FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Jeremy Corbyn
Jeremy Corbyn
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. " Yes, but he won't use his tongue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. " He really doesn't have much choice if he wants to do the job of Leader of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition. As a republican he may not like doing it but, from a moral and legal point of view, it should not be much of a problem: After all the oath of loyalty is to the sovereign and her successors UNDER LAW. If Britain did become a republic then the Queen's successors Under Law would whoever the new constitution decided was the Head of State. Jeremy may have a mandate from the Labour party to lead them but he currently does not have a mandate from the British people to change the constitution. If he ever wants to get that mandate from the British people he's going to have work within the constitution as it currently is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. He really doesn't have much choice if he wants to do the job of Leader of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition. As a republican he may not like doing it but, from a moral and legal point of view, it should not be much of a problem: After all the oath of loyalty is to the sovereign and her successors UNDER LAW. If Britain did become a republic then the Queen's successors Under Law would whoever the new constitution decided was the Head of State. Jeremy may have a mandate from the Labour party to lead them but he currently does not have a mandate from the British people to change the constitution. If he ever wants to get that mandate from the British people he's going to have work within the constitution as it currently is." and he might have his fingers crossed in secret anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. " I thought he had to kiss the queens ring? Yes a week is a longtime in politics! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. He really doesn't have much choice if he wants to do the job of Leader of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition. As a republican he may not like doing it but, from a moral and legal point of view, it should not be much of a problem: After all the oath of loyalty is to the sovereign and her successors UNDER LAW. If Britain did become a republic then the Queen's successors Under Law would whoever the new constitution decided was the Head of State. Jeremy may have a mandate from the Labour party to lead them but he currently does not have a mandate from the British people to change the constitution. If he ever wants to get that mandate from the British people he's going to have work within the constitution as it currently is."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. He really doesn't have much choice if he wants to do the job of Leader of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition. As a republican he may not like doing it but, from a moral and legal point of view, it should not be much of a problem: After all the oath of loyalty is to the sovereign and her successors UNDER LAW. If Britain did become a republic then the Queen's successors Under Law would whoever the new constitution decided was the Head of State. Jeremy may have a mandate from the Labour party to lead them but he currently does not have a mandate from the British people to change the constitution. If he ever wants to get that mandate from the British people he's going to have work within the constitution as it currently is." I'ts required if he wants to be a Privy Councillor..and yes he did have a choice...that's what principals and integrity are about, he made that choice when he divorced his second wife....Trident and the EU to follow? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. He really doesn't have much choice if he wants to do the job of Leader of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition. As a republican he may not like doing it but, from a moral and legal point of view, it should not be much of a problem: After all the oath of loyalty is to the sovereign and her successors UNDER LAW. If Britain did become a republic then the Queen's successors Under Law would whoever the new constitution decided was the Head of State. Jeremy may have a mandate from the Labour party to lead them but he currently does not have a mandate from the British people to change the constitution. If he ever wants to get that mandate from the British people he's going to have work within the constitution as it currently is. I'ts required if he wants to be a Privy Councillor..and yes he did have a choice...that's what principals and integrity are about, he made that choice when he divorced his second wife....Trident and the EU to follow?" It's not mandatory either for the Government to advise the Queen to offer the position of Privy Councillor to the leader of the opposition. So, considering David Cameron and his MPs have wasted no time at all in telling everyone silly enough to listen that JC represents a threat to national security...you might wonder exactly where his principals went, when he advised the Queen to offer the position. Either David Cameron was lying about JC representing a national security threat, or he doesn't care about our national security, and is happy to have a national security threat sitting on the Privy Council. Luckily, his voters don't think much about stuff like that. Or much else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yay! My fab politics thread bingo card is off to an excellent start already. Patronising exclamation by left winger about how all conservative voters are stupid - check! "And I might add that my fab politics thread bingo card is a full house at the moment, purely from all the times I've marked off comments from you crying about lefties being mean, while ignoring the hypocrisy of your chosen football team. Sorry, I mean political party.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politics is a murky business! I find the whole situation really patronising. Listening to Labour grandees saying he will make the party unelectable (like they did any better). Listening to Cameron saying he represents a threat to national security, really?? The fact is he has energised a defunct Labour Party, he has secured over 250,000 votes from people who like what he has to say. And come the election in 2020 he will have had nearly 5 years (assuming he doesn't get stabbed in the back along the way which is highly probable) to convince the wider electorate that there can be an alternative to centre politics. Let us the people decide, not the Sun, the DAily Mail and the huge number of has beens who want to get their face on TV. An ideological alternative to the current government and its policies can't be a bad thing can it??" One might even start to think that our democracy is being orchestrated by vested interests who sit outside the democratic political system. If one was a cynic, of course. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yay! My fab politics thread bingo card is off to an excellent start already. Patronising exclamation by left winger about how all conservative voters are stupid - check!
And I might add that my fab politics thread bingo card is a full house at the moment, purely from all the times I've marked off comments from you crying about lefties being mean, while ignoring the hypocrisy of your chosen football team.
Sorry, I mean political party.
Your bingo card sounds shit compared to mine. If you can get a full house just from my comments, you're clearly missing "bleeding heart liberals" "Daily Mail" "Guardian reader" and "Tony Bliar" from your list.
They're not "my party" anyway. I just dislike smug and patronising cunts in whatever form they come.
I love articulate and reasoned responses in debate!"This was a debate?  why did nobody tell me? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politics is a murky business! I find the whole situation really patronising. Listening to Labour grandees saying he will make the party unelectable (like they did any better). Listening to Cameron saying he represents a threat to national security, really?? The fact is he has energised a defunct Labour Party, he has secured over 250,000 votes from people who like what he has to say. And come the election in 2020 he will have had nearly 5 years (assuming he doesn't get stabbed in the back along the way which is highly probable) to convince the wider electorate that there can be an alternative to centre politics. Let us the people decide, not the Sun, the DAily Mail and the huge number of has beens who want to get their face on TV. An ideological alternative to the current government and its policies can't be a bad thing can it??" An alternative is one thing, but it doesn't mean that he will get elected. If he cant get elected, then all he will have managed to do is to secure another 5 years for the Tories. With Cameron saying he will stand down, the Labour party, in my opinion, have just handed the keys to No. 10 to someone we dont even know yet. As to Labour grandees not making the party electable, do you not think that Blair did a good job with 3 back to back elections? In 1997 with 418 seats, that is the most the Labour party has ever had! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politics is a murky business! I find the whole situation really patronising. Listening to Labour grandees saying he will make the party unelectable (like they did any better). Listening to Cameron saying he represents a threat to national security, really?? The fact is he has energised a defunct Labour Party, he has secured over 250,000 votes from people who like what he has to say. And come the election in 2020 he will have had nearly 5 years (assuming he doesn't get stabbed in the back along the way which is highly probable) to convince the wider electorate that there can be an alternative to centre politics. Let us the people decide, not the Sun, the DAily Mail and the huge number of has beens who want to get their face on TV. An ideological alternative to the current government and its policies can't be a bad thing can it??" I think it's a very good thing. But I do think most people tend to centrist views in this country. Personally I like that, I don't want to be choosing between the hard left and the far right in an election. 99% of the people I work with are die hard Labour supporters (public sector, North of England). There weren't many yesterday who were hugely enthusiastic about Corbyn. They're looking forward to him shaking things up a bit (as am I) but not many expected him to still be there by the time of the election. There was also a bit of a view that a central London MP wasn't going to reflect the interests of the North very well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politics is a murky business! I find the whole situation really patronising. Listening to Labour grandees saying he will make the party unelectable (like they did any better). Listening to Cameron saying he represents a threat to national security, really?? The fact is he has energised a defunct Labour Party, he has secured over 250,000 votes from people who like what he has to say. And come the election in 2020 he will have had nearly 5 years (assuming he doesn't get stabbed in the back along the way which is highly probable) to convince the wider electorate that there can be an alternative to centre politics. Let us the people decide, not the Sun, the DAily Mail and the huge number of has beens who want to get their face on TV. An ideological alternative to the current government and its policies can't be a bad thing can it?? An alternative is one thing, but it doesn't mean that he will get elected. If he cant get elected, then all he will have managed to do is to secure another 5 years for the Tories. With Cameron saying he will stand down, the Labour party, in my opinion, have just handed the keys to No. 10 to someone we dont even know yet. As to Labour grandees not making the party electable, do you not think that Blair did a good job with 3 back to back elections? In 1997 with 418 seats, that is the most the Labour party has ever had! " arguably it is the Blair policies around deregualtion of the finance sector and war in Iraq that made Labour unelectable in 2010 and 2015?? The thing is, many people will not yet know what Corbyn stands for, we will have to wait and see how he sets out his stall. Maybe a more left wing stance might be what the electorate is looking for in 5 years time. Let's see what happens and judge him on his policies and performance in opposition. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" An alternative is one thing, but it doesn't mean that he will get elected. If he cant get elected, then all he will have managed to do is to secure another 5 years for the Tories. With Cameron saying he will stand down, the Labour party, in my opinion, have just handed the keys to No. 10 to someone we dont even know yet. As to Labour grandees not making the party electable, do you not think that Blair did a good job with 3 back to back elections? In 1997 with 418 seats, that is the most the Labour party has ever had! arguably it is the Blair policies around deregualtion of the finance sector and war in Iraq that made Labour unelectable in 2010 and 2015?? The thing is, many people will not yet know what Corbyn stands for, we will have to wait and see how he sets out his stall. Maybe a more left wing stance might be what the electorate is looking for in 5 years time. Let's see what happens and judge him on his policies and performance in opposition." If it was the 2003 Iraq war that killed the Labour party, then why did they get elected again in 2007? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" An alternative is one thing, but it doesn't mean that he will get elected. If he cant get elected, then all he will have managed to do is to secure another 5 years for the Tories. With Cameron saying he will stand down, the Labour party, in my opinion, have just handed the keys to No. 10 to someone we dont even know yet. As to Labour grandees not making the party electable, do you not think that Blair did a good job with 3 back to back elections? In 1997 with 418 seats, that is the most the Labour party has ever had! arguably it is the Blair policies around deregualtion of the finance sector and war in Iraq that made Labour unelectable in 2010 and 2015?? The thing is, many people will not yet know what Corbyn stands for, we will have to wait and see how he sets out his stall. Maybe a more left wing stance might be what the electorate is looking for in 5 years time. Let's see what happens and judge him on his policies and performance in opposition. If it was the 2003 Iraq war that killed the Labour party, then why did they get elected again in 2007? " Nothing is ever black and white, I'm just suggesting that policies and judgements over time proved to be wrong and eventually the electorate lost faith. It will happen with the Tory party at some point as well. That's how politics works. If Corbyn can highlight enough issues and can garner enough support he might appeal to a wide cross section of society. No doubt he will have to moderate some of his views, and will need to improve his stature, but the British electorate will decide. As they have always done. If he is too much like Michael Foot he will be more obliterated than Milliband was. A strong democracy requires a strong opposition and I hope he can provide it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" An alternative is one thing, but it doesn't mean that he will get elected. If he cant get elected, then all he will have managed to do is to secure another 5 years for the Tories. With Cameron saying he will stand down, the Labour party, in my opinion, have just handed the keys to No. 10 to someone we dont even know yet. As to Labour grandees not making the party electable, do you not think that Blair did a good job with 3 back to back elections? In 1997 with 418 seats, that is the most the Labour party has ever had! arguably it is the Blair policies around deregualtion of the finance sector and war in Iraq that made Labour unelectable in 2010 and 2015?? The thing is, many people will not yet know what Corbyn stands for, we will have to wait and see how he sets out his stall. Maybe a more left wing stance might be what the electorate is looking for in 5 years time. Let's see what happens and judge him on his policies and performance in opposition. If it was the 2003 Iraq war that killed the Labour party, then why did they get elected again in 2007? Nothing is ever black and white, I'm just suggesting that policies and judgements over time proved to be wrong and eventually the electorate lost faith. It will happen with the Tory party at some point as well. That's how politics works. If Corbyn can highlight enough issues and can garner enough support he might appeal to a wide cross section of society. No doubt he will have to moderate some of his views, and will need to improve his stature, but the British electorate will decide. As they have always done. If he is too much like Michael Foot he will be more obliterated than Milliband was. A strong democracy requires a strong opposition and I hope he can provide it." As a Labour supporter myself, I would rather see a Labour government, than a strong Labour opposition. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
and naughty.
Life is full of compromises and agreeing to do things we don't want to do. It's easy to be on the back benches and be a refusnik type person. I suspect he will have to make quite a few compromises in the near future. Quite interesting times ahead me thinks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" An alternative is one thing, but it doesn't mean that he will get elected. If he cant get elected, then all he will have managed to do is to secure another 5 years for the Tories. With Cameron saying he will stand down, the Labour party, in my opinion, have just handed the keys to No. 10 to someone we dont even know yet. As to Labour grandees not making the party electable, do you not think that Blair did a good job with 3 back to back elections? In 1997 with 418 seats, that is the most the Labour party has ever had! arguably it is the Blair policies around deregualtion of the finance sector and war in Iraq that made Labour unelectable in 2010 and 2015?? The thing is, many people will not yet know what Corbyn stands for, we will have to wait and see how he sets out his stall. Maybe a more left wing stance might be what the electorate is looking for in 5 years time. Let's see what happens and judge him on his policies and performance in opposition. If it was the 2003 Iraq war that killed the Labour party, then why did they get elected again in 2007? Nothing is ever black and white, I'm just suggesting that policies and judgements over time proved to be wrong and eventually the electorate lost faith. It will happen with the Tory party at some point as well. That's how politics works. If Corbyn can highlight enough issues and can garner enough support he might appeal to a wide cross section of society. No doubt he will have to moderate some of his views, and will need to improve his stature, but the British electorate will decide. As they have always done. If he is too much like Michael Foot he will be more obliterated than Milliband was. A strong democracy requires a strong opposition and I hope he can provide it. As a Labour supporter myself, I would rather see a Labour government, than a strong Labour opposition. " And I would much rather see a strong Labour opposition with genuine socialist principals than a Labour government with no principals except for those that they borrowed from the Tories. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As a Labour supporter myself, I would rather see a Labour government, than a strong Labour opposition. And I would much rather see a strong Labour opposition with genuine socialist principals than a Labour government with no principals except for those that they borrowed from the Tories." I think a Labour government would be better for this country, it seems as though you disagree. It appears you would rather the Labour party was screaming objections from the opposition than actually making the decision and leading the country. There are many many Tories that would also love to see that happen  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As a Labour supporter myself, I would rather see a Labour government, than a strong Labour opposition. And I would much rather see a strong Labour opposition with genuine socialist principals than a Labour government with no principals except for those that they borrowed from the Tories. I think a Labour government would be better for this country, it seems as though you disagree. It appears you would rather the Labour party was screaming objections from the opposition than actually making the decision and leading the country. There are many many Tories that would also love to see that happen "A Labour government is just words. I would have hated to see Labour in power after the last election, just as much as I hate to see the Tories in power now. They are two sides of the same coin. On the other hand, a Corbyn-style Labour government would be one that would genuinely benefit the people of this country...and it's one we have a very good chance of seeing, in my opinion. Even if we don't, his party will be dragging things onto the national agenda that neither the Tories or 'New' Labour want to see discussed. It's win-win. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politics is a murky business! I find the whole situation really patronising. Listening to Labour grandees saying he will make the party unelectable (like they did any better). Listening to Cameron saying he represents a threat to national security, really?? The fact is he has energised a defunct Labour Party, he has secured over 250,000 votes from people who like what he has to say. And come the election in 2020 he will have had nearly 5 years (assuming he doesn't get stabbed in the back along the way which is highly probable) to convince the wider electorate that there can be an alternative to centre politics. Let us the people decide, not the Sun, the DAily Mail and the huge number of has beens who want to get their face on TV. An ideological alternative to the current government and its policies can't be a bad thing can it??" I agree, he has five years to convince the public so let's see what he has to say. On the other side the Tories have 5 years to convince us all that what he wants to do is bad for Britain. The people will finally decide for themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yay! My fab politics thread bingo card is off to an excellent start already. Patronising exclamation by left winger about how all conservative voters are stupid - check!
And I might add that my fab politics thread bingo card is a full house at the moment, purely from all the times I've marked off comments from you crying about lefties being mean, while ignoring the hypocrisy of your chosen football team.
Sorry, I mean political party. "Hypocrisy is very much in the eye of the beholder. The biggest problem with left leaning commentators is, IMHO, a total inability to correctly judge or even understand the motives of those that opposes them. If you don't understand your opponents your chances of defeating them are seriously diminished. Maybe this is why socialist Labour keeps loosing the argument and ultimately never really gets the chance to truly represent the people it claims represent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yay! My fab politics thread bingo card is off to an excellent start already. Patronising exclamation by left winger about how all conservative voters are stupid - check!
And I might add that my fab politics thread bingo card is a full house at the moment, purely from all the times I've marked off comments from you crying about lefties being mean, while ignoring the hypocrisy of your chosen football team.
Sorry, I mean political party.
Hypocrisy is very much in the eye of the beholder. The biggest problem with left leaning commentators is, IMHO, a total inability to correctly judge or even understand the motives of those that opposes them. If you don't understand your opponents your chances of defeating them are seriously diminished. Maybe this is why socialist Labour keeps loosing the argument and ultimately never really gets the chance to truly represent the people it claims represent.
"Socialist Labour haven't been a part of the argument for nearly twenty years. Confusing how they could have lost it, in that case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yay! My fab politics thread bingo card is off to an excellent start already. Patronising exclamation by left winger about how all conservative voters are stupid - check!
And I might add that my fab politics thread bingo card is a full house at the moment, purely from all the times I've marked off comments from you crying about lefties being mean, while ignoring the hypocrisy of your chosen football team.
Sorry, I mean political party.
Hypocrisy is very much in the eye of the beholder. The biggest problem with left leaning commentators is, IMHO, a total inability to correctly judge or even understand the motives of those that opposes them. If you don't understand your opponents your chances of defeating them are seriously diminished. Maybe this is why socialist Labour keeps loosing the argument and ultimately never really gets the chance to truly represent the people it claims represent.
Socialist Labour haven't been a part of the argument for nearly twenty years. Confusing how they could have lost it, in that case."It is Labour itself that has abandoned the socialist cause in search of winning the centre ground. If Labour activists want to change this they can. And in voting for Corbyn as leader they have. So you have got the first part of what you have wanted, time will tell if he can lead you to an electoral victory on a socialist mandate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Politics is a murky business! I find the whole situation really patronising. Listening to Labour grandees saying he will make the party unelectable (like they did any better). Listening to Cameron saying he represents a threat to national security, really?? The fact is he has energised a defunct Labour Party, he has secured over 250,000 votes from people who like what he has to say. And come the election in 2020 he will have had nearly 5 years (assuming he doesn't get stabbed in the back along the way which is highly probable) to convince the wider electorate that there can be an alternative to centre politics. Let us the people decide, not the Sun, the DAily Mail and the huge number of has beens who want to get their face on TV. An ideological alternative to the current government and its policies can't be a bad thing can it?? One might even start to think that our democracy is being orchestrated by vested interests who sit outside the democratic political system. If one was a cynic, of course." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The JC version of socialism is somewhat outdated and takes no account of the social progress since the birth of the Labour Party." That's quite an assertion. Can you explain how? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just think that anyone who can instil abject fear into so many politicians on both sides has got to be worth a look "Who's afraid? The only real reaction JC is causing at the moment with most Tories is shocked laughter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I just think that anyone who can instil abject fear into so many politicians on both sides has got to be worth a look
Who's afraid? The only real reaction JC is causing at the moment with most Tories is shocked laughter."If you keep this up, you might even convince yourself! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" An alternative is one thing, but it doesn't mean that he will get elected. If he cant get elected, then all he will have managed to do is to secure another 5 years for the Tories. With Cameron saying he will stand down, the Labour party, in my opinion, have just handed the keys to No. 10 to someone we dont even know yet. As to Labour grandees not making the party electable, do you not think that Blair did a good job with 3 back to back elections? In 1997 with 418 seats, that is the most the Labour party has ever had! arguably it is the Blair policies around deregualtion of the finance sector and war in Iraq that made Labour unelectable in 2010 and 2015?? The thing is, many people will not yet know what Corbyn stands for, we will have to wait and see how he sets out his stall. Maybe a more left wing stance might be what the electorate is looking for in 5 years time. Let's see what happens and judge him on his policies and performance in opposition. If it was the 2003 Iraq war that killed the Labour party, then why did they get elected again in 2007? Nothing is ever black and white, I'm just suggesting that policies and judgements over time proved to be wrong and eventually the electorate lost faith. It will happen with the Tory party at some point as well. That's how politics works. If Corbyn can highlight enough issues and can garner enough support he might appeal to a wide cross section of society. No doubt he will have to moderate some of his views, and will need to improve his stature, but the British electorate will decide. As they have always done. If he is too much like Michael Foot he will be more obliterated than Milliband was. A strong democracy requires a strong opposition and I hope he can provide it. As a Labour supporter myself, I would rather see a Labour government, than a strong Labour opposition. And I would much rather see a strong Labour opposition with genuine socialist principals than a Labour government with no principals except for those that they borrowed from the Tories." Well that's just what you've now got for at least the next 5 years, possibly 15 or even 20. Glad your happy with it.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As a Labour supporter myself, I would rather see a Labour government, than a strong Labour opposition. And I would much rather see a strong Labour opposition with genuine socialist principals than a Labour government with no principals except for those that they borrowed from the Tories. I think a Labour government would be better for this country, it seems as though you disagree. It appears you would rather the Labour party was screaming objections from the opposition than actually making the decision and leading the country. There are many many Tories that would also love to see that happen "This | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. He really doesn't have much choice if he wants to do the job of Leader of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition. As a republican he may not like doing it but, from a moral and legal point of view, it should not be much of a problem: After all the oath of loyalty is to the sovereign and her successors UNDER LAW. If Britain did become a republic then the Queen's successors Under Law would whoever the new constitution decided was the Head of State. Jeremy may have a mandate from the Labour party to lead them but he currently does not have a mandate from the British people to change the constitution. If he ever wants to get that mandate from the British people he's going to have work within the constitution as it currently is. I'ts required if he wants to be a Privy Councillor..and yes he did have a choice...that's what principals and integrity are about, he made that choice when he divorced his second wife....Trident and the EU to follow?" The reason the leader of the opposition becomes a privy councillor is to enable them to be privy to state secrets such as plans for military action and enable them to be fully abreast of the facts so that they can challenge the plans with the correct vigour in parliament. If he is willing to do something unsavoury to his principles so that he can fulfil his role as leader of the opposition and hold the government to account properly he should be praised not censured. He is making personal sacrifices to be able to fulfil his duty to the country. I think the level of carping about the man is pathetic. I am not a labour supporter in any way and not a massive corbynite either but for the love of god the level of debate around him in the past few weeks has hit a new nadir even by British political standards. The arguments are so transparent and the carping so hypocritical and badly researched as to be an embarrassment to the dead eyed automatons who wheel this crap out in any public forum they can. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do socialists feel the need to shout?" cos most of you lot on the right are a bit fik and dont listen.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do socialists feel the need to shout? cos most of you lot on the right are a bit fik and dont listen.. "Ah. Yeah, that would be it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yay! My fab politics thread bingo card is off to an excellent start already. Patronising exclamation by left winger about how all conservative voters are stupid - check!
And I might add that my fab politics thread bingo card is a full house at the moment, purely from all the times I've marked off comments from you crying about lefties being mean, while ignoring the hypocrisy of your chosen football team.
Sorry, I mean political party.
Hypocrisy is very much in the eye of the beholder. The biggest problem with left leaning commentators is, IMHO, a total inability to correctly judge or even understand the motives of those that opposes them. If you don't understand your opponents your chances of defeating them are seriously diminished. Maybe this is why socialist Labour keeps loosing the argument and ultimately never really gets the chance to truly represent the people it claims represent.
Socialist Labour haven't been a part of the argument for nearly twenty years. Confusing how they could have lost it, in that case."They lost the argument in the country with Michael Foot in the 80s, they then went on to loose the argument in the Labour party in the 90s. They maybe resurgent in the Labour party currently but, unless they start to understand that the people who oppose them outside of the Labour party are not doing it because they are too stupid to understand or to selfish to care, but because they are not convinced my the socialist argument, they will never win a general election. Insulting those you need to persuade has never been a successful way to garner support. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do socialists feel the need to shout? cos most of you lot on the right are a bit fik and dont listen..
Ah. Yeah, that would be it " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" One might even start to think that our democracy is being orchestrated by vested interests who sit outside the democratic political system. If one was a cynic, of course." It is, and I am. Get rich or die trying. Or opt out completely Choices choices  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As a Labour supporter myself, I would rather see a Labour government, than a strong Labour opposition. And I would much rather see a strong Labour opposition with genuine socialist principals than a Labour government with no principals except for those that they borrowed from the Tories. I think a Labour government would be better for this country, it seems as though you disagree. It appears you would rather the Labour party was screaming objections from the opposition than actually making the decision and leading the country. There are many many Tories that would also love to see that happen
A Labour government is just words. I would have hated to see Labour in power after the last election, just as much as I hate to see the Tories in power now. They are two sides of the same coin.
On the other hand, a Corbyn-style Labour government would be one that would genuinely benefit the people of this country...and it's one we have a very good chance of seeing, in my opinion. Even if we don't, his party will be dragging things onto the national agenda that neither the Tories or 'New' Labour want to see discussed. It's win-win."How do you know a Corbyn-style Labour government would be one that would genuinely benefit the people of this country? He's only just assembled his team, let alone announced his manifesto. Talk about wishful thinking. I think you mean "hope", not "would". I hope he provides a genuine challenge to government, a robust challenge is essential to politics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do socialists feel the need to shout? cos most of you lot on the right are a bit fik and dont listen.. "That's the spirit; that'll convince them all to vote Labour. No question about it!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As a Labour supporter myself, I would rather see a Labour government, than a strong Labour opposition. And I would much rather see a strong Labour opposition with genuine socialist principals than a Labour government with no principals except for those that they borrowed from the Tories. I think a Labour government would be better for this country, it seems as though you disagree. It appears you would rather the Labour party was screaming objections from the opposition than actually making the decision and leading the country. There are many many Tories that would also love to see that happen
A Labour government is just words. I would have hated to see Labour in power after the last election, just as much as I hate to see the Tories in power now. They are two sides of the same coin.
On the other hand, a Corbyn-style Labour government would be one that would genuinely benefit the people of this country...and it's one we have a very good chance of seeing, in my opinion. Even if we don't, his party will be dragging things onto the national agenda that neither the Tories or 'New' Labour want to see discussed. It's win-win.
How do you know a Corbyn-style Labour government would be one that would genuinely benefit the people of this country?
He's only just assembled his team, let alone announced his manifesto. Talk about wishful thinking.
I think you mean "hope", not "would".
I hope he provides a genuine challenge to government, a robust challenge is essential to politics."His political beliefs are well documented. Unless his manifesto is going to be the opposite of what he has stood for for his entire life, it's a safe assumption. I can counterpoint that with our current government, whose polices are documented to be responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands...well, let's just say my conscience is clear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am watching his speech, its live from brighton, he makes good points." He does... good common sense well explained, strange I thought from the media that he would be a raving loony. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am watching his speech, its live from brighton, he makes good points. He does... good common sense well explained, strange I thought from the media that he would be a raving loony. " Parts of the media would seek to portray him as a raving loony but you can't be MP for the same constituency* for over 30 years without getting some stuff right. * esp a constituency like Islington North where they ain't exactly stupid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Times are now saying that Jeremy Corbyn rides a 'Chairman Mao-style bicycle'. What you and I would refer to as 'a bicycle', that is." . They would though wouldn't they! I mean they have outside motives, why does billionaire Rupert Murdoch keep open papers that lose money hand over fist! The Looney left may shout alot but at least there honest with their beliefs, which is more than can be said for the right wing megalomaniacs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" * esp a constituency like Islington North where they ain't exactly stupid." Hogwash. Islington North is redder than a baboon's arse - they'd vote for a dog turd if it had a red rosette stuck in it. Labour has held the seat since 1931. The only change came when the sitting Labour MP went over to the SDP - a Labour split party - in 1981. It's a seat for life for any Labour candidate lucky enough to get it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do socialists feel the need to shout? cos most of you lot on the right are a bit fik and dont listen..
That's the spirit; that'll convince them all to vote Labour. No question about it!!"to be honest if they lack the common sense to see something for what it is (ie. light hearted banter) then who cares.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am watching his speech, its live from brighton, he makes good points. He does... good common sense well explained, strange I thought from the media that he would be a raving loony. Parts of the media would seek to portray him as a raving loony but you can't be MP for the same constituency* for over 30 years without getting some stuff right. * esp a constituency like Islington North where they ain't exactly stupid." Very true, and makes the claims of security threat and doom bringer spouted by all the right wingers like Tony Blair etc. even more suspect. Just realised he is only 11 miles from ShagTonights location, do you think this is a conspiracy we could have a theory about | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. He really doesn't have much choice if he wants to do the job of Leader of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition. As a republican he may not like doing it but, from a moral and legal point of view, it should not be much of a problem: After all the oath of loyalty is to the sovereign and her successors UNDER LAW. If Britain did become a republic then the Queen's successors Under Law would whoever the new constitution decided was the Head of State. Jeremy may have a mandate from the Labour party to lead them but he currently does not have a mandate from the British people to change the constitution. If he ever wants to get that mandate from the British people he's going to have work within the constitution as it currently is. I'ts required if he wants to be a Privy Councillor..and yes he did have a choice...that's what principals and integrity are about, he made that choice when he divorced his second wife....Trident and the EU to follow? The reason the leader of the opposition becomes a privy councillor is to enable them to be privy to state secrets such as plans for military action and enable them to be fully abreast of the facts so that they can challenge the plans with the correct vigour in parliament. If he is willing to do something unsavoury to his principles so that he can fulfil his role as leader of the opposition and hold the government to account properly he should be praised not censured. He is making personal sacrifices to be able to fulfil his duty to the country. I think the level of carping about the man is pathetic. I am not a labour supporter in any way and not a massive corbynite either but for the love of god the level of debate around him in the past few weeks has hit a new nadir even by British political standards. The arguments are so transparent and the carping so hypocritical and badly researched as to be an embarrassment to the dead eyed automatons who wheel this crap out in any public forum they can." Think you are missing the point about Corbyn and his principals....Most of the hype around his selection as leader has centred around his personal and political integrity as compared to those of New Labour, positions he has strongly held during his time as MP. New Labour's project, and let's not forget brought them three GE, was to compromise some of Labour's traditional values. There argument was little could be done in opposition, and they made no secret of this to the party or electorate. Some people might call that courageous. Six months ago Jeremy Corbyn was a Labour back bencher who was known for his forthright views on NATO, the EU, Trident, wild cat strikes and Palestine. Views that you and I know are unlikely to win another GE for Labour, probably leaving the Tories in power until 2025. So if he's courageous enough to compromise his views on the Monarchy will he do the same with NATO, EU et al. Of course he will....fine by me.....but please, please let him be honest about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. He really doesn't have much choice if he wants to do the job of Leader of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition. As a republican he may not like doing it but, from a moral and legal point of view, it should not be much of a problem: After all the oath of loyalty is to the sovereign and her successors UNDER LAW. If Britain did become a republic then the Queen's successors Under Law would whoever the new constitution decided was the Head of State. Jeremy may have a mandate from the Labour party to lead them but he currently does not have a mandate from the British people to change the constitution. If he ever wants to get that mandate from the British people he's going to have work within the constitution as it currently is. I'ts required if he wants to be a Privy Councillor..and yes he did have a choice...that's what principals and integrity are about, he made that choice when he divorced his second wife....Trident and the EU to follow? The reason the leader of the opposition becomes a privy councillor is to enable them to be privy to state secrets such as plans for military action and enable them to be fully abreast of the facts so that they can challenge the plans with the correct vigour in parliament. If he is willing to do something unsavoury to his principles so that he can fulfil his role as leader of the opposition and hold the government to account properly he should be praised not censured. He is making personal sacrifices to be able to fulfil his duty to the country. I think the level of carping about the man is pathetic. I am not a labour supporter in any way and not a massive corbynite either but for the love of god the level of debate around him in the past few weeks has hit a new nadir even by British political standards. The arguments are so transparent and the carping so hypocritical and badly researched as to be an embarrassment to the dead eyed automatons who wheel this crap out in any public forum they can. Think you are missing the point about Corbyn and his principals....Most of the hype around his selection as leader has centred around his personal and political integrity as compared to those of New Labour, positions he has strongly held during his time as MP. New Labour's project, and let's not forget brought them three GE, was to compromise some of Labour's traditional values. There argument was little could be done in opposition, and they made no secret of this to the party or electorate. Some people might call that courageous. Six months ago Jeremy Corbyn was a Labour back bencher who was known for his forthright views on NATO, the EU, Trident, wild cat strikes and Palestine. Views that you and I know are unlikely to win another GE for Labour, probably leaving the Tories in power until 2025. So if he's courageous enough to compromise his views on the Monarchy will he do the same with NATO, EU et al. Of course he will....fine by me.....but please, please let him be honest about it. " Now you've said that, would you like to explain how he is compromising his principles? You can go through the motions of traditional protocol involving the Queen while still believing in the abolition of the monarchy, and your principles remaining firmly intact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" * esp a constituency like Islington North where they ain't exactly stupid. Labour has held the seat since 1931. The only change came when the sitting Labour MP went over to the SDP - a Labour split party - in 1981. It's a seat for life for any Labour candidate lucky enough to get it." Like I said. They ain't exactly stupid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. Yes, but he won't use his tongue. " Or lick her arse. He would never have denied that he'd do this - the hand - in order to lead though. It's a necessary evil that he's dealing with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As a Labour supporter myself, I would rather see a Labour government, than a strong Labour opposition. And I would much rather see a strong Labour opposition with genuine socialist principals than a Labour government with no principals except for those that they borrowed from the Tories. I think a Labour government would be better for this country, it seems as though you disagree. It appears you would rather the Labour party was screaming objections from the opposition than actually making the decision and leading the country. There are many many Tories that would also love to see that happen
A Labour government is just words. I would have hated to see Labour in power after the last election, just as much as I hate to see the Tories in power now. They are two sides of the same coin.
On the other hand, a Corbyn-style Labour government would be one that would genuinely benefit the people of this country...and it's one we have a very good chance of seeing, in my opinion. Even if we don't, his party will be dragging things onto the national agenda that neither the Tories or 'New' Labour want to see discussed. It's win-win.
How do you know a Corbyn-style Labour government would be one that would genuinely benefit the people of this country?
He's only just assembled his team, let alone announced his manifesto. Talk about wishful thinking.
I think you mean "hope", not "would".
I hope he provides a genuine challenge to government, a robust challenge is essential to politics.
His political beliefs are well documented. Unless his manifesto is going to be the opposite of what he has stood for for his entire life, it's a safe assumption.
I can counterpoint that with our current government, whose polices are documented to be responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands...well, let's just say my conscience is clear."Although his beliefs are well documented that's as a backbencher. He may find that as leader he has the voices of many others to consider before setting out his manifesto. What is announced as the way foward may not be wholly in line with his beliefs. Unless of course you feel he may ride roughshod over his party and advisors and do it his way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As a Labour supporter myself, I would rather see a Labour government, than a strong Labour opposition. And I would much rather see a strong Labour opposition with genuine socialist principals than a Labour government with no principals except for those that they borrowed from the Tories. I think a Labour government would be better for this country, it seems as though you disagree. It appears you would rather the Labour party was screaming objections from the opposition than actually making the decision and leading the country. There are many many Tories that would also love to see that happen
A Labour government is just words. I would have hated to see Labour in power after the last election, just as much as I hate to see the Tories in power now. They are two sides of the same coin.
On the other hand, a Corbyn-style Labour government would be one that would genuinely benefit the people of this country...and it's one we have a very good chance of seeing, in my opinion. Even if we don't, his party will be dragging things onto the national agenda that neither the Tories or 'New' Labour want to see discussed. It's win-win.
How do you know a Corbyn-style Labour government would be one that would genuinely benefit the people of this country?
He's only just assembled his team, let alone announced his manifesto. Talk about wishful thinking.
I think you mean "hope", not "would".
I hope he provides a genuine challenge to government, a robust challenge is essential to politics.
His political beliefs are well documented. Unless his manifesto is going to be the opposite of what he has stood for for his entire life, it's a safe assumption.
I can counterpoint that with our current government, whose polices are documented to be responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands...well, let's just say my conscience is clear.
Although his beliefs are well documented that's as a backbencher.
He may find that as leader he has the voices of many others to consider before setting out his manifesto.
What is announced as the way foward may not be wholly in line with his beliefs.
Unless of course you feel he may ride roughshod over his party and advisors and do it his way.
"'May not be wholly in line with his beliefs' is a million miles away from what you previously described as 'wishful thinking'. Make your mind up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" * esp a constituency like Islington North where they ain't exactly stupid. Labour has held the seat since 1931. The only change came when the sitting Labour MP went over to the SDP - a Labour split party - in 1981. It's a seat for life for any Labour candidate lucky enough to get it. Like I said. They ain't exactly stupid." No, but they're pretty close. So I'm wondering. If, in your book, people who "ain't exactly stupid" vote Labour, and Labour was booted out all over Scotland earlier this year in favour of the SNP, then what does that make the majority of Scottish voters? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am watching his speech, its live from brighton, he makes good points. He does... good common sense well explained, strange I thought from the media that he would be a raving loony. " You really shouldn't believe all you read. Come to that you probably really shouldn't believe all you hear either!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Times are now saying that Jeremy Corbyn rides a 'Chairman Mao-style bicycle'. What you and I would refer to as 'a bicycle', that is.. They would though wouldn't they! I mean they have outside motives, why does billionaire Rupert Murdoch keep open papers that lose money hand over fist! The Looney left may shout alot but at least there honest with their beliefs, which is more than can be said for the right wing megalomaniacs" I'm pretty sure the looney right, the soft centre and the looney left all equally believe in what they stand for. Problem is just believing that you're right ( or should I say correct) doesn't actually make you right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As a Labour supporter myself, I would rather see a Labour government, than a strong Labour opposition. And I would much rather see a strong Labour opposition with genuine socialist principals than a Labour government with no principals except for those that they borrowed from the Tories. I think a Labour government would be better for this country, it seems as though you disagree. It appears you would rather the Labour party was screaming objections from the opposition than actually making the decision and leading the country. There are many many Tories that would also love to see that happen
A Labour government is just words. I would have hated to see Labour in power after the last election, just as much as I hate to see the Tories in power now. They are two sides of the same coin.
On the other hand, a Corbyn-style Labour government would be one that would genuinely benefit the people of this country...and it's one we have a very good chance of seeing, in my opinion. Even if we don't, his party will be dragging things onto the national agenda that neither the Tories or 'New' Labour want to see discussed. It's win-win.
How do you know a Corbyn-style Labour government would be one that would genuinely benefit the people of this country?
He's only just assembled his team, let alone announced his manifesto. Talk about wishful thinking.
I think you mean "hope", not "would".
I hope he provides a genuine challenge to government, a robust challenge is essential to politics.
His political beliefs are well documented. Unless his manifesto is going to be the opposite of what he has stood for for his entire life, it's a safe assumption.
I can counterpoint that with our current government, whose polices are documented to be responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands...well, let's just say my conscience is clear."Really!! Going to give us a clue as to where these documents documenting these hundreds or thousands of deaths are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. He really doesn't have much choice if he wants to do the job of Leader of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition. As a republican he may not like doing it but, from a moral and legal point of view, it should not be much of a problem: After all the oath of loyalty is to the sovereign and her successors UNDER LAW. If Britain did become a republic then the Queen's successors Under Law would whoever the new constitution decided was the Head of State. Jeremy may have a mandate from the Labour party to lead them but he currently does not have a mandate from the British people to change the constitution. If he ever wants to get that mandate from the British people he's going to have work within the constitution as it currently is. I'ts required if he wants to be a Privy Councillor..and yes he did have a choice...that's what principals and integrity are about, he made that choice when he divorced his second wife....Trident and the EU to follow? The reason the leader of the opposition becomes a privy councillor is to enable them to be privy to state secrets such as plans for military action and enable them to be fully abreast of the facts so that they can challenge the plans with the correct vigour in parliament. If he is willing to do something unsavoury to his principles so that he can fulfil his role as leader of the opposition and hold the government to account properly he should be praised not censured. He is making personal sacrifices to be able to fulfil his duty to the country. I think the level of carping about the man is pathetic. I am not a labour supporter in any way and not a massive corbynite either but for the love of god the level of debate around him in the past few weeks has hit a new nadir even by British political standards. The arguments are so transparent and the carping so hypocritical and badly researched as to be an embarrassment to the dead eyed automatons who wheel this crap out in any public forum they can. Think you are missing the point about Corbyn and his principals....Most of the hype around his selection as leader has centred around his personal and political integrity as compared to those of New Labour, positions he has strongly held during his time as MP. New Labour's project, and let's not forget brought them three GE, was to compromise some of Labour's traditional values. There argument was little could be done in opposition, and they made no secret of this to the party or electorate. Some people might call that courageous. Six months ago Jeremy Corbyn was a Labour back bencher who was known for his forthright views on NATO, the EU, Trident, wild cat strikes and Palestine. Views that you and I know are unlikely to win another GE for Labour, probably leaving the Tories in power until 2025. So if he's courageous enough to compromise his views on the Monarchy will he do the same with NATO, EU et al. Of course he will....fine by me.....but please, please let him be honest about it. " With respect I think you may be missing a point. He is the leader. He is not the sole mind and dictator. He is leading a party which holds different views and he has the guts to stand and acknowledge that. He also has the wisdom to allow his colleague's views to be heard and argued even when he does not agree. Therefore how can he possibly after one day in charge say what the party's view on a range of complex issues is going to be? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. He really doesn't have much choice if he wants to do the job of Leader of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition. As a republican he may not like doing it but, from a moral and legal point of view, it should not be much of a problem: After all the oath of loyalty is to the sovereign and her successors UNDER LAW. If Britain did become a republic then the Queen's successors Under Law would whoever the new constitution decided was the Head of State. Jeremy may have a mandate from the Labour party to lead them but he currently does not have a mandate from the British people to change the constitution. If he ever wants to get that mandate from the British people he's going to have work within the constitution as it currently is. I'ts required if he wants to be a Privy Councillor..and yes he did have a choice...that's what principals and integrity are about, he made that choice when he divorced his second wife....Trident and the EU to follow? The reason the leader of the opposition becomes a privy councillor is to enable them to be privy to state secrets such as plans for military action and enable them to be fully abreast of the facts so that they can challenge the plans with the correct vigour in parliament. If he is willing to do something unsavoury to his principles so that he can fulfil his role as leader of the opposition and hold the government to account properly he should be praised not censured. He is making personal sacrifices to be able to fulfil his duty to the country. I think the level of carping about the man is pathetic. I am not a labour supporter in any way and not a massive corbynite either but for the love of god the level of debate around him in the past few weeks has hit a new nadir even by British political standards. The arguments are so transparent and the carping so hypocritical and badly researched as to be an embarrassment to the dead eyed automatons who wheel this crap out in any public forum they can. Think you are missing the point about Corbyn and his principals....Most of the hype around his selection as leader has centred around his personal and political integrity as compared to those of New Labour, positions he has strongly held during his time as MP. New Labour's project, and let's not forget brought them three GE, was to compromise some of Labour's traditional values. There argument was little could be done in opposition, and they made no secret of this to the party or electorate. Some people might call that courageous. Six months ago Jeremy Corbyn was a Labour back bencher who was known for his forthright views on NATO, the EU, Trident, wild cat strikes and Palestine. Views that you and I know are unlikely to win another GE for Labour, probably leaving the Tories in power until 2025. So if he's courageous enough to compromise his views on the Monarchy will he do the same with NATO, EU et al. Of course he will....fine by me.....but please, please let him be honest about it. Now you've said that, would you like to explain how he is compromising his principles? You can go through the motions of traditional protocol involving the Queen while still believing in the abolition of the monarchy, and your principles remaining firmly intact." I think that's pretty much what I said quite a few posts ago | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At this rate there will be a 2020 election special thread opened before you know it. " . It was always going to be this way! The left finally have someone to love the right finally have someone to hate... Hohum Me, I like being in the green party... Everybody hates us and you can annoy the right wing just by looking at wind turbines | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. He really doesn't have much choice if he wants to do the job of Leader of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition. As a republican he may not like doing it but, from a moral and legal point of view, it should not be much of a problem: After all the oath of loyalty is to the sovereign and her successors UNDER LAW. If Britain did become a republic then the Queen's successors Under Law would whoever the new constitution decided was the Head of State. Jeremy may have a mandate from the Labour party to lead them but he currently does not have a mandate from the British people to change the constitution. If he ever wants to get that mandate from the British people he's going to have work within the constitution as it currently is. I'ts required if he wants to be a Privy Councillor..and yes he did have a choice...that's what principals and integrity are about, he made that choice when he divorced his second wife....Trident and the EU to follow? The reason the leader of the opposition becomes a privy councillor is to enable them to be privy to state secrets such as plans for military action and enable them to be fully abreast of the facts so that they can challenge the plans with the correct vigour in parliament. If he is willing to do something unsavoury to his principles so that he can fulfil his role as leader of the opposition and hold the government to account properly he should be praised not censured. He is making personal sacrifices to be able to fulfil his duty to the country. I think the level of carping about the man is pathetic. I am not a labour supporter in any way and not a massive corbynite either but for the love of god the level of debate around him in the past few weeks has hit a new nadir even by British political standards. The arguments are so transparent and the carping so hypocritical and badly researched as to be an embarrassment to the dead eyed automatons who wheel this crap out in any public forum they can. Think you are missing the point about Corbyn and his principals....Most of the hype around his selection as leader has centred around his personal and political integrity as compared to those of New Labour, positions he has strongly held during his time as MP. New Labour's project, and let's not forget brought them three GE, was to compromise some of Labour's traditional values. There argument was little could be done in opposition, and they made no secret of this to the party or electorate. Some people might call that courageous. Six months ago Jeremy Corbyn was a Labour back bencher who was known for his forthright views on NATO, the EU, Trident, wild cat strikes and Palestine. Views that you and I know are unlikely to win another GE for Labour, probably leaving the Tories in power until 2025. So if he's courageous enough to compromise his views on the Monarchy will he do the same with NATO, EU et al. Of course he will....fine by me.....but please, please let him be honest about it. With respect I think you may be missing a point. He is the leader. He is not the sole mind and dictator. He is leading a party which holds different views and he has the guts to stand and acknowledge that. He also has the wisdom to allow his colleague's views to be heard and argued even when he does not agree. Therefore how can he possibly after one day in charge say what the party's view on a range of complex issues is going to be?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Times are now saying that Jeremy Corbyn rides a 'Chairman Mao-style bicycle'. What you and I would refer to as 'a bicycle', that is." Your paper bill must be horrific. Not to mention all the time you spend trawling said papers you dont like to find nasty stories about people you do like. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now JC has been observed not singing 'God Save the Queen' at the Battle of Britain memorial service. We can accordingly expect the front page of tomorrow's Sun to read 'CORBYN WANTS QUEEN DEAD', or something equally uplifting." Actually I think just reporting the fact that he didn't want to sing the National Anthem will be enough to get a the sort of reaction they want. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. He really doesn't have much choice if he wants to do the job of Leader of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition. As a republican he may not like doing it but, from a moral and legal point of view, it should not be much of a problem: After all the oath of loyalty is to the sovereign and her successors UNDER LAW. If Britain did become a republic then the Queen's successors Under Law would whoever the new constitution decided was the Head of State. Jeremy may have a mandate from the Labour party to lead them but he currently does not have a mandate from the British people to change the constitution. If he ever wants to get that mandate from the British people he's going to have work within the constitution as it currently is. I'ts required if he wants to be a Privy Councillor..and yes he did have a choice...that's what principals and integrity are about, he made that choice when he divorced his second wife....Trident and the EU to follow? The reason the leader of the opposition becomes a privy councillor is to enable them to be privy to state secrets such as plans for military action and enable them to be fully abreast of the facts so that they can challenge the plans with the correct vigour in parliament. If he is willing to do something unsavoury to his principles so that he can fulfil his role as leader of the opposition and hold the government to account properly he should be praised not censured. He is making personal sacrifices to be able to fulfil his duty to the country. I think the level of carping about the man is pathetic. I am not a labour supporter in any way and not a massive corbynite either but for the love of god the level of debate around him in the past few weeks has hit a new nadir even by British political standards. The arguments are so transparent and the carping so hypocritical and badly researched as to be an embarrassment to the dead eyed automatons who wheel this crap out in any public forum they can. Think you are missing the point about Corbyn and his principals....Most of the hype around his selection as leader has centred around his personal and political integrity as compared to those of New Labour, positions he has strongly held during his time as MP. New Labour's project, and let's not forget brought them three GE, was to compromise some of Labour's traditional values. There argument was little could be done in opposition, and they made no secret of this to the party or electorate. Some people might call that courageous. Six months ago Jeremy Corbyn was a Labour back bencher who was known for his forthright views on NATO, the EU, Trident, wild cat strikes and Palestine. Views that you and I know are unlikely to win another GE for Labour, probably leaving the Tories in power until 2025. So if he's courageous enough to compromise his views on the Monarchy will he do the same with NATO, EU et al. Of course he will....fine by me.....but please, please let him be honest about it. With respect I think you may be missing a point. He is the leader. He is not the sole mind and dictator. He is leading a party which holds different views and he has the guts to stand and acknowledge that. He also has the wisdom to allow his colleague's views to be heard and argued even when he does not agree. Therefore how can he possibly after one day in charge say what the party's view on a range of complex issues is going to be?" With respect are you suggesting that a man who has maintained such polar opposite opinions to most of his colleagues will now listen to them for any other reason than political expediency...he has openly despised the PR machines, and yet there he is having his hair rearranged...was he wise enough to listen to his 2nd wife's different opinion..No, he divorced her. I don't have a problem with him being politically pragmatic...I hope he does halt the inertia crippling the Labour party. My problem is the moral high ground, the deification, the attitude amongst supporters that he is a saviour, that he is without sin. Have been around long enough to know that no politician can live up to that kind of expectation, those utopian dreams. From mass adulation and DReam in '97 to war criminal, and class traitor in 2015. It's not the media, or the establishment who will crucify him, it will be his supporters. He is a human being, ultimately a political human being | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Times are now saying that Jeremy Corbyn rides a 'Chairman Mao-style bicycle'. What you and I would refer to as 'a bicycle', that is. Your paper bill must be horrific. Not to mention all the time you spend trawling said papers you dont like to find nasty stories about people you do like." A bit if topic but just had to say, what a totally fantastic arse. Is it yours or the other half's? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. He really doesn't have much choice if he wants to do the job of Leader of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition. As a republican he may not like doing it but, from a moral and legal point of view, it should not be much of a problem: After all the oath of loyalty is to the sovereign and her successors UNDER LAW. If Britain did become a republic then the Queen's successors Under Law would whoever the new constitution decided was the Head of State. Jeremy may have a mandate from the Labour party to lead them but he currently does not have a mandate from the British people to change the constitution. If he ever wants to get that mandate from the British people he's going to have work within the constitution as it currently is. I'ts required if he wants to be a Privy Councillor..and yes he did have a choice...that's what principals and integrity are about, he made that choice when he divorced his second wife....Trident and the EU to follow? The reason the leader of the opposition becomes a privy councillor is to enable them to be privy to state secrets such as plans for military action and enable them to be fully abreast of the facts so that they can challenge the plans with the correct vigour in parliament. If he is willing to do something unsavoury to his principles so that he can fulfil his role as leader of the opposition and hold the government to account properly he should be praised not censured. He is making personal sacrifices to be able to fulfil his duty to the country. I think the level of carping about the man is pathetic. I am not a labour supporter in any way and not a massive corbynite either but for the love of god the level of debate around him in the past few weeks has hit a new nadir even by British political standards. The arguments are so transparent and the carping so hypocritical and badly researched as to be an embarrassment to the dead eyed automatons who wheel this crap out in any public forum they can. Think you are missing the point about Corbyn and his principals....Most of the hype around his selection as leader has centred around his personal and political integrity as compared to those of New Labour, positions he has strongly held during his time as MP. New Labour's project, and let's not forget brought them three GE, was to compromise some of Labour's traditional values. There argument was little could be done in opposition, and they made no secret of this to the party or electorate. Some people might call that courageous. Six months ago Jeremy Corbyn was a Labour back bencher who was known for his forthright views on NATO, the EU, Trident, wild cat strikes and Palestine. Views that you and I know are unlikely to win another GE for Labour, probably leaving the Tories in power until 2025. So if he's courageous enough to compromise his views on the Monarchy will he do the same with NATO, EU et al. Of course he will....fine by me.....but please, please let him be honest about it. With respect I think you may be missing a point. He is the leader. He is not the sole mind and dictator. He is leading a party which holds different views and he has the guts to stand and acknowledge that. He also has the wisdom to allow his colleague's views to be heard and argued even when he does not agree. Therefore how can he possibly after one day in charge say what the party's view on a range of complex issues is going to be? With respect are you suggesting that a man who has maintained such polar opposite opinions to most of his colleagues will now listen to them for any other reason than political expediency...he has openly despised the PR machines, and yet there he is having his hair rearranged...was he wise enough to listen to his 2nd wife's different opinion..No, he divorced her. I don't have a problem with him being politically pragmatic...I hope he does halt the inertia crippling the Labour party. My problem is the moral high ground, the deification, the attitude amongst supporters that he is a saviour, that he is without sin. Have been around long enough to know that no politician can live up to that kind of expectation, those utopian dreams. From mass adulation and DReam in '97 to war criminal, and class traitor in 2015. It's not the media, or the establishment who will crucify him, it will be his supporters. He is a human being, ultimately a political human being " As his supporters don't worship him with the hysterical fervour that you describe, that will not be the case at all. Unless you are talking about the media's depiction of his supporters...that might fit with what you've written. But again, as they exist in this way purely within the realm of the imaginations of the reporters who describe such things and the people who swallow those descriptions whole, it's very unlikely. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I have said before There are only two good politicians------ One who's not been born yet -- One who's dead--" You may have said it before but you didn't need to say it twice.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. He really doesn't have much choice if he wants to do the job of Leader of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition. As a republican he may not like doing it but, from a moral and legal point of view, it should not be much of a problem: After all the oath of loyalty is to the sovereign and her successors UNDER LAW. If Britain did become a republic then the Queen's successors Under Law would whoever the new constitution decided was the Head of State. Jeremy may have a mandate from the Labour party to lead them but he currently does not have a mandate from the British people to change the constitution. If he ever wants to get that mandate from the British people he's going to have work within the constitution as it currently is. I'ts required if he wants to be a Privy Councillor..and yes he did have a choice...that's what principals and integrity are about, he made that choice when he divorced his second wife....Trident and the EU to follow? The reason the leader of the opposition becomes a privy councillor is to enable them to be privy to state secrets such as plans for military action and enable them to be fully abreast of the facts so that they can challenge the plans with the correct vigour in parliament. If he is willing to do something unsavoury to his principles so that he can fulfil his role as leader of the opposition and hold the government to account properly he should be praised not censured. He is making personal sacrifices to be able to fulfil his duty to the country. I think the level of carping about the man is pathetic. I am not a labour supporter in any way and not a massive corbynite either but for the love of god the level of debate around him in the past few weeks has hit a new nadir even by British political standards. The arguments are so transparent and the carping so hypocritical and badly researched as to be an embarrassment to the dead eyed automatons who wheel this crap out in any public forum they can. Think you are missing the point about Corbyn and his principals....Most of the hype around his selection as leader has centred around his personal and political integrity as compared to those of New Labour, positions he has strongly held during his time as MP. New Labour's project, and let's not forget brought them three GE, was to compromise some of Labour's traditional values. There argument was little could be done in opposition, and they made no secret of this to the party or electorate. Some people might call that courageous. Six months ago Jeremy Corbyn was a Labour back bencher who was known for his forthright views on NATO, the EU, Trident, wild cat strikes and Palestine. Views that you and I know are unlikely to win another GE for Labour, probably leaving the Tories in power until 2025. So if he's courageous enough to compromise his views on the Monarchy will he do the same with NATO, EU et al. Of course he will....fine by me.....but please, please let him be honest about it. With respect I think you may be missing a point. He is the leader. He is not the sole mind and dictator. He is leading a party which holds different views and he has the guts to stand and acknowledge that. He also has the wisdom to allow his colleague's views to be heard and argued even when he does not agree. Therefore how can he possibly after one day in charge say what the party's view on a range of complex issues is going to be? With respect are you suggesting that a man who has maintained such polar opposite opinions to most of his colleagues will now listen to them for any other reason than political expediency...he has openly despised the PR machines, and yet there he is having his hair rearranged...was he wise enough to listen to his 2nd wife's different opinion..No, he divorced her. I don't have a problem with him being politically pragmatic...I hope he does halt the inertia crippling the Labour party. My problem is the moral high ground, the deification, the attitude amongst supporters that he is a saviour, that he is without sin. Have been around long enough to know that no politician can live up to that kind of expectation, those utopian dreams. From mass adulation and DReam in '97 to war criminal, and class traitor in 2015. It's not the media, or the establishment who will crucify him, it will be his supporters. He is a human being, ultimately a political human being As his supporters don't worship him with the hysterical fervour that you describe, that will not be the case at all. Unless you are talking about the media's depiction of his supporters...that might fit with what you've written. But again, as they exist in this way purely within the realm of the imaginations of the reporters who describe such things and the people who swallow those descriptions whole, it's very unlikely." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. He really doesn't have much choice if he wants to do the job of Leader of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition. As a republican he may not like doing it but, from a moral and legal point of view, it should not be much of a problem: After all the oath of loyalty is to the sovereign and her successors UNDER LAW. If Britain did become a republic then the Queen's successors Under Law would whoever the new constitution decided was the Head of State. Jeremy may have a mandate from the Labour party to lead them but he currently does not have a mandate from the British people to change the constitution. If he ever wants to get that mandate from the British people he's going to have work within the constitution as it currently is. I'ts required if he wants to be a Privy Councillor..and yes he did have a choice...that's what principals and integrity are about, he made that choice when he divorced his second wife....Trident and the EU to follow? The reason the leader of the opposition becomes a privy councillor is to enable them to be privy to state secrets such as plans for military action and enable them to be fully abreast of the facts so that they can challenge the plans with the correct vigour in parliament. If he is willing to do something unsavoury to his principles so that he can fulfil his role as leader of the opposition and hold the government to account properly he should be praised not censured. He is making personal sacrifices to be able to fulfil his duty to the country. I think the level of carping about the man is pathetic. I am not a labour supporter in any way and not a massive corbynite either but for the love of god the level of debate around him in the past few weeks has hit a new nadir even by British political standards. The arguments are so transparent and the carping so hypocritical and badly researched as to be an embarrassment to the dead eyed automatons who wheel this crap out in any public forum they can." Well said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. He really doesn't have much choice if he wants to do the job of Leader of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition. As a republican he may not like doing it but, from a moral and legal point of view, it should not be much of a problem: After all the oath of loyalty is to the sovereign and her successors UNDER LAW. If Britain did become a republic then the Queen's successors Under Law would whoever the new constitution decided was the Head of State. Jeremy may have a mandate from the Labour party to lead them but he currently does not have a mandate from the British people to change the constitution. If he ever wants to get that mandate from the British people he's going to have work within the constitution as it currently is. I'ts required if he wants to be a Privy Councillor..and yes he did have a choice...that's what principals and integrity are about, he made that choice when he divorced his second wife....Trident and the EU to follow? The reason the leader of the opposition becomes a privy councillor is to enable them to be privy to state secrets such as plans for military action and enable them to be fully abreast of the facts so that they can challenge the plans with the correct vigour in parliament. If he is willing to do something unsavoury to his principles so that he can fulfil his role as leader of the opposition and hold the government to account properly he should be praised not censured. He is making personal sacrifices to be able to fulfil his duty to the country. I think the level of carping about the man is pathetic. I am not a labour supporter in any way and not a massive corbynite either but for the love of god the level of debate around him in the past few weeks has hit a new nadir even by British political standards. The arguments are so transparent and the carping so hypocritical and badly researched as to be an embarrassment to the dead eyed automatons who wheel this crap out in any public forum they can. Think you are missing the point about Corbyn and his principals....Most of the hype around his selection as leader has centred around his personal and political integrity as compared to those of New Labour, positions he has strongly held during his time as MP. New Labour's project, and let's not forget brought them three GE, was to compromise some of Labour's traditional values. There argument was little could be done in opposition, and they made no secret of this to the party or electorate. Some people might call that courageous. Six months ago Jeremy Corbyn was a Labour back bencher who was known for his forthright views on NATO, the EU, Trident, wild cat strikes and Palestine. Views that you and I know are unlikely to win another GE for Labour, probably leaving the Tories in power until 2025. So if he's courageous enough to compromise his views on the Monarchy will he do the same with NATO, EU et al. Of course he will....fine by me.....but please, please let him be honest about it. With respect I think you may be missing a point. He is the leader. He is not the sole mind and dictator. He is leading a party which holds different views and he has the guts to stand and acknowledge that. He also has the wisdom to allow his colleague's views to be heard and argued even when he does not agree. Therefore how can he possibly after one day in charge say what the party's view on a range of complex issues is going to be? With respect are you suggesting that a man who has maintained such polar opposite opinions to most of his colleagues will now listen to them for any other reason than political expediency...he has openly despised the PR machines, and yet there he is having his hair rearranged...was he wise enough to listen to his 2nd wife's different opinion..No, he divorced her. I don't have a problem with him being politically pragmatic...I hope he does halt the inertia crippling the Labour party. My problem is the moral high ground, the deification, the attitude amongst supporters that he is a saviour, that he is without sin. Have been around long enough to know that no politician can live up to that kind of expectation, those utopian dreams. From mass adulation and DReam in '97 to war criminal, and class traitor in 2015. It's not the media, or the establishment who will crucify him, it will be his supporters. He is a human being, ultimately a political human being " I think, to be fair, let's hold judgment on him until he actually starts to say and do something. I doubt I'll ever agree with his political direction and motivation but I don't really know about his integrity yet; on that I'll give him the benefit of the doubt but he has left himself a bit of a hostage to fortune by some of the things he's said in the past. I think it's a bit unreasonable to call him a dangerous left winger unfit for office if he stands fully by his principles but if he compromises in any way to say he's totally unprincipled and therefore totally unfit for office. Personally I probably will not be getting to overly involved with the personal character assassination. I'm pretty sure he will be defeated on his policies alone when they become clear. And I don't really go in for personally attacks against anybody, regardless who they are. On the other hand I do think you're probably right about his current supporter being the ones who will do most of the character assassination when he either can't deliver what they want or compromises in order to deliver some of it. They do have past form in this area. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. He really doesn't have much choice if he wants to do the job of Leader of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition. As a republican he may not like doing it but, from a moral and legal point of view, it should not be much of a problem: After all the oath of loyalty is to the sovereign and her successors UNDER LAW. If Britain did become a republic then the Queen's successors Under Law would whoever the new constitution decided was the Head of State. Jeremy may have a mandate from the Labour party to lead them but he currently does not have a mandate from the British people to change the constitution. If he ever wants to get that mandate from the British people he's going to have work within the constitution as it currently is. I'ts required if he wants to be a Privy Councillor..and yes he did have a choice...that's what principals and integrity are about, he made that choice when he divorced his second wife....Trident and the EU to follow? The reason the leader of the opposition becomes a privy councillor is to enable them to be privy to state secrets such as plans for military action and enable them to be fully abreast of the facts so that they can challenge the plans with the correct vigour in parliament. If he is willing to do something unsavoury to his principles so that he can fulfil his role as leader of the opposition and hold the government to account properly he should be praised not censured. He is making personal sacrifices to be able to fulfil his duty to the country. I think the level of carping about the man is pathetic. I am not a labour supporter in any way and not a massive corbynite either but for the love of god the level of debate around him in the past few weeks has hit a new nadir even by British political standards. The arguments are so transparent and the carping so hypocritical and badly researched as to be an embarrassment to the dead eyed automatons who wheel this crap out in any public forum they can. Think you are missing the point about Corbyn and his principals....Most of the hype around his selection as leader has centred around his personal and political integrity as compared to those of New Labour, positions he has strongly held during his time as MP. New Labour's project, and let's not forget brought them three GE, was to compromise some of Labour's traditional values. There argument was little could be done in opposition, and they made no secret of this to the party or electorate. Some people might call that courageous. Six months ago Jeremy Corbyn was a Labour back bencher who was known for his forthright views on NATO, the EU, Trident, wild cat strikes and Palestine. Views that you and I know are unlikely to win another GE for Labour, probably leaving the Tories in power until 2025. So if he's courageous enough to compromise his views on the Monarchy will he do the same with NATO, EU et al. Of course he will....fine by me.....but please, please let him be honest about it. With respect I think you may be missing a point. He is the leader. He is not the sole mind and dictator. He is leading a party which holds different views and he has the guts to stand and acknowledge that. He also has the wisdom to allow his colleague's views to be heard and argued even when he does not agree. Therefore how can he possibly after one day in charge say what the party's view on a range of complex issues is going to be? With respect are you suggesting that a man who has maintained such polar opposite opinions to most of his colleagues will now listen to them for any other reason than political expediency...he has openly despised the PR machines, and yet there he is having his hair rearranged...was he wise enough to listen to his 2nd wife's different opinion..No, he divorced her. I don't have a problem with him being politically pragmatic...I hope he does halt the inertia crippling the Labour party. My problem is the moral high ground, the deification, the attitude amongst supporters that he is a saviour, that he is without sin. Have been around long enough to know that no politician can live up to that kind of expectation, those utopian dreams. From mass adulation and DReam in '97 to war criminal, and class traitor in 2015. It's not the media, or the establishment who will crucify him, it will be his supporters. He is a human being, ultimately a political human being As his supporters don't worship him with the hysterical fervour that you describe, that will not be the case at all. Unless you are talking about the media's depiction of his supporters...that might fit with what you've written. But again, as they exist in this way purely within the realm of the imaginations of the reporters who describe such things and the people who swallow those descriptions whole, it's very unlikely." Have you been to any of his meetings?...have you read posts in The Guardian?..I have done both..and with due deference to your obvious knowledge me and my ability to swallow yours is exactly the kind of post that cover their ears and shout...Corbyn to his credit has said himself that he divorced his wife for ideological reasons re his son's education..it is well documented. That is the truth...no matter how much stupid stuff is printed in the anti Corbyn media..the fact remains that he will, as they all do, compromise his hitherto trenchant positions because of political expediency. Please note that even though I might think your opinions are politically naive I haven't resorted to saying you are any less bright, informed, or worthy. I left that kind of stuff after University. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. He really doesn't have much choice if he wants to do the job of Leader of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition. As a republican he may not like doing it but, from a moral and legal point of view, it should not be much of a problem: After all the oath of loyalty is to the sovereign and her successors UNDER LAW. If Britain did become a republic then the Queen's successors Under Law would whoever the new constitution decided was the Head of State. Jeremy may have a mandate from the Labour party to lead them but he currently does not have a mandate from the British people to change the constitution. If he ever wants to get that mandate from the British people he's going to have work within the constitution as it currently is. I'ts required if he wants to be a Privy Councillor..and yes he did have a choice...that's what principals and integrity are about, he made that choice when he divorced his second wife....Trident and the EU to follow? The reason the leader of the opposition becomes a privy councillor is to enable them to be privy to state secrets such as plans for military action and enable them to be fully abreast of the facts so that they can challenge the plans with the correct vigour in parliament. If he is willing to do something unsavoury to his principles so that he can fulfil his role as leader of the opposition and hold the government to account properly he should be praised not censured. He is making personal sacrifices to be able to fulfil his duty to the country. I think the level of carping about the man is pathetic. I am not a labour supporter in any way and not a massive corbynite either but for the love of god the level of debate around him in the past few weeks has hit a new nadir even by British political standards. The arguments are so transparent and the carping so hypocritical and badly researched as to be an embarrassment to the dead eyed automatons who wheel this crap out in any public forum they can. Think you are missing the point about Corbyn and his principals....Most of the hype around his selection as leader has centred around his personal and political integrity as compared to those of New Labour, positions he has strongly held during his time as MP. New Labour's project, and let's not forget brought them three GE, was to compromise some of Labour's traditional values. There argument was little could be done in opposition, and they made no secret of this to the party or electorate. Some people might call that courageous. Six months ago Jeremy Corbyn was a Labour back bencher who was known for his forthright views on NATO, the EU, Trident, wild cat strikes and Palestine. Views that you and I know are unlikely to win another GE for Labour, probably leaving the Tories in power until 2025. So if he's courageous enough to compromise his views on the Monarchy will he do the same with NATO, EU et al. Of course he will....fine by me.....but please, please let him be honest about it. With respect I think you may be missing a point. He is the leader. He is not the sole mind and dictator. He is leading a party which holds different views and he has the guts to stand and acknowledge that. He also has the wisdom to allow his colleague's views to be heard and argued even when he does not agree. Therefore how can he possibly after one day in charge say what the party's view on a range of complex issues is going to be? With respect are you suggesting that a man who has maintained such polar opposite opinions to most of his colleagues will now listen to them for any other reason than political expediency...he has openly despised the PR machines, and yet there he is having his hair rearranged...was he wise enough to listen to his 2nd wife's different opinion..No, he divorced her. I don't have a problem with him being politically pragmatic...I hope he does halt the inertia crippling the Labour party. My problem is the moral high ground, the deification, the attitude amongst supporters that he is a saviour, that he is without sin. Have been around long enough to know that no politician can live up to that kind of expectation, those utopian dreams. From mass adulation and DReam in '97 to war criminal, and class traitor in 2015. It's not the media, or the establishment who will crucify him, it will be his supporters. He is a human being, ultimately a political human being As his supporters don't worship him with the hysterical fervour that you describe, that will not be the case at all. Unless you are talking about the media's depiction of his supporters...that might fit with what you've written. But again, as they exist in this way purely within the realm of the imaginations of the reporters who describe such things and the people who swallow those descriptions whole, it's very unlikely. Have you been to any of his meetings?...have you read posts in The Guardian?..I have done both..and with due deference to your obvious knowledge me and my ability to swallow yours is exactly the kind of post that cover their ears and shout...Corbyn to his credit has said himself that he divorced his wife for ideological reasons re his son's education..it is well documented. That is the truth...no matter how much stupid stuff is printed in the anti Corbyn media..the fact remains that he will, as they all do, compromise his hitherto trenchant positions because of political expediency. Please note that even though I might think your opinions are politically naive I haven't resorted to saying you are any less bright, informed, or worthy. I left that kind of stuff after University." To be fair, you're not really in a position to do so, even if you wanted to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Please note that even though I might think your opinions are politically naive I haven't resorted to saying you are any less bright, informed, or worthy. I left that kind of stuff after University. To be fair, you're not really in a position to do so, even if you wanted to. "Neither are you but it doesn't seem to stop you, which is a shame because it really detracts from some of the better argument and points you sometimes make. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. He really doesn't have much choice if he wants to do the job of Leader of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition. As a republican he may not like doing it but, from a moral and legal point of view, it should not be much of a problem: After all the oath of loyalty is to the sovereign and her successors UNDER LAW. If Britain did become a republic then the Queen's successors Under Law would whoever the new constitution decided was the Head of State. Jeremy may have a mandate from the Labour party to lead them but he currently does not have a mandate from the British people to change the constitution. If he ever wants to get that mandate from the British people he's going to have work within the constitution as it currently is. I'ts required if he wants to be a Privy Councillor..and yes he did have a choice...that's what principals and integrity are about, he made that choice when he divorced his second wife....Trident and the EU to follow? The reason the leader of the opposition becomes a privy councillor is to enable them to be privy to state secrets such as plans for military action and enable them to be fully abreast of the facts so that they can challenge the plans with the correct vigour in parliament. If he is willing to do something unsavoury to his principles so that he can fulfil his role as leader of the opposition and hold the government to account properly he should be praised not censured. He is making personal sacrifices to be able to fulfil his duty to the country. I think the level of carping about the man is pathetic. I am not a labour supporter in any way and not a massive corbynite either but for the love of god the level of debate around him in the past few weeks has hit a new nadir even by British political standards. The arguments are so transparent and the carping so hypocritical and badly researched as to be an embarrassment to the dead eyed automatons who wheel this crap out in any public forum they can. Think you are missing the point about Corbyn and his principals....Most of the hype around his selection as leader has centred around his personal and political integrity as compared to those of New Labour, positions he has strongly held during his time as MP. New Labour's project, and let's not forget brought them three GE, was to compromise some of Labour's traditional values. There argument was little could be done in opposition, and they made no secret of this to the party or electorate. Some people might call that courageous. Six months ago Jeremy Corbyn was a Labour back bencher who was known for his forthright views on NATO, the EU, Trident, wild cat strikes and Palestine. Views that you and I know are unlikely to win another GE for Labour, probably leaving the Tories in power until 2025. So if he's courageous enough to compromise his views on the Monarchy will he do the same with NATO, EU et al. Of course he will....fine by me.....but please, please let him be honest about it. With respect I think you may be missing a point. He is the leader. He is not the sole mind and dictator. He is leading a party which holds different views and he has the guts to stand and acknowledge that. He also has the wisdom to allow his colleague's views to be heard and argued even when he does not agree. Therefore how can he possibly after one day in charge say what the party's view on a range of complex issues is going to be? With respect are you suggesting that a man who has maintained such polar opposite opinions to most of his colleagues will now listen to them for any other reason than political expediency...he has openly despised the PR machines, and yet there he is having his hair rearranged...was he wise enough to listen to his 2nd wife's different opinion..No, he divorced her. I don't have a problem with him being politically pragmatic...I hope he does halt the inertia crippling the Labour party. My problem is the moral high ground, the deification, the attitude amongst supporters that he is a saviour, that he is without sin. Have been around long enough to know that no politician can live up to that kind of expectation, those utopian dreams. From mass adulation and DReam in '97 to war criminal, and class traitor in 2015. It's not the media, or the establishment who will crucify him, it will be his supporters. He is a human being, ultimately a political human being As his supporters don't worship him with the hysterical fervour that you describe, that will not be the case at all. Unless you are talking about the media's depiction of his supporters...that might fit with what you've written. But again, as they exist in this way purely within the realm of the imaginations of the reporters who describe such things and the people who swallow those descriptions whole, it's very unlikely. Have you been to any of his meetings?...have you read posts in The Guardian?..I have done both..and with due deference to your obvious knowledge me and my ability to swallow yours is exactly the kind of post that cover their ears and shout...Corbyn to his credit has said himself that he divorced his wife for ideological reasons re his son's education..it is well documented. That is the truth...no matter how much stupid stuff is printed in the anti Corbyn media..the fact remains that he will, as they all do, compromise his hitherto trenchant positions because of political expediency. Please note that even though I might think your opinions are politically naive I haven't resorted to saying you are any less bright, informed, or worthy. I left that kind of stuff after University. To be fair, you're not really in a position to do so, even if you wanted to. "To be fair..if I wanted to it wouldn't be fair..I'm just a softy really. To be fair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the people on phones, any chance of you cutting the amount you quote so they don't have to scroll and scroll and scrollllll" I'd also like all the vowels to be purple so in really long quotes, those of us with small brains can spot pretty patterns. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" To be fair..if I wanted to it wouldn't be fair..I'm just a softy really. To be fair. " To be really fair the thing that is most unfair today is that I'm outside your age range.
But I guess that's just one of lifes many unfairness's that I'm just going to have to live with.
Great pics BTW. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Oh dear... what makes me think there's a train wreck heading our way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can't debate without getting petty digs in then then please don't post at all" Fancy a fuck? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can't debate without getting petty digs in then then please don't post at all Fancy a fuck? "It's a yes from me. He he. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can't debate without getting petty digs in then then please don't post at all Fancy a fuck?
It's a yes from me. He he."I hope you're a taker. Ben | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As a Labour supporter myself, I would rather see a Labour government, than a strong Labour opposition. And I would much rather see a strong Labour opposition with genuine socialist principals than a Labour government with no principals except for those that they borrowed from the Tories. I think a Labour government would be better for this country, it seems as though you disagree. It appears you would rather the Labour party was screaming objections from the opposition than actually making the decision and leading the country. There are many many Tories that would also love to see that happen
A Labour government is just words. I would have hated to see Labour in power after the last election, just as much as I hate to see the Tories in power now. They are two sides of the same coin.
On the other hand, a Corbyn-style Labour government would be one that would genuinely benefit the people of this country...and it's one we have a very good chance of seeing, in my opinion. Even if we don't, his party will be dragging things onto the national agenda that neither the Tories or 'New' Labour want to see discussed. It's win-win.
How do you know a Corbyn-style Labour government would be one that would genuinely benefit the people of this country?
He's only just assembled his team, let alone announced his manifesto. Talk about wishful thinking.
I think you mean "hope", not "would".
I hope he provides a genuine challenge to government, a robust challenge is essential to politics.
His political beliefs are well documented. Unless his manifesto is going to be the opposite of what he has stood for for his entire life, it's a safe assumption.
I can counterpoint that with our current government, whose polices are documented to be responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands...well, let's just say my conscience is clear.
Although his beliefs are well documented that's as a backbencher.
He may find that as leader he has the voices of many others to consider before setting out his manifesto.
What is announced as the way foward may not be wholly in line with his beliefs.
Unless of course you feel he may ride roughshod over his party and advisors and do it his way.
'May not be wholly in line with his beliefs' is a million miles away from what you previously described as 'wishful thinking'.
Make your mind up. "I believe if you read through the conversation again you'll understand that I was suggesting you were engaging in wishful thinking.
My mind is made up. I'm going to give him time. I don't like what I've read about his policies and beliefs. I'm going to give him time to show us what he's made of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As JC himself said, more people voted for him in the leadership election than the Conservative party has members." That's quite a low bar these days, don't you think? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As JC himself said, more people voted for him in the leadership election than the Conservative party has members." Another little stat, the number of people who voted for Corbyn in the leadership election represents less than half a percent of the total population of Britain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many leaders of political parties win the race by such a margin not many at all. I am old school and think formyself and not by whst papers say. Whether he is any good time will tell but why not try a different tack re austerity etc he is correct in that the bankers who caused the meltdown have and comtinue to get off scot free and even still get whopping bonuses whilst the poor and vulnerable get battered from post to post so for me instead of just accepting without challenging old eton boy politics try a change. " You might be right but I'll wait to see what this new politics actually is offering before I make a final decision on it. And, not that it's really relevant but you brought it up first, JC was educated in a Private school to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As JC himself said, more people voted for him in the leadership election than the Conservative party has members. Another little stat, the number of people who voted for Corbyn in the leadership election represents less than half a percent of the total population of Britain. " You keep mentioning that all over the forum like you just worked it out and you think it has some significance. Bless! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many leaders of political parties win the race by such a margin not many at all. I am old school and think formyself and not by whst papers say. Whether he is any good time will tell but why not try a different tack re austerity etc he is correct in that the bankers who caused the meltdown have and comtinue to get off scot free and even still get whopping bonuses whilst the poor and vulnerable get battered from post to post so for me instead of just accepting without challenging old eton boy politics try a change. You might be right but I'll wait to see what this new politics actually is offering before I make a final decision on it. And, not that it's really relevant but you brought it up first, JC was educated in a Private school to." To what? Lead the Labour Party? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As JC himself said, more people voted for him in the leadership election than the Conservative party has members. Another little stat, the number of people who voted for Corbyn in the leadership election represents less than half a percent of the total population of Britain. You keep mentioning that all over the forum like you just worked it out and you think it has some significance. Bless! "Just trying to give you a reality check. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As JC himself said, more people voted for him in the leadership election than the Conservative party has members. Another little stat, the number of people who voted for Corbyn in the leadership election represents less than half a percent of the total population of Britain. You keep mentioning that all over the forum like you just worked it out and you think it has some significance. Bless!
Just trying to give you a reality check. "Come 2020, you Uskippers will be getting the biggest reality check imaginable. If the party still exists, that is. Has anyone found Nigel yet? He's been AWOL for about four months now, hasn't he? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a Labour supporter myself, I would rather see a Labour government, than a strong Labour opposition. " So is it all about brand then? Would you be happy to see the tories in power if they changed their name to "Labour"? Seems to me that the left should stand for something... and that something was not what Bliar stood for. Before Bliar got in power I was a potential Labour voter... then I realised that left right it's all the same... once in power they all become corrupt lap dancers to the rich and powerful... they all whistle the same tune. How many left wing voters did Bliar turn off like me? If I want a right wing government I'll vote for one... I won't vote Labour. That's the mistake Bliar made imo. He was the original Nick Clegg. He cut off his party's roots and its integrity and this that we're seeing now is finally the repercussions of that coming back to bite Labour in the arse
I'd rather Labour lost the next election then won it the election afterwards... but still kept to its core beliefs and its soul rather than exchanged them for a slice of power. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the people on phones, any chance of you cutting the amount you quote so they don't have to scroll and scroll and scrollllll I'd also like all the vowels to be purple so in really long quotes, those of us with small brains can spot pretty patterns. " I like that idea...I love the colour choice | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can't debate without getting petty digs in then then please don't post at all Fancy a fuck? "Not three hours ago no....I have since watched the Fireman and now fancy one though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As JC himself said, more people voted for him in the leadership election than the Conservative party has members. Another little stat, the number of people who voted for Corbyn in the leadership election represents less than half a percent of the total population of Britain. You keep mentioning that all over the forum like you just worked it out and you think it has some significance. Bless! "I think it's a pretty significant point actually. Bless. Patronising isn't it.
Even when you put a wink after the comment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can't debate without getting petty digs in then then please don't post at all Fancy a fuck?
Not three hours ago no....I have since watched the Fireman and now fancy one though "Bend over. Grit ya teeth. I'll fire up the 4x4 and be there in about 3 hours! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the people on phones, any chance of you cutting the amount you quote so they don't have to scroll and scroll and scrollllll I'd also like all the vowels to be purple so in really long quotes, those of us with small brains can spot pretty patterns. I like that idea...I love the colour choice "Steve is good with soft furnishings as well... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can't debate without getting petty digs in then then please don't post at all Fancy a fuck?
Not three hours ago no....I have since watched the Fireman and now fancy one though
Bend over. Grit ya teeth. I'll fire up the 4x4 and be there in about 3 hours!"Ok...wake me up if I am asleep but don't wake Mr ruggers as he has to be up by 6 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can't debate without getting petty digs in then then please don't post at all Fancy a fuck?
Not three hours ago no....I have since watched the Fireman and now fancy one though
Bend over. Grit ya teeth. I'll fire up the 4x4 and be there in about 3 hours!
Ok...wake me up if I am asleep but don't wake Mr ruggers as he has to be up by 6 "Deal. Im a quiet cummer anyway!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can't debate without getting petty digs in then then please don't post at all Fancy a fuck?
Not three hours ago no....I have since watched the Fireman and now fancy one though
Bend over. Grit ya teeth. I'll fire up the 4x4 and be there in about 3 hours!
Ok...wake me up if I am asleep but don't wake Mr ruggers as he has to be up by 6
Deal. Im a quiet cummer anyway! "I had you down as a grunter, I like a grunter....ok turn back, I am disappointed now ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can't debate without getting petty digs in then then please don't post at all Fancy a fuck?
Not three hours ago no....I have since watched the Fireman and now fancy one though
Bend over. Grit ya teeth. I'll fire up the 4x4 and be there in about 3 hours!
Ok...wake me up if I am asleep but don't wake Mr ruggers as he has to be up by 6
Deal. Im a quiet cummer anyway!
I had you down as a grunter, I like a grunter....ok turn back, I am disappointed now !"I cant fecking win. What if grunting wakes up Mr Ruggers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can't debate without getting petty digs in then then please don't post at all Fancy a fuck?
Not three hours ago no....I have since watched the Fireman and now fancy one though
Bend over. Grit ya teeth. I'll fire up the 4x4 and be there in about 3 hours!
Ok...wake me up if I am asleep but don't wake Mr ruggers as he has to be up by 6
Deal. Im a quiet cummer anyway!
I had you down as a grunter, I like a grunter....ok turn back, I am disappointed now !
I cant fecking win. What if grunting wakes up Mr Ruggers?"I am female, men never win with females | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can't debate without getting petty digs in then then please don't post at all Fancy a fuck?
Not three hours ago no....I have since watched the Fireman and now fancy one though
Bend over. Grit ya teeth. I'll fire up the 4x4 and be there in about 3 hours!
Ok...wake me up if I am asleep but don't wake Mr ruggers as he has to be up by 6
Deal. Im a quiet cummer anyway!
I had you down as a grunter, I like a grunter....ok turn back, I am disappointed now !
I cant fecking win. What if grunting wakes up Mr Ruggers?
I am female, men never win with females "Tell me about it. Ive been divorced 3 times! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As JC himself said, more people voted for him in the leadership election than the Conservative party has members. Another little stat, the number of people who voted for Corbyn in the leadership election represents less than half a percent of the total population of Britain. You keep mentioning that all over the forum like you just worked it out and you think it has some significance. Bless!
I think it's a pretty significant point actually.
Bless.
Patronising isn't it.
Even when you put a wink after the comment."It doesn't really work when you try it, though. You know why. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can't debate without getting petty digs in then then please don't post at all Fancy a fuck?
Not three hours ago no....I have since watched the Fireman and now fancy one though
Bend over. Grit ya teeth. I'll fire up the 4x4 and be there in about 3 hours!"I can be there in about 60 mins. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can't debate without getting petty digs in then then please don't post at all Fancy a fuck?
Not three hours ago no....I have since watched the Fireman and now fancy one though
Bend over. Grit ya teeth. I'll fire up the 4x4 and be there in about 3 hours!
I can be there in about 60 mins. "Yeah. But can you; A. Grunt B. Do the GentlemanBen speciality penis movement? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the people on phones, any chance of you cutting the amount you quote so they don't have to scroll and scroll and scrollllll I'd also like all the vowels to be purple so in really long quotes, those of us with small brains can spot pretty patterns. I like that idea...I love the colour choice
Steve is good with soft furnishings as well... "It's called style, mate  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the people on phones, any chance of you cutting the amount you quote so they don't have to scroll and scroll and scrollllll I'd also like all the vowels to be purple so in really long quotes, those of us with small brains can spot pretty patterns. I like that idea...I love the colour choice
Steve is good with soft furnishings as well...
It's called style, mate "Or ghey | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anti fracking... Populist Anti royalty.... No bothered Anti nukes.... Crazy Anti NATO.... Daft Anti EU without series reform.... Aren't they all Pro Palestinian... Check Pro secular state... Who isn't Pro people QE... Irrelevant Pro banking regulation.. As is everyone else Pro state owned essential services.. Daft He's not got my vote yet but good in parts " . Sighhhh. I'll give you a clue to one point Anti royalty... Not bothered? Pro secular state... Who isn't? Think about it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you can't debate without getting petty digs in then then please don't post at all Fancy a fuck?
Not three hours ago no....I have since watched the Fireman and now fancy one though
Bend over. Grit ya teeth. I'll fire up the 4x4 and be there in about 3 hours!
I can be there in about 60 mins.
Yeah. But can you;
A. Grunt
B. Do the GentlemanBen speciality penis movement?
"I can grunt with the best. Don't know about the GentlemanBen speciality penis movement, I'd have to see it to know, but when the Cracken is unleashed it's a site to bring tears to some women's eyes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the people on phones, any chance of you cutting the amount you quote so they don't have to scroll and scroll and scrollllll I'd also like all the vowels to be purple so in really long quotes, those of us with small brains can spot pretty patterns. I like that idea...I love the colour choice
Steve is good with soft furnishings as well...
It's called style, mate
Or ghey " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anti fracking... Populist Anti royalty.... No bothered Anti nukes.... Crazy Anti NATO.... Daft Anti EU without series reform.... Aren't they all Pro Palestinian... Check Pro secular state... Who isn't Pro people QE... Irrelevant Pro banking regulation.. As is everyone else Pro state owned essential services.. Daft He's not got my vote yet but good in parts . Sighhhh. I'll give you a clue to one point Anti royalty... Not bothered? Pro secular state... Who isn't? Think about it" Are you making the heinous accusation that our head of state is not directly descended from the gods?!?!?!? How Dare You!!!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As JC himself said, more people voted for him in the leadership election than the Conservative party has members. Another little stat, the number of people who voted for Corbyn in the leadership election represents less than half a percent of the total population of Britain. You keep mentioning that all over the forum like you just worked it out and you think it has some significance. Bless!
Just trying to give you a reality check.
Come 2020, you Uskippers will be getting the biggest reality check imaginable. If the party still exists, that is. Has anyone found Nigel yet? He's been AWOL for about four months now, hasn't he?"Seeing as you mention UKIP, newsnight on BBC 2 just did a section on Labour voters who switched over to UKIP at the last general election. Most of them said they would not vote for Corbyn. Reasons given were Corbyn Is pro Unlimited Immigration, Wants To Leave Nato, wants to cut defence spending and wants to scrap trident. Good luck with gaining those voters back, lol. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anti fracking... Populist Anti royalty.... No bothered Anti nukes.... Crazy Anti NATO.... Daft Anti EU without series reform.... Aren't they all Pro Palestinian... Check Pro secular state... Who isn't Pro people QE... Irrelevant Pro banking regulation.. As is everyone else Pro state owned essential services.. Daft He's not got my vote yet but good in parts . Sighhhh. I'll give you a clue to one point Anti royalty... Not bothered? Pro secular state... Who isn't? Think about it Are you making the heinous accusation that our head of state is not directly descended from the gods?!?!?!? How Dare You!!! "I thought she was just a direct decent, with traceable ancestry, back to Adam & Eve. Still not overly bothered. Not a republican or a royalist but happy to keep the Status quo for now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As JC himself said, more people voted for him in the leadership election than the Conservative party has members. Another little stat, the number of people who voted for Corbyn in the leadership election represents less than half a percent of the total population of Britain. You keep mentioning that all over the forum like you just worked it out and you think it has some significance. Bless!
Just trying to give you a reality check.
Come 2020, you Uskippers will be getting the biggest reality check imaginable. If the party still exists, that is. Has anyone found Nigel yet? He's been AWOL for about four months now, hasn't he?
Seeing as you mention UKIP, newsnight on BBC 2 just did a section on Labour voters who switched over to UKIP at the last general election. Most of them said they would not vote for Corbyn. Reasons given were Corbyn Is pro Unlimited Immigration, Wants To Leave Nato, wants to cut defence spending and wants to scrap trident. Good luck with gaining those voters back, lol. "But he is Euro skeptic so there is some common ground between you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"..... Are you making the heinous accusation that our head of state is not directly descended from the gods?!?!?!? How Dare You!!!
I thought she was just a direct decent, with traceable ancestry, back to Adam & Eve.
Still not overly bothered. Not a republican or a royalist but happy to keep the Status quo for now."Maybe she'll offer a DNA sample. There seems doubt she's related to Richard III. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"..... Are you making the heinous accusation that our head of state is not directly descended from the gods?!?!?!? How Dare You!!!
I thought she was just a direct decent, with traceable ancestry, back to Adam & Eve.
Still not overly bothered. Not a republican or a royalist but happy to keep the Status quo for now.
Maybe she'll offer a DNA sample. There seems doubt she's related to Richard III."She's probably closer related to Hitler | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"..... Are you making the heinous accusation that our head of state is not directly descended from the gods?!?!?!? How Dare You!!!
I thought she was just a direct decent, with traceable ancestry, back to Adam & Eve.
Still not overly bothered. Not a republican or a royalist but happy to keep the Status quo for now.
Maybe she'll offer a DNA sample. There seems doubt she's related to Richard III.
She's probably closer related to Hitler "You can only see her moustache in certain lights. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As JC himself said, more people voted for him in the leadership election than the Conservative party has members. Another little stat, the number of people who voted for Corbyn in the leadership election represents less than half a percent of the total population of Britain. You keep mentioning that all over the forum like you just worked it out and you think it has some significance. Bless!
I think it's a pretty significant point actually.
Bless.
Patronising isn't it.
Even when you put a wink after the comment.
It doesn't really work when you try it, though.
You know why. "Perhaps it's because I'm not patronising. Which is fine by me. In any case, you seem to have cornered the market...... wink. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"..... Are you making the heinous accusation that our head of state is not directly descended from the gods?!?!?!? How Dare You!!!
I thought she was just a direct decent, with traceable ancestry, back to Adam & Eve.
Still not overly bothered. Not a republican or a royalist but happy to keep the Status quo for now.
Maybe she'll offer a DNA sample. There seems doubt she's related to Richard III.
She's probably closer related to Hitler
You can only see her moustache in certain lights."or in films of her doing the nazi salute as a child | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"..... Are you making the heinous accusation that our head of state is not directly descended from the gods?!?!?!? How Dare You!!!
I thought she was just a direct decent, with traceable ancestry, back to Adam & Eve.
Still not overly bothered. Not a republican or a royalist but happy to keep the Status quo for now.
Maybe she'll offer a DNA sample. There seems doubt she's related to Richard III.
She's probably closer related to Hitler
You can only see her moustache in certain lights.
or in films of her doing the nazi salute as a child "ummm!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As JC himself said, more people voted for him in the leadership election than the Conservative party has members. Another little stat, the number of people who voted for Corbyn in the leadership election represents less than half a percent of the total population of Britain. You keep mentioning that all over the forum like you just worked it out and you think it has some significance. Bless!
Just trying to give you a reality check.
Come 2020, you Uskippers will be getting the biggest reality check imaginable. If the party still exists, that is. Has anyone found Nigel yet? He's been AWOL for about four months now, hasn't he?
Seeing as you mention UKIP, newsnight on BBC 2 just did a section on Labour voters who switched over to UKIP at the last general election. Most of them said they would not vote for Corbyn. Reasons given were Corbyn Is pro Unlimited Immigration, Wants To Leave Nato, wants to cut defence spending and wants to scrap trident. Good luck with gaining those voters back, lol. "I think, especially if UKIP is no longer around which it might not be either way after the EU referendum, I think those votes are far more likely to switch to Conservative than a far more left wing Labour party. They might pick up some returners from the Greens I guess. But either way it will not make much difference. Picking up Green votes or UKIP votes in seats they already hold is only going to increase their majority in those seats. To win the general election they need to win seats held by the Conservatives, that means getting Conservative voters to switch to Labour. That's less likely to happen with a more left wing Labour party in 2020 than it was in 2015. And we know how that turned out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One of the first things Jeremy Corbyn brings is a potentially Euro sceptic stance. This already shows he could be a clever bastard. Lets face it... even if you're pro Europe and you know you're gonna vote to stay in... it still makes sense to threaten Brussels with not voting their way as it strengthens our hand at the negotiating table. A wet pro-Europe stance would've got us nothing. The real brains is in being anti-Europe until the last minute, getting the cherry on the cake, and then doing what you were always gonna do in the first place... vote pro-Europe. Well done Corby "So in essence, lie? Or are you going for the poker player view? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If it was the 2003 Iraq war that killed the Labour party, then why did they get elected again in 2007? " Didn't most of the issues with the Iraq war not start coming out until after 2007? The Chilcott enquiry, for instance, didn't start until 2009 I believe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The reason the leader of the opposition becomes a privy councillor is to enable them to be privy to state secrets such as plans for military action and enable them to be fully abreast of the facts so that they can challenge the plans with the correct vigour in parliament. If he is willing to do something unsavoury to his principles so that he can fulfil his role as leader of the opposition and hold the government to account properly he should be praised not censured. He is making personal sacrifices to be able to fulfil his duty to the country. I think the level of carping about the man is pathetic. I am not a labour supporter in any way and not a massive corbynite either but for the love of god the level of debate around him in the past few weeks has hit a new nadir even by British political standards. The arguments are so transparent and the carping so hypocritical and badly researched as to be an embarrassment to the dead eyed automatons who wheel this crap out in any public forum they can." Very good except your assumption that as a privy councillor he will have access to state secrets is wrong. He will be called when a committee is required to decide on an extension to a graveyard or for one of the many committees to pronounce on many mundane and not so mundane subjects. In most cases the Prime Minister chooses who attend a Privy Council meeting except for the very few occasions when the entire Privy Council meet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. He really doesn't have much choice if he wants to do the job of Leader of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition. As a republican he may not like doing it but, from a moral and legal point of view, it should not be much of a problem: After all the oath of loyalty is to the sovereign and her successors UNDER LAW. If Britain did become a republic then the Queen's successors Under Law would whoever the new constitution decided was the Head of State. Jeremy may have a mandate from the Labour party to lead them but he currently does not have a mandate from the British people to change the constitution. If he ever wants to get that mandate from the British people he's going to have work within the constitution as it currently is." But if he has to be loyal to the monarch under law, then surely if he campaigns against the monarchy or tries to get rid of the monarch that would be disloyal, and therefore he would be breaking the law? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One of the first things Jeremy Corbyn brings is a potentially Euro sceptic stance. This already shows he could be a clever bastard. Lets face it... even if you're pro Europe and you know you're gonna vote to stay in... it still makes sense to threaten Brussels with not voting their way as it strengthens our hand at the negotiating table. A wet pro-Europe stance would've got us nothing. The real brains is in being anti-Europe until the last minute, getting the cherry on the cake, and then doing what you were always gonna do in the first place... vote pro-Europe. Well done Corby
So in essence, lie?
Or are you going for the poker player view? "Well we are playing poker... and even Cameron's doing a bit of it himself... although he's not very good at it. If he gave off the impression of being hardline leave Europe I dare say we'd get a lot more at the bargaining table than we're gonna get. Cameron just strikes me as sooo soft and wet. I can't imagine him getting angry... and his attempts to get "passionate" at the last election were just laughable  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One of the first things Jeremy Corbyn brings is a potentially Euro sceptic stance. This already shows he could be a clever bastard. Lets face it... even if you're pro Europe and you know you're gonna vote to stay in... it still makes sense to threaten Brussels with not voting their way as it strengthens our hand at the negotiating table. A wet pro-Europe stance would've got us nothing. The real brains is in being anti-Europe until the last minute, getting the cherry on the cake, and then doing what you were always gonna do in the first place... vote pro-Europe. Well done Corby
So in essence, lie?
Or are you going for the poker player view?
Well we are playing poker... and even Cameron's doing a bit of it himself... although he's not very good at it. If he gave off the impression of being hardline leave Europe I dare say we'd get a lot more at the bargaining table than we're gonna get. Cameron just strikes me as sooo soft and wet. I can't imagine him getting angry... and his attempts to get "passionate" at the last election were just laughable "In truth and fairness to all of them, it's ALL about the poker face. No one is going to come out and say I'm going to lie over this and change my mind at the last minute. Cameron doesn't have much in the way of a Paddington hard stare. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh Jeremy,Jeremy...just seen Guardian pic of JC, on the hoof having his hair rearranged for an interview by his PR people.. And this committed, vociferous republican, it is reported, will kneel before the Queen and kiss her hand A week is a long time in politics. He really doesn't have much choice if he wants to do the job of Leader of Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition. As a republican he may not like doing it but, from a moral and legal point of view, it should not be much of a problem: After all the oath of loyalty is to the sovereign and her successors UNDER LAW. If Britain did become a republic then the Queen's successors Under Law would whoever the new constitution decided was the Head of State. Jeremy may have a mandate from the Labour party to lead them but he currently does not have a mandate from the British people to change the constitution. If he ever wants to get that mandate from the British people he's going to have work within the constitution as it currently is. But if he has to be loyal to the monarch under law, then surely if he campaigns against the monarchy or tries to get rid of the monarch that would be disloyal, and therefore he would be breaking the law?" For information, the actual oath taken to be a member of the privy council is: You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will let and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help you God | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interestint editing by BBC news tonight. Didn't show Cameron congratulating Corbyn, welcoming his approach and suggesting that while they will differ on lots of things, he hoped they could work together for the benefit of the country and democracy and welcoming a different tack at PMQs. Maybe political posturing, but strange decision not to broadcast his full reply to Corbyn's first question. Who mentioned media bias???" I watched ITV news and they did show Cameron's full reply. Tells you all you need to know about where the BBC's loyalties are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interestint editing by BBC news tonight. Didn't show Cameron congratulating Corbyn, welcoming his approach and suggesting that while they will differ on lots of things, he hoped they could work together for the benefit of the country and democracy and welcoming a different tack at PMQs. Maybe political posturing, but strange decision not to broadcast his full reply to Corbyn's first question. Who mentioned media bias??? I watched ITV news and they did show Cameron's full reply. Tells you all you need to know about where the BBC's loyalties are. " Are you trying to say the BBC are lefties? Shocking accusation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interestint editing by BBC news tonight. Didn't show Cameron congratulating Corbyn, welcoming his approach and suggesting that while they will differ on lots of things, he hoped they could work together for the benefit of the country and democracy and welcoming a different tack at PMQs. Maybe political posturing, but strange decision not to broadcast his full reply to Corbyn's first question. Who mentioned media bias??? I watched ITV news and they did show Cameron's full reply. Tells you all you need to know about where the BBC's loyalties are. Are you trying to say the BBC are lefties? Shocking accusation "Well Nigel Farage has been saying it for years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interestint editing by BBC news tonight. Didn't show Cameron congratulating Corbyn, welcoming his approach and suggesting that while they will differ on lots of things, he hoped they could work together for the benefit of the country and democracy and welcoming a different tack at PMQs. Maybe political posturing, but strange decision not to broadcast his full reply to Corbyn's first question. Who mentioned media bias??? I watched ITV news and they did show Cameron's full reply. Tells you all you need to know about where the BBC's loyalties are. Are you trying to say the BBC are lefties? Shocking accusation
Well Nigel Farage has been saying it for years. "What has happened to good ol' Nige? Seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth. Probably down to the BBC left wing bias!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interestint editing by BBC news tonight. Didn't show Cameron congratulating Corbyn, welcoming his approach and suggesting that while they will differ on lots of things, he hoped they could work together for the benefit of the country and democracy and welcoming a different tack at PMQs. Maybe political posturing, but strange decision not to broadcast his full reply to Corbyn's first question. Who mentioned media bias??? I watched ITV news and they did show Cameron's full reply. Tells you all you need to know about where the BBC's loyalties are. Are you trying to say the BBC are lefties? Shocking accusation
Well Nigel Farage has been saying it for years.
What has happened to good ol' Nige? Seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth. Probably down to the BBC left wing bias!! "It was reported in the press that he was at the memorial service yesterday, and he sang the national anthem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's AWOL...even the Uskips don't know what's become of him. Poor old Centaur probably had to Google 'UKIP leader' to remember what his name was! "You won't forget Corbyn's name now will you, since he became leader he's been on the front pages for all the wrong reasons, lol. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You don't deny it then? Poor Nigel! Nigel? Nigel Farage? The leader of UKIP? The UK Independence Party? None of that ringing any bells? Oh well, another party for right-wingers afraid of modern life will be along before 2020, don't worry. "Don't deny what? I have no idea what you are babbling on about??? 
If you are referring to his where abouts see my previous 2 posts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You don't deny it then? Poor Nigel! Nigel? Nigel Farage? The leader of UKIP? The UK Independence Party? None of that ringing any bells? Oh well, another party for right-wingers afraid of modern life will be along before 2020, don't worry. "Strange | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interestint editing by BBC news tonight. Didn't show Cameron congratulating Corbyn, welcoming his approach and suggesting that while they will differ on lots of things, he hoped they could work together for the benefit of the country and democracy and welcoming a different tack at PMQs. Maybe political posturing, but strange decision not to broadcast his full reply to Corbyn's first question. Who mentioned media bias???" would that be the BBC that broadcast the whole of the exchanges live on radio 2/5and four ? Plus BBC parliament ? Hmmm yeah ok get ya point now how did sky fox etc cover this ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's AWOL...even the Uskips don't know what's become of him. Poor old Centaur probably had to Google 'UKIP leader' to remember what his name was!
You won't forget Corbyn's name now will you, since he became leader he's been on the front pages for all the wrong reasons, lol. "no such thing as bad publicity.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
