Have I missed something as didn't we just have an election and Conversatives are still in power so what's with all the talk for another election with promises of Brexit? Confused
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
A minority government with no Brexit plan, leaning on the DUP. I guess people feel there is something inherently unstable about that and there's a good chance this government could fall in the next few months.
Of course then this "jobs-first Brexit" nonsense will come under a bit of scrutiny and itll become clear that Labour have no better idea of how to get us out of the EU than the Tories do. But it probably wont be talked about quite as much as there'll be some other things going on with the economy at that point which may prove quite distracting.
It's genuinely frightening how the centre has collapsed in British politics, leaving the agenda to be driven by the hard right of the Tory party and the hard left of Labour. The latter's ideals might sound slightly more palatable but Corbyn is promising unicorns just as much as the rabid Brexit fantasists. Watching him on Andrew Marr at the weekend was to hear "spend", "spend", "invest", "spend" on loop, while I note today he is promising unimpeded access to the single market despite sounding much more lukewarm about the benefits on Sunday.
This whole mess is on Cameron's face. He called a referendum on leaving the EU and then after we voted yes to leave (and I say "we" as in the majority and hence get on with it) he decides that it's a good time to retire from politics instead of standing up and finishing the job. Now we've got a government in crisis and worst case scenario of an idiot who might win the next election who will sign anything the EU wants us to.
As for Cameron, he's worse than that crusty stinky cheese you get on the tip of your penis when you haven't washed for a week
As for Cameron, he's worse than that crusty stinky cheese you get on the tip of your penis when you haven't washed for a week
Frightening but understandable, the 'centre' kept getting narrower and narrower and nobody in that increasing elite grouping noticed, to busy being politically correct maybe, or was it just being smug?
Apart from the chant, get in labour. feck centrist politics.
The speech lasted 90 minutes 
To be fair it must be great soaking in the applause from an echo chamber for that long when you're promising the world and they believe it.
To be fair it must be great soaking in the applause from an echo chamber for that long when you're promising the world and they believe it.Maybe it's the reporting, but whether it be Grenfell or this latest story Dent Coad is worryingly prone to stupidity. Not that such is justification for any criminal abuse through social media of course.
Speaking of which...
Last edited:
I'm a bit out of touch due to my location (obviously). But why has the Corbyn for PM bandwagon suddenly started again? It sounds like May has stabilised (politically) and there's absolutely zero chance of a fresh election in the near future.
Or is this all just chatter for when there will be an election (c.5 years away?)
Or is this all just chatter for when there will be an election (c.5 years away?)
It'll be sooner than five years i reckon, but not this Autumn either. We had some open political manoeuvring surrounding May's Florence speech of course, however the PM is still useful where she is for now (post-Brexit i'd like to see one of the 2010/15 generation become leader). The increased attention this week is mostly down to it being conference season.
Got it thanks and yeah as I thought - just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed anything big!
Need to be frugal with the joy taken from these complete cnuts losing their minds over Corbyn's speech, or it'll re-open the debate into legal highs.
What's he promised that he no intention of delivering this time?
Has he told the students he is going to cancel all student debt (again) pinkie swear honest this time for reals?
50% pay rise for nurses?
Free rail travel for lesbians?
Has he told the students he is going to cancel all student debt (again) pinkie swear honest this time for reals?
50% pay rise for nurses?
Free rail travel for lesbians?
Don't be silly. Just buying out all the PFIs and buying out shareholders of the former nationalised industries. With bonds, which don't cost anything, apparently.
Apart from rail TOCs, where to be fair you can let the franchises run out. Still the rolling stock owners to be paid though. Probably with more bonds.
When you see a Travel Agents that hasn't been nationalised
I watched the beast's speech today and by heck was he was in fine form!
As i often do i've listened to both the New Statesman and Guardian podcasts this week, and neither touches on the economic questions which surround Labour's manifesto.
Additionally, there was a rep from a teachers' union on Fivelive saying that they expect blanket 5% salary increase. Do they care about the most precariously situated of their staff or not?
Additionally, there was a rep from a teachers' union on Fivelive saying that they expect blanket 5% salary increase. Do they care about the most precariously situated of their staff or not?
G'wan Jezza!
it was a great speech, he still comes across like he is offering everyone everything! How is that going to play out when/if he gets into power?
Becuase A, no matter how rich a country we are it isn't an endless supply of money, and B some of of his idea seem in direct conflict with each other! for example his environmental policy and his new house building policy, a lot of the area's where new houses(not to mention roads and infrastructure) are most needed are in area's surrounded by green belts national parks ....... so is he going to ignore these areas or is he going to ignore the environment?
Add to that he still seems under the illusion he won the last election, when labour lost despite the fact the Tory party fought the worst campaign possibly ever seen in British politics.
Plus his plans for Brexit as so vague they make May's look concrete and well thought out.
But hey it was a great speech and i will be voting for him again next time, i would just prefer a bit more realism going forward.
Last edited:
Granted its a pro Left/Labour panel but it's worth a watch(Starts around the 10 min mark)
Now granted its pro Left/Labour panel but it's worth a watch.
Last edited:
Kuennsberg interviews Jezza.
Kuennsberg interviews Jezza.
When you see a Travel Agents that hasn't been nationalised
I don't get the rail nationalisation argument, in all honesty. I've never been on a train and thought "This service would be far more efficient, cheaper and more enjoyable if civil servants were in charge."
Definitely think there should be government stakes in utilities.
Get on a train in France. Or Germany. Or Dubai.
Quite simply, the trains in this country are largely a disgrace for the prices they charge, especially in comparison to other European countries.
The Labour party, or perhaps specifically Jeremy and John (McDonnell) seem to be living in a world I remember almost 50 years ago.
At that time the two principle things that were held by many to be 'wrong' with nationalisation of public services (except funnily enough the NHS) was that there was a lack of opportunity for investment for infrastructure development and renewal, because of competing interests (i.e. from all the different sectors) for Government cash. Also the lack of a profit motive, meant that eventually the nationalised industry's became monolithic, run-down and incapable of change and perhaps even more debilitating was that although supposed to be services/sectors operated for the benefit of the public, they were anything but, in fact they seemed to many people who used them to be run only for the benefit of those employed in those services/sectors.
Of course Jeremy and those of his ilk, never seemed to see these arguments and hence their belief that the state knows best continues and nationalisation will always be a priority for them, even if they have to potentially bankrupt the country or borrow so much money to make their dreams come true, that our great, great, grandchildren will still be paying off the debt... in their dotage!
The view of many however is that 'nationalisation', or other such government intervention should only be undertaken in those areas where national defence, health or retaining a strategic interest in an industry because of world wide conditions (e.g. presently in steel making), are required to maintain the essentials, for the safeguarding of the Country. The objective from day one should be to prepare for privatisation at a date in the future, where the burden on the state is perceived to be needed to be lifted and private investors can step in. However it seems this view is now also out of date, so combined with the naysayers on Brexit, it seems we are all heading to hell in a hand cart, with Theresa feeding the horse at one end and Jeremy is preparing to shovel the s*** at the other.
Where do we turn next?
At that time the two principle things that were held by many to be 'wrong' with nationalisation of public services (except funnily enough the NHS) was that there was a lack of opportunity for investment for infrastructure development and renewal, because of competing interests (i.e. from all the different sectors) for Government cash. Also the lack of a profit motive, meant that eventually the nationalised industry's became monolithic, run-down and incapable of change and perhaps even more debilitating was that although supposed to be services/sectors operated for the benefit of the public, they were anything but, in fact they seemed to many people who used them to be run only for the benefit of those employed in those services/sectors.
Of course Jeremy and those of his ilk, never seemed to see these arguments and hence their belief that the state knows best continues and nationalisation will always be a priority for them, even if they have to potentially bankrupt the country or borrow so much money to make their dreams come true, that our great, great, grandchildren will still be paying off the debt... in their dotage!
The view of many however is that 'nationalisation', or other such government intervention should only be undertaken in those areas where national defence, health or retaining a strategic interest in an industry because of world wide conditions (e.g. presently in steel making), are required to maintain the essentials, for the safeguarding of the Country. The objective from day one should be to prepare for privatisation at a date in the future, where the burden on the state is perceived to be needed to be lifted and private investors can step in. However it seems this view is now also out of date, so combined with the naysayers on Brexit, it seems we are all heading to hell in a hand cart, with Theresa feeding the horse at one end and Jeremy is preparing to shovel the s*** at the other.
Where do we turn next?
Last edited:
You've remembered all the Tory spin of privatisation, some true some not, whilst completely missing it's central purpose, which was to raise money for the treasury, Macmillan's 'selling the family silver'. Now had the money raised been used to invest in infrastructure, or support the development of modern industry, then many more would have agreed with it, instead it went on paying for a massive increase in unemployment and bribing the voters by lowering taxes. Wasted, along with the cash from council tax sales, and the hefty increase in North sea oil revenues.
That's history now, borrowing huge sums to reverse privatisation by paying out private shareholders would possibly be even dumber.
When you see a Travel Agents that hasn't been nationalised
Who the hell are the 35% who want nationalised food???
Civil servants running Burger Franchises if you are thinking glamorous, breadlines and ration books if you're not...
Couldn't agree with you more, obviously this didn't come across in what I wrote.
Nationalisation, whatever it was for, has, in my mind had its day, although I would concede that where vital markets are effected by 'dumping', the example I gave was steel, then a case for state intervention could be made on a limited basis where such matters can effect state security.
I was thinking of the supposedly famous letter from Churchill to the Japanese government prior to Pearl harbour when he pointed out the differences in steel making capacity between the USA and Japan and that the Americans' in fact had the capability to put planes in the air faster than Japan could shoot them down! They still went ahead anyway, but true or false it makes a good story!
Maybe open doors at Westminster dining room