Has to be Rachel Reeves.
Imagine being a Labour Party member and criticising your own manifesto for helping the poor.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Imagine being a Labour Party member and criticising your own manifesto for helping the poor.
No. That's controversial now. If you don't admit that you would commit war crimes by preemptively striking an adversary you are not fit to rule the country. Or something.
It's probably (hopefully) a "my rag supporting mate" type source.
Ask a Ukrainian.
Can't you wait until someone like that becomes Labour leader either? I'm finding it like Christmas Eve every day.
Well you claim you've read it! From the sound bites I've seen he's very soft on defence, he doesn't like nuclear deterrent which I get but every country has it you can't just potentially get rid of it. I remember once before he suggested we talk to the terrorists, whilst I admire his enthusiasm we have to be realistic, these people don't want to talk they just want blood shed. There does that reasoning satisfy you now?
It's one of the few things he's completely full of shit over. Our nuclear deterrent is absolutely vital to the defence of the country, unless we're ok with just hiding under the nuclear shields of France or the US.
Agreed its the only thing keeping those damn vikings and nazis at bay. As soon as its gone we're toast!
Seriously?!? Whats the feck is wrong with the Labour party sometimes?
Thats the NEC and disciplinary committee. The same one that banned someone for once voting green from voting in the leadership election (for corbyn).
It is still dominated by progress members, and they run it as blair taught them to, no dissent, purge anyone who does not follow the one true path.
It is actually ironic that they often call corbyn the 'dear leader', because he seems quite big on decentralized power within the party and giving the members more say. Blair was the one who demanded complete control and restructured the entire party to get it, something his supporters are still benefiting from now.
The tories who have cut defences to the bone, enough that you actually have something to be frightened of. For instance, we now have just 89,000 active service men and women, we could fit our entire army in Wembley Stadium.
We have a navy whose flagship is now officially declared a dry dock because it cannot move, two aircraft carriers with no airplanes to put on them (for at least 5 years), and a destroyer fleet that cannot be used in warm waters as the engines break down. Good luck with the great war for Gibraltar fallon you tit.
The the air force, half the planes are grounded to be canabalised to keep the other half in the air, meaning we have perhaps 50 viable combat airplanes all told.
We currently have a grand total of 3, that is THREE, coastal protection boats to cover the entire coastline of the UK.
For reference, Italy has 600 for theirs.
And people will still say tories are for defence.
Not that we should spend a second worrying about a resurgent Russia that just illegally annexed part of a neighboring state, is currently threatening Eastern Europe and may have just put its own stooge into the White House. I'm sure the threat of our conventional weapons will be enough to scare them off..
I'm calling bullshit... we have over 140 eurofighters that are less than 10 years old
We still have 80 tornados
We have a lot more than 50 viable combat planes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_Kingdom_military_aircraft
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...al-Air-Force-has-available-to-fight-Isil.html
Note the source, this is not a left wing conspiracy.
British voters overwhelmingly back Labour’s manifesto policies, poll finds
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...k-policies-jeremy-corbyn-latest-a7731536.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...k-policies-jeremy-corbyn-latest-a7731536.html
He's got a month to prove his credentials and the Labour parties credentials. Eds policies were popular, policies alone don't get people's votes unfortunately.
No they don't, not even close to every country has nuclear weapons. Most Nato countries don't even have nuclear weapons. Corbyn's position on nuclear weapons wouldn't even be considered a controversial one in most parts of the world.
Tories have had years to do that but they keep getting re-elected
The only reason most NATO countries don't have them, is because the US, UK and France (the current or former western Great Powers) have provided the nuclear shield that NATO relies on for its existence. The only plausible excuse for getting rid of our nuclear deterrent is that we can continue to rely on the US and France's nuclear weapons for our defence. If we want a free ride, then the consequence is that we have to accept a greater degree of authority on the part of those who continue to maintain their weapons.
Yeah, this isn't correct. NEC is roughly 50/50 pro-Corbyn and Corbynsceptic.
Has to be Rachel Reeves.
"feckless poor" and "hard working majority" - has to be a Tory surely?
As it is renationalising Rail/Energy companies would benefit everyone, money for schools/nhs benefits everyone, home building helps everyone
Looks like fake news to me. Someone posts a snippet of a quote from a 'legit' 'source'. It won't cut it in the transfer forum so why in the serious business of politics?
Fake or not .That is how the Tories see the working poor .The same working poor that they call the hard working majority
Agreed so much of this stuff going round the internet these days. Where there's an existing narrative there's someone making shit up to get attention. Dubious of anything without a solid source.
Authority on what exactly?
Your other post on Russia is questionable as well. The assumption you're implying is that the consequences that come with a full scale conventional war wouldn't be sufficient deterrent but nuclear bombs would? The damage inflicted by conventional weapons these days is surely enough to prevent world war?
I'm fine with the argument we shouldn't free load off others security but i just don't see any sense in the argument its neccesary.
At the moment... it's true policies aren't so important. Nowhere near as important as media backing anyway. A blind vote on policy would yield completely different results. Theresa May is somehow seen as a competent leader... based on what?
Times will change though and I envisage a future where the media wield far less power in this respect as younger generations are far more distrustful and cynical of what the media tells them. They get a lot more political discourse from social media than the MSM and I think it shows in that age is now one of the most reliable predictors for political view.
I find it funny when news reporters will ask a member of the public about Jeremy Corbyn and the majority will blindly spout that they couldn't vote for him because 'he's useless' or 'an idiot'. If they were actually pressed further on why they though that, 9 out of 10 would start stumbling over their words as they drew a blank.
Times will change though and I envisage a future where the media wield far less power in this respect as younger generations are far more distrustful and cynical of what the media tells them. They get a lot more political discourse from social media than the MSM and I think it shows in that age is now one of the most reliable predictors for political view.
I find it funny when news reporters will ask a member of the public about Jeremy Corbyn and the majority will blindly spout that they couldn't vote for him because 'he's useless' or 'an idiot'. If they were actually pressed further on why they though that, 9 out of 10 would start stumbling over their words as they drew a blank.
She was the longest serving Home Secretary of the modern era?
Who singularly failed to control immigration (immigration from outside the EU that she had full control of increased significantly while she claimed she was trying to hit targets of 10,000s per year). She also failed to even use the controls of EU immigration that we have, instead laying off around a third of border control workers, and took 3 years to extradite a hate preacher because she could not follow the basic procedures of law, and kept blaming the law for stopping her (it was her own incompetence).
Still seeing nothing but an incompetent liar, just as we see now.
The most competent thing she has done as leader is realise what an absolute liability she is and refuse to engage with the public or take part in any meaningful debate.
Don't know about the delivery as didn't watch but Corbyns speech on security was excellent. The Minister of Peace thing is an own goal but i dont see how anyone could argue with the rest of what was said.
123455
Last edited:
123456
Last edited:
I think a lot of people on the left fail to realise that without the Lords and Masters the serfs wouldn't have any work.
But what did it say. Unless May counters with a "war makes me wet" then whose narrative is he challenging?
Doesn't need to challenge anything in my opinion although he did on arms sales, US lapdog. Campaigning on these issues is usually more about vision and he laid one out that most importantly couldn't be considered weak.
I always look at the Telegraph these days and they haven't attacked it directly. Used unnamed Labour MPs to bash him on IRA instead.
Arms sales are important to our economy.
Slavery used to be too.
Sigh
How does nationalising London's railways help the villages and towns who have minimal or no rail services at all?
Could not these billions set aside for the energy sector, not be better spent on renewables or improved urban planning?
Reading between the lines, he'll maintain the 2% spending requirement but generally adopt a more isolationist approach to foreign policy. An anti-NATO slant too, when he alluded to the deployment of British forces in the Baltic.
A further notable omission, particularly for him, was that of the Falklands. I suspect that he personally would happily open talks with regard to sovereignty; the same with Gib.