|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 20:03:49 GMT
Just cast my vote and did so for the man who offers some truth, justice and fairness back into the party and the country. I hope that in exchange he gave a placard that read ... Tories Out ! |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 19, 2015 20:27:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on Aug 19, 2015 21:48:54 GMT
It's an opinion that you're fully entitled to but it's not a fact. I've got no doubt that you're a man of considerable experience that can offer some worthwhile opinions into this debate but you just come across as a condescending twat. He's expert at that. Pot kettle black |
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on Aug 19, 2015 21:49:59 GMT
Just cast my vote and did so for the man who offers some truth, justice and fairness back I knew you'd come around eventually. Farage is the man  |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 19, 2015 21:49:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 19, 2015 21:50:27 GMT
Just cast my vote and did so for the man who offers some truth, justice and fairness back I knew you'd come around eventually. Farage is the man Be still my aching sides....  |
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 20, 2015 8:41:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Aug 20, 2015 8:42:31 GMT
I've just read that out of the £23 million claimed as expenses by MP's last year, Corbyn's share was £8.95.
If that's true it might explain why so many other MP's are shitting it.
|
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 20, 2015 8:48:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Aug 20, 2015 9:04:12 GMT
It would be should the media decide to run with such a story rather than do their utmost to portray the man as a danger to us all with their guilt by association propaganda. Good article that. Food for thought but it gives no mention to the methods and policies in that perhaps Corbyn's politics may just stimulate those who have turned their backs on voting and democracy in this country. It happened in Scotland on a massive scale did it not? |
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 20, 2015 9:15:10 GMT
It would be should the media decide to run with such a story rather than do their utmost to portray the man as a danger to us all with their guilt by association propaganda. Good article that. Food for thought but it gives no mention to the methods and policies that perhaps Corbyn's politics may stimulate those who have turned their backs on voting and democracy in this country. It happened in Scotland on a massive scale did it not? Yes, I can understand that side of things. Although it is also fair to say that Mr Corbyn does have questions to answer. He's not purer than the driven snow by any stretch and it's dangerous to suggest that he is. My worry about Mr Corbyn is pretty much summed up in that Open Democracy article; I find his foreign policy and diplomatic stance very worrying. Pushing every other policy he has espoused to one side for a second, on foreign policy he comes across as though he's talking purely hypothetical student politics, and not looking to run a country. It's engaging, but on balance, it's not going to play out well internationally and it's isolationist (unilateralism). |
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Aug 20, 2015 9:33:12 GMT
It would be should the media decide to run with such a story rather than do their utmost to portray the man as a danger to us all with their guilt by association propaganda. Good article that. Food for thought but it gives no mention to the methods and policies that perhaps Corbyn's politics may stimulate those who have turned their backs on voting and democracy in this country. It happened in Scotland on a massive scale did it not? Yes, I can understand that side of things. My worry about Mr Corbyn is pretty much summed up in that Open Democracy article; I find his foreign policy and diplomatic stance very worrying. Pushing every other policy he has espoused to one side for a second, on foreign policy he comes across as though he's talking purely hypothetical student politics, and not looking to run a country. It's engaging, but on balance, it's not going to play out well internationally and it's isolationist (unilateralism). Fair enough worry but perhaps we shouldn't get bogged down with the assumption that we need a hawkish leader to gain friends and respect overseas. Yes some countries will be unhappy should we scrap Trident, and some will be most upset should we not be complicit in their human rights abuses but this doesn't make it reason enough to go along with them. Whatever, he is advocating a more democratic process regarding decision making so it's not like we will be living in a dictatorship whereby only policies he agrees with are implemented. The way it pans out when there is any hint of a threat to the establishment seems to be pick out single issues and run amok with woes of doom. There will be a happier medium to the current state of affairs, of that i have no doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 20, 2015 9:47:53 GMT
Yes, I can understand that side of things. My worry about Mr Corbyn is pretty much summed up in that Open Democracy article; I find his foreign policy and diplomatic stance very worrying. Pushing every other policy he has espoused to one side for a second, on foreign policy he comes across as though he's talking purely hypothetical student politics, and not looking to run a country. It's engaging, but on balance, it's not going to play out well internationally and it's isolationist (unilateralism). Fair enough worry but perhaps we shouldn't get bogged down with the assumption that we need a hawkish leader to gain friends and respect overseas. Yes some countries will be unhappy should we scrap Trident, and some will be most upset should we not be complicit in their human rights abuses but this doesn't make it reason enough to go along with them. Whatever, he is advocating a more democratic process regarding decision making so it's not like we will be living in a dictatorship whereby only policies he agrees with are implemented. The way it pans out when there is any hint of a threat to the establishment seems to be pick out single issues and run amok with woes of doom. There will be a happier medium to the current state of affairs, of that i have no doubt. I understand your point. I'm not sure anyone with any common sense wants a hawkish dictator of a leader either. It's the contradiction within Corbyn I'm uneasy with. This idea that Corbyn wants international agreement, discussion, and debate in terms of global threats is thrown into the wind when he then says he wants to unilaterally disarm the UK of its nuclear capability without any international debate. Corbyn then compounds this by saying he will completely withdraw from NATO - an organisation now functioning as a multilateral defensive alliance against potential global threats. It makes no sense, if you believe in open, multilateral dialogue. During Iraq Blair and Bush single-handedly undertook a military campaign without proper, multilateral international debate and everybody kicked off. Corbyn wants to single-handedly withdraw from NATO without explanation and then get rid of UK's nuclear deterrent without multilateral international debate over how the UK is to be protected in terms of global defensive alliances. The UK electorate, during a General Election, are probably going to find it difficult to vote for guess work over defence of the realm. It's each to their own, I grant you, and everybody votes according to conscience. |
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Aug 20, 2015 10:16:19 GMT
Fair enough worry but perhaps we shouldn't get bogged down with the assumption that we need a hawkish leader to gain friends and respect overseas. Yes some countries will be unhappy should we scrap Trident, and some will be most upset should we not be complicit in their human rights abuses but this doesn't make it reason enough to go along with them. Whatever, he is advocating a more democratic process regarding decision making so it's not like we will be living in a dictatorship whereby only policies he agrees with are implemented. The way it pans out when there is any hint of a threat to the establishment seems to be pick out single issues and run amok with woes of doom. There will be a happier medium to the current state of affairs, of that i have no doubt. I understand your point. I'm not sure anyone with any common sense wants a hawkish dictator of a leader either. It's the contradiction within Corbyn I'm uneasy with. This idea that Corbyn wants international agreement, discussion, and debate in terms of global threats is thrown into the wind when he then says he wants to unilaterally disarm the UK of its nuclear capability without any international debate. Corbyn then compounds this by saying he will completely withdraw from NATO - an organisation now functioning as a multilateral defensive alliance against potential global threats. It makes no sense, if you believe in open, multilateral dialogue. During Iraq Blair and Bush single-handedly undertook a military campaign without proper, multilateral international debate and everybody kicked off. Corbyn wants to single-handedly withdraw from NATO without explanation and then get rid of UK's nuclear deterrent without multilateral international debate over how the UK is to be protected in terms of global defensive alliances. The UK electorate, during a General Election, are probably going to find it difficult to vote for guess work over defence of the realm. It's each to their own, I grant you, and everybody votes according to conscience. Yep, each to their own. It seems we differ on the nuclear weapons question. I don't think we should have to negotiate internationally in order to scrap our own nuclear arsenal, no other nation should have us over a barrel on such a decision. They cost us more than we can afford and there is absolutely no circumstances that i can possibly imagine whereby they would actually needed to be used. I'll abstain from discussing NATO and Corbyn's stance (altough i do know that you don't need nuclear weapons to be in NATO) as i'll admit to being not educated enough on the subjects (i'll be more aware for chances to learn in future). Again i will say that it's a single issue, nothing is written in stone and it's highly doubtful such huge decisions will be made without having a full debate beforehand. |
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 20, 2015 10:35:14 GMT
I understand your point. I'm not sure anyone with any common sense wants a hawkish dictator of a leader either. It's the contradiction within Corbyn I'm uneasy with. This idea that Corbyn wants international agreement, discussion, and debate in terms of global threats is thrown into the wind when he then says he wants to unilaterally disarm the UK of its nuclear capability without any international debate. Corbyn then compounds this by saying he will completely withdraw from NATO - an organisation now functioning as a multilateral defensive alliance against potential global threats. It makes no sense, if you believe in open, multilateral dialogue. During Iraq Blair and Bush single-handedly undertook a military campaign without proper, multilateral international debate and everybody kicked off. Corbyn wants to single-handedly withdraw from NATO without explanation and then get rid of UK's nuclear deterrent without multilateral international debate over how the UK is to be protected in terms of global defensive alliances. The UK electorate, during a General Election, are probably going to find it difficult to vote for guess work over defence of the realm. It's each to their own, I grant you, and everybody votes according to conscience. Yep, each to their own. It seems we differ on the nuclear weapons question. I don't think we should have to negotiate internationally in order to scrap our own nuclear arsenal, no other nation should have us over a barrel on such a decision. They cost us more than we can afford and there is absolutely no circumstances that i can possibly imagine whereby they would actually needed to be used. I'll abstain from discussing NATO and Corbyn's stance (altough i do know that you don't need nuclear weapons to be in NATO) as i'll admit to being not educated enough on the subjects (i'll be more aware for chances to learn in future). Again i will say that it's a single issue, nothing is written in stone and it's highly doubtful such huge decisions will be made without having a full debate beforehand. Ah, okay, no worries. I just think it's an area of profound weakness and Corbyn gets confusing. Mr Corbyn doesn't want to negotiate over UK's weapons (rightly or wrongly - again it's personal preference I guess) but he wants everybody else to negotiate multilaterally over theirs. Mr Corbyn doesn't want to negotiate over UK's withdrawal from an international talking shop, then says dialogue and debate are the only way to solve international disputes. As you say, nothing is written in stone, and everyone can make their own mind up. As it happens I really like Jeremy Corbyn's housing strategy, Andy Burnham's health and social care policy, and Yvette Cooper's probably the only candidate who could fully unite both the left and right of the party. The leadership contest would have been different had Caroline Flint stood; she's politically very strong. Could make a great Deputy though. |
|
|
|
Post by Biblical on Aug 20, 2015 12:31:04 GMT
I understand your point. I'm not sure anyone with any common sense wants a hawkish dictator of a leader either. It's the contradiction within Corbyn I'm uneasy with. This idea that Corbyn wants international agreement, discussion, and debate in terms of global threats is thrown into the wind when he then says he wants to unilaterally disarm the UK of its nuclear capability without any international debate. Corbyn then compounds this by saying he will completely withdraw from NATO - an organisation now functioning as a multilateral defensive alliance against potential global threats. It makes no sense, if you believe in open, multilateral dialogue. During Iraq Blair and Bush single-handedly undertook a military campaign without proper, multilateral international debate and everybody kicked off. Corbyn wants to single-handedly withdraw from NATO without explanation and then get rid of UK's nuclear deterrent without multilateral international debate over how the UK is to be protected in terms of global defensive alliances. The UK electorate, during a General Election, are probably going to find it difficult to vote for guess work over defence of the realm. It's each to their own, I grant you, and everybody votes according to conscience. Yep, each to their own. It seems we differ on the nuclear weapons question. I don't think we should have to negotiate internationally in order to scrap our own nuclear arsenal, no other nation should have us over a barrel on such a decision. They cost us more than we can afford and there is absolutely no circumstances that i can possibly imagine whereby they would actually needed to be used. I'll abstain from discussing NATO and Corbyn's stance (altough i do know that you don't need nuclear weapons to be in NATO) as i'll admit to being not educated enough on the subjects (i'll be more aware for chances to learn in future). Again i will say that it's a single issue, nothing is written in stone and it's highly doubtful such huge decisions will be made without having a full debate beforehand. I fully agree with you on this. |
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 20, 2015 12:56:46 GMT
This is a good outside view of the Labour leadership election from a non-Labour source. "Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party: one of them must go" specc.ie/1JfcZ45 |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 20, 2015 13:08:42 GMT
This is a good outside view of the Labour leadership election from a non-Labour source. "Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party: one of them must go" specc.ie/1JfcZ45 Actually ************** that is seriously excellent. (no irony nor sarcasm intended) |
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Aug 20, 2015 13:36:18 GMT
This is a good outside view of the Labour leadership election from a non-Labour source. "Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party: one of them must go" specc.ie/1JfcZ45 The author makes the assumption that should Corbyn be elected leader then the viewpoints of other Labour MP's will be totally ignored, hence causing an all out collapse of his credibility as leader. He's fundamentally wrong to assume this but he go's with it anyway as it's another way of scaremongering. A classic divide and rule method employed in the form of an article in a Conservative publication. The loudest of the Corbyn critics within the Labour party are as good as Tories anyway, it's only a few from the top and by no means all of them bar the two dozen as he claims. |
|
|
|
Post by Biblical on Aug 20, 2015 17:08:22 GMT
This is a good outside view of the Labour leadership election from a non-Labour source. "Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party: one of them must go" specc.ie/1JfcZ45 The author makes the assumption that should Corbyn be elected leader then the viewpoints of other Labour MP's will be totally ignored, hence causing an all out collapse of his credibility as leader. He's fundamentally wrong to assume this but he go's with it anyway as it's another way of scaremongering. A classic divide and rule method employed in the form of an article in a Conservative publication. The loudest of the Corbyn critics within the Labour party are as good as Tories anyway, it's only a few from the top and by no means all of them bar the two dozen as he claims. Yep I've seen him go on record and say he'll listen to what anyone has to say like his fellow MP's and the grassroot supporters of the Labour party. The noises he's making suggest that should he become leader he will be a very open and democratic one. |
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 20, 2015 18:24:57 GMT
This is a good outside view of the Labour leadership election from a non-Labour source. "Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party: one of them must go" specc.ie/1JfcZ45 The author makes the assumption that should Corbyn be elected leader then the viewpoints of other Labour MP's will be totally ignored, hence causing an all out collapse of his credibility as leader. He's fundamentally wrong to assume this but he go's with it anyway as it's another way of scaremongering. A classic divide and rule method employed in the form of an article in a Conservative publication. The loudest of the Corbyn critics within the Labour party are as good as Tories anyway, it's only a few from the top and by no means all of them bar the two dozen as he claims. Yes, I thought exactly the same, in terms of Corbyn taking differing opinions into account if elected. It is a Tory journal after all. I'm not sure on your last point, though, as I know quite a lot of moderate members who are critical of some of Corbyn's ideas - and that's fine. It's the way it should be in a healthy debate. Nothing is worse than political sycophancy. |
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Aug 20, 2015 19:31:44 GMT
The independent nuclear deterrent is a nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Aug 20, 2015 19:51:10 GMT
The author makes the assumption that should Corbyn be elected leader then the viewpoints of other Labour MP's will be totally ignored, hence causing an all out collapse of his credibility as leader. He's fundamentally wrong to assume this but he go's with it anyway as it's another way of scaremongering. A classic divide and rule method employed in the form of an article in a Conservative publication. The loudest of the Corbyn critics within the Labour party are as good as Tories anyway, it's only a few from the top and by no means all of them bar the two dozen as he claims. Yes, I thought exactly the same, in terms of Corbyn taking differing opinions into account if elected. It is a Tory journal after all. I'm not sure on your last point, though, as I know quite a lot of moderate members who are critical of some of Corbyn's ideas - and that's fine. It's the way it should be in a healthy debate. Nothing is worse than political sycophancy. Yep, don't get me wrong...i've heard the same from staunch Labour folk but when it comes to the crunch it seems these opinions have been nurtured from the seeds of doubt raised by the media. When they are confronted in a reasoned discussion and these planted opinions are dissected for what they are, the tone tends to change somewhat. Fair enough i can only talk about the very few politically aware people in my circle of friends (very few) and i appreciate not all potential voters care enough to have an opinion, but that's at the moment. If, as i suspect, Corbyn's politics engage those who previously didn't vote then all bets are off regarding past election results, just like happened in Scotland the disenfranchised may just rise from the forgotten wilderness they currently abode and have a cause to champion. Then again they may just pop down the bookies waiting for the weigh in at Uttoxeter. |
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Aug 20, 2015 21:50:57 GMT
About time someone stood for the people of this country rather than corporations.
He's no messiah but it's the movement of the people that is key.
No wonder the corporate media don't like it.
The corporate media that pretends to be your friend...
|
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Aug 21, 2015 6:00:51 GMT
About time someone stood for the people of this country rather than corporations. He's no messiah but it's the movement of the people that is key. No wonder the corporate media don't like it. The corporate media that pretends to be your friend... Power to the People! |
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Aug 21, 2015 6:11:00 GMT
About time someone stood for the people of this country rather than corporations. He's no messiah but it's the movement of the people that is key. No wonder the corporate media don't like it. The corporate media that pretends to be your friend... Bob Marley Exodus  comrade   |
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 21, 2015 10:09:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2015 10:17:23 GMT
Just cast my vote and did so for the man who offers some truth, justice and fairness back I knew you'd come around eventually. Farage is the man Just thinking that myself when I read huddys post I don't believe we can prosper as a nation under this labour guy but, his honest approach is a breath of fresh air .....just like ukip  Probably like him as he doesn't look to be a puppet of big business If I couldn't vote ukip I'd vote for that guy incharge of labour ....for the sole reason of letting the other fuckers know we are sick of their bullshit Although ironically, he must be taking quite a few votes from ukip |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 21, 2015 10:57:08 GMT
Noticed this myself yesterday. Either; Sad reflection on democracy, the grass root members don't want what the PLP wants.Those career politicians don't like it, so they will do anything to stop Jeremy.Simply because he is telling the truth, as he sees it, people are following him , but this should not be happening. We know best, not the people.We will tell you what they should be thinking. It upsets their careers. They just cannot accept that this man may be correct, from a Socialist perspective. OR The very same people ( and Milliband) have made a complete shambles of the election process ...They encouraged Jeremy to enter ,just for the ride, to pay lip service to a debate. They introduced a system whereby anyone on the electoral role in the country can help to decide the leader of HM Opposition for £3.00.Utter madness.Doesn't give you much confidence in them being able to run a WHOLE COUNTRY! |
|
|
|
Post by derrida1437 on Aug 21, 2015 10:59:49 GMT
Noticed this myself yesterday.Either; Sad reflection on democracy, the grass root members don't want what the PLP wants.Those career politicians don't like it, so they will do anything to stop Jeremy.Simply because he is telling the truth, as he sees it, people are following him , but this should not be happening. We know best, not the people.We will tell you what they should be thinking. It upsets their careers. They just cannot accept that this man may be correct, from a Socialist perspective. OR The very same people ( and Milliband) have made a complete shambles of the election process ...They encouraged Jeremy to enter ,just for the ride, to pay lip service to a debate. They introduced a system whereby anyone on the electoral role in the country can help to decide the leader of HM Opposition for £3.00.Utter madness.Doesn't give you much confidence in them being able to run a WHOLE COUNTRY! Really? Mr Burnham only wrote to the Labour Party General Secretary this morning. |
|
comrade 
