Jeremy Corbyn

one only has to observe events in Turkey to realise what an absurd choice of word it is.

Put that in your letter from Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. They need to be told.

...to be deselected by old what's his name - Paul Cuckoo.

The new gently, kind version of politics. After all as Jezza told us tonight, he doesn't do malice. No really...

Now you're not making any sense at all.

No, one only has to observe events in Turkey to realise what an absurd choice of word it is. Or should I say a rather dramatic choice of word.

It's really not very long ago that we would read reports of this happening in south america or africa and be appalled, and yet here we are today, saying that it's all OK in the good old UK because it hasn't yet descended into violent bloodshed

Well don't expect Brexiteers to be appalled, their attitude towards Turks was well documented. And now folk compare their issues with the simple fact that labour have the wrong bloke in the wrong job. With such sympathies, who needs enemies?

But you are correct....

[quote=ernie_lynch ]Now you're not making any sense at all.

[img] [/img]

ernie_lynch - Member 
Unfortunately the thread has been rendered pointless by the usual petty point-scorers who would rather post silly pictures and rant instead of engaging in intelligent debate.

Words of wisdom, Ernie, words of wisdom

teamhurtmore - Member

Well don't expect Brexiteers to be appalled, their attitude towards Turks was ell documented.

Tom Watson is a Brexiteer who wasn't appalled by the coup in Turkey?

He was referring to attempted coups in the Labour Party nearly a year ago. One day after Corbyn was elected leader in fact :

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34237196 ]Tom Watson: 'Labour party members will not accept coup'[/url]

I know that I've been critical of the lack of intelligent debate on this thread but I have to admit that I'm finding the total absurdity of linking all this with Turkey and Brexit really rather entertaining 🙂

You are correct the use of the word coup to describe both scenarios is absurd. Nice self reflection there. Bravo.

Anyway sleep well - just like Jezza apparently - hope all the cuckoos don't make the nest too cramped.

[img] [/img]

No what I was referring to as 'absurd' is what you are waffling on about - Turkey and Brexit and how people aren't appalled by bloodshed.

But I think you knew that.

So its because we are just better negotiators rather than any gender bias....you really sure about that ?

I don't think it's [i]only[/i] because men are more likely to be aggressive negotiators no. I think it's a composite of factors that also includes other variables, such as that men change jobs more frequently which while a simple argument, is nevertheless a demonstrable factor. BTW the c.9% figure does take into account career breaks so that is [i]not [/i]a factor here.

but one also has to ask why equivalent "female" jobs get paid so much less than "equivalent" male roles.

I think here you mean why do roles that have a higher percentage of women doing them typically attract lower pay and we can reference social or caring related roles here. This is a good question. We have to employ a nanny because my wife works a full time professional shift based job. I've just finished appointing a maternity cover position (current nanny is about to drop) and so the issue of pay has cropped up. A few people, namely my wife and MIL, have commented we seem to be paying our current and replacement nanny rather a lot for what they do. I couldn't disagree more frankly. I get why jobs in finance and the legal profession pay a lot because they are hard jobs to acquire the skills for but still, you'd think caring for and educating children would come with gold plated rewards.

Are you against narrowing the gender pay gap?

No far from it. I've always been a champion of equality especially in the work place. My mother was one of the new breed of nurses in the 80s who were part of the wave to professionalise nursing to a new standard. My dad worked as well, but it was from my mother that I got my work ethic. So I am very much in favour of seeing that figure approach parity (within the margin of error) and as I said, my wife is a professional woman and my career is currently only plodding along while I support her in a big career development move.

What I am angry about is the continuous rhetoric that attacks my gender as if being male means I am in some way to blame for the problem. There is also a massive failure to balance the argument the other way and redress the failures that men have experienced in the family courts and the lack of recognition for the importance of fathers. This problem is real, pernicious and persistent and there are many factions, particularly on the left of politics, that refuse to acknowledge it.

Well I am sure that Jezza is good for his word and that there is no gender bias in his teams.

What I am angry about is the continuous rhetoric that attacks my gender as if being male means I am in some way to blame for the problem.

Right, well to put it bluntly, who's fault d'you think it is? The answer is going to be Men, isn't it? It's not "your" fault directly (unless you're responsible for setting wages where you work), but the answer isn't going to be "dolphins" is it?

Right, well to put it bluntly, who's fault d'you think it is? The answer is going to be Men, isn't it?

It's a reasonable point but I have a very specific and considered answer to that.

The answer is definitely not 'men'.

The answer is 'some men'. And this is my point. In the debate about gender, we see the issue as completely binary, as if all men have enjoyed some kind of benefit at the expense of all women and that's just not true. Not now and not ever.

I've never been the kind of man that enjoyed some kind of benefit or priviledge as a result of being male. Far from it and quite the reverse in some instances - I've never been 'one of the boys' so when the narative is played out to me that being male in some way confers an advantage, well it just doesn't correlate remotely with my experience or with the experience of my (male) friends.

To broaden the debate, part of the problem is that as a society, we have a habit of oversimplifying problems and using easily observable characteristics to explain them. Thus, prejudice and discrimination are only ever based on observable characteristics such as race, gender, sexuality, disability etc (actually disability is a good example because where it is a physical disability we are very good at accounting for it, but where it is an emotional or mental one, we aren't).

The greatest prejudice we are ALL guilty of is that we demonstrate towards others on account of their personality.

I will never forget the second person who managed me sitting me in a room and saying to be quite bluntly 'I think professionally you're really good but I personally just cannot stand you'.

Ernie the 40,000 figure [b]was on Sky earlier[/b], no idea where they got that from. Also @captain 'twas they who reported Angela Eagle had cancelled her open surgeries

Well that explains a lot. I'm surprised that you so readily churn it out as fact. It's not like a Murdoch owned news agency has ever been caught misinforming the public, is it?
What about the sauce of your comment about police being able to guarantee Corbyn's safety to the same level of Angela Eagle?

Boys/ men do face disadvantages at some points in their lives but frankly none of it comes close to what women have to put up with.

So in brief, Corbyn is disliked by the Tory Tories, hated by the Red Tories within his party, but loved by the rapidly increasing numbers of voters in the Labour Party.

Have I got this right?

The new gently, kind version of politics. After all as Jezza told us tonight, he doesn't do malice. No really...

I watched the interview on Newsnight last night, and after we'd stopped howling with laughter at the sight of the arch back-bench rebel thumping the table and demanding loyalty, watched him make that statement. I liked the way he said 'we don't do malice' in the same way as a Bond villain would. The tone was really sinister. All that was missing was him stroking a cat on his lap, and John Macdonell stood behind him with a dodgy bowler hat in his hand.

What it really meant was 'if I get in power, then you'll all immediately be placed under surveillance' and any hint of dissent, and we'll pack you off to the gulag.

The level of hypocrisy is breathtaking. Do as I say! But definitely don't do what I've spent my entire political career doing, or there will be consequences comrade.

How come all lefties wear their revolutionary credentials like a badge of honour, then the first sniff of power and they develop an ultra authoritarian streak and turn into little tinpot dictators?

as if all men have enjoyed some kind of benefit at the expense of all women and that's just not true. Not now and not ever.

Yep, that's pretty much it. You drew the golden ticket coming out of your mum with a cock and balls

Even if you don't personally feel it, it's been so well observed and academically discussed that no one seriously doesn't think it's the case anymore.

So in brief, Corbyn is disliked by the Tory Tories, hated by the Red Tories within his party, but loved by the rapidly increasing numbers of voters in the Labour Party.

What I'm wondering as an outside observer is if everyone who'd vote Labour under Corbyn is now a member of the Labour Party.

"Ernie the 40,000 figure was on Sky earlier, no idea where they got that from. Also @captain 'twas they who reported Angela Eagle had cancelled her open surgeries"

Well that explains a lot. I'm surprised that you so readily churn it out as fact. It's not like a Murdoch owned news agency has ever been caught misinforming the public, is it?

What makes you imagine that what jamba claims was on Sky actually was on Sky?

The first time I saw the 40,000 number was yesterday afternoon and that was in the far right magazine, the New Statesman.

What makes you imagine that what jamba claims was on Sky actually was on Sky?

Because I believe that s/he believes what they see, they just don't have the ability to understand what they're seeing or convey it without getting confused.

I think it's a composite of factors that also includes other variables

DO you accept that one of them is sexism ?

What I am angry about is the continuous rhetoric that attacks my gender as if being male means I am in some way to blame for the problem

Why is an attack on what our gender do in general an attack on you personally?
Men tend to commit most crimes ...am I really crticising you by that statement of fact ?

, we see the issue as completely binary, as if all men have enjoyed some kind of benefit at the expense of all women and that's just not true. Not now and not ever.

You really think that its not easier for man to achieve than a woman in general- you look at all areas of life, business, politics, art and you think yes what I see is a non patriarchal meritocracy where women can benefit as well as men...there is literally no evidence base to support that claim and the counter point i true, you will be telling me next that privately educated kids dont have an advantage in life next 🙄

I get your point but the facts just dont support your view.

How about schools - primary schools have 1 in 10 teachers are male Do you think its only 10% of senior roles occupied by men? Care to guess at the figure? Examples can be found in ALL fields of this.

I've never been the kind of man that enjoyed some kind of benefit or priviledge as a result of being male. Far from it and quite the reverse in some instances

I was considering deconstructing that but saying it was bollocks seemed to make more sense.

A few odd exemplars that are atypical in no way redress the overwhelming evidence. if you want to play the oppressed white middle class man card then i shall merely shake my head at your inability to understand data.

The greatest prejudice we are ALL guilty of is that we demonstrate towards others on account of their personality.

You cannot prejudge someone personality you actually have to know them to make the judgment and you have confused liking and disliking fok based on the content of their character with disliking them due to skin colour or race or gender. no one is going to promote the lazy useless person with no social skills. That not discrimination as it is applied to ALL.However when we disproportionately promote folk who have a penis we do have to look at the reason may . Its unlikely due to them being more talented. When we pay them more its unlikely its down to them being "tougher" and "better" negotiators - which in itself is a sexist argument.

How come all lefties wear their revolutionary credentials like a badge of honour, then the first sniff of power and they develop an ultra authoritarian streak and turn into little tinpot dictators?

It must be utterly elating as a socialist to feel that maybe, just maybe things are going to start to change..
That perhaps we can start to wrestle some power and wealth back from the people with the old money..
That we might, for the first time in history be witnessing a new dawn in the age old battle to close the gap between rich and poor..

And then utterly crushing as you realise that actually even your closest allies are all on the other team, that you are in a nest of vipers and that the glimmer of hope that you showed the people can always be instantly extinguished by the snide chuckling of the elite..

The absolute futility of it all suddenly brought rushing home as you understand completely that the wealthy are in total control and they are not about sharing

Probably once you've gone that far your conscience couldn't let you go down without a fight, a last ditch attempt to regain some control..
And the wealthy know that this will happen, and that you'll be mocked and ridiculed, and that people will look back on socialist politics for the next couple of decades and laugh at the dewey eyed sentimentality dismissing socialism as idealistic dreams and nonsense

And that's why they let an idealist rise almost to power occasionally.. they let it happen so that they can maintain control

EAT THE RICH
Vote Corbyn

What it really meant was 'if I get in power, then you'll all immediately be placed under surveillance' and any hint of dissent, and we'll pack you off to the gulag.

Definitely true and thanks for the translation

How come all lefties wear their revolutionary credentials like a badge of honour, then the first sniff of power and they develop an ultra authoritarian streak and turn into little tinpot dictators?

A leader expecting the MPs to follow him and respect the democratic wishes of the party membership that they serve. You dont get more Stalinist than that and it certainly separates him from ever other leader ever in the history of politics 🙄

You are getting more and more like Richard Littlejohn as this thread develops.

[quote=mefty ]The first time I saw the 40,000 number was yesterday afternoon and that was in the far right magazine, the New Statesman.

WHat article i never saw it - link? Source?

Either way they cannot search and process 40,000 new members in a day. Vetting 100 for one person in one day would be a tall order eve if we assume it took 5 mins per person which is very generous. The figure is clearly fabricated.

So the soft left /"intellectual"/ Middle class yoghurt weavers are against Corbyn....who knew eh who knew

Because I believe that s/he believes what they see, they just don't have the ability to understand what they're seeing or convey it without getting confused.

Degree educated and apst grad from Oxford

Pretty sure he can process information if he wanted to do it and he is doing to get the biggest rise out of folk who keep feeding him - me included.
IMHO - did you see the allardyce post yesterday for example? - its just a piss take/troll to get a reaction from the "usual" suspects. No one can struggle this much with basic facts without actually putting effort into it.

No way can he think he is only ever been wrong 4 or 5 times, he can manage that in one sentence.

How come all [s]lefties[/s] One Nation Tories wear their [s]revolutionary[/s] establishment credentials like a badge of honour, then the first sniff of power and they develop an ultra authoritarian streak and turn into little tinpot dictators?

I always just assume that every Tory will behave like a dictator, based on the 'Born to Rule' gene they all seem to be born with 😉

Degree educated and apst grad from Oxford

Pretty sure he can process information if he wanted to do it and he is doing to get the biggest rise out of folk who keep feeding him - me included.
IMHO - did you see the allardyce post yesterday for example? - its just a piss take/troll to get a reaction from the "usual" suspects. No one can struggle this much with basic facts without actually putting effort into it.

😀
Obviously, this is why there's no reply when the going gets tough and has to back stuff up (I'll keep calling it out).
I'm still waiting for the police's guarantee for everyone else's safety where they cannot guarantee Angla Eagle's, a clear and bold claim by jamba that they can. Obvs.

[s]EAT THE RICH[/s] ENSURE THE TORIES STAY IN POWER FOR EVER!
Vote Corbyn

FTFY 😉

I've said it before..

I'd rather the tories got in again and shafted us, if the alternative you're proposing is a tory labour party that drags us back to the centre and dashes any hope of reform

keep the labour party left wing

Have we done "Behave, or I'll call your dad!" yet?

@ConorMcGinn on the twit.

I've said it before..

I'd rather the tories got in again and shafted us, if the alternative you're proposing is a tory labour party that drags us back to the centre and dashes any hope of reform

keep the labour party left wing

And this is where it's at. Champagne socialism has its place, but needs the socialism element to differentiate from out and out tory labour that we currently have.
For me it's about people and not personal wealth.

I just had a nightmare vision of the future, that seems all too plausable

1) Corbyn is re-elected as leader. Seems inevitable now really, due to the lefty/trot/tory trojan horse insurgency
2) Theresa May, still gob-smacked at her luck, immediately calls a snap election
3) Labour goes down to the heaviest defeat in its history, losing a mass of former heartlands to UKIP
4) The Glorious Leader doesn't even contemplate resigning, as its just the electorate being too stupid to see that he knows whats best for them.
5) The labour party implodes even more so than it has done already
^0 The Tories, cackling with delight, set about a 20 year programme of turbo charged capitalism, knowing they will now be completely uncchallenged

I'd rather the tories got in again and shafted us, if the alternative you're proposing is a tory labour party that drags us back to the centre and dashes any hope of reform

then you're absolutely insane! Pure and simple! I suspect that when what you're advocating comes to pass, and the Tories are totally unopposed, as they are now, for ever, you'll probably be less keen

Whats terrifying is that people with attitudes like yours are about to doom us all to this dystopian outcome, and you either can't see it, or your precious principles mean more

it's not terrifying though binners..

change gonna come, but not if you cave in and return to the established routine every time it starts to look a bit scary

you're just a coward

Moderation? It's mediocrity, fear, and confusion in disguise. It's the devil's dilemma. It's neither doing nor not doing. It's the wobbling compromise that makes no one happy. Moderation is for the bland, the apologetic, for the fence-sitters of the world afraid to take a stand. It's for those afraid to laugh or cry, for those afraid to live or die. Moderation...is lukewarm tea, the devil's own brew.

At least the tories are good at making money, your version of labour is nothing more than a weak gesture.. An appeasement to the bitter middle ground

I must indeed be a coward. Because you lot actually terrify me!

you lot actually terrify me

😆 very emotive binners

I never had you pegged as a Waitrose socialist... look out mate, they'll be coming for your tapenade before you know it

Whats terrifying is that people with attitudes like yours are about to doom us all to this dystopian outcome, and you either can't see it, or your precious principles mean more

WTF is wrong with having inviolable principles?
You would rather we all lied to get power? this is the more noble and better option?

The party is in a mess and I am not denying it but asking folk to ignore their principles - if you must ask then ask the PLP as they are the ****ing minority here- is insane

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2016/07/why-i-m-going-scream-if-one-more-person-denies-there-sexism-left

Suppress the scream!!

@geetee I am with you on this. I have always tried to have a healthy mix of professional women in my teams. I know when hiring for grad schemes all terms are equal however you do notice 5/10 years on women tend to have lower pay. We always paid for the role. You cannot escape the fact that its women who tend to take career breaks for families and/or take lower level jobs than they might otherwise do in order to juggle childcare. I have had one very talented woman give up work entirely at 32, that's completely her choice of choice but the firm had invested a lot in her in terms of training and opportunity. Whatever you write in law this will always be in the back of people's minds, this applies to both men and women managers. I have also seen the other side of the coin with some quite hopeless women threaten to sue for "sex discrimination" when they have been fired for being rubbish, and get paid off handsomely.

Sky News is availble online, easy to watch anywhere. I use it for example to watch press conferences which are often shown in full, eg Obama Brexit, May in Germany and France .. that way I can make up my own mind and not rely on editors cut and interpretation. They showed quite a few facebook pages etc with "we'll lend you £25" in order to vote plus figure on £7000 dontaed for such purposes by a pro-Corbyn group. They also had a quick question / answer with Jezza on it with him confirming that was against the rules. I have no doubt we'll hear more about this as the days go on.

There is absolutely nothing kinder or gentler about Corbyn's leadership nor a significant number of his Momentum followers.

Statement released by a Labour MP today

A Labour MP has accused leader Jeremy Corbyn of trying to bully him, after apparently considering using his family against him.

In a statement, Conor McGinn says the episode began in May, when he gave an interview to The House magazine.

He concludes: "When I watched Jeremy's interview on Newsnight last night, I am afraid I could no longer tolerate the hypocrisy of him talking about a kinder, gentler politics when I knew for a fact that he had proposed using my family against me in an attempt to bully me in to submission because he didn't like something I said.

[url= http://news.sky.com/story/labour-mp-corbyn-tried-to-bully-me-10509144 ]linky[/url]

[quote=CaptainFlashheart ]Have we done "Behave, or I'll call your dad!" yet?
@ConorMcGinn on the twit.

At least second or third hand hearsay[ though i had originally typed heresy!] at best, unsourced and from someone who dislike Corbyn
Its pretty meaningless IMHO and most likely just a smear.
No evidence to support it is there

In general I would imagine party whips are amoral shits who would do anything and do bully the MPs using anything at all as leverage to get their wishes- I doubt you will find any great difference in MO from any party- Got a view yourself flashy or just going to throw stones at the nasty lefties ?

@geetee I am with you on this. I have always tried to have a healthy mix of professional women in my teams. I know when hiring for grad schemes all terms are equal however you do notice 5/10 years on women tend to have lower pay. We always paid for the role. You cannot escape the fact that its women who tend to take career breaks for families and/or take lower level jobs than they might otherwise do in order to juggle childcare. I have had one very talented woman give up work entirely at 32, that's completely her choice of choice but the firm had invested a lot in her in terms of training and opportunity. Whatever you write in law this will always be in the back of people's minds, this applies to both men and women managers. I have also seen the other side of the coin with some quite hopeless women threaten to sue for "sex discrimination" when they have been fired for being rubbish, and get paid off handsomely.

If the fellas are increasing the pay for the role, why not increase the pay of their female colleagues in line with this? It might prevent talented females from leaving. What was the reason for the talented 32 yr old leaving? If it was to increase her pay then that was the employers fault for not keeping up, not hers. There might be a million unrelated reasons, which,of course, you're not going to include.

WTF is wrong with having inviolable principles?

nothing

You would rather we all lied to get power? this is the more noble and better option?
The party is in a mess and I am not denying it but asking folk to ignore their principles

Ever heard the word 'compromise'. It tends to be a major factor in successful politics. Without it, the labour party becomes a powerless bunch of protestors shouting into a void. For ever

if you must ask then ask the PLP as they are the **** minority here- is insane

Every MP has been democratically elected by their constituents. This has been pointed out over and over and over again. You lot seem to think they've been appointed by some imaginary 'Blairite' comitee

CFH - no, you beat me to it, just posted on this above. Corbyn is a bully (Conor McGinn's word amd mine too)

How does Corbyn have inviolable principals when he speaks and blogs for 30 years against the EU then campaigns for Remain ? To be more Machiavellian he seems to have deliberately sabotaged the campaign, thats the only "principled" argument possible here.

How does Corbyn have inviolable principals when he speaks for 30 years against the EU then campaigns for Remain ?

Because you can be critical of something without wanting to destroy the country's future by throwing that thing away.

Because you can be critical of something without wanting to destroy the country's future by throwing that thing away.

Different views of the future are availabke. Corbyn believes the future is brighter outside the EU not least as a Labour government would be able to set policy as it sees fit and because he believes in democracy

WHat article i never saw it - link? Source?

It wasn't an article, it is on George Eaton's twitter feed, [url= https://twitter.com/georgeeaton ]link[/url]

He was pretty clear in his remain campaign that it was due to what the tories would do to workers rights/environment/etc given a free hand.
I think that's what frustrated many - in that he didn't give other people's remain arguments - just the ones he actually believed.