Labour won't win...

[Eugene Wrayburn]

What exactly is decent about Corbyn?

[Zhivago]

I wouldn't say Corbyn's subs v Cameron's aircraft carriers is a fair comparison. One was/is ideological bollocks the other was a poor decision that was the result of a list of poor decisions. One saddles us with a generations worth of white elephants, the other a few years worth.

Corbyn may think he has the interests of the majority at heart but that doesn't mean that his ideas are best for the interests of the majority. A lot of what he thinks is ideological bollocks that doesn't really have any base in leading a major party, let alone a leading nation. It's all very good for fringe meetings of those still living in the 70's, and I've no doubt it's well intentioned, but it's no good if you want to lead a modern, open nation. Particularly, if that nation is naturally right of centre.

But stupid given that we haven't used our nukes ever, and are unlikely to. So we already have these white elephants.

And ideology is central to politics. It's nonsense to moan about policy being ideologically minded. The ideology at heart being anti-nukes, but pro-jobs.

Unfortunately, none of us will be here to say "I told you we needed them." Joking aside, just because they aren't used doesn't mean they aren't needed. By that logic you could argue that we don't need GCHQ as we haven't had a terrorist attack in ages (touches wood) but I bet the French and Belgians wish their versions were as well resources as ours.

Yes, all politics is ideologically driven but I hate ideology for ideology's sake. I think that whether it's public sector transport > private sector transport or academies > local authority run schools.

How is it ideology for ideology's sake exactly?

[Zhivago]

What exactly is decent about Corbyn?

-Lowest expenses of all parliamentarians
-Campaigns tirelessly for those in society with the least voice, but most need
-Usually gives a straight answer when asked a question
-Not out for self-aggrandisement, like most other politicians

What has he done that makes you hate him so much?

[Eugene Wrayburn]

What exactly is decent about Corbyn?

-Lowest expenses of all parliamentarians
-Campaigns tirelessly for those in society with the least voice, but most need
-Usually gives a straight answer when asked a question
-Not out for self-aggrandisement, like most other politicians

What has he done that makes you hate him so much?

I don't hate him. I find him much the same as most other politicians. He lies when it furthers his aims. He spins no less than anyone else. His calls for unity are calls for others to agree with him or shut up. It is not remotely surprising that the MP for Islington has the lowest expenses.

As for not being out for self aggrandisement, I'm not so sure. He is one of a peculiar group of politicians of whom Trump and Farage are others who have the amazing ego to believe that only they can save the country/party. The truth is that his presence effectively gives the Tories a clear run. He may wish it were not so but that is the case. He either sees that that is the case and chooses to ignore it, or he's disappeared so far up his own fundament that he can't see that he's an electoral liability.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Just to add, straight answer to a straight question? What utter nonsense. He'll be won't even do interviews

[Mellsblue]

But stupid given that we haven't used our nukes ever, and are unlikely to. So we already have these white elephants.

And ideology is central to politics. It's nonsense to moan about policy being ideologically minded. The ideology at heart being anti-nukes, but pro-jobs.

Unfortunately, none of us will be here to say "I told you we needed them." Joking aside, just because they aren't used doesn't mean they aren't needed. By that logic you could argue that we don't need GCHQ as we haven't had a terrorist attack in ages (touches wood) but I bet the French and Belgians wish their versions were as well resources as ours.

Yes, all politics is ideologically driven but I hate ideology for ideology's sake. I think that whether it's public sector transport > private sector transport or academies > local authority run schools.

How is it ideology for ideology's sake exactly?

You'll need to be more specific. We had two stands of debate. Subs with no missiles v aircraft carriers with no aircraft.
My point on ideology is not related to the above. My point on ideology is, using my previous examples, that transport is not definitely better in the public sector as argued by the left - the train service now is unbelievably more reliable than under public ownership yet conversely there was a strong argument for keeping the east coast main line in a public hands - or the ideology that schools are more successful as academies/free schools when there are a myriad of examples of schools flourishing under both models. I hate a blanket ideological approach that regardless of evidence a particular way is the only way to success.

[Sandydragon]

That's my point. Always about Labour, even though they aren't in power, making a cockup of everything.

To be fair, you're the one who dragged us back a few years. We were quite happy examining Corbyn's performance.

I only brought up past Tory decisions for comparison because to me it makes sense to judge one party's policies in relation to those of other parties'. That's why I felt it was a fair comparison to make with the nuclear subs vs the carriers.

I'm no Corbynite. It may surprise you, but I'm also not a Labour member, and I am not tied politically to any party.

But I am very interested in politics, and hate to see people get manipulated by the press into believing a narrative that they're pushing. I don't think Corbyn is the best thing since sliced bread, but I do think he is decent, and has the interests of the majority of people at heart, including a lot of idiots who constantly vote against their interests.

If the Tory decision had been to go ahead with th carriers and it bother with planes at alll, I would agree. It was a risky decision , verging on daft, but not as ludicrous as corbyns tribent plan.

I think Corbin does genuinely care about people. It he is not a leader and he is in a role where his failings are magnified.

[Zhivago]

Just to add, straight answer to a straight question? What utter nonsense. He'll be won't even do interviews

He does interviews all the time. When was the last time a Tory ever gave a straight answer? Brexit means Brexit for example. Laughable.

[Zhivago]

To be fair, you're the one who dragged us back a few years. We were quite happy examining Corbyn's performance.

I only brought up past Tory decisions for comparison because to me it makes sense to judge one party's policies in relation to those of other parties'. That's why I felt it was a fair comparison to make with the nuclear subs vs the carriers.

I'm no Corbynite. It may surprise you, but I'm also not a Labour member, and I am not tied politically to any party.

But I am very interested in politics, and hate to see people get manipulated by the press into believing a narrative that they're pushing. I don't think Corbyn is the best thing since sliced bread, but I do think he is decent, and has the interests of the majority of people at heart, including a lot of idiots who constantly vote against their interests.

If the Tory decision had been to go ahead with th carriers and it bother with planes at alll, I would agree. It was a risky decision , verging on daft, but not as ludicrous as corbyns tribent plan.

I think Corbin does genuinely care about people. It he is not a leader and he is in a role where his failings are magnified.

That was Thornberry anyway, and I don't think she's too bright. But that was using the example of Japan anyway, so it's not necessarily quite as daft as it seems on the face of it, although it wouldn't be the choice i'd make either.

[Zhivago]

Unfortunately, none of us will be here to say "I told you we needed them." Joking aside, just because they aren't used doesn't mean they aren't needed. By that logic you could argue that we don't need GCHQ as we haven't had a terrorist attack in ages (touches wood) but I bet the French and Belgians wish their versions were as well resources as ours.

Yes, all politics is ideologically driven but I hate ideology for ideology's sake. I think that whether it's public sector transport > private sector transport or academies > local authority run schools.

How is it ideology for ideology's sake exactly?

You'll need to be more specific. We had two stands of debate. Subs with no missiles v aircraft carriers with no aircraft.
My point on ideology is not related to the above. My point on ideology is, using my previous examples, that transport is not definitely better in the public sector as argued by the left - the train service now is unbelievably more reliable than under public ownership yet conversely there was a strong argument for keeping the east coast main line in a public hands - or the ideology that schools are more successful as academies/free schools when there are a myriad of examples of schools flourishing under both models. I hate a blanket ideological approach that regardless of evidence a particular way is the only way to success.

Haha it's more reliable because it's run by companies which are state-owned by European governments.

[Mellsblue]

How is it ideology for ideology's sake exactly?

You'll need to be more specific. We had two stands of debate. Subs with no missiles v aircraft carriers with no aircraft.
My point on ideology is not related to the above. My point on ideology is, using my previous examples, that transport is not definitely better in the public sector as argued by the left - the train service now is unbelievably more reliable than under public ownership yet conversely there was a strong argument for keeping the east coast main line in a public hands - or the ideology that schools are more successful as academies/free schools when there are a myriad of examples of schools flourishing under both models. I hate a blanket ideological approach that regardless of evidence a particular way is the only way to success.

Haha it's more reliable because it's run by companies which are state-owned by European governments.

All of them? And, of those that are, are they run by the public sector or as private entities with the government as shareholders? As they are two totally different things.

[Zhivago]

You'll need to be more specific. We had two stands of debate. Subs with no missiles v aircraft carriers with no aircraft.
My point on ideology is not related to the above. My point on ideology is, using my previous examples, that transport is not definitely better in the public sector as argued by the left - the train service now is unbelievably more reliable than under public ownership yet conversely there was a strong argument for keeping the east coast main line in a public hands - or the ideology that schools are more successful as academies/free schools when there are a myriad of examples of schools flourishing under both models. I hate a blanket ideological approach that regardless of evidence a particular way is the only way to success.

Haha it's more reliable because it's run by companies which are state-owned by European governments.

All of them? And, of those that are, are they run by the public sector or as private entities with the government as shareholders? As they are two totally different things.

If you're asking for a personal view, I think that natural monopolies, such as rail services, should not be privately owned. They should be publically owned because at least then there isn't a profit overhead that increases costs. The benefits of competition and a free market that usually underlie the preference for private ownership, are not present in a natural monopoly. This goes too for other natural monopolies.

But I'd take it even further. I generally see profit extraction by owners as detrimental to the running of a business - just look at the shennanigans of some of our worst capitalists - Green and Ashley. They are asset stripping, profit extracting sociopaths, who hide their ill-gained wealth offshore. Take the recent purchase of Agent Provocateur, gone into pre-pack administration so as to practically defraud the creditors. That's no way to run a business, and it's purely due to the profit motive, and some of the more despicable practices available to people with no scruples.

[Mellsblue]

Haha it's more reliable because it's run by companies which are state-owned by European governments.

All of them? And, of those that are, are they run by the public sector or as private entities with the government as shareholders? As they are two totally different things.

If you're asking for a personal view, I think that natural monopolies, such as rail services, should not be privately owned. They should be publically owned because at least then there isn't a profit overhead that increases costs. The benefits of competition and a free market that usually underlie the preference for private ownership, are not present in a natural monopoly. This goes too for other natural monopolies.

But I'd take it even further. I generally see profit extraction by owners as detrimental to the running of a business - just look at the shennanigans of some of our worst capitalists - Green and Ashley. They are asset stripping, profit extracting sociopaths, who hide their ill-gained wealth offshore. Take the recent purchase of Agent Provocateur, gone into pre-pack administration so as to practically defraud the creditors. That's no way to run a business, and it's purely due to the profit motive, and some of the more despicable practices available to people with no scruples.

I'd agree with most of that. As things stand I don't think the privatisation of the railways has been done satisfactorily as they are monopolies. It still has its pluses as investment is not at the whim of central government who can raid the railway budget for a more headline grabbing initiative. The railways suffered for years because of this. Under the present system of one operator per route my ideal solution would be a ring fenced budget under public ownership. Albeit, there would be stringent oversight demanding value for money. There are formative plans to run competing franchises on the same lines and this should be the end game.

I'm not against profit making in privately run public services as this will tend to lead savings across the board. This is not always the case but I'd say it's generally the rule, just as its not always the case that the public sector is less efficient because it's not striving for the efficiencies that lead to profit.

Philip Green, Mike Ashley etc etc are all scum that give capitalism, which I think is a force for good, a terrible name. Making a profit is what drives most to improve and evolve businesses, else why bother, but asset stripping like that is disgusting. I hope they both eventually spend a decent amount of time alone and in poverty. Sadly, that is very unlikely to happen.

[Stones of granite]

Did anyone see the complete filleting of Phillip Hammond and Theresa May by Jeremy Corbyn at PMQ yesterday over the budget fiasco and the resulting £2b black hole?

No, neither did I.

Utterly, utterly useless.

Of course, it's the Tory media to blame for the fact that Corbyn can't muster any opposition to a 2nd rate Government.

[cashead]

Post your favourite "UK Labour are so fucked" moment in this thread.


Mine was the one where he lied about his train seat and chose to grandstand (grandsit?) instead, and then got promptly got caught.

[Mellsblue]

Did anyone see the complete filleting of Phillip Hammond and Theresa May by Jeremy Corbyn at PMQ yesterday over the budget fiasco and the resulting £2b black hole?

No, neither did I.

Utterly, utterly useless.

Of course, it's the Tory media to blame for the fact that Corbyn can't muster any opposition to a 2nd rate Government.

Top post. My face went from complete confusion/bemusement to guffawing in the space of three sentences. Good work.

[Mellsblue]

Post your favourite "UK Labour are so fucked" moment in this thread.


Mine was the one where he lied about his train seat and chose to grandstand (grandsit?) instead, and then got promptly got caught.

Subs with no missles is still my favourite, but there are plenty to choose from.

Sad thing is that there hasn't been a time in recent history in which a credible opposition has so desperately been required.

[Banquo]

Post your favourite "UK Labour are so fucked" moment in this thread.


Mine was the one where he lied about his train seat and chose to grandstand (grandsit?) instead, and then got promptly got caught.

Subs with no missles is still my favourite, but there are plenty to choose from.

Sad thing is that there hasn't been a time in recent history in which a credible opposition has so desperately been required.

lets see if they can capitalise on election expenses schizz then.

[Stones of granite]

Post your favourite "UK Labour are so fucked" moment in this thread.


Mine was the one where he lied about his train seat and chose to grandstand (grandsit?) instead, and then got promptly got caught.

Subs with no missles is still my favourite, but there are plenty to choose from.

Sad thing is that there hasn't been a time in recent history in which a credible opposition has so desperately been required.

lets see if they can capitalise on election expenses schizz then.

If he can't, he should be guided to his office and left with a bottle of whisky, a Webley revolver, and a clear understanding of the expectations.

[Mellsblue]

Post your favourite "UK Labour are so fucked" moment in this thread.


Mine was the one where he lied about his train seat and chose to grandstand (grandsit?) instead, and then got promptly got caught.

Subs with no missles is still my favourite, but there are plenty to choose from.

Sad thing is that there hasn't been a time in recent history in which a credible opposition has so desperately been required.

lets see if they can capitalise on election expenses schizz then.

I doubt it. Partly because they aren't exactly clean themselves on this, if nowhere near the same level.
If they can't get traction out of Conservative civil war over Brexit, the NIC debacle and strike actions on the trains and in the NHS, to the name the headline issues - the Conservative lead has at worst stayed the same throughout all of these - then I doubt they have the political nouse to make dents over an accounting error/lie which affects the day to day lives of nobody.

If even they do, I'd rather they held the government to account on policy rather than clerical issues. And this comes from a paid up member of the Conservative Party.

[Mellsblue]

Subs with no missles is still my favourite, but there are plenty to choose from.

Sad thing is that there hasn't been a time in recent history in which a credible opposition has so desperately been required.

lets see if they can capitalise on election expenses schizz then.

If he can't, he should be guided to his office and left with a bottle of whisky, a Webley revolver, and a clear understanding of the expectations.

He'd only end up shooting himself in the foot.

[Stones of granite]

lets see if they can capitalise on election expenses schizz then.

If he can't, he should be guided to his office and left with a bottle of whisky, a Webley revolver, and a clear understanding of the expectations.

He'd only end up shooting himself in the foot.

[Digby]

Subs with no missles is still my favourite, but there are plenty to choose from.

Sad thing is that there hasn't been a time in recent history in which a credible opposition has so desperately been required.

lets see if they can capitalise on election expenses schizz then.

I doubt it. Partly because they aren't exactly clean themselves on this, if nowhere near the same level.
If they can't get traction out of Conservative civil war over Brexit, the NIC debacle and strike actions on the trains and in the NHS, to the name the headline issues - the Conservative lead has at worst stayed the same throughout all of these - then I doubt they have the political nouse to make dents over an accounting error/lie which affects the day to day lives of nobody.

If even they do, I'd rather they held the government to account on policy rather than clerical issues. And this comes from a paid up member of the Conservative Party.

The problem with the NIC change, or not, is that it's broadly the sort of change it feels like Labour should have supported.

[Mellsblue]

lets see if they can capitalise on election expenses schizz then.

I doubt it. Partly because they aren't exactly clean themselves on this, if nowhere near the same level.
If they can't get traction out of Conservative civil war over Brexit, the NIC debacle and strike actions on the trains and in the NHS, to the name the headline issues - the Conservative lead has at worst stayed the same throughout all of these - then I doubt they have the political nouse to make dents over an accounting error/lie which affects the day to day lives of nobody.

If even they do, I'd rather they held the government to account on policy rather than clerical issues. And this comes from a paid up member of the Conservative Party.

The problem with the NIC change, or not, is that it's broadly the sort of change it feels like Labour should have supported.

Yep. I said to my long suffering wife over the weekend that I never thought I'd see the day a Conservative govt would be vilified over raising taxes, especially one that hits the higher earners the hardest. Just goes to prove that the real official opposition is the governments slim majority.

[Banquo]

I doubt it. Partly because they aren't exactly clean themselves on this, if nowhere near the same level.
If they can't get traction out of Conservative civil war over Brexit, the NIC debacle and strike actions on the trains and in the NHS, to the name the headline issues - the Conservative lead has at worst stayed the same throughout all of these - then I doubt they have the political nouse to make dents over an accounting error/lie which affects the day to day lives of nobody.

If even they do, I'd rather they held the government to account on policy rather than clerical issues. And this comes from a paid up member of the Conservative Party.

The problem with the NIC change, or not, is that it's broadly the sort of change it feels like Labour should have supported.

Yep. I said to my long suffering wife over the weekend that I never thought I'd see the day a Conservative govt would be vilified over raising taxes, especially one that hits the higher earners the hardest. Just goes to prove that the real official opposition is the governments slim majority.

Yes, May has a lot more to fear behind her as it were...plus when Sturgeon, not even at Westminster, can be more effective in wrong footing the govt than the real opposition, its a sorry state of affairs