Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Labour Leadership Contest; merged thread
Topic Started: May 15 2015, 01:02 PM (2,223 Views)
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Chuka Umunna withdraws Labour leader bid, Who is left to lead them? The BBC has been attacking UKIP and Farrage for days, but at least they have a leader. Labour are in a state of uncertainty, and we do need a good opposition in the HOC,
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Replies:
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Aug 12 2015, 10:04 PM
Tigger
Aug 12 2015, 09:39 PM
The Buccaneer
Aug 12 2015, 12:14 AM
Neither can they be bothered to actually find out about Labour's appalling record of hurling the country into meltdown, time after time.

But, we'll let that pass if voters actually DO bother to look at records, what is being claimed as current manifesto, oh yes, and the actual record of effective governance by whichever party was in control.

So, you lefties have crapped out yet again !
Bend over and take your punishment! :rubchin:

Recessions since the end of WW2, 1956, 1961-62, 1973-76, 1980-83, 1990-93, 2008-

Now even a semi coherent right winger like you who has trouble with his memory can work out who was in power during these recessions.

The power of propaganda and not thinking eh? ;-)

Ok, back to the thread title.......the "esteemed faux" statesman has been spouting again, he fear annihilation if Corbyn is elected, one gets the feeling that he and other Grandees are now resigned to the outcome.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33896414
The bottom line is that without being elected Labour can do nothing, for you will have no power to do anything unless elected., and they will never get elected with Corbyn dictating their policies and manifesto.
The other candidates know this , so are compromising their principles to try to gain power.
My advise to the extreme left wing supporters with the right to vote in the leadership election to exercise a degree of pragmatism and vote for anyone but Corbyn, or Tony Blair and the other ex party leaders will be right. Electoral wipe out.
My own preference is that you do vote for Corbyn, for I would be delighted to see the back of old Labour with its union powerbase as a functioning political party.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Cymru
Alt-Right
[ *  *  *  * ]
Labour is going to cancel some supporters’ leadership votes after they've been cast

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-is-going-to-cancel-some-supporters-votes-after-theyve-been-cast-10453449.html

Be in no doubt the stitch-up is coming.

Labour's contempt for democracy knows no bounds.

If Corbyn is elected leader his opponents will attack him as being a leader selected by a flawed and corrupt process to give their own underhanded machinations to topple him some legitimacy.

His authority will be questioned and undermined from day one.

This is how neoliberal oligarchy works. Present a sham of democracy and if somehow an outsider slips through the cracks everyone of importance denounces them, shuns them, etc. until the outsider either becomes an insider or is forced back out.
Edited by Cymru, Aug 13 2015, 06:23 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Cymru
Aug 13 2015, 06:12 PM
Labour is going to cancel some supporters’ leadership votes after they've been cast

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-is-going-to-cancel-some-supporters-votes-after-theyve-been-cast-10453449.html

Be in no doubt the stitch-up is coming.

Labour's contempt for democracy knows no bounds.

If Corbyn is elected leader his opponents will attack him as being a leader selected by a flawed and corrupt process to give their own underhanded machinations to topple him some legitimacy.

His authority will be questioned and undermined from day one.

This is how neoliberal oligarchy works. Present a sham of democracy and if somehow an outsider slips through the cracks everyone of importance denounces them, shuns them, etc. until the outsider either becomes an insider or is forced back out.
Apparently, 1200 people have been barred from voting in the leadership election, one of them is the comedian Mark Steel, have a listen to this short clip as he tells why he is barred.

It begins at 18 minutes and 20 seconds in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b064zp7r#play
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Cymru
Alt-Right
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Aug 13 2015, 06:37 PM
Cymru
Aug 13 2015, 06:12 PM
Labour is going to cancel some supporters’ leadership votes after they've been cast

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-is-going-to-cancel-some-supporters-votes-after-theyve-been-cast-10453449.html

Be in no doubt the stitch-up is coming.

Labour's contempt for democracy knows no bounds.

If Corbyn is elected leader his opponents will attack him as being a leader selected by a flawed and corrupt process to give their own underhanded machinations to topple him some legitimacy.

His authority will be questioned and undermined from day one.

This is how neoliberal oligarchy works. Present a sham of democracy and if somehow an outsider slips through the cracks everyone of importance denounces them, shuns them, etc. until the outsider either becomes an insider or is forced back out.
Apparently, 1200 people have been barred from voting in the leadership election, one of them is the comedian Mark Steel, have a listen to this short clip as he tells why he is barred.

It begins at 18 minutes and 20 seconds in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b064zp7r#play
Cheers for that.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Cymru.

If Corbyn is elected leader his opponents will attack him as being a leader selected by a flawed and corrupt process to give their own underhanded machinations to topple him some legitimacy.
If the system can be seriously abused and it appears to be the case that it can. Then your attack is based upon your biased opinion, not on the reality of the situation.

Don't know of a perfect system but IMO any system that allows foolish left-wingers to further damage the party must be changed. 40 years of opposition by Old Labour should be a clear enough message for even the most foolish left winger.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 13 2015, 08:16 PM
If the system can be seriously abused and it appears to be the case that it can.
Its the same system that was used to elect Miliband.

No one complained about it then.

This is the last sad, sorry remnants of Blair's NuLab trying to hang on by any means necessary - even if that means rigging the vote.

You should be ashamed to be seen supporting this theft of democracy.

All The Best
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Aug 13 2015, 06:37 PM
Apparently, 1200 people have been barred from voting in the leadership election, one of them is the comedian Mark Steel, have a listen to this short clip as he tells why he is barred.

It begins at 18 minutes and 20 seconds in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b064zp7r#play
Mark Steel writes for i, and you'd be hard pressed to find a more Labour writer in any of the mainstream print press.

He was evicted from the voting process for suggesting Blair should not be allowed to vote over the legally questionable status of the Irag invasion.

Shocking behaviour by Labour - Stalin would be proud.

Which is ironic, because apparently its Corbyn whse a Stalinist.

PS: Watch the LBC clip on this link, and maybe then understand why people are supporting Corbyn over the other "plastic" politicians: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-contest-mark-steel-becomes-latest-leftwinger-to-be-barred-from-voting-10452628.html

All The Best
Edited by Pro Veritas, Aug 13 2015, 08:34 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Aug 13 2015, 08:25 PM
C-too
Aug 13 2015, 08:16 PM
If the system can be seriously abused and it appears to be the case that it can.
Its the same system that was used to elect Miliband.

No one complained about it then. . .
No it is not, it is a hugely different process abandoning the previous electoral college system that elected Milliband. It is very open to abuse as is said to be occurring and a number are openly bragging to be doing - but to what real extent is unknown.

Maybe they should have said one member with over 12 months standing one vote. Lessons leant in hindsight.

How lucky for the guy that devised it (Collins) that he already has his peerage, I doubt he'd get one now.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 13 2015, 08:55 PM
Pro Veritas
Aug 13 2015, 08:25 PM
C-too
Aug 13 2015, 08:16 PM
If the system can be seriously abused and it appears to be the case that it can.
Its the same system that was used to elect Miliband.

No one complained about it then. . .
No it is not, it is a hugely different process abandoning the previous electoral college system that elected Milliband. It is very open to abuse as is said to be occurring and a number are openly bragging to be doing - but to what real extent is unknown.

Maybe they should have said one member with over 12 months standing one vote. Lessons leant in hindsight.

How lucky for the guy that devised it (Collins) that he already has his peerage, I doubt he'd get one now.

Mmmmm, now that you mention it I do recall something about Labour changing how they elect leaders; but for some reason I thought it had happened some years back before Miliband was Leader.


But, Labour chose the new way over the old way - which must mean they thought it an improvement. IIRC wasn't the problem with the old system the Union "block" votes.

Ah, starting to see a pattern; they don't like systems that put the voting power with the party members.

Expect a new leadership selection system soon: one where Campbell, Blair and Mandelson choose the leader.

All The Best
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Aug 13 2015, 09:03 PM
Steve K
Aug 13 2015, 08:55 PM
Pro Veritas
Aug 13 2015, 08:25 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
No it is not, it is a hugely different process abandoning the previous electoral college system that elected Milliband. It is very open to abuse as is said to be occurring and a number are openly bragging to be doing - but to what real extent is unknown.

Maybe they should have said one member with over 12 months standing one vote. Lessons leant in hindsight.

How lucky for the guy that devised it (Collins) that he already has his peerage, I doubt he'd get one now.

Mmmmm, now that you mention it I do recall something about Labour changing how they elect leaders; but for some reason I thought it had happened some years back before Miliband was Leader.


But, Labour chose the new way over the old way - which must mean they thought it an improvement. IIRC wasn't the problem with the old system the Union "block" votes.

Ah, starting to see a pattern; they don't like systems that put the voting power with the party members.

Expect a new leadership selection system soon: one where Campbell, Blair and Mandelson choose the leader.

All The Best
The problem with this system is it has clearly put power in the hands of those that weren't members when it really mattered. IE at the May election.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Aug 12 2015, 09:39 PM
The Buccaneer
Aug 12 2015, 12:14 AM
Neither can they be bothered to actually find out about Labour's appalling record of hurling the country into meltdown, time after time.

But, we'll let that pass if voters actually DO bother to look at records, what is being claimed as current manifesto, oh yes, and the actual record of effective governance by whichever party was in control.

So, you lefties have crapped out yet again !
Bend over and take your punishment! :rubchin:

Recessions since the end of WW2, 1956, 1961-62, 1973-76, 1980-83, 1990-93, 2008-

Now even a semi coherent right winger like you who has trouble with his memory can work out who was in power during these recessions.

The power of propaganda and not thinking eh? ;-)

There is a difference between cyclical recessions and the near financial collapse under Brown and Wilson/Callaghan.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Aug 13 2015, 02:01 PM
For me the key issue is simple is he economically illiterate or not
Same here really but consider this, Corbyn has said he'd like to see the dysfunctional and heavily subsidized private railways back in public hands, he's condemned the continual sell off's of state assets often at knockdown valuations to the vermin in the City, he thinks the banks should be properly regulated and audited and considers the housing crisis a disaster for younger folks who are there to be shacked with debt to pay for their greedy peers, and yet despite this he is considered a lunatic! ;D

You have to come to the conclusion that vast swathes of the public are brainwashed retards who actually relish be done up the back passage by Westminster......
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Aug 13 2015, 08:27 PM
Rich
Aug 13 2015, 06:37 PM
Apparently, 1200 people have been barred from voting in the leadership election, one of them is the comedian Mark Steel, have a listen to this short clip as he tells why he is barred.

It begins at 18 minutes and 20 seconds in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b064zp7r#play
Mark Steel writes for i, and you'd be hard pressed to find a more Labour writer in any of the mainstream print press.

He was evicted from the voting process for suggesting Blair should not be allowed to vote over the legally questionable status of the Irag invasion.

Shocking behaviour by Labour - Stalin would be proud.

Which is ironic, because apparently its Corbyn whse a Stalinist.

PS: Watch the LBC clip on this link, and maybe then understand why people are supporting Corbyn over the other "plastic" politicians: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-contest-mark-steel-becomes-latest-leftwinger-to-be-barred-from-voting-10452628.html

All The Best
The 600,000 eligible to vote may have strong feelings about austerity and a socialist agenda , and as a means to protest against the current government. but 600,000 votes in a general election will count for little, nor are they going to incite a revolutionary protest if that is their aim. Voting for Corbyn is not a rational decision.

"Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad."
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Nonsense
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Predictably, the contenders for the 'leadership' are now displaying their full colours.
Here is the cardinal liar himself,Tony Blair warned voters against placing their trust in Mr Corbyn, saying "the party risked "annihilation" and was "walking eyes shut, arms outstretched over the cliff's edge to the jagged rocks below".


Which is pretty rich for an accomplished liar,who is trying to convince people on how to vote,when the picture that he presents, is the very scenario that he,with his cronies created, that they were never elected at the election & placed the party on the path of political irrelevance.

Again, Yvette COOPER-

The surprise front runner’s policies "will keep us out of power and stop us changing the world".
his policies are not "radical or credible".
She said Mr Corbyn was offering "old solutions to old problems" not "new answers to the problems of today", accusing Mr Corbyn of "bad economics" and being ready to "trash our reputation as an internationalist party".
She said the alternative to the Conservatives had to be "radical" but also had to be "credible", adding: "and Jeremy's approach isn't".
...and of course,"empty vessels make the most noise" don't they, COOPER?

Note these words,"will keep us out of power and stop us changing the world", SHE,along with the rest of BLAIR's accolytes are the very people that put the party where it nowstands, along with it's direction of travel.

Forever trying to "change(ing) the world", that's their mission, SCREW THIS COUNTRY,BY FILLING IT UP WITH MIGRANTS & that is their contribution to "changing the world".

As for keeping the party out of power, they are doing a very good job of that WITHOUT the help of Jeremy CORBYN

"trash our reputation as an internationalist party".

This is the manifestation of "changing the world",being an 'internationalist' party,when they cannot even run this country properly.


She accuses CORBYN of being "neither radical or credible", I think that the election result decided that the 'Blairite's' proved that THEIR policies were "neither radical or credible", so much for calling the kettle black.

These loaded criticisms are coming from those 'BLAIRITE's', who have no credibility & no policies except that of LYING.
Edited by Nonsense, Aug 13 2015, 10:30 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Nonsense
Aug 13 2015, 10:28 PM
Predictably, the contenders for the 'leadership' are now displaying their full colours.
Here is the cardinal liar himself,Tony Blair warned voters against placing their trust in Mr Corbyn, saying "the party risked "annihilation" and was "walking eyes shut, arms outstretched over the cliff's edge to the jagged rocks below".


Which is pretty rich for an accomplished liar,who is trying to convince people on how to vote,when the picture that he presents, is the very scenario that he,with his cronies created, that they were never elected at the election & placed the party on the path of political irrelevance.

Again, Yvette COOPER-

The surprise front runner’s policies "will keep us out of power and stop us changing the world".
his policies are not "radical or credible".
She said Mr Corbyn was offering "old solutions to old problems" not "new answers to the problems of today", accusing Mr Corbyn of "bad economics" and being ready to "trash our reputation as an internationalist party".
She said the alternative to the Conservatives had to be "radical" but also had to be "credible", adding: "and Jeremy's approach isn't".
...and of course,"empty vessels make the most noise" don't they, COOPER?

Note these words,"will keep us out of power and stop us changing the world", SHE,along with the rest of BLAIR's accolytes are the very people that put the party where it nowstands, along with it's direction of travel.

Forever trying to "change(ing) the world", that's their mission, SCREW THIS COUNTRY,BY FILLING IT UP WITH MIGRANTS & that is their contribution to "changing the world".

As for keeping the party out of power, they are doing a very good job of that WITHOUT the help of Jeremy CORBYN

"trash our reputation as an internationalist party".

This is the manifestation of "changing the world",being an 'internationalist' party,when they cannot even run this country properly.


She accuses CORBYN of being "neither radical or credible", I think that the election result decided that the 'Blairite's' proved that THEIR policies were "neither radical or credible", so much for calling the kettle black.

These loaded criticisms are coming from those 'BLAIRITE's', who have no credibility & no policies except that of LYING.
Blair got elected and put his party in power. There is no gainsaying the fact that for a number of years Blair led the party to electoral success. and the left win Marxist Milliband led them to disaster and the present situation.
There has to be a message there somewhere to take note of.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Aug 13 2015, 10:10 PM
ACH1967
Aug 13 2015, 02:01 PM
For me the key issue is simple is he economically illiterate or not
Same here really but consider this, Corbyn has said he'd like to see the dysfunctional and heavily subsidized private railways back in public hands, he's condemned the continual sell off's of state assets often at knockdown valuations to the vermin in the City, he thinks the banks should be properly regulated and audited and considers the housing crisis a disaster for younger folks who are there to be shacked with debt to pay for their greedy peers, and yet despite this he is considered a lunatic! ;D

You have to come to the conclusion that vast swathes of the public are brainwashed retards who actually relish be done up the back passage by Westminster......
All a bit disconnected from the truth there ^.

I sentence you to have to use a pre privatisation BT line complete with TrimPhone. you will have to wait 6 weeks for even that and then it'll be a shared line. Internet access You must be having a joke, Prestel is what youll have to live with.

Talking of shared lines I also sentence you to use the old British Rail - you know slam doors, no air con and only able to take half the commuters the rail system now does so you'll have to queue, for days.

And when you finally get on you have to stand next to Corbyn all the way.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
AndyK
Aug 13 2015, 09:28 PM
There is a difference between cyclical recessions and the near financial collapse under Brown and Wilson/Callaghan.
Utter bollocks of course, do you lot ever bother to check anything?

1956, the US threatened to crash the pound over the Suez Crisis, because the Tory government didn't think it worthwhile telling our closest ally we were going to invade another country.

1961, interest rates went from 5 to 7% because we misread the way the US economy was heading, Europe was largely unaffected.

1973-75, oil prices and the growing lack of competitiveness in British industry allied to high domestic interest rates.

1981-83, similar to above but with skyrocketing unemployment and the trade deficit which was now becoming a permanent fixture.

1990-94, overblown housing market and indebted public, the wankstain Tories always think houses and financial services are a perfectly acceptable substitute for getting off your arse and actually making something useful or making money by being genuinely productive.

If you need any more help just ask!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 13 2015, 11:07 PM
Tigger
Aug 13 2015, 10:10 PM
ACH1967
Aug 13 2015, 02:01 PM
For me the key issue is simple is he economically illiterate or not
Same here really but consider this, Corbyn has said he'd like to see the dysfunctional and heavily subsidized private railways back in public hands, he's condemned the continual sell off's of state assets often at knockdown valuations to the vermin in the City, he thinks the banks should be properly regulated and audited and considers the housing crisis a disaster for younger folks who are there to be shacked with debt to pay for their greedy peers, and yet despite this he is considered a lunatic! ;D

You have to come to the conclusion that vast swathes of the public are brainwashed retards who actually relish be done up the back passage by Westminster......
All a bit disconnected from the truth there ^.

I sentence you to have to use a pre privatisation BT line complete with TrimPhone. you will have to wait 6 weeks for even that and then it'll be a shared line. Internet access You must be having a joke, Prestel is what youll have to live with.

Talking of shared lines I also sentence you to use the old British Rail - you know slam doors, no air con and only able to take half the commuters the rail system now does so you'll have to queue, for days.

And when you finally get on you have to stand next to Corbyn all the way.

Ok it was a bit jokey, but Corbyn does have a point does he not?

Have we actually become so dumb as to actually believe it is in our interests to vote against our own personal interests? I know a several very wealthy people and they'd not dream of voting for anything that would put them at a financial disadvantage. And yet the plebs do it constantly!

I long for the day the British public stops cowering behind cardboard cut out non entity politicians and their sponsors who could not give a flying fuck about this country of ours.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Nonsense
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Aug 13 2015, 10:43 PM
Nonsense
Aug 13 2015, 10:28 PM
Predictably, the contenders for the 'leadership' are now displaying their full colours.
Here is the cardinal liar himself,Tony Blair warned voters against placing their trust in Mr Corbyn, saying "the party risked "annihilation" and was "walking eyes shut, arms outstretched over the cliff's edge to the jagged rocks below".


Which is pretty rich for an accomplished liar,who is trying to convince people on how to vote,when the picture that he presents, is the very scenario that he,with his cronies created, that they were never elected at the election & placed the party on the path of political irrelevance.

Again, Yvette COOPER-

The surprise front runner’s policies "will keep us out of power and stop us changing the world".
his policies are not "radical or credible".
She said Mr Corbyn was offering "old solutions to old problems" not "new answers to the problems of today", accusing Mr Corbyn of "bad economics" and being ready to "trash our reputation as an internationalist party".
She said the alternative to the Conservatives had to be "radical" but also had to be "credible", adding: "and Jeremy's approach isn't".
...and of course,"empty vessels make the most noise" don't they, COOPER?

Note these words,"will keep us out of power and stop us changing the world", SHE,along with the rest of BLAIR's accolytes are the very people that put the party where it nowstands, along with it's direction of travel.

Forever trying to "change(ing) the world", that's their mission, SCREW THIS COUNTRY,BY FILLING IT UP WITH MIGRANTS & that is their contribution to "changing the world".

As for keeping the party out of power, they are doing a very good job of that WITHOUT the help of Jeremy CORBYN

"trash our reputation as an internationalist party".

This is the manifestation of "changing the world",being an 'internationalist' party,when they cannot even run this country properly.


She accuses CORBYN of being "neither radical or credible", I think that the election result decided that the 'Blairite's' proved that THEIR policies were "neither radical or credible", so much for calling the kettle black.

These loaded criticisms are coming from those 'BLAIRITE's', who have no credibility & no policies except that of LYING.
Blair got elected and put his party in power. There is no gainsaying the fact that for a number of years Blair led the party to electoral success. and the left win Marxist Milliband led them to disaster and the present situation.
There has to be a message there somewhere to take note of.
I don't accept that Milliband was 'left wing', after all, he was going to accept the 'Tory' cuts against the very type of people that a 'left-wing' party needed for victory.

They were wise to that ruse & never voted Labour as a result.

BLAIR never led Labour to 'victory', the TORIES lost that election, the people would have voted anyone in to get rid of them, just like this last election, the people were sick,as well as tired of NL & it's LIES.

The argument that BLAIR & his remaining supporters make, is that the party is heading for 'anihilation' at the polls with CORBYN,that is a typical 'BLAIRITE' LIE, turn the truth upside down,that's the hallmark of BLAIR.

They are perpetuating a MYTH in the eyes of the public, that without them in power at the helm of a 'New Labour' party,they are unelectable,in reality, they are doomed , with or without them in charge of the party,because they will NOT stop B$ the 'working class' people whom, without their support, New Labour will never again take power in the country.

The FACT is, MILLIBAND was 'New Labour', yes, he & his ilk tried pulling the wool over the eyes of traditional 'British' people & they saw through his lies.

Look at their manifesto, it was all about migrants,gays,the 'middle class', women & staying in europe.

They LIE,LIE , LIE OVER & OVER AGAIN to the people.

That lying didn't start with Alistair Campbell's 'spin-doctoring', the Labour Party has always had traitors on it's right wing, ready, willing to betray the working classes & still LIE in order to continue with that betrayal over many decades.

That's why they are(hopefully)screwed.

I do not see CORBYN playing that tune in the leadership race.
Edited by Nonsense, Aug 14 2015, 12:06 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
The Israeli press are having a go at Jeremy Corbyn. The more I hear about him, the more I am prepared to believe that New Labour can become Labour once again.
The Times of Israel
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Aug 13 2015, 11:43 PM
Steve K
Aug 13 2015, 11:07 PM
Tigger
Aug 13 2015, 10:10 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
All a bit disconnected from the truth there ^.

I sentence you to have to use a pre privatisation BT line complete with TrimPhone. you will have to wait 6 weeks for even that and then it'll be a shared line. Internet access You must be having a joke, Prestel is what youll have to live with.

Talking of shared lines I also sentence you to use the old British Rail - you know slam doors, no air con and only able to take half the commuters the rail system now does so you'll have to queue, for days.

And when you finally get on you have to stand next to Corbyn all the way.

Ok it was a bit jokey, but Corbyn does have a point does he not?

Have we actually become so dumb as to actually believe it is in our interests to vote against our own personal interests? I know a several very wealthy people and they'd not dream of voting for anything that would put them at a financial disadvantage. And yet the plebs do it constantly!

I long for the day the British public stops cowering behind cardboard cut out non entity politicians and their sponsors who could not give a flying fuck about this country of ours.
I think Steve's criticism was a bit unfair, and slightly deceptive.

AFAIK Corbyn hasn't suggest nationalising BT, which is (along with British Ports) one of the few generally accepted "successes" of privatisation. He has suggesting renationalising the rail system - which given it now receives 3x more in tax payer funding than it ever did as a nationalised industry seem to me to be common sense. At least then what profit is made from that huge taxpayer investment will be spent on improving the rail system, rather than paying off shareholders.

Also, IIRC, BT wasn't sold off at knockdown prices, unlike the Post Office and our holding in RBS.

His points on the banking sector are, in effect, what we all have been thinking for some time, and his comments on the housing market are all perfectly valid.

So trying to counter Corbyn's position with reference to BT (one of only a few privatisation successes) seems to me to be a little deceptive.

BTW: Nationalised telecoms companies have managed to implement the internet as well - the idea that IF we renationalised BT we'd lose the internet is frankly laughable.

All The Best
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Aug 13 2015, 08:25 PM
C-too
Aug 13 2015, 08:16 PM
If the system can be seriously abused and it appears to be the case that it can.
Its the same system that was used to elect Miliband.

No one complained about it then.

This is the last sad, sorry remnants of Blair's NuLab trying to hang on by any means necessary - even if that means rigging the vote.

You should be ashamed to be seen supporting this theft of democracy.

All The Best
IIRC the system has changed since Milliband and his left-wing stupidity was elected as leader. A one man one vote instead of a union block vote was I believe introduced by Milliband. Ed-the-gone with his left-wing union backing has done nothing other than to damage Labour.

There were many people of the opinion that the wrong brother won. Many did complain about the election of ED, including myself.

ONLY a New Labour 'inclusive, third way' approach can save the party from adding to the 40 years, since 1951, of occupying the position of opposition.
More Old Labour will guarantee many more years of opposition to the Tories, how the fk does that help anyone ? But that will not stop left-wingers from cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Perhaps you missed the word ----"if" ---- ?
I very clearly do not support the theft of democracy, I support the improving of a faulty system if it is a system that can be easily abused. There can be no shame in acting and speaking honestly. Your accusation is a product of the sort of pique that would allow you to cut off your nose to spite your face.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
AndyK
Aug 13 2015, 09:28 PM
Tigger
Aug 12 2015, 09:39 PM
The Buccaneer
Aug 12 2015, 12:14 AM
Neither can they be bothered to actually find out about Labour's appalling record of hurling the country into meltdown, time after time.

But, we'll let that pass if voters actually DO bother to look at records, what is being claimed as current manifesto, oh yes, and the actual record of effective governance by whichever party was in control.

So, you lefties have crapped out yet again !
Bend over and take your punishment! :rubchin:

Recessions since the end of WW2, 1956, 1961-62, 1973-76, 1980-83, 1990-93, 2008-

Now even a semi coherent right winger like you who has trouble with his memory can work out who was in power during these recessions.

The power of propaganda and not thinking eh? ;-)

There is a difference between cyclical recessions and the near financial collapse under Brown and Wilson/Callaghan.
Look into the collapses you refer to.

During their 1951/1964 period in office the Conservative party made a number of cap-in-hand visits to the IMF. Labour made one in 1964, and that was to renegotiate the last of the Tory visits.
The economy never recovered after those 13 years of Tory government. In 1964 Wilson's Labour party inherited the second largest trade deficit ever recorded up to that time. And that was at a time when exports were are main source of income.

The economy finally hit the buffers in the world recession of the early 1970s exacerbated by the oil crisis of 1973. The economic mess, with its increasing unemployment and rising inflation that existed in 1974 is the reason Labour won the election of that year.
Despite the fact that Labour won a poisoned chalice election (again), the economy was in better shape and in an improving condition in 1979 than it was in 1974.

Now tell me where the greatly dependent on the financial sector UK economy under NL would have ended up, if there had been no international financial meltdown ?

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Nonsense.

Here is the cardinal liar himself,Tony Blair
Please list a couple of his proven to be lies.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Happy Hornet
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I wouldn't vote for Corbyn, I disagree with a lot of what he says but I respect him as a man of principle who stands up for what he believes in rather than jumping on the nearest convenient bandwagon.

And such people are apparently unelectable in this day age. I think that says a lot more about us and our society than it does about Corbyn.
Online Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Aug 14 2015, 06:59 AM
Tigger
Aug 13 2015, 11:43 PM
Steve K
Aug 13 2015, 11:07 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Ok it was a bit jokey, but Corbyn does have a point does he not?

Have we actually become so dumb as to actually believe it is in our interests to vote against our own personal interests? I know a several very wealthy people and they'd not dream of voting for anything that would put them at a financial disadvantage. And yet the plebs do it constantly!

I long for the day the British public stops cowering behind cardboard cut out non entity politicians and their sponsors who could not give a flying fuck about this country of ours.
I think Steve's criticism was a bit unfair, and slightly deceptive.

AFAIK Corbyn hasn't suggest nationalising BT, which is (along with British Ports) one of the few generally accepted "successes" of privatisation. He has suggesting renationalising the rail system - which given it now receives 3x more in tax payer funding than it ever did as a nationalised industry seem to me to be common sense. At least then what profit is made from that huge taxpayer investment will be spent on improving the rail system, rather than paying off shareholders.

Also, IIRC, BT wasn't sold off at knockdown prices, unlike the Post Office and our holding in RBS.

His points on the banking sector are, in effect, what we all have been thinking for some time, and his comments on the housing market are all perfectly valid.

So trying to counter Corbyn's position with reference to BT (one of only a few privatisation successes) seems to me to be a little deceptive.

BTW: Nationalised telecoms companies have managed to implement the internet as well - the idea that IF we renationalised BT we'd lose the internet is frankly laughable.

All The Best
My post was clearly tongue in cheek responding to what the poster admitted was less than gospel

Your wasn't so to correct your most obvious false points:

The Post Office has not privatised

Our holding in RBS has not been sold at 'knockdown prices' has it. For a start only a fraction has been sold and for market price for dumping a large number. Very disingenuous by you :nono:

There were numerous privatisation successes, BT was just one. Yes arguably the biggest one.

Please substantiate your assertion of 3x rail subsidies. And in real terms per passenger mile



Offline Profile Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Opinionater
May 24 2015, 05:22 PM
RJD
May 24 2015, 05:09 PM
Opinionater
May 24 2015, 03:33 PM
More to the point who is going to be the new leader?

Who would be best for labours left, labours right and who would the Tories like to win?
The Tories want Milliband to come back. If not him then Burnham as he is tainted and a serial flip-flopper. Me I like Rachel, she is a true pinko Tory.

I think we can take it as read that Milliband will not return. I think I agree Burnham would be the Tory choice. But who do Labour want, do you think they know?
David might .....
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Nonsense
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
C-too
Aug 14 2015, 08:43 AM
Quote:
 
Nonsense.

Here is the cardinal liar himself,Tony Blair
Please list a couple of his proven to be lies.
1\
Try 'weapons of mass destruction(WMD's)' posessed by Sadam Hussein for a starters,added to accusations that he had "sexed up" the 'intelligence',when there was no 'evidence' for them & that Hussein placed us under an 'imminent' threat from such weapons(despite Iraq being over two & a half thousand miles away).


2\
Before he became PM, he said that he would " serve one term only".

Asking for 'proven' lies in respect of any politician is asking the impossible,they will invent more 'lies' to 'disprove' their 'lies'.
Edited by Nonsense, Aug 14 2015, 11:17 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 13 2015, 11:07 PM
Tigger
Aug 13 2015, 10:10 PM
ACH1967
Aug 13 2015, 02:01 PM
For me the key issue is simple is he economically illiterate or not
Same here really but consider this, Corbyn has said he'd like to see the dysfunctional and heavily subsidized private railways back in public hands, he's condemned the continual sell off's of state assets often at knockdown valuations to the vermin in the City, he thinks the banks should be properly regulated and audited and considers the housing crisis a disaster for younger folks who are there to be shacked with debt to pay for their greedy peers, and yet despite this he is considered a lunatic! ;D

You have to come to the conclusion that vast swathes of the public are brainwashed retards who actually relish be done up the back passage by Westminster......
All a bit disconnected from the truth there ^.

I sentence you to have to use a pre privatisation BT line complete with TrimPhone. you will have to wait 6 weeks for even that and then it'll be a shared line. Internet access You must be having a joke, Prestel is what youll have to live with.

Talking of shared lines I also sentence you to use the old British Rail - you know slam doors, no air con and only able to take half the commuters the rail system now does so you'll have to queue, for days.

And when you finally get on you have to stand next to Corbyn all the way.


What utter rot you post Steve ... an HG Wells fan no doubt.
Oh; and do recall that it was the Conservatives that held the reins of Nationalised services and screwed them up so badly they were worthless.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 14 2015, 09:46 AM
What utter rot you post Steve ... an HG Wells fan no doubt.
Oh; and do recall that it was the Conservatives that held the reins of Nationalised services and screwed them up so badly they were worthless.

So you can't answer or rebut any of the pints I made but you'll continue stalking me with unprovoked inane insults

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
marybrown
Aug 13 2015, 03:29 PM
ACH1967
Aug 13 2015, 03:23 PM
what is starnge about that
Because Diane Abbot is a black racist...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-hlQGrUes
Can't access you tube from here.

I do not know much about Dian apart from seeing her on the andrew Niel programme occasionally where she does not come across as particularly racist.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 13 2015, 03:23 PM
ACH1967
Aug 13 2015, 02:51 PM
marybrown
Aug 13 2015, 02:08 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Yes but Pv has made an interesting point many times that Quantative Easing was used to prevent the banks going bust without any negative impact on the economy so why can't QE be used to pay for Corbins pet projects that are far more likely to benefit the common man than helping to pay bankers bonuses. Obviously i don't understand QE enough to know whether these is feasible or coherent.
QE was about stopping the economy going bust. The banks had stopped lending to ensure they could survive the inevitable collapse of businesses leaving bad debts and the money supply was in danger of a severe collapse. Most of the banks received no bailout money.

It was a one off dilution of the currency that could not easily be repeated now other countries of note have stabilised and the money supply is steadily growing organically. Any repeat in those circumstances would see a collapse of the pound, a massive balance of payments crisis, crippling inflation and a long term increase in unemployment and poverty.

Ultimately you have to earn the money you spend
Perhaps. I do not claim to have a firm understanding of this. Aren't the EU now printing money? Why will that not cause their currency to bomb and the same problems you ascribe to the UK if we were to continue printing money?

I grasp the point you make about earning money and about QE diluting the currency (which as I understand it leads to a lower pound, savings worth less and inflation...although none of this really seems to have happened).
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 14 2015, 10:21 AM
Affa
Aug 14 2015, 09:46 AM
What utter rot you post Steve ... an HG Wells fan no doubt.
Oh; and do recall that it was the Conservatives that held the reins of Nationalised services and screwed them up so badly they were worthless.

So you can't answer or rebut any of the pints I made but you'll continue stalking me with unprovoked inane insults

If you insist on posting Tory myths about how the State cannot manage public utilties and services, of course you can expect to be tasked on the matter.
The only truth is that Conservative governments here cannot be relied on to operate public owned services ..... and that is because they are ideologically opposed to the concept.
The MYTH that only privatisation can deliver good quality cost effective services is well and truly debunked ... those having been given the opportunity having demonstrated the fact in most all aspects.

Telephone systems underwent a huge change towards the end of the last century ... to imagine BT would or could repeat its former characteristics is pure bunk.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Happy Hornet
Aug 14 2015, 08:59 AM
I wouldn't vote for Corbyn, I disagree with a lot of what he says but I respect him as a man of principle who stands up for what he believes in rather than jumping on the nearest convenient bandwagon.

And such people are apparently unelectable in this day age. I think that says a lot more about us and our society than it does about Corbyn.
Having strong beliefs and arguing for them only means that one has strong beliefs and is prepared to stand by them. It doesn't make those beliefs right or wrong nor does it make the beliefs appropriate for the existing position.

What is unelectable about Corbyn is his political beliefs which would cripple Labour's chances of winning an election. His heart on sleeve approach gave Old Labour just 11 years in office and 40 years in opposition since 1951.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Alberich
Member Avatar
Alberich
[ *  *  * ]
As an interested observer of Labour's travails, I might be expected to relish the demise of a once great party, but I am not. We need an active opposition, and the electorate needs a clear choice between the two main philosophies of conservatism and Labour. And like it or not, Corbyn is Labour, while the rest of his opponents are, by comparison, carpetbaggers willing to trade any principles they might once have had, to fit the prevailing wind. In a field of mediocrity, Corbyn stands out. He speaks what he believes, and there are still a lot of like minded Labour supporters out there who were never seduced by Blair, and his "new Labour" confidence trick.

Perhaps "old" Labour is what we need right now, as an alterative to rampant right wing conservatism, Cameron style. For, as always happens, the pendulum will swing against them in due course, and if the only alternative is a party that has sold its core ethics in a scrabble for the middle ground, and has become conservative lite...well, plus ca change, as they say. Would Corbyn be such a disaster as the media would have us believe? Why should it be considered impossible for a nationalised industry to be run with the efficiency of a private business? Why should we not own the core industries, such as rail, power generation and the like? Whatever happens in the forthcoming election for Labour leader, it will be interesting to see how the pieces fall. Would the Blairites really quit the party and start their own? Would senior party members refuse shadow cabinet jobs if offered? Somehow I doubt it.

We live in interesting times!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
marybrown
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Even the vote for a new leader is a cock up..can't these people do anything right?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Alberich
Aug 14 2015, 11:24 AM
As an interested observer of Labour's travails, I might be expected to relish the demise of a once great party, but I am not. We need an active opposition, and the electorate needs a clear choice between the two main philosophies of conservatism and Labour. And like it or not, Corbyn is Labour, while the rest of his opponents are, by comparison, carpetbaggers willing to trade any principles they might once have had, to fit the prevailing wind. In a field of mediocrity, Corbyn stands out. He speaks what he believes, and there are still a lot of like minded Labour supporters out there who were never seduced by Blair, and his "new Labour" confidence trick.

Perhaps "old" Labour is what we need right now, as an alterative to rampant right wing conservatism, Cameron style. For, as always happens, the pendulum will swing against them in due course, and if the only alternative is a party that has sold its core ethics in a scrabble for the middle ground, and has become conservative lite...well, plus ca change, as they say. Would Corbyn be such a disaster as the media would have us believe? Why should it be considered impossible for a nationalised industry to be run with the efficiency of a private business? Why should we not own the core industries, such as rail, power generation and the like? Whatever happens in the forthcoming election for Labour leader, it will be interesting to see how the pieces fall. Would the Blairites really quit the party and start their own? Would senior party members refuse shadow cabinet jobs if offered? Somehow I doubt it.

We live in interesting times!
Blair's New Labour "confidence trick" did more for the needy and the low paid than ANY government since Clem Attlee's. NL can therefore rightly claim to be the most competent Labour government during the post Attlee period. Mind you I can certainly see why Tory voters try so hard to undermine Blair and New Labour.

Your thoughts are controlled either by a serious political bias or a complete ignorance of the successes of NL. Either of which will ensure that you continue to spout your political nonsense.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Aug 14 2015, 11:20 AM
Steve K
Aug 14 2015, 10:21 AM
Affa
Aug 14 2015, 09:46 AM
What utter rot you post Steve ... an HG Wells fan no doubt.
Oh; and do recall that it was the Conservatives that held the reins of Nationalised services and screwed them up so badly they were worthless.

So you can't answer or rebut any of the pints I made but you'll continue stalking me with unprovoked inane insults

If you insist on posting Tory myths about how the State cannot manage public utilties and services, of course you can expect to be tasked on the matter.
The only truth is that Conservative governments here cannot be relied on to operate public owned services ..... and that is because they are ideologically opposed to the concept.
The MYTH that only privatisation can deliver good quality cost effective services is well and truly debunked ... those having been given the opportunity having demonstrated the fact in most all aspects.

Telephone systems underwent a huge change towards the end of the last century ... to imagine BT would or could repeat its former characteristics is pure bunk.

Excuse me but just to show you're not posting BS, can you show where I posted either that "the State cannot manage public utilties" or that "only privatisation can deliver good quality cost effective services "



Still waiting for ProV to show us how £2.3B in 2014 money is supposedly 3 times £1.95B in 1997 money
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Nonsense
Aug 14 2015, 09:45 AM
C-too
Aug 14 2015, 08:43 AM
Quote:
 
Nonsense.

Here is the cardinal liar himself,Tony Blair
Please list a couple of his proven to be lies.
1\
Try 'weapons of mass destruction(WMD's)' posessed by Sadam Hussein for a starters,added to accusations that he had "sexed up" the 'intelligence',when there was no 'evidence' for them & that Hussein placed us under an 'imminent' threat from such weapons(despite Iraq being over two & a half thousand miles away).


2\
Before he became PM, he said that he would " serve one term only".

Asking for 'proven' lies in respect of any politician is asking the impossible,they will invent more 'lies' to 'disprove' their 'lies'.
Unfortunately there has been a systematic attempt to make Blair out to be a liar, with little or no evidence to back up the assertion.
Blair never, in his own right, claimed that Iraq had WMD, he said that he believed the information given to him by the intelligence agency. The same agency that some time after the invasion admitted they got it wrong on WMD.

The accusation of the dossier being sexed up was based upon the inclusion of the 'WMD ready in 45 minuets'. At the time of the printing of the dossier the 45 mns was actual intelligence information. It was later confirmed that the 45mns was single sourced and could therefore no be used. The dossier was scrapped.

No one in the government ever suggested that Iraq had ICBMs, no one anywhere suggested it.

Do you have a reference for the "one term" by Blair ?

Edited by C-too, Aug 14 2015, 11:52 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Aug 14 2015, 11:39 AM
Excuse me but just to show you're not posting BS, can you show where I posted either that "the State cannot manage public utilties" or that "only privatisation can deliver good quality cost effective services "


Your post implied both ........... and I'm in no doubt intentionally so.
If you really do want to disown having such opinions, state so unambiguously.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Locked Topic