Sturgeon will. She is also able to say that ( to paraphrase) " this is a very difficult issue, my personal feelings are this, I will consult with others look at the evidence and come to a decision" This is one of the things she is admired for.

what experience did Blair have? Cameron? Gideon? Clegg?

Nice to see a man of principle.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/16/jeremy-corbyn-floor-three-hour-train-journey-london-newcastle

Alternatively it merely indicates that the shambolic git is too disorganised to have booked a seat...

what experience did Blair have? Cameron? Gideon? Clegg?

The experience they didn't have was of a lifetime of being a failure pushing ideologies which were proven to fail when the Berlin Wall fell.

They did however prove themselves to be smarter than average:

Tony Blair - Degree in Jurisprudence from Oxford
David Cameron - First class honours - PPE from Oxford
...

Jeremy Corbyn - 2 E' at A-level. Might have taken a bus trip round Oxford, dropped out of a course on trade union studies after being an argumentalist with his tutor.

Alternatively it merely indicates that the shambolic git is too disorganised to have booked a seat...

Video was recorded by a film maker travelling with him so he may not be comoletely stupid.

Interesting that Osborne is called Gideon but Brown is never referred to as James.

dragon - Member

Corbyn clearly hasn't changed his opinion on anything in 40 years, despite the evidence that he is wrong on many accounts.

What are you some sort of expert on Corbyn who knows for a fact that he "hasn't changed his opinion on anything in 40 years" ?

Corbyn is well known for saying "I've never met anyone who hasn't been able to teach something", so apart from anything else it's fairly unlikely that he has exactly the same opinions today as he had 40 years ago.

And he has been proved right on quite a number of issues. He was right about Apartheid South Africa - unlike the Tories who claimed that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. He was right when he claimed that gay men and women had the right to be treated equal - the Tories were wrong about Section 28. He was right about the need for more social/affordable housing - the Tories/New Labour were wrong about leaving housing to the markets. He was right to say that there needed to be a political solution to the problems of Northern Ireland - the Tories/Old Labour were wrong to believe that there could be a military solution. He was right to claim that the banks/finance sectors shouldn't be left unregulated - the Tories/New Labour were wrong to claim that "light touch" regulation was all that was needed. He was right to oppose the privatisation of the railways - the Tories were wrong to claim that privatisation would be cheaper and reduce prices for customers. He was right that the UK shouldn't adopt the Euro - federalist Tories/Labour/LibDens were wrong to claim that we should embrace it. He was right to claim that PFI in the NHS would be a costly mistake - New Labour were wrong to claim that it would provide value for money. He was right to call for a democratic secular Britian - the Tories/New Labour/LibDems were wrong to claim that a feudal House of Lords was democratic and that the head of the Church of England opening parliament was acceptable. He was right to oppose the Iraq War - the Tories/New Labour were wrong to claim that it would bring peace and stability to the region.

OK I'm getting bored now, that lot's from the top of my head, but you get the picture - Corybn has been proved right quite a lot, yet despite the evidence, as you say, you want to pretend that he hasn't been. Let me guess dragon........you vote Tory ?

Interesting that Osborne is called Gideon but Brown is never referred to as James.

Probably because it would be confusing to call Gordon Brown "James".

I call George Osborne "Osborne" and Gordon Brown "Brown". And Jeremy Corbyn "Corbyn". I find that it avoids a lot of confusion.

CFH - Its a cheap dig I agree but Gideon only changed the name he used when he came into politics to sound less posh. Whereas Gordon or James - makes little difference to poshness and IIRC he always went under the name Gordon

He was in Matlock this afternoon, the Derbyshire Dales isn't exactly a hotbed of socialism

Admittedly from Wiki, but....

George Osborne was born in Paddington, London,[1] as Gideon Oliver;[2] he changed his name to George when he was 13. In an interview in July 2005, Osborne said: "It was my small act of rebellion. I never liked it. When I finally told my mother she said, 'Nor do I'. So I decided to be George after my grandfather, who was a war hero. Life was easier as a George; it was a straightforward name."

He was right about Apartheid South Africa - unlike the Tories who claimed that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist.

Funny, when you read what people who were there, like Pik Botha have to say, it seems she had a hell of a lot more impact in ending Apartheid than some beardy **** holding a placard in London

http://www.commonwealthoralhistories.org/2015/interview-with-rf-pik-botha/

(Ps. Nelson was a terrorist, and a Communist too)

tjagain - Member

Whereas Gordon or James - makes little difference to poshness

Rubbish.

Can you imagine [i]"Oh.......Gordon"[/i]

[img] [/img]

"Gordon Bond" lol

Fair enough CFH.

ninfan - Member
He was right about Apartheid South Africa - unlike the Tories who claimed that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist.
Funny, when you read what people who were there, like Pik Botha have to say, it seems she had a hell of a lot more impact in ending Apartheid than some beardy **** holding a placard in London

And your point is? Corbyn did less than somebody else? Is Pik Botha a Tory? or a Lib Dem? I don't get the comparison.

Interestingly Ernie - IN Scotland Gordon would usually be seen as the posher name. Or should I call you Earnest?

And your point is? Corbyn did less than somebody else?

You see, thats the difference between the politics of power, and the politics of protest - in one of the two, you actually get to make a difference.

Its interesting that Ernie also used Section 28 as an example. Who got rid of that I wonder? 😳 You see, once again - by winning an election Labour achieved something that all the protesting by people like Jezza never managed to achieve.

Again, the politics of power rather than the politics of protest 😉

Corbyn clearly hasn't changed his opinion on anything in 40 years, despite the evidence that he is wrong on many accounts.

on the contrary, this man of conviction became a man of compromise within 24 hours of winning the leadership election. He can flip flop with the best of the - dear Nicola included

But getting back to the Great British public who these guys are supposed to represent, tonight's Evening Standards suggests that they have been infiltrated by Blairites B**tards...

Who would make the best leader - Jezza 42%, Smithy 58%
Who would make the best PM - Jezza 38% Smithy 62%
30% would be less likely to vote Labour with Jezza in charge
Voters who voted labour last time - evens
Voters who didnt - Smithy

Honestly, what is wrong with these people.....? What is about old Jezza that they dont get?

Lesson from the Lib Dems - moving from protest to power can be a difficult and dangerous transition. One is easy and without consequence, the other.....

Its interesting that Ernie also used Section 28 as an example. Who got rid of that I wonder?

Brilliant. Ninfan emphasizes the very point I made. Eventually other people accept what Corbyn had been saying all along. I think NI is a better example though, even the Tories eventually accepted the need to talk to terrorists. Or find a "political solution" as they preferred to call it.

Ninfan even emphasized Corbyn's commitment to a Labour government, at least I think that's what he did. Certainly 30 years as a Labour MP shows some commitment.

Eventually other people accept what Corbyn had been saying all along.

I dont recall the Labour Party ever being pro Section 28

the issue is that they couldn't do anything about it until they actually [b]won an election[/b]

Which is presumably why Corbyn has spent the last 30 years standing (and winning) as a Labour candidate.

Thank you once again ninfan. I appreciate it but I think the point has now been thoroughly made - no need to keep emphasizing it.

Interestingly - Section 28 remained massively popular amongst the conservative party membership.

Which shows just how bloody silly it is to listen to the party faithful if you want to get elected

Just seen the train stunt. So Corbyn wants more trains but is unaware of capacity issues. Does he really think train operators hold back trains just to make the others overly busy.

Its not a stunt. He uses public transport all the time. Cheapest he can. Its called principles. Something Tories know little about.

He uses public transport all the time. Cheapest he can

Since he was on labour party business rather than MP business, his trip to Newcastle and back, if completed by car, would have generated a mileage claim (@45p per mile HMRC rate) of £264 (293 miles each way)

A standard Anytime Return ticket London to Newcastle costs £276

we also know that he was not travelling on his own, showing clearly he is not, after all, using the cheapest option, as you had claimed.

[quote=ninfan ]A standard Anytime Return ticket London to Newcastle costs £276
What about his OAP Railcard?

1/3 discount wouldn't cancel out the people (at least one that we know of) traveling with him contributing equal share of petrol costs

And why would he not use the cheapest ticket? anytime return is not the cheapest. Can be done for well under £200 and if booked ahead £50

Unlike tories and some labour MPS he dopes not claim ludicrous expenses. Do you think he paid the film crews fares out of labour party funds?

edit. misread the thingy. could be done for under £200 tomorrow, booked ahead £102

dragon - Member

Does he really think train operators hold back trains just to make the others overly busy.

I think Jeremy Corbyn knows quite a bit about railways, it's one of his obsessions - he's bit of a train geek. Do I think you wouldn't criticize anything that Corbyn says.....no.

Infact could be done tomorrow return for just over £100.

ninfan - Member

Since he was on labour party business rather than MP business, his trip to Newcastle and back, if completed by car, would have generated a mileage claim (@45p per mile HMRC rate) of £264 (293 miles each way)

A standard Anytime Return ticket London to Newcastle costs £276

I can't believe that you have actually gone to the bother of working all of that out ! How sad is that ffs ? 😆

And who do you think you've convinced ?

booked ahead

In which case he would have had a bloody seat wouldn't he 🙄

And who do you think you've convinced ?

[img] [/img]

I'm sorry was I working out the "45p per mile HMRC rate" Flashheart ? 😆

Which is better for the environment?

Corbyn finally playing the media game?

If he knows do much about trains why does he think you can just add more to an already full network?

Is it principles or is it just that labour ate skint?

Of course you can add more.

If he knows do much about trains

Well he probably knows more about trains than you do ..... but I don't know.....what do you know about trains?

Personally I know bugger all about running a railway.

My opinions on the matter are based on who I trust. And I suspect it's exactly the same for you.

According to social media this evening, there are folk out there who genuinely believe that this wasn't a stunt. Incredible what politicians get away with these days!!!

I think Jeremy Corbyn knows quite a bit about railways, it's one of his obsessions - he's bit of a train geek.

You would think the he would understand basics like booking a seat on busy lines. Most people get that and they are not vying for an important job. Good job with such lack of understanding the he is not proposing getting involved with running trains. Imagine that......?

Wow even THM thinks it wasn't a stunt!

Good job with such lack of understanding the he is not proposing getting involved with running trains. Imagine that......?

I can see it now

"You can say what you like about Corbyn, but at least he made the trains run on time"

😀

It's not really about trains is just a network capacity issue. If adding more trains was so easy that is what all the private companies would be doing, to maximise profit.

Why is Jezza going on about things like trains when he makes such beginners' errors? He should be using his real strengths, the ability to use [misuse, abuse (you decide)] social media and the communication strategies that go with it. This is remarkable especially for people of his generation and a genuine growth industry for the future. UK business is behind the curve in knowing how to harness social media and Jezza and his feathered friends really have a lot of value to add.

Evan Davies showing that the shadow transport doesn't understand the basics on rail economics at the moment on Newsnight. Candy and babies......Evan can't believe his luck to have someone so badly briefed to interview.

If adding more trains was so easy that is what all the private companies would be doing, to maximise profit.

I'm no train operator, but I can do simple maths.

Perhaps one of you experts could help him out....assuming they are not on the enforced holiday
Are they free Walter?

Dragon - what utter nonsense. For a start it would mean investing in more trains. Have you travelled on a train in europe? they have been investing for years while our train operators do the absolute minimum they can and its really really obvious the difference.

Capacity is an issue for sure - but more trains. longer trains and faster trains are all part solutions but given the lack of investment we have had no real improvements for a long time. Much of our rolling stock is well past its sell by date

teamhurtmore - Member

Good job with such lack of understanding the he is not proposing getting involved with running trains.

Unlike billionaire entrepreneur Richard Branson who knows how to run a railway company ?

[url= http://www.wharf.co.uk/news/local-news/most-complained-train-companies-10226813 ]The most complained-about train companies[/url]

[i]His philosophy of "disruption" must takes in the routine of train timetables as well for his Virgin Trains franchises are the most complained about of all.

Data released by rail watchdogs shows that in the April to June this year, the firm received 196.5 complaints for every 100,000 passenger journeys.

To put that in perspective, the second worst performing firm – which was, in fact, Virgin Trains East Coast – had 142.3 complaints per 100,000 journeys. [/i]

[b] TRAIN COMPANIES WITH THE MOST COMPLAINTS, APRIL TO JUNE 2015

Company / Complaints per 100,000 passenger journeys (Jan-Mar) / Complaints per 100,000 passenger journeys (Apr-Jun)

Virgin Trains West Coast / 231.8 / 196.5

Virgin Trains East Coast / 166.7 / 142.3

Chiltern / 94.8 / 102.2

East Midlands Trains / 64.7 / 59.0

Arriva Trains Wales / 53.3 / 44.7

CrossCountry / 48.7 / 40.1

Northern Rail / 24.5 / 36.6

First TransPennine Express / 40.2 / 35.3

Greater Anglia / 28.4 / 34.5

First Great Western / 36.9 / 28.7

London Midland / 30.0 / 27.3

ScotRail / 25.5 / 21.9

Merseyrail / 18.5 / 15.9

c2c / 17.7 / 15.5

Southeastern / 23.4 / 14.7

Govia Thameslink Railway / 20.5 / 13.8

South West Trains / 18.2 / 12.0

Southern / 9.3 / 7.3

London Overground / 2.8 / 3.3[/b]

You will note that the railway company which had the fewest complaints was London Overground....... 3.3 per 100,000 journeys compared to Virgin Trains West Coast's 196.5 per 100,000 journeys - a massive difference by any measure.

And guess what ? Yes you've guessed it, London Overground isn't privately owned.

Still who cares eh ......just as long as the billionaire is making himself even more money - sod the passengers.

But of course London Overground isn't the only state owned railway company. State owned companies from France, Germany, and the Netherlands, are making millions in profits from British commuters - which flows back to their countries and is funding public transport and spending across Europe :

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/18/foreign-state-owned-railway-british-train-companies-revenue_n_8003970.html

No wonder opinion polls show that even Tory voters agree with Corbyn and want a (UK) publicly owned railway.

BTW when the legislation was introduced to privatise the railways only one company was specifically named as not being allowed to tender for the franchises. That company was British Rail - the only company in the UK which actually had any experience of running a railway. People who had no idea, such as Richard Branson, were positively encouraged.

A complete lack of understanding and no experience was no bar. The triumph of right-wing dogma and a privatization fetish over commonsense and the needs of consumers.

Of course the privatisation was flawed. It was used badly designed, rushed and wasn't even a privatisation. Someone as clever as you will know the basics of how the UK rail system works and the on-going visible hand (or not if this thread is anyhting to go by). Admittedly your boys on the shadow team (what's left of it) can't help despite Evan trying to assist them this evening. But we should expect too much from politicians. But from you, much, much more...

Still hats off to Jezza for his cunning stunt. He has got social media going into overdrive. Now how about privatising that....

teamhurtmore - Member

Of course the privatisation was flawed.

Of course? Well I hadn't realised that it was [i]that[/i] obvious, if I'd known I wouldn't have bothered making the point.

.....wasn't even a privatisation

Now that's what I called a flawed privatisation. So who's this Richard Branson then ?

Unlike billionaire entrepreneur Richard Branson who knows how to run a railway company ?

The most complained-about train companies

His philosophy of "disruption" must takes in the routine of train timetables as well for his Virgin Trains franchises are the most complained about of all.

Data released by rail watchdogs shows that in the April to June this year, the firm received 196.5 complaints for every 100,000 passenger journeys.

To put that in perspective, the second worst performing firm – which was, in fact, Virgin Trains East Coast – had 142.3 complaints per 100,000 journeys.

TRAIN COMPANIES WITH THE MOST COMPLAINTS, APRIL TO JUNE 2015

Company / Complaints per 100,000 passenger journeys (Jan-Mar) / Complaints per 100,000 passenger journeys (Apr-Jun)

Virgin Trains West Coast / 231.8 / 196.5

Virgin Trains East Coast / 166.7 / 142.3

Chiltern / 94.8 / 102.2

East Midlands Trains / 64.7 / 59.0

Arriva Trains Wales / 53.3 / 44.7

CrossCountry / 48.7 / 40.1

Northern Rail / 24.5 / 36.6

First TransPennine Express / 40.2 / 35.3

Greater Anglia / 28.4 / 34.5

First Great Western / 36.9 / 28.7

London Midland / 30.0 / 27.3

ScotRail / 25.5 / 21.9

Merseyrail / 18.5 / 15.9

c2c / 17.7 / 15.5

Southeastern / 23.4 / 14.7

Govia Thameslink Railway / 20.5 / 13.8

South West Trains / 18.2 / 12.0

Southern / 9.3 / 7.3

London Overground / 2.8 / 3.3

You will note that the railway company which had the fewest complaints was London Overground....... 3.3 per 100,000 journeys compared to Virgin Trains West Coast's 196.5 per 100,000 journeys - a massive difference by any measure.

And guess what ? Yes you've guessed it, London Overground isn't privately owned.

Still who cares eh ......just as long as the billionaire is making himself even more money - sod the passengers.

But of course London Overground isn't the only state owned railway company. State owned companies from France, Germany, and the Netherlands, are making millions in profits from British commuters - which flows back to their countries and is funding public transport and spending across Europe :

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/18/foreign-state-owned-railway-british-train-companies-revenue_n_8003970.html /p>

No wonder opinion polls show that even Tory voters agree with Corbyn and want a (UK) publicly owned railway.

BTW when the legislation was introduced to privatise the railways only one company was specifically named as not being allowed to tender for the franchises. That company was British Rail - the only company in the UK which actually had any experience of running a railway. People who had no idea, such as Richard Branson, were positively encouraged.

A complete lack of understanding and no experience was no bar. The triumph of right-wing dogma and a privatization fetish over commonsense and the needs of consumers.

I can't believe that you have actually gone to the bother of working all of that out ! How sad is that ffs ?

And who do you think you've convinced ?

Of course? Well I hadn't realised that it was that obvious,

Clearly but don't be too harsh on ourself, few understand the current structure of UK railways - including "clearly" your so-called expert and his shadow transport minister. Hence their abilty to spin the story and pander to focus groups opinion - the new politics (sic). Tbf its quite complicated hence a great essay question in exams to sort the wheat from the chaff.

if I'd known I wouldn't have bothered making the point.

Excuse me, I missed any point, so can't comment.

Morning Comrades. Well Private Eye can now join 'The List' of the 'Right Wing Press' (tm) that refuses to show the right amount of respect to The Glorious Leader. They're having a field day, mostly dragging up his decidedly dubious causes and aquantences he's had over the years (my enemies enemy is my friend?) , but this one did make me laugh. 😆

Take the test comrades. Your results will of course be monitored, but fear not. We don't do malice, remember .....

[img] [/img]

You see, thats the difference between the politics of power, and the politics of protest - in one of the two, you actually get to make a difference.
Its interesting that Ernie also used Section 28 as an example. Who got rid of that I wonder? You see, once again - by winning an election Labour achieved something that all the protesting by people like Jezza never managed to achieve.
Again, the politics of power rather than the politics of protest

I dont get this. Should Corbyn just sit on the back benches and froth to make ninfan happy or give it a bloody good go at getting his ideas into power as he is doing? Surely his first step is to be leader of the main opposition. Are you suggesting ninfan that you prefer all politicians should just sayany old populist crap to get elected as they then might be able to do the odd thing they think is right?

All successful politics involves compromise. Successful politicians know this. They can spout off all they like in public, but they recognise that behind the scenes they need to sit down and do deals to get different people, with different ideas, on board. All political parties contain a broad range of views of various hues

What Jezza has shown through his entire career (such as it is) and even more so now is his stubborn refusal to countenance compromising on anything at all. Witness the absurdity of him advocating scrapping Trident at the despatch box, when Labour Party Policy supports it. Farcical! What this shows is that Jeremy believes that Labour party policy should be whatever the Glorious Leader says it is. And we're back to whole North Korean totalitarian deselection thing again. We always seem to end up back there, don't we?

So by repeatedly doing this, he massively narrows his electoral appeal. To the extent that it appeals purely to the kind of person who exactly mirrors his views, and absolutely nobody else.

That will never ever win you a general election. Not a cat in hells chance. The PLP can see this, and recognise thats why he has to go. He can get 500,000 people behind him. Those people would all have voted labour anyway. Are any of them the swing voters in marginal constituencies? The ones that decide elections? Of course they're bloody not!

So you would prefer someone who has campaigned for nuclear disarmament all his life to change his view or you would prefer him to not make any attempt at getting his views into power? You prefer the politics of compromise and the frankly shite status quo?

"They can spout off all they like in public"

You just do it from behind the safety of a keyboard. 😆

I'm still amused by a fact that you claim you went to a Momentum meeting, yet sat there in silence and didn't challenge anyone about anything. Probably because you felt 'intimidated' by the hordes of 'vicious thugs' that were present. 😆

I don't really understand you Binners; you've been highly critical of the status quo of current politics, vociferous on how many parts of Britain have been neglected by a power-hungry elite, and how working class people are constantly shat upon, yet when someone comes along who represents potential change to all that, you jump on the Daily Mail/Telegraph right-wing bandwagon of 'let's bash Jeremy Corbyn'. I'm left wondering what you really want; change, or the same thing. You've hinted that you'll vote for Owen Smith (you'd have to be a Labour party member to be able to do so, something I'm quite sceptical about tbh, are you really a member?); what exactly do you think that Blairite stooge would actually change? He's another Ed Milliband; a puppet full of piss and wind. If anyone would make Labour even more 'unelectable', it's Owen Smith ffs! 😆

It's hot out. Do you want an ice cream?

So you would prefer someone who has campaigned for nuclear disarmament all his life to change his view or you would prefer him to not make any attempt at getting his views into power?

The leader of the Labour Party isn't there to trumpet his own views in parliament. he is there to vocalise and represent the views of the broader party which have been decided through democratic means. His own views are neither here nor there when he speaks in his role as the Leader of the Opposition. He was part of the democratic debate within the party and has vocalised his personal views. He lost the argument. As he's lost most of the arguments during his 'career' as they don't command majority support.

Unless you think the opposite of that. That his views trump the policies that are arrived at within the party by democratic means.

And that, in a nutshell, is the Cult of the Glorious Leader that we now have. Its anti-democratic. In fact its bordering on totalitarian. And people see that. And people in the UK don't vote for totalitarians. Witness the general disdain ofr the 'Nanny State'. Unfortunately raging lefties tend to have the attitude that they know whats best for everyone, so for our own benefit, we should do as they say

Its a real vote winner, that.

Cloddy - I've said plenty of times I was no fan of Miliband. When Jeremy was elected I hoped that he would compromise (its that word again) tone down the wilder leftie rhetoric, and try and argue a more left wing view without scaring the horses (the ones who win elections)

But from day one Jeremy has stubbornly refused to countenance compromise (refusing to sing the national anthem? grow up FFS!), and has instead marched the Labour party into the electoral wilderness through his confrontational attitude to the party, his total ineptitude at the actual politics bit, and his complete lack of interest in trying to convince people who don't already share his views.

To change things in a first past the post electoral system, you need to win a general election. Have you seen his poll ratings?

The Labour party is now a Cultist protest group. And everyone outside that bubble can see that.

Jeremy has done his job, as far as I can see. The policies that Owen Smith now espouses are far to the left of what they were under Miliibean. He's moved the debate to the left.And I agree thats that where the Labour party should be. Its now time to step aside and leave the important part - getting elected - to someone who is at least in with a fighting chance of achieving victory. Otherwise Labour will just be left shouting ineffectively from the sidelines for the next decade, at least

"he is there to vocalise and represent the views of the broader party which have been decided through democratic means."

Which he is doing. It's the traitors who are going against the broader Labour party. And exposed themselves as the careerist scum they really are. Corbyn has pulled a blinder in exposing and isolating the Blairite cuckoos, and many of them will now be facing deselection by their own constituency party members. And the end of their political careers.

"Its anti-democratic. In fact its bordering on totalitarian."

😆

What on earth are you smoking?

"The policies that Owen Smith now espouses are far to the left of what they were under Miliibean. He's moved the debate to the left. Time to step aside and leave the important part - getting elected - to someone who is at least in with a fighting chance of achieving victory. "

😆 😆 😆

OMG. In that one sentence, you've summed up and shown just how completely and utterly politically naiive you are. Clueless.

[i]Owen Smith? [/i]

😆

Want a flake with that?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Behind you!

[img] [/img]

blah blah [b]traitors[/b] blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah [b]scum[/b]

The leader of the Labour Party isn't there to trumpet his own views in parliament. he is there to vocalise and represent the views of the broader party which have been decided through democratic means.

Unless you think the opposite of that.

And that, in a nutshell, is the Cult of the Glorious Leader that we now have. Its anti-democratic. In fact its bordering on totalitarian.

. Unfortunately raging lefties tend to have the attitude that they know whats best for everyone, so for our own benefit, we should do as they s

you cannot blame corbyn for them not respecting the membership - well you can but it just makes you look like a loon with an argument that defeats itself

You are slowly transforming into a tabloid version of Jamby on this thread dear boy 😕
That said if we ever get ranting made an olympic sport we will dominate the events like we do the cycling

not being accepted by the servants of the party [MP's]

That's where you go wrong though, they are servants of the people, not the party. Their role is to represent the views and interests of the electorate, not a bunch of loonies passing worthless virtue signalling resolutions between themselves.

All successful politics involves compromise. Successful politicians know this. They can spout off all they like in public, but they recognise that behind the scenes they need to sit down and do deals to get different people, with different ideas, on board. All political parties contain a broad range of views of various hues

+100

If in A_A's example he can't sell nuclear disarmament to his party then his options are (1) put up with it, (2) resign or (3) try to force it through, but this last one comes at a price and the party will want it's pound of flesh in return. He also needs to have a hard think that if you can't convince ~200 people who are nominally on his side, then how will he convince the wider public.

I'm liking this kinder, gentler politics. Especially its charming way of describing all dissenters as 'scum'

Another tried and tested vote winner

The debate between Owen Smith and the bearded messiah is on 5 live at the moment. Might be interesting. Might not. We'll see....

He also needs to have a hard think that if you can't convince ~200 people who are nominally on his side, then how will he convince the wider public.

There was a great comment on the radio the other day that one of the beauties of the British electoral system as opposed to that found in many other places was that, by and large, it forced politicians to build coalitions [i]before[/i] elections rather than after them, and that as such any successful party had to develop compromises amongst a broad church of different views that resulted in them better reflecting the views and priorities of the electorate.

In other news, looks like they can't receive ITV in the bunker:

Another great leap towards proving he is a Man of the people 😀

I'm liking this kinder, gentler politics. Especially its charming way of describing all dissenters as 'scum'

Are you having a bet to see how much you can contradict yourself or something?

binners - Member

I'm liking this kinder, gentler politics.

Yes I can tell from how restraint your ranting has become.

Your generosity towards those with different opinions to yours is becoming a wonder to behold.

A few weeks ago people who disagreed with you were 'the very worse people on the planet', then they were compared to the Taliban, and now they are only bordering on totalitarianism.

I'm liking this kinder, gentler, binners.

Cheers comrade... altogether now....

Thanks for the heads up Binners - only caught snatches of the BBC coverage - dominated by how much extra tax they can raise. 😯

There is lots of advice for conviction comrades to follow the example of those honest, left wing folk in the SNP. So hmmm, how do we fudge Trident - err we pretend and then adopt "dont ask, dont tell." ditto they pretend they can cut taxes AND increase spending etc. And the public lap this up - lessons learned? Liars win and win handsomely at the moment #posttruthpolitics

Which common room were they in?

they are servants of the people,

😀

just listened
to r5
key issue is ant and dec
apparently

Sorry asked my question and then left for physio....

Surely if we take trident Corbyn was elected leader with his views. He has a massive mandate from the party to stand by his views. Its the rest of the labour MP's who are going against the democratic views of the party.

Remind us what Labour policy is on Trident?

ask one of your well versed employees... i bet at least one of them had a hand in writing it if not in designing trident itself 😛

Surely if we take trident Corbyn was elected leader with his views. He has a massive mandate from the party to stand by his views. Its the rest of the labour MP's who are going against the democratic views of the party.

I'd disagree, I think. Labour MPs were elected by the voters in their constituencies on the basis (ostensibly!) of the party's then manifesto. The party may have changed its view on certain issues, but I think the MPs can stick to the original position for the moment and legitimately claim to be representing the interests of the voters.

Some of the Unions are against Corbyn regards Trident. I think this is where the Labour party is a bit messy in its construct, as its a mix of Unions, MPs and individual members all inputting into policy.

It clearly can't simply be a leader just slamming through policy on everything they personally want, that would be a disaster (and that applies not just for Labour but for any political party).

its a poor argument
The argument that because a minority - few MPS have an absolute majority- voted for you then they agreed with every single part of the parties manifesto is flawed and deeply so- not even the MOS agreed with every single thing in it so what change that all voters did?

The wider debate about whether the MPs serve the constituency or represent the party is interesting as they clearly have to do a bit of both. It would be an interesting debate but pointless to try and do it on here where its all just shitty polemics ,point scoring and trolling.
However if you are in a party and you cannot follow the wishes if the membership re leader then you are really in the wrong party and you need to leave it...you cannot just go i dont represent you i represent the people - if that is the case then become an independent MP and get elected on that mandate.

An interesting debate that wont happen on STW

[url= https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/questions-all-jeremy-corbyn-supporters-need-to-answer-b3e82ace7ed3#.b67eput13 ]I'd missed the fact that Owen Jones has broken ranks[/url]. Very interesting. Can't say I disagree with much of what he says.

...traitors.........scum

bordering on totalitarian

I think everyone needs to calm down a bit.

I'd disagree, I think. Labour MPs were elected by the voters in their constituencies on the basis (ostensibly!) of the party's then manifesto. The party may have changed its view on certain issues, but I think the MPs can stick to the original position for the moment and legitimately claim to be representing the interests of the voters.

Thats a fair point I suppose. But the same applies to Corbyns vote on the matter.

Remind us what Labour policy is on Trident?

Be ****ed if I know!! What are there current policies on anything? This is why I dont like Corbyn as leader much. He doesnt seem to want to do anything other than preach to the converted.

Be **** if I know!! What are there current policies on anything? This is why I dont like Corbyn as leader much. He doesnt seem to want to do anything other than preach to the converted.

😀

[url= https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/questions-all-jeremy-corbyn-supporters-need-to-answer-b3e82ace7ed3#.toh0elyj3 ]What will you say when?—?whenever you mention anything vaguely left-wing, you’re mocked for the rest of your life, a throwback to the discredited Labour era of the 2010s? Will you just comfort yourself by blaming it on the mainstream media and the PLP? Will that get you through a lifetime of Tory rule? My questions may strike you as unhelpful or uncomfortable. I’m beyond caring. Call me a Blairite, Tory, Establishment stooge, careerist, sellout, whatever makes you feel better.[/url]