Oh yeah, more immigrants for sure. The more the merrier.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
People are going to love these solutions, rather than cutting down on benefits. Let's form a party.
As a long time Lib Dem voter I'm in the market for one, so it's not a bad idea.
This happens to be a fairly major reason why Germany's being so welcoming.
It also doesn't help that the only way an 18 year old is going to get their own place to live away from their parents is by having a child. House prices and rent are utterly ludicrous and it's crippling our society.
Pay wall... can you get access to the full story?
It seems ridiculous on the face of it, though.
Nah, don't know if it's available if you don't subscribe.
Jest of it seems fairly self-explanatory, though. Corbyn gave her his...eh, left-wing, and now it's being made known to the public. They seem determined to smear him with absolutely anything they can.
Enjoyed this post. Will have to definitely remember this line of logic next time someone brings up the millions of scroungers leaving school with no intention to work and have big families.
Corbyn's face
A story in the Times that actually matters though - http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4559128.ece
A snippet:
Can't read the whole thing due to the paywall so for all I know there's some redeeming figures in there too, but that's not an overly promising starting point. Although I suppose things can only get better (probably not allowed to say that any more due to its Prezza-dance connotations).
Corbyn's face
A story in the Times that actually matters though - http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4559128.ece
A snippet:
Can't read the whole thing due to the paywall so for all I know there's some redeeming figures in there too, but that's not an overly promising starting point. Although I suppose things can only get better (probably not allowed to say that any more due to its Prezza-dance connotations).
Yeah, she seems delighted, but he's got a, "What the hell did I get myself into? And how much did I have to drink last night?!", sort of glance.
It's a weird hybrid of being haunted and a self-satisfied smirk. The state of the headline as well, "lovers" ffs, it's not a 19th century romantic novel. Still, this is somewhat less of a surprise than Ed and Stephanie Flanders.Yeah, she seems delighted, but he's got a, "What the hell did I get myself into? And how much did I have to drink last night?!", sort of glance.
Nah, he looks like he's been stung under both eyes by wasps and is just coming down from the opiates. And he's particularly happy they gave him opiates for a wasp sting.Yeah, she seems delighted, but he's got a, "What the hell did I get myself into? And how much did I have to drink last night?!", sort of glance.
The Mail's predictably insightful take:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ngers-said-brief-relationship-split-wife.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ngers-said-brief-relationship-split-wife.html
From:
DailyMailHeilEtc said:Jeremy Corbyn had a sexual relationship with fellow Left-wing MP Diane Abbott who he has now appointed to his Shadow Cabinet, it was claimed last night.
The alleged affair emerged after Mr Corbyn was criticised for failing to step in after Miss Abbott ‘confronted’ another woman Labour MP.
Witnesses told The Times that Miss Abbott interrupted and criticised MP Jess Phillips for asking a ‘sanctimonious’ question about the lack of women in senior positions in Mr Corbyn’s top team.
Lovers: Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott, pictured in London at the time of their relationship in the late 1970s, allegedly 'made no secret of their affair' and went on holiday together
The incident occurred during Monday’s highly charged meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
Miss Abbott, who has been appointed shadow international development secretary, was not reprimanded by Mr Corbyn for attacking the colleague who questioned his commitment to sexual equality, it is claimed.
The Hackney MP has been a staunch supporter of Mr Corbyn’s campaign, and it emerged yesterday that the pair had a brief relationship in the late 1970s when he was a councillor in Haringey, North London.
Mr Corbyn was separated from his first wife, Jane Chapman, a fellow Labour councillor he had married in 1974.
A party colleague of Mr Corbyn and his former wife, both 66, said Miss Chapman had hoped they would be reconciled but believed his burgeoning relationship with Miss Abbott, 61, made their divorce inevitable.
Still close: The alleged former lovers sat next to each other on the Labour front bench in the House of Commons on Monday
Dirty secret: At the time of their relationship, Mr Corbyn was separated from his first wife, Jane Chapman, and his affair with Miss Abbott, pictured with Mr Corbyn in July, is said to have made their divorce 'inevitable'
A source close to Mr Corbyn – who has been married three times – confirmed to the newspaper that there had been a ‘brief fling’ with Miss Abbott, which included a holiday together.
Miss Phillips said after her clash with Miss Abbott: ‘It’s a shame there was not more sorority. We women need to stick together.’
Miss Abbott was working at the National Council for Civil Liberties when she is believed to have begun her relationship with Mr Corbyn. Friends said the couple made no secret of their affair and Miss Abbott regularly stayed at Mr Corbyn’s home.
The new Labour leader was elected as MP for Islington North in 1983 and four years later Miss Abbott won the neighbouring constituency of Hackney North and Stoke Newington, becoming the first black woman MP.
Mr Corbyn married for the second time in 1987, to Claudia Bracchitta, and the pair had three sons. Their middle son, Seb, helped run his leadership campaign and works for hard-Left Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell. Mr Corbyn is now married to Laura Alvarez.
A spokesman for Mr Corbyn said he would not comment. Miss Abbott did not respond to requests for comment.
''At the time of their relationship, Mr Corbyn was separated from his first wife, Jane Chapman, and his affair with Miss Abbott, pictured with Mr Corbyn in July, is said to have made their divorce 'inevitable''
We were on a break !!!
Friends reference and yes that show is fecking class.
We were on a break !!!
Friends reference and yes that show is fecking class.
Why do they keep calling it an affair when it's clearly stated he was separated?
This isn't a mental image I needed.
hmmm.. Tories must be worried...trying to bring Corbyn's personal stuff out.
Wouldn't have the same implications if they provided context... the press, sometimes you have to admire their ability to be so fecking easily hated.
Who cares about this kind of stuff.
I should hope most people are better than this. If the media is representative of the general public then I hate the general public.
I only scanned the article, as I value my sanity, and read this by mistake: 'sexual affair...occurred during Monday’s highly charged meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party.' 
And people say that politics is dull...
And people say that politics is dull... Love the "Dirty secret" and "Still close" under the photos in that article! The parties concerned would or should have been warned that such intrusion into their past and present lives would happen so I'm sure they've had a chuckle about it like the rest of us.
I now hear that there are plans afoot to form a breakaway Labour Party which no doubt will come to nothing but adds to the comedy.
So, she is single and he was separated from his wife? Man has relationship with woman of similar age 40 years ago shock horror.
Well then what more do you want to do?
As is repeatedly discussed on here, the governments of the last 10 years have tried to push those people out of welfare, into work, and class as many as they can as 'fit to work'. This has been a cruel, demeaning process (which is probably what you want), which then severely affects a huge number of those who are genuinely in need as well. There comes a point when you're spending too much, or putting people through too much stress that it's neither moral, or economically justifiable to try and catch those 'scroungers'.
This is my great concern as well. I think someone posted an article on here a while ago outlining the concerns of what self-driving cars are going to do to a whole generation of men, especially in America. Will the technologies of the future immediately replace all of those jobs that will be lost? Probably not.
But then people have probably said the same thing at many points throughout history, the future is unwritten...
This is for me one thing I would say characterises the difference between the left and the right.
It is a fact that there are scroungers out there. People who will exploit the generosity of the state. It happens.
The right think that is completely unacceptable, and would eradicate the problem at all costs. Be that setting quotas for terminating benefits or whatever. If deserving people end up losing out, that is (Im sure even people on the right would agree) a shame, but they are acceptable collateral damage. Nobody should get a free ride.
The left think what is unacceptable is deserving people losing out. If that makes it easier for freeloaders to sponge off the state that is (Im sure even people on the left agree) a shame, but that is acceptable collateral damage (to the state's finances and to the incentive to work). Nobody should be left in destitution.
I think if there was a magic wand and you could only give welfare to the truly deserving, there would be consensus. Or near consensus. Im sure there are some people on the left who would still like to see people working in collectives, with complete equality and no meritocracy at all. And Im sure there are people on the right who think it is the place of charities to look after the poor, not the state, in any circumstances. But the centre ground would move a mile to the left and the right simultaneously and just about everyone would agree - those who can, work, those who cant, get benefits at an appropriate level, problem solved. But there is no such magic wand and in real life you have to decide what is more important: eradicating welfare for the undeserving, or making sure you dont end up in a situation where genuinely deserving people end up with nothing.
Yeah its an interesting one. In the past technological innovation has always created new jobs in different areas, to replace the ones it has destroyed. But I guess there is no guarantee that will happen.
It isnt only going to affect working class jobs either. Bankers could lose their jobs as crowdfunding takes off. Fund managers are being squeezed out by ETFs. Im sure robots will soon be performing more operations than humans.
Maybe eventually nobody will have to do any work if they dont want to, robots will do the jobs and people can just laze about gardening or writing or painting or talking shit in chatrooms. GM food will ensure there is plenty to go round and we will actually end up with "from each according to his ability (or hobby), to each according to his need." Consumer electronics can be built to last so that we dont have to keep replacing everything after a year, there isnt this focus on endless consumption and growth, but instead on leisure and fulfillment. Maybe we are on the cusp of utopia and all we need to do is elect Corbyn to make it happen.
Interesting. Personally I can see both sides. As you rightly say people will exploit the system and it is those people who need to be made to change their ways. You can't have a system based on vague ideas of whether X or Y is deserving so quite rightly we have rules with boundaries set and I want everyone who qualifies within those rules to get the benefits they need. Anyone who does not qualify under those rules, IMO, should not get the benefits. Interestingly Harman said Labour would not oppose the government's plan to reduce the overall household benefit cap to £20,000 a year outside London and it would also back the third child limit on future tax credits claims but now that's all out of the window under Corbyn's free for all system.
Have to admit I don't understand what the 'household benefit cap' means in practicality. A single Mum with two kids under four, does that limit the whole house's available benefits to £20k a year, or have I misunderstood? What about a married disabled couple, neither of whom are fit for work?
As I understand it: no ifs, no buts. Why should a couple of disabled people earn more than someone who works?
They shouldn't, but the logical thing is to seek better employment conditions -- an increased minimum wage.
People said the core Labour membership would never go for him, yet he got more of their vote than any other candidate. Besides, however unelectable Corbyn is, the other three candidates on offer had far less chance. Politicians are there to represent us. I think Corbyn is far more reflective of the average person than the likes of Cameron or Osbourne, who have absolutely no inkling whatsoever to tackle the housing crisis or make sure that our national services are properly supported and that the people who work in them are properly represented. The continued decimation of the unions is testament to that. Child poverty has increased and continues to do so, the number of food banks grows at an alarming rate, yet f all is done to make corporations and the richest pay their fair share.
He's offering a real alternative to a political system that perpetuates global inequality. It is the same with Bernie Sanders in America, Podemos in Spain and Syriza in Greece.
An attempt has to be made to portray him in that way, but the flipside to that is that he's a loony lefty career politician from ("liberal heartland") Islington who's never had a real job, hates the Queen and the armed forces, loves immigrants, and wants benefit scroungers to be given more money. Shifting the debate, and Corbyn's portrayal away from that is the big challenge of the next twelve months, and might prove to be impossible.
Me neither. Kind of an a par with John Major and Edwina Currie rutting.Really? Ive been picturing them going through the karma sutra all morning.
You come across as very agenda driven. Anyone who's taken the time to actually look into what he's offering will be well aware that he is a dignified human being who genuinely wants a more inclusive society for all. He intends to introduce a national investment bank to support transport, energy, invest in housing while taking on the tax breaks enjoyed by corporations. He wants to take on landlords and introduce rent controls so that the social cleansing of areas (in particular London) stops. He places emphasis on education and the arts. He wants to tackle the stigma attached to mental health. He is committed to environmental protection, unlike this government who recently scrapped subsidies for onshore windfarms.
I think all of those things are achievable for a country like ours. It is the 21st century society I want to be a part of.
feck you man. feck you.
He's an intelligent man who lives in Islington that actually wants to protect the underprivileged and people who can't do so themselves (there are still plenty of that type of persons in Islington). It wouldn't be fair to compare the integrity of a man like that to a man like David Cameron, and there will be no attempt to do so for obvious reasons. The major obstacle is the mainstream press and ensuring the principles of his message reaches the people of the country.