another politician had just undergone a bout of chemo therapy and made the vote in a wheel chair and asked what her why she couldn't vote.

I guess we'll not really know if she is ill or not, regardless of what is reported, so to show her compassion, nope, not when on the surface it appears to be smoke and mirrors to hide the fact she is woefully inept at the role she has/had.
		
Click to expand...

Not supporting her as a politician but as a person, we have no idea what the illness is.


----------



## Old Skier (Jun 7, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			Not supporting her as a politician but as a person, we have no idea what the illness is.
		
Click to expand...

Have you never taken a walk to Camden Locks


----------



## Robster59 (Jun 7, 2017)

Khamelion said:



			When it comes to politics, politicians and voting, the people who are after your vote will do anything, say anything to garner favour. Every politician no matter the colour of their rosette are duplicitous, two faced, disingenuous, people who only have their own interests at heart. 

Yes they may put in the odd white paper or ass the odd law that on the surface appears to support this that or the other, but not without making sure they are going to get something out of it. Nothing a politician does is done without having an ulterior motive.

At the end of the day, no matter what the parties manifestos have written, no matter what the leaders spout forth, it's nothing but false platitudes aimed at getting your vote.
		
Click to expand...

To quote Douglas Adams 
_*"It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

*_I've supported Labour most of my life but now I just have no faith in the leadership of the party.  It shows how bad it is that now, here in Scotland, the Conservatives are seen as the only viable alternative to the SNP (and God knows we need one).  At the local elections I stood with pencil over the ballot paper thinking 'Who the hell should I vote for!?'  Some of the principles that Corbyn have are good for the common man but I have absolutely no faith in his leadership abilities.  He was totally absent in the Brexit referendum whereas he could have done enough to convince more people to say Stay.  SNP I won't vote for as I firmly believe that they are 90% rhetoric, 10% action and the Conservatives seem to be bent on gradually tearing apart our social structures.


----------



## User62651 (Jun 7, 2017)

Robster59 said:



			To quote Douglas Adams 
_*"It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

*_I've supported Labour most of my life but now I just have no faith in the leadership of the party.  It shows how bad it is that now, here in Scotland, the Conservatives are seen as the only viable alternative to the SNP (and God knows we need one).  At the local elections I stood with pencil over the ballot paper thinking 'Who the hell should I vote for!?'  Some of the principles that Corbyn have are good for the common man but I have absolutely no faith in his leadership abilities.  He was totally absent in the Brexit referendum whereas he could have done enough to convince more people to say Stay.  SNP I won't vote for as I firmly believe that they are 90% rhetoric, 10% action and the Conservatives seem to be bent on gradually tearing apart our social structures.
		
Click to expand...

I like this, sums things up pretty well, what's the least worst option in essence!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 7, 2017)

Crazyface said:



			And yet she was JC's choice as Home Sec. Just shows his judgement is seriously flawed and this will have affected his chances of winning.
		
Click to expand...

Hmmm - like someone else in a rather crucial position - DA performs not so great under media pressure and on-screen - but quite possibly perfectly brilliant otherwise.  And I agree DA's performances have certainly not helped the Corbyn position - but neither have the performances of TM helped May.  And whilst the Tories are stuck with TM - Labour can change DA.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 7, 2017)

Crazyface said:



			And to then blatantly lie about her being "ill". He should have stood up and said words like, good God who knew she was that bad? I've fired her and she will NEVER get anywhere near the front benches again.
		
Click to expand...

You know for a fact that she is not suffering from stress and anxiety?  Or does stress and anxiety not count as ill?


----------



## Old Skier (Jun 7, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You know for a fact that she is not suffering from stress and anxiety?  Or does stress and anxiety not count as ill?
		
Click to expand...

We obviously have to take her at her word after all she's a politition.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jun 7, 2017)

Old Skier said:



			We obviously have to take her at her word after all she's a politition.
		
Click to expand...

Or just show some of the compassion some are asking for Tiger, or at least until it's clear exactly what's wrong with her.


----------



## Old Skier (Jun 7, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			Or just show some of the compassion some are asking for Tiger, or at least until it's clear exactly what's wrong with her.
		
Click to expand...

You know what I do in my spare time. I'm full of compassion and I never judge


----------



## Crazyface (Jun 7, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			Or just show some of the compassion some are asking for Tiger, or at least until it's clear exactly what's wrong with her.
		
Click to expand...

I KNOW what's wrong with her!!!! LOL !!! Yes it is funny !!!!!!! So ner !


----------



## Tashyboy (Jun 7, 2017)

I know whats wrong with DA and a suppository will sort it out.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jun 7, 2017)

Crazyface said:



			I KNOW what's wrong with her!!!! LOL !!! Yes it is funny !!!!!!! So ner !
		
Click to expand...

Being reported as a long term illness. Doesn't strike me as funny.


----------



## User62651 (Jun 7, 2017)

Never mind Abbott, Corbyn going strong. 'Mon the Jezza!

Despicable May gone by Friday 11am - you heard it here first.


----------



## Old Skier (Jun 7, 2017)

maxfli65 said:



			Never mind Abbott, Corbyn going strong. 'Mon the Jezza!

Despicable May gone by Friday 11am - you heard it here first.

Click to expand...

You hoping for a coalition then.


----------



## tugglesf239 (Jun 7, 2017)

Tashyboy said:



			I know whats wrong with DA and a suppository will sort it out.
		
Click to expand...

:rofl:

Tickled me that did Tashy 

(no that was not a double entendre..)


----------



## spongebob59 (Jun 7, 2017)

Tashyboy said:



			I know whats wrong with DA and a suppository will sort it out.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, always thought she was full of it , especially when she was on This Week.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jun 7, 2017)

If DA is genuinely ill then I wish her well, forget politics at that point as she is human. However her record as a politician is one of continual awfulness. Quite possibly a decent local MP but hugely out of her depth at a national level and should not be anywhere near a shadow or full cabinet post. It was a bad decision by Corbyn to choose her but TM's cabinet has its fair number or inept politicians so they are in no place to crow.


----------



## bobmac (Jun 7, 2017)

I don't know what's worse, Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn at it or John Major and Edwina Curry ditto


----------



## User62651 (Jun 7, 2017)

Old Skier said:



			You hoping for a coalition then.
		
Click to expand...

Oh no I feel a ramble starting!

Not sure what's for the best tbh, ok with coalition, even a Tory led coalition, truly am a floating voter, have voted all ways in the past but for whatever reason I've taken a very strong dislike to May, prefer my Tories in the old Douglas Hurd or Ken Clarke mould. May's appeasing UKIP voters at expense of everyone else imo and doesn't understand how to lead. Don't care for Sturgeon too much either recently, SNPs balloon has to deflate a bit and in my estimations she's still very divisive, more balance in Scottish seats might be better even if SNP hold most, quite like the way Wales seems to have an even spread of MPs across all parties - healthier politically. Corbyn and Farron I dont mind but Dugdale I cant warm to for Scottish Labour, Sturgeon and Davidson walk all over her. Looking past the 'personalities' the issues of terror, Brexit, NHS, education, public services, taxes etc etc no one can fix these in 5 years imo. Think we just need to ride this next term out with all its uncertainties and see where we are come 2022. 
Remember as well as the Lab/Con left v right arguments we also have SNP Indy factors too up here complicating voting and there is always crossover between what Westminster is to blame for and what Holyrood is to blame for. Not even sure about devolution now, too many bloody politicians. I like clear lines and I'd rather we had either or - either we're in UK and governed by one UK parlaiment as it was or we're on our own governed solely from Edinburgh. 
Whatever happens tomorrow, economy will struggle, taxes up, borrowing up from all parties. Painted a very gloomy picture for the country on a cross party discussion on Sky News earlier and the poor will pay the price as always.
I just hope if May wins clearly she shows some humility in victory, with all that's gone on she has been weakened but wont acknowledge any fault in herself, if she doesn't learn from this election process then it's a waste of time. Being a strong leader and being pig-headed aren't the same thing.

Might end up voting LibDem, wasted vote probably but hey-ho, they have a fair chance of winning my seat anyway. 

Ramble endeth!


----------



## Hobbit (Jun 7, 2017)

maxfli65 said:



			Oh no I feel a ramble starting!

Not sure what's for the best tbh, ok with coalition, even a Tory led coalition, truly am a floating voter, have voted all ways in the past but for whatever reason I've taken a very strong dislike to May, prefer my Tories in the old Douglas Hurd or Ken Clarke mould. May's appeasing UKIP voters at expense of everyone else imo and doesn't understand how to lead. Don't care for Sturgeon too much either recently, SNPs balloon has to deflate a bit and in my estimations she's still very divisive, more balance in Scottish seats might be better even if SNP hold most, quite like the way Wales seems to have an even spread of MPs across all parties - healthier politically. Corbyn and Farron I dont mind but Dugdale I cant warm to for Scottish Labour, Sturgeon and Davidson walk all over her. Looking past the 'personalities' the issues of terror, Brexit, NHS, education, public services, taxes etc etc no one can fix these in 5 years imo. Think we just need to ride this next term out with all its uncertainties and see where we are come 2022. 
Remember as well as the Lab/Con left v right arguments we also have SNP Indy factors too up here complicating voting and there is always crossover between what Westminster is to blame for and what Holyrood is to blame for. Not even sure about devolution now, too many bloody politicians. I like clear lines and I'd rather we had either or - either we're in UK and governed by one UK parlaiment as it was or we're on our own governed solely from Edinburgh. 
Whatever happens tomorrow, economy will struggle, taxes up, borrowing up from all parties. Painted a very gloomy picture for the country on a cross party discussion on Sky News earlier and the poor will pay the price as always.
I just hope if May wins clearly she shows some humility in victory, with all that's gone on she has been weakened but wont acknowledge any fault in herself, if she doesn't learn from this election process then it's a waste of time. Being a strong leader and being pig-headed aren't the same thing.

Might end up voting LibDem, wasted vote probably but hey-ho, they have a fair chance of winning my seat anyway. 

Ramble endeth!

Click to expand...

Excellent ramble! 

I'm not voting. I know, I know, Uncle Tom fought the mill owners and went off to war to fight for our freedoms. It's a freedom of choice, not obligation. Uncle Tom and his mates fought for freedom, not to force anyone to do anything.

What a dire choice! The lady who has done more U-turns than Imurg's driving school. A Leninist-Marxism led party whose politics hasn't worked in a single country in the world. An aggressive Liberal Democrats party intent on bending over and taking it from all sides. UKIP, least said the better or the SNP who will twist their win, great policies, into a "the people supported us therefore they want independence."


----------



## Old Skier (Jun 7, 2017)

Best ramble of the day. Coalitions IMHO cause a mush mash of confusion in I thecase ofthe last one a dilution of the AT laws with a reduction in the time suspects could be held. One which Labour are making political capital out of but was forced on the Torys by the Lib Dems to get another bill through.

I see that Labour and the SNP aren't calling their little deal a coalition.


----------



## bobmac (Jun 7, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			I'm not voting. I know, I know, Uncle Tom fought the mill owners and went off to war to fight for our freedoms. It's a freedom of choice, not obligation. Uncle Tom and his mates fought for freedom, not to force anyone to do anything.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree
Any vote for Corbyn or May would just encourage them.


----------



## Old Skier (Jun 7, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			Excellent ramble! 

I'm not voting. I know, I know, Uncle Tom fought the mill owners and went off to war to fight for our freedoms. It's a freedom of choice, not obligation. Uncle Tom and his mates fought for freedom, not to force anyone to do anything.
		
Click to expand...

Not in favour myself but as you said "freedom of choice " and all that which sounds better than I forgot to to apply for my postal vote before jetting of to the sun.

Or "I'm not going out in the rain"


----------



## Hobbit (Jun 7, 2017)

Old Skier said:



			Not in favour myself but as you said "freedom of choice " and all that which sounds better than I forgot to to apply for my postal vote before jetting of to the sun.

Or "I'm not going out in the rain" 

Click to expand...

Is it raining in the UK?


----------



## Old Skier (Jun 7, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			Is it raining in the UK?
		
Click to expand...

It might tomorrow but I'm gaping it off to Greece.


----------



## Fish (Jun 7, 2017)

bobmac said:



			I don't know what's worse, Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn at it or John Major and Edwina Curry ditto 

Click to expand...


----------



## Tashyboy (Jun 7, 2017)

Fish said:



View attachment 22845

Click to expand...

Didn't know DA stood for ducks ares. That is one big duck.


----------



## drdel (Jun 7, 2017)

If she has a long term illness then as a fellow human she has my sympathy but, on the other-hand, why did JC not put up someone else before now if her ill-health was well known.


----------



## Fish (Jun 7, 2017)

drdel said:



			If she has a long term illness then as a fellow human she has my sympathy but, on the other-hand, why did JC not put up someone else before now if her ill-health was well known.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think they'd announce she was ill if she wasn't, but imo it's probably manageable and is now just a good smoke screen to remove her from the campaign due to the embarrassing media interviews she's done which has exposed her to being totally incompetent. 

If it's not manageable then she should never have been appointed shadow Home Secretary or allowed to go on any live interviews, either way the buck stops at Corbyn and shows he has no man management or people skills!


----------



## richy (Jun 7, 2017)

Fish said:



			I don't think they'd announce she was ill if she wasn't, but imo it's probably manageable and is now just a good smoke screen to remove her from the campaign due to the embarrassing media interviews she's done which has exposed her to being totally incompetent. 

If it's not manageable then she should never have been appointed shadow Home Secretary or allowed to go on any live interviews, either way the buck stops at Corbyn and shows he has no man management or people skills!
		
Click to expand...

I think the droves of people turning out for his rallies shows he absolutely has people skills. 

Compare that to the handful of people turning out for the wicked witch.


----------



## bluewolf (Jun 7, 2017)

With all due respect to the Abbott haters on here, then I'd politely suggest you actually take a look at what she has achieved in her life before resorting to petty insults. You might not agree with her politics, but you'll find it damned hard not to admire her achievements.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 7, 2017)

bluewolf said:



			With all due respect to the Abbott haters on here, then I'd politely suggest you actually take a look at what she has achieved in her life before resorting to petty insults. You might not agree with her politics, but you'll find it damned hard not to admire her achievements.
		
Click to expand...

She must have RSI from pulling out the Race Card so often.


----------



## bluewolf (Jun 7, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			She must have RSI from pulling out the Race Card so often.
		
Click to expand...

Poor effort. Have you bothered to look at her achievements?


----------



## richy (Jun 7, 2017)

bluewolf said:



			Poor effort. Have you bothered to look at her achievements?
		
Click to expand...

Of course he hasn't. He'd struggle to do that with his head so far up his own arse


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 7, 2017)

richy said:



			Of course he hasn't. He'd struggle to do that with his head so far up his own arse
		
Click to expand...

I would still have a better view on reality from there than you have.


----------



## richy (Jun 7, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			I would still have a better view on reality from there than you have.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point so well.

 Don't forget to pull it out twice a day so you can brush your teeth.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 7, 2017)

richy said:



			Thanks for proving my point so well.
		
Click to expand...

That I would have a better view on reality than you with my head up my jacksey.  Pleased to help.


----------



## richy (Jun 8, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			That I would have a better view on reality than you with my head up my jacksey.  Pleased to help.
		
Click to expand...

Nearly an hour and that's it?


----------



## gmhubble (Jun 8, 2017)

Well it's Corbyns last day in charge - if he ever was 

Wonder what he and Diane A are planning for tomorrow - round of golf perhaps as they will have nothing else's to do?


----------



## ger147 (Jun 8, 2017)

gmhubble said:



			Well it's Corbyns last day in charge - if he ever was 

Wonder what he and Diane A are planning for tomorrow - round of golf perhaps as they will have nothing else's to do?
		
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced JC will chuck it if he loses, and I don't think the parliamentary party can force him out. Will all be down to what the Unions want IMO.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Jun 8, 2017)

Closing all political threads while polling stations are open
Go Vote &#128077;


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jun 9, 2017)

Massive helpings of humble pie need to be served on here


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jun 9, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			Massive helpings of humble pie need to be served on here
		
Click to expand...

I'll have mine with custard. Who'd have thought that socialism is not such a dirty word after all.


----------



## Fish (Jun 9, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			Massive helpings of humble pie need to be served on here
		
Click to expand...




Hacker Khan said:



			I'll have mine with custard. Who'd have thought that socialism is not such a dirty word after all.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think he's popular, I just think that May is liked less than him and there was an arrogant thought that the UKIP swing vote would naturally go to the conservatives due to the Brexit vote, but it didn't and those votes swung to to Labour quite heavily. 

What is interesting though is the conservatives still have around 44% of the vote which is very good and has always won majorities before when predominately a 2 horse race, which it now isn't. 

Hung parliament it is then. 

Deal to be done with the DUP.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jun 9, 2017)

Fish said:



			I don't think he's popular, I just think that May is liked less than him and there was an arrogant thought that the UKIP swing vote would naturally go to the conservatives due to the Brexit vote, but it didn't and those votes swung to to Labour quite heavily. 

What is interesting though is the conservatives still have around 44% of the vote which is very good and has always won majorities before when predominately a 2 horse race, which it now isn't. 

Hung parliament it is then. 

Deal to be done with the DUP.
		
Click to expand...

Tbf though Robin Ed Milliband increased the Labour votes when he lost to Cameron, sometimes is more about getting traditional voters to turn out rather than people staying at home and being complacent.


----------



## Hobbit (Jun 9, 2017)

The Spanish love Jeremy. They see him as a politician for the people. They also feel he is less confrontational with the EU, and will be easier to work with.


----------



## ger147 (Jun 9, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			The Spanish love Jeremy. They see him as a politician for the people. They also feel he is less confrontational with the EU, and will be easier to work with.
		
Click to expand...

It's looking like 319 for the Tories, and with 10 for the DUP Corbyn is NOT going to be the next PM. It will either be the Tories or another GE.


----------



## doublebogey7 (Jun 9, 2017)

Fish said:



			I don't think he's popular, I just think that May is liked less than him and there was an arrogant thought that the UKIP swing vote would naturally go to the conservatives due to the Brexit vote, but it didn't and those votes swung to to Labour quite heavily. 

What is interesting though is the conservatives still have around 44% of the vote which is very good and has always won majorities before when predominately a 2 horse race, which it now isn't. 

Hung parliament it is then. 

Deal to be done with the DUP.
		
Click to expand...

Have you not seen the result it is most clearly a 2 horse race.


----------



## gmhubble (Jun 9, 2017)

An anti Tory vote is not a two horse race - its actually very dangerous

Yes - Corbyn won the student vote with a 'no fees' agenda which NO party can afford

Yes - May has completely misjudged the country in the past four weeks - a month agon she would have had a majority and threw it all away

Coalition with the Irish is likely and Brexit has a timetable but it does seem like we will have a proper two party debate next time


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jun 9, 2017)

gmhubble said:



			Well it's Corbyns last day in charge - if he ever was 

Wonder what he and Diane A are planning for tomorrow - round of golf perhaps as they will have nothing else's to do?
		
Click to expand...

I think JC will be a little busier than you imagined. Hopefully Diane will be on the golf course though, ha ha &#128513;


----------



## MegaSteve (Jun 9, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			The Spanish love Jeremy. They see him as a politician for the people. They also feel he is less confrontational with the EU, and will be easier to work with.
		
Click to expand...


Clearly there's a lot of love for Jezza here in the UK... 
Just very little on a golf forum...


----------



## gmhubble (Jun 9, 2017)

I am not political in any way and at 45 I may be an old fart but .....

Am listening to 5Live and students in Sheffield talking about 'JezzaC' and his no fees policy

When asked about their thoughts of him sitting in on IRA meetings they said 'Whats the IRA'

I mean FFS 



MegaSteve said:



			Clearly there's a lot of love for Jezza here in the UK... 
Just very little on a golf forum...
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jun 9, 2017)

gmhubble said:



			I am not political in any way and at 45 I may be an old fart but .....

Am listening to 5Live and students in Sheffield talking about 'JezzaC' and his no fees policy

When asked about their thoughts of him sitting in on IRA meetings they said 'Whats the IRA'

I mean FFS
		
Click to expand...

How great is that, the peace process has worked, young people going to university and getting on with their lives, let's hope the next generation can answer the same way if asked about isis.


----------



## gmhubble (Jun 9, 2017)

Fair point



pauldj42 said:



			How great is that, the peace process has worked, young people going to university and getting on with their lives, let's hope the next generation can answer the same way if asked about isis.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## doublebogey7 (Jun 9, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			How great is that, the peace process has worked, young people going to university and getting on with their lives, let's hope the next generation can answer the same way if asked about isis.
		
Click to expand...

Just maybe we would all have been saying "who are ISIS" if other MPs had voted in Parliament the same way as JC did on the Iraq war.


----------



## IanM (Jun 9, 2017)

....ironic that the DUP could be keeping the IRA supporter out of Number 10


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jun 9, 2017)

IanM said:



			....ironic that the DUP could be keeping the IRA supporter out of Number 10
		
Click to expand...

Worth remembering that Irish and Scottish Unionist MP'S will be restricted at Westminster by EVEL.
Tory England only matters will struggle to get through without their 22 votes.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jun 9, 2017)

IanM said:



			....ironic that the DUP could be keeping the IRA supporter out of Number 10
		
Click to expand...

Deflecting from TM's failure


----------



## ger147 (Jun 9, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Worth remembering that Irish and Scottish Unionist MP'S will be restricted at Westminster by EVEL.
Tory England only matters will struggle to get through without their 22 votes.
		
Click to expand...

Tories have 298 English MP's, EVEL stuff will be the easiest of all to pass.


----------



## bobmac (Jun 10, 2017)

https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/873132217744203776

:rofl:


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 10, 2017)




----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jun 10, 2017)

IanM said:



			....ironic that the DUP could be keeping the IRA supporter out of Number 10
		
Click to expand...

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/06/tories-leap-unpopularity-abyss/

Yes it is.


----------



## andycap (Jun 10, 2017)

I got stuck in a lift with Diane Abbott & Jeremy Corbin ,   she didn't know what floor number we wanted and he wouldn't press the button


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 10, 2017)

andycap said:



			I got stuck in a lift with Diane Abbott & Jeremy Corbin ,   she didn't know what floor number we wanted and he wouldn't press the button 

Click to expand...

That's good


----------



## andycap (Jun 10, 2017)

Looks like we'll be sending to Brussels the conservative and unionist negotiating team . I hope they can come up with a handy acronym for that .


----------



## SocketRocket (Jun 10, 2017)

andycap said:



			looks like we'll be sending to brussels the conservative and unionist negotiating team . I hope they can come up with a handy acronym for that . 

Click to expand...

unicorn


----------



## Tashyboy (Jul 8, 2017)

So I see Jeremy Corbyn was invited to speak at the Durham miners gala. I wonder which thicko came up with that idea. Labour and Jereny did sod all for us miners, yet someone sees fit to invite him oop north.
The day he and his fellow Labour cronies give me back my pension which him and his grubby muckers robbed whilst in power is the day I will start giving him credit.


----------



## Hobbit (Jul 8, 2017)

Tashyboy said:



			So I see Jeremy Corbyn was invited to speak at the Durham miners gala. I wonder which thicko came up with that idea. Labour and Jereny did sod all for us miners, yet someone sees fit to invite him oop north.
The day he and his fellow Labour cronies give me back my pension which him and his grubby muckers robbed whilst in power is the day I will start giving him credit.
		
Click to expand...

He was at British Steel Teesside yesterday too... all fur coat and no knickers, noise without substance.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jul 8, 2017)

I suspect he will have gone down a storm. He is very much flavour of the month.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jul 8, 2017)

Tashyboy said:



			So I see Jeremy Corbyn was invited to speak at the Durham miners gala. I wonder which thicko came up with that idea. Labour and Jereny did sod all for us miners, yet someone sees fit to invite him oop north.
The day he and his fellow Labour cronies give me back my pension which him and his grubby muckers robbed whilst in power is the day I will start giving him credit.
		
Click to expand...

I do 't remember JC being much involved with decision making back then?


----------



## Tashyboy (Jul 8, 2017)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			I do 't remember JC being much involved with decision making back then?
		
Click to expand...

But he is now, wonder if he mentioned to the miners that he would give them there pension money back.


----------



## spongebob59 (Jul 14, 2017)

https://mobile.twitter.com/_hanimustafa/status/885597305314971648/photo/1


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 27, 2017)

https://randompublicjournal.com/2017/08/24/no-ticker-tape-for-corbyn-in-scotland/

Visits Scotland to offer them what they already have.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 29, 2017)

Notwithstanding all those who say that Labour's change of thinking on SM and UC will lose Labour voters - well there change of thinking has strengthened the likelihood that I might support Labour going ahead.  This whole nonsense spouted by Brexiteers where they lump together Labour and Tory votes in the GE as somehow being indicative of a high level of support for leaving the SM and CU is just rubbish.n


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 30, 2017)

Scottish Labour leader Keizia Dugdale resigns.
Keizia was the 13th leader of SLAB in 15 years.

Forced out by Corbyn supporters they say but he seemed to have very few of them in his recent tour of Scotland.
The queue for the ice cream van on Leith Links was bigger than the number of Edinburgh supporters who came there to here him speak.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 25, 2017)

So on proposed Labour Party policy on Credit Card Interest - the maximum amount of interest that you would have to pay would be 100% of the original sum borrowed.

Nothing wrong with that - seems perfectly fair and sensible.  And would attract the support of those caught in the CC interest trap.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 25, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			So on proposed Labour Party policy on Credit Card Interest - the maximum amount of interest that you would have to pay would be 100% of the original sum borrowed.

Nothing wrong with that - seems perfectly fair and sensible.  And would attract the support of those caught in the CC interest trap.
		
Click to expand...

I deal with these problems more than I would want to.  No a very good idea, the credit trap is being able to keep on getting more credit cards when they max out on the one they have.  Control needs to be on the amount of debt people can have and how many cards people can have.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 26, 2017)

I see the Labour conference were wildly cheering yet another stolen SNP plan. 
Getting rid of Labour/Tory inspired PFI contracts


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 26, 2017)

Is that not just grown up politics and should be encouraged?


----------



## User62651 (Sep 26, 2017)

Easy for us to criticise as hindsight is a great thing, there's nothing wrong with trying new ideas like PFIs but if the ideas don't work it's honourable to fess up and admit to mistakes then table and make corrections. Trouble with Politicians on all sides they will never admit to mistakes, no humility. Would garner far more respect imo if they just said "Yep we meant well and we gave it a good go but we got it wrong so now we're changing things", instead they dig deeper and deeper holes for themselves and us with a combo of lies, bluff, deflection and arrogance. Will never really change, nature of the beast - short term personal gain and the country pays for it.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 26, 2017)

maxfli65 said:



			Easy for us to criticise as hindsight is a great thing, there's nothing wrong with trying new ideas like PFIs but if the ideas don't work it's honourable to fess up and admit to mistakes then table and make corrections. Trouble with Politicians on all sides they will never admit to mistakes, no humility. Would garner far more respect imo if they just said "Yep we meant well and we gave it a good go but we got it wrong so now we're changing things", instead they dig deeper and deeper holes for themselves and us with a combo of lies, bluff, deflection and arrogance. Will never really change, nature of the beast - short term personal gain and the country pays for it.
		
Click to expand...

PFI, in its broadest terms, was the only way the large infrastructure projects could be afforded. However, the operating terms/costs are crazy. Way back when the first tranche of 10 hospitals were PFI'd I worked in one of them. Getting someone to build you a new hospital and lease it back to you sounded great...

All ancillary services come under the umbrella of the landlord and are also charged back for the 30 years of the lease. The hospital was pretty much fully re-equipped in year zero with a contractual agreement to re-equipe again at year 10, year 20 and year 30. 

Its a licence to print money. How many PFI providers are struggling? None. How many PFI hospitals are running 'overdrafts' in the hundreds of millions? All of them.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 26, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Is that not just grown up politics and should be encouraged?
		
Click to expand...

Of course, but it is more than a bit annoying that Corbyn has pinched about half a dozen of the SNP's popular decisions [reversing some Tory policies] but he will still knock them at every opportunity.
Why not form an alliance, or is that too much of a grown up policy.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 26, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Of course, but it is more than a bit annoying that Corbyn has pinched about half a dozen of the SNP's popular decisions [reversing some Tory policies] but he will still knock them at every opportunity.
Why not form an alliance, or is that too much of a grown up policy.
		
Click to expand...

Because, at its core, the SNP is a single issue party and labour have a different stance on that issue?

Because the SNP have cynically set out to undermine the Labour Party, allowing a Tory revival in Scotland, as a diminished Labour Party suits their agenda better than a progressive alliance would?


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 26, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Why not form an alliance, or is that too much of a grown up policy.
		
Click to expand...


I think, in general, voters are wary of alliances/coalitions... 

And, what will happen down here is, the media [and tories] will remind us regularly of past anti Londoners rhetoric from the SNP... Labour would [and should] be wary of any move that could impact on their London vote where they are very strong...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 26, 2017)

MegaSteve said:



			I think, in general, voters are wary of alliances/coalitions... 

And, what will happen down here is, the media [and tories] will remind us regularly of past anti Londoners rhetoric from the SNP... Labour would [and should] be wary of any move that could impact on their London vote where they are very strong...
		
Click to expand...

http://survation.com/labour-course-overall-majority/

If I were Jeremy I would ca canny on slagging off the SNP.


----------



## MegaSteve (Sep 26, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



http://survation.com/labour-course-overall-majority/

If I were Jeremy I would ca canny on slagging off the SNP.
		
Click to expand...

Bit of a difference [for me anyway] 'slagging off' folk, as the SNP have done with Londoners, and Jezzer taking a pop at a political party...

In many ways the ideals/aims/policies of each party are similar... 
However, as I've already said, voters are wary of alliances/coalitions...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 26, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			Because, at its core, the SNP is a single issue party and labour have a different stance on that issue?

Because the SNP have cynically set out to undermine the Labour Party, allowing a Tory revival in Scotland, as a diminished Labour Party suits their agenda better than a progressive alliance would?
		
Click to expand...

I think the Scottish Labour party has managed to self distruct quite well without any help from the other parties.
Johanna Baxter's speech to conference on equal pay for women in Scotland being a good example.
The 'annual' Leaders elections another.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 26, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I think the Scottish Labour party has managed to self distruct quite well without any help from the other parties.
Johanna Baxter's speech to conference on equal pay for women in Scotland being a good example.
The 'annual' Leaders elections another.
		
Click to expand...

Oh they are indeed inept, but my point stands.


----------



## User62651 (Nov 18, 2017)

So Scottish Labour have new pro-Corbyn leader Richard Leonard. Can he significantly revive Labour up north as after all if Labour and Corbyn are ever to get power they need far more MPs than the current 7 in Scotland you'd think.

I see old ScotLab leader Kez Dugdale is in I'm a celebrity, Get me out of here this year, quite surprised at that tbh. Could end up like George Galloway in Celeb Big Brother a few years ago...cringe.:mmm:


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 18, 2017)

maxfli65 said:



			So Scottish Labour have new pro-Corbyn leader Richard Leonard. Can he significantly revive Labour up north as after all if Labour and Corbyn are ever to get power they need far more MPs than the current 7 in Scotland you'd think.

I see old ScotLab leader Kez Dugdale is in I'm a celebrity, Get me out of here this year, quite surprised at that tbh. Could end up like George Galloway in Celeb Big Brother a few years ago...cringe.:mmm:
		
Click to expand...

The new SLAB leader seems quite a decent chap.
Mind you, compared to the last five leaders a dead donkey would be a good choice.

Perhaps the SNP just might finally have a credible intelligent opposition.

A sitting MSP taking part in a 4th rate personality contest half way around the world is an insult to her voters/party/parliament/country. 
Shame on her.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 18, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			The new SLAB leader seems quite a decent chap.
Mind you, compared to the last five leaders a dead donkey would be a good choice.

Perhaps the SNP just might finally have a credible intelligent opposition.

A sitting MSP taking part in a 4th rate personality contest half way around the world is an insult to her voters/party/parliament/country. 
Shame on her.
		
Click to expand...

Great to see the Bio Fab jobs have been saved thanks mainly to the Scottish Governments intervention.
SLAB new leader steps in to attempt to steal the glory, 
What a numpty......sadly same as, same as for Labour, their supporters must be in despair.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Nov 19, 2017)

maxfli65 said:



			Easy for us to criticise as hindsight is a great thing, there's nothing wrong with trying new ideas like PFIs but if the ideas don't work it's honourable to fess up and admit to mistakes then table and make corrections. Trouble with Politicians on all sides they will never admit to mistakes, no humility. Would garner far more respect imo if they just said "Yep we meant well and we gave it a good go but we got it wrong so now we're changing things", instead they dig deeper and deeper holes for themselves and us with a combo of lies, bluff, deflection and arrogance. Will never really change, nature of the beast - short term personal gain and the country pays for it.
		
Click to expand...

About the most sensible comment on politicians I've seen on here. :thup:


----------



## spongebob59 (Nov 22, 2017)

*Corbyn 'if we want workers earning better pay we need stronger trade unions and most effective way of boosting workers' pay'*

Yes, that worked out well for the train drivers and guards, what about the passengers


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 22, 2017)

spongebob59 said:



*Corbyn 'if we want workers earning better pay we need stronger trade unions and most effective way of boosting workers' pay'*

Yes, that worked out well for the train drivers and guards, what about the passengers 

Click to expand...

An unexpected consequence of leaving the EU with the associated risks to secure employment rights - the resurgence of organised employee representation?


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 22, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			An unexpected consequence of leaving the EU with the associated risks to secure employment rights - the resurgence of organised employee representation?
		
Click to expand...

Prove it, but in the proper thread.


----------



## drdel (Nov 22, 2017)

JC is now lower in the polls than PM!!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 22, 2017)

drdel said:



			JC is now lower in the polls than PM!!
		
Click to expand...

We are therefore totally doomed..........65m Brits and this is the best we can do.

I watched 10 minutes of PMQ and a bit of the budget today.
The behaviour and manners of those well paid elected members would disgrace an inner city nursery.


----------



## spongebob59 (Nov 22, 2017)

Anyone else think he sounds like a Dalek  when he gets going


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 4, 2018)

100% with Tony Blair on Corbyn today.  That Corbyn took the stance he did over the Referendum was a very disappointing for me as a Labour voter.  He is right - Labour have to make Brexit a Tory policy because if they do not they will are on shifting sands when attacking the Tory government post-Brexit - assuming that it does go ahead.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 4, 2018)

spongebob59 said:



			Anyone else think he sounds like a Dalek  when he gets going  

Click to expand...

I do


----------



## Old Skier (Jan 4, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			100% with Tony Blair on Corbyn today.  That Corbyn took the stance he did over the Referendum was a very disappointing for me as a Labour voter.  He is right - Labour have to make Brexit a Tory policy because if they do not they will are on shifting sands when attacking the Tory government post-Brexit - assuming that it does go ahead.
		
Click to expand...

Large % of voters who voted leave came from labour heartlands. Why do you feel it right to disenfranchise a large part of labour voters and are more than likely actual members of the party to appease a few members who vote labour whi more than likely have never subscribed to the Labour Party in their life.


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 5, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			100% with Tony Blair on Corbyn today.  That Corbyn took the stance he did over the Referendum was a very disappointing for me as a Labour voter.  He is right - Labour have to make Brexit a Tory policy because if they do not they will are on shifting sands when attacking the Tory government post-Brexit - assuming that it does go ahead.
		
Click to expand...

Iâ€™m stuck either way on this. The Brexit vote was a non-political party issue, although it could be argued that the Lib-dems tried politicising it and it blew up in their faces.

The party in government is tasked, via the abdication of the initial decision, by the people to enact the vote. Like it or not Parliament as a whole abdicated that responsibility.

Making it a party political issue risks a shift in voting patterns that could see Labour experiencing a mini Lib-dem implosion.

And if the Tories manage the spin the right way they could have a field day. Imagine the headlines, â€œLabour spit in the face of many Labour voters by ignoring their vote on Brexit,â€ or â€œwarmongerer Blair implores Labour to ignore its voters.â€

Will the Tories screw up its marketing so badly again? No. Would Labour be wise to align itself so obviously to Toxic Blair? No.

Labour are playing a good long game at present. Taking the Blair line is very risky.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 5, 2018)

As said recently Corbyn is having his cake and eating it over Brexit.  He will not clarify his (and that also means the party) line on it, he and his inner sanctum will not make any clear policy statements, they just sit on the fence and wait to jump down on any side that suits their political agenda but isn't that the way Labour are treating just about every issue.   Horrible slimy people with no honesty or backbone.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jan 5, 2018)

The Conservatives are currently self destructing so politically the best thing JC can do is sit back and let it happen. If he attacks too much they will start to unite again against the common enemy. Keeping quiet makes sense.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 5, 2018)

Old Skier said:



			Large % of voters who voted leave came from labour heartlands. Why do you feel it right to disenfranchise a large part of labour voters and are more than likely actual members of the party to appease a few members who vote labour whi more than likely have never subscribed to the Labour Party in their life.
		
Click to expand...

A Party chooses the route it wishes to take on any matter.  If the party makes a convincing case then supporters will go with it - if it does not, then they will not and will go elsewhere.  That's representative democracy for you, so whilst I could see many labour voters being disappointed and disenfranchised - at least in the first instance - I really don't see your point and why you might be concerned for Brexit supporting Labour Voters.  They simply choose what's most important to them and vote accordingly,


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 5, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Iâ€™m stuck either way on this. The Brexit vote was a non-political party issue, although it could be argued that the Lib-dems tried politicising it and it blew up in their faces.

The party in government is tasked, via the abdication of the initial decision, by the people to enact the vote. Like it or not Parliament as a whole abdicated that responsibility.

Making it a party political issue risks a shift in voting patterns that could see Labour experiencing a mini Lib-dem implosion.

And if the Tories manage the spin the right way they could have a field day. Imagine the headlines, â€œLabour spit in the face of many Labour voters by ignoring their vote on Brexit,â€ or â€œwarmongerer Blair implores Labour to ignore its voters.â€

Will the Tories screw up its marketing so badly again? No. Would Labour be wise to align itself so obviously to Toxic Blair? No.

Labour are playing a good long game at present. Taking the Blair line is very risky.
		
Click to expand...

I find is disheartening that many voters will not even _listen _to what Blair says.  Just because you don't like someone or vigorously disagree with them surely for your own understanding of any issue you *listen* to alternative points of view (hence why I listen to Farage on LBC).  That you might *choose *to not believe a word Blair says does not make his opinions and assessments of less value to informing the debate.  

And I agree that moving now to an anti-Brexit position might not be great popular politics - so maybe Labour wait until the shambles unfolds and in 9 months time we look at the chaos and damage of leaving as 'the deal' is put to the EU27 governments for ratification.  At *that* point Labour just say NO.


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 5, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I find is disheartening that my voters will not even _listen _to what Blair says.  Just because you don't like someone or vigorously disagree with them surely for your own understanding of any issue you *listen* to alternative points of view (hence why I listen to Farage on LBC).  That you might *choose *to not believe a word Blair says does not make his opinions and assessments of less value to informing the debate.  

And I agree that moving now to an anti-Brexit position might not be great popular politics - so maybe Labour wait until the shambles unfolds and in 9 months time we look at the chaos and damage of leaving as 'the deal' is put to the EU27 governments for ratification.  At *that* point Labour just say NO.
		
Click to expand...

Its not about choosing to listen, itâ€™s about trust. Blair has (rightly) earned a huge dollop of mistrust. There are dangers in missing gems.

And I did read every word of Toxic Tonyâ€™s opinion. And whilst thereâ€™s merit in what he said I feel in saying it he, because of peopleâ€™s opinion of him, will have helped close the door to that route. He is better served by shutting up, or having his opinions said through a 3rd party.


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 5, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			The Conservatives are currently self destructing so politically the best thing JC can do is sit back and let it happen. If he attacks too much they will start to unite again against the common enemy. Keeping quiet makes sense.
		
Click to expand...

Isthe right answer.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 5, 2018)

SocketRocket said:



			As said recently Corbyn is having his cake and eating it over Brexit.  He will not clarify his (and that also means the party) line on it, he and his inner sanctum will not make any clear policy statements, they just sit on the fence and wait to jump down on any side that suits their political agenda but isn't that the way Labour are treating just about every issue.   *Horrible slimy people with no honesty or backbone.*

Click to expand...

A perfect description of Chris Grayling


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 5, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Its not about choosing to listen, itâ€™s about trust. Blair has (rightly) earned a huge dollop of mistrust. There are dangers in missing gems.

And I did read every word of Toxic Tonyâ€™s opinion. And whilst thereâ€™s merit in what he said I feel in saying it he, because of peopleâ€™s opinion of him, will have helped close the door to that route. He is better served by shutting up, or having his opinions said through a 3rd party.
		
Click to expand...

You might not trust him - but that does not mean you cannot listen.  And I despair when he is told by Brexit supporters to shut up (just as Dominic Grieve, Amber Rudd, Phil Hammond are told to shut up about Brexit) - what is it they are worried about with Blair speaking out.


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 5, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You might not trust him - but that does not mean you cannot listen.  And I despair when he is told by Brexit supporters to shut up (just as Dominic Grieve, Amber Rudd, Phil Hammond are told to shut up about Brexit) - what is it they are worried about with Blair speaking out.
		
Click to expand...

He hasnâ€™t said anything I hadnâ€™t already thought, and in him saying it, because of his reputation, he will, not might, have people switching off to that line of thought.

Iâ€™m a Remain supporter and want him to shut up because of the damage he WILL do to the opportunities to moderate elements of the process. 

If you want to grab a life belt like Blair, crack on, but I feel he is very tainted and damaging to any campaign. Tories probably love his interventions.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 5, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			He hasnâ€™t said anything I hadnâ€™t already thought, and in him saying it, because of his reputation, he will, not might, have people switching off to that line of thought.

Iâ€™m a Remain supporter and want him to shut up because of the damage he WILL do to the opportunities to moderate elements of the process. 

If you want to grab a life belt like Blair, crack on, but I feel he is very tainted and damaging to any campaign. Tories probably love his interventions.
		
Click to expand...

I don't disagree over the risks of him speaking out - as much as I might argue that he does not deserve the reputation he now has it is just a fact of life.  But note that his recent comments were directed at Corbyn and the Labour Party - not at the electorate in general - and not trying to change Brexit minds.  He is looking forward to how Labour should position themselves - or prepare to position themselves - for when the reality of Brexit becomes evident.  He wants Labour to be positioned to be able to make it very clear that Brexit and any associated shambles and chaos are down to the Tories.  

As things are at the moment Labour remain jointly culpable - and we have such as Farage and Eurosceptic Tory fanatics spouting justification for no further referendum being evidenced by the claim of 82% support for Brexit based up the aggregate of Tory and Labour votes in the last GE.  It's complete tosh - but what does Farage care - for as long as Labour remain where they are then Farage and his ilk will continue to spin their own definition of democracy around that 'fact'.  Whatever anyone might assert about the outcome of the GE - it was NOT a referendum on Brexit - it cannot be simplistically reinterpreted into being one.

Waiting until October 2018 seems pragmatic - but start preparing the ground from now.


----------



## Old Skier (Jan 5, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			and we have such as Farage and Eurosceptic Tory fanatics spouting justification for no further referendum.
		
Click to expand...

The old one sided bias then, what about the large number of Labour MPs including Jeeza spouting justification for no further referendum or are they just normal and not classed as fanatics.


----------



## IanM (Jan 5, 2018)

So, the war monger/ EU Agent/ former PM is commenting on the pro IRA/Hamas/Hezbollah/Anti-Semite, recently turned EU Supporter...... should I take notice or not?


----------



## Old Skier (Jan 5, 2018)

IanM said:



			So, the war monger/ EU Agent/ former PM is commenting on the pro IRA/Hamas/Hezbollah/Anti-Semite, recently turned EU Supporter...... should I take notice or not? 

Click to expand...

Apart from the former PM bit you could be talking about Jeeza and the EU supporter bit.


----------



## drdel (Jan 5, 2018)

Jeeza has the underlying differences in Labour between the Corbyn cult Remainers in the South and Brexiteers up't North.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 5, 2018)

Old Skier said:



			The old one sided bias then, what about the large number of Labour MPs including Jeeza spouting justification for no further referendum or are they just normal and not classed as fanatics.
		
Click to expand...

I do not hear anything like the number and ferocity of anti-EU diatribes coming from the Labour Party - though they are clearly there.  And as much as Kate Hoey and Gisela Stuart are strong Brexiteers they do not demonstrate (that I have seen and heard) quite the same visceral hatred of the EU as some on the right of politics.  So no - I would not consider them Eurosceptic fanatics in quite the same way, you can choose to if you wish.


----------



## Old Skier (Jan 5, 2018)

Short memory's, the Labour Party has been the most Euro sceptic party since the U.K. joined the Common Market.


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 5, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I do not hear anything like the number and ferocity of anti-EU diatribes coming from the Labour Party - though they are clearly there.  And as much as Kate Hoey and Gisela Stuart are strong Brexiteers they do not demonstrate (that I have seen and heard) quite the same visceral hatred of the EU as some on the right of politics.  So no - I would not consider them Eurosceptic fanatics in quite the same way, you can choose to if you wish.
		
Click to expand...

Got to agree with you there. Some of the guff from the right of the Tory party is a touch sharp to say the least. 

A for Corbyn, last week he reiterated the partyâ€™s intention to respect the voters choice to leave the EU. Quite what his version of Leave is..... only the faires know.


----------



## Old Skier (Jan 5, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			A for Corbyn, last week he reiterated the partyâ€™s intention to respect the voters choice to leave the EU. Quite what his version of Leave is..... only the faires know.
		
Click to expand...

Will be interesting as he and his 2IC were very disparaging of the EU in many speeches prior to his elevation to leader.

Like his other foot in mouth speeches he appears to have airbrushed them from his, and it appears his supporters minds.


----------



## IanM (Jan 5, 2018)

Old Skier said:



			Short memory's, the Labour Party has been the most Euro sceptic party since the U.K. joined the Common Market.
		
Click to expand...


Correct.  But the Labour party disbanded when Blair and lots of posh kids took it over.... then he sold the brand to some Marxists....              (gosh, thought I was kidding, but on second reading....)


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 15, 2018)

What the...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/55864...-in-parliament-at-the-height-of-the-cold-war/

...heck is The Sun up to today with it's headline splash about Jeremy Corbyn.  What on earth was their agenda?  Just a right wing smear I suggest in a rather pathetic attempt to undermine him - as if many Corbynites or potential supporters will be swayed by this revelation from 1986.

It was 32 yrs ago.  JC met with a Czech diplomat - now being called a spy by The Sun - and told the diplomat that he disagreed with Margaret Thatcher.  Well colour me blue.  A leftie MP meets with a Czech diplomat and disses Maggie.

The only value the piece has is that it is important that we know the historical political background of potential leaders of the country and we can make an educated decision.  Though of course I rather doubt JC would back then ever have imagined he'd be quite as close to being UK premier as he is today.


----------



## IanM (Feb 15, 2018)

The Sun are awful, give the guy a break.... he needs the odd day off from IRA Funerals and HAMAS Rallies!!


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 15, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			What the...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/55864...-in-parliament-at-the-height-of-the-cold-war/

...heck is The Sun up to today with it's headline splash about Jeremy Corbyn.  What on earth was their agenda?  Just a right wing smear I suggest in a rather pathetic attempt to undermine him - as if many Corbynites or potential supporters will be swayed by this revelation from 1986.

It was 32 yrs ago.  JC met with a Czech diplomat - now being called a spy by The Sun - and told the diplomat that he disagreed with Margaret Thatcher.  Well colour me blue.  A leftie MP meets with a Czech diplomat and disses Maggie.

The only value the piece has is that it is important that we know the historical political background of potential leaders of the country and we can make an educated decision.  Though of course I rather doubt JC would back then ever have imagined he'd be quite as close to being UK premier as he is today.
		
Click to expand...

So the records provided from the Czech Republic are 'fake news?' And the fact, sorry fake news, that its reported in more than just the Sun is obviously whispers in the winds. Maybe the agenda of a number of newspapers, both in the UK and abroad, is to report the news.

And just like his other meetings with the IRA, Hezbollah and Hamas are obviously the remit of a back bencher.

I can't believe your naiveness is support of the far left Labour leader. The guy has that much smoke behind him there must have been a fair few fires. Bear in mind his number 2 is an ardent Marxist, and is his choice of number 2... Corbyn is a commie in sheep's clothing.


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 15, 2018)

Not been discussed on rant radio, can't be true.

Been a minor minion for years desperate to get the headlines, now the Marxist has them his friends seem to be rallying round to protect the terrorist loving little toe rag.


----------



## IanM (Feb 15, 2018)

If you want some fun, check out which of the Labour front bench employ each others kids and on how much.....


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 15, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			So the records provided from the Czech Republic are 'fake news?' And the fact, sorry fake news, that its reported in more than just the Sun is obviously whispers in the winds. Maybe the agenda of a number of newspapers, both in the UK and abroad, is to report the news.

And just like his other meetings with the IRA, Hezbollah and Hamas are obviously the remit of a back bencher.

I can't believe your naiveness is support of the far left Labour leader. The guy has that much smoke behind him there must have been a fair few fires. Bear in mind his number 2 is an ardent Marxist, and is his choice of number 2... Corbyn is a commie in sheep's clothing.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think that I suggested for a second that it was Fake News - I simply asked the question - what was The Sun up to headlining and splashing it in the way they have. Did they really think it'd make any difference to anyone?  Now - *as I said -* I think it is important that we know that he met with the diplomat and what was discussed if that is available - and we draw our conclusions from that.   So in that - I say - OK.  Jb done.  Is that it?

BTW - this doesn't make it less likely that I would vote for Corbyn - and doesn't make it any more likely.  And as said before - currently I wouldn't.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 15, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I think it is important that we know he met with the diplomat and what was discussed if that is available - and we draw our conclusions from that.   This doesn't make it less likely that I would vote for Corbyn - and doesn't make it any more likely.  As said before - currently I wouldn't.
		
Click to expand...

The overriding thing for me, both with this instance and the others, is what is a back bencher doing meeting people from organisations that were extremist. As to what was discussed, in each case with organisations like those,  it wouldn't have been how to grow the best potato crop. Think about it, what would the IRA, Hezbollah, Hamas and a member of the Czech secret service really want...?


----------



## bobmac (Feb 15, 2018)

IanM said:



			If you want some fun, check out which of the Labour front bench employ each others kids and on how much.....
		
Click to expand...

I believe after the expense scandal in 2009, MPs can't claim for tea and biscuits any more but IPSA increased the amount they can pay their 'secretary' (wife, husband, child,
 etc) from Â£30,000 to Â£50,000. A nice 66% pay rise.

Having said that, they have now stopped MPs hiring family for new staff jobs but those already employed get to keep their jobs.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 15, 2018)

IanM said:



			If you want some fun, check out which of the Labour front bench employ each others kids and on how much.....
		
Click to expand...

Oh give over, they only recently learned that trick from the Tories who have been using it for donkeys years.


----------



## IanM (Feb 15, 2018)

Read Robert Colville's piece on Corbyn.  How is he out of prison?


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 15, 2018)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Oh give over, they only recently learned that trick from the Tories who have been using it for donkeys years.
		
Click to expand...

And that makes it right? 

No, it makes Labour as bad as the Tories.


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 15, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			And that makes it right? 

No, it makes Labour as bad as the Tories.
		
Click to expand...

Lets forget about the SNP MPs that were investigated a couple of years ago but I'm sure our wings blogger would like to forget about them.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 16, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			And that makes it right? 

No, it makes Labour as bad as the Tories.
		
Click to expand...

a] I did not say that.
b] Which was the point of my post. 

Playing the man and not ball again.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 16, 2018)

Doon frae Troon said:



			a] I did not say that.
b] Which was the point of my post. 

Playing the man and not ball again.
		
Click to expand...

Playing the man and not the ball? Rubbish.

Whilst you can on occasion be obtuse and vague in making a point you, equally, misinterpret other people's point too. I was pointing out, like you, that it makes them as bad as the Tories whilst asking you a question. You don't make it clear that you were liking Labour to the Tories, you only said they'd learnt from the Tories.

Try and stop being so sensitive and precious.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 21, 2018)

Not quite getting the right wing press still going after Corbyn on this Czech diplomat/spy thing.  

Have they forgotten that Corbyn is a Privy Councillor and will have been security vetted to the n'th degree in advance of him being given access to national security briefings.  Or are we now to be told that our security vetting teams are not quite as good as we like to think, and that they could have _missed _his 'many' contacts with this diplomat/spy in the mid-late 1980s.

Or are they just going after him on the basis that if they throw enough mud at Corbyn they can then tell us that some has stuck - regardless of whether it has or not.  And those who are worried about Labour can declaim 'rejoice' - Corbyn is muddy.


----------



## IanM (Feb 21, 2018)

The trouble is that he seems to support causes/organisations/countries that are our enemies..... simple as that.  

As for the Right Wing Press (which he promised to close down yesterday if he gets to be PM) telling lies about him selling secrets to the Eastern Bloc... well, it's been nearly a week and no writs issued yet........ I'd have had them issued within an hour!  

Yesterday he also threatened to wipe out the most profitable sector of our economy.  Hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in tax revenue.  Yep....he believes Venezuela is a success... so he wants that here.  Utter wombat!

And do you really think that anyone who has been a Spy has never been security vetted????


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 21, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Not quite getting the right wing press still going after Corbyn on this Czech diplomat/spy thing.  

Have they forgotten that Corbyn is a Privy Councillor and will have been security vetted to the n'th degree in advance of him being given access to national security briefings.  Or are we now to be told that our security vetting teams are not quite as good as we like to think, and that they could have _missed _his 'many' contacts with this diplomat/spy in the mid-late 1980s.

Or are they just going after him on the basis that if they throw enough mud at Corbyn they can then tell us that some has stuck - regardless of whether it has or not.  And those who are worried about Labour can declaim 'rejoice' - Corbyn is muddy.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe this didn't come out till the Czech Security Service reached their 30 years for disclosure.

But a question that was posed in one of the papers this week. In all the meetings with The IRA, Hezbollah and Hamas why didn't Corbyn meet groups from the other side of that particular divide? Why didn't he meet with the Unionist groups, and why didn't he meet with representatives of the Jewish communities?

I don't see it as right wing 'v' left wing, I just see a guy that I just don't trust in the slightest because of who he has met and the lack of balance. 

That and he is a bare faced liar. When asked numerous times if he had met the IRA he has always said he hasn't, and then Diane Abbott dropped him in it big time. She said he had but the following day tried to qualify that by saying the men were representing Sinn Fein on the day he met them... he is a liar, end of.


----------



## bobmac (Feb 21, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			That and he is a bare faced liar. When asked numerous times if he had met the IRA he has always said he hasn't, and then Diane Abbott dropped him in it big time. She said he had but the following day tried to qualify that by saying the men were representing Sinn Fein on the day he met them... he is a liar, end of.
		
Click to expand...

No problems, just a misdemeanor


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 21, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Not quite getting the right wing press still going after Corbyn on this Czech diplomat/spy thing.  

Have they forgotten that Corbyn is a Privy Councillor and will have been security vetted to the n'th degree in advance of him being given access to national security briefings.  Or are we now to be told that our security vetting teams are not quite as good as we like to think, and that they could have _missed _his 'many' contacts with this diplomat/spy in the mid-late 1980s.

Or are they just going after him on the basis that if they throw enough mud at Corbyn they can then tell us that some has stuck - regardless of whether it has or not.  And those who are worried about Labour can declaim 'rejoice' - Corbyn is muddy.
		
Click to expand...

He's leader of the opposition which gets him on the council. He would have been vetted but why would you think they would release information of his vetting to the public.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 21, 2018)

IanM said:



			The trouble is that he seems to support causes/organisations/countries that are our enemies..... simple as that.  

As for the Right Wing Press *(which he promised to close down yesterday if he gets to be PM) *telling lies about him selling secrets to the Eastern Bloc... well, it's been nearly a week and no writs issued yet........ I'd have had them issued within an hour!  

Yesterday he also threatened to wipe out the most profitable sector of our economy.  Hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in tax revenue.  Yep....he believes Venezuela is a success... so he wants that here.  Utter wombat!

And do you really think that anyone who has been a Spy has never been security vetted????
		
Click to expand...

You might like to pretend that he said he'd do that but I think if you listen to what he actually said - then he said nothing of the sort - he just warned the media barons that 'change is coming' under a Labour Government - and rather than this be something chilling maybe he is simply talking about the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry going ahead.   Now if you wish to draw from that that he is going to close down some of the press then on you go - draw away...

I don't understand your last point about vetting.  I suggest that his vetting would have been sufficient to uncover any nefarious activities from his previous life as a *well known irritating and agitating leftie backbencher.*  He wasn't exactly a shrinking violet that kept well under the radar.  If our security services had missed that he'd spoken with this Czechoslovakian diplomat then maybe they are not quite as 'on the ball' as we might want them to be.

But hey ho - keep throwing them mud and encouraging those who do it regularly to throw more.  I doubt many Corbyn supporters - or potential supporters - are much listening.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 21, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Maybe this didn't come out till the Czech Security Service reached their 30 years for disclosure.

But a question that was posed in one of the papers this week. In all the meetings with The IRA, Hezbollah and Hamas why didn't Corbyn meet groups from the other side of that particular divide? Why didn't he meet with the Unionist groups, and why didn't he meet with representatives of the Jewish communities?

I don't see it as right wing 'v' left wing, I just see a guy that I just don't trust in the slightest because of who he has met and the lack of balance. 

That and he is a bare faced liar. When asked numerous times if he had met the IRA he has always said he hasn't, and then Diane Abbott dropped him in it big time. She said he had but the following day tried to qualify that by saying the men were representing Sinn Fein on the day he met them... he is a liar, end of.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure that I trust him either - and at the moment I struggle to support Labour under him.

And maybe he could or should have met with both sides of every argument - but clearly he was just perhaps more interested in understanding those he considered to be the repressed...those in control already having plenty of support.

Politicians - liars - yup - now where is that big red bus.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 21, 2018)

https://twitter.com/toryfibs/status/966313218959429635


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 21, 2018)

It really peas me off that there still appears be a small group of UK sabre rattlers who would like to turn the clock back on the NI peace process.


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 21, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Politicians - liars - yup - now where is that big red bus.
		
Click to expand...

Here it is and it's telling us that if we keep paying Billions to the EU we would be better off


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 21, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Politicians - liars - yup - now where is that big red bus.
		
Click to expand...

Those in glass houses and all that


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 21, 2018)

Old Skier said:



			Those in glass houses and all that 
	View attachment 24499

Click to expand...

Hilarious!


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 21, 2018)

I was reminded of this earlier courtesy of The Chase...

From Ronald Rayguns himself....

"Government isn't the solution it's the problem"...


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 22, 2018)

I watched JC's rebuttal video earlier, in which he threatens the media. Put the threat to one side a second and listen to the tone of it. He jokes about telling of Maggie Thatcher's breakfast... he had the opportunity to send a serious rebuttal yet he turns it into a joke. Is that really the best way to answer some very serious accusations? He also plays the victim very well, and then offers a very serious threat on the back of what he sees as the people's revolution at the last GE. Even the threat itself carried a subtle racist comment about media owners living abroad - what relevance does where they live in the context of what he is replying to?

How should he have replied? Well how about providing evidence from his Commons diary. How about actually asking for a full inquiry, instead of dodging it with jokes? How about using the libel laws, or would that only lead to the accusations having to be proven in a court which he is uncomfortable with?

Its strange when you look at Corbyn's CV and see how many times he railed against his own party and didn't follow the Whip. How he spoke of freedoms, and yet he wants to bring in more laws and restrict the press. You only have to look at how easily he is willing to sack members of the shadow Cabinet to see how much is do as I say not do as I do.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 22, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			I watched JC's rebuttal video earlier, in which he threatens the media. Put the threat to one side a second and listen to the tone of it. He jokes about telling of Maggie Thatcher's breakfast... he had the opportunity to send a serious rebuttal yet he turns it into a joke. Is that really the best way to answer some very serious accusations? He also plays the victim very well, and then offers a very serious threat on the back of what he sees as the people's revolution at the last GE. Even the threat itself carried a subtle racist comment about media owners living abroad - what relevance does where they live in the context of what he is replying to?

How should he have replied? Well how about providing evidence from his Commons diary. How about actually asking for a full inquiry, instead of dodging it with jokes? How about using the libel laws, or would that only lead to the accusations having to be proven in a court which he is uncomfortable with?

Its strange when you look at Corbyn's CV and see how many times he railed against his own party and didn't follow the Whip. How he spoke of freedoms, and yet he wants to bring in more laws and restrict the press. You only have to look at how easily he is willing to sack members of the shadow Cabinet to see how much is do as I say not do as I do.
		
Click to expand...

Did you watch the link I posted? Maybe he made light of it as the accusations are a joke.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 22, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			Did you watch the link I posted? Maybe he made light of it as the accusations are a joke.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I watched your link. I'm actually not interested in what the Tories are making of it, I'd like JC to answer the questions posed to him in an intelligent, serious way. Let's not forget, although published by the Sun and taken up by other newspapers, there is documentary evidence from the Czechs. Prove that one way or the other would be the right thing to do, not make political mileage out of it as the Tories have tried to do or jokes as he has done. Maybe they are a joke, but prove it would be my question to him.

But on a wider note, how much smoke does the guy need to make before people will realise there's a fire? He's got a great social conscience but his politics, for me, go beyond that into areas and beliefs I'm really uncomfortable with.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Feb 22, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Yes, I watched your link. I'm actually not interested in what the Tories are making of it, I'd like JC to answer the questions posed to him in an intelligent, serious way. Let's not forget, although published by the Sun and taken up by other newspapers, there is documentary evidence from the Czechs. Prove that one way or the other would be the right thing to do, not make political mileage out of it as the Tories have tried to do or jokes as he has done. Maybe they are a joke, but prove it would be my question to him.

But on a wider note, how much smoke does the guy need to make before people will realise there's a fire? He's got a great social conscience but his politics, for me, go beyond that into areas and beliefs I'm really uncomfortable with.
		
Click to expand...

In the link itâ€™s stated there are no Stasi files or Czech evidence, apart from a file with his name on and they had a file on every UK politician in them days.

Unfortunately rather than deal in hard evidence, that they already have, against him they run every rumour and whisper to the point were everything will get dismissed.


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 22, 2018)

The Stasi files also had no information in them regarding Mrs Merkels alleged involvement with them but that has been questioned in the past.

Intelligence agencies can make information disappear when it's required and I'm sure ours have when it suits.


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 22, 2018)

Corbyn and his mob are out right Marxist and if that's the government that the majority choose in the future then so be it.

A real move back to the 60,s


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 22, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			In the link itâ€™s stated there are no Stasi files or Czech evidence, apart from a file with his name on and they had a file on every UK politician in them days.

Unfortunately rather than deal in hard evidence, that they already have, against him they run every rumour and whisper to the point were everything will get dismissed.
		
Click to expand...

The file shown in the Telegraph(?) only showed that he had met with Corbyn but didn't have the detail of what was discussed. I doubt very much a back bencher, especially one who wasn't popular in his own party, would have access to anything sensitive. However, it begs the question why was an opposition MP meeting with an employee of a foreign government at the height of the Cold War. 

In my opinion, the guy was putting hie own political ideology ahead of the State. There is no law against that but I would question whether or not someone of such a far left political leaning truly represents the people. Fast forward to today, and I feel there are still flashes of the ideology showing through, and that's what frightens me, i.e. the prospect of an Orwellian government.


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 22, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			truly represents the people.
		
Click to expand...


Go on then... When did we last or ever have a government that truly represented the people?


For me... It's always been smoke and mirrors...


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 22, 2018)

MegaSteve said:



			Go on then... When did we last or ever have a government that truly represented the people?


For me... It's always been smoke and mirrors...
		
Click to expand...

Some are more representative than others - George Orwell? The far left ideology is really not central to UK politics, and Corbyn is a far left Marxist supporter. If that's what the people want, so be it but that is where he will take this country. Free holidays in Venezuela?


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 22, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Some are more representative than others - George Orwell? The far left ideology is really not central to UK politics, and Corbyn is a far left Marxist supporter. If that's what the people want, so be it but that is where he will take this country. Free holidays in Venezuela?
		
Click to expand...


Could be said DaveCam did a good job of representing the people by giving them the vote they wanted...

The problem with having long periods of right leaning centrist governments is the people eventually start feeling being ignored... And, their eyes start looking elsewhere and surprisingly it's often looking further to the right [which, I feel, is what occurred over the water]... Clearly the media attention Jezza is getting is a sign the establishment is getting rattled which hopefully will see an improvement in the 'lot' [for people] without the pain of a big turn in political direction...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 22, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			The file shown in the Telegraph(?) only showed that he had met with Corbyn but didn't have the detail of what was discussed. I doubt very much a back bencher, especially one who wasn't popular in his own party, would have access to anything sensitive. However, it begs the question why was an opposition MP meeting with an employee of a foreign government at the height of the Cold War. 

In my opinion, the guy was putting hie own political ideology ahead of the State. There is no law against that but *I would question whether or not someone of such a far left political leaning truly represents the people.* Fast forward to today, and I feel there are still flashes of the ideology showing through, and that's what frightens me, i.e. the prospect of an Orwellian government.
		
Click to expand...

Never mind even just those who have a left of centre leaning.

As far as an Orwellian Government - well much of the technology Orwell imagined is here today...watch Black Mirror...


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 25, 2018)

Here's hoping Jezza grows a pair and keeps the Blairites, that continue to blight the party, well and truly on ignore...

No matter how much you polish it the EU remains a turd that needs flushing away...

You can't keep ignoring the Labour voting people...
Take a listen to the sense being spoken by Frank Field...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 25, 2018)

Perhaps Ben will think twice before copying the newspaper headlines again.

https://www.joe.co.uk/politics/tory...-his-most-successful-tweet-of-all-time-164782


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 25, 2018)

Silly statement from an idiot. Anyone with half a brain would know that the likely hood of our Jeeza during his commie and terrorist supporting back bencher days having anything more secret than the combination to his bicycle lock highly unlikely.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 25, 2018)

Old Skier said:



			Silly statement from an idiot. Anyone with half a brain would know that the likely hood of our Jeeza during his commie and terrorist supporting back bencher days having anything more secret than the combination to his bicycle lock highly unlikely.
		
Click to expand...

By idiot, I assume you mean the witless Tory MP, or does it extend to the newspaper editors as well.


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 25, 2018)

Doon frae Troon said:



			By idiot, I assume you mean the witless Tory MP, or does it extend to the newspaper editors as well.

Click to expand...

Newspapers are there to make money, those that buy them deserve what they get, an MP on the other hand, be it of any party, and most of them are pretty witless, should stop using social media.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 25, 2018)

Old Skier said:



			Newspapers are there to make money, those that buy them deserve what they get, an MP on the other hand, be it of any party, and most of them are pretty witless, should stop using social media.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for that clarification.:thup:


----------



## Hacker Khan (Feb 25, 2018)

Old Skier said:



			Corbyn and his mob are out right Marxist and if that's the government that the majority choose oin the future then so be it.

A real move back to the 60,s
		
Click to expand...

So we have the Brexiters who want to go back to the 70s and Labour who want to go back to the 60s. I tells you, as soon as a party endorses Nik Kershaw, shoulder pads and Kajagoogoo then they have my vote as the most progressive party available...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 25, 2018)

Hacker Khan said:



			So we have the Brexiters who want to go back to the 70s and Labour who want to go back to the 60s. I tells you, as soon as a party endorses Nik Kershaw, shoulder pads and Kajagoogoo then they have my vote as the most progressive party available...
		
Click to expand...

Yup - I love that Brexiteers want to take us back to the 60s and 70s - a time before we were in the EEC when Britain was Great (greatly grim if I recall) - and at the same time most of the same bunch warn us of a Labour Party who want to take us back to the 70s and remind us how it was a time of strikes, unions and misery.  Hold on...???


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 25, 2018)

There's some that just won't move on and it's not those that won't to move out of a federal state but the rant brigade as normal.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 25, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Yup - I love that Brexiteers want to take us back to the 60s and 70s - a time before we were in the EEC when Britain was Great (greatly grim if I recall) - and at the same time most of the same bunch warn us of a Labour Party who want to take us back to the 70s and remind us how it was a time of strikes, unions and misery.  Hold on...???
		
Click to expand...

As years pass people forget how bad things were in the 60's, 70's and early 80's. The UK was the lame duck of Europe in 1973, when it joined the EEC, but that didn't improve things at all. And as much as it will enrage some, thank god for Margaret Thatcher, or at least her early years. I remember being called out on strike, and my wage before the strike was easily liveable on, even with high mortgage interest rates.

Who remembers Derek Robinson, Red Robbo, the British Leyland Union guy that called the workers out over 500 times? That went on till 1979/80. Who remembers mortgage rates of 17.9% in 1981? The miner's strike in 72 that led to blackouts and the 3 day week in 73.

Did the EEC/EU improve life in the UK? No, and you've only got to look at other countries that have been in the EU many years to see that change/improvement is driven from within.

Back on track; I believe that Corbyn's desire for people power, and you've only got to look at his admiration of Venezuela, will take us back to the (literally) dark days of the 70's.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Feb 26, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			As years pass people forget how bad things were in the 60's, 70's and early 80's. The UK was the lame duck of Europe in 1973, when it joined the EEC, but that didn't improve things at all. And as much as it will enrage some, thank god for Margaret Thatcher, or at least her early years. I remember being called out on strike, and my wage before the strike was easily liveable on, even with high mortgage interest rates.

Who remembers Derek Robinson, Red Robbo, the British Leyland Union guy that called the workers out over 500 times? That went on till 1979/80. Who remembers mortgage rates of 17.9% in 1981? The miner's strike in 72 that led to blackouts and the 3 day week in 73.

Did the EEC/EU improve life in the UK? No, and you've only got to look at other countries that have been in the EU many years to see that change/improvement is driven from within.

Back on track;* I believe that Corbyn's desire for people power, and you've only got to look at his admiration of Venezuela, will take us back to the (literally) dark days of the 70's*.
		
Click to expand...

On the other hand Labour will come out today saying they want to stick in the custom's union.  Which some may argue will mean we have a much more stable economic future than if we hard Brexit like some parts of the Tory party seem so keen to do.


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 26, 2018)

Hacker Khan said:



			On the other hand Labour will come out today saying they want to stick in the custom's union.  Which some may argue will mean we have a much more stable economic future than if we hard Brexit like some parts of the Tory party seem so keen to do.
		
Click to expand...


No they will not.  They will be saying they want a bespoke trade agreement which would include a bespoke agreement for A customs union which would be in the best interest of the UK - sound familiar.  You need to listen to the interview as apposed to what the BBC are reporting.

The only difference is that they have over 90 MPs who don't agree with him so he may be in an even worse position than May.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 26, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Hahahahaha - heard this on Wednesday, sat around with a load of non-Labour voters. All bar two had joined up to vote for Corbyn - priceless!
		
Click to expand...

Remember this from 2015.....that worked out well for them eh!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 26, 2018)

Old Skier said:



			No they will not.  They will be saying they want a bespoke trade agreement which would include a bespoke agreement for A customs union which would be in the best interest of the UK - sound familiar.  You need to listen to the interview as apposed to what the BBC are reporting.

The only difference is that they have over 90 MPs who don't agree with him so he may be in an even worse position than May.
		
Click to expand...

Ahem - don't just point at the BBC as much as you love bashing them - EXACTLY the same is being stated on LBC.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 26, 2018)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Remember this from 2015.....that worked out well for them eh!
		
Click to expand...

Ah yes - I wonder how many Tory voters signed up to the Labour Party back then to get Corbyn as Labour Leader - so as to make Labour unelectable.  Ooops!  That has worked out well then.  Time will tell.


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 26, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Ah yes - I wonder how many Tory voters signed up to the Labour Party back then to get Corbyn as Labour Leader - so as to make Labour unelectable.  Ooops!  That has worked out well then.  Time will tell.
		
Click to expand...


With about three quarters of Labour MPs representing constituencies that voted leave right now he needs to be delivering on those voters wishes if he wants any chance of making No 10....


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 26, 2018)

MegaSteve said:



			With about three quarters of Labour MPs representing constituencies that voted leave right now he needs to be delivering on those voters wishes if he wants any chance of making No 10....
		
Click to expand...

Come on, the mans going to negotiate a deal with the EU and we aren't going to pay any tariffs and we can do any kind of trade deal with the rest of the world.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 26, 2018)

Old Skier said:



			Come on, the mans going to negotiate a deal with the EU and we aren't going to pay any tariffs and we can do any kind of trade deal with the rest of the world.
		
Click to expand...

If that is what he is saying then he is as deluded as the Brextremists (if Andrew Rawnsley can call them that then so can I).


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 26, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Brextremists (if Andrew Rawnsley can call them that then so can I).
		
Click to expand...

If it makes you happy. Perhaps we should start calling remainers Ostriches.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 26, 2018)

Old Skier said:



			If it makes you happy. Perhaps we should start calling remainers Ostriches.
		
Click to expand...

Erm - methinks there are only one constituency with their head in the sand - and when they pop up for air they see unicorns....


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 26, 2018)

Old Skier said:



			If it makes you happy. Perhaps we should start calling remainers Ostriches.
		
Click to expand...

Verily did he say unto him, I have much chortled.

If truth be told, neither side really knows whatâ€™s ahead. As the as is, if we stay in the EU, will end shortly with the ending of the current budget phase. Add to that the proposals for an EU Chancellor, who will have the final say on domestic budgets, and a president with greater powers...


----------



## drdel (Feb 26, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Yup -* I love that Brexiteers want to take us back to the 60s and 70s - a time before we were in the EEC *when Britain was Great (greatly grim if I recall) - and at the same time most of the same bunch warn us of a Labour Party who want to take us back to the 70s and remind us how it was a time of strikes, unions and misery.  Hold on...???
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could recognise that the world has changed to be global in virtually everyway. Very few organisations limit themselves by geography or regional thinking.

The EU has become protectionist.

Rather than 'looking back' I'd suggest we look forward with a strategy that actually recognises the 'globalisation that has happend!


----------



## IanM (Feb 26, 2018)

drdel said:



			Perhaps you could recognise that the world has changed to be global in virtually everyway. Very few organisations limit themselves by geography or regional thinking.

*The EU has become protectionist, Federalist and insolvent.*

Rather than 'looking back' I'd suggest we look forward with a strategy that actually recognises the 'globalisation that has happend!
		
Click to expand...

EU has always been protectionist.  Farmers in Africa have struggled for 40 years as the CAP has prevented them from exporting here.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 26, 2018)

drdel said:



			Perhaps you could recognise that the world has changed to be global in virtually everyway. Very few organisations limit themselves by geography or regional thinking.

The EU has become protectionist.

Rather than 'looking back' I'd suggest we look forward with a strategy that actually recognises the 'globalisation that has happend!
		
Click to expand...

Yes indeed - a globalisation that has happened over the last 40 yrs and that the UK has been able to adapt to (sometimes well - sometimes not so well) and take advantage of (sometimes very well indeed) whilst being part of the EU.

The UK has absolutely no experience of living in a globalised economy by itself - and as a result we have absolutely no idea how we will fare as a singleton out there.  Much of the Leave rhetoric harks back to days of greatness - days when - as you so rightly say - the world was nothing like it is today,  and even back then - when we might have been great - much of our greatness, wealth and strength (all of which as a nation we undoubtedly did have) was built on the backs and pains of the people and lands - as well as the markets - of the Empire.  

So I agree 100% - let's not go back there...let's look forward.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 26, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Yes indeed - a globalisation that has happened over the last 40 yrs and that the UK has been able to adapt to (sometimes well - sometimes not so well) and take advantage of (sometimes very well indeed) whilst being part of the EU.

The UK has absolutely no experience of living in a globalised economy by itself - and as a result we have absolutely no idea how we will fare as a singleton out there.  Much of the Leave rhetoric harks back to days of greatness - days when - as you so rightly say - the world was nothing like it is today,  and even back then - when we might have been great - much of our greatness, wealth and strength (all of which as a nation we undoubtedly did have) was built on the backs and pains of the people and lands - as well as the markets - of the Empire.  

So I agree 100% - let's not go back there...let's look forward.
		
Click to expand...

Some big assumptions in there. Do you know our people donâ€™t have the right experience to negotiate? No you obviously donâ€™t know. Where do you think the EU gets its negotiating teams from? From the various member states.

When an EU environmental sciences team went out to China 3 years ago they negotiated a multi-million pound deal. The whole team was from the UK.


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 26, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Yes indeed - a globalisation that has happened over the last 40 yrs and that the UK has been able to adapt to (sometimes well - sometimes not so well) and take advantage of (sometimes very well indeed) whilst being part of the EU.

The UK has absolutely no experience of living in a globalised economy by itself - and as a result we have absolutely no idea how we will fare as a singleton out there.  Much of the Leave rhetoric harks back to days of greatness - days when - as you so rightly say - the world was nothing like it is today,  and even back then - when we might have been great - much of our greatness, wealth and strength (all of which as a nation we undoubtedly did have) was built on the backs and pains of the people and lands - as well as the markets - of the Empire.  

So I agree 100% - let's not go back there...let's look forward.
		
Click to expand...

You have a naive understanding on how trade works. Do you think the EU oversees British companies opening business around the world, do you think they hold your hand and guide business so that obtaining global contracts becomes a process that they dont have to compete for as long as Uncle Junker is in your corner.  It's nothing like that, you get global business by getting out there with goods and services that can compete in the World and then work your bits off and take risks to get established in new markets.  It isn't or ever has been anything to do with membership of the EU, if anything they make it more difficult with their protectionist culture.


----------



## IanM (Feb 27, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			The UK has absolutely no experience of living in a globalised economy by itself - and as a result we have absolutely no idea how we will fare as a singleton out there.
		
Click to expand...

Showed this to a group of folk from a Shipping Agency this morning.... they laughed long and loud.



Back on the topic of the "scumbag friend of the terrorist"....   Can anyone seriously vote for him?   If so , why?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 27, 2018)

SocketRocket said:



			You have a naive understanding on how trade works. Do you think the EU oversees British companies opening business around the world, do you think they hold your hand and guide business so that obtaining global contracts becomes a process that they dont have to compete for as long as Uncle Junker is in your corner.  It's nothing like that, you get global business by getting out there with goods and services that can compete in the World and then work your bits off and take risks to get established in new markets.  It isn't or ever has been anything to do with membership of the EU, if anything they make it more difficult with their protectionist culture.
		
Click to expand...

May well be the - why should I have anything but a layman's view on how trade works?  And I might suggest that the vast majority of the electorate know just as little as I.  And so the expectations on new trade deals held by many who voted leave are simply based upon the rhetoric and assertions of those who claimed to know - like Dr Liam Fox - and even those who claimed to know can provide no real assessment of the likely trade that will be required to replace that to the EU that we will lose (or they are not letting us know)

So we hear Leave voter after voter confident on the great trade deals that are out there because Johnson, Davis, Gove and Fox say they are there.  It's faith-based politics 

I have little faith in Jeremy Corbyn - but perhaps I would put up with 5 yrs of a Corbyn-led labour government if it meant something real in respect of a CU with the EU - maybe able something beneficial and positive in respect of the SM...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 27, 2018)

IanM said:



			Showed this to a group of folk from a Shipping Agency this morning.... they laughed long and loud.



Back on the topic of the "scumbag friend of the terrorist"....   Can anyone seriously vote for him?   If so , why?
		
Click to expand...

I am glad they found it amusing.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 27, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			May well be the - why should I have anything but a layman's view on how trade works?  And I might suggest that the vast majority of the electorate know just as little as I.  And so the expectations on new trade deals held by many who voted leave are simply based upon the rhetoric and assertions of those who claimed to know - like Dr Liam Fox - and even those who claimed to know can provide no real assessment of the likely trade that will be required to replace that to the EU that we will lose (or they are not letting us know)

So we hear Leave voter after voter confident on the great trade deals that are out there because Johnson, Davis, Gove and Fox say they are there.  It's faith-based politics 

I have little faith in Jeremy Corbyn - but perhaps I would put up with 5 yrs of a Corbyn-led labour government if it meant something real in respect of a CU with the EU - maybe able something beneficial and positive in respect of the SM...
		
Click to expand...


So if you know nothing, as you've said, why are you beating the drum and telling everyone and their dog we don't have the experience? By your own admission, you're, at best, a layman. Yet you rail log and hard with such authority.


----------



## IanM (Feb 27, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I have little faith in Jeremy Corbyn - but perhaps I would put up with 5 yrs of a Corbyn-led labour government if it meant something real in respect of a CU with the EU - maybe able something beneficial and positive in respect of the SM...
		
Click to expand...

That is the funniest thing you've ever said.  Straight after an admission that you don't understand trade. 

I guess your understanding of Corbyn's fiscal plans and connection to terrorists is on a similar level.   

Mods....help!


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 27, 2018)

Owd Jezza has been front page in the Mansfield area of late, what with our esteemed Tory MP Ben Bradley calling him a spy. Seeing as Jezza has never done a days work in his life, don't know what or who he could spy on. Anyway all is well coz Benny Boy has agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to Jezzas fave Charity. Which just happens to be for the poor folk of Mansfield, which don't really narrow it down. The fact that Mansfield is now a run down dump of a town which the former Labour MP Alan Meale did sod all to address seems to of been lost on Jezza. 
Now seeing as Benny lied about Jezza and had to pay a sum of brass to Jezzas Charity. Now Jezza has done a 180 turn and in essence lied to his supporters about where he stood on Brexit. When is he gonna apologise and how much of a undisclosed sum of brass wil he pay to anyone's charity.
 How anyone can support him when he don't even know from week to week what he stands for is beyond me.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Feb 27, 2018)

IanM said:



			Showed this to a group of folk from a Shipping Agency this morning.... they laughed long and loud.


*
Back on the topic of the "scumbag friend of the terrorist"...*.   *Can anyone seriously vote for him?   If so , why*?
		
Click to expand...

Because a lot of the younger generation and those who want to protect our public services and NHS and are not just obsessed with how well the economy can work for them, feel very disillusioned with the Tory party??? And if the Tory supporters just continue to dismiss him with cheap stereotypes taken from the headlines of The Mail or Telegraph then you are kind of playing into their hands.  Argue the facts with evidence and we can have a proper debate.


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 27, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			May well be the - why should I have anything but a layman's view on how trade works?  And I might suggest that the vast majority of the electorate know just as little as I.  And so the expectations on new trade deals held by many who voted leave are simply based upon the rhetoric and assertions of those who claimed to know - like Dr Liam Fox - and even those who claimed to know can provide no real assessment of the likely trade that will be required to replace that to the EU that we will lose (or they are not letting us know)

So we hear Leave voter after voter confident on the great trade deals that are out there because Johnson, Davis, Gove and Fox say they are there.  It's faith-based politics  

I have little faith in Jeremy Corbyn - but perhaps I would put up with 5 yrs of a Corbyn-led labour government if it meant something real in respect of a CU with the EU - maybe able something beneficial and positive in respect of the SM...
		
Click to expand...

Trade is out there in the World and it will always be up to entrepreneurs and people in business to go out and sell into international markets.  I have been involved with doing this in many countries outside Europe like the USA, Japan and China, the EU or the UK dont do this for you, all they can do is support you through trade initiatives and in my experience the only place I got this was from our own Government who I must say had some very good quality people on tap.     Please dont get confused with how EU membership affects international trade, the main thing they can do is help create free trade and because of their protectionist culture they are not good at that.   Also we will not stop trading with the EU so it's not a matter of losing trade, the  leading players in the EU know how important trade with the UK is to them and all this current banter will be quickly forgotten in a few years after we have left.   Corbyn is a nasty person who speaks with a forked tongue and will jump down on any side of the fence that suits his need for power and the implementation of his flawed concepts.  He has just done exactly this and gone against his life long principles.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Feb 28, 2018)

SocketRocket said:



			Trade is out there in the World and it will always be up to entrepreneurs and people in business to go out and sell into international markets.  I have been involved with doing this in many countries outside Europe like the USA, Japan and China, the EU or the UK dont do this for you, all they can do is support you through trade initiatives and in my experience the only place I got this was from our own Government who I must say had some very good quality people on tap.     Please dont get confused with how EU membership affects international trade, the main thing they can do is help create free trade and because of their protectionist culture they are not good at that.   Also we will not stop trading with the EU so it's not a matter of losing trade, the  leading players in the EU know how important trade with the UK is to them and all this current banter will be quickly forgotten in a few years after we have left.   *Corbyn is a nasty person who speaks with a forked tongue and will jump down on any side of the fence that suits his need for power and the implementation of his flawed concepts. * He has just done exactly this and gone against his life long principles.
		
Click to expand...

Replace the word Corbyn with Boris Johnson and that sentence would be just as correct.  Which kind of sums up where we are with current politics.  To be honest I don't respect either of them for their stance on this mater.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 28, 2018)

Hacker Khan said:



			Replace the word Corbyn with Boris Johnson and that sentence would be just as correct.  Which kind of sums up where we are with current politics.  To be honest I don't respect either of them for their stance on this mater.
		
Click to expand...

Canâ€™t disagree with that. But if weâ€™re putting together a list of politicians that are not on my favourites list it would have a few more added. McDonnell ahead of Corbyn, and Fox a close second to Boris. Add in Nick Clegg, who I used to admire greatly.


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 28, 2018)

IanM said:



			Can anyone seriously vote for him?   If so , why?
		
Click to expand...


Only the folk living in his constituency can answer this...

And, if he was the best choice for Islington [and I lived there] I'd vote for him...


----------



## IanM (Feb 28, 2018)

MegaSteve said:



			Only the folk living in his constituency can answer this...

And, if he was the best choice for Islington [and I lived there] I'd vote for him...
		
Click to expand...

IF is a huge word....   Islington is an odd place.  Lots of posh white folk apologising for themselves......


----------



## Hacker Khan (Feb 28, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Canâ€™t disagree with that. But if weâ€™re putting together a list of politicians that are not on my favourites list it would have a few more added. McDonnell ahead of Corbyn, and Fox a close second to Boris. *Add in Nick Clegg, who I used to admire greatly*.
		
Click to expand...

Try and listen to https://www.joe.co.uk/unfiltered/unfiltered-with-james-obrien-episode-17-sir-nick-clegg-161257 I found it a really interesting listen.  And at least to me Fox is pretty consistent with his views, no matter how unpalatable I find them.


----------



## SocketRocket (Mar 1, 2018)

Hacker Khan said:



			Try and listen to https://www.joe.co.uk/unfiltered/unfiltered-with-james-obrien-episode-17-sir-nick-clegg-161257 I found it a really interesting listen.  And at least to me Fox is pretty consistent with his views, no matter how unpalatable I find them.
		
Click to expand...

Fox is what you see on the tin and straight about it.  Corbyn/McDonnell are different, they are Communists dressed up in labour clothes because it is the only way they can promote their real beliefs.  Their front bench is pathetic and very poor quality due to their half tidy MPs wanting to ditch them.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 1, 2018)

SocketRocket said:



			Fox is what you see on the tin and straight about it.  Corbyn/McDonnell are different, *they are Communists dressed up in labour clothe*s because it is the only way they can promote their real beliefs.  Their front bench is pathetic and very poor quality due to their half tidy MPs wanting to ditch them.
		
Click to expand...

But they are not though are they.  They have, relative to the centralist views of recent Labour administrations, relatively socialist views on many issues, but that does not make them communists. And as I said in a previous post, if all the tories are going to do is call them communists then that will not win over any labour voters, or people who, given the choice between the current governments approach and a bit of socialism, might actually like a bit of socialism when it comes to the NHS and public services.


----------



## Old Skier (Mar 1, 2018)

Not communists but they are committed Marxist and have admitted it on several occasions publicly . There have been previous links to them on other threads.


----------



## Hobbit (Mar 1, 2018)

Hacker Khan said:



			But they are not though are they.  They have, relative to the centralist views of recent Labour administrations, relatively socialist views on many issues, but that does not make them communists. And as I said in a previous post, if all the tories are going to do is call them communists then that will not win over any labour voters, or people who, given the choice between the current governments approach and a bit of socialism, might actually like a bit of socialism when it comes to the NHS and public services.
		
Click to expand...

Marxism, which McDonnell has admitted to, = the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, later developed by their followers to form the basis of communism.

The City of London is a bigger earner of tax revenue than North Sea oil, currently. Their brand of re-nationalisation of major industries will be felt by the City, which will affect pensions. Confidence in the UK will drop, along with investment.

I like a lot of Corbyn's socialist policies but I feel he is promising the earth but will destroy the economy trying to deliver it.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 1, 2018)

Hacker Khan said:



			Replace the word Corbyn with Boris Johnson and that sentence would be just as correct.  Which kind of sums up where we are with current politics.  To be honest I don't respect either of them for their stance on this mater.
		
Click to expand...

Snap!


----------



## IanM (Mar 1, 2018)

How many Terrorist Rallies/Funerals has Boris been to?


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 1, 2018)

IanM said:



			How many Terrorist Rallies/Funerals has Boris been to?
		
Click to expand...

I'm guessing if your living standards are crumbling, the public services you are relying on are decreasing and the length of time you are waiting to get seen to on the NHS is increasing you probably do not give a *^*&^


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 1, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Marxism, which McDonnell has admitted to, = the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, later developed by their followers to form the basis of communism.

The City of London is a bigger earner of tax revenue than North Sea oil, currently. *Their brand of re-nationalisation of major industries *will be felt by the City, which will affect pensions. Confidence in the UK will drop, along with investment.

I like a lot of Corbyn's socialist policies but I feel he is promising the earth but will destroy the economy trying to deliver it.
		
Click to expand...

Replace the words I've highlighted with the word 'Brexit' and we'll have much the same result. IMHO. Devil and the deep blue sea.....


----------



## IanM (Mar 1, 2018)

Hacker Khan said:



			Replace the words I've highlighted with the word 'Brexit' and we'll have much the same result. IMHO. Devil and the deep blue sea.....  

Click to expand...

...as evidenced by all the banks who have left the City in the last two years, the stock market crash and the huge rise in unemployment, you mean?


----------



## IanM (Mar 1, 2018)

Hacker Khan said:



			I'm guessing if your living standards are crumbling, the public services you are relying on are decreasing and the length of time you are waiting to get seen to on the NHS is increasing you probably do not give a *^*&^
		
Click to expand...


Not sure what that has to do with the question about Corbyn's propensity to align himself with enemies of the State.  But if you want to talk Marxist Economics, I am happy to do that too!

...and as you say, you are guessing about my situation.   

Corbyn has been caught out badly in terms of his Financial Claims.... but maybe he can deliver on the Unicorns he promised!


----------



## MegaSteve (Mar 1, 2018)

IanM said:



			but maybe he can deliver on the Unicorns he promised!
		
Click to expand...


Probably more likely than the jam tomorrow promises of the tory boys 'n girls...


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 1, 2018)

IanM said:



			...as evidenced by all the banks who have left the City in the last two years, the stock market crash and the huge rise in unemployment, you mean?   

Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you but we have not had Brexit yet. I'd hope the success or not of this is judged a bit more than a few months since we voted to leave, although we have not actually left yet and won't for another year.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 1, 2018)

IanM said:



			Not sure what that has to do with the question about Corbyn's propensity to align himself with enemies of the State.  But if you want to talk Marxist Economics, I am happy to do that too!

...and as you say, you are guessing about my situation.   

*Corbyn has been caught out badly in terms of his Financial Claims*.... but maybe he can deliver on the Unicorns he promised!
		
Click to expand...

No he hasn't as he has not had the opportunity to enact them.


----------



## IanM (Mar 1, 2018)

So, comparing actual cost with claimed cost and stated offering doesn't count then?

My apologies.


----------



## Hobbit (Mar 1, 2018)

Hacker Khan said:



			Replace the words I've highlighted with the word 'Brexit' and we'll have much the same result. IMHO. Devil and the deep blue sea.....  

Click to expand...

Will we have much the same result? The fallout from Brexit, e.g. the sudden recession that didn't happen and mass unemployment that didn't happen + what MIGHT happen in 2 years time is at best an educated guess, whereas what Corbyn has said about re-nationalisation is a manifesto pledge.

We don't know what the negotiated deal will be yet some people are already writing it off as a disaster. And this is what really pee's me off, the doom mongers who actually don't know what will happen. Yes, by all means its a no from a political/lifestyle choice but to say it will be a disaster when there is no concrete evidence of that...


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 1, 2018)

Hobbit said:



*Will we have much the same result?* The fallout from Brexit, e.g. the sudden recession that didn't happen and mass unemployment that didn't happen + what MIGHT happen in 2 years time is at best an educated guess, whereas what Corbyn has said about re-nationalisation is a manifesto pledge.

We don't know what the negotiated deal will be yet some people are already writing it off as a disaster. And this is what really pee's me off, the doom mongers who actually don't know what will happen. Yes, by all means its a no from a political/lifestyle choice but to say it will be a disaster when there is no concrete evidence of that...
		
Click to expand...

I personally ain't got an effing clue, I was just going on the advice of the vast majority of economic projections that said it it would not be good.  Much as no one has a clue on the impact of nationalising a few industries like rail where the private sector is at best, not providing the best service to the customers.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Mar 9, 2018)

As Corbyn addresses the half filled SLab Conference hall......his supporters burst into new chant of...... 'och Jeremy Corbyn'.

They didn't really


----------



## spongebob59 (Mar 15, 2018)

https://twitter.com/haveigotnews/status/974287307049259009


----------



## Old Skier (Mar 15, 2018)

spongebob59 said:





https://twitter.com/haveigotnews/status/974287307049259009

Click to expand...

Stop it, he's in enough trouble with his MPs, again.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 15, 2018)

Old Skier said:



			Stop it, he's in enough trouble with his MPs, again.
		
Click to expand...

Just about everything (but not everything) the Labour Party are talking about I can agree with - and then up pops Foreign Policy and I look at Corbyn and I turn away from Labour


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Mar 15, 2018)

He really is the man who missed the main chance.
He can't even lay a glove on what is probably the poorest ever UK government.
I voted for labour for most of my life, would not touch them with an extremely long barge pole now.
The wrong Miliband blew it but Corbyn is taking them to a whole new level.

Reading the Alan Johnson trilogy atm. would recommend it.
In a parallel universe he would have been a very popular PM.


----------



## spongebob59 (Apr 5, 2018)

Seems to have upset Lord Sugar (nice di tty by the way)

https://news.sky.com/story/lord-sug...stud-jeremy-corbyn-with-bizarre-poem-11317806


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Apr 5, 2018)

spongebob59 said:



			Seems to have upset Lord Sugar (nice di tty by the way)

https://news.sky.com/story/lord-sug...stud-jeremy-corbyn-with-bizarre-poem-11317806

Click to expand...

Anyone upsetting Al gets my vote &#128513;.


----------



## IanM (Apr 6, 2018)

Doon frae Troon said:



			He really is the man who missed the main chance.
He can't even lay a glove on what is probably the poorest ever UK government.
I voted for labour for most of my life, would not touch them with an extremely long barge pole now.
The wrong Miliband blew it but Corbyn is taking them to a whole new level.
		
Click to expand...

Spot on.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 6, 2018)

Hacker Khan said:



			I personally ain't got an effing clue,* I was just going on the advice of the vast majority of economic projections that said it it would not be good.*  Much as no one has a clue on the impact of nationalising a few industries like rail where the private sector is at best, not providing the best service to the customers.
		
Click to expand...

Not really good enough I'm afraid - and easily countered by my referring to very positive supporters of Brexit who might have an idea - witness the views of James Dyson, Tim Martin, Prof Patrick Minford plus seven other influential economists (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36150191) - and ... erm ...

But clearly there is a balance of opinion across industry, commerce, businessmen and economists that those who voted to remain (and who still think that leaving the EU ain't going to be good) refuse to acknowledge.

No idea what Corbyn thinks he's up to - no time for, and no trust in, the guy.


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 6, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			...
No idea what Corbyn thinks he's up to....
		
Click to expand...

Now that's the most damning criticism of a politician! It's up to the politician to get their 'message'/policies across! And if they can't, then they are doomed! And that's even before trying to convince the electorate that those policies are the right ones!



SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			...no time for, and no trust in, the guy.
		
Click to expand...

And this is what happens when when the message fails to be delivered!

The Conservatives (and their allies in the Press) are doing a pretty good job of destroying his credibility, but Corbyn himself seems to be a major contributor to that task too! He's really simply not up to the job of leading a major political party imo!


----------



## IanM (Apr 6, 2018)

Actually, I think his stance on some issues is jolly clear.  Thatâ€™s why he gets so much stick.


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 6, 2018)

IanM said:



			Actually, I think his stance on some issues is jolly clear.  Thatâ€™s why he gets so much stick.
		
Click to expand...

Ah! That's (at least arguably) true too! The likes of re-nationalisation of (all) Rail Transport is an example. Though it's his inability to convince voters of the benefits, as opposed to simply 'slavishly' adopting a (flawed imo) doctrinal approach!


----------



## MegaSteve (Apr 6, 2018)

IanM said:



			Actually, I think his stance on some issues is jolly clear.  Thatâ€™s why he gets so much stick.
		
Click to expand...


Somewhat like Boris who makes it jolly clear his sole aim is self advancement...

Unfortunately, being a tory boy and a dahling of the press he gets away with it...


----------



## IanM (Apr 6, 2018)

Nationalisation is the least of his dangerous practices.  Be in no doubt what he wants....


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 6, 2018)

If he wants to win back some brownie points he needs to address the anti-semitism row that just doesn't seem to want to go away. I've read some good stuff in recent days about Labours problems on this issue, one of which names a number of MP's and activists that have said things they probably shouldn't have said. Some have been suspended then reinstated, even though there's no hiding from what they've actually said. Others have supported some of these people in their fight against suspension, and some have supported comments made only to now want to distance themselves from those comments or support given.

Does Corbyn have antisemitic tendencies? I genuinely don't know, although some of the things he's said and done are at best questionable. I'm tempted to follow the line of one of the Labour supporting media outlets; Corbyn is clumsy and, probably, shouldn't be Labour leader. And the next paragraph in the article said both the Labour centre right and the Tories will continue to have field day until he either gets very tough on antisemitism or is replaced.


----------



## drdel (Apr 7, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			If he wants to win back some brownie points he needs to address the anti-semitism row that just doesn't seem to want to go away. I've read some good stuff in recent days about Labours problems on this issue, one of which names a number of MP's and activists that have said things they probably shouldn't have said. Some have been suspended then reinstated, even though there's no hiding from what they've actually said. Others have supported some of these people in their fight against suspension, and some have supported comments made only to now want to distance themselves from those comments or support given.

Does Corbyn have antisemitic tendencies? I genuinely don't know, although some of the things he's said and done are at best questionable. I'm tempted to follow the line of one of the Labour supporting media outlets; Corbyn is clumsy and, probably, shouldn't be Labour leader. And the next paragraph in the article said both the Labour centre right and the Tories will continue to have field day until he either gets very tough on antisemitism or is replaced.
		
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree. 

We, in the UK, need a strong opposition party for our system of government to work well. Labour, under JC, is not functioning well and I worry that he has a group of ardent followers who can keep him in his position and thus there's no brave real challenger. How on earth does our security forces dare bring him into their confidences with sensitive information.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 7, 2018)

drdel said:



			How on earth does our security forces dare bring him into their confidences with sensitive information.
		
Click to expand...

In the same manner as they do for the Foreign Secretary I would imagine.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Apr 7, 2018)

Doon frae Troon said:



			In the same manner as they do for the Foreign Secretary I would imagine.
		
Click to expand...

Well played sir &#128513;&#127867;


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 8, 2018)

Doon frae Troon said:



			In the same manner as they do for the Foreign Secretary I would imagine.
		
Click to expand...

Touche!

Speaking of which....

A quote from a BBC article....
<begin quote>
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has described Jeremy Corbyn as the "Kremlin's useful idiot" over his response to the Salisbury poisoning.

He said the Labour leader was giving Moscow "propaganda" false credibility by refusing to "unequivocally" back the government's view it was responsible.

Labour said Mr Johnson had "made a fool of himself" by misrepresenting what he was told by chemical weapons experts.

It stressed Mr Corbyn had repeatedly said the evidence pointed to Russia.
<end quote> whole article here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43686718

While BJ doesn't appear to have lied, nor made one of his - all too common - blunders, he gets another 'he's a soviet lacky' blow in against Corbyn! I believe that it's this sort of 'spin' that will prevent him ever convincing the electorate that he is capable of leading the country. His performance at PMQs is also not good enough either - he raises issues pretty well, but is quite poor at attacking replies! It's almost as if his subsequent questions/statements have been scripted according to a 'decision tree' of what the reply is - and he searches round for the appropriate next question, a process that just doesn't come cross well!


----------



## drdel (Apr 8, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			Touche!

Speaking of which....

A quote from a BBC article....
<begin quote>
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has described Jeremy Corbyn as the "Kremlin's useful idiot" over his response to the Salisbury poisoning.

He said the Labour leader was giving Moscow "propaganda" false credibility by refusing to "unequivocally" back the government's view it was responsible.

Labour said Mr Johnson had "made a fool of himself" by misrepresenting what he was told by chemical weapons experts.

It stressed Mr Corbyn had repeatedly said the evidence pointed to Russia.
<end quote> whole article here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43686718

While BJ doesn't appear to have lied, nor made one of his - all too common - blunders, he gets another 'he's a soviet lacky' blow in against Corbyn! I believe that it's this sort of 'spin' that will prevent him ever convincing the electorate that he is capable of leading the country. His performance at PMQs is also not good enough either - he raises issues pretty well, but is quite poor at attacking replies! It's almost as if his subsequent questions/statements have been scripted according to a 'decision tree' of what the reply is - and he searches round for the appropriate next question, a process that just doesn't come cross well!
		
Click to expand...

I note you reference the BBC's article in support of JC. However I wonder from your comments if you've read BJ's well written article or just taken the selected sound bites as the gospel?


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 8, 2018)

drdel said:



			I note you reference the BBC's article in support of JC. However I wonder from your comments if you've read BJ's well written article or just taken the selected sound bites as the gospel?
		
Click to expand...

Kindly re-read my post. It wasn't 'in support of JC'. Nor was the BBC's article - just to cover the ambiguity in your first sentence!

Not a subscriber to (Sunday) Times, so not read the entire article. Johnson's writing does tend to be less gaff-prone than his speaking though! The Torygraph certainly published an article similar to the Beeb's - with its own 'spin' of course!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jun 25, 2018)

...and people wonder why Labour are not making any headway.


https://wingsoverscotland.com/whose-mayhem-is-it-anyway/#more-104384


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 25, 2018)

Doon frae Troon said:



			...and people wonder why Labour are not making any headway.


https://wingsoverscotland.com/whose-mayhem-is-it-anyway/#more-104384

Click to expand...

For me it's simple - Jeremy Corbyn.  Don't know what will take for me to vote Labour next time around if he's still LP leader - but it'll either have to be a very big change across a variety of policies - or something happens so very drastic in the UK that DEMANDS that the Tories are hoofed out - and there is no alternative but Labour.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jun 25, 2018)

At FMQ all Nicola needs to say to this months SLab leader is â€¦â€¦â€¦.and in Wales...â€¦..and he turns into a gibbering fool.


Where's Jeremy Corbyn...â€¦.was The shout at the London Brexit march


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 7, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			If he wants to win back some brownie points he needs to address the anti-semitism row that just doesn't seem to want to go away. I've read some good stuff in recent days about Labours problems on this issue, one of which names a number of MP's and activists that have said things they probably shouldn't have said. Some have been suspended then reinstated, even though there's no hiding from what they've actually said. Others have supported some of these people in their fight against suspension, and some have supported comments made only to now want to distance themselves from those comments or support given.

Does Corbyn have antisemitic tendencies? I genuinely don't know, although some of the things he's said and done are at best questionable. I'm tempted to follow the line of one of the Labour supporting media outlets; Corbyn is clumsy and, probably, shouldn't be Labour leader. And the next paragraph in the article said both the Labour centre right and the Tories will continue to have field day until he either gets very tough on antisemitism or is replaced.
		
Click to expand...

And still it won't go away. 

uk-politics-45077647

What concerns me more than Corbyn's bumbling ineffectual deflections is the 'stormtroopers' in the background viciously attacking anyone that dare criticise him. When you look at Momentum's actions in so many constituencies, forcing deselections of moderate MP's. The attacks on Hodge, Austin and Watson, including how quickly the first two were formally charged with misbehaviour unlike those obviously guilty of anti-semitism you've really got to ask the question, "just how unsavoury is the Labour Party behind the lovely cuddly caring image they try to portray."

We need a strong, fair opposition. We've got the beginnings of a Night of the Long knives instead.


----------



## IanM (Aug 7, 2018)

Tendancies?   I guess the record of who you praise, places., events you go to and who you associate with tend to speak very loudly in such things.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 7, 2018)

IanM said:



			Tendancies?   I guess the record of who you praise, places., events you go to and who you associate with tend to speak very loudly in such things.
		
Click to expand...

If Corbyn had met both sides of the conflicts with equal energy I'd be inclined to think he was genuinely interested in finding fair solutions for all parties. You've only got to look at Corbyn's appearances on Iranian TV, and the blatant lies he told Andrew Marr in January this year about them to realise he is an out and out liar and a very dangerous man.


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 7, 2018)

Just when the blue team is in total dis-array instead of taking the fullest advantage...
They have a total meltdown of their own...
Unbelievable...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 7, 2018)

I have zero time for Jeremy Corbyn.  His every 'sincere' utterance seems insincere, inauthentic and forced.  Do I trust him? No.


----------



## Tashyboy (Aug 7, 2018)

MegaSteve said:



			Just when the blue team is in total dis-array instead of taking the fullest advantage...
They have a total meltdown of their own...
Unbelievable...
		
Click to expand...

This is about it in a nutshell. Can remember somone once saying a strong opposition creates a strong government. We have an opposition that quite frankly is embarrassing. Only matched by an equally embarrassing government.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 7, 2018)

Corbyn has spent his Political career sharing a bed with extremist groups. How on earth could he be a suitable candidate to be leader of the Labour Party.   The mainstream needs to wake up and throw out this nasty group that has infiltrated the party and turned its leadership into a nasty, dangerous influence.


----------



## drdel (Aug 8, 2018)

SocketRocket said:



			Corbyn has spent his Political career sharing a bed with extremist groups. How on earth could he be a suitable candidate to be leader of the Labour Party.   The mainstream needs to wake up and throw out this nasty group that has infiltrated the party and turned its leadership into a nasty, dangerous influence.
		
Click to expand...

Yup and I'm afraid it seems he still has the same bedfellows. The 'bubble' around the central group of the Labour Party is a danger to the UK's democracy.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 8, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			...*Corbyn is clumsy and, probably, shouldn't be Labour leader*. And the next paragraph in the article said both the Labour centre right and the Tories will continue to have field day until he either gets very tough on antisemitism or is replaced.
		
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more with the bold bit!

I don't believe he'll ever escape the whiff/accusation of anti-semitism - even if he isn't anti-semetic!


----------



## IanM (Aug 8, 2018)

just as well he is then....


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 8, 2018)

IanM said:



			just as well he is then....
		
Click to expand...

your have actual proof of that?


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 8, 2018)

Is Corbyn anti-semitic? On the face of it, probably not. He says some good things about rooting out anti-semitism, and Labour are too slow in dealing with it.

However, I'd prefer to look at it from several angles.

1) He's intelligent, very intelligent, and should know without a shadow of a doubt what the difference is between racism and ant-semitism. And he appears to fail miserably.

2) He's never sought to put the same energy into working with both sides. If he'd put in as much energy as he had with Hamas and Hezbollah, who knows what he could have achieved.

Â£) He's moved with undue haste when chasing Hodge and Austin, yet when you look at the list of 'offenders' in the Labour Party, and there's plenty of them(the list is embarrassingly long) he's done next to nowt. Far from it! On the day Ken Livingstone resigned from the Labour Party Corbyn paid tribute to him.

4) He's happy to redefine the world's list of definitions of ant-semitism, leaving out four, one of which you could pin to his chest quite easily.

5) Last week saw Corbyn's office ask if it was okay to publish an article on Friday evening, just before the Jewish Sabbath. When advised that it would be insensitive, it still went ahead and published it.

I used to think he was the patsy for a more sinister, Marxist left wing - have a read of McDonnell's history. Corbyn, and McDonnell are frighteningly dangerous across such a wide spectrum of areas in running the UK. The wistful promises that buy votes worry me. He, and his cohorts, will sleep walk the UK into a society akin to a banana republic.


----------



## Tashyboy (Aug 12, 2018)

So it seems our Jezza in 2014  took a little visit to the graves of the terrorists who killed israeli athletes at the munich olympics in 1972. Think tomorrow will be a busy day for him.


----------



## drdel (Aug 12, 2018)

Tashyboy said:



			So it seems our Jezza in 2014  took a little visit to the graves of the terrorists who killed israeli athletes at the munich olympics in 1972. Think tomorrow will be a busy day for him.
		
Click to expand...

If there is any natural justice I hope you're right. I amazed his past has been smoothed over.


----------



## IanM (Aug 13, 2018)

He claims "Black Setpember" was a heavy metal band, so he'd thought he was goign to a concert!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 13, 2018)

Funny how the right wing press are managing to 'discover' and publish anti-Corbyn articles on a very regular basis these days.  You might almost think they had stored them all up for a 'rainy day' when it became necessary for their ends to try and completely undermine Corbyn, portray him in the worst possible light, and distract from the mess that is the government and Brexit.

You _might _think that, but I can't possibly imagine that our press would be so scheming - or maybe they just might.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 13, 2018)

I just wish the two good halves of the Labour and Tory party's would unite into a new 'we are not idiots' party and leave the extremists of the two sides totally isolated in their own wee worlds.


The Sensible [we are not idiots] Party...â€¦.has a good ring to it.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 13, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Funny how the right wing press are managing to 'discover' and publish anti-Corbyn articles on a very regular basis these days.  You might almost think they had stored them all up for a 'rainy day' when it became necessary for their ends to try and completely undermine Corbyn, portray him in the worst possible light, and distract from the mess that is the government and Brexit.

You _might _think that, but I can't possibly imagine that our press would be so scheming - or maybe they just might.
		
Click to expand...

Whether they are scheming or not they are reporting facts. Or would you prefer to sleepwalk into a Corbyn led Labour Govt? Would you like someone who has, consistently, met various terror organisations become PM? The press would be remiss in their duty if they didn't report the stories, and the electorate wouldn't know that Corbyn's bed fellows are terror groups.

The current article clearly quotes the wife of one of the Israeli athletes, why hasn't Corbyn spoken to them too? Purely by coincidence I asked the same question 5 days ago in post #2052. When has he ever put energy into meeting BOTH sides of a conflict? He sees every govt in just about every country in the world as an oppressor of the people.


----------



## 2blue (Aug 13, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Funny how the right wing press are managing to 'discover' and publish anti-Corbyn articles on a very regular basis these days.  You might almost think they had stored them all up for a 'rainy day' when it became necessary for their ends to try and completely undermine Corbyn, portray him in the worst possible light, and distract from the mess that is the government and Brexit.

You _might _think that, but I can't possibly imagine that our press would be so scheming - or maybe they just might.
		
Click to expand...

AND...â€¦  it's hard to believe that so many people would be so naÃ¯ve to fall for it all, hook line & sinker!!


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 13, 2018)

The chances of a Jezza led government are less than zip...
Our right leaning media will ABSOLUTELY ensure that...


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 13, 2018)

2blue said:



			AND...â€¦  it's hard to believe that so many people would be so naÃ¯ve to fall for it all, hook line & sinker!! 

Click to expand...

You missed the bit about Corbyn being photographed meeting Hamas and Hezbollah. You missed the bit about Corbyn broadcasting on Iranian TV, you can see the Youtube vids of his broadcast*S* and see the declaration of his earnings from them. And you can now see the photos of him laying a wreath on the graves of terrorists. How much evidence do you need?

I would suggest that its you that have a problem if you believe its ok to do that.

We need a strong, fair Labour Party. We certainly don't want a Marxist, anti-semitic terror loving Labour Party.


----------



## 2blue (Aug 13, 2018)

How quickly we forget that unless we meet & talk with others, doesn't mean your 'big mates', nothing changes...â€¦  lets remember S Africa, N Ireland


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 13, 2018)

2blue said:



			How quickly we forget that unless we meet & talk with others, doesn't mean your 'big mates', nothing changes...â€¦  lets remember S Africa, N Ireland
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Thankfully de Klerk instructed the the NIS to meet with the ANC... that's a govt led meeting, not some Marxist fruitcake.

And unless I'm much mistaken it was a Labour led govt, especially Mo Mowlem, that had the political will to engineer the Good Friday Agreement, not some Marxist fruitcake.

Peace will only be achieved through negotiation but it has to be structured, and it has to be led by the govt of the day, not some Marxist fruitcake.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 13, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Whether they are scheming or not *they are reporting facts*. Or would you prefer to sleepwalk into a Corbyn led Labour Govt? Would you like someone who has, consistently, met various terror organisations become PM? The press would be remiss in their duty if they didn't report the stories, and the electorate wouldn't know that Corbyn's bed fellows are terror groups.

The current article clearly quotes the wife of one of the Israeli athletes, why hasn't Corbyn spoken to them too? Purely by coincidence I asked the same question 5 days ago in post #2052. When has he ever put energy into meeting BOTH sides of a conflict? He sees every govt in just about every country in the world as an oppressor of the people.
		
Click to expand...

As most of the articles seem to be coming from _certain _members of the printed press I would not be so 100% sure of the actual truth of everything they print about Corbyn.  But I absolutely agree that a fair bit of it does not look great as a backstory for a future PM - even although most, if not all, is from days long before he even had a sniff of leadership of the Labour Party.


----------



## IanM (Aug 13, 2018)

Too many recordings of speeches, too many photos with scumbags for it them all to be Daily Mail lies or him bidding for peace..................    sorry if that's not palatable, but there you are.


----------



## spongebob59 (Aug 13, 2018)

https://order-order.com/2018/08/13/corbyn-dont-think-involved-wreath-laying-munich-killers/


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 13, 2018)

IanM said:



			Too many recordings of speeches, too many photos with scumbags for it them all to be Daily Mail lies or him bidding for peace..................    sorry if that's not palatable, but there you are.
		
Click to expand...

And I can do without his apologists and deniers.  Then again I would say that as I have no time for Corbyn - I suppose that makes my views biased


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 13, 2018)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I just wish the two good halves of the Labour and Tory party's would unite into a new 'we are not idiots' party and leave the extremists of the two sides totally isolated in their own wee worlds.


The Sensible [we are not idiots] Party...â€¦.has a good ring to it.
		
Click to expand...

No places for the SNP in there then.


----------



## IanM (Aug 13, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And I can do without his apologists and deniers.  Then again I would say that as I have no time for Corbyn - I suppose that makes my views biased 

Click to expand...

"Frame that post Hogy".......... i am with you on this one! :clap:


----------



## IanM (Aug 13, 2018)

spongebob59 said:



https://order-order.com/2018/08/13/corbyn-dont-think-involved-wreath-laying-munich-killers/

Click to expand...

Thats much like Bill Cinton's "_I never had sex with that girl_" protestation.....


----------



## HughJars (Aug 13, 2018)

SocketRocket said:



			No places for the SNP in there then.
		
Click to expand...

Good een. :rofl:

A bit of levity to a serious topic. Just a shame Nicola will never stand for UK PM, what a bloody difference she'd make from the red-blue shambles we're seeing now.


----------



## HughJars (Aug 13, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Totally agree. Thankfully de Klerk instructed the the NIS to meet with the ANC... that's a govt led meeting, not some Marxist fruitcake.

And unless I'm much mistaken it was a Labour led govt, especially Mo Mowlem, that had the political will to engineer the Good Friday Agreement, *not some Marxist fruitcake.*

Peace will only be achieved through negotiation but it has to be structured, and it has to be led by the govt of the day, not some Marxist fruitcake.
		
Click to expand...

Ah ok, that's this years take. Last year it was "IRA sympathiser Corbyn". He was there before anyone else. I'm no fan of Corbyn, but this witch hunt, and failure to criticise anything that Israel does by the MSM, shows the extreme right wing agenda taking over this country.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 13, 2018)

IanM said:



			"Frame that post Hogy".......... i am with you on this one! :clap:
		
Click to expand...

 :whoo:


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 13, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			We certainly don't want a Marxist, anti-semitic terror loving Labour Party.
		
Click to expand...


And a totally right leaning Islamophobic tory party is fine 'n dandy ...


----------



## IanM (Aug 13, 2018)

That's the point... Mrs May, most certainly isnt.   Being anti _hinding women in sacks_ is not Islamaphobic ................not according to the Iman of Oxford anyway!  And the ladies in prison for refusing to weaar them in Iran might be better informed about it than us lot too....


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 13, 2018)

IanM said:



			That's the point... Mrs May, most certainly isnt.   Being anti _hinding women in sacks_ is not Islamaphobic ................not according to the Iman of Oxford anyway!  And the ladies in prison for refusing to weaar them in Iran might be better informed about it than us lot too....
		
Click to expand...


What the flip has this got to do with it?
If Baroness Warsi says the tories have 'issues' I am inclined to agree with her view...


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 13, 2018)

MegaSteve said:



			And a totally right leaning Islamophobic tory party is fine 'n dandy ...
		
Click to expand...

Where did I say that? 

Or or are you saying youâ€™d rather have an anti-Semitic terror loving Labour Party.

We can both twist what each other says.


----------



## Tashyboy (Aug 13, 2018)

So as a neutral I have a choice between Jezza and Diane or Theresa and Boris.

Thank God ave for golf to keep me sane, oh hang on. 

Times like this you wish you were Scotish and had proper alternatives. Oh hang on.

how do I get outta this hole.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 13, 2018)

HughJars said:



			Good een. :rofl:

A bit of levity to a serious topic. Just a shame Nicola will never stand for UK PM, what a bloody difference she'd make from the red-blue shambles we're seeing now.
		
Click to expand...

We already have a sensible [we are not idiots] Government in charge of Scotland.
They are very popular and keep being re-elected by the more sensible Scottish voters.

The UK â€¦â€¦.now that is a totally opposite story.


No chance of ever seeing a UK Scottish PM or senior cabinet minister now that EVEL rules Westminster.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 13, 2018)

Is it me or does Corbyn get less stick on here for his actions than Boris?


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 13, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Where did I say that? 

Or or are you saying youâ€™d rather have an anti-Semitic terror loving Labour Party.

We can both twist what each other says.
		
Click to expand...



I am fully aware of the failings within my own political party... 

Whereas, I feel, many of the blue rosette wearers just simply ignore the failings within their party or worse still pretend they don't exist...


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 13, 2018)

chrisd said:



			Is it me or does Corbyn get less stick on here for his actions than Boris?
		
Click to expand...

I'd say it was you...
From where I am sitting more folk are queuing up to kick Jezzaâ€¦

Most of the anti BoJo is same source...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 13, 2018)

chrisd said:



			Is it me or does Corbyn get less stick on here for his actions than Boris?
		
Click to expand...

That is a ..what would you rather have a needle through your eye or a red hot poker up your bum question.:lol:


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 13, 2018)

MegaSteve said:



			I am fully aware of the failings within my own political party... 

Whereas, I feel, many of the blue rosette wearers just simply ignore the failings within their party or worse still pretend they don't exist...
		
Click to expand...

There's some great people in both parties. Yvette Cooper is excellent, and Diane Abbott, for all her failings as Shadow Home Sec, has done some fabulous stuff campaigning for mental health awareness - she's just been promoted above her level of competency. I find it a little harder to identify stars amongst the Tories, maybe because they aren't quite cavalier and follow the party line better. Although I though David Davis spoke very well as Brexit Sec, and Chris Grayling speaks very well, especially outside of his brief. Hunt, I'm unsure of. Health is an emotive subject, more so with the lack of money and its too early to say how he'll pan out as Foreign Sec.

I've voted for all 3 of the Westminster parties in the last 40+ years, probably nip and tuck between Labour and the LibDems for the most votes. I wouldn't touch the current Labour Party with a barge pole, even if it meant getting the Tories out. I fear they'd do far more damage than we've seen in the last 8 years.


----------



## chrisd (Aug 13, 2018)

Doon frae Troon said:



			That is a ..what would you rather have a needle through your eye or a red hot poker up your bum question.:lol:
		
Click to expand...

I've had a needle in my eye &#129300;


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 13, 2018)

chrisd said:



			Is it me or does Corbyn get less stick on here for his actions than Boris?
		
Click to expand...

I don't think so.


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 13, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			I've voted for all 3 of the Westminster parties in the last 40+ years, probably nip and tuck between Labour and the LibDems for the most votes. I wouldn't touch the current Labour Party with a barge pole, even if it meant getting the Tories out. I fear they'd do far more damage than we've seen in the last 8 years.
		
Click to expand...


I live in a tory stranglehold so I always feel my vote [if it was Labour] as being irrelevant... So tend to vote for the best pick of the independents... First time [I think] I've admitted this in public... I voted for Boris, for Mayor, as Ken simply had to go... And, if the tories hadn't played it so dirty against Sadiq my vote could well have gone to Zac as he was the better candidate aside from allowing tory HQ to run his campaign...


Currently I am out of my party... It needs to get its 'top able' sorted... Somewhere between the Blairites and the Corbynistas and I'd be interested in re-joining... Been a union man all my working life but right now they [McCluskey] need to butt out...


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 13, 2018)

chrisd said:



			I've had a needle in my eye &#129300;
		
Click to expand...

Me too and it b****y hurts...
To say the least..


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 13, 2018)

MegaSteve said:



			I am fully aware of the failings within my own political party... 

Whereas, I feel, many of the blue rosette wearers just simply ignore the failings within their party or worse still pretend they don't exist...
		
Click to expand...

I think that there is a great deal of denial in 'right thinking' supporters of the Conservative Party over the direction that party is travelling at the moment and the sort of 'obnoxious right' that will attach itself to, and follow, the 'right leader' of that party.  Farage is rumbling on about getting back into party politics if Brexit does not fit what he defines as 'what the people voted for' - with IMO that all being linked into the desire for control over immigration - maybe for some wrapped up in different flavours of sweetie paper - but immigration control still being the main sweetie in town - and the Tory Party cannot again play the EU referendum card to nullify that threat.

Unfortunately Corbyn just does not do it for me.  I find his 'passion' pretty inauthentic and forced at times, and his avoidance of difficult matters worrying.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 13, 2018)

Corbyn has admitted he was in the party that laid the wreath to the two PLO planners behind the Munich Olympic massacre. But he didn't actually hold the wreath - splitting hairs or what!! And that's after previously saying he was in the party that laid a wreath at a different monument. So he lied previously, just as he did when he said he'd never met any IRA members at Westminster, only to be corrected by Diane Abbott.

The man is despicable and huge stain on the Labour Party. But at the end of the day, the party Leader is chosen by the members. Maybe that says a lot about just who and what the Labour Party is today.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 13, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			There's some great people in both parties. Yvette Cooper is excellent, *and Diane Abbott, for all her failings as Shadow Home Sec, has done some fabulous stuff campaigning for mental health awareness - she's just been promoted above her level of competency. *I find it a little harder to identify stars amongst the Tories, maybe because they aren't quite cavalier and follow the party line better. Although I though David Davis spoke very well as Brexit Sec, and Chris Grayling speaks very well, especially outside of his brief. Hunt, I'm unsure of. Health is an emotive subject, more so with the lack of money and its too early to say how he'll pan out as Foreign Sec.

I've voted for all 3 of the Westminster parties in the last 40+ years, probably nip and tuck between Labour and the LibDems for the most votes. I wouldn't touch the current Labour Party with a barge pole, even if it meant getting the Tories out. I fear they'd do far more damage than we've seen in the last 8 years.
		
Click to expand...

And all that you hear from many are Abbott being made fun of and mocked.  Because it is easy and lazy.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 13, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And all that you hear from many are Abbott being made fun of and mocked.  Because it is easy and lazy.
		
Click to expand...

I'll hold my hands up Hugh. I was one of those that mocked her for her performances as Shadow Home Sec. Like I said, she's been promoted to her level of incompetency. But her record in a number of areas is excellent.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 13, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			I'll hold my hands up Hugh. I was one of those that mocked her for her performances as Shadow Home Sec. Like I said, she's been promoted to her level of incompetency. But her record in a number of areas is excellent.
		
Click to expand...

She has made blunders; sometimes 'misspeaks', and has sometimes come across poorly - but I find her a lot more authentic than Corbyn.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 13, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Corbyn...
The man is despicable and huge stain on the Labour Party. But at the end of the day, the party Leader is chosen by the members. Maybe that says a lot about just who and what the Labour Party is today.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree with your view of Corbyn!

Unfortunately, the Labour Party is the most 'democratic' of all the parties and the Leader is (eventualy) chosen by grass-root members of the Party! With him as Leader, it will never become Government - at least I hope! It might take 2 failed elections before the Parliamentary wing realises this and does something about it - which it actually can!

Btw. I actually agree with his statement to BBC that '...the only way to peace is by a cycle of dialogue'!


----------



## User62651 (Aug 13, 2018)

Corbyns bubble of summer 2017 seems long gone to me. They dont even have a lead in the polls which given Tory performance of late is seriously bad news for Labour, dont think the Tories can get any lower. I dont mind Corby personally but I can see he's unsuitable for party leader. Labour need a leadership bid, someone more moderate like Thornberry or Starmer or Cooper have to step up soon.


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 13, 2018)

Many of the voting membership are poo scared, of the consequences, of the Blairites taking back control...


----------



## Tashyboy (Aug 13, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And all that you hear from many are Abbott being made fun of and mocked.  Because it is easy and lazy.
		
Click to expand...

No it's because she is thick. End of story. There is no doubt that there are certain races of our multicultural society that have had a bum deal and are downtrodden . If she is the best person to fight there cause then God help them. She may well be authentic and what you see is what you get as against the false " Jezza" but she is one of the reasons why Labour will never get to govern. She may well be a nice person and I have no reasons to doubt that. But she has been put into a position where she is massively punching above her weight, and Joe public sees that.


----------



## shortgame (Aug 13, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			She has made blunders; sometimes 'misspeaks', and has sometimes come across poorly - but *I find her a lot more authentic than Corbyn*.
		
Click to expand...

An authentic idiot rather than an inauthentic idiot


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 14, 2018)

This government is utterly clueless and Labour cannot provide a credible opposition.

Time for serious change and both of them to be binned.
Worked out quite well for France.


----------



## HughJars (Aug 14, 2018)

Tashyboy said:



			So as a neutral I have a choice between Jezza and Diane or Theresa and Boris.

Thank God ave for golf to keep me sane, oh hang on. 

*Times like this you wish you were Scotish and had proper alternatives. Oh hang on.*

how do I get outta this hole.
		
Click to expand...

Hang on what? Your point was correct, the SNP & Scottish Greens are nothing like the Tories/Labour/Libs.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 14, 2018)

Over the many years that Corbyn was a backbencher I can remember thinking that everything seemed to be about him - he seemed completely self-obsessed - his view was the only view and hell-mend any who cautioned or criticised him - compromise was an ugly word not for Jeremy.  Unfortunately (or not) I don't see any change in him.

Oh for a new John Smith or Donald Dewar.


----------



## Pathetic Shark (Aug 14, 2018)

I was working at the Commons when John Smith passed away.  There was such a universal sadness as he was one of the nicest most decent people you could ever come across there.  Surprisingly enough, two of the others were Maggie and Denis Skinner.   Both had time for everyone who worked there and treated staff with absolute respect.


----------



## IanM (Aug 14, 2018)

Pathetic Shark said:



			I was working at the Commons when John Smith passed away.  There was such a universal sadness as he was one of the nicest most decent people you could ever come across there.  Surprisingly enough, two of the others were Maggie and Denis Skinner.   Both had time for everyone who worked there and treated staff with absolute respect.
		
Click to expand...

John Smith, Tony Benn, Barbara Castle.... great examples of people whose politics you could disagree with, but you respected their integrity. 

Corbyn was at the events cos he supported the causes.  It seems the more British soldiers you killed, the more support you got.  Kill a Royal and blow up the Tory Confrence Hotel, even better.   

Remember, he wasnt anywhere brokering peace, he had no mandate to do so.  Be in no doubt, he was visiting friends.


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 14, 2018)

IanM said:



			John Smith, Tony Benn, Barbara Castle.... great examples of people whose politics you could disagree with, but you respected their integrity. 

Corbyn was at the events cos he supported the causes.  It seems the more British soldiers you killed, the more support you got.  Kill a Royal and blow up the Tory Confrence Hotel, even better.   

Remember, he wasnt anywhere brokering peace, he had no mandate to do so.  Be in no doubt, he was visiting friends.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe he was just trying to start a national debate?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 14, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Over the many years that Corbyn was a backbencher I can remember thinking that everything seemed to be about him - he seemed completely self-obsessed - his view was the only view and hell-mend any who cautioned or criticised him - compromise was an ugly word not for Jeremy.  Unfortunately (or not) I don't see any change in him.

Oh for a new John Smith or Donald Dewar.
		
Click to expand...

John Smith ..yes, but Donald lost a lot of his credibility over the cost of building The Scottish Parliament.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 14, 2018)

Doon frae Troon said:



			John Smith ..yes, but Donald lost a lot of his credibility over the cost of building The Scottish Parliament.
		
Click to expand...

Well as a building project that suffered a massive cost overrun it is in very good company with Sydney Opera House.  And despite the cost overruns both are recognised and widely admired as being magnificent and beautiful buildings.  I believe Scots can be very proud of their parliament building.


----------



## IanM (Aug 14, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			Maybe he was just trying to start a national debate? 

Click to expand...

You might be correct.... many concluded that writing an accurate description of him would get 30 day ban from forum!  :whoo:


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Aug 14, 2018)

Tashyboy said:



			So it seems our Jezza in 2014  took a little visit to the graves of the terrorists who killed israeli athletes at the munich olympics in 1972. Think tomorrow will be a busy day for him.
		
Click to expand...

So it seems the main stream media may of glossed over the facts, the 8 terrorists all involved in the munich attack are buried in Libya and not in the cemetery in Tunis that Corbyn visited.
Now they are saying the Tunis cemetery has the graves of people who were allegedly connected to the terror attack.
Their reporting obviously confused some readers eh tashy


----------



## Tashyboy (Aug 14, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			So it seems the main stream media may of glossed over the facts, the 8 terrorists all involved in the munich attack are buried in Libya and not in the cemetery in Tunis that Corbyn visited.
Now they are saying the Tunis cemetery has the graves of people who were allegedly connected to the terror attack.
Their reporting obviously confused some readers eh tashy 

Click to expand...

Is this the same cemetary where Jezza never held the wreath so it don't count. His words.&#128563;


----------



## Old Skier (Aug 14, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			Now they are saying the Tunis cemetery has the graves of people who were allegedly connected to the terror attack.
		
Click to expand...

Confirmed by Labour and Newsnight tonight.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Aug 14, 2018)

Tashyboy said:



			Is this the same cemetary where Jezza never held the wreath so it don't count. His words.&#128563;
		
Click to expand...

No mate, wreath held in Tunis, Terrorists buried in Libya, 1300km apart.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Aug 14, 2018)

Old Skier said:



			Confirmed by Labour and Newsnight tonight.
		
Click to expand...

The 4 buried there were allegdly involved in planning the munich attack. It is not were the actual terrorists are buried.
Iâ€™m no fan of Corbyns but less of The Daily Mail.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 15, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			So it seems the main stream media may of glossed over the facts, the 8 terrorists all involved in the munich attack are buried in Libya and not in the cemetery in Tunis that Corbyn visited.
Now they are saying the Tunis cemetery has the graves of people who were allegedly connected to the terror attack.
Their reporting obviously confused some readers eh tashy 

Click to expand...

Mainstream media didn't gloss over the facts. My post, #2090 dated 13/08, in which I said the planners of the Munich massacre was based on information in the mainstream media.

However, the wording in the early reports, a couple of days back, only tenuously linked Corbyn to the wreath laying at their grave. Its since come out that he was part of the party that laid a wreath on their grave. He himself has gone from a flat denial, to I might have been there to yes I laid a wreath.

There was a Tory backbencher at the peace conference too, but he declined the offer to visit the cemetery and take part in the wreath laying ceremony.


----------



## Pathetic Shark (Aug 15, 2018)

Just imagine for a minute it had been a Conservative front-bencher or even Teresa May who had been caught laying that wreath and then trying to cover it up.  Do you think Corbyn, Abbott, Thornberry and the other Labour crew would have kept quiet about it or gone on and on demanding resignations?   And how the BBC would have had a fit about it.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Aug 15, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Mainstream media didn't gloss over the facts. My post, #2090 dated 13/08, in which I said the planners of the Munich massacre was based on information in the mainstream media.

However, the wording in the early reports, a couple of days back, only tenuously linked Corbyn to the wreath laying at their grave. Its since come out that he was part of the party that laid a wreath on their grave. He himself has gone from a flat denial, to I might have been there to yes I laid a wreath.

There was a Tory backbencher at the peace conference too, but he declined the offer to visit the cemetery and take part in the wreath laying ceremony.
		
Click to expand...

You may of read that, but Iâ€™m responding directly to tashyâ€™s post, is tashyâ€™s post correct? were did tashy get that info from?
This trip was brought up in 2016, why are they bringing it up again? 
imo, itâ€™s a smear campaign and deflecting from the mess this government is in.


----------



## HughJars (Aug 15, 2018)

Pathetic Shark said:



			Just imagine for a minute it had been a Conservative front-bencher or even Teresa May who had been caught laying that wreath and then trying to cover it up.  Do you think Corbyn, Abbott, Thornberry and the other Labour crew would have kept quiet about it or gone on and on demanding resignations?   And how the BBC would have had a fit about it.
		
Click to expand...

Of course they would have gone on and on and on about it. But the media, especially Sky News and BBC news would not. THAT is the issue here. Every little thing Corbyn or the SNP do is minutely picked apart for a bad angle, May and her nasty cronies can do what they like, and little reporting of it is here today and gone tomorrow.


----------



## Old Skier (Aug 15, 2018)

The problem with Corbyn is he never gives an answer to any question asked first time. It always goes from flat denial to possibly, maybe then trys to blame the media for continuing to bring it up. Perhaps if he admitted to his involvement first time it would kill the story. His spokesman on Newsnight just made it worse.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Aug 15, 2018)

Old Skier said:



			The problem with Corbyn is he never gives an answer to any question asked first time. It always goes from flat denial to possibly, maybe then trys to blame the media for continuing to bring it up. Perhaps if he admitted to his involvement first time it would kill the story. His spokesman on Newsnight just made it worse.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe because over time heâ€™s learnt a lot of the media are not after the truth, there is the odd decent journo about, the rest are after a scoop.
Personally I reckon them and politicians are currently the lowest 2 jobs when it comes to credibility.


----------



## IanM (Aug 15, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			itâ€™s a smear campaign and deflecting from the mess this government is in.
		
Click to expand...


....and a remidner that the current Labour leader has a track record of befriending scum


----------



## spongebob59 (Aug 15, 2018)

HughJars said:



			Of course they would have gone on and on and on about it. But the media, especially Sky News and BBC news would not. THAT is the issue here. Every little thing Corbyn or the SNP do is minutely picked apart for a bad angle, May and her nasty cronies can do what they like, and little reporting of it is here today and gone tomorrow.
		
Click to expand...

https://order-order.com/2018/08/13/bbc-politics-homepage-boris-6-0-corbyn/


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Aug 15, 2018)

IanM said:



			....and a remidner that the current Labour leader has a track record of befriending scum
		
Click to expand...

Is it any different to May selling arms to the Saudiâ€™s? The biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the middle east or giving a billion to the DUP to secure votes, the same DUP that backed the UDA.


----------



## Tashyboy (Aug 15, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			You may of read that, but Iâ€™m responding directly to tashyâ€™s post, is tashyâ€™s post correct? were did tashy get that info from?
This trip was brought up in 2016, why are they bringing it up again? 
imo, itâ€™s a smear campaign and deflecting from the mess this government is in.
		
Click to expand...

According to the daily express ? where I read it the other day it was,correct.  So if it wasn't the terrorists I will hold my hands up. Pardon the pun. So it was at the graves of the people who planned the attack. Does that make it worse. It certainly don't make it better. As Hobbit says, (and seeing as Hobbit hasn't divulged where his info is from so I can only trust him to be correct), a Tory backbencher was at the same visit but declined to attend. Wonder if he actually thought " this is wrong", whereas Jezza thought this is ok.
I personally don't think it is a smear campaign, he is reaping what he has sown.

As a floating voter, and as I have already said, the government is in a mess, but not as big a mess as the Labour Party are. Like I said before for me it's a choice between Theresa and Boris or Jezza and Diane. Lord help the neutrals.


----------



## Tashyboy (Aug 15, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			Maybe because over time heâ€™s learnt a lot of the media are not after the truth, there is the odd decent journo about, the rest are after a scoop.
Personally I reckon them and politicians are currently the lowest 2 jobs when it comes to credibility.
		
Click to expand...

The media may well not be after the truth, but I am.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Aug 15, 2018)

Tashyboy said:



			According to the daily express ? where I read it the other day it was,correct.  So if it wasn't the terrorists I will hold my hands up. Pardon the pun. So it was at the graves of the people who planned the attack. Does that make it worse. It certainly don't make it better. As Hobbit says, (and seeing as Hobbit hasn't divulged where his info is from so I can only trust him to be correct), a Tory backbencher was at the same visit but declined to attend. Wonder if he actually thought " this is wrong", whereas Jezza thought this is ok.
I personally don't think it is a smear campaign, he is reaping what he has sown.

As a floating voter, and as I have already said, the government is in a mess, but not as big a mess as the Labour Party are. Like I said before for me it's a choice between Theresa and Boris or Jezza and Diane. Lord help the neutrals.
		
Click to expand...

It may or may not make it better in some peoples opinion, but obviously the headlines are misleading or a down right lie.
I donâ€™t like Corbyn as Iâ€™ve said, but genuinely believe the media going after him are in a perverse way strengthening his position with his supporters.

He helped lay a wreath to the people killed in the air strike, at the same event other wreaths were laid, the graves of the â€œallegedâ€ plotters/supporters were in the graveyard.

Is he really expected to know the location of grsves and names of every person who supported terrorism.


----------



## Old Skier (Aug 15, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			Is it any different to May selling arms to the Saudiâ€™s? The biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the middle east or giving a billion to the DUP to secure votes, the same DUP that backed the UDA.
		
Click to expand...

May does not sell arms to Saudi the British Government issues licenses to enable company's to sell. This has been a practice of UK Governments since you and eye were at junior school, so putting this down to May seems a little disingenuous.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Aug 15, 2018)

Old Skier said:



			May does not sell arms to Saudi the British Government issues licenses to enable company's to sell. This has been a practice of UK Governments since you and eye were at junior school, so putting this down to May seems a little disingenuous.
		
Click to expand...

Could the PM publicly come out and say sheâ€™s against it or she intends to change it? Just because weâ€™ve always done it doesnâ€™t mean itâ€™s right to continue.
Werenâ€™t the cluster bombs recently used in Yemen in civilian areas by the Saudis identified as coming from a British manafacturer?
No different to when thatcher was in charge and she got stick for her comments about Mandela or her friend Pinochet.


----------



## HughJars (Aug 15, 2018)

spongebob59 said:



https://order-order.com/2018/08/13/bbc-politics-homepage-boris-6-0-corbyn/

Click to expand...

2 days ago on their website. It's back  to 2-2 now, one of which "explains" Boris' quotes :mmm:

Regardless, how many read the website v how many watch TV news? There's the issue


----------



## Old Skier (Aug 15, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			Could the PM publicly come out and say sheâ€™s against it or she intends to change it? Just because weâ€™ve always done it doesnâ€™t mean itâ€™s right to continue.
Werenâ€™t the cluster bombs recently used in Yemen in civilian areas by the Saudis identified as coming from a British manafacturer?
No different to when thatcher was in charge and she got stick for her comments about Mandela or her friend Pinochet.
		
Click to expand...

Im not going to go on about middle eastern affairs on this thread other than to say that one of the unfortunate ways of the world is that sides have to pick which tyrants they wish to support to deal with the tyrants that they believe are a threat to their way of life, we, rightly or wrongly, with the majority of the free world choose the Saudi regime.

Corbyn seems to make a habit of picking, IMHO, the wrong side, be it Irish or middle eastern terrorists.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 15, 2018)

HughJars said:



			Of course they would have gone on and on and on about it. But the media, especially Sky News and BBC news would not. THAT is the issue here. Every little thing Corbyn or the SNP do is minutely picked apart for a bad angle, May and her nasty cronies can do what they like, and little reporting of it is here today and gone tomorrow.
		
Click to expand...

Hold on a minute - I thought the BBC were a biased bunch of lefties?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Aug 15, 2018)

Old Skier said:



			Im not going to go on about middle eastern affairs on this thread other than to say that one of the unfortunate ways of the world is that sides have to pick which tyrants they wish to support to deal with the tyrants that they believe are a threat to their way of life, we, rightly or wrongly, with the majority of the free world choose the Saudi regime.

Corbyn seems to make a habit of picking, IMHO, the wrong side, be it Irish or middle eastern terrorists.
		
Click to expand...

No worries, much worse laying a wreath near dead terrorist sympathisers than selling arms to states supporting current terrorists, sorted.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 15, 2018)

Old Skier said:



			Im not going to go on about middle eastern affairs on this thread other than to say that one of the unfortunate *ways of the world is that sides have to pick which tyrants they wish to support to deal with the tyrants that they believe are a threat to their way of life,* we, rightly or wrongly, with the majority of the free world choose the Saudi regime.
...
		
Click to expand...

Er.. No they (we) don't! We could simply not 'deal' with ANY tyrants - as was pretty much done successfully with Rhodesia and, probably not so successfully, with South Africa!

The US has a history of not 'managing' this sort of thing very well - supporting Saddam Hussein against Iran, the Taliban against Russia and even funding (Right Wing) revolutionaries in Central America!



Old Skier said:



			Corbyn seems to make a habit of picking, IMHO, the wrong side, be it Irish or middle eastern terrorists.
		
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with him supporting the 'downtrodden' side - which is always likely to be the 'wrong' side for many. But I do take issue with his support of (active) terorists - if that's what he has done.

Remember that many high up in 'now acceptable' governments where (revolutionary) change has taken place are/were ex 'freedom-fighters' - aka 'reformed' terrorists!


----------



## Old Skier (Aug 15, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			Er.. No they (we) don't! We could simply not 'deal' with ANY tyrants - as was pretty much done successfully with Rhodesia and, probably not so successfully, with South Africa!
		
Click to expand...

Er.. yes (we) do. Whether it's right or wrong is another matter. Interesting that you even think Zimbabwe was a success. Perhaps you might like to do some reading on what happened straight after independence under Mugabe untill the present date.


----------



## drdel (Aug 15, 2018)

What I find worse (marginally) is his attempt to deny what took place and then to compound the matter by trying to justify it rather than simply accepting a mistaken action. 

Add this to the Jewish debacle and it does put Labour in a very poor light.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 15, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			It may or may not make it better in some peoples opinion, but obviously the headlines are misleading or a down right lie.
I donâ€™t like Corbyn as Iâ€™ve said, but genuinely believe the media going after him are in a perverse way strengthening his position with his supporters.

He helped lay a wreath to the people killed in the air strike, at the same event other wreaths were laid, the graves of the â€œallegedâ€ plotters/supporters were in the graveyard.

Is he really expected to know the location of grsves and names of every person who supported terrorism.
		
Click to expand...

The headlines were misleading. The wording was (deliberately) vague. I researched it, and its clear Corbyn was a liar. Then Corbyn started dancing around the issue, then changed his tune, and proved he's a liar.



drdel said:



			What I find worse (marginally) is his attempt to deny what took place and then to compound the matter by trying to justify it rather than simply accepting a mistaken action. 

Add this to the Jewish debacle and it does put Labour in a very poor light.
		
Click to expand...

This for me. Corbyn could, on so many occasions, have held his hands up on so many issues but, typically, of a politician he just won't admit when he's in the wrong.

Many of the social policies he proposes are very good, and are needed. They are typically Labour, and will appeal to many Labour supporters. But he has too much smoke without fire to be believable. He's a loose cannon, with years of evidence of that, to be a 'safe bet' to lead the UK.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Aug 15, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			The headlines were misleading. The wording was (deliberately) vague. I researched it, and its clear Corbyn was a liar. Then Corbyn started dancing around the issue, then changed his tune, and proved he's a liar.



This for me. Corbyn could, on so many occasions, have held his hands up on so many issues but, typically, of a politician he just won't admit when he's in the wrong.

Many of the social policies he proposes are very good, and are needed. They are typically Labour, and will appeal to many Labour supporters. But he has too much smoke without fire to be believable. He's a loose cannon, with years of evidence of that, to be a 'safe bet' to lead the UK.
		
Click to expand...

Question for you, why is this being dragged up for the third time? He was there in 2014 and reported on, 2016 prior to the election he was questioned on it and again now in 2018?
Is it a coincidence the government is in a mess, the labour party are having the anti-semitism row that bringing it up again deflects our attention away from the government troubles.
Even the Isreali PMâ€™s tweet is a lie.
As I said previously all this media witch hunt is doing is entrenching people on opposing sides.


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 15, 2018)

So, in summary... Antisemitism bad... Islamaphobia good...

Bottom line, with such a small number of truly marginal seats, can't see anything other than the blue team running the place for many years to come...

Irrespective of who leads Labour the press/media will always find 'issues' even when none are there to be found... Always been the way...


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Aug 15, 2018)

How times change.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 15, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			Question for you, why is this being dragged up for the third time? He was there in 2014 and reported on, 2016 prior to the election he was questioned on it and again now in 2018?
Is it a coincidence the government is in a mess, the labour party are having the anti-semitism row that bringing it up again deflects our attention away from the government troubles.
Even the Isreali PMâ€™s tweet is a lie.
As I said previously all this media witch hunt is doing is entrenching people on opposing sides.
		
Click to expand...

It may well be the third time its been dragged up but I haven't seen it before, and I (avidly) follow politics? Have you seen it before? Where you aware of every meeting with Hamas, Hezbollah, IRA, Czech Secret Service, PLO, Black September? Were you aware of his slot on Iranian TV, and the fact he was still doing the programme after Ofcom revoked Iran TV's licence in the UK and censored him for it. Did you know he has lied about the Â£20k he received from Iran TV. 

And, as the wives of the Israeli athletes have said, when has he ever met with the other side of any argument?

Some of the questions being asked may well have not been asked before because he was a nobody weirdo backbencher. 

Are the press gunning for him? Yes. But they dredge up all sorts of rubbish for pretty much everyone that makes it to a position of prominence. Rooney, Beckham, Froome, Wiggins, Duchess of Sussex and then list anyone you like who's got to the top in their profession.


----------



## Hobbit (Aug 15, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			How times change.
View attachment 25412

Click to expand...

Two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## Old Skier (Aug 15, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			How times change.
View attachment 25412

Click to expand...

Yep, she also met Nelson Mandela, both leaders of their country.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 15, 2018)

Old Skier said:



			...Interesting that you even think Zimbabwe was a success. Perhaps you might like to do some reading on what happened straight after independence under Mugabe untill the present date.
		
Click to expand...

You are, as usual and probably quite deliberately (It does get tedious!), misinterpreting my statement - that 'not dealing with the tyrants' was done successfully! 

I did not say that the subsequent result was 'a success'! From personal experience, I know Rhodesia/Zimbabwe has turned out badly - in fact, 'dealing with a tyrant' (Mugabe), even one 'legitimately' elected, was one of the primary reasons!


----------



## Old Skier (Aug 15, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			You are, as usual and probably quite deliberately (It does get tedious!), misinterpreting my statement - that 'not dealing with the tyrants' was done successfully! 

I did not say that the subsequent result was 'a success'! From personal experience, I know Rhodesia/Zimbabwe has turned out badly - in fact, 'dealing with a tyrant' (Mugabe), even one 'legitimately' elected, was one of the primary reasons!
		
Click to expand...

It's hard enough to interpret your post so please take it from me there is no deliberate misinterpretation.


----------



## Tashyboy (Aug 15, 2018)

pauldj42 said:



			How times change.
View attachment 25412

Click to expand...

Think my thoughts on her are well documented. And al say no more on the subject for fear of getting me first infraction.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Aug 15, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			It may well be the third time its been dragged up but I haven't seen it before, and I (avidly) follow politics? Have you seen it before? Where you aware of every meeting with Hamas, Hezbollah, IRA, Czech Secret Service, PLO, Black September? Were you aware of his slot on Iranian TV, and the fact he was still doing the programme after Ofcom revoked Iran TV's licence in the UK and censored him for it. Did you know he has lied about the Â£20k he received from Iran TV. 

And, as the wives of the Israeli athletes have said, when has he ever met with the other side of any argument?

Some of the questions being asked may well have not been asked before because he was a nobody weirdo backbencher. 

Are the press gunning for him? Yes. But they dredge up all sorts of rubbish for pretty much everyone that makes it to a position of prominence. Rooney, Beckham, Froome, Wiggins, Duchess of Sussex and then list anyone you like who's got to the top in their profession.
		
Click to expand...

I was aware of it being brought up at the last election and believed it had been answered, just like now I doubt it would of been brought up again if Labour were embroiled in the anti-semitism row.
Are you sure he met all those you claimed, yes he met some, or are they are alleged by certain media outlets.
Why should he meet the widows from the Munich attack, he never visited the graves of the terrorists as those women were led to believe.
Iâ€™m sure if you research his past you will also see he has at many times visited Jewish cemeteries and paid his respects to the holocaust victims.
Press gunning for him? Absolutely, even check out how this thread started and how funny it was to get him elected as Labour leader, I believe some now regret making the joke.


----------



## Tashyboy (Aug 17, 2018)

Guess who came into Mansfield yesterday, owd Jezza. Once more he had some photos taken with some dodgy people which don't really narrow it down in Mansfield.
Odd thing is, it was never announced via the media that he was coming, if it had he may of had a dozen or so " supporters " come along to show there support. Jezza whilst here went on record and said that Labour is going to win the seat back at the next election coz Mansfield now has a new energetic candidate. Our Bradley who is five years old  is energetic, Is it him.  It is all well fine and dandy. But it might actually help if we knew who it was. Jezza also went onto say that he thinks the new proposed super council based at Nottingham is a bad idea. Brilliant Jez, just brilliant. Coz no one cares a hoot about this possible super council. What they care about is the drug infested ghost town with shops empty everywhere, what they care about is what is affecting there lives now. Not what might affect there lives ( for better or worse ) in X number of years.
Dont come back Jez.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 21, 2018)

Corbyn on yet another trip to Scotland to bolster the troops.

Best comment heard 
'I don't know why the Tories waste so much time on smear campaigns against him when all they have to do is hand him a microphone'.:lol:


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 21, 2018)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Corbyn on yet another trip to Scotland to bolster the troops.

Best comment heard 
'I don't know why the Tories waste so much time on smear campaigns against him when all they have to do is hand him a microphone'.:lol:
		
Click to expand...

Guessing that it's passed you by... But, Jezza, in No. 10, is probably your best chance of a second chance in a generation of an indyref... 

Can't see the boys/girls in the blue corner affording you another opportunity anytime soon... You can ask/demand away but it don't work like that does it... Yea, you can take it to the courts but would suggest that would be neither straightforward or quick...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 21, 2018)

MegaSteve said:



			Guessing that it's passed you by... But, Jezza, in No. 10, is probably your best chance of a second chance in a generation of an indyref... 

Can't see the boys/girls in the blue corner affording you another opportunity anytime soon... You can ask/demand away but it don't work like that does it... Yea, you can take it to the courts but would suggest that would be neither straightforward or quick...
		
Click to expand...

Best chance for Scottish Independence is for the Viceroy to say you cannot have one.:lol:
Corbyn desperately needs Scottish labour seats to form a government.....do you actually know how many Slab MP's there are at Wastemonster right now SEVEN, there used to be around 50

Projected SNP seats for the next election are around 43/45.
The Labour/Tory UK voting pact in Scotland is well and truly busted and SLab are on their way to oblivion because of it.


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 21, 2018)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Best chance for Scottish Independence is for the Viceroy to say you cannot have one.:lol:
Corbyn desperately needs Scottish labour seats to form a government.....do you actually know how many Slab MP's there are at Wastemonster right now SEVEN, there used to be around 50

Projected SNP seats for the next election are around 43/45.
The Labour/Tory UK voting pact in Scotland is well and truly busted and SLab are on their way to oblivion because of it.
		
Click to expand...


Only chance of Scottish independence is getting and then 'winning' a referendum...

Without that, I suggest, you are going nowhere...


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Aug 21, 2018)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Corbyn on yet another trip to Scotland to bolster the troops.

Best comment heard 
'I don't know why the Tories waste so much time on smear campaigns against him when all they have to do is hand him a microphone'.:lol:
		
Click to expand...

Giving Jezza a microphone is what nearly got him elected last time around. He is a very good campaigner, he rallies the troops. He is not great in formal debates but get him out on the mount and he comes into his own. The Conservatives underestimated this last time and it led to a vastly reduced majority and the need to get into bed with the DUP.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 21, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Giving Jezza a microphone is what nearly got him elected last time around. He is a very good campaigner, he rallies the troops. He is not great in formal debates but get him out on the mount and he comes into his own. The Conservatives underestimated this last time and it led to a vastly reduced majority and the need to get into bed with the DUP.
		
Click to expand...

Might do where you live but in Scotland he is bombing.

He is not helped by Slab coming up with some dreadful SNP baaaad nonsense each trip. This time it was in the shape of Raytheon contracts.
Bad in Scotland where they are in fact good and do not involve weapons. 
Good in Labour controlled Wales when they are in fact bad and do involve military input.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Aug 21, 2018)

Corbyn needs to get a Scottish Labour person to come to the fore in the same way that Ruth Davidson has done for the Conservatives. I fully get that Corbyn might be as popular in Scotland as Nicola would be south of the border. I suspect that is the case with most Westminster politicians up there.

Corbyn was highly effective at the last general election, largely helped by May being so hopeless on the road and having no spontaneity, due to his on the mount speeches and interaction with people.


----------



## User62651 (Aug 21, 2018)

You've got to think that despite their criticism of and public disdain for, secretly the Tories like the SNPs success as it denies Labour 30-40 odd MPs that used to be a shoe-in for Labour and they (tories) never had many MPs to lose in Scotland anyway. So keep the SNP at bay and deny Labour a lot of MPs.

What Davidson did well was turn every election (Holyrood, Westminster, local) up here into an independence issue, avoid all other political issues, focus on that sole issue and garner all Union supporters on her Tory side so voters of labour and Lib Dem are voting Tory on a tactical anti independence and anything but SNP basis. I'm sure that's going to continue. That leaves Labour in no mans land where they've been for a while.

Every election up here still follows this trend. Never mind the pressing issues on policing/NHS/economy/Brexit etc etc, it's only about Union or Independence. This Tory tactic is working for them.

Corbyn and especially Dugdale and now Leonard can't seem to chip away at this Tory/SNP standoff position in Scotland. 
I agree without 40+ Labour MPs from up here Labour can't realistically win another GE. They've a massive amount of ground to take back. Also trend is older voters are more pro Union, younger more pro independence, so in addition to the historic central belt 'vote Labour' mentality having now gone and older generations passing on that's not a good position for Labour going forward I dont think.

Only hope for left leaning voters is the Tory party splits in 2 over Europe or a new centrist party appears.

Dont think Corbyn can achive much more than he has already tbh.


----------



## HughJars (Aug 21, 2018)

maxfli65 said:



			You've got to think that despite their criticism of and public disdain for, secretly the Tories like the SNPs success as it denies Labour 30-40 odd MPs that used to be a shoe-in for Labour and they (tories) never had many MPs to lose in Scotland anyway. So keep the SNP at bay and deny Labour a lot of MPs.

What Davidson did well was turn every election (Holyrood, Westminster, local) up here into an independence issue, avoid all other political issues, focus on that sole issue and garner all Union supporters on her Tory side so voters of labour and Lib Dem are voting Tory on a tactical anti independence and anything but SNP basis. I'm sure that's going to continue. That leaves Labour in no mans land where they've been for a while.

Every election up here still follows this trend. Never mind the pressing issues on policing/NHS/economy/Brexit etc etc, it's only about Union or Independence. This Tory tactic is working for them.

Corbyn and especially Dugdale and now Leonard can't seem to chip away at this Tory/SNP standoff position in Scotland. 
I agree without 40+ Labour MPs from up here Labour can't realistically win another GE. They've a massive amount of ground to take back. Also trend is older voters are more pro Union, younger more pro independence, so in addition to the historic central belt 'vote Labour' mentality having now gone and older generations passing on that's not a good position for Labour going forward I dont think.

Only hope for left leaning voters is the Tory party splits in 2 over Europe or a new centrist party appears.

Dont think Corbyn can achive much more than he has already tbh.
		
Click to expand...

^^^spot on

It really is amazing tho that Rooth gets away with constantly going on about independence, while decrying the SNP for constantly going on about independence, which in all fairness, they don't. Yet it sticks, in large part as the MSM won't call her on it


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 21, 2018)

HughJars said:



			^^^spot on

It really is amazing tho that Rooth gets away with constantly going on about independence, while decrying the SNP for constantly going on about independence, which in all fairness, they don't. Yet it sticks, in large part as the MSM won't call her on it
		
Click to expand...

...and as a former BBC employee she gets a free pass on any difficult to answer questions such as the Tory dirty money.
She also seems to pass on giving any constituent surgeries as well


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 22, 2018)

He is doing it again...â€¦...making a speech tomorrow about the future of journalism and the way forward.
At the end of the speech only one question per journalist will be allowed.

Mind you, to his credit, that is one more than Ms Davidson usually allows.


----------



## Dellboy (Aug 22, 2018)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Projected SNP seats for the next election are around 43/45.
		
Click to expand...

I seem to remember the SNP projecting an increase in seats before the last election, I can remember sat in Scotland watching the TV with a wee man from the SNP saying they were close to taking all but one seat, remind me, how did that work out for them :rofl:


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 22, 2018)

Dellboy said:



			I seem to remember the SNP projecting an increase in seats before the last election, I can remember sat in Scotland watching the TV with a wee man from the SNP saying they were close to taking all but one seat, remind me, how did that work out for them :rofl:
		
Click to expand...

I don't think so, SNP were always expecting to lose seats once the two Unionist parties formed an election pact.
The pact seems to have backfired on Labour and they will be expecting a near whitewash next time with a straight Tory v SNP fight.
Tory's will fight on an Independence card again which is pretty shameful for a Westminster election.
Scots Tories could be in trouble if the 'Dark Money' scandal is investigated properly.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 22, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Giving Jezza a microphone is what nearly got him elected last time around. He is a very good campaigner, he rallies the troops. He is not great in formal debates but get him out on the mount and he comes into his own. The Conservatives underestimated this last time and it led to a vastly reduced majority and the need to get into bed with the DUP.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe - but he was up against the Maybot - she who is possibly the worst public speaker in the recent history of political party leaders - certainly as far back as I can remember (late 1960s).  Though i have to give Paul Nuttall some credit for mounting a reasonable bid for that title.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Aug 22, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Maybe - but he was up against the Maybot - she who is possibly the worst public speaker in the recent history of political party leaders - certainly as far back as I can remember (late 1960s).  Though i have to give Paul Nuttall some credit for mounting a reasonable bid for that title.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed, as per post 2152


----------



## IanM (Aug 23, 2018)

In todays news the Polit Bureau announces that he will tax media companies to pay for "approved journalistic outlets!"

I guess if you are not Jezbollah friendly, you'll get no cash.

Hang on, all sounds a bit Soviet Union doesnt it?


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Aug 23, 2018)

Donâ€™t forget he wants everyone who works for the BBC to disclose their educational history, family upbringing and class to hopefully improve the â€œclass diversityâ€ of the BBC.
The guy is an absolute tool.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 23, 2018)

IanM said:



			In todays news the Polit Bureau announces that he will tax media companies to pay for "approved journalistic outlets!"

I guess if you are not Jezbollah friendly, you'll get no cash.

Hang on, all sounds a bit Soviet Union doesnt it?
		
Click to expand...

I thought the BBC had the 'approved journalistic outlets' market already cornered,
I guess if you are not a BBC friendly journalist your company will not get any cash or press contracts.

Sounds a bit USSR eah


----------



## drdel (Aug 24, 2018)

I'm afraid our 'Jeremy' has more sides than a football. Surrounded by his blind army of defenders they are doing immense harm to his 'team' and the game/country in the process.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 24, 2018)

He hates our way of life, he is an extremest and has spent his life supporting extremists.  He has no interest in politics other than  removing personal freedom and replacing it with state control.  If that's what people want ....


----------



## Tashyboy (Aug 25, 2018)

Sat here mulling over me jam on toast and cannot help but feel these are wasted years under  Jezza and Labour. Once him and his lackys are gone, ( and there will always be a hardcore of his Lackys in the Labour Party). Labour will have to reinvent itself, and that I fear will take some time. Could be stuck with the worst government in living memory in what could well be stormy waters ahead re Brexit and the direction and future of this country.


----------



## PNWokingham (Aug 25, 2018)

SocketRocket said:



			He hates our way of life, he is an extremest and has spent his life supporting extremists.  He has no interest in politics other than  removing personal freedom and replacing it with state control.  If that's what people want ....
		
Click to expand...

I think he is a genuine threat to National security and him, his cronies, Momentum etc should be deemed unfit to be part of political life. His history of backing anything against the mainstream and supporting extremists is truly frightening. He puts Venezuela as a shining example of how an economy can be run. The country is beyond bankrupt. His extreme socialist/marxist views for the economy would bankrupt the UK. How anyone can think that taxing more and more creates a fairer society has been proven wrong time and again and today the wealthiest x% are paying an infinitely higher percentage of tax than the rich ever were even under the disaster the was 70s labour.

Any labour supporter needs to step up the onslaught against this moron and remove his poisonous views and ludicrous economic policies from the scene. I would love to see a reborn center labour party that can provide a genuine challenge. 2019 could be a rerun of 1981 and i hope it does unless labour bins the idiots


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 25, 2018)

PNWokingham said:



			I think he is a genuine threat to National security and him, his cronies, Momentum etc should be deemed unfit to be part of political life. His history of backing anything against the mainstream and supporting extremists is truly frightening. He puts Venezuela as a shining example of how an economy can be run. The country is beyond bankrupt. His extreme socialist/marxist views for the economy would bankrupt the UK. How anyone can think that taxing more and more creates a fairer society has been proven wrong time and again and today the wealthiest x% are paying an infinitely higher percentage of tax than the rich ever were even under the disaster the was 70s labour.

Any labour supporter needs to step up the onslaught against this moron and remove his poisonous views and ludicrous economic policies from the scene. I would love to see a reborn center labour party that can provide a genuine challenge. 2019 could be a rerun of 1981 and i hope it does unless labour bins the idiots
		
Click to expand...

Bring back Tony - nearly all is forgiven


----------



## drdel (Dec 19, 2018)

I'm wondering if he'll stick to the line he never said May was "...stupid woman..." perhaps as long as it took him to deny (remember) he attended a funeral!


----------



## Tashyboy (Dec 19, 2018)

Ave seen it on telly and the stupid man called her a stupid woman.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 19, 2018)

Tashyboy said:



			Ave seen it on telly and the stupid man called her a stupid woman.
		
Click to expand...

That's what independent lip readers on BBC are saying. He was stupid to get caught out like that. More so as this is deflecting away from the Brexit mess when he should be pressing home the advantage


----------



## Beezerk (Dec 19, 2018)

Best bit of tv Iâ€™ve seen in years ðŸ˜‚
May really got to him with her panto speech, quality. Shows what an egotistical twit he is.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 19, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			That's what independent lip readers on BBC are saying. He was stupid to get caught out like that. More so as this is deflecting away from the Brexit mess when he should be pressing home the advantage
		
Click to expand...

Saying it was stupid. Then lying about it makes him untrustworthy.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 19, 2018)

HomerJSimpson said:



			That's what independent lip readers on BBC are saying. He was stupid to get caught out like that. More so as this is deflecting away from the Brexit mess when he should be pressing home the advantage
		
Click to expand...

Advantage ?


----------



## Tashyboy (Dec 19, 2018)

Beezerk said:



			Best bit of tv Iâ€™ve seen in years ðŸ˜‚
May really got to him with her panto speech, quality. Shows what an egotistical twit he is.
		
Click to expand...

Oh no he's not, oh yes he is. 

I think the last few months have shown that politics in the UK are the worst they have been in living memory.


----------



## Captainron (Dec 19, 2018)

What ever happened to the decent Milliband? He wasnâ€™t such a bad option? The Labour Party canâ€™t be voted in with him at the helm and his rob the rich cronies


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 20, 2018)

I found this all very bizarre. TM can snarl and spit at the despatch box and that is fine. JC can call her stupid and that is okay.

JC may have called her a stupid woman and it is the woman aspect, the only factual aspect of the comment, that causes offence . Stupid people would apparently be okay.

Wonderful diversionary tactic by the conservatives, they managed to change the news. Corbyn is still a plonker though.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 20, 2018)

Anyone who watched that debate will realise that the Westminster Parliamentary system is not fit for purpose, the people inside would disgrace a P4 classroom.


----------



## Colonel Bogey (Dec 20, 2018)

I watched it live at work on my PC, busy busy. Fantastic TV.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 20, 2018)

Captainron said:



			What ever happened to the decent Milliband? He wasnâ€™t such a bad option? The Labour Party canâ€™t be voted in with him at the helm and his rob the rich cronies
		
Click to expand...

Miliband lost the 40+ Scottish seats that Labour relied on.
At the 2016 election desperate SLab leaders advised their voters to vote Tory in there weaker seats to keep out the SNP.
This wiped out Labour in Scotland, raised the Tory MP's to 13 and resulted in Corbyn ultimately losing the election.
SNP offered to Support Labour at Westminster to keep out the Tories.

So cliff edge Brexit and May's dreadful government is down to the Scottish Labour Party and their supporters who voted Tory.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 20, 2018)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Anyone who watched that debate will realise that the Westminster Parliamentary system is not fit for purpose, the people inside would disgrace a P4 classroom.
		
Click to expand...

I totally agree. They have to move out of parliament soon as it is falling down. I'd like them to move to a purpose built building that is in the round, not the current shape. The current design is adversarial and encourages this horrible style of politics. Put distance between the politicians, don't have them face to face. It will not be the total answer but it will be a start.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 20, 2018)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Miliband lost the 40+ Scottish seats that Labour relied on.
At the 2016 election desperate SLab leaders advised their voters to vote Tory in there weaker seats to keep out the SNP.
This wiped out Labour in Scotland, raised the Tory MP's to 13 and resulted in Corbyn ultimately losing the election.
		
Click to expand...

I believe he was referring to David Milliband, not his useless brother who ended up winning. David is sorely missed, the Labour party would be very different with him in charge.


----------



## IanM (Dec 20, 2018)

Didnt lay that wreath
Didnt attend the memorial
Didnt say "woman"

........  I would have thought if he had the balls to stand there and say "Yes I did, as her handling of Brexit is awful"  ...he'd be 20 points ahead in the polls by tea time!  

But he's just a nasty little terrorist sympathiser..... sadly.  The UK needs a decent Leader of the Opposition as much as it needs a decent PM


----------



## Mrs Wiggles (Dec 20, 2018)

I just have to step in here. Whilst I believe Corbyn is a socialist moron, he is streets ahead of his right hand woman, Diane Abbott. In his defence, why couldn't he call TM a stupid woman, I call my wife a stupid woman on a daily basis. If TM had called him a stupid man, nobody would have said a word, would they ?

The biggest problem I have with Corbyn is that he has no interest in the country. He has said on more than one occasion he will oppose any deal TM has with the EU. This indicates his only interests are in scoring points. Unfortunately there is an entire generation who haven't experienced the madness of socialism, and they may have to learn the hard way, GOD FORBID !!


----------



## Captainron (Dec 20, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I believe he was referring to David Milliband, not his useless brother who ended up winning. David is sorely missed, the Labour party would be very different with him in charge.
		
Click to expand...

Yup. He had the charisma and seemed a decent guy. His brother was the worse option


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 20, 2018)

Mrs Wiggles said:



			I just have to step in here. Whilst I believe Corbyn is a socialist moron, he is streets ahead of his right hand woman, Diane Abbott. In his defence, why couldn't he call TM a stupid woman, I call my wife a stupid woman on a daily basis. If TM had called him a stupid man, nobody would have said a word, would they ?

The biggest problem I have with Corbyn is that he has no interest in the country. He has said on more than one occasion he will oppose any deal TM has with the EU. This indicates his only interests are in scoring points. Unfortunately there is an entire generation who haven't experienced the madness of socialism, and they may have to learn the hard way, GOD FORBID !!
		
Click to expand...

We have not had a socialist government since Callachan in the 1970's, a bit more than one generation, nearer three.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 20, 2018)

Liking the guy less and less each and every day that passes.

Whatever he said under his breath yesterday - the gracious and decent thing to do would have been to apologise for any offence or upset caused as it was not his intention to cause any - Corbyn and his 'God' alone know the truth of the matter of what he said - and Corbyn will just have to live with any lie he told.

Instead we got the usual guff stuff.

As it happens I somewhat sympathise with his getting totally p'd off with the utter pathetic pantomime going on opposite him in the HoC - led by someone who really should know better - though I do wonder what she _does _actually know these days.  Whatever disdain some of the public might hold Corbyn in for what he may or may not have said - the unbecoming pantomime antics of May and her front and back benchers are deserving of even greater disdain given the mess the government and the country is in.


----------



## IanM (Dec 20, 2018)

Doon frae Troon said:



			We have not had a socialist government since Callachan in the 1970's, a bit more than one generation, nearer three.
		
Click to expand...

You are right.... proper Labour... didnt agree with them, but you could respect their integrity.


----------



## Mrs Wiggles (Dec 20, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I totally agree. They have to move out of parliament soon as it is falling down. I'd like them to move to a purpose built building that is in the round, not the current shape. The current design is adversarial and encourages this horrible style of politics. Put distance between the politicians, don't have them face to face. It will not be the total answer but it will be a start.
		
Click to expand...

I would make them sit in alphabetical order regardless of the party they belong to.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 20, 2018)

Mrs Wiggles said:



			I would make them sit in alphabetical order regardless of the party they belong to.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't argue against that. You could also do it in constituency order. A seat in the chamber belongs to a constituency irrelevant to which party. Why not?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 20, 2018)

Mrs Wiggles said:



			I would make them sit in alphabetical order regardless of the party they belong to.
		
Click to expand...

If they want a good example to follow try watching Holyrood.
The MSP's are also much more respectful to each other, with no public school type Yhaa BOO shouting across the floor.
Listened to FMQT on the radio at lunchtime 100% more civilised than London. Even mutual support for other parties points.
The MSP's even allowed Willie Rennie [ daft Lib Dem leader] to nearly finish his question before the hoose burst out laughing at his self promotion.
MSP's are allowed to clap support. Banned at Westminster, they just shout and yell like demented morons.


----------



## Mrs Wiggles (Dec 20, 2018)

It's quite interesting to see the disdain felt for Corbyn. I would presume that most posters on this site remember the 70s when we had our last truly socialist government, I suspect this is why. Unfortunately there are those who have forgot all about it, and those who weren't old enough, or even born to witness it. I don't consider myself a Tory voter, but if voting Tory will keep this dinosaur out of No 10 at the next election, I know where my X is going


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 20, 2018)

Mrs Wiggles said:



			It's quite interesting to see the disdain felt for Corbyn. I would presume that most posters on this site remember the 70s when we had our last truly socialist government, I suspect this is why. Unfortunately there are those who have forgot all about it, and those who weren't old enough, or even born to witness it. I don't consider myself a Tory voter, but if voting Tory will keep this dinosaur out of No 10 at the next election, I know where my X is going
		
Click to expand...

Strong and stable..... Not sure the current Tory government will be troubling any top 40 lists of the best UK governments ever.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 20, 2018)

Mrs Wiggles said:



			It's quite interesting to see the disdain felt for Corbyn. I would presume that most posters on this site remember the 70s when we had our last truly socialist government, I suspect this is why. Unfortunately there are those who have forgot all about it, and those who weren't old enough, or even born to witness it. I don't consider myself a Tory voter, but if voting Tory will keep this dinosaur out of No 10 at the next election, I know where my X is going
		
Click to expand...

Neither May or Corbyn and their split/broken political ideals/policies/party's should be allowed anywhere near government.
They both should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.
You only have to look at the lists of their other 'leadership' candidates to realise how totally stuffed [for want of a better adjective] we really are.

BTW I would dispute that Blairs government were socialists.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 20, 2018)

If Dr Louise Irvine (National Health Action Party) decides to stand against Jeremy Hunt in the next election then she'll have my vote - that is unless a new centre party arises out of the post-Brexit wreckage of the Tory and Labour parties.  Labour?  Not with Corbyn there.


----------



## Mrs Wiggles (Dec 21, 2018)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Neither May or Corbyn and their split/broken political ideals/policies/party's should be allowed anywhere near government.
They both should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.
You only have to look at the lists of their other 'leadership' candidates to realise how totally stuffed [for want of a better adjective] we really are.

BTW I would dispute that Blairs government were socialists.

Click to expand...

I am neither a Tory voter, or a fan of TM, but I'm not really sure what she has done wrong. Since being made PM her entire time has been spent sorting Brexit. I am not sure of people realise what a task this is, especially as we are in a position where any scrap thrown has to be accepted. From day one it was always a choice between a poor deal, or no deal at all. I would have preferred it if Cameron hadn't of stated his preference when the referendum was taking place, and then just got on with the job afterwards, but we are where we are.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 21, 2018)

Mrs Wiggles said:



			I am neither a Tory voter, or a fan of TM, but I'm not really sure what she has done wrong. Since being made PM her entire time has been spent sorting Brexit. I am not sure of people realise what a task this is, especially as we are in a position where any scrap thrown has to be accepted. From day one it was always a choice between a poor deal, or no deal at all. I would have preferred it if Cameron hadn't of stated his preference when the referendum was taking place, and then just got on with the job afterwards, but we are where we are.
		
Click to expand...

With May, I would start with calling an unwanted election, bribing a small extremist party for votes, lying and misleading Parliament, breaking up the UK against it's wishes, isolating three of the four UK regions and refusing to work with them and other political parties in a national emergency.


----------



## Mrs Wiggles (Dec 21, 2018)

Doon frae Troon said:



			With May, I would start with calling an unwanted election, bribing a small extremist party for votes, lying and misleading Parliament, breaking up the UK against it's wishes, isolating three of the four UK regions and refusing to work with them and other political parties in a national emergency.
		
Click to expand...

Hang on a minute. She called an election because having a greater volume of seats would be beneficial. Of course, she got it wrong, but the idea was good. She had no option but to get into bed with DUP. I don't know what you mean by breaking up the UK. My problem with May is that she is weak, and the post she held prior to PM she failed at. I would love to see Farage running the country, as I would Trump, but that isn't going to happen.


----------



## IanM (Dec 21, 2018)

Labour MPs and their chums eh?


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 21, 2018)

Doon frae Troon said:



			If they want a good example to follow try watching Holyrood.
The MSP's are also much more respectful to each other, with no public school type Yhaa BOO shouting across the floor.
Listened to FMQT on the radio at lunchtime 100% more civilised than London. Even mutual support for other parties points.
The MSP's even allowed Willie Rennie [ daft Lib Dem leader] to nearly finish his question before the hoose burst out laughing at his self promotion.
MSP's are allowed to clap support. Banned at Westminster, they just shout and yell like demented morons.
		
Click to expand...

A good example to follow would not be the baying group of SMPs in westmonster.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 3, 2019)

Latest Westminster poll projected seats

SNP 41 
Tories 12
Lib Dems 4 
SLAB 2

Wow, that is some fall from grace by Labour. Getting into bed with the Tories was always going to end in tears.
First to fourth in a dozen years.
Corbyn not going down tooo well in Scotland


----------



## IanM (Jan 4, 2019)

Given his speech about refugees, poor old Jezzbollah appears to think there is some form of war/famine happening in France right now!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 4, 2019)

IanM said:



			Given his speech about refugees, poor old Jezzbollah appears to think there is some form of war/famine happening in France right now!  

Click to expand...

Given the hapless Home Secretary's recent speeches I think that it has now moved to the white cliffs of Dover.
UK being invaded by tens of migrants
Seems like the 'Dunkirk Spirit' has a new meaning.


----------



## drdel (Jan 4, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Given the hapless Home Secretary's recent speeches I think that it has now moved to the white cliffs of Dover.
UK being invaded by tens of migrants
Seems like the 'Dunkirk Spirit' has a new meaning.
		
Click to expand...

Except they are not really migrants- they are mainly people being duped by organised criminals into paying for transportation to the UK.


----------



## Dando (Jan 4, 2019)

drdel said:



			Except they are not really migrants- they are mainly people being duped by organised criminals into paying for transportation to the UK.
		
Click to expand...

and they've already passed through numerous other safe countries


----------



## drdel (Jan 4, 2019)

Dando said:



			and they've already passed through numerous other safe countries
		
Click to expand...

and our friends across the Channel are doing well selling inflatables and outboard motors even though the buyer's details are supposed to be X-checked !!


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 4, 2019)

drdel said:



			Except they are not really migrants- they are mainly people being duped by organised criminals into paying for transportation to the UK.
		
Click to expand...

Read a lovely piece the other day where most of the â€œMigrantsâ€ are middle class Iranians. So why Iranians      . It was more then suggested the problem lay in Serbia. They set up a deal with Iran (who is quite a rich country) that you could fly straight to serbia from Iran without a passport and just a Tourist Visa. The Iranians stayed in lovely hotels for a couple of weeks in Serbia whilst they contacted people smugglers who took them to the English channel complete with all equipment required to cross the channel. Now heres the thing. The Black migrants from Africa who have been camped in France for years and trying to break into vehicles using violent force,  are disgusted that the Iranains have it easy.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 4, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Given the hapless Home Secretary's recent speeches I think that it has now moved to the white cliffs of Dover.
UK being invaded by tens of migrants
Seems like the 'Dunkirk Spirit' has a new meaning.
		
Click to expand...

Read and learn those that think this man is being unfairly branded a Troll. ðŸ™„


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 5, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			Read and learn those that think this man is being unfairly branded a Troll. ðŸ™„
		
Click to expand...

Yup I thought when I read it " that's added a lot to this thread".


----------



## spongebob59 (Jan 10, 2019)

Made his move then :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46824125


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 10, 2019)

spongebob59 said:



			Made his move then :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46824125

Click to expand...

Whatâ€™s the point ? His party are still unelectable because he is still the leader 

Itâ€™s just more wasted time and I suspect people are getting sick of it all. Just get on with jobs they get paid highly for


----------



## spongebob59 (Jan 10, 2019)

I agree and unless he strikes a deal with the SNP it'll be another hung parliament.


----------



## DCB (Jan 10, 2019)

Oh joy .... it just gets worse by the minute.   Does JC really think the EU will sit down and re-negotiate at this stage.


----------



## jp5 (Jan 10, 2019)

Labour were only a couple of % points behind the cons at GE2017. If May were to go into an election with her WA it could split the leavers and lead JC to power. Far from unelectable.


----------



## Beezerk (Jan 10, 2019)

jp5 said:



			Labour were only a couple of % points behind the cons at GE2017. If May were to go into an election with her WA it could split the leavers and lead JC to power. Far from unelectable.
		
Click to expand...

It's weird though isn't it, just about every Labour supporter I've spoken to says they cannot vote for the party with JC in charge, so where are all these votes from?


----------



## drdel (Jan 10, 2019)

He says they will negotiate a new deal, Brussels says no they wont.  This will be after a GE with it all done and dusted by 29th March or a bit after when the EU has it elections and no UK MEPs will have been candidates/presented.

He should have forced a GE/ no confidence motion in the latter part of Quarter3: but he/Labour did not want to run the risk of having to handle the poison Brexit chalice


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jan 10, 2019)

Beezerk said:



			It's weird though isn't it, just about every Labour supporter I've spoken to says they cannot vote for the party with JC in charge, so where are all these votes from?
		
Click to expand...

I think a lot come from people who would not normally vote, he has energised them. 

It would be foolish for anyone to underestimate him. In particular he comes to life on the campaign trail and so you will not see that mirrored in polls until you reach that moment.


----------



## Beezerk (Jan 10, 2019)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I think a lot come from people who would not normally vote, he has energised them.
		
Click to expand...

Crikey, easily pleased then. I don't remember the last time a crusty old fence sitter energised me


----------



## MegaSteve (Jan 10, 2019)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I think a lot come from people who would not normally vote, he has energised them.

It would be foolish for anyone to underestimate him. In particular he comes to life on the campaign trail and so you will not see that mirrored in polls until you reach that moment.
		
Click to expand...

It has often been said if Labour could ever get all its 'natural' support to the polling stations it would win hands down every time...


----------



## spongebob59 (Jan 10, 2019)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I think a lot come from people who would not normally vote, he has energised them. 

It would be foolish for anyone to underestimate him. In particular he comes to life on the campaign trail and so you will not see that mirrored in polls until you reach that moment.
		
Click to expand...

Really ? Didn't work last time when the Tories were woeful and still won.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 10, 2019)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I think a lot come from people who would not normally vote, he has energised them.

It would be foolish for anyone to underestimate him. In particular he comes to life on the campaign trail and so you will not see that mirrored in polls until you reach that moment.
		
Click to expand...

Energised!   Is that a new term for feeding them BS.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jan 10, 2019)

spongebob59 said:



			Really ? Didn't work last time when the Tories were woeful and still won.
		
Click to expand...

Ah, but this then comes back to Beezerks post regarding many Labour supporters refusing to vote Labour with him in charge. For every voter he has energised he has alienated other Labour voters. Give with one, take with the other......

Two woeful leaders, who do you choose?


----------



## USER1999 (Jan 10, 2019)

DCB said:



			Oh joy .... it just gets worse by the minute.   Does JC really think the EU will sit down and re-negotiate at this stage.
		
Click to expand...

If the red line on freedom of movement was removed, it is quite possible a new agreement could be reached.


----------



## Wolf (Jan 10, 2019)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Ah, but this then comes back to Beezerks post regarding many Labour supporters refusing to vote Labour with him in charge. For every voter he has energised he has alienated other Labour voters. Give with one, take with the other......

Two woeful leaders, who do you choose?
		
Click to expand...

This is the crux of UK politics at the moment people are voting on the lesser of 2 evils (how some see it anyway) so we're at a stalemate but you never know what could happen


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 10, 2019)

Two words why Corbyn/Labour will not get in. DIANE ABBOTT. Apparantly she is on a trip to Ireland, they asked her if she likes County Down. She said " she preferred it when Carol Vorderman was on it".

If Corbyn gets in at the next GE, he will make Trump look like a genius.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 10, 2019)

What a comic line up on Corbyns front bench. 
Watson the nonce finder general, 
Abbott off with the faries.
Dawn Taylor. Like a parrot sat on Jezzers shoulder mimicking his every word and never capable of an original thought..
McDonnell. Still believes communism is the way forward.
Corbyn himself. Power hungry above principles and lifetime beliefs. 

In fairness to them the whole house of Westmonster has shown its true colours recently and its not pretty.


----------



## Robster59 (Jan 11, 2019)

All Corbyn is worried about is being elected, irrespective of the impact his manoeuvring has on the nation. He just wants to destabilise the current government. I'm a lifelong Labour supporter and I wouldn't for him.


----------



## Dellboy (Jan 11, 2019)

drdel said:



			He should have forced a GE/ no confidence motion in the latter part of Quarter3: but he/Labour did not want to run the risk of having to handle the poison Brexit chalice
		
Click to expand...

He canâ€™t force a GE without the Tories help and that wonâ€™t happen, a confidence vote would get voted down so wasting his time on that, even with all the in fighting going on within the government he canâ€™t do a lot at the moment and seeing as a lot of his own MPâ€™s donâ€™t want him could be a blessing in disguise for us all.


----------



## IanM (Jan 11, 2019)

Robster59 said:



			All Corbyn is worried about is being elected
		
Click to expand...

That's harsh.... he also wants the UK to be more like the USSR or Venezuala!!


----------



## Robster59 (Jan 11, 2019)

IanM said:



			That's harsh.... he also wants the UK to be more like the USSR or Venezuala!!
		
Click to expand...

Fair enough.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 11, 2019)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Ah, but this then comes back to Beezerks post regarding many Labour supporters refusing to vote Labour with him in charge. For every voter he has energised he has alienated other Labour voters. Give with one, take with the other......

Two woeful leaders, who do you choose?
		
Click to expand...

Two woeful leaders who have both split their parties in two.

In effect we currently have seven different political parties fighting for control.

The nice Tories
The nasty Tories/swivel eyed loons/UDP 
The sensible Labour group
The unelectable Labour group
Plaid/SNP/Greens
Lib Dems
UKIP/EDL


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 11, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Two woeful leaders who have both split their parties in two.

In effect we currently have seven different political parties fighting for control.

The nice Tories
The nasty Tories/swivel eyed loons/UDP
The sensible Labour group
The unelectable Labour group
Plaid/SNP/Greens
Lib Dems
UKIP/EDL
		
Click to expand...

You are forgetting the SNP have two faces.


----------



## PieMan (Jan 11, 2019)

Surely it's the Tories and Labour who are fighting for control, just like it's always been? None of the others will ever be able to form a Government in Westminster on their own.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 11, 2019)

murphthemog said:



			If the red line on freedom of movement was removed, it is quite possible a new agreement could be reached.
		
Click to expand...

Most probably true - but as for _Trump _and _The Wall _read _May _and _NoFoM.  _

Then again - Trump's _Wall _is turning into a _Fence - _so maybe May's _NoFoM w_ill transmorgify into _SomeFOM _

As for Corbyn...for me the guy just reeks of inauthenticity


----------



## hors limite (Jan 13, 2019)

The Andrew Marr show this a.m.. Has Corbyn been taking the same delusional pills as May? He's still peddling the idea that he will win a no confidence vote - sorry, the parliamentary arithmetic makes this a dead duck. Then, having won the subsequent election, he will continue with Brexit while simultaneously persuading the EU to provide access to the single market and the customs union without the need to follow their obligations. At the same time, this champion of Labour Party democracy will blithely ignore the vast majority of members who want to remain in the EU and would like a second vote. Marr made some feeble attempts to encourage the great leader to talk about these things but the prospect of a collision with reality was too much for him.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jan 13, 2019)

hors limite said:



			The Andrew Marr show this a.m.. Has Corbyn been taking the same delusional pills as May? He's still peddling the idea that he will win a no confidence vote - sorry, the parliamentary arithmetic makes this a dead duck. Then, having won the subsequent election, he will continue with Brexit while simultaneously persuading the EU to provide access to the single market and the customs union without the need to follow their obligations. At the same time, this champion of Labour Party democracy will blithely ignore the vast majority of members who want to remain in the EU and would like a second vote. Marr made some feeble attempts to encourage the great leader to talk about these things but the prospect of a collision with reality was too much for him.
		
Click to expand...

I did watch some of this but not all. I suppose at least you could argue that he has a clear idea of what type of Brexit he is trying to achieve.  Plus he did talk sense to me about trying to help areas of the UK that will be likely heavily impacted by a hard Brexit.  But as you say, little to no chance of his ideas actually happening.  

I'd suggest we thank both May and her team plus Corbyn and his team for their valiant efforts over the last 2 years, but it's clear they are both not up to the job of leading their parties on this subject. So please bugger off, delay article 50 and lets get some new blood in.


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 13, 2019)

I found him a little difficult to follow on the Marr show today. He said what he wanted for the country, where he could, but qualified it by saying it depends on what the Labour party as a whole decide as he's "not a dictator." So just what are the Labour Party offering? Guess we'll find out when the wider Labour Party tell us. I suppose they are marginally better than the LibDems at present - oh Vince, retire and get some young blood in.

I think its more a reflection on 'management by committee.,' that wider committee being the party as a whole. Management from the shop floor, with thousands of voices diluting good ideas, is prone to conflict and paralysis. Sounds good but in practice, (possibly) chaos.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 13, 2019)

Hacker Khan said:



			I did watch some of this but not all. I suppose at least you could argue that he has a clear idea of what type of Brexit he is trying to achieve.  Plus he did talk sense to me about trying to help areas of the UK that will be likely heavily impacted by a hard Brexit.  But as you say, little to no chance of his ideas actually happening.  

I'd suggest we thank both May and her team plus Corbyn and his team for their valiant efforts over the last 2 years, but it's clear they are both not up to the job of leading their parties on this subject. So please bugger off, delay article 50 and lets get some new blood in.
		
Click to expand...

Any views on who this would be?


----------



## Fade and Die (Jan 13, 2019)

The man doesnâ€™t look like he has had an original thought since 1974... when he first got the top job I thought I donâ€™t like his politics but at least he is principled and sticking to his guns, unfortunately that soon stopped when it come to Europe. Now he would say anything to get in power.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jan 13, 2019)

Fade and Die said:



			Maybe it should be delayed so we can have a 3RD peoples vote, ask the people the same question that parliament is having such a problem with......

We accept Teresa Mays deal OR we leave on WTO terms, that is the ONLY question parliament has in front of it. There is no 3rd option, thatâ€™s already been democratically decided, twice.
		
Click to expand...

Cool your boots, I meant delayed as in give us more time to negotiate a deal.  And as for any third options then parliament who are taking back control may have a different opinion.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jan 13, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			Any views on who this would be?
		
Click to expand...

Well I'm not that familiar with all the up and coming talent in both parties but I like Chuka Umunna or Kier Starmer for Labour.  Afraid I'm not sure of the next gen 2 point oh Tories available.  But I imagine there will be some there.


----------



## Fade and Die (Jan 13, 2019)

Hacker Khan said:



			Cool your boots, I meant delayed as in give us more time to negotiate a deal.  And as for any third options then parliament who are taking back control may have a different opinion.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah I posted that in the wrong thread  really so edited it!ðŸ˜


----------



## Fade and Die (Jan 13, 2019)

Hacker Khan said:



			Cool your boots, I meant delayed as in give us more time to negotiate a deal.  And as for any third options then *parliament who are taking back control may have a different opinion.*

Click to expand...


This sounds sinister btw!


----------



## hors limite (Jan 13, 2019)

Hacker Khan said:



			I did watch some of this but not all. I suppose at least you could argue that he has a clear idea of what type of Brexit he is trying to achieve.  Plus he did talk sense to me about trying to help areas of the UK that will be likely heavily impacted by a hard Brexit.  But as you say, little to no chance of his ideas actually happening. 

I'd suggest we thank both May and her team plus Corbyn and his team for their valiant efforts over the last 2 years, but it's clear they are both not up to the job of leading their parties on this subject. So please bugger off, delay article 50 and lets get some new blood in.
		
Click to expand...

I think that you are being a bit generous. After all this time and the frighteningly close deadline, he should have consulted and have a crystal clear knowledge of the party's policy and be prepared to show leadership and advocate his realistic vision of the future. He is continuing with his " constructive ambiguity" trying to keep both his leavers and remainers appeased. Both he and May have been playing politics rather than putting the country first. We need leadership but it's too late to start renegotiating. The EU will only countenance an extension to Article 50 if a 2nd vote is on offer. Back to the polling booths?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 13, 2019)

I think there's still plenty of time for new proposals to come forward. The EU really don't want a no deal and if they see a real chance of that happening at the 12th hour I am fairly confident they will come forward with concessions. MPs who are trying to make a no deal impossible are giving the advantage to thr EU.


----------



## IanM (Jan 13, 2019)

Corbyn said today that the EU is â€œknown to be flexible!â€

Is he stupid, or just lying ?


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 13, 2019)

IanM said:



			Corbyn said today that the EU is â€œknown to be flexible!â€

Is he stupid, or just lying ?
		
Click to expand...

Its a soundbite for voters. "Elect me, the EU will negotiate with me." In truth, he's not lying. I'm sure the EU will offer the same as they offered May.


----------



## shortgame (Jan 13, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



			DIANE ABBOTT. Apparantly she is on a trip to Ireland, they asked her if she likes County Down. She said " she preferred it when Carol Vorderman was on it".
		
Click to expand...

presumably she excels at the numbers rounds


----------



## shortgame (Jan 13, 2019)

IanM said:



			Corbyn said today that the EU is â€œknown to be flexible!â€

Is he stupid, or just lying ?
		
Click to expand...

They're not mutually exclusive where Comrade Corbyn is concerned!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 13, 2019)

Hacker Khan said:



			Well I'm not that familiar with all the up and coming talent in both parties but I like Chuka Umunna or Kier Starmer for Labour.  Afraid I'm not sure of the next gen 2 point oh Tories available.  But I imagine there will be some there.
		
Click to expand...

Cucka Umunna rather blotted his copybook with me when he panicked and called a full scale emergency when 6 immigrants landed at Dover.
Or do you think that was maybe just political posturing
Either way I am not sure if I want someone that weak in charge of an actual country.


----------



## Fade and Die (Jan 13, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Cucka Umunna rather blotted his copybook with me when he panicked and called a full scale emergency when 6 immigrants landed at Dover.
Or do you think that was maybe just political posturing
Either way I am not sure if I want someone that weak in charge of an actual country.
		
Click to expand...

Tsk tsk doon...hope your not getting your chukka umunnaâ€™s and your Sajid javids mixed up! ðŸ‘¨ðŸ¿ðŸ‘¨ðŸ¿?? ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚


----------



## Dando (Jan 14, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Cucka Umunna rather blotted his copybook with me when he panicked and called a full scale emergency when 6 immigrants landed at Dover.
Or do you think that was maybe just political posturing
Either way I am not sure if I want someone that weak in charge of an actual country.
		
Click to expand...

Iâ€™m sure there were more than 6


----------



## MegaSteve (Jan 14, 2019)

Fade and Die said:



			Tsk tsk doon...hope your not getting your chukka umunnaâ€™s and your Sajid javids mixed up! ðŸ‘¨ðŸ¿ðŸ‘¨ðŸ¿?? ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚
		
Click to expand...

Now, on a scale of 1-10 of embarrassing of mixing these two politicians up that would be an ELEVEN...


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 14, 2019)

MegaSteve said:



			Now, on a scale of 1-10 of embarrassing of mixing these two politicians up that would be an ELEVEN...
		
Click to expand...

Nice to see he's up to speed with what goes on in the world


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 14, 2019)

Fade and Die said:



			Tsk tsk doon...hope your not getting your chukka umunnaâ€™s and your Sajid javids mixed up! ðŸ‘¨ðŸ¿ðŸ‘¨ðŸ¿?? ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚
		
Click to expand...

OMG I am sorry folks. Totally embarrassed


----------



## hors limite (Jan 15, 2019)

Watching the HOC live - god he's hopeless stumbling over his words, reading his speech without any sense of coherence. In a monotone and monotonous Lacking in any vision.. A moment when he should be inspiring his MPs and the country to a fresh and inspiring perspective, I don't know what to say.


----------



## spongebob59 (Jan 15, 2019)

Expect full Dalek mode after the vote ..... Exterminate......


----------



## spongebob59 (Jan 15, 2019)

He did not disappoint, even the glasses came off.


----------



## User62651 (Jan 15, 2019)

May stole his thunder by suggesting the no confidence vote before he got to speak, sneaky by her but worked, agree Corbyn seemed awkward, big moment got hijacked, anyway dont think she can lose confidence vote as the DUP will back her per terms of their Â£1 billion bung.


----------



## Beezerk (Jan 15, 2019)

Wonder if he called her something else under his breath this time


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 15, 2019)

Beezerk said:



			Wonder if he called her something else under his breath this time 

Click to expand...

Let's be right, he could of plenty of practice whilst "alone" with Diane Abbott in the Boudoir. Al let you hold that thought Beezerk. ðŸ¤—ðŸ¤”ðŸ˜–


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 15, 2019)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46879000

On a day when Jezza wants to get hold of the country's finances this happens.


----------



## User62651 (Jan 15, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



			Let's be right, he could of plenty of practice whilst "alone" with Diane Abbott in the Boudoir. Al let you hold that thought Beezerk. ðŸ¤—ðŸ¤”ðŸ˜–
		
Click to expand...

Bit irrelevant but no different than Major and Currie or Cameron and miss piggyðŸ˜


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 15, 2019)

maxfli65 said:



			Bit irrelevant but no different than Major and Currie or Cameron and miss piggyðŸ˜
		
Click to expand...

There are some significant differences between the three scenarios. Cameron sticking it to the pig (allegedly?) happened when he was at uni and before he got into politics, Corbyn and Abbott had a relationship before they became MPs (think that's correct but not 100% sure) and Major and Currie were both MPs when their affair took place. But do any of these stories actually matter?

I'm sure many or all of us did things during our student days that we aren't proud of even if that doesn't include sexual relations with a pigs head. Don't see any problem with Corbyn and Abbott having a previous relationship - unless of course that means that Corbyn is favouring Abbott now because of it. Is the Major/Currie affair actually such a big deal? Both of them were in government positions at the time but if it didn't affect their performance in their job does it actually matter? I'm sure that there are people on this forum that have had affairs or relationships with people that they/we work with but as long as it hasn't affected our work is it a problem? Obviously it's different from a personal/family side of things but if we look at purely work based reasons is it a problem?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jan 15, 2019)

True, but Edwina Currie . That is some seriously bad judgement.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 15, 2019)

Lord Tyrion said:



			True, but Edwina Currie . That is some seriously bad judgement.
		
Click to expand...

I've done worse.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jan 15, 2019)

ColchesterFC said:



			I've done worse. 

Click to expand...

Then I can only hope you are typing this from a Siberian jail


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 15, 2019)

If the Cameron story is untrue, someone is telling Porkies.


----------



## User62651 (Jan 15, 2019)

ColchesterFC said:



			There are some significant differences between the three scenarios. Cameron sticking it to the pig (allegedly?) happened when he was at uni and before he got into politics, Corbyn and Abbott had a relationship before they became MPs (think that's correct but not 100% sure) and Major and Currie were both MPs when their affair took place. But do any of these stories actually matter?

I'm sure many or all of us did things during our student days that we aren't proud of even if that doesn't include sexual relations with a pigs head. Don't see any problem with Corbyn and Abbott having a previous relationship - unless of course that means that Corbyn is favouring Abbott now because of it. Is the Major/Currie affair actually such a big deal? Both of them were in government positions at the time but if it didn't affect their performance in their job does it actually matter? I'm sure that there are people on this forum that have had affairs or relationships with people that they/we work with but as long as it hasn't affected our work is it a problem? Obviously it's different from a personal/family side of things but if we look at purely work based reasons is it a problem?
		
Click to expand...

Tashy raised it, not me, thought you'd reply to him? Didnt see how it was relevant to this thread, post was anti Labour so i showed tories do it too....for political balance you seeðŸ˜‹


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 15, 2019)

maxfli65 said:



			Tashy raised it, not me, thought you'd reply to him? Didnt see how it was relevant to this thread, post was anti Labour so i showed tories do it too....for political balance you seeðŸ˜‹
		
Click to expand...

Hopefully you can appreciate that I was trying not to respond in a manner that was politically motivated (anti-Labour) as I was trying to treat all of them equally and judged them on what they had actually done and when they had done it regardless of what party they represent.


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 16, 2019)

Meanwhile in the HOP The speaker John Bercow has shouted order order. 
Diane Abbott said Double burger, fries and a thickshake please.


----------



## Dando (Jan 16, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



			Meanwhile in the HOP The speaker John Bercow has shouted order order.
Diane Abbott said Double burger, fries and a thickshake please.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## IanM (Jan 16, 2019)

...has a Leader of the Oppostion, responding to a massive defeat by their opposite number, ever looked less impressive or statesman-like ?


----------



## MegaSteve (Jan 16, 2019)

IanM said:



			...has a Leader of the Oppostion, responding to a massive defeat by their opposite number, ever looked less impressive or statesman-like ?
		
Click to expand...

Not being around in 1924 i wouldn't know the answer to thatðŸ˜‰...


----------



## drdel (Jan 16, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



			Let's be right, he could of plenty of practice whilst "alone" with Diane Abbott in the Boudoir. Al let you hold that thought Beezerk. ðŸ¤—ðŸ¤”ðŸ˜–
		
Click to expand...

I *WAS* enjoying my lunch - Thanks for planting that image: again!!!


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 16, 2019)

Apparantly Diane Abbott had gone on record and said it wont be long before we get the keys to 27 Downing street.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 16, 2019)

IanM said:



			...has a Leader of the Oppostion, responding to a massive defeat by their opposite number, ever looked less impressive or statesman-like ?
		
Click to expand...

It looks like Diane Abbott has been doing the Labour party maths again. Corbyn saying that the government lost the vote by the "biggest possible margin". No they didn't Jeremy. They lost by 230 votes which is big but not the "biggest possible". If one more person had voted against then they would have lost by 232 votes which would be a bigger margin.


----------



## Dando (Jan 16, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



			Apparantly Diane Abbott had gone on record and said it wont be long before we get the keys to 27 Downing street.
		
Click to expand...

she's hoping to revoke article 8428977558424


----------



## Khamelion (Jan 16, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



			Let's be right, he could of plenty of practice whilst "alone" with Diane Abbott in the Boudoir. Al let you hold that thought Beezerk. ðŸ¤—ðŸ¤”ðŸ˜–
		
Click to expand...

I read this and was sick a little in my mouth. You're a bad man.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 16, 2019)

Didn't Corbyn want to change the confrontational and shouty debating method of the Commons.  That never worked out, did it?


----------



## User62651 (Jan 16, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			Didn't Corbyn want to change the confrontational and shouty debating method of the Commons.  That never worked out, did it?
		
Click to expand...

yep, Corbyn is proving ineffective, the shouting just seems faked from him. 
Can you imagine the rest of us behaving like that at work?
2 party politics at its worst, very tedious.


----------



## howbow88 (Jan 16, 2019)

maxfli65 said:



			yep, Corbyn is proving ineffective, the shouting just seems faked from him.
Can you imagine the rest of us behaving like that at work?
2 party politics at its worst, very tedious.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I've found that at big businesses, shouting over each other in meetings to get points across is par for the course. And the higher up you go, the worse it tends to get.


----------



## drdel (Jan 16, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			Didn't Corbyn want to change the confrontational and shouty debating method of the Commons.  That never worked out, did it?
		
Click to expand...

I'm afraid his past association with some very dubious characters has, IMO, meant he's not an honourable man. Even the security services are wary of sharing sensitive information and yet some want him as PM.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 16, 2019)

howbow88 said:



			Unfortunately I've found that at big businesses, shouting over each other in meetings to get points across is par for the course. And the higher up you go, the worse it tends to get.
		
Click to expand...

I have never experienced such behaviour at management or board level.  You wouldn't survive five minutes.


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 16, 2019)

howbow88 said:



			Unfortunately I've found that at big businesses, shouting over each other in meetings to get points across is par for the course. And the higher up you go, the worse it tends to get.
		
Click to expand...

 Never my experience in many years at the top table.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 17, 2019)

He gets worse!    What a game playing cretin.


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 17, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			He gets worse!    What a game playing cretin.
		
Click to expand...

I think this current issue is showing he's been promoted above his ability.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jan 17, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			I think this current issue is showing he's been promoted above his ability.
		
Click to expand...

There are a lot on both sides who are in that camp. If we started writing a list it could go on for some time


----------



## IanM (Jan 17, 2019)

As I read this morning...

Corbyn will meet the IRA and Hezzbollah, but he won't meet the Prime Minister to talk about the biggest issue we've had in decades.


----------



## User62651 (Jan 17, 2019)

Gove was a chief architect of the mess we're in now, yet he gets plaudits for hammering Corbyn just a few hours after talk of cross party working - great way to get about it! The tribalism is very detrimental. Why should Corbyn now jump on board when he knows May will offer nothing but her current deal. Right wing press all over it but neglecting to mention Corbyn has only asked that May rule out No Deal before meeting, nothing more. We know parliament wont allow no deal so what's May's problem? They're all 'at it' and the policy failure remains a Tory problem, if all Tory MPs had voted with Govt on Tuesday May's deal would have been done despite DUP going against, there were enough Labour rebels and independents to carry it I think but apparently it's now all Corbyn's fault Brexit is in an impasse.


----------



## IanM (Jan 17, 2019)

Of course it isnt Corbyn's fault, but the point stands!  The Tories under May are executing their plan to stay with comendable precision. (doesnt mean I like the direction of travel)  Dont forget her postion on the EU has been constant, and (like Heath) the EU will not forget her service.

After the 2nd Ref, they will point to "the people decided to stay in" and thats the end of it.  General Election will return Tories and Labour will fire Corbyn.  Mind you, none of it will matter when full terms of Lisbon Treaty start to crystalise.


----------



## jp5 (Jan 17, 2019)

Too right maxfli. If May had been more inclusive from the start then we wouldn't be in this situation with 10 weeks to go.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 17, 2019)

maxfli65 said:



			Gove was a chief architect of the mess we're in now, yet he gets plaudits for hammering Corbyn just a few hours after talk of cross party working - great way to get about it! The tribalism is very detrimental. Why should Corbyn now jump on board when he knows May will offer nothing but her current deal. Right wing press all over it but neglecting to mention Corbyn has only asked that May rule out No Deal before meeting, nothing more. We know parliament wont allow no deal so what's May's problem? They're all 'at it' and the policy failure remains a Tory problem, if all Tory MPs had voted with Govt on Tuesday May's deal would have been done despite DUP going against, there were enough Labour rebels and independents to carry it I think but apparently it's now all Corbyn's fault Brexit is in an impasse.

Click to expand...

Well said.
There are only about 100 of the 'swivel eyed loon' types of Tory's who will vote for a no deal Brexit. The other 200+ are quite sensible.
Yet the far right wing attack Corbyn for demanding that May drops a no deal Brexit.

She trumpets that the SNP are working with her but their demands are exactly the same as Corbyns.
She is wasting everyones time and playing daft wee games whilst the country goes to hell in a handcart.
The 'cash for votes' DUP are now effectively running Government policy on Brexit, whatever happened to take back control


----------



## drdel (Jan 17, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Well said.
There are only about 100 of the 'swivel eyed loon' types of Tory's who will vote for a no deal Brexit. The other 200+ are quite sensible.
Yet the far right wing attack Corbyn for demanding that May drops a no deal Brexit.

She trumpets that the SNP are working with her but their demands are exactly the same as Corbyns.
She is wasting everyones time and playing daft wee games whilst the country goes to hell in a handcart.
The 'cash for votes' DUP are now effectively running Government policy on Brexit, whatever happened to take back control
		
Click to expand...

The issue is the structure of the HoC not Tories/TM. If JC were PM it would be the same problem for Labour. The in/out EU debate has rattled around in the HoC and HoL for decades.

You'd rather have JC and Labour doing the deal !; but don't for one moment think that will change the EU's stonewalling in fear for their edifice  and Federalist goals. If that's the view then your living in cuckoo land.


----------



## londonlewis (Jan 17, 2019)

Hugo Chavez documentary on last night had old footage of Corbyn banging out his enthusiastic support for the man and the great he was doing for the country. Doesn't help his socialist cause that Venezuela dove into deep poverty within 20 years (14 years of Chavez and 6 years of Maduro). At least we could get rid of Corbyn more easily before he ruined the economy! 

And Corbyn was on the Sunday morning politics programme stating he is a socialist, in case no one knew!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 17, 2019)

drdel said:



			The issue is the structure of the HoC not Tories/TM. If JC were PM it would be the same problem for Labour. The in/out EU debate has rattled around in the HoC and HoL for decades.

You'd rather have JC and Labour doing the deal !; but don't for one moment think that will change the EU's stonewalling in fear for their edifice  and Federalist goals. If that's the view then your living in cuckoo land.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I would rather have Labour in charge than the DUP.
I am not desperately worried though as my first preference is an Independent Scotland in the EU.
In that case a walk away deal would be best option other than the impact it would have on my English and Welsh friends and relatives.


----------



## IanM (Jan 17, 2019)

Independent Scotland in the EU?   Contradiction in terms?  (I actually laughed out loud in the office!)  

They are looking for net-contributers, or places they can break like Greece and Italy.  Which is it for you?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 17, 2019)

IanM said:



			Independent Scotland in the EU?   Contradiction in terms?  (I actually laughed out loud in the office!) 

They are looking for net-contributers, or places they can break like Greece and Italy.  Which is it for you?
		
Click to expand...

Do you mean that countries like France, Spain, Estonia and Germany are NOT independent.
It would be a brave man to tell them that.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 17, 2019)

jp5 said:



			Too right maxfli. If May had been more inclusive from the start then we wouldn't be in this situation with 10 weeks to go.
		
Click to expand...

If Corbyn,  Blackstock. Cable etc had been more inclusive from the start then we wouldn't be in this situation with 10 weeks to go.


----------



## Captainron (Jan 17, 2019)

Corbyn is a (insert many many expletives here) and if he ever got into power then we are all in trouble 

Theresa May was given an impossible job with the brexit withdrawal. No one could have done the job when everyone in parliament has their own version of brexit in their heads.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Jan 17, 2019)

Captainron said:



			Corbyn is a (insert many many expletives here) and if he ever got into power then we are all in trouble

Theresa May was given an impossible job with the brexit withdrawal. No one could have done the job when everyone in parliament has their own version of brexit in their heads.
		
Click to expand...

And votes according to their own agendas and goals.  Very few have actually voted on whats best for the country, only their own self interest.


----------



## IanM (Jan 18, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Do you mean that countries like France, Spain, Estonia and Germany are NOT independent.
It would be a brave man to tell them that.
		
Click to expand...

Depends on your definition.  None of them can set their own fiscal or migration policies. Soon they will probably lose the independence of their armed forces.  Estonia is dependent on EU funding.  France of course are one of the "top table" so they can set a budget outside the rules applied to Italy...so I wonder how Scotland would be treated?  Can you pay to prop up another insiolvent socialist system? 

Bit of course, uou ignored the main point/question in my comment.  Again.   Ho hum


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 18, 2019)

IanM said:



			Depends on your definition.  None of them can set their own fiscal or migration policies. Soon they will probably lose the independence of their armed forces.  Estonia is dependent on EU funding.  France of course are one of the "top table" so they can set a budget outside the rules applied to Italy...so I wonder how Scotland would be treated?  Can you pay to prop up another insiolvent socialist system?

Bit of course, uou ignored the main point/question in my comment.  Again.   Ho hum
		
Click to expand...

I ignored your silly one sided question........so sorry.
The answer is neither. [obviously]
I am pretty certain that Scotland will thrive away from this broken Union.

If England leaves the EU and Scotland leaves the UK and joins the EU......â€¦.by your rationale England will not be an independent country as they are in a UK union.


----------



## User62651 (Jan 18, 2019)

Captainron said:



			Corbyn is a (insert many many expletives here) and if he ever got into power then we are all in trouble

Theresa May was given an impossible job with the brexit withdrawal. *No one could have done the job when everyone in parliament has their own version of brexit in their heads.*

Click to expand...

If they hadn't called a needless general election, then lost a reasonable parliamentary majority through sheer ineptitude, listened to the country, not drawn up ridiculous red lines etc etc then some people probably could have got Brexit done by now.


----------



## drdel (Jan 18, 2019)

maxfli65 said:



			If they hadn't called a needless general election, then lost a reasonable parliamentary majority through sheer ineptitude, listened to the country, not drawn up ridiculous red lines etc etc then some people probably could have got Brexit done by now.
		
Click to expand...

You seem to think this is all just up to the UK and the EU is not blocking anything we might decide/want. Such a twisted perspective repeatedly ignores that there are two 'sides' to this - the UK and the EU. The UK has been debating the benefits (or not) of EU membership as its transitioned towards federalism. Unlike the EU a democratic vote decided we should stop membership. The EU naturally wishes to block the loss of a major source of funding and a negative step towards their federal aim. The EU will stonewall because that has always been their tactic see Greece, Italy, Ireland, Spain and others.  Any PM or Government (of whatever colour) would have experienced the same down to the wire issues.


----------



## IanM (Jan 18, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I ignored your silly one sided question........so sorry.
The answer is neither. [obviously]
I am pretty certain that Scotland will thrive away from this broken Union.

If England leaves the EU and Scotland leaves the UK and joins the EU......â€¦.by your rationale England will not be an independent country as they are in a UK union.
		
Click to expand...

Difference being England isnt bitter and twisted about being in the UK like you....and what was proven to be a minority in Soctland...

...and not sure how asking about two extremes is a one sided question.  But you never answer questions do you?  I look forward to Scotland being a state within an Federal Europe... wont that be grand.   You are happy to pay higher taxes to fund it and I am sure having the same fiscal levers as Germany will deliver similar results as seen in Greece and Italy!  Nice


----------



## IanM (Jan 18, 2019)

drdel said:



			You seem to think this is all just up to the UK and the EU is not blocking anything we might decide/want. Such a twisted perspective repeatedly ignores that there are two 'sides' to this - the UK and the EU. The UK has been debating the benefits (or not) of EU membership as its transitioned towards federalism. Unlike the EU a democratic vote decided we should stop membership. The EU naturally wishes to block the loss of a major source of funding and a negative step towards their federal aim. The EU will stonewall because that has always been their tactic see Greece, Italy, Ireland, Spain and others.  Any PM or Government (of whatever colour) would have experienced the same down to the wire issues.
		
Click to expand...

...plus, I believe this a planned approach by the Tories to keep us in!  (I might be wrong of course)  Eg.  No one would seriously remove the No-deal option from a negotiation.  Bit like trying to buy a house and starting by saying you'll pay the asking price and no lower!! (but higher if you want!)


----------



## drdel (Jan 18, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I ignored your silly one sided question........so sorry.
The answer is neither. [obviously]
I am pretty certain that Scotland will thrive away from this broken Union.

If England leaves the EU and Scotland leaves the UK and joins the EU......â€¦.by your rationale England will not be an independent country as they are in a UK union.
		
Click to expand...

I'd love to see Sturgeon negotiate a 'backstop' and avoid a hard border - perhaps she'd want EU funding for a wall!


----------



## User62651 (Jan 18, 2019)

drdel said:



			You seem to think this is all just up to the UK and the EU is not blocking anything we might decide/want. Such a twisted perspective repeatedly ignores that there are two 'sides' to this - the UK and the EU. The UK has been debating the benefits (or not) of EU membership as its transitioned towards federalism. Unlike the EU a democratic vote decided we should stop membership. The EU naturally wishes to block the loss of a major source of funding and a negative step towards their federal aim. The EU will stonewall because that has always been their tactic see Greece, Italy, Ireland, Spain and others.  *Any PM or Government (of whatever colour) would have experienced the same down to the wire issues*.
		
Click to expand...

Possibly but we we'll never know, what we do know is May has made a hash of the job of PM, kept hearing calls from Leavers that we should have a PM who voted leave as they would have done a great job of Brexit, is that not still the case or are we collectively admitting that Davis or Johnson or Gove would have got no further with this than May? I dont especially like Gove but I'm confident he could have negotiated way better thn May because he has political nous but also charm when needed. Maybot cannot do this job. She had 100 MPs from her won party vote no confidence in her in December (they weren't all ERG either), lost a Brexit vote by 230 votes whilst needlessly wasting a month delaying the vote, then barely survived a confidence vote in her own government this week. That's not leadership.


----------



## drdel (Jan 18, 2019)

maxfli65 said:



			Possibly but we we'll never know, what we do know is May has made a hash of the job of PM, kept hearing calls from Leavers that we should have a PM who voted leave as they would have done a great job of Brexit, is that not still the case or are we collectively admitting that Davis or Johnson or Gove would have got not further with this than May? I dont especially like Gove but I'm confident he could have negotiated way better thn May because he has political nous but also charm when needed. Maybot cannot do this job. She had 100 MPs from her won party vote no confidence in her in December (they weren't all ERG either), lost a Brexit vote by 230 votes, then barely survived a confidence in her own government vote. That's not leadership.
		
Click to expand...

A different PM might have done better at the margins so I agree with you.

However I believe the issues are mostly caused by the structure of UK politics being based on a two major parties and a subjective binary question that splits arrogant politicians (almost) equally. Add the intransigent EU and its a recipe for a confusing debacle.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 18, 2019)

drdel said:



			I'd love to see Sturgeon negotiate a 'backstop' and avoid a hard border - perhaps she'd want EU funding for a wall!
		
Click to expand...

What a strange comment.


----------



## drdel (Jan 18, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			What a strange comment.

Click to expand...

Sense of humour bypass ?


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 18, 2019)

drdel said:



			I'd love to see Sturgeon negotiate a 'backstop' and avoid a hard border - perhaps she'd want EU funding for a wall!
		
Click to expand...

Foundations are already down, and have been for thousands of years.


----------



## IanM (Jan 18, 2019)

Clever chaps them Romans!!

....what did the Romans ever do for us?  (etc etc)


----------



## howbow88 (Jan 18, 2019)

Hobbit said:



 Never my experience in many years at the top table.
		
Click to expand...

Lucky you. I work for one of the world's biggest brands currently, and I'm afraid this is what I encounter.


----------



## howbow88 (Jan 18, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			I have never experienced such behaviour at management or board level.  You wouldn't survive five minutes.
		
Click to expand...

Again, not the case where I work unfortunately. I wish this wasn't the case, but it is.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 18, 2019)

howbow88 said:



			Again, not the case where I work unfortunately. I wish this wasn't the case, but it is.
		
Click to expand...

Do you actually experience this or is it a rumour.


----------



## howbow88 (Jan 18, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			Do you actually experience this or is it a rumour.
		
Click to expand...

Been there, seen it, got the t-shirt. When I first saw it, I was fairly shocked. Used to it now but thankfully, I'm now very rarely going to those sort of meetings due to a change of role


----------



## 2blue (Jan 18, 2019)

Captainron said:



			Corbyn is a (insert many many expletives here) and if he ever got into power then we are all in trouble

Theresa May was given an impossible job with the brexit withdrawal. No one could have done the job when everyone in parliament has their own version of brexit in their heads.
		
Click to expand...

Oh come on Cam, your lovely Thatcher could have messed it up even better... ðŸ¤£ðŸ¤£


----------



## Captainron (Jan 19, 2019)

2blue said:



			Oh come on Cam, your lovely Thatcher could have messed it up even better... ðŸ¤£ðŸ¤£
		
Click to expand...

Actually. Thereâ€™s the one that might have pushed it though by now?


----------



## 2blue (Jan 19, 2019)

2blue said:



			Oh come on Cam, your lovely Thatcher could have messed it up even better... ðŸ¤£ðŸ¤£
		
Click to expand...




Captainron said:



			Actually. Thereâ€™s the one that might have pushed it though by now?
		
Click to expand...

Nay man...  the cow wouldn't have had a referendum in the first place


----------



## pauljames87 (Jan 19, 2019)

2blue said:



			Nay man...  the cow wouldn't have had a referendum in the first place
		
Click to expand...

Correct. The reason Blair got in was because Murdock said he wanted major out of number 10 and a referendum on the EU. So he got his empire behind Blair and new labour. The good old sun.. only excists to control the opinions of a nation. Scummy paper


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 20, 2019)

As much as I dislike Gove, and some of his politics, a true statesman speaking!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 20, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			As much as I dislike Gove, and some of his politics, a true statesman speaking!







Click to expand...

He knocks Corbyn into the dust for oration.


----------



## Captainron (Jan 20, 2019)

That was a tremendous summation. 

Why, when Corbyn is blatantly the biggest stumbling block to the Labour Party having any credibility and a chance in an election, do the labour party stick with him at the helm?


----------



## Old Skier (Jan 20, 2019)

Captainron said:



			That was a tremendous summation.

Why, when Corbyn is blatantly the biggest stumbling block to the Labour Party having any credibility and a chance in an election, do the labour party stick with him at the helm?
		
Click to expand...

Have you seen the size of his ultra left wing momentum support,  that's the reason he's flip flopping on Brexit. They are staunch remainers and are holding most of the key positions in the Labour Party and driving the centre left members out.


----------



## londonlewis (Jan 22, 2019)

Captainron said:



			Corbyn is a (insert many many expletives here) and if he ever got into power then we are all in trouble

Theresa May was given an impossible job with the brexit withdrawal. No one could have done the job when everyone in parliament has their own version of brexit in their heads.
		
Click to expand...

Michael Gove made a speech the other day which painted the picture for us; if Corbyn gets his way he will get rid of our nuclear deterrent as well as our militaries. Let's hope it he never gets in power.

EDIT: looks like the video has been posted. I was on page 115 when I wrote this.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 22, 2019)

Old Skier said:



			Have you seen the size of his ultra left wing momentum support
		
Click to expand...

Does he have a hernia?


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 22, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			As much as I dislike Gove, and some of his politics, a true statesman speaking!







Click to expand...

Wouldn't by any means call him a statesman (check the definition of 'statesman' and you'll see why), but a great speech brilliantly delivered! And I'm no fan of the man nor many of his previous policies! 

More speeches like this - from either side - would freshen up my interest in Parliament, even though I know it's not the area of 'that place' where the REAL work is done.


----------



## drdel (Jan 22, 2019)

I think the Momentum group are a major threat to the UK's future if JC or his cronies get anywhere near No 10.


----------



## Stuart_C (Jan 22, 2019)

londonlewis said:



			Michael Gove made a speech the other day which painted the picture for us; *if Corbyn gets his way he will get rid of our nuclear deterrent as well as our militaries*. Let's hope it he never gets in power.

EDIT: looks like the video has been posted. I was on page 115 when I wrote this.
		
Click to expand...

You dont believe this do you?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jan 23, 2019)

Stuart_C said:



			You dont believe this do you?
		
Click to expand...

He just as well get rid of it as he refuses to use it under any circumstances.  Similar to getting rid of No Deal, it leaves you defenceless.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jan 23, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			As much as I dislike Gove, and some of his politics, a true statesman speaking!







Click to expand...

As soon as any Tory politician (especially a former education secretary) starts claiming that schools are in a good shape and completely ignoring the funding crisis many of them are in then I kind of switch off.  As I know that the rest of the speech may well be full of lies and miss truths.

He's just position himself to take over when May says she is going after article 50 is triggered in order to get her deal through. Kicking Corbyn should be like shooting fish.  And it says more about May that she has not really be able to land and proper blows then Gove's statesmanlike appearance as he got a few tories forgetting about their infighting for a few minutes to boo at Corbyn.

If people fall for this kind of thing then fair enough, but to me it's just pushing the buttons to get the Tories behind him so he can be the next leader, with very little in there about doing things for the betterment of the country.


----------



## londonlewis (Jan 23, 2019)

Stuart_C said:



			You dont believe this do you?
		
Click to expand...

Shouldn't I?


----------



## IanM (Jan 23, 2019)

londonlewis said:



			Shouldn't I?
		
Click to expand...

It's been a core part of Policy for some time.... so maybe you dont need to believe it!


----------



## Jamesbrown (Jan 24, 2019)

IanM said:



			It's been a core part of Policy for some time.... so maybe you dont need to believe it! 

Click to expand...

Corbyn has campaigned for it all of his political career. Iâ€™m not sure about military but he certainly doesnâ€™t want a nuclear deterrent. I could certainly  could do without him becoming PM though.


----------



## Stuart_C (Jan 24, 2019)

londonlewis said:



			Shouldn't I?
		
Click to expand...

You believe what you want to.

I donâ€™t see how JC would be able to â€œget rid of our militariesâ€ never mind Nuclear deterrent,  it wouldnâ€™t be supported/allowed.


----------



## pauljames87 (Jan 24, 2019)

Stuart_C said:



			You believe what you want to.

I donâ€™t see how JC would be able to â€œget rid of our militariesâ€ never mind Nuclear deterrent,  it wouldnâ€™t be supported/allowed.
		
Click to expand...

Thereâ€™s a lot about Corbyn thatâ€™s reported and people just accept / will never change an opinion

My father in law served in the forced during the issues in Ireland and he will never vote for Corbyn as he was meeting with known terrorists etc etc.. and wonâ€™t listen to the facts that whilst Corbyn May have been meeting with them so was thatcher she was just smart enough to do it behind closed doors.

Some people will just believe what the press reports to them as gospel even though itâ€™s manufactured to get people to form a set opinion.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 24, 2019)

pauljames87 said:



			Thereâ€™s a lot about Corbyn thatâ€™s reported and people just accept / will never change an opinion

*My father in law served in the forced during the issues in Ireland and he will never vote for Corbyn as he was meeting with known terrorists etc etc.. and wonâ€™t listen to the facts that whilst Corbyn May have been meeting with them so was thatcher she was just smart enough to do it behind closed doors.*

Some people will just believe what the press reports to them as gospel even though itâ€™s manufactured to get people to form a set opinion.
		
Click to expand...

Corbyn wasnt "just meeting with them" and he had no remit to atempt peace talks

Corbyn was campaigning for a single Ireland and for the troops to leave etc etc - he was at memorials to mourn terrorists 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po...rbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

Your father in law shares the same opinion as the majority of the armed forces so who were there 

The government at the time had a remit to try and find peace in Ireland 

Tge man will never get into power thankfuly


----------



## pauljames87 (Jan 24, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Corbyn wasnt "just meeting with them" and he had no remit to atempt peace talks

Corbyn was campaigning for a single Ireland and for the troops to leave etc etc - he was at memorials to mourn terrorists

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po...rbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

Your father in law shares the same opinion as the majority of the armed forces so who were there

The government at the time had a remit to try and find peace in Ireland

Tge man will never get into power thankfuly
		
Click to expand...

With no disrespect intended those who served at the time and affected by the horrors will rarely look to read into why and what. The opinions will be made by whatâ€™s on hand at the time and never will be changed by future articles. 

Not completely like but comparable to minors wonâ€™t consider the Conservative party as they took their jobs etc.


----------



## Stuart_C (Jan 24, 2019)

pauljames87 said:



			Thereâ€™s a lot about Corbyn thatâ€™s reported and people just accept / will never change an opinion

My father in law served in the forced during the issues in Ireland and he will never vote for Corbyn as he was meeting with known terrorists etc etc.. and wonâ€™t listen to the facts that whilst Corbyn May have been meeting with them so was thatcher she was just smart enough to do it behind closed doors.

Some people will just believe what the press reports to them as gospel even though itâ€™s manufactured to get people to form a set opinion.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not defending JC btw, no PM would be able to get rid of the militaries and Nuclear Deterrent regardless of how much they wanted to, It would not be allowed.


----------



## pauljames87 (Jan 24, 2019)

Stuart_C said:



			I'm not defending JC btw, no PM would be able to get rid of the militaries and Nuclear Deterrent regardless of how much they wanted to, It would not be allowed.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed. He wouldnâ€™t have the power people worry about.. wouldnâ€™t get past the other MPs so itâ€™s unfounded worry as always.


----------



## IanM (Jan 24, 2019)

I would expect Corbyn with a decent majority would inflict huge damage on many fronts...lets pray it doenst happen an Labout boot him out soon


----------



## Tashyboy (Mar 21, 2019)

I see Diane Abbott has reminded people that on March 32nd the clocks go sideways.


----------



## 2blue (Mar 22, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



			I see Diane Abbott has reminded people that on March 32nd the clocks go sideways.
		
Click to expand...

Hahaha...â€¦  & Boris that they go Tick-tock...â€¦  haha â€¦ they're in all parties...  & this forum, 'ol girl.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Mar 22, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



			I see Diane Abbott has reminded people that on March 32nd the clocks go sideways.
		
Click to expand...

And the leavers want them to go back to the days of Spitfires, Watneys Red Barrell, birching and smog.


----------



## Tashyboy (Mar 22, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			And the leavers want them to go back to the days of Spitfires, Watneys Red Barrell, birching and smog.
		
Click to expand...

Apart from the smog, your selling it well DFT ðŸ˜‚


----------



## IanM (Mar 22, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			And the leavers want them to go back to the days of Spitfires, Watneys Red Barrell, birching and smog.
		
Click to expand...

Well, you need to read Jezzer's words extolling the virtues of Venezuela's Socialist Government from a year or two back.... we need that here he said.  That sent THEM way beyond any of the items Doon's refering too.  Millions trying to escape.

Mind you, with Public Services struggling to meet increasing demand, may some Corbyn/Abbott economics here would see similar exodus here?  So, that's what he meant by saving Servcies.... fair enough!


----------



## drdel (Mar 22, 2019)

IanM said:



			Well, you need to read Jezzer's words extolling the virtues of Venezuela's Socialist Government from a year or two back.... we need that here he said.  That sent THEM way beyond any of the items Doon's refering too.  Millions trying to escape.

Mind you, with Public Services struggling to meet increasing demand, may some *Corbyn/Abbott* economics here would see similar exodus here?  So, that's what he meant by saving Servcies.... fair enough!
		
Click to expand...

They could host - 'Britain's got Talent' and 'I'm a Celebrity (*KEEP*) me here!'


----------



## MegaSteve (Mar 22, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			And the leavers want them to go back to the days of Spitfires, Watneys Red Barrell, birching and smog.
		
Click to expand...

Yep, when a half decent secondary education gave you a decent chance of a career...

Nowadays, even with time at university, making barista looks a good opportunity...


----------



## drdel (Mar 22, 2019)

_ndependent..._

_"_Both Betfair and Paddy Power have shorter odds on the Labour leader becoming prime minister than any Conservative candidate.
Mr Corbyn is 6/1 to succeed Theresa May at No 10 â€“ ahead of leading Tory figures including Boris Johnson on 13/2, Michael Gove on 7/1 and Jeremy Hunt at 11/1, according to Oddschecker, which compiles odds from all the leading bookies."

HELP !!!!


----------



## IanM (Mar 24, 2019)

MegaSteve said:



			Yep, when a half decent secondary education gave you a decent chance of a career...

Nowadays, even with time at university, making barista looks a good opportunity...
		
Click to expand...

I wonder if that is true.... both my nephews have come out of Uni in the past 3 years and went straight into really good jobs... mind you, if they were not working in London, you might be right!


----------



## Hacker Khan (Mar 24, 2019)

MegaSteve said:



			Yep, when a half decent secondary education gave you a decent chance of a career...

*Nowadays, even with time at university, making barista looks a good opportunity...*

Click to expand...

Kind of depends on what university, what degree and your other extra curricular activities.   Get a third after playing Fortnite all the time in Yoghurt Knitting from the University of Cleethorpes and you'll probably not get too far. Get a 2.1 from a decent university in a good academic subject and have something else on your CV and you'll have a fair chance of success in this global increasingly automated world.


----------



## SocketRocket (Mar 24, 2019)

Hacker Khan said:



			Kind of depends on what university, what degree and your other extra curricular activities.   Get a third after playing Fortnite all the time in Yoghurt Knitting from the University of Cleethorpes and you'll probably not get too far. Get a 2.1 from a decent university in a good academic subject and have something else on your CV and you'll have a fair chance of success in this global increasingly automated world.
		
Click to expand...

Yogurt knitting Robotics. Liberal elete be scared, be very scared.


----------



## IanM (Mar 25, 2019)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1109848467944292352

I never met them....


----------



## spongebob59 (Mar 28, 2019)

how to win friends and influence people :  


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1111196735613874176


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Mar 29, 2019)

spongebob59 said:



			how to win friends and influence people :


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1111196735613874176

Click to expand...

That completely backfired on Corbyn as the SNP vote was over 40% in the by-election.
He must be following the same leadership style of Richard Whatshisname the SLAB leader.

Both seem to be forgetting the awkward fact that the 35 Labour rebels who abstained would have trumped the handful of 'Tartan Tory' votes cast.
Labour failing to re-write history once again. Labour rebel MP's abstaining allowed Thatcher into power.


----------



## Beezerk (Mar 29, 2019)

Blimey he's such a poor speaker,  I didn't realise how bad he was until now.


----------



## IanM (Mar 29, 2019)

Corbyn opens his gob... Â£900million wiped off National Grid value in few hours.  

Just imagine what he could do if in power!


----------



## drdel (Mar 29, 2019)

After all the discussion I still do not know what JC's stance is on Brexit.


----------



## spongebob59 (Mar 29, 2019)

Slightly OT, who's the lady who sits to his right at HOC ?

All she ever seems to do is mutterr, shake her head of have her nose in her phone.


----------



## Dellboy (Mar 29, 2019)

drdel said:



			After all the discussion I still do not know what JC's stance is on Brexit.
		
Click to expand...

Don't feel bad, neither does he


----------



## Dellboy (Mar 29, 2019)

spongebob59 said:



			Slightly OT, who's the lady who sits to his right at HOC ?

All she ever seems to do is mutterr, shake her head of have her nose in her phone.
		
Click to expand...

Dawn Butler, also called Noddy by a good few other MP's, as thats all she does at PMQ's


----------



## Dando (Mar 29, 2019)

IanM said:




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1109848467944292352

I never met them....
		
Click to expand...

At least dianne abacus cleared it up ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚


----------



## MegaSteve (Mar 29, 2019)

drdel said:



			After all the discussion I still do not know what JC's stance is on Brexit.
		
Click to expand...

There's the thing... His stance is of no consequence...

It's the blue team leaders stance that matters...
And,  her total inability to win over her own team


----------



## drdel (Mar 29, 2019)

MegaSteve said:



			There's the thing... His stance is of no consequence...

It's the blue team leaders stance that matters...
And,  her total inability to win over her own team
		
Click to expand...

Sure but if we have a GE it might be nice to know.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 29, 2019)

drdel said:



			Sure but if we have a GE it might be nice to know.
		
Click to expand...

Itâ€™ll be printed in invisible ink in the manifesto if we have a GE.


----------



## SocketRocket (Mar 29, 2019)

Dellboy said:



			Dawn Butler, also called Noddy by a good few other MP's, as thats all she does at PMQ's

Click to expand...

She reminds me of a parrot sat on his shoulder mouthing his last sentence.


----------



## MegaSteve (Mar 29, 2019)

drdel said:



			Sure but if we have a GE it might be nice to know.
		
Click to expand...

Believe there are already ample reasons why Jezza won't make it into No 10 without the knowledge of his true stance on Brussels...


----------



## drdel (Mar 29, 2019)

MegaSteve said:



			Believe there are already ample reasons why Jezza won't make it into No 10 without the knowledge of his true stance on Brussels...
		
Click to expand...

But GE voting is still pretty tribal so he may sneak over the line due to apathy.


----------



## MegaSteve (Mar 29, 2019)

drdel said:



			But GE voting is still pretty tribal so he may sneak over the line due to apathy.
		
Click to expand...

Believe a lot will rest on who's leading the blue team come the next GE...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 3, 2019)

Four Para's soon to be unemployed.
Not the brightest specimens, posting shooting up the Leader of HM Opposition on social media.


----------



## Beezerk (Apr 3, 2019)

They deserve a medal ðŸ˜‚


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 3, 2019)

Beezerk said:



			They deserve a medal ðŸ˜‚
		
Click to expand...

The Dunces would be suitable.


----------



## Dando (Apr 3, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Four Para's soon to be unemployed.
Not the brightest specimens, posting shooting up the Leader of HM Opposition on social media.
		
Click to expand...

No doubt the professionally offended have kicked off


----------



## 2blue (Apr 3, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Four Para's soon to be unemployed.
Not the brightest specimens, posting shooting up the Leader of HM Opposition on social media.
		
Click to expand...

Unbelievable...  one of our elite forces... plus there were probably officers supervising.... staggeringly stupid. ðŸ˜«ðŸ˜«


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 3, 2019)

Dando said:



			No doubt the professionally offended have kicked off
		
Click to expand...

In all honesty itâ€™s not about the professionally offended, squaddies have always had a bit of fun on the ranges using celebrities or foreign leaders pictures or even photos of mates as targets. 
But in the current climate of death threats to MPâ€™s (one made public yesterday) and the fallout from the Bloody Sunday prosecution, they really should of been more careful, the mistake is once again videoing it, someone has cocked up and the hierarchy will to be forced to take action.


----------



## Fade and Die (Apr 3, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			In all honesty itâ€™s not about the professionally offended, squaddies have always had a bit of fun on the ranges using celebrities or foreign leaders pictures or even photos of mates as targets.
But in the current climate of death threats to MPâ€™s (one made public yesterday) and the fallout from the Bloody Sunday prosecution, they really should of been more careful, the mistake is once again videoing it, someone has cocked up and the hierarchy will to be forced to take action.
		
Click to expand...

Spot on, this is the definitive reply on the subject...Iâ€™ll never understand why these numpties post these things online!


----------



## 2blue (Apr 3, 2019)

Fade and Die said:



			Spot on, this is the definitive reply on the subject...*Iâ€™ll never understand why these numpties post these things online![*/QUOTE]
I guess its cos the culture they're in suggests it's quite ok. It's not as though such an image would just be kicking about.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 3, 2019)

2blue said:



			I guess its cos the culture they're in suggests it's quite ok. It's not as though such an image would just be kicking about.
		
Click to expand...

With the technology available mate, any image can be found online and printed out to whatever size they wanted.


----------



## Fade and Die (Apr 3, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			With the technology available mate, any image can be found online and printed out to whatever size they wanted.
		
Click to expand...

They are in Kabul, itâ€™s not like they popped into copyright to print it off. Who would have printed it for them?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 3, 2019)

Fade and Die said:



			They are in Kabul, itâ€™s not like they popped into copyright to print it off. Who would have printed it for them?
		
Click to expand...

Trust me, not an issue.


----------



## Fade and Die (Apr 3, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Trust me, not an issue. 

Click to expand...

Obviously not, but does it mean a bit higher level of complicity than just the squaddies? Or do they have access to professional quality printer? 
Do you think because they were using wax rounds there was not a range supervisor present?


----------



## drdel (Apr 3, 2019)

So meeting with PM was constructive according to JC, after a few hours he's downgraded to 'not much changed...'

I few weeks he will state he wasn't there.


----------



## Old Skier (Apr 3, 2019)

2blue said:



			Unbelievable...  one of our elite forces... plus there were probably officers supervising.... staggeringly stupid. ðŸ˜«ðŸ˜«
		
Click to expand...

Elite forces, when did that happen as for officers supervising, highly unlikely as very few officers are range qualified. PS, they were firing paint balls at his picture.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Apr 4, 2019)

Live rounds, paint balls, it's all irrelevant. It is the symbolism. As Paul quoted earlier this probably happens regularly and no one cares, it is army humour. Posting it in the current climate of threats against MPs is unbelievably stupid though and likely to cost them their careers. It is almost a Darwinian moment.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 4, 2019)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Live rounds, paint balls, it's all irrelevant. It is the symbolism. As Paul quoted earlier this probably happens regularly and no one cares, it is army humour. Posting it in the current climate of threats against MPs is unbelievably stupid though and likely to cost them their careers. It is almost a Darwinian moment.
		
Click to expand...

Probably seemed a good idea at the time as most of these things do but someone should surely have been aware of the bigger picture. Can any of those serving/served educate the rest of us about possible consequences. Clearly I can see a court martial of some description, but is this act serious enough to warrant a discharge, and is it because of the current circumstances around threats to MP's as others have said this sort of thing has happened historically without this fall out.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 4, 2019)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Probably seemed a good idea at the time as most of these things do but someone should surely have been aware of the bigger picture. Can any of those serving/served educate the rest of us about possible consequences. Clearly I can see a court martial of some description, but is this act serious enough to warrant a discharge, and is it because of the current circumstances around threats to MP's as others have said this sort of thing has happened historically without this fall out.
		
Click to expand...

Donâ€™t take it personally!
Talking about Court Martial etc is completely over reacting, the Army will be seen to be taking action and that action will depend on the rank/ranks involved, if itâ€™s Privates it will probably be no more than a warning and a couple of education briefs.
Any NCOâ€™s involved will probably get a slap on the wrist, 12 month delay in any further promotions etc.
We have to remember this is lads serving in an Operational Theater letting off some steam.
One probably sent it back to the UK, without thinking, to a mate for a laugh and they shared it and so on.
Publicity wise in the current climate itâ€™s not good, but if it had been a picture of Ronaldo or George Clooney would of anyone cared? No.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 4, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Donâ€™t take it personally!
Talking about Court Martial etc is completely over reacting, the Army will be seen to be taking action and that action will depend on the rank/ranks involved, if itâ€™s Privates it will probably be no more than a warning and a couple of education briefs.
Any NCOâ€™s involved will probably get a slap on the wrist, 12 month delay in any further promotions etc.
We have to remember this is lads serving in an Operational Theater letting off some steam.
One probably sent it back to the UK, without thinking, to a mate for a laugh and they shared it and so on.
Publicity wise in the current climate itâ€™s not good, but if it had been a picture of Ronaldo or George Clooney would of anyone cared? No.
		
Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense. Daft as it was, surely its sensible to deal with it in house without wasting all that cash training top level soldiers to then kick them out over something as you say, to let off steam in an operational area. It's scary how sometimes the do gooders and know it alls on social media demand instant and full punishment when the services have been dealing with this kind of incident for decades and no the line between letting off steam and maliciousness. Either way I thought it was quite funny!


----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 4, 2019)

Saw the video yesterday and to say they are Paras, I thought the grouping of shots was rubbish.


----------



## spongebob59 (Apr 7, 2019)

Pretty damning


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1114904837114744833


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 8, 2019)

I see that Corbyn's new Scottish policy advisor is saying that the break up of the UK is inevitable and that he should back Indyref 2.
SLAB finally realise that their is little support for the Union from the remnants of their members.


----------



## User62651 (Apr 8, 2019)

spongebob59 said:



			Pretty damning


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1114904837114744833

Click to expand...

Good to see that issue acknowledged by David Milliband, maybe the best future option for a new Labour leader, taking ownership of a problem instead of ignored by JC -


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1114938312114999297
Hope he can find a way back into Labour and UK politics soon. Best option for a future Labour PM imo.


----------



## IanM (Apr 10, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



			Saw the video yesterday and to say they are Paras, I thought the grouping of shots was rubbish.
		
Click to expand...

In the pub last night with two retired (very) senior officers who ran through a list of "oddities" about the video.  Very interesting indeed.


----------



## IanM (Apr 10, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I see that Corbyn's new Scottish policy advisor is saying that the break up of the UK is inevitable and that he should back Indyref 2.
SLAB finally realise that their is little support for the Union from the remnants of their members.
		
Click to expand...

Do keep up, why do you think all that cash has been spent on Welsh/Scottish devolution.  Goes back many years...


----------



## Crazyface (Apr 10, 2019)

IanM said:



			In the pub last night with two retired (very) senior officers who ran through a list of "oddities" about the video.  Very interesting indeed. 

Click to expand...

Go on then.......


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 10, 2019)

IanM said:



			Do keep up, why do you think all that cash has been spent on Welsh/Scottish devolution.  Goes back many years...
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but I haven't a clue what you are trying to say there.


----------



## spongebob59 (Apr 12, 2019)

No love  lost here



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1116389050276093952


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 12, 2019)

spongebob59 said:



			No love  lost here



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1116389050276093952

Click to expand...

Branson, the man who tried to sue the NHS!


----------



## MegaSteve (Apr 12, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Branson, the man who tried to sue the NHS!
		
Click to expand...

Whilst trousering 2Bn of taxpayers cash...


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Apr 12, 2019)

MegaSteve said:



			Whilst trousering 2Bn of taxpayers cash...
		
Click to expand...

And now lives in a tax haven


----------



## drdel (Apr 12, 2019)

So Mr Corbyn and Ms Abbott want the UK to deny extradition of Assange to face trial !!


----------



## jp5 (Apr 12, 2019)

drdel said:



			So Mr Corbyn and Ms Abbott want the UK to deny extradition of Assange to face trial !!
		
Click to expand...

Nothing the PM herself hasn't done in the past.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 14, 2019)

Looking at the latest political polls in UK and Scotland shows a bit of a shift now that Farage has introduced another right wing political party.
Labour with a 4 point lead over the Tories.
Tory vote broken up between it's different factions.
SNP set to win back the seats they lost to the Lab/Tory pact at the last election. Labour vote in Scotland decimated due to that pact.

I think that the UK is going to be pretty well 'messed' up politically for many years to come.


----------



## Fade and Die (Apr 14, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Looking at the latest political polls in UK *and Scotland* shows a bit of a shift now that Farage has introduced another right wing political party.
Labour with a 4 point lead over the Tories.
Tory vote broken up between it's different factions.
SNP set to win back the seats they lost to the Lab/Tory pact at the last election. Labour vote in Scotland decimated due to that pact.

I think that the UK is going to be pretty well 'messed' up politically for many years to come.

Click to expand...


Got some news for you Rob Roy.... Scotland is part of the UK, not a separate entity.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 14, 2019)

Should have put rUK humble apology
Mind you a Spanish guy on here might disagree.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 14, 2019)

Fade and Die said:



			Got some news for you Rob Roy.... Scotland is part of the UK, not a separate entity.
		
Click to expand...

Mind you Miss Marples they do have British and Scottish polls.


----------



## Fade and Die (Apr 14, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Mind you Miss Marples they do have British and Scottish polls.

Click to expand...

Ouch!...rush me to the burn unit! ðŸ˜‘


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 14, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Should have put rUK humble apology
Mind you a Spanish guy on here might disagree.

Click to expand...

You know I wouldnâ€™t disagree with you


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Apr 15, 2019)

So guy's, now that you have had a sad little shot at deflection, what DO you think of the recent polls.
Is it just too awkward a question to give a reply to, 6% Labour lead in one of them.
Answers on a postcard perhaps.


----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 15, 2019)

DFT apart from the normal Anti England posts and Scotland is the centre of the universe.  how many people do you think take notice or are actually bothered about polls.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 18, 2019)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118852637875736577
Can someone explain what it is that the lovely Rachel Riley has said that has upset Labour Supporters ?


----------



## Papas1982 (Apr 18, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118852637875736577
Can someone explain what it is that the lovely Rachel Riley has said that has upset Labour Supporters ?
		
Click to expand...

Itâ€™s on the link youâ€™ve posted. Sheâ€™s referenced GoT and people have suggested sheâ€™s implied someone should take out Corbyn.

Just spend 5 minutes reading the responses. Good lord we live in a pathetic world. The people on there shouldnâ€™t be allowed out unsupervised.


----------



## spongebob59 (Apr 26, 2019)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48070983

People Corbyn will eat with: PLO murderers IRA terrorists Hamas Hezbollah Iranian State Officials Czech spies during the cold war Chinese Communist Party dictator at Palace
 People Corbyn won't eat with: Elected president of the United States of America at Palace


----------



## Old Skier (Apr 26, 2019)

spongebob59 said:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48070983

People Corbyn will eat with: PLO murderers IRA terrorists Hamas Hezbollah Iranian State Officials Czech spies during the cold war Chinese Communist Party dictator at Palace
People Corbyn won't eat with: Elected president of the United States of America at Palace
		
Click to expand...

Not sure the boss invited him


----------



## Dando (Apr 26, 2019)

spongebob59 said:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48070983

People Corbyn will eat with: PLO murderers IRA terrorists Hamas Hezbollah Iranian State Officials Czech spies during the cold war Chinese Communist Party dictator at Palace
People Corbyn won't eat with: Elected president of the United States of America at Palace
		
Click to expand...

Iâ€™m sure if he did meet trump heâ€™d deny meeting him if it suited!


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 26, 2019)

spongebob59 said:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48070983

People Corbyn will eat with: PLO murderers IRA terrorists Hamas Hezbollah Iranian State Officials Czech spies during the cold war Chinese Communist Party dictator at Palace
People Corbyn won't eat with: Elected president of the United States of America at Palace
		
Click to expand...

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't...?

TBH, I think he's got it right on this one. Just because Trump is POTUS doesn't make him a nice person, nor one who might be given blind respect. Personally, I agree with the majority of my American friends. He's a disgusting man.


----------



## Old Skier (Apr 26, 2019)

Didn't he attend the posh nosh with boss of China. Double standards possibly.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 26, 2019)

I doubt if he will be too put out if he doesn't eat with corbyn or address the poison dwarf and our pathetic bunch of clowns. Athough that is unfair to a few of them.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 26, 2019)

Old Skier said:



			Didn't he attend the posh nosh with boss of China. Double standards possibly.
		
Click to expand...

No! He drapes in the same flag


----------



## Imurg (Apr 26, 2019)

God forbid he ever becomes PM but if he does then he's going to have to do business with Trump or people like him whether he likes it or not.
When you lead a Country you can't pick and choose who you talk to
Shows him to be a poor candidate for Leader of anything in my eyes.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Apr 26, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't...?

TBH, I think he's got it right on this one. Just because Trump is POTUS doesn't make him a nice person, nor one who might be given blind respect. Personally, I agree with the majority of my American friends. He's a disgusting man.
		
Click to expand...

Disagree with you on this one Hobbit - not on anything you've said about Trump as I agree with all of that but on Corbyn getting it right. Corbyn wants to be Prime Minister of this country yet is prepared to snub the leader of one of our closest allies. I think in this instance he should (if he feels it necessary) just make his feelings known and then suck it up and attend.

EDIT - it also looks like there is opposition from MPs for Trump to address Parliament. Both Obama and Clinton addressed Parliament on their visits here so I'm not sure thatthey should be preventing Trump from doing the same.


----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 26, 2019)

So in essence, the leader of a pathetic excuse for an opposition party. A party riddled with anti Jewish supporters. Will not attend a state dinner for Trumpy because he accuses the POTUS of using "racist and misogynist rhetoric".

Enjoy the pot noodle for one Jezza


----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 26, 2019)

ColchesterFC said:



			Disagree with you on this one Hobbit - not on anything you've said about Trump as I agree with all of that but on Corbyn getting it right. Corbyn wants to be Prime Minister of this country yet is prepared to snub the leader of one of our closest allies. I think in this instance he should (if he feels it necessary) just make his feelings known and then suck it up and attend.

EDIT - it also looks like there is opposition from MPs for Trump to address Parliament. Both Obama and Clinton addressed Parliament on their visits here so I'm not sure thatthey should be preventing Trump from doing the same.
		
Click to expand...

Say what you want about Trump, he sure ain't everyone's cup of tea. But he was democratically elected. Now seeing as democracy isn't flavour of the month, it shouldn't come as a suprise that some folk/ the professionally offended don't want him here. But this is the bit that I cannot get my head around. People support him, they support Farage. Why? Because they are saying things that folk can relate to. At a time when May and Corbyn are a million miles from being in touch with the ordinary man. You have a president that is sticking up for his country, for his people. It's something that May, may want to consider. If Clinton had been voted as POTUS, would she of been allowed to address Parliment.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Apr 26, 2019)

Just seen that Corbyn, Bercow and Cable all attended a state banquet for President Xi of China. So that will be China that has no elections, freedom of expression or basic human rights but they are unwilling to attend a banquet for a man that was freely elected President of the USA.


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 26, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



			Say what you want about Trump, he sure ain't everyone's cup of tea. But he was democratically elected. Now seeing as democracy isn't flavour of the month, it shouldn't come as a suprise that some folk/ the professionally offended don't want him here. But this is the bit that I cannot get my head around. People support him, they support Farage. Why? Because they are saying things that folk can relate to. At a time when May and Corbyn are a million miles from being in touch with the ordinary man. You have a president that is sticking up for his country, for his people. It's something that May, may want to consider. If Clinton had been voted as POTUS, would she of been allowed to address Parliment.
		
Click to expand...

"Democratically elected."



ColchesterFC said:



			Just seen that Corbyn, Bercow and Cable all attended a state banquet for President Xi of China. So that will be China that has no elections, freedom of expression or basic human rights but they are unwilling to attend a banquet for a man that was freely elected President of the USA.
		
Click to expand...

"Freely elected."

Big business buys the presidency in the USA. Without millions upon millions of campaign dollars a candidate doesn't get anywhere near a nomination let alone be elected. You're holding up the American system as the model of democracy? Oh me sides.

I don't like Corbyn's politics one jot but... Trump.... oh c'mon, surely you're not serious?


----------



## ColchesterFC (Apr 26, 2019)

Hobbit said:



*"Freely elected."*

Big business buys the presidency in the USA. Without millions upon millions of campaign dollars a candidate doesn't get anywhere near a nomination let alone be elected. You're holding up the American system as the model of democracy? Oh me sides.

I don't like Corbyn's politics one jot but... Trump.... oh c'mon, surely you're not serious?
		
Click to expand...

"Freely elected" as in there was an election in which people were free to put their cross against the candidate that they wanted. The American people got to choose between Donald Trump (who had millions of dollars behind him) or Hilary Clinton (who had millions of dollars behind her). The Chinese people got President Xi whether they liked it or not but it seems that Corbyn thinks it's OK to sit down for dinner with Xi but not Trump.


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 26, 2019)

ColchesterFC said:



			"Freely elected" as in there was an election in which people were free to put their cross against the candidate that they wanted. The American people got to choose between Donald Trump (who had millions of dollars behind him) or Hilary Clinton (who had millions of dollars behind her). The Chinese people got President Xi whether they liked it or not but it seems that Corbyn thinks it's OK to sit down for dinner with Xi but not Trump.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing what went on, and goes on, in China. Nor am I condoning Corbyn's actions in sitting down with Xi. However, millions spent on propaganda by both sides in America doesn't promote the best person for the job, it promotes the choice of big businesses. If you think that's ok, fine. Do you honestly condone Trump's behaviour towards women? Do you think he's a decent and honourable man?

I'd lump Trump in with Xi, Putin and KJY.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Apr 26, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			I'm not disputing what went on, and goes on, in China. Nor am I condoning Corbyn's actions in sitting down with Xi. However, millions spent on propaganda by both sides in America doesn't promote the best person for the job, it promotes the choice of big businesses. If you think that's ok, fine. Do you honestly condone Trump's behaviour towards women? Do you think he's a decent and honourable man?

I'd lump Trump in with Xi, Putin and KJY.
		
Click to expand...

I condone very little of what Trump has said/done, least of all his attitude towards women, and I certainly don't think he's decent or honourable. But your last sentence is the important one. Lumping "Trump in with Xi, Putin and KJY" is exactly right. Yet Corbyn was happy to sit down for dinner with Xi. Personally I would have sat down for dinner with both or neither, but by refusing the invitation to dinner with Trump, after dining with Xi, looks to me to be simply an opportunity to score cheap points from Corbyn.


----------



## drdel (Apr 27, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			I'm not disputing what went on, and goes on, in China. Nor am I condoning Corbyn's actions in sitting down with Xi. However, millions spent on propaganda by both sides in America doesn't promote the best person for the job, it promotes the choice of big businesses. If you think that's ok, fine. Do you honestly condone Trump's behaviour towards women? Do you think he's a decent and honourable man?

I'd lump Trump in with Xi, Putin and KJY.
		
Click to expand...

I can't agree with your position on this.

JC is the UK's Leader of the Opposition and has a responsibility to act with professionalism and diplomacy when the UK has State visits from another Country's Leader. I'm sure that, like most of us, your professional responsibilities has meant meeting and greeting people who you do not like and would not wish to have in your social circle and private life but you get on with the task in hand in a professional manner.

IMO, rather like Bercow, Corbyn has come to believe that it is he _personally_ that has been invited. These idiots have developed an arrogant belief that they are more important than the role they hold.

I think to refuse to participate in a formal event with the Leader of the UK's longest ally is crass and is simply related to personal grandstanding/ publicity seeking; it is simply juvenile acts more fitting to a school playground rather than acting in accord with diplomacy and statesmanship. Whatever our views of the personality of Trump he holds the position as a result of the USA's system and is the President: the UK's representatives should give his country's citizens the respect we would expect them to give our representatives.


----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 27, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			"Democratically elected."



"Freely elected."

Big business buys the presidency in the USA. Without millions upon millions of campaign dollars a candidate doesn't get anywhere near a nomination let alone be elected. You're holding up the American system as the model of democracy? Oh me sides.

I don't like Corbyn's politics one jot but... Trump.... oh c'mon, surely you're not serious?
		
Click to expand...

Not saying I like him in fact he is quiet loathsome, but he stands up to China, he stands up to Kim, he stands up to mass migration, he stands up for American jobs, he stands up for the armed forces. If anyone else did that with out the baggage that comes with it they would be classed as a world class world leader. However as said, he does have his faults and there are many.
Compare that the the shower of shit that we have in May and Corbyn. Corbyn is not going to the state banquet is the news. Knowing Trumps record, am Suprised he never said " shove your state banquet, am not sitting between you two clowns, I have my image to protect ".


----------



## User62651 (Apr 27, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



			Not saying I like him in fact he is quiet loathsome, but he stands up to China, he stands up to Kim, he stands up to mass migration, he stands up for American jobs, he stands up for the armed forces. If anyone else did that with out the baggage that comes with it they would be classed as a world class world leader. However as said, he does have his faults and there are many.
Compare that the the shower of shit that we have in May and Corbyn. Corbyn is not going to the state banquet is the news. Knowing Trumps record, am Suprised he never said " shove your state banquet, am not sitting between you two clowns, I have my image to protect ".
		
Click to expand...

Trump will like the Association with Royalty, photo ops with Queen and the pomp/occasion, makes him look statesmanlike. He's not interested in our average politicians, already called out May and UK politics be that wrt brexit or knife crime etc to get his view across. Doubt he even knows who Corbyn is. May is fawning for a new trade deal with US to make Brexit appear a success and have any kind of legacy as PM that isnt plain awful.. Only reason she would make this invitation given how much chaos/protests this will cause here.

If we think we've been played by the EU over Brexit, Trump will wipe the floor with us in any trade deal. He's looking out for US, not us, and has a 2nd term to try and win so has to protect US interests, period. He'll apply import tariffs in a heartbeat to protect US jobs.


----------



## Imurg (Apr 27, 2019)

drdel said:



			I can't agree with your position on this.

JC is the UK's Leader of the Opposition and has a responsibility to act with professionalism and diplomacy when the UK has State visits from another Country's Leader. I'm sure that, like most of us, your professional responsibilities has meant meeting and greeting people who you do not like and would not wish to have in your social circle and private life but you get on with the task in hand in a professional manner.

IMO, rather like Bercow, Corbyn has come to believe that it is he _personally_ that has been invited. These idiots have developed an arrogant belief that they are more important than the role they hold.

I think to refuse to participate in a formal event with the Leader of the UK's longest ally is crass and is simply related to personal grandstanding/ publicity seeking; it is simply juvenile acts more fitting to a school playground rather than acting in accord with diplomacy and statesmanship. Whatever our views of the personality of Trump he holds the position as a result of the USA's system and is the President: the UK's representatives should give his country's citizens the respect we would expect them to give our representatives.
		
Click to expand...

I'm looking at it with the view that this is making Corbyn even more un-electable so it can only be a good thing.


----------



## Old Skier (Apr 27, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			I'd lump Trump in with Xi, Putin and KJY.
		
Click to expand...

Tad over the top IMO lumping him in with those three, I presume you are aware that the US is a free society and the leaders of the other three ensure their countries are not.

The man might be a homophobic rascits but I think his powers to kill off thousands of his own nationals is limited.


----------



## Old Skier (Apr 27, 2019)

The president of the USA represents the country and people, a people who sent thousands of their sons and daughters to fight and die with us in WW1, WW2 and other conflicts. For Corbyn Bercow and others to disrespect the post (the idiots doing a good enough job on his own) shows what kind of people they really are.

PS, the invite comes from HM so disrespectful to the crown as well.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 27, 2019)

Old Skier said:



			Tad over the top IMO lumping him in with those three, I presume you are aware that the US is a free society and the leaders of the other three ensure their countries are not.

The man might be a homophobic rascits but I think his powers to kill off thousands of his own nationals is limited.
		
Click to expand...

Iâ€™d argue Trump is a bigger threat to World Peace than the other 3.


----------



## Old Skier (Apr 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Iâ€™d argue Trump is a bigger threat to World Peace than the other 3.
		
Click to expand...

I would put the leader of any nuclear power in that category.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 27, 2019)

Old Skier said:



			I would put the leader of any nuclear power in that category.
		
Click to expand...

I donâ€™t think TM quite fits that scenario.


----------



## Old Skier (Apr 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			I donâ€™t think TM quite fits that scenario. 

Click to expand...

She's a woman their capable of anything


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Apr 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Iâ€™d argue Trump is a bigger threat to World Peace than the other 3.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not certain I could agree with you in the case of Putin.

Cannot recall a time since WW 2 when the two "superpowers" were simultaneously led by two such unstable characters. 

In fact, due to the American political system and the resulting limits on the President's powers, one could argue that Trump is marginally less dangerous.

Personally though I wouldn't trust either. 

As to the OP I am of the view that it is a State visit and, thus, Trump will be here as the representative of the USA. Therefore, in my eyes, it is not the individual that is being snubbed but the nation that has been an ally in two World Wars.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 27, 2019)

MetalMickie said:



			I'm not certain I could agree with you in the case of Putin.

Cannot recall a time since WW 2 when the two "superpowers" were simultaneously led by two such unstable characters.

In fact, due to the American political system and the resulting limits on the President's powers, one could argue that Trump is marginally less dangerous.

Personally though I wouldn't trust either.

As to the OP I am of the view that it is a State visit and, thus, Trump will be here as the representative of the USA. Therefore, in my eyes, it is not the individual that is being snubbed but the nation that has been an ally in two World Wars.
		
Click to expand...

Putinâ€™s been in power on and off since 2000, the world is a far more unstable now than itâ€™s been for years.
As for the State visit, Corbynâ€™s invite is no more important than anyone else who has turned it down, imo, itâ€™s certainly less than Bercowâ€™s who is meant to be impartial and represent all sides of the house.
As for snubbing a nation! Not for me, 99% of Yanks wonâ€™t even know who Corbyn is and plenty of Yanks funded the IRA for years and yet we should care about their feelings!


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Apr 27, 2019)

Corbyn was invited in his official capacity of Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. 

As for Putin it has taken until the last few years for him to establish greater  control and reverse much of the progress made towards  democracy under his predecessors. He is acting in character as a former KGB officer.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 27, 2019)

MetalMickie said:



			Corbyn was invited in his official capacity of Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

As for Putin it has taken until the last few years for him to establish greater  control and reverse much of the progress made towards  democracy under his predecessors. He is acting in character as a former KGB officer.
		
Click to expand...

Iâ€™ve no time for Corbyn, but Iâ€™m content to see any politician actually stand up for what they believe.
I think less of him or any other politician that says one thing publicly and then does the opposite.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 27, 2019)

Our politicians seem to believe being an MP is all about themselves, Brexit has revealed to us their self edifying politics and how pathetic they have become.  

Bercow is a disgrace, he isn't impartial and epitomises this ugly trait, Corbyn is using his position to promote his personal   ambitions, everything is done to try and grab the keys of power so he can apply his destructive policies before his age restricts him.

Trump has been invited to a state visit, our representatives acting like petulant children makes our country appear petty and pathetic but that's nothing new, they have already all but destroyed any respect  we held on the world stage.


----------



## Slime (Apr 27, 2019)




----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			I donâ€™t think TM quite fits that scenario. 

Click to expand...

Hmm the thought of Diane Abbott with her finger on the nuke launch button.


----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 27, 2019)

A PP said to me the other day when summarising Corbyn " he is an activist not a politician". Thought it summed him up nicely.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Iâ€™ve no time for Corbyn, but Iâ€™m content to see any politician actually stand up for what they believe.
*I think less of him or any other politician that says one thing publicly and then does the opposite*.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, like promising  to honour the outcome of a referendum and then working against it.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Apr 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Iâ€™ve no time for Corbyn, but Iâ€™m content to see any politician actually stand up for what they believe.
I think less of him or any other politician that says one thing publicly and then does the opposite.
		
Click to expand...

There's a time and place for politicians and similarly one for statesmen. 

This is an example of the latter.


----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 27, 2019)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48076262

How ironic, the above story is exactly what I was on about when Trump sticks up for his country. He has pulled the USA out of this treaty because China and Russia has not and will not sign up to it. In essence giving them a free hand in trading arms to dodgy countries. Like the UK does with Saudi Arabia. 
In an ideal world he should not have to do this, like he should not of had to pull out of the Paris climate agreement, but once more the USA was at a trade disadvantage when China and India etc were not signed up to it at the same time as everyone else.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 27, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			Yes, like promising  to honour the outcome of a referendum and then working against it.
		
Click to expand...

Seriously!! ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ From a supporter of Boris et al.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 27, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48076262

How ironic, the above story is exactly what I was on about when Trump sticks up for his country. He has pulled the USA out of this treaty because China and Russia has not and will not sign up to it. In essence giving them a free hand in trading arms to dodgy countries. Like the UK does with Saudi Arabia.
In an ideal world he should not have to do this, like he should not of had to pull out of the Paris climate agreement, but once more the USA was at a trade disadvantage when China and India etc were not signed up to it at the same time as everyone else.
		
Click to expand...

Tash, itâ€™s about American rich becoming richer, nothing to do with what other Countries sign up to.
Surely the right thing to do is stay signed up and push the other Countries in to doing the right thing.
Even the report states the NRA saying it goes against their 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Tash, itâ€™s about American rich becoming richer, nothing to do with what other Countries sign up to.
Surely the right thing to do is stay signed up and push the other Countries in to doing the right thing.
Even the report states the NRA saying it goes against their 2nd Amendment.
		
Click to expand...

You won't get any arguements from me Paul and I totally agree, but if the USA and the UN cannot persuade China the USSR and India to sort out its arms dealing, environmental issues etc etc. What does Trump do. If it means levelling the playing field, or tipping the scales USAs way and in essence protecting jobs,economy  then he is going to do it.


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 27, 2019)

Old Skier said:



			The president of the USA represents the country and people, a people who sent thousands of their sons and daughters to fight and die with us in WW1, WW2 and other conflicts. For Corbyn Bercow and others to disrespect the post (the idiots doing a good enough job on his own) shows what kind of people they really are.

PS, the invite comes from HM so disrespectful to the crown as well.
		
Click to expand...

In June I'll be at Omaha beach for the 75th anniversary commemoration, and I'll have a tear in my eye when I'm in the US cemetery there during the 3 days I'll be visiting the beaches/bridges/museums. How I feel towards Americans and what my feelings are for Trump are two very different things. Respect the post I agree with but that doesn't mean respect the man.

As its an invite from HM I'm inclined to agree it should be honoured but I would ask the question would the Queen really invite Trump, or in reality does the invite come from HM's govt?

As for Bercow; his lack of impartiality is almost legend now. As a 'referee' for the HoC he is well beyond the pale now. Some of the tough decisions he's made, well done to him, but its the bias that I'd question.


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Tash, itâ€™s about American rich becoming richer, nothing to do with what other Countries sign up to.
Surely the right thing to do is stay signed up and push the other Countries in to doing the right thing.
Even the report states the NRA saying it goes against their 2nd Amendment.
		
Click to expand...

Its amazing how Trump has used sanctions over Iran and the oil dealings but on this issue is quite happy to let US arms Companies trade. Sounds a tadge hypocritical?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 27, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



			You won't get any arguements from me Paul and I totally agree, but if the USA and the UN cannot persuade China the USSR and India to sort out its arms dealing, environmental issues etc etc. What does Trump do. If it means levelling the playing field, or tipping the scales USAs way and in essence protecting jobs,economy  then he is going to do it.
		
Click to expand...

Even at the cost of lives and further damage to the environment?


----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Even at the cost of lives and further damage to the environment?
		
Click to expand...

Not at all. But Trump Or any other world leader is not the person who will stop damage to the environment or loss of life. The person who will stop that is the person that stops buying  rammel from China or oil and gas from Russia. The person is us. ðŸ‘


----------



## Imurg (Apr 27, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			In June I'll be at Omaha beach for the 75th anniversary commemoration, and I'll have a tear in my eye when I'm in the US cemetery there during the 3 days I'll be visiting the beaches/bridges/museums. How I feel towards Americans and what my feelings are for Trump are two very different things. Respect the post I agree with but that doesn't mean respect the man.

As its an invite from HM I'm inclined to agree it should be honoured but I would ask the question would the Queen really invite Trump, or in reality does the invite come from HM's govt?

As for Bercow; his lack of impartiality is almost legend now. As a 'referee' for the HoC he is well beyond the pale now. Some of the tough decisions he's made, well done to him, but its the bias that I'd question.
		
Click to expand...

It could be said that she ( or the Government) has invited POTUS....not Trump as such. It just happens to be him so he's coming along.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 27, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



			Not at all. But Trump Or any other world leader is not the person who will stop damage to the environment or loss of life. The person who will stop that is the person that stops buying  rammel from China or oil and gas from Russia. The person is us. ðŸ‘
		
Click to expand...

So 2 wrongs make a right?
Surely he should be pressurising us not to deal with them rather than leaving all these agreements!
Itâ€™s school ground behaviour!


----------



## MegaSteve (Apr 27, 2019)

Sorry people but, no matter how much you whinge about the red team isn't, for me, disguising how appalling the blue team is doing right now...


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 27, 2019)

MegaSteve said:



			Sorry people but, no matter how much you whinge about the red team isn't, for me, disguising how appalling the blue team is doing right now...
		
Click to expand...

In their own respective way, theyâ€™re both as bad as each other.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Apr 27, 2019)

MegaSteve said:



			Sorry people but, no matter how much you whinge about the red team isn't, for me, disguising how appalling the blue team is doing right now...
		
Click to expand...

Cannot think of any current politician or party that I either respect or trust.

Red, blue, green, yellow, purple or tartan, as my dear old Dad would have said "I wouldn't pay 'em in washers".

It has often been said that a society gets the politicians it deserves but I struggle to see what we have done to deserve this lot.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Seriously!! ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ From a supporter of Boris et al.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe you can show where I am a supporter of Boris or Et Al whoever he is.    
A little pointer for you. If you want to disagree with a comment then do it by replying with a counter. Making an attempt at stick throwing makes you look juvenile.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Apr 27, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			Maybe you can show where I am a supporter of Boris or Et Al whoever he is.
		
Click to expand...

Was it a typo? Are you a big fan of the Israeli airline? 

And just so the mods don't think this comment is off-topic, I'm pretty sure Jeremy Corbyn isn't.


----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 28, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			In their own respective way, theyâ€™re both as bad as each other.
		
Click to expand...

And yet Hobbit, some people still cannot or do not want to see that or agree with that.ðŸ‘


----------



## chrisd (Apr 28, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



			Hmm the thought of Diane Abbott with her finger on the nuke launch button.
		
Click to expand...

Can you imagine her attempting the countdown 10, 9, urr um dont tell me, 6? ........


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 28, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			Maybe you can show where I am a supporter of Boris or Et Al whoever he is.   
A little pointer for you. If you want to disagree with a comment then do it by replying with a counter. Making an attempt at stick throwing makes you look juvenile.
		
Click to expand...

You really need to take a look in the mirror! Itâ€™s never you is it!
There is only one person, one party responsible for the Brexit mess, TM and the tories! Iâ€™d suggest they get there house in order before they or their followers blame anyone else.


----------



## Slime (Apr 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			You really need to take a look in the mirror! Itâ€™s never you is it!
*There is only one person, one party responsible for the Brexit mess, TM and the tories! *Iâ€™d suggest they get there house in order before they or their followers blame anyone else.
		
Click to expand...

Wrong ............................. you're just wrong.
Take off the blinkers and you may realise that they are ALL responsible.


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 28, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



			And yet Hobbit, some people still cannot or do not want to see that or agree with that.ðŸ‘
		
Click to expand...

To be fair, they don't have to agree. Its politics. Its about opinions and political choices. Someone thinking Corbyn is the next messiah is right in their eyes and wrong in the eyes of others.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 28, 2019)

Slime said:



			Wrong ............................. you're just wrong.
Take off the blinkers and you may realise that they are ALL responsible.
		
Click to expand...

In your opinion, fact is, one Party had a majority, one party led the negotiations, so for someone to say he is working against it whilst ignoring their own culpability is laughable imo.


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			You really need to take a look in the mirror! Itâ€™s never you is it!
There is only one person, one party responsible for the Brexit mess, TM and the tories! Iâ€™d suggest they get there house in order before they or their followers blame anyone else.
		
Click to expand...




Slime said:



			Wrong ............................. you're just wrong.
Take off the blinkers and you may realise that they are ALL responsible.
		
Click to expand...

The Tories are to blame for different elements of it. Equally, perhaps not equally but also culpable is Labour. Labour are playing party politics with it, using it as a vehicle to oust the Tories and get into power. You've only got to look at the arguments within the Labour Party this week to see how fractured and divided they are over the manifesto pledge for Brexit. The executive still won't get off the fence and declare their path to Brexit, and appear to be looking to go against the rank and file Labour supporters.

May's withdrawal agreement; Labour said they would support it if May could get an agreement from the EU on the political declaration. She said the EU wouldn't separate one from the other but did get that agreement from the EU. Shock of shocks! When May then took her agreement back to parliament Labour whipped their MP's to vote against it.

Lets not forget, over 30% of Labour voters voted for Brexit. I don't see Labour behaving any better in parliament than the Tories in delivering Brexit.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 28, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			The Tories are to blame for different elements of it. Equally, perhaps not equally but also culpable is Labour. Labour are playing party politics with it, using it as a vehicle to oust the Tories and get into power. You've only got to look at the arguments within the Labour Party this week to see how fractured and divided they are over the manifesto pledge for Brexit. The executive still won't get off the fence and declare their path to Brexit, and appear to be looking to go against the rank and file Labour supporters.

May's withdrawal agreement; Labour said they would support it if May could get an agreement from the EU on the political declaration. She said the EU wouldn't separate one from the other but did get that agreement from the EU. Shock of shocks! When May then took her agreement back to parliament Labour whipped their MP's to vote against it.

Lets not forget, over 30% of Labour voters voted for Brexit. I don't see Labour behaving any better in parliament than the Tories in delivering Brexit.
		
Click to expand...

I get that now Brian (I voted to leave, with a deal) as this what this mess has evolved into.

The mess was created from minute 1 when Cameron put it in the manifesto, walked away when it went t!ts up.

TM calling a GE and then her mindset and handling over negotiations are well documented, she broke her own party up over her deal and now Labour wonâ€™t support her â€œbadâ€ deal they are being held responsible.

Lots of if and buts, however, the tories led us down this path and now deflect on to every man and his dog rather than take responsibility.


----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 28, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			The Tories are to blame for different elements of it. Equally, perhaps not equally but also culpable is Labour. Labour are playing party politics with it, using it as a vehicle to oust the Tories and get into power. You've only got to look at the arguments within the Labour Party this week to see how fractured and divided they are over the manifesto pledge for Brexit. The executive still won't get off the fence and declare their path to Brexit, and appear to be looking to go against the rank and file Labour supporters.

May's withdrawal agreement; Labour said they would support it if May could get an agreement from the EU on the political declaration. She said the EU wouldn't separate one from the other but did get that agreement from the EU. Shock of shocks! When May then took her agreement back to parliament Labour whipped their MP's to vote against it.

Lets not forget, over 30% of Labour voters voted for Brexit. I don't see Labour behaving any better in parliament than the Tories in delivering Brexit.
		
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why I wrote post 2465 ðŸ‘ Some people are not willing to accept there have been massive mistakes on both sides. It is not a competition for who has Made the biggest mistakes or who has told the biggest lies. At some point or other May, Corbyn, Bercow, Obama, Boris, Jimmy Krankie, Farage have all made mistakes and used Brexit to further there own political careers.


----------



## drdel (Apr 28, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



			Which is exactly why I wrote post 2465 ðŸ‘ Some people are not willing to accept there have been massive *mistakes* on both sides. It is not a competition for who has Made the biggest mistakes or who has told the biggest lies. At some point or other May, Corbyn, Bercow, Obama, Boris, Jimmy Krankie, Farage have all made mistakes and used Brexit to further there own political careers.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure its 'mistakes'; some MPs have deliberately set out to frustrate the democratic process of Art 50 and subsequent legal Acts. 
Let's not forget eamples like Yvette Cooper whose constituents voted 60+% to leave a person who stated she'd honour the referendum result yet has chosen to ignore her voters and contradict her own words - like many from the various factions in the HoC there are very few who come out of this as a "Right Honourable..."


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			You really need to take a look in the mirror! Itâ€™s never you is it!
There is only one person, one party responsible for the Brexit mess, TM and the tories! Iâ€™d suggest they get there house in order before they or their followers blame anyone else.
		
Click to expand...

You can't help yourself, can you.  You need to take a dose of your own medicine.  I have already said the lot of them are to blame but your labour protectionist filter missed that one.

I challenge you to show proof of my support for Boris, May or anyone else come to that. I pass comment on the subject in debate which is Ok I take it.


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			I get that now Brian (I voted to leave, with a deal) as this what this mess has evolved into.

The mess was created from minute 1 when Cameron put it in the manifesto, walked away when it went t!ts up.

TM calling a GE and then her mindset and handling over negotiations are well documented, she broke her own party up over her deal and now Labour wonâ€™t support her â€œbadâ€ deal they are being held responsible.

Lots of if and buts, however, the tories led us down this path and now deflect on to every man and his dog rather than take responsibility.
		
Click to expand...

I think Cameron taking his ball home was disgraceful. It was a Tory manifesto pledge which, surprisingly, they honoured. 

BUT it was the House of Commons that voted overwhelmingly to abdicate the responsibility to the people by making it a public vote via a referendum, and it was the same House that voted overwhelmingly to trigger Article 50.

The deal, in large part, is what the EU would give. What's in that deal isn't totally May's fault, although its so poor it should have been walk away at that point. Leaving without a deal is one point in time. Deals would signed thereafter as its in the best interests of both sides.

However, this is the Corbyn thread. Have you ever seen, or not seen, such an invisible Labour leader. He's had chance after chance to make hay over Tory failings. A decent Labour leader, and a unified party, would have been in power by now.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 28, 2019)

ColchesterFC said:



			Was it a typo? Are you a big fan of the Israeli airline? 

And just so the mods don't think this comment is off-topic, I'm pretty sure Jeremy Corbyn isn't. 

Click to expand...

Et Al is a Latin phrase for 'and others'


----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 28, 2019)

drdel said:



			I'm not sure its 'mistakes'; some MPs have deliberately set out to frustrate the democratic process of Art 50 and subsequent legal Acts.
Let's not forget eamples like Yvette Cooper whose constituents voted 60+% to leave a person who stated she'd honour the referendum result yet has chosen to ignore her voters and contradict her own words - like many from the various factions in the HoC there are very few who come out of this as a "Right Honourable..."
		
Click to expand...

Agreed " mistakes" was probably, the wrong word. I suppose I could of inserted lies, dishonesty, flippant with truth, backstabbing, political manoeuvring etc etc. Again where I screwed up after the list of names I gave I should of put etc etc. yvette cooper and lord knows how many others could of been on that list. However here's one to debate.

There is a list of whos who that have shafted the public re this Brexit malarkey. But is there any politician that has 
" done well" in the same period.


----------



## Tashyboy (Apr 28, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			I think Cameron taking his ball home was disgraceful. It was a Tory manifesto pledge which, surprisingly, they honoured.

BUT it was the House of Commons that voted overwhelmingly to abdicate the responsibility to the people by making it a public vote via a referendum, and it was the same House that voted overwhelmingly to trigger Article 50.

The deal, in large part, is what the EU would give. What's in that deal isn't totally May's fault, although its so poor it should have been walk away at that point. Leaving without a deal is one point in time. Deals would signed thereafter as its in the best interests of both sides.

However, this is the Corbyn thread. Have you ever seen, or not seen, such an invisible Labour leader. He's had chance after chance to make hay over Tory failings. A decent Labour leader, and a unified party, would have been in power by now.
		
Click to expand...

That last sentance sums it up perfectly, Corbyn just does not connect with floating voters. Die hard Labour fans can scream " Oooooooooooooooh Jeremy Corbyn" all they want, but they are not the ones that will put him into power. It's people like me and Missis T, floating voters. And millions of others. Personally I don't feel sorry for him, he is the one eyed king in the valley of the labour blind. The ones who I blame are the very people that have put him on a pedestal that is sat on quicksand.
Come the local elections and European elections, the Tories are not going to get a bloody nose, it's going to be broken. But it will not be because of Labour policies. It will be because of an inept May/ Tory party. There is a massive differance.


----------



## IanM (Apr 28, 2019)

Both are pretty awful right now.   

Corbyn.  IRA fine. Hamas and Hezbollah fine.  But boycotting POTUS.   Ok. I see.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Apr 28, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			Et Al is a Latin phrase for 'and others'
		
Click to expand...

Yep, and El Al is an airline from Israel, which given his support for Palestine and his links to Hamas, Jeremy Corbyn is unlikely to be a fan of.

But I guess if I'm having to explain the joke then it didn't really work in the first place.


----------



## MegaSteve (Apr 28, 2019)

Doesn't matter how I float my vote team blue gets the nod in these parts whatever... And, yes I am fully aware there are many seats where the same goes for team red... There's simply not enough marginal seats... 

Can see both main parties 'splintering' in forthcoming elections...


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Apr 28, 2019)

MegaSteve said:



			Doesn't matter how I float my vote team blue gets the nod in these parts whatever... And, yes I am fully aware there are many seats where the same goes for team red... There's simply not enough marginal seats... 

Can see both main parties 'splintering' in forthcoming elections...
		
Click to expand...

I live in one of those red areas and yes a pig in a red rosette would serve us better. We have an interesting one coming up this Thursday. We are having a regional mayor forced on us, we voted against it a few years ago but hey, what do votes / referendums matter? The main parties have candidates but there is also a strong independent. Whilst I don't want a mayor I'm hoping the independent gets in, yes I will be voting even if it rains, really hard ðŸ˜„. It will be a good test to see if voters can get past the usual suspects.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 28, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			I think Cameron taking his ball home was disgraceful. It was a Tory manifesto pledge which, surprisingly, they honoured.

BUT it was the House of Commons that voted overwhelmingly to abdicate the responsibility to the people by making it a public vote via a referendum, and it was the same House that voted overwhelmingly to trigger Article 50.

The deal, in large part, is what the EU would give. What's in that deal isn't totally May's fault, although its so poor it should have been walk away at that point. Leaving without a deal is one point in time. Deals would signed thereafter as its in the best interests of both sides.

However, this is the Corbyn thread. Have you ever seen, or not seen, such an invisible Labour leader. He's had chance after chance to make hay over Tory failings. A decent Labour leader, and a unified party, would have been in power by now.
		
Click to expand...

It is the Corbyn thread and the way some people prefer to criticise is to deflect.

Brexit, imo, is a perfect example of this, him or any other politician really couldnâ€™t do anything until â€œthe dealâ€ was published, that deal was defeated by historical amounts, she then brings it back twice, unchanged, before inviting other parties for discussions.

On what planet can any of that be used against Corbyn, unless, they are saying he should of supported the deal regardless and if that is going to thrown about, then please start with the tories.

People forget how much fun tories had joining the Labour Party and voting for him.

Certainly not a supporter of Corbyn in any way, shape or form, but those opposed to the Labour Party keep slinging mud and look for excuses rather than looking at the facts.


----------



## MegaSteve (Apr 28, 2019)

I love the way folk like to have a dig at Miss Diane completely overlooking they've Grayling on their team...


----------



## Dando (Apr 28, 2019)

MegaSteve said:



			I love the way folk like to have a dig at Miss Diane completely overlooking they've Grayling on their team...
		
Click to expand...

She makes the chuckle brothers look like brain surgeons!


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			It is the Corbyn thread and the way some people prefer to criticise is to deflect.

Brexit, imo, is a perfect example of this, him or any other politician really couldnâ€™t do anything until â€œthe dealâ€ was published, that deal was defeated by historical amounts, she then brings it back twice, unchanged, before inviting other parties for discussions.

On what planet can any of that be used against Corbyn, unless, they are saying he should of supported the deal regardless and if that is going to thrown about, then please start with the tories.

People forget how much fun tories had joining the Labour Party and voting for him.

Certainly not a supporter of Corbyn in any way, shape or form, but those opposed to the Labour Party keep slinging mud and look for excuses rather than looking at the facts.
		
Click to expand...

Did you not read what I'd put? Labour agreed to support the deal if May could get the political declaration changed. And when she got it changed Labour whipped their MP's to vote against it. I'm not disagreeing that May and the Tories are chaotic but Labour, and Corbyn, are no better.


----------



## MegaSteve (Apr 28, 2019)

Dando said:



			She makes the chuckle brothers look like brain surgeons!
		
Click to expand...

Yea... Let's carry on having digs at Miss Diane whilst Grayling continues to spunk billions of our hard earnt away ðŸ‘...


----------



## Dando (Apr 28, 2019)

MegaSteve said:



			Yea... Let's carry on having digs at Miss Diane whilst Grayling continues to spunk billions of our hard earnt away ðŸ‘...
		
Click to expand...

Dianne abacus says itâ€™s only 27p ðŸ˜‚


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 28, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Did you not read what I'd put? Labour agreed to support the deal if May could get the political declaration changed. And when she got it changed Labour whipped their MP's to vote against it. I'm not disagreeing that May and the Tories are chaotic but Labour, and Corbyn, are no better.
		
Click to expand...

Can you show me were Bri, I canâ€™t find nothing were Labour said that, the only thing I found was if she made changes to the Political Declaration that future tory governments couldnâ€™t change then separate votes could be considered.


----------



## SocketRocket (Apr 28, 2019)

MegaSteve said:



			Yea... Let's carry on having digs at Miss Diane whilst Grayling continues to spunk billions of our hard earnt away ðŸ‘...
		
Click to expand...

Two wrongs don't make a right.  They're both representative of what's wrong with politicians


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Can you show me were Bri, I canâ€™t find nothing were Labour said that, the only thing I found was if she made changes to the Political Declaration that future tory governments couldnâ€™t change then separate votes could be considered.
		
Click to expand...

I can't find a decent link, other than a couple of short pieces. Apparently, Kier Starmer said that Labour doesn't oppose the WA but can't vote it through because the political declaration is too vague. That led May to seeking clarifications from the EU on the PD, which she received. John Healey of the shadow cabinet also said "we won't reopen the WA, and accept it, but the PD needs to change."

When May brought the deal back to parliament the last time she only brought back the WA. The WA that Labour said they wouldn't oppose. Maybe she was calling Labour's (sanctimonious) bluff. Maybe she's playing her own political game with Labour, i.e. on the outside looking like she's compromising but in reality she isn't - who knows. 

And the Tories can't change the PD without agreement with the EU. So why are Labour laying that at the Tory's door?

Labour are heaping their own bit of chaos on things in the hope of forcing a GE.


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 28, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			However, this is the Corbyn thread. Have you ever seen, or not seen, such an invisible Labour leader. He's had chance after chance to make hay over Tory failings. *A decent Labour leader, and a unified party, would have been in power by now.*

Click to expand...

While I agree about Corbyn being a 'poor' leader - 'invisible' is the wrong word imo; his weaknesses/failings are all too visible! - there's no way that any opposition would be able to trigger a GE currently - and they would be daft to do so anyway!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 28, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			I can't find a decent link, other than a couple of short pieces. Apparently, Kier Starmer said that Labour doesn't oppose the WA but can't vote it through because the political declaration is too vague. That led May to seeking clarifications from the EU on the PD, which she received. John Healey of the shadow cabinet also said "we won't reopen the WA, and accept it, but the PD needs to change."

When May brought the deal back to parliament the last time she only brought back the WA. The WA that Labour said they wouldn't oppose. Maybe she was calling Labour's (sanctimonious) bluff. Maybe she's playing her own political game with Labour, i.e. on the outside looking like she's compromising but in reality she isn't - who knows.

And the Tories can't change the PD without agreement with the EU. So why are Labour laying that at the Tory's door?

Labour are heaping their own bit of chaos on things in the hope of forcing a GE.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry Bri, Iâ€™ve spent over an hour trying to find what you said and found nothing except a few sound bites.
What I did find was Labour stating quite a few times is both the PA & WD are connected and without the changes to the PA they wouldnâ€™t support them as separate votes.

Iâ€™d suggest they are laying that at TMâ€™s door is the fact she is the only one that can actually stand up to and speak to the EU in an official capacity.


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Sorry Bri, Iâ€™ve spent over an hour trying to find what you said and found nothing except a few sound bites.
What I did find was Labour stating quite a few times is both the PA & WD are connected and without the changes to the PA they wouldnâ€™t support them as separate votes.

Iâ€™d suggest they are laying that at TMâ€™s door is the fact she is the only one that can actually stand up to and speak to the EU in an official capacity.
		
Click to expand...

I can find plenty on the changes agreed to the PD but only one piece about Labour whipping its MP's, and that was to do with a confirmatory referendum. The only bit I've found on Labour agreeing to the WA is on Guido Fawkes, which is like posting a link to Wings.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (May 8, 2019)

The wind of change is coming.
Scotland left with no Tory, one SLAB and two Lieb Dems MP's
On those predictions we are in for Labour having a 6 seat minority at Westminster.

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/area_scot.html
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

Interesting point is that Labour will have that position with exactly the same starting percentage as when this thread started.


----------



## Tashyboy (May 8, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			The wind of change is coming.
Scotland left with no Tory, one SLAB and two Lieb Dems MP's
On those predictions we are in for Labour having a 6 seat minority at Westminster.

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/area_scot.html
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

Interesting point is that Labour will have that position with exactly the same starting percentage as when this thread started.
		
Click to expand...

Stopped reading it when in the first sentance it said "predicted". It is a prediction and if anyone can accurately predict what is happening in this most tumultuous political climate ever then he is a better man than me. It's only use on paper it to be hung on a nail in the outside toilet. ðŸ‘


----------



## spongebob59 (Jul 10, 2019)

Sounds like tonight's Panorama is going to quite damning, his two main advisors being implicated with him copied in on the emails.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/...g-attempts-to-deal-with-antisemitism-1.486312


----------



## Slime (Jul 10, 2019)

I hope it doesn't cost him his job, he's the Tories' trump card!


----------



## drdel (Jul 10, 2019)

This Genie just wont go back in the bottle!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 10, 2019)

No matter how much I might despair at the prospect of a BeeJay PM - I am pretty much just as uncomfortable with the idea of JayCee as PM.  I just don't get the attraction of either.  But hey ho.


----------



## chrisd (Jul 10, 2019)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			No matter how much I might despair at the prospect of a BeeJay PM - I am pretty much just as uncomfortable with the idea of JayCee as PM.  I just don't get the attraction of either.  But hey ho.
		
Click to expand...

But I'd go Boris over Jeremy every day of the week


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 12, 2019)

chrisd said:



			But I'd go Boris over Jeremy every day of the week
		
Click to expand...

It's a toughie - but I think I might also - given Boris may not have that much longevity occupying #10.

Apart from Corbyn's record in the Labour Party; his total lack of loyalty to any leader over the decades; and his lack of leadership and decisiveness in respect of the anti-Semite issues in the party - I just find that the catch in his voice as he snatches little breaths as he speaks a little physical tic that - to me - suggests a bit of nervousness and lack of conviction in his delivery of what he is saying...shallow I know - but just as it is...


----------



## spongebob59 (Jul 24, 2019)

Last dig by the Maybot :

@theresa_may
 last ever remarks to 
@jeremycorbyn
 at #PMQs. "He and I are very different people...What we have in common is our commitment to our constituencies. As a party leader who has accepted when her time is up, perhaps the time has come for him to do the same". Wow


----------



## User62651 (Jul 24, 2019)

spongebob59 said:



			Last dig by the Maybot :

@theresa_may
last ever remarks to
@jeremycorbyn
at #PMQs. "He and I are very different people...What we have in common is our commitment to our constituencies. As a party leader who has accepted when her time is up, perhaps the time has come for him to do the same". Wow
		
Click to expand...

Bit rich from May, her time was up June 2017 after her disastrous GE campaign and result, has taken a further 2 years to shift her.


----------



## jp5 (Jul 24, 2019)

Can't help but feel after all the flak he's taken from the Tories, JC will have the last laugh


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 25, 2019)

jp5 said:



			Can't help but feel after all the flak he's taken from the Tories, JC will have the last laugh 

Click to expand...

Yes, when his real ambition is realised when we leave the EU.


----------



## drdel (Aug 12, 2019)

So JC has looked at his war with the Tories a selected his best weapon and decided of all the possible wrongs in the country he'll attack Grouse Shooting!


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Aug 12, 2019)

drdel said:



			So JC has looked at his war with the Tories a selected his best weapon and decided of all the possible wrongs in the country he'll attack Grouse Shooting!
		
Click to expand...

It is just timing, 1st day of the shooting season. This is a day when Caroline Lucas is making headlines, it really is a quiet one with most politiciians on holiday.


----------



## drdel (Aug 12, 2019)

Lord Tyrion said:



			It is just timing, 1st day of the shooting season. This is a day when Caroline Lucas is making headlines, it really is a quiet one with most politiciians on holiday.
		
Click to expand...

Yup I'm well aware of the 12th - but really what a waste of breathe, but hey its an argument dragged out every August by Labour stuck in the 1940s class war.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Aug 12, 2019)

drdel said:



			Yup I'm well aware of the 12th - but really what a waste of breathe, but hey its an argument dragged out every August by Labour stuck in the 1940s class war.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, if I was stating the obvious. Not everyone picks up on the date. I think you are right, he is playing to a particular audience. Such is politics at the moment.


----------



## Foxholer (Aug 12, 2019)

maxfli65 said:



			Bit rich from May, her time was up June 2017 after her disastrous GE campaign and result, has taken a further 2 years to shift her.
		
Click to expand...

How many 'disastrous' unsuccessful GE campaigns will it take before JC realises that Labour, under him, is unelectable though!


----------



## User62651 (Aug 12, 2019)

Foxholer said:



			How many 'disastrous' unsuccessful GE campaigns will it take before JC realises that Labour, under him, is unelectable though!
		
Click to expand...

2 will be it.

He's only fought 1 in 2017 and got 40% of the public vote in a multi party system, no mean feat after polling suggested a big defeat. Appreciate he hasn't kicked on at all since then and has likely gone backwards last year or so but he may well be hanging on to that 2017 performance for hope. I can't see him getting more than 34% next GE as things stand though. Has no control over his party (he did in 2017) and looking very old suddenly too, any fire in him seems to be dimming imo.

However the MMS are generally pro Tory/anti Labour so although you tend to see an awful lot of anti Corbyn stuff in the media it's votes that count, something May failed to anticipate last time, despite sneaking through. Johnson needs to be careful though, people could turn on him quick.


----------



## Dando (Aug 12, 2019)

Foxholer said:



			How many 'disastrous' unsuccessful GE campaigns will it take before JC realises that Labour, under him, is unelectable though!
		
Click to expand...

Diane abacus is keeping count so heâ€™s on -84663864167 GEâ€™s at the moment


----------



## drdel (Aug 12, 2019)

Dando said:



			Diane abacus is keeping count so heâ€™s on -84663864167 GEâ€™s at the moment
		
Click to expand...

She's reported as saying they are waiting to trigger s No Confidence vote but she can't talk about it and doesn't know when.


----------



## SocketRocket (Aug 12, 2019)

drdel said:



			She's reported as saying they are waiting to trigger s No Confidence vote but she can't talk about it and doesn't know when.
		
Click to expand...

I think she said its the 30th February


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 15, 2019)

Foxholer said:



			How many 'disastrous' unsuccessful GE campaigns will it take before JC realises that Labour, under him, is unelectable though!
		
Click to expand...

They doubt they'll be getting my vote whilst he is there.


----------



## Tashyboy (Aug 15, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			I think she said its the 30th February
		
Click to expand...

Typical she never said which year ðŸ˜


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 30, 2019)

Labour lose their deposit with only 152 votes in the Shetland by election [Holyrood]
If they had combined their vote with the Tory party into one candidate they would still have lost their deposit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49502204


----------



## MegaSteve (Aug 30, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Labour lose their deposit with only 152 votes in the Shetland by election [Holyrood]
If they had combined their vote with the Tory party into one candidate they would still have lost their deposit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49502204

Click to expand...

Is the vote a bit of a poke in the eye for all those saying everyone North of the wall is desperate for independence? Healthy margin over the nationalists...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 30, 2019)

MegaSteve said:



			Is the vote a bit of a poke in the eye for all those saying everyone North of the wall is desperate for independence? Healthy margin over the nationalists...
		
Click to expand...

To understand a bit about this bye-election result you need to understand Shetlanders and their nationality sentiments - then look at the change in votes % of SNP and LibDems, and then also consider the performance of the main UK Unionist Parties - 579 votes in total in a turnout of nearly 12,000


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 30, 2019)

MegaSteve said:



			Is the vote a bit of a poke in the eye for all those saying everyone North of the wall is desperate for independence? Healthy margin over the nationalists...
		
Click to expand...

It was the safest seat in Scotland.
SNP winning there would be like the Tories winning Liverpool Walton.


----------



## User62651 (Aug 30, 2019)

I think how few posts are being written about him is indicative of how ineffective an opposition leader and sort of invisible he's now become, especially compared to 2 years ago. 

The other more minor opposition party leaders seem to get heard better as does Farage who's party aren't even in UK Parliament. You only hear about him when Boris or Gove have a tricky question they can't answer so deflect to Corbyn bashing instead.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Aug 30, 2019)

I have always compared Corbyn to the Welsh windbag Kinnoch.
Both making Labour unelectable under their leadership.
Labour are basically as much a two party organisation as the Tories.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 30, 2019)

To be honest I have found Corbyn's earnest and 'controlled-fury' words and tone of the last couple of days over what Johnson is doing pretty nauseous


----------



## Tashyboy (Aug 30, 2019)

Irrespective of who and what won. The acceptance speech of the winning MP, she slated the SNP for its bullying tactics and said its time to deliver on its false promises. Sounds to me like Krankie should be focusing a bit more on her own house before looking next door.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 30, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



			Irrespective of who and what won. The acceptance speech of the winning MP, she slated the SNP for its bullying tactics and said its time to deliver on its false promises. Sounds to me like Krankie should be focusing a bit more on her own house before looking next door.
		
Click to expand...

Hold on now - no childish name calling allowed here...watch out or you'll be pulled up


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 2, 2019)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Hold on now - no childish name calling allowed here...watch out or you'll be pulled up 

Click to expand...

Does that include JC saying Willie Rennie-MacIntosh [instead of Charles]
Willie Rennie is the leader of the Scottish branch of the Lib Dems.

Today Corbyn is saying that he will build a new railway in the North.
Calm down Inverness folk, he means Liverpool to Hull in the Southern Midlands.


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 4, 2019)

Jeremy Corbyn asked the Queen, "Your Majesty, how do you run such an efficient organisation? Are there any tips you can give me?"
"Well," said the Queen, "The most important thing is to surround yourself with intelligent people." Jeremy Corbyn then asked, "But how do I know if the people around me are really intelligent?" The Queen took a sip of tea. "Oh, that's easy; you just ask them to answer an intelligent riddle, watch me and listen" The Queen pushed a button on her intercom. "Please send Prince Charles in here, would you?"
Prince Charles walked into the room and said, "Yes, Mother? The Queen smiled and said to Charles, "Answer me this please Charles. Your mother and father have a child. It is not your brother and it is not your sister. Who is it?" Without pausing for a moment, Prince Charles answered "That would be me." "Yes, very good!" Said the Queen. Ah ha I get it said Jeremy, thank you Ma'am. And in a great rush he left.
Corbyn went back to Parliament and decided to ask Diane Abbott the same question. "Diane, answer this for me." "Your mother and your father have a child. It's not your brother and it's not your sister. Who is it?" "I'm not sure," said Abbott. And then in true Diane Abbott style she went on to say. "Let me get back to you on that one." She went to her advisers and asked everyone, but none could give her an answer.
Frustrated, Diane went for a coffee and met Nigel Farage. "Nigel, see if you can answer this question." "Yes Diane" replied Nigel. "Your mother and father have a child and it's not your brother or your sister. Who is it?" Farage immediately answered, "That's easy, it's me!" Abbott grinned, and said, "Good answer Nigel, I see it all now!"
Abbott then, went back to find Corbyn and said to him; "Jeremy, I did some research, and I have the answer to that riddle." "If your mother and father have a child who is not your brother or your sister, the child is Nigel Farage!" Corbyn went red in the face, got up, stomped over to Abbott, and yelled in her face, "No! You bloody idiot! It's Prince Charles!
. . . AND THAT MY FRIENDS IS PRECISELY WHY LABOUR IS DOING SO BADLY.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 4, 2019)

Do I prefer a Corbyn-led Labour Government or leaving with _No Deal_ under Johnson?  I'm inclined to go for the amendment proposed to today's bill by 17 Labour MPs - a vote on May's final Brexit Deal.  How that might come about I have no idea.  But Corbyn...? hmmm,


----------



## spongebob59 (Sep 9, 2019)

Wow, he get both barrels here and more :


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1171148498726793218


----------



## JamesR (Sep 9, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



			Jeremy Corbyn asked the Queen, "Your Majesty, how do you run such an efficient organisation? Are there any tips you can give me?"
"Well," said the Queen, "The most important thing is to surround yourself with intelligent people." Jeremy Corbyn then asked, "But how do I know if the people around me are really intelligent?" The Queen took a sip of tea. "Oh, that's easy; you just ask them to answer an intelligent riddle, watch me and listen" The Queen pushed a button on her intercom. "Please send Prince Charles in here, would you?"
Prince Charles walked into the room and said, "Yes, Mother? The Queen smiled and said to Charles, "Answer me this please Charles. Your mother and father have a child. It is not your brother and it is not your sister. Who is it?" Without pausing for a moment, Prince Charles answered "That would be me." "Yes, very good!" Said the Queen. Ah ha I get it said Jeremy, thank you Ma'am. And in a great rush he left.
Corbyn went back to Parliament and decided to ask Diane Abbott the same question. "Diane, answer this for me." "Your mother and your father have a child. It's not your brother and it's not your sister. Who is it?" "I'm not sure," said Abbott. And then in true Diane Abbott style she went on to say. "Let me get back to you on that one." She went to her advisers and asked everyone, but none could give her an answer.
Frustrated, Diane went for a coffee and met Nigel Farage. "Nigel, see if you can answer this question." "Yes Diane" replied Nigel. "Your mother and father have a child and it's not your brother or your sister. Who is it?" Farage immediately answered, "That's easy, it's me!" Abbott grinned, and said, "Good answer Nigel, I see it all now!"
Abbott then, went back to find Corbyn and said to him; "Jeremy, I did some research, and I have the answer to that riddle." "If your mother and father have a child who is not your brother or your sister, the child is Nigel Farage!" Corbyn went red in the face, got up, stomped over to Abbott, and yelled in her face, "No! You bloody idiot! It's Prince Charles!
. . . AND THAT MY FRIENDS IS PRECISELY WHY LABOUR IS DOING SO BADLY.
		
Click to expand...

...because they tell crap jokes?


----------



## drdel (Sep 9, 2019)

Corbyn now says that he MAY NOT support Remain in the GE, but he might. 

Gawd ðŸ˜£


----------



## clubchamp98 (Sep 9, 2019)

drdel said:



			Corbyn now says that he MAY NOT support Remain in the GE, but he might.

Gawd ðŸ˜£
		
Click to expand...

According to the Jeremy Vine show they still have a petition calling for a GE on the Labour website.
While refusing one in parliament.


----------



## Beezerk (Sep 10, 2019)

drdel said:



			Corbyn now says that he MAY NOT support Remain in the GE, but he might.

Gawd ðŸ˜£
		
Click to expand...

Well that's cleared that up then ðŸ¤£
#clown


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 18, 2019)

I can see why a 'Janus' Corbyn might think a good idea sitting on the fence in respect of a future Brexit confirmation referendum - and how that might play with voters in an election before such a referendum was held.  But it doesn't wash for me.  How can I vote for a party who's leader won't tell us of where his referendum vote would go.  In my thinking the outcome of Brexit will have a huge impact on government policies - money spent mitigating the mess and negative impacts of leaving can't be spent anywhere else.  Of course the financing of his policy statements for a GE would be bolstered by the Â£350m/week we'd have of all went swimmingly after leaving - but I'd be a wee bit sceptical of that.


----------



## spongebob59 (Sep 19, 2019)

Fence sitting not doing much good :

Westminster voting intention: CON: 32% (-) LDEM: 23% (+4) LAB: 21% (-2) BREX: 14% (-) GRN: 4% (-3) via @YouGov


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 19, 2019)

spongebob59 said:



			Fence sitting not doing much good :

Westminster voting intention: CON: 32% (-) LDEM: 23% (+4) LAB: 21% (-2) BREX: 14% (-) GRN: 4% (-3) via @YouGov
		
Click to expand...

Do they give any indication of what that means in terms of seats won?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 19, 2019)

ColchesterFC said:



			Do they give any indication of what that means in terms of seats won?
		
Click to expand...

Predicting will be a bit of a 'mare.  Might take some clever Monte Carlo simulation -_ as is used to model the probability of different outcomes in a process that cannot easily be predicted due to the intervention of random variables._

And there are a lot of random variables in play at the moment and that will apply for the next GE.


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 19, 2019)

A pal of mine who I regularly have spats with on FB is Jezzas love child. Am sure of it. He states Jezza has only changed his mind once on Brexit coz the party voted on it so he had to. Yet he wonders why people cannot have a 
decent conversation with him.


----------



## drdel (Sep 19, 2019)

Tashyboy said:



			A pal of mine who I regularly have spats with on FB is Jezzas love child. Am sure of it. He states Jezza has only changed his mind once on Brexit coz the party voted on it so he had to. Yet he wonders why people cannot have a
decent conversation with him.
		
Click to expand...

He's not alone. And therein lies the risk he could become PM by accident, as it were!


----------



## spongebob59 (Sep 19, 2019)

Corbyn has given an interview to BBC News Northern Ireland in which he explains his fears about supporting the backstop were because it would trap the UK in a customs union with the EUâ€¦ _Only problem with that defence is membership of a customs union is currently Labour Party policyâ€¦_


----------



## ColchesterFC (Sep 19, 2019)

spongebob59 said:



			Corbyn has given an interview to BBC News Northern Ireland in which he explains his fears about supporting the backstop were because it would trap the UK in a customs union with the EUâ€¦ _Only problem with that defence is membership of a customs union is currently Labour Party policyâ€¦_

Click to expand...

Yes, but that's only this week. By next week they'll have a completely different policy towards it.


----------



## spongebob59 (Sep 20, 2019)

In response to the news that Emily Thornberry described the Lib Dems as â€œ_like the Talibanâ€ _over their new revoke Article 50 Brexit policy, the former Lib Dem leader responded:
_â€œCome on Emily, if we really were like a Middle East terrorist group, donâ€™t you think Jeremy wouldâ€™ve invited us to a conference fringe meeting before now?â€_


----------



## spongebob59 (Sep 24, 2019)

Cue mass exodus of the major pharmas from the UK.

This is an important new policy announced by 
@jeremycorbyn
 - forcing drug companies to licence cheap generic versions of breakthrough pharmaceuticals. The big drug companies will go nuts. The generics manufacturer will be state owned


----------



## spongebob59 (Sep 25, 2019)

The Labour Party has just announced it will throw open our borders to the world No immigration targets, no points-based system, but a red carpet to anybody, anywhere to come to the UK Never has a political party been so out of touch with the public


----------



## Beezerk (Sep 25, 2019)

spongebob59 said:



			The Labour Party has just announced it will throw open our borders to the world No immigration targets, no points-based system, but a red carpet to anybody, anywhere to come to the UK Never has a political party been so out of touch with the public
		
Click to expand...

You're having a laugh?


----------



## spongebob59 (Sep 25, 2019)




----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 25, 2019)




----------



## Dando (Sep 25, 2019)

spongebob59 said:



			The Labour Party has just announced it will throw open our borders to the world No immigration targets, no points-based system, but a red carpet to anybody, anywhere to come to the UK Never has a political party been so out of touch with the public
		
Click to expand...

you'll have the do gooders along soon calling you a racist


----------



## spongebob59 (Sep 26, 2019)

BREAKING: MPs vote AGAINST having a mini-recess next week for the Conservative Conference by 306 votes to 289 (maj: 17) - a sign, as if it were needed, that any sense of co-operation between the Government and Opposition has entirely broken down...


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 26, 2019)

spongebob59 said:





BREAKING: MPs vote AGAINST having a mini-recess next week for the Conservative Conference by 306 votes to 289 (maj: 17) - a sign, as if it were needed, that any sense of co-operation between the Government and Opposition has entirely broken down...
		
Click to expand...

If only Boris hadnâ€™t sacked 21 MPâ€™s.
Disappointing, but maybe the first step of co-operation needs to come from the PM.


----------



## IanM (Sep 26, 2019)

As UK Citizens won't vote Corbyn, he is wanting to import anyone who might!!


----------



## spongebob59 (Sep 26, 2019)

IanM said:



			As UK Citizens won't vote Corbyn, he is wanting to import anyone who might!!
		
Click to expand...



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177169134339153920


----------



## Mudball (Sep 27, 2019)

Very interesting article/analysis of how the subcontinental vote works in the UK.. this is from Times of India today (27/09/19). Effectively saying that the Indian diaspora is more integrated than the Pakistani one and that they have moved on from Labour. 
I think Labour could get a landslide if they replace Jezza with Kohli.. thatâ€™s 1.6m votes in the bag


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 27, 2019)

Has Corbyn agreed to another Indy Ref for Scotland?

SNP hints at backing short-term Corbyn government https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49850484


----------



## IanM (Sep 27, 2019)

Corbyn today makes a passionate speech about not making political capital out of Jo Cox's death, thereby trying to make political capital out of Jo Cox's death!!

Meanwhile, the net is full of vids of his oppo McDonnell telling his crown to go and beat up Tories, who he wants to stab, and using language that would make a Durham Miner blush. 

Just shows you.  The left think they are untouchable, and for 30 years, they have been......


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 27, 2019)

IanM said:



			Corbyn today makes a passionate speech about not making political capital out of Jo Cox's death, thereby trying to make political capital out of Jo Cox's death!!

Meanwhile, the net is full of vids of his oppo McDonnell telling his crown to go and beat up Tories, who he wants to stab, and using language that would make a Durham Miner blush.

Just shows you.  The left think they are untouchable, and for 30 years, they have been......
		
Click to expand...

Just like the tories the Labour party has people that need chucking out, the first 2 from Labour would be Corbyn and McDonnell for me.
But also like the tories there are some trying to work for the right reasons, wrong to tar all in either party with the same brush.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Sep 27, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Just like the tories the Labour party has people that need chucking out, the first 2 from Labour would be Corbyn and McDonnell for me.
But also like the tories there are some trying to work for the right reasons, wrong to tar all in either party with the same brush.
		
Click to expand...

Yes spot on you can see the good ones with their hands on their heads thinking whatâ€™s going on here.

I just hope the public remember this in a GE , and get rig of the poor ones.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Sep 27, 2019)

spongebob59 said:





BREAKING: MPs vote AGAINST having a mini-recess next week for the Conservative Conference by 306 votes to 289 (maj: 17) - a sign, as if it were needed, that any sense of co-operation between the Government and Opposition has entirely broken down...
		
Click to expand...

A sign that more than that has broken down. Respect and fair play has gone as well. 
How,with any honour, can you expect the right to hold your Party conference, yet deny it to another Party?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 28, 2019)

Swinglowandslow said:



			A sign that more than that has broken down. Respect and fair play has gone as well.
How,with any honour, can you expect the right to hold your Party conference, yet deny it to another Party?
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree with your last line. 

That is a question that the third largest party at Westminster have been asking for quite a few years now.
A Government that places the Queens Speech in the middle of an opposition party conference has absolutely no honour.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 28, 2019)

clubchamp98 said:



			...
I just hope the public remember this in a GE , and get rig of the poor ones.
		
Click to expand...

All depends on the definition of 'poor ones'! And that varies hugely!


----------



## clubchamp98 (Sep 28, 2019)

Foxholer said:



			All depends on the definition of 'poor ones'! And that varies hugely!
		
Click to expand...

My definition would be the ones who voted the opposite way to their constituents.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 28, 2019)

clubchamp98 said:



			My definition would be the ones who voted the opposite way to their constituents.
		
Click to expand...

The referendum wasnâ€™t voted on by constituency lines.
My local MP is superb, done loads for Veterans, loads for the local area and is a remainer, your suggesting I vote against him because I disagree on one issue.
Iâ€™d hope people have the intelligence to look beyond 1 issue when they vote in a GE because I absolutely donâ€™t think any MP has 100% support on every single issue they are asked to vote on by every one who voted for them.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Sep 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			The referendum wasnâ€™t voted on by constituency lines.
My local MP is superb, done loads for Veterans, loads for the local area and is a remainer, your suggesting I vote against him because I disagree on one issue.
Iâ€™d hope people have the intelligence to look beyond 1 issue when they vote in a GE because I absolutely donâ€™t think any MP has 100% support on every single issue they are asked to vote on by every one who voted for them.
		
Click to expand...

Fair enough thatâ€™s your opinion .
Mine isnâ€™t the same.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 28, 2019)

clubchamp98 said:



			Fair enough thatâ€™s your opinion .
Mine isnâ€™t the same.
		
Click to expand...

Are you honestly saying if you have a very good MP who voted leave and their constituents voted remain they should vote them out.
Or does it only work one way?


----------



## clubchamp98 (Sep 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Are you honestly saying if you have a very good MP who voted leave and their constituents voted remain they should vote them out.
Or does it only work one way?
		
Click to expand...

My post quite clearly said POOR ONES.
and my opinion Is thatâ€™s up to the voters
If yours is as good as you say then they are not a poor one.
But my experience of my M.P. is very poor.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 28, 2019)

clubchamp98 said:



			My post quite clearly said POOR ONES.
and my opinion Is thatâ€™s up to the voters
If yours is as good as you say then they are not a poor one.
But my experience of my M.P. is very poor.
		
Click to expand...

You quite clearly said your definition of POOR ONES is those that voted against their constituents on one issue. Post#2563.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Sep 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			You quite clearly said your definition of POOR ONES is those that voted against their constituents on one issue. Post#2563.
		
Click to expand...

Yes that is my definition.
If 99% of a voters voted one way and the M.P. voted the other way is that ok.
Not all MPs are like yours.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 28, 2019)

clubchamp98 said:



			Yes that is my definition.
If 99% of a voters voted one way and the M.P. voted the other way is that ok.
Not all MPs are like yours.
		
Click to expand...

There wasnâ€™t one area of the UK that voted 99% Remain or Leave.

Amazes me we get people who complain about our MPâ€™s when they probably put as much thought in to it as you obviously do.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Sep 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			There wasnâ€™t one area of the UK that voted 99% Remain or Leave.

Amazes me we get people who complain about our MPâ€™s when they probably put as much thought in to it as you obviously do.

Click to expand...

This is the biggest single issue in the country and my opinion is MPs should represent the majority of their constituents.
But underhand insults are about your level so you donâ€™t agree thatâ€™s fine.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 28, 2019)

clubchamp98 said:



			This is the biggest single issue in the country and *my opinion is MPs should represent the majority of their constituents.*
...
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for you, that's not the way it works - possibly because they'd spend most of their time canvassing opinions instead of 'being an MP'. But you will have the opportunity to kick him/her out at the next election.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 28, 2019)

Foxholer said:



			Unfortunately for you, that's not the way it works - possibly because they'd spend most of their time canvassing opinions instead of 'being an MP'. But you will have the opportunity to kick him/her out at the next election.
		
Click to expand...

Although its rude to ask someone else to make a decision for you then disagree with their opinion.


----------



## Foxholer (Sep 28, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			Although its rude to ask someone else to make a decision for you then disagree with their opinion.
		
Click to expand...

That cannot apply in an MP/Constituent situation, purely because of the number of 'decisions' an MP has to make.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Sep 28, 2019)

Foxholer said:



			Unfortunately for you, that's not the way it works - possibly because they'd spend most of their time canvassing opinions instead of 'being an MP'. But you will have the opportunity to kick him/her out at the next election.
		
Click to expand...

Yes thatâ€™s correct.
But still my opinion.

But they should know how their constituents voted in the ref without canvassing.
If they sort  their bins collection out he/she might get away with it.!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 28, 2019)

clubchamp98 said:



			This is the biggest single issue in the country and my opinion is MPs should represent the majority of their constituents.
But underhand insults are about your level so you donâ€™t agree thatâ€™s fine.
		
Click to expand...

  you stated 99% and now itâ€™s majority.

Come on answer the following;
Do you think a Leave MP should be kicked out if they represent an area with a remain majority?


----------



## clubchamp98 (Sep 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



 you stated 99% and now itâ€™s majority.

Come on answer the following;
Do you think a Leave MP should be kicked out if they represent an area with a remain majority?
		
Click to expand...

Do you take everything so literal ?
You must be real fun to have a pint with!

The 99% was a hypothetical question ,that you didnâ€™t answer by the way.

Thatâ€™s up to their voters . But if my M.P. voted against a leave  majority yes. And vice versa!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 28, 2019)

clubchamp98 said:



			Do you take everything so literal ?
You must be real fun to have a pint with!

The 99% was a hypothetical question ,that you didnâ€™t answer by the way.
		
Click to expand...

Answer the question or is it too difficult?

You have a pop at me and accuse me of underhand insults.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Sep 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Answer the question or is it too difficult?

You have a pop at me and accuse me of underhand insults.
		
Click to expand...

Just amended it.
YES I DO ,

what was theâ€ Oviously and stupid face for then.â€


----------



## clubchamp98 (Sep 28, 2019)

clubchamp98 said:



			Just amended it.
YES I DO ,

what was theâ€ Oviously and stupid face for then.â€
		
Click to expand...

Answer the 99% question is that difficult?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 28, 2019)

clubchamp98 said:



			Answer the 99% question is that difficult?
		
Click to expand...

I answered it in the post that followed, another answer is just to clarify:
Whatâ€™s the point of posting ridiculous, hypothetical points to prove your point.

What you did was post without thinking and have been called out on it and then deflect in to me for calling you out.

Have a nice life.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Sep 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			I answered it in the post that followed, another answer is just to clarify:
Whatâ€™s the point of posting ridiculous, hypothetical points to prove your point.

What you did was post without thinking and have been called out on it and then deflect in to me for calling you out.

Have a nice life. 



Click to expand...

Post 2570 is not an answer you should be a politician
So yes or no is an answer.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Sep 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			There wasnâ€™t one area of the UK that voted 99% Remain or Leave.

Amazes me we get people who complain about our MPâ€™s when they probably put as much thought in to it as you obviously do.

Click to expand...

Whereâ€™s the answer in here thatâ€™s just a statement!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 28, 2019)

clubchamp98 said:



			Post 2570 is not an answer you should be a politician
So yes or no is an answer.
		
Click to expand...

99% will never happen, ask a serious genuine question and Iâ€™ll give you a proper answer.
Iâ€™m not answering something youâ€™ve made up because me answering Yes or No you canâ€™t disagree with.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Sep 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			99% will never happen, ask a serious genuine question and Iâ€™ll give you a proper answer.
Iâ€™m not answering something youâ€™ve made up because me answering Yes or No you canâ€™t disagree with.
		
Click to expand...

As I said you are arguing against my opinion.
If you wonâ€™t answer thatâ€™s up to you.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Sep 28, 2019)

clubchamp98 said:



			As I said you are arguing against my opinion.
If you wonâ€™t answer thatâ€™s up to you.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 28, 2019)

Op Zulu in full swing and no Jeeza to give a supporting speech. Nothing on the BBC either, strange


----------



## spongebob59 (Oct 2, 2019)

Deputy still struggling with maths 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179361660504608768


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 2, 2019)

spongebob59 said:



			Deputy still struggling with maths 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179361660504608768

Click to expand...

At least she turned up for her work representing her constituents, unlike skiving LBJ.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 2, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			At least she turned up for her work representing her constituents, unlike skiving LBJ.
		
Click to expand...

He would have done it if the meanie mouthed Remainers hadnt refused a break for the Tory Conference.   Pathetic bunch of Losers (and yes I did call them losers as that's exactly what they are)


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 2, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			He would have done it if the meanie mouthed Remainers hadnt refused a break for the Tory Conference.   Pathetic bunch of Losers (and yes I did call them losers as that's exactly what they are)
		
Click to expand...

Youâ€™re on form tonight.


----------



## robinthehood (Oct 2, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			I answered it in the post that followed, another answer is just to clarify:
Whatâ€™s the point of posting ridiculous, hypothetical points to prove your point.

What you did was post without thinking and have been called out on it and then deflect in to me for calling you out.

Have a nice life. 



Click to expand...

You have to understand that all that matters is brexit . No matter who gets trampled on to get there. I'm not convinced people even know why they want it, just that they do.


----------



## Slime (Oct 2, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			You have to understand that* all that matters is brexit *. No matter who gets trampled on to get there. *I'm not convinced people even know why they want it, just that they do*.
		
Click to expand...

Unbelievably condescending and patronising.
Ridiculous post.


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 2, 2019)

Slime said:



			Unbelievably condescending and patronising.
Ridiculous post.
		
Click to expand...

Wait for it.......

PS. For a change, I'm inclined to agree with RTH! It seems neither condescending, nor patronising to me - simply UK's entire focus!


----------



## robinthehood (Oct 2, 2019)

Slime said:



			Unbelievably condescending and patronising.
Ridiculous post.
		
Click to expand...

Not really,  I've seen little to make me think other wise. 
I have seen it posted verbatim that we are paying the Greeks pensions and that the Lisbon treaty will force us into the euro. 
I mean at least try and find out what's what eh?


----------



## Fade and Die (Oct 2, 2019)

robinthehood said:



			You have to understand that all that matters is brexit . No matter who gets trampled on to get there. I'm not convinced people even know why they want it, just that they do.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## robinthehood (Oct 2, 2019)

Fade and Die said:



View attachment 28309

Click to expand...

You were voting to leave the EU. I'm happy to accept the descision,  but if even 1 person suffers because of the fervour for no deal then that's 1 person to many.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 2, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Youâ€™re on form tonight. 

Click to expand...

Thanks. ðŸ¤Ÿ


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 10, 2019)

Keiza Dugdale, the person punted as the next first minister of Scotland, has just resigned from the Labour Party


----------



## spongebob59 (Oct 11, 2019)

https://order-order.com/2019/10/11/mcdonnell-confirms-corbyn-will-resign-lose-another-election/


----------



## larmen (Oct 11, 2019)

spongebob59 said:



https://order-order.com/2019/10/11/mcdonnell-confirms-corbyn-will-resign-lose-another-election/

Click to expand...

But didn't they WIN the last one?

Anyway, for the next one they should rename themselves to Momentum. I think them 'trading' under the name Labour is false advertisement.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 17, 2019)

Watching and listening to Corbyn yesterday evening I couldn't help but get distracted by the fact that his glasses were all over the place - all skew-whiff.  Now that means little other than being indicative of someone who doesn't care about what he looks like - that his spectacle frame is badly twisted - in my experience this is usually as a result of my sitting on them - and that is often due to my forgetfulness.  Yes trivial - but for me the optics are just not good.  It just looks silly and funny.  He's in the public eye and open to any form of criticism - so don't present open goals for ridicule.

And yes - I have much more important issues with Corbyn.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Oct 17, 2019)

larmen said:



			But didn't they WIN the last one?

Anyway, for the next one they should rename themselves to Momentum. I think them 'trading' under the name Labour is false advertisement.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure they'll do it as soon as the conservatives rebrand more honestly as The ERG Brexit Party.


----------



## Hobbit (Oct 17, 2019)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Watching and listening to Corbyn yesterday evening I couldn't help but get distracted by the fact that his glasses were all over the place - all skew-whiff.  Now that means little other than being indicative of someone who doesn't care about what he looks like - that his spectacle frame is badly twisted - in my experience this is usually as a result of my sitting on them - and that is often due to my forgetfulness.  Yes trivial - but for me the optics are just not good.  It just looks silly and funny.  He's in the public eye and open to any form of criticism - so don't present open goals for ridicule.

And yes - I have much more important issues with Corbyn.
		
Click to expand...

Seem to remember you also had things to say about May's leather trousers.... I do wonder who is ridiculing who? And again, "judge unto others..."


----------



## drdel (Oct 18, 2019)

I note JC rubbished the 'deal yesterday almost 30min before it was published - he must have used Momentum's crystal ball!


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 18, 2019)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Watching and listening to Corbyn yesterday evening I couldn't help but get distracted by the fact that his glasses were all over the place - all skew-whiff.  Now that means little other than being indicative of someone who doesn't care about what he looks like - that his spectacle frame is badly twisted - in my experience this is usually as a result of my sitting on them - and that is often due to my forgetfulness.  Yes trivial - but for me the optics are just not good.  It just looks silly and funny.  He's in the public eye and open to any form of criticism - so don't present open goals for ridicule.

And yes - I have much more important issues with Corbyn.
		
Click to expand...

It's probably the ghost of Maggie pulling them off.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Oct 18, 2019)

SocketRocket said:



			It's probably the ghost of Maggie pulling them off.
		
Click to expand...

That's an awful image to put in anyone's head. No sane person wants to be "pulled off" by Maggie or her ghost. ðŸ˜€


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 24, 2019)

Corbyn aide â€¦â€¦.Jeremy loves jumping on a train to obscure places like the West of England [?] and Orkney [??]
Forgetting of course that the West of England is not really obscure to most folk and that Beeching cut the Wick to Kirkwall line in 1964.


----------



## larmen (Oct 24, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Corbyn aide â€¦â€¦.Jeremy loves jumping on a train
		
Click to expand...

Does he really? He canâ€™t find a seat on a half empty train, why would he do that to himself?


----------



## larmen (Oct 24, 2019)

Hacker Khan said:



			I'm sure they'll do it as soon as the conservatives rebrand more honestly as The ERG Brexit Party. 

Click to expand...

For me both main parties are too far removed from what they were just a few years ago and should be renamed. In my opinion both need to split into their extreme and their center wings. People with decades in one of those parties getting thrown out because they are not extreme enough? The 21 rebel Tory MPs and Alistair Campbell are just the obvious ones and there is more on base level.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 28, 2019)




----------



## IanM (Oct 28, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Corbyn aide â€¦â€¦.Jeremy loves jumping on a train to obscure places like the West of England [?] and Orkney [??]
Forgetting of course that the West of England is not really obscure to most folk and that Beeching cut the Wick to Kirkwall line in 1964.
		
Click to expand...

Anywhere outside the M25 is obscure to Labour Cabinet Members....


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 28, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Seem to remember you also had things to say about May's leather trousers.... I do wonder who is ridiculing who? And again, "judge unto others..."
		
Click to expand...

I wasn't ridiculing - but wonky spectacles to me just suggest carelessness.  If my glasses were badly twisted and I had an interview or important customer meeting I'd make an effort to have them straightened up.  And I think he now has...or are they new?

Yes - this sort of stuff doesn't really matter in the great scheme of things - but it's a bit like standing on the steps of #10 with your shoes all scuffed and unpolished...(can't think who might do that...).  If impressions matter then don't make it easy...

Meanwhile as a GE looms I am still not getting Corbyn...he might be a fabulous orator in front of a receptive audience - but in day-to-day interviews what he says and how he says it just don't have an air of authenticity to me...I frankly don't believe in him as I might another Labour Party Leader.


----------



## Hobbit (Oct 28, 2019)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I wasn't ridiculing - but wonky spectacles to me just suggest carelessness.  If my glasses were badly twisted and I had an interview or important customer meeting I'd make an effort to have them straightened up.  And I think he now has...or are they new?

Yes - this sort of stuff doesn't really matter in the great scheme of things - but it's a like standing on the steps of #10 with your shoes all scuffed and unpolished...(can't think who might do that...).  If impressions matter then don't make it easy...
		
Click to expand...

Valid points. We have some PM's that have been exceptionally shiny and spruced up recently. Not sure they've really performed as good as they've looked. Equally, Johnson often looks like a bag of spanners yet, so far, he's performed better than I expected. Considering the hand he's been dealt with, a minority govt, a split party, and a deal that wouldn't be opened or a backstop that wouldn't be changed... I'd give hm 6/10.

Still wouldn't vote for him but I'll grudgingly admit he's not doing bad. Bit like Sturgeon, not my cup of tea or politics but cutting it.


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 28, 2019)

JC just made a stupid statement saying that students can't vote if the election is in December. Does he mean students won't be able to vote in two constituencies like they have in the past.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 28, 2019)

Old Skier said:



			JC just made a stupid statement saying that students can't vote if the election is in December. Does he mean students won't be able to vote in two constituencies like they have in the past.
		
Click to expand...

So you are acussing Students of Vote rigging? Any proof?


----------



## drdel (Oct 28, 2019)

I try hard never to use bad language in my posts but JC strains that commitment !!!!!!!!


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			So you are acussing Students of Vote rigging? Any proof?
		
Click to expand...

There were instances at the last election that were reported on that some students were registered and voted in both their home and university constituency.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 28, 2019)

Old Skier said:



			There were instances at the last election that were reported on that some students were registered and voted in both their home and university constituency.
		
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40509178

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-43245969


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 28, 2019)

Old Skier said:



			There were instances at the last election that were reported on that some students were registered and voted in both their home and university constituency.
		
Click to expand...

Again, Proof or are saying only Labour Students? as Iâ€™m sure there are student tory supporters.
Anyone doing that should be done, but come on Labour do reasonably well in towns were there are large Universities, do you honest believe them or any Party if the roles were reserved wouldnâ€™t try and ensure they are able to vote in an election?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 28, 2019)

Liverpoolphil said:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40509178

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-43245969

Click to expand...

Old Skier.
Looks like Phil has proved you wrong there mate.

The 1st one is an allegation from Tories.

The 2nd was about the only person actually convicted for double voting and the link says he was registered twice at his HOME address.

But letâ€™s not the truth stand in the way.


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Again, Proof or are saying only Labour Students? as Iâ€™m sure there are student tory supporters.
Anyone doing that should be done, but come on Labour do reasonably well in towns were there are large Universities, do you honest believe them or any Party if the roles were reserved wouldnâ€™t try and ensure they are able to vote in an election?
		
Click to expand...

Not sure were I pointed a finger at any particular group. I'm only allowed 1 vote so it should be the same for everyone else whether they are students or not. I don't care where they vote as long as they only vote once.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 28, 2019)

Old Skier said:



			Not sure were I pointed a finger at any particular group. I'm only allowed 1 vote so it should be the same for everyone else whether they are students or not. I don't care where they vote as long as they only vote once.
		
Click to expand...

Clear a space, Tankie back tracking..........beep.....beep......beep.


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Old Skier.
Looks like Phil has proved you wrong there mate.

The 1st one is an allegation from Tories.

The 2nd was about the only person actually convicted for double voting and the link says he was registered twice at his HOME address.

But letâ€™s not the truth stand in the way.
		
Click to expand...

First one said you can vote twice in local but not GE , second one says only one conviction, cant see where it says it hasn't happened just that no conviction have been made.


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Clear a space, Tankie back tracking..........beep.....beep......beep.
		
Click to expand...

No back tracking mate, only time we reverse is just before we move forward.


----------



## Hobbit (Oct 28, 2019)

Just seen Mr Shouty Corbyn on the news with his latest rant in the Commons. Never thought I'd ever see a politician I'd want out of a job more than him. What an empty vessel, and an obstruction to Parliament. The leopard hasn't changed his spots, and he's still just a noisy disruptive radical with nothing positive to move things forward.

What a waste of a space.


----------



## spongebob59 (Oct 28, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Just seen Mr Shouty Corbyn on the news with his latest rant in the Commons. Never thought I'd ever see a politician I'd want out of a job more than him. What an empty vessel, and an obstruction to Parliament. The leopard hasn't changed his spots, and he's still just a noisy disruptive radical with nothing positive to move things forward.

What a waste of a space.
		
Click to expand...

Broken record.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 28, 2019)

Old Skier said:



			No back tracking mate, only time we reverse is just before we move forward.
		
Click to expand...

You know exactly what your were saying, but thanks to the boys in blue you were busted.
Own it mate, own it.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 28, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Just seen Mr Shouty Corbyn on the news with his latest rant in the Commons. Never thought I'd ever see a politician I'd want out of a job more than him. What an empty vessel, and an obstruction to Parliament. The leopard hasn't changed his spots, and he's still just a noisy disruptive radical with nothing positive to move things forward.

What a waste of a space.
		
Click to expand...

Now you know how I feel when boris appears on TV.


----------



## Hobbit (Oct 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Now you know how I feel when boris appears on TV. 

Click to expand...

What choice do we have at present? A recent meme doing the rounds on FB summed it up perfectly. This Brexit mess has really highlighted what a bunch of tossers there are in Parliament. 

Who's to blame? Us, we put them there.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Oct 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Now you know how I feel when boris appears on TV. 

Click to expand...

This thread is about Corbyn. You're always quick to pull up people on the Boris thread when they mention Corbyn. ðŸ‘


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			You know exactly what your were saying, but thanks to the boys in blue you were busted.
Own it mate, own it.

Click to expand...

I'll own it in particular the bit that the election committee admit that not many, including those in authority dont understand exactly what is electoral fraud. Be interesting to know who the "not in the public interest" case was dropped in favour of.


----------



## Dando (Oct 28, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			Just seen Mr Shouty Corbyn on the news with his latest rant in the Commons. Never thought I'd ever see a politician I'd want out of a job more than him. What an empty vessel, and an obstruction to Parliament. The leopard hasn't changed his spots, and he's still just a noisy disruptive radical with nothing positive to move things forward.

What a waste of a space.
		
Click to expand...

Was his nodding dog sat next to him?


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 28, 2019)

She always is


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 28, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			What choice do we have at present? A recent meme doing the rounds on FB summed it up perfectly. This Brexit mess has really highlighted what a bunch of tossers there are in Parliament.

Who's to blame? Us, we put them there.
		
Click to expand...

And weâ€™ll put tossers back next time.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 28, 2019)

ColchesterFC said:



			This thread is about Corbyn. You're always quick to pull up people on the Boris thread when they mention Corbyn. ðŸ‘
		
Click to expand...

Did you not see the emoji.
And you can check if you want, I did it once and people were quick to moan.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 28, 2019)

Old Skier said:



			I'll own it in particular the bit that the election committee admit that not many, including those in authority dont understand exactly what is electoral fraud. Be interesting to know who the "not in the public interest" case was dropped in favour of.
		
Click to expand...

Letâ€™s hope it was a Labour supporting student to meet your agenda.


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Letâ€™s hope it was a Labour supporting student to meet your agenda. 

Click to expand...

As someone who has been a payed up member of two of the three main U.K. Parties I, unlike some have an open mind (apart from the Corbyn factor) .


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 28, 2019)

Hobbit said:



			What choice do we have at present? A recent meme doing the rounds on FB summed it up perfectly. This Brexit mess has really highlighted what a bunch of tossers there are in Parliament.

Who's to blame? Us, we put them there.
		
Click to expand...

But we.know so much more now ðŸ˜‰


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 28, 2019)

Dando said:



			Was his nodding dog sat next to him?
		
Click to expand...

Yes and his parrot on his shoulder.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Oct 28, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Did you not see the emoji.
And you can check if you want, I did it once and people were quick to moan.

Click to expand...

Good to know the rules. We can mention Corbyn on the Boris thread as long as we use an emoji. ðŸ‘


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 28, 2019)

ColchesterFC said:



			Good to know the rules. We can mention Corbyn on the Boris thread as long as we use an emoji. ðŸ‘
		
Click to expand...

Mate, get over yourself.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 29, 2019)

Corbyn on student votes in a 12th Dec GE.  Methinks he doth protest too much.


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 29, 2019)

Jess Phillips for Labour leader.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 29, 2019)

When will Corbyn's final metamorphosis to a Dalek happen?


----------



## Captainron (Oct 30, 2019)

I cannot see labour winning under this clown. I really hope he doesnâ€™t get into number 10. The Labour Party have to think about a credible leader


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 30, 2019)

Good to see the tory backbenchers, who were taking the p!ss out of Corbynâ€™s tie today, put in their place by TM when she informed them it was in memory of all the victims at Grenfell.


----------



## spongebob59 (Nov 13, 2019)

good point, well said 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1194654957888294912


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 13, 2019)

spongebob59 said:



			good point, well said 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1194654957888294912

Click to expand...

Maybe people people should listen to what he said rather than read the headline.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 13, 2019)

Corbyn losing the plot in Scotland, trying to re-write history by blaming the SNP for putting the Thatcher government into power when it was actually the 34 Labour rebels who did the deed.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 13, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Corbyn losing the plot in Scotland, trying to re-write history by blaming the SNP for putting the Thatcher government into power when it was actually the 34 Labour rebels who did the deed.
		
Click to expand...

Did the SNP vote with the tories?
Can you explain as according to official records, Thatcher got 311 votes to 310 to win the motion.The picture shows who voted Aye.
Donâ€™t see any Labour Rebels there.


----------



## IanM (Nov 13, 2019)

Is this you Doon?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1194584951494189057


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 13, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Maybe people people should listen to what he said rather than read the headline.
		
Click to expand...

For me the key part of what he said was "I don't know all the details but....". Well Jeremy, maybe you should get to know all the details before you comment on something.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 13, 2019)

ColchesterFC said:



			For me the key part of what he said was "I don't know all the details but....". Well Jeremy, maybe you should get to know all the details before you comment on something.
		
Click to expand...

In the 2 min video Corbyn says â€œif possibleâ€ he should of been arrested. 
The if possible is not in the LBC headline so, imo, is misleading if people donâ€™t actually watch and listen, he also accepted he didnâ€™t know all the facts of the raid as the US hadnâ€™t released the details.
For all anyone knows the objective was possibly to catch him, otherwise they could of flattened the place without risking any Forces lives.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 13, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			In the 2 min video Corbyn says â€œif possibleâ€ he should of been arrested *and then invited to Downing Street for a chat and a nice cup of tea*.
The if possible is not in the LBC headline so, imo, is misleading if people donâ€™t actually watch and listen, he also accepted he didnâ€™t know all the facts of the raid as the US hadnâ€™t released the details.
For all anyone knows the objective was possibly to catch him, otherwise they could of flattened the place without risking any Forces lives.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, couldn't resist adding the bit in bold. 

I agree with regard to the headline not being accurate or with it being misleading, but from the information that is in the public domain al-Baghdadi ran in to a dead end tunnel and detonated a suicide vest. To me that rules out any chance of arresting him. The problem is that it's no longer possible to trust news sources. You have to look at who has published the story and what their political leaning is and then come to your own conclusions about how accurate it is likely to be. For example an article in the Mail attacking Corbyn or and article in the Mirror attacking Boris will both need plenty of external verification before you can accept them.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 13, 2019)

ColchesterFC said:



			Sorry, couldn't resist adding the bit in bold. 

I agree with regard to the headline not being accurate or with it being misleading, but from the information that is in the public domain al-Baghdadi ran in to a dead end tunnel and detonated a suicide vest. To me that rules out any chance of arresting him. The problem is that it's no longer possible to trust news sources. You have to look at who has published the story and what their political leaning is and then come to your own conclusions about how accurate it is likely to be. For example an article in the Mail attacking Corbyn or and article in the Mirror attacking Boris will both need plenty of external verification before you can accept them.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree, the mission will of had many aims, even the fact they chased him down the tunnel and sent the dog after him, if they wanted him dead they would of used grenades etc and threw them in.

Iâ€™ve got no issue with the media playing games because as you say they all do it, you just hope people will see some of that and make their own judgement.

Re the bit in bold, good to see you think Labour will win the GE.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 13, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Re the bit in bold, good to see you think Labour will win the GE. 

Click to expand...

I'm not sure anyone is going to "win" in this GE. It might be that the party that doesn't get the most votes will actually end up as the winner - maybe not immediately but in the medium/long term. If the Tories win and then manage to balls up Brexit it will almost certainly be a win for Labour in the longer term. And equally if Labour win and balls up the Brexit renegotiation/2nd referendum then it could be a win for the Tories in the longer term. It could actually be a good election for either of the main parties to lose. Short term pain for longer term gain.

Of course I could be completely wrong and Boris or Jeremy are going to win a clear majority and lead us on to a bright new future for the UK. But if it's OK with you I'm not going to be holding my breath for either of those outcomes.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 13, 2019)

IanM said:



			Is this you Doon?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1194584951494189057

Click to expand...

No, I was out walking my daughters dog.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 13, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Did the SNP vote with the tories?
Can you explain as according to official records, Thatcher got 311 votes to 310 to win the motion.The picture shows who voted Aye.
Donâ€™t see any Labour Rebels there.
View attachment 28557

Click to expand...

I  think they abstained as 311 votes would not have carried the motion if 635 voted


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Nov 13, 2019)

Unfortunately not Doon,
Full facts here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_vote_of_no_confidence_in_the_Callaghan_ministry

635 Mpâ€™s
311 Aye
310 No
4 Abstensions
4 Tellers (Not counted in vote)
6 Vacant (Not counted in vote)


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 13, 2019)

pauldj42 said:



			Unfortunately not Doon,
Full facts here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_vote_of_no_confidence_in_the_Callaghan_ministry

635 Mpâ€™s
311 Aye
310 No
4 Abstensions
4 Tellers (Not counted in vote)
6 Vacant (Not counted in vote)
		
Click to expand...

Yes sorry, I am getting my knickers in a twist with the 40% win margin Scots devolution vote.
Mind you ...who were the 4 abstentions


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 14, 2019)

Whilst Corbyn is on the stump championing equal pay for women, perhaps he should reflect on this recent case at Glasgow Cooncil.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news...ions-fighting-women-workers-equal-pay-claims/


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Nov 14, 2019)

IanM said:



			Is this you Doon?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1194584951494189057

Click to expand...

Not unless Doon's taken to the cloth and become a Church of Scotland minister.  Damn religious types - they should keep out of politics.  Not in Scotland they don't...they are very much of and for the people, and have got involved in Scottish/UK politics for many hundreds of years - and for me long may that continue.  Note - I'm not commenting on the background and views of of this specific minster.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 14, 2019)

Seems to be quite a few 'activists' leaving the SNP due to them being too much involved with Brexit and not enough with independence.
They see Brexit as an English only matter.
Latest
Labour say vote SNP and you will get the Tories
Tories say Vote SNP and you will get Labour.

Scores folk thinking which way to vote saying sod this I'll vote SNP and get SNP.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Nov 14, 2019)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Seems to be quite a few 'activists' leaving the SNP due to them being too much involved with Brexit and not enough with independence.
They see Brexit as an English only matter.
Latest
Labour say vote SNP and you will get the Tories
Tories say Vote SNP and you will get Labour.

Scores folk thinking which way to vote saying sod this I'll vote SNP and get SNP.
		
Click to expand...

Don't Labour usually rely on getting Scottish seats to get them a majority? Whereas for the Tories generally don't have to rely on them quite so heavily. So maybe the Labour slogan is more accurate. Having said that maybe the Tories mean a Labour/SNP coalition.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 14, 2019)

ColchesterFC said:



			Don't Labour usually rely on getting Scottish seats to get them a majority? Whereas for the Tories generally don't have to rely on them quite so heavily. So maybe the Labour slogan is more accurate. Having said that maybe the Tories mean a Labour/SNP coalition.
		
Click to expand...

Tories and Labour are bedfellows in Scotland, The are in a coalition in 9 Councils in Scotland and in the 2016 GE formed a pact against the SNP.
Tories asking Labour to lend them their votes in this election to keep out the SNP.
Really difficult to call how the GE will go but I feel that the SNP will win around 45 seats, with the other three taking 4 or 5 seats each.
Basic rule of thumb is Tory + Labour votes = SNP votes


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Nov 14, 2019)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Not unless Doon's taken to the cloth and become a Church of Scotland minister.  Damn religious types - they should keep out of politics.  Not in Scotland they don't...they are very much of and for the people, and have got involved in Scottish/UK politics for many hundreds of years - and for me long may that continue.  Note - I'm not commenting on the background and views of of this specific minster.
		
Click to expand...

Bless you my son
That guy certainly looks like a fire and brimstone monster.


----------

