Jeremy Corbyn

Renationalisation of railways and energy companies
Replace tuition fees with student grants
Increase the top rate of income tax
Withdraw from Syria
Stop cuts to public services

Is this list correct re Corbyn's policies? What do we have in Syria?

Either way I love the response on this thread to outofbreath, who rudely questions the validity of Corbyn's policies! Perhaps you have all moved beyond the question of policies and it is now platitudes instead.

I'd like to see Ernie turn his socratic irony onto the policy "Stop cuts to public services" which appears to have vaulted any number of preliminary questions to arrive at a satisfyingly neat slogan.

Even after looking up what socratic means I still didn't understand your post bainbrge.
On the plus side I'm quite relaxed about it......I'm sure it's not important 🙂

BTW if you want policies beyond "Stop cuts to public services" bainbrge how about Corbynomics?

According to the Daily Telegraph Citigroup's chief economist is calling on Corbynomics to save the world from recession :

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11831426/Citigroup-braces-for-world-recession-calls-for-Corbynomics-QE-in-China.html ]
Citigroup braces for world recession, calls for Corbynomics QE in China[/url]

Ernie, genuine smile at your response. I think Socratic irony works best when your interlocutor believes your ignorance is genuine. I am unable to suspend my disbelief at you not knowing what Socratic irony is!

re Corbynomics, not extreme. Great FT article on it recently. However, application in an economy with vast reserves (China) different to that in a more constrained economy (UK). I think Corbynomics links many of the policies listed above, i.e that borrowing by government is better because supposedly cheaper. Hence supports nationalisation argument as well as stopping public services cuts. To an extent this is true and is one of my objections to PFI, however it ignores reality, i.e the 'puke point' of those we ask to lend to us.

I suppose the above is summarised by the 'someone else's money' argument often levelled at socialism.

rather than resigning from a party whose policies he so frequently opposes, he merely rebels

Why resign? It's a one-shot statement that everyone else just nods and and carries on regardless. You can't change it if you're not in it. As we may be about to find out. Or to put it another way, you'll never win if you give up.

already showing willingness to compromise in NATO - why? Pragmatism, he knows that there (his words) wasn't "an appetite as a whole for people to leave."

You can't force the majority to follow your lead if they don't want to. How can anyone criticise him for this?

No wonder politics is such a load of bollocks if all the electorate want is George W Bush style crusaders.

I've not read this in a while but things must be getting serious. Thm has cracked open the bainbrge login and is getting confused as to which pseudonym should be referencing the FT every 2 minutes! 😆

😀 no really 😀

actually the whole inner democracy sham is a great diversionary tactic, no wonder some love it so much!

No

then I have NFI what you're on about

anyone else?

konabunny - Member
then I have NFI what you're on about

anyone else?

I suspect bainbrge will! 😆

anyone else?

You made THM look a fool by pointing out how ridiculous his comment was so he felt compelled to deny that was what he meant.

Since it was what he meant he couldn't give an alternative explanation.

HTH

THM doesn't like having to explain what he actually means, for some reason he thinks it sounds more convincing when it's a vague mysterious waffle (maybe he's right).

😀

[KonaB - an extraordinary coincidence.]

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/09/labour-closes-ballot-helpline-leadership-election-deadline ]http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/09/labour-closes-ballot-helpline-leadership-election-deadline[/url]

Is it just me, or is the Labour party indulging in a whopping case of strategic incompetence so that the result can easily be challenged and overturned at some point in the not too distant future? Something tells me that had Burnham or Copper been leading in the polls everything would be running like clockwork. On a related note Mrs Daz didn't get her vote until yesterday, she contacted all the leadership and deputy candidates directly via email about it, and guess who were the only ones to reply?

Is it just me, or is the Labour party indulging in a whopping case of strategic incompetence so that the result can easily be challenged and overturned at some point in the not too distant future?

I think you're crediting the labour party with a level of scheming they're presently actually incapable of. I don't doubt for a second that the incompetence is for real. They couldn't run a bath.

Thats not to say that it won't be used to mount a legal challange. One that will be bound to convince the whole electorate that the labor party really are the future, and the country would be safe in their hands.

Meanwhile, while they all bicker between themselves, the Tory party will probably privatise air, and coral every unemployed person in the country into a massive workhouse, run by G4S, to package parcels for Amazon

Good of Ed Milliband to sod off and not show any leadershio through the election process.

Have to say I really do worry for Corbyn's health if he wins; the attacks from all sides are going to be relentless. He might wish he never stood and be happy to leave after a year or two.

Good of Ed Milliband to sod off and not show any leadershio through the election process.

Well he never demonstrated any before he resigned, so why start now?

Anyway.... as the polls close, heres probably the highlight of the campaign from channel 4 news last night

[url= https://video-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xpl1/v/t42.1790-2/11941713_10153205005281939_1161407692_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIiOjY2NiwicmxhIjo4Njh9&rl=666&vabr=370&oh=69446aca3fd6d0042cadfc8dd27f5f09&oe=55F17CB3 ]Rumbled![/url]

😆

He did well not to say anything in the face of that questioning - well trained!

The poll has closed 🙂

I don't really understand why that's a big deal surely all the parties send people to watch what the others a saying? If they don't then they should.

Heck Premier League football clubs often send managers or coaching staff to watch other matches.

I don't really understand why that's a big deal surely all the parties send people to watch what the others a saying?

+1

More likely he was there to try and disrupt the event in some manner. Seemed to leave rather quickly for someone who was just there to observe.

Maybe he was a genuine Corbyn supporter and didn't want his tory mates to see that he was there! 🙂

Probably there on behalf of his Llamas to report back on Jezza's thoughts.

MSP - Member

Seemed to leave rather quickly for someone who was just there to observe.

Aye, if it's all perfectly innocent and normal why did he run like a flushed fox? He certainly didn't like being spotted.

And so the Panto draws to a close with new actors entering stage left...

...will the sequel be as entertaining?

will the sequel be as entertaining?

What difference does it make to you........surely someone with immense intellectual status as yourself is above such frivolous nonsense?

🙂

Careful THM, the posse will be circling before you know it.

Indeed!

Relegated a long way down the news headlines tonight

I enjoyed reading this the other day.

http://thequietus.com/articles/18714-jeremy-corbyn-labour-election-rally-policies

some of you may enjoy reading it. Some wont. I think it's not a bad piece of writing either way.

@ the pies he would be disappointed if his posts got no reaction.
Why else has he reopened the thread but for the reaction?
Either that or he has suddenly developed a massive interest in the comedy of politics and the labour party in particular.
Which seems most likely to you?

@ Stoner managed about half of it and overly negative but it rings true.

Will be interesting as I think the Tories will also implode over Europe and we will have two messed up parties

FWIW more or less is doing coverage on whether he can win by getting the non voters out tomorrow. its the only chance of success and it is a long shot IMHO

Interesting Stoner however I got bored about halfway through the piece, but then to be fair I do have a short attention span.

He lost me when he said that Corbyn stands no chance of winning a general election as Labour Leader.

I tend to agree but the problem is that I was absolutely convinced that Corbyn stood no chance of ever becoming Leader of the Labour Party, so what do I know? Obviously as little as the author of your piece.

TBH I remain unconvinced that Corbyn will win the ballot. If he is declared the winner I'll be quite frankly gobsmacked.

So polls closed and Jeremy wins say most. Perfect result.

Corbyns stance on NATO demonstrates how he really stands [b]for[/b] very little, as soon as he has an opportunity to potentially do something about one of his "policies" it dissolves into the atmosphere after "consultation"

The real fun and games will begin now. I sense many opponents in other parties have been biting their tongues not wishing to jeopardise his chances of winning. Intervention in Syria looks like it's shaping up to be a trap for Corbyn. The Scottish election could be his final hurrah assuming he makes it that far.

Interesting you suddenly have a lot of faith in polls eh Jam All lthose pages arguing about how rubbish and flawed they were and how you dont trust them in the GE fade from memory eh.
Anything to say on your conversion now they say what you want to hear or is just that you dont have any principles ?

Old Yvette must be wondering when the bad dream ends? Before sleeping you and hubby are about to enjoy the trapping of power then BANG the results, hubby's off and now swept aside by the outsider. Quite traumatic

no doubt your concern will be a comfort to her

Anyway enough of engaging with the RW trolls for me

Thanks Stoner, enjoyed that article.

Old Yvette must be wondering when the bad dream ends?

I can't see that Cooper would have inspired the British people that she should be the next Labour Prime Minister, her whole leadership campaign showed just how deeply uninspiring she is, so least she won't have to deal with a general election defeat in 2020.

Her bad dream will probably come to an end on Saturday. Were she to win the leadership ballot it will last for another 5 years imo.

[img] [/img]

Does Matt in the Daily Telegraph think that Liz Kendall might win ?

Despite being Tony Blair's personal choice she has pretty much conceded defeat.

The general thinking by everyone is that Corbyn has won. Worryingly if you are a Labour supporter it appears the Tories have already worked out a strategy based on him winning.

The quote below from the Guardian around Corbyn's 99th speech sounds more Socialist Worker than Labour and seems out of touch with the majority current electorate thoughts.

loudest applause coming for a pledge not to renew the Trident nuclear programme, to resist bombing campaigns abroad and to reach out the hand of humanity to migrants.

Blimey, if that's 'Socialist Worker' I dread to think what you would regard as the political centre ground.

sounds more Socialist Worker than Labour ............to resist bombing campaigns abroad and to reach out the hand of humanity to migrants

Indeed, it seems like an eternity since Labour had any commitment to peace and social justice.

I take it dragon that you won't be backing Labour if Corbyn becomes leader with all this talk of not bombing people and reaching out the hand of humanity?

Bring back Tony Blair who knew how to bomb the crap out of foreigners and had no time for this humanity nonsense, eh ?

Suggesting that we've got better things to spend a hundred billion quid on at the moment than some pointless weapons systems, just so we get to play with the big boys?

Thats communism innit?

Bring back Tony Blair who knew how to bomb the crap out of foreigners and had no time for this humanity nonsense, eh ?

Suggesting that we've got better things to spend a hundred billion quid on at the moment than some pointless weapons systems, just so we get to play with the big boys?

Sounds more SNP than Labour.

I was totally against Iraq and the results are a disaster, but that doesn't mean that we should rule out using force if required. Standing back and watching ISIS take over Syria and Iraq does not equal being humane.

Standing back and watching ISIS take over Syria and Iraq does not equal being humane.

Except thats not whats happening, is it? Syria is in the midst of a civil war, with both sides giving as good as they get. And in Iraq and Syria you've got loads of different factions, all funded and supported by different regional powers, all having proxy wars with each other.

We haven't even got a clue whats actually happening on the ground, let alone come up with any kind of meaningful or achievable plan as to how to provide a solution.

So the sooner we get out of the colonialist mindset that 'we must do something' and then start lobbing ordinance around, the better.

And given the catastrophic results of our recent interference in the region, I'd say that someone like Corbyn advocating that we keep our noses well out of it, would be a vote winner with a lot of people.

It'd make a refreshing change from both main parties slavishly following each other into yet more disastrous adventures in the middle east, as Dave seems hell bent on at the moment

So, all the meddling in the Middle East with invasions and bombings have only served to make matters worse until we've reached the situation in which we now find ourselves.

How is more of the same going to improve matters, this time?

Just asking...

Standing back and watching ISIS take over Syria and Iraq does not equal being humane

When the govt asked for permission to bomb Syria we were going to bomb the forces that fought against ISIS in the civil war
We seem to forget this every time we mention that we should be bombing them
Had we been bombing them who know how much stronger ISIS would now be

We have changed sides on who we bomb but not that we should be bombing the,

I was totally against Iraq and the results are a disaster, but that doesn't mean that we should rule out using force if required. Standing back and watching ISIS take over Syria and Iraq does not equal being humane.

So you're saying that we should support Assad? What were you saying two years ago?

Sorry, I'm getting a bit confused. Who is it we're bombing this week?

Keep up Wopster...

Its Cardiff this week

So the sooner we get out of the colonialist mindset that 'we must do something' and then start lobbing ordinance around, the better.

So you're saying leave them to it?

Thats exactly what I'm saying!

Because any other course of action is utterly futile, and can only possibly make things worse. The very last thing Syria needs, right now, is yet another country getting involved, lobbing bombs around. There are far too many in the mix already.

Yet that self-evident truism seems to be lost in Westminster, who wilfully ignore both the cock up of 2 years ago, where we were going to side with ISIS, and the fact that it was out disastrous invasion of Iraq that set off this whole chain of events in the first place.

in comparison to everyone else, Corbyn sounds like the voice of reason by saying we should stay well out of it!

So you're saying leave them to it?

I think it's up to those advocating intervention to tell us how not leaving them to it provides a better outcome. Because right now, I'm not seeing it.

Well, maybe there's another way other than bombing?

A refugee from Syria commented this morning (whilst trudging trough the rain and mud into Hungary) that "There is no "Syria" any more. It doesn't exist. There's just a war zone, that's all..."

[quote=Mr Woppit opined]Sorry, I'm getting a bit confused. Who is it we're bombing this week?

Its largely irrelevant as long as we bomb someone and have an enemy
Have you read 1984?

Its Cardiff this week

Well, maybe there's another way other than bombing?

Again, it's up to those advocating intervention to make their case.

Also - a family in Yemen, starving and driven out of their homes by Saudi bombs (sold to them by the British) were interviewed by the BBC. The family head (the Mother - the Father was dead) said that she would prefer it if one bomb could take them all out at once because that was the preferred option as opposed to staying alive and starving slowly to death.

Imagine yourself actually coming to that.

JY I was taking the widespread reporting of a certain Corbyn victory at face value, it could be wrong and thus that would be a mistake 😉

The invasion of Iraq was a mistake (as job in Afghan not completed yet and forces allocated to Iraq too small) but the way the exit was managed was the disaster

JY I was taking the widespread reporting of a certain Corbyn victory at face value, it could be wrong and thus that would be a mistake

Ps well played made me chuckle

Is it just me? I don't get the sense from anywhere yet that others think the f****g wheels are coming off EVERYTHING.

Edit: Except perhaps binners.

If I were in charge I'd have the full intelligence agency rollout to try and gather enough intel on the situation to be able to make a proper decision on what to do.

Maybe they already have, and have realised that getting involved in a proxy war would be tantamount to declaring war on the powers themselves.. wasn't that what happened in Laos?

TBH I remain unconvinced that Corbyn will win the ballot. If he is declared the winner I'll be quite frankly gobsmacked.

This. I'm still not believing it til I see it.

So you're saying leave them to it?

It's not a question of leaving them to it, but a question of whether whatever action we take will make a positive difference. I think we can all agree that the precedents are not good on this score.

Whopping many countries sell weapons to the Saudis. Vice news published this piece a few days ago on French military sales into the region and ahollande made a trip to Saudi recently a big part of which was arms talks

https://news.vice.com/article/if-the-us-wont-sell-you-weapons-france-might-still-hook-you-up

EDIT, me too posting it. Thanks for saying so, best to try and keep things as civil as possible otherwise there's no interchange

Maybe they already have, and have realised that getting involved in a proxy war would be tantamount to declaring war on the powers themselves.. wasn't that what happened in Laos?

The sorry history of Indo-China post WW2 should be required reading for anyone advocating military intervention in the Middle East.

On Yemen the Saudi coalition were asked to intervene by the Yemeni President.

Well bombing ISIS has pushed them back in Iraq stopping them getting to Baghdad and also prevented an even worse conclusion to the Sinjar massacre.

We haven't even got a clue whats actually happening on the ground

Not true the UK and US have a very heavy intelligence & surveillance setup plus we've had (have) forces on the ground.

If I were in charge I'd have the full intelligence agency rollout to try and gather enough intel on the situation to be able to make a proper decision on what to do.

Hi.... yes, I was just wondering if you fancied popping to Aleppo for me? Yes, we need to know whats going on there, so we know which side to bomb.... and you can only get so much information from satellites. You should be able to just drive there. It'll be fine. We've got a Land Rover you can use. If you could have a word with a few people... a sort of vox pop to get their opinions on what they think we should do? And if you could get us plenty of pictures... in fact, why not take a camera crew and get some film while you're there?

No, no.... We'll send a couple of bodyguards with you. I'm sure it'll all be fine. Nothing to worry about. Just give us a call when you get back, and we'll go through everything.

See you in a week or so then.....

On Yemen the Saudi coalition were asked to intervene by the Yemeni President.

Hi.... yes, I was just wondering if you fancied popping to Aleppo for me? Yes, we need to know whats going on there, so we know which side to bomb....

Sarcasm is always such a valuable contribution. That's great, thanks.

Seriously though Molls... would you be volunteering?

Theres a reason we haven't a clue whats going on. Because the beardy blokes get all beheady if they suspect you might be there to see whats going on. Then theres the other side dropping barrel bombs from Helicopters, and all the other heavily armed nut-jobs aligned to god-knows-who, all having their I'm-more-Islamic-than-you fun and games

So if we've not a clue whats going on on the ground, how on earth are we meant to deal with it by lobbing more bombs around?

I know that as a former colonial superpower its all very irritating, and a bit embarrassing, to the politicians in Westminster to realise that they're completely impotent, but we are, so we need to deal with that fact and move on. Do we really need another disastrous escapade to ram home the limits of our shrinking military capability?

Only one politician is presently saying this. And I think a dose of realism would be very welcome to a lot of people.

Much like the Afghan President invited the Soviet Union to intervene and the Vietnamese government requested assistance from the USA!

Or why the communist insurgencies in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and China had popular support.

Seriously though Molls... would you be volunteering?

No, but I'm not an intelligence operative. You'll notice that I am NOT advocating lobbing bombs around, that is in fact the opposite of what I am suggesting.

No, but I'm not an intelligence operative.

Are suicide missions in their job description? We haven't got a clue whats going on, so why on earth do we think that we have the answers?

We need to get over our colonial arrogance, once and for all

and you can only get so much information from satellites.

Which is why they aren't only using satellites but a whole raft of information gathering and surveillance kit. The UK alone has out there 10 drones, Rivet Joint aircraft, Tornado's with RAPTOR pods, the GCHQ/NSA base on Cyprus and also in certain cases there have been boots on the ground. The US will have plenty as well, with France having just entered performing surveillance activities as well.