https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k4tWt41ujM
:smile:
So Jezza is to be the Leader of Her Majesties' Opposition, what do you guys think?
Me? I can hardly wait! Gets popcorn. :mad:
Printable View
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k4tWt41ujM
:smile:
So Jezza is to be the Leader of Her Majesties' Opposition, what do you guys think?
Me? I can hardly wait! Gets popcorn. :mad:
Risks are too great for my liking - IF he were ever to become PM, he could cause so much damage within 5 years.
The future would be interesting - the other scenario is that Labour get so clobbered that the Tories without an opposition to worry about instantly fracture into 2 or more parties since the only thing that keeps them together is the hatred of Labour.
Labour might of course be wracked by significant internal strife as the whip is withdrawn from people who are not Left wing enough.
Interesting times.
~:smoking:
Well, he's described the death of Bin Laden as a tragedy, refused to condemn the IRA during the troubles (but happy to openly condemn the British Army), advocated a closer relationship with Russia and most recently he has asked for the effective removal of the Royal Prerogative and Orders in Council be making them subject to parliamentary veto.
I think that, in reality, he's less likely to get elected than Michael Foot.
This may cause Labour to fracture, it may cause the Tories to fracture as a knock on, if Labour fractures then the more Centrist section may swallow the Lib-Dems - again.
Interesting times, indeed.
Ironically I think that this shows the corruption of the Unions - they supported "electable" candidates during the 90's which pushed Labour from the Left to the Centre, then they got fed up and supported Ed Milliband, and that was a train wreck, now the voting system has changed and they no longer have control - even had they not supported Corbyn I expect the grass roots would have. The point is, this exposes the gulf between the Labour "establishment" and the actual party en masse.
At least Tory politicians are honest about being a social elite.
The whole hysteria about Corbyn reminds me the panick of the rednecks over the election of a socialist muslim named Husein, back in 2008.
Relax, Corbyn is not a communist and he isn't going to make your railway company public again.
The future of your train wrecks is safe.
He's very lucky that Blair denounced him, that statement will probably grant him the leadership of the party.
There isn't the money to nationalise the industries and return to the heyday of the 1970's where british manufacturing was an international joke due to the dire quality and productivity. Unless he were to just print more and buy it up that way.
Markets are very temperamental. If he decides he'll print loadsa money to finance projects that the private sector doesn't want to the Bank of England is therefore under Political control. We could have the rating of the pound falling rather quickly. And given the country mainly does services and has little intrinsic true value creation that is a problem.
If he were to spook the financial sector - which love or hate them brings in a large amount of GDP and are pretty easy to move abroad unlike manufacturing - London's looses critical mass to elsewhere and they might decide they'd rather not return back as now there is critical mass elsewhere.
~:smoking:
Well, where would they move it? China? America? (Actually... :clown:)
Regardless of leadership, it is certainly the case that the UK needs to diversify sharply from financial services...
By sharply, I of course mean in the sense of forcefully and coherently, not merely "quickly".
No, he's definitely a communist and like many communist Labour Party members I suspect he was on Russia's payroll in the 1980's. He's also an atheist and a republican - which makes the idea of him leading Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition a bit of a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
All the things I indicated in my last post, he said - including refusing to say "I condemn the IRA", he was happy to say the troubles were terrible and everyone was to blame, and to condemn the British Army for Bloody Sunday but he wouldn't say "and I also condemn the IRA".
Tsipras was also supposed to belong to the far-left, being the idol of many delluded hippies from Spain to Italy, but he made quite a u-turn, when he grabbed the power. I have a feeling that the same is going to happen with his British version, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Proper nationalisations don't warrant compensations.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Except that Corbyn has never been a popular or influential politician, a minister, or even someone who follows the party whip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
"Between 1997 and 2010, during the most recent Labour Government, Corbyn was the most rebellious of all Labour MPs, regularly defying three-line whips. In the 2005–2010 Parliament alone he defied the whip 238 times, approximately 25% of all votes"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn
Nationalising in the "take it all" when one still has a large fiscal deficit and mainly has a service industry is suicide for the country.
~:smoking:
British politics went downhill after Lord Sutch left us.
That's it then. He's been endorsed by Hamas. Should be a shoe-in for P.M.
Context: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-conflict.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Quote:
"According to his statements, I feel that he could be very close to the Palestinians, the Arabs and to the Muslims. He supports all the right things in the world regarding freedom, justice, dignity, the right of people under occupation to get their national rights.
"If he really became the head of the Labour party, he can make a big change to the image of Britain because people here in Palestine feel that Britain has a historical responsibility, in giving Israel the golden chance of establishing their state on the account of the Palestinian people."
[...]
"In order to be careful. I don't want this word to be used against him," he said. "But we expect him to translate what he said before into actions - to move from words to deeds.
"We expect Mr Corbyn and Britain to change the policy and to understand that the struggle of the Palestinian people against the occupation is fair. And that Hamas is not a terrorist organisation.
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Hopefully this will cause Labour to split, followed by a major split in the Tories for the reasons that rory says.
Maybe then Britain can get the sort of PR system that will make us feel like we actually have some sort of say in politics.
There seems to be a drive in British politics for something different, yet at the same time, the establishment wants to maintain a status quo.
Love or hate it, JC as a candidate is better than the cardboard cut-outs he is competing against. Whilst he will most likely lose the next election, him becoming opposition leader will cause a massive shakeup in politics, with either causing a split within the Labour party, and the outcomes of this affecting the other parties. One of them could even be the SNP taking a hard hit as a Corbyn Labour would steal their mandate essentially other than 'independence'.
Also a Corbyn Labour would mean we could realistically see Tim Farron for Prime Minister as he gains the support of the 'Moderates' after those years people laughed at the coalition then think "Oh sh-, they were stopping the Tories from screwing us with these policies".
I do not like Tim Farron, he seems weasley to me and he may be even more of a homophobe than Rhy and I put together*
Beyond that though, the Lib Dems were virtually wiped out in the election and all the credible politicians like David Laws, Vince Cable, and Danny Alexander are out, so they can't really capitalise on past experience unless they all manage to get elected again.
I think that the Lib Dems were hammered because, as a credible party of govvernment they lost the protest vote. The fact that much of the protest vote went to UKIP suggests that people were more interested in the Lib Dems being "different" than in what they actually stood for.
*All Christians are evil, baby eating, child molesting, racist, homophobic sexual deviants.
I live near enough to his area, and there is seems to be a good reason they all love him (I admit, the Kendal lot are almost spooky in their love for him), even increasing his electoral share last election. He does a lot of involvement in a lot of community.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I am willing to give benefit of the doubt and his views are very palatable. He doesn't fall into the leftist trap of 'lets nationalise everything', nor does he think rampant capitalism is everything.
Also yes, he is a Christian!
I dont suppose you know if his area is running a deficit?
The majority of stock brokers work for multinational companies with desks around the world. So London or Zurich or Hong Kong or Tokyo or Singapore, all destinations that they could be relocated as fast as they could get a business class airfare there and a couple of turrets setup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
But in that case, they wouldn't haven't really moved anything other than the commercial premises and contribution toward local sales tax from coffee purchases and the like.
What's really at stake is political leverage, and simply moving an exchange or branch from one city to another reduces that leverage in both the first country and the next.
Financiers can't afford to be too flighty, or the political classes will lose all compunctions against extracting from them. So then what, they all end up crammed on a few islands?
They all have houses. Big houses that often need expensive work done to them to please their trophy wives . And their children go to private schools in the main. And private healthcare. Private gym membership. Expensive restaurants...Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
They might live pampered lives BUT they tend to use little of the NHS, the school system etc so give loads of money and the crimes they commit they'll continue to do elsewhere.
~:smoking:
What makes it amusing is that one of the driving factors for British focus on its financial sector in the '70s and '80s was that it wanted to benefit from the EEC, but its agricultural and industrial sectors were just too weak...
I would never vote for him because of his baggage but it is true that Britain has to sort its economy out in a much more fundamental way than adjusting spending. We have a fake smoke and mirrors economy, what do we actually make? No wonder we're constantly running a balance of trade deficit. Time to bring back some real industry.
What do you mean fake? It's been workiing for the better part of three decades and it seems to me that a service economy is about as prone to disaster as an industrial one.Quote:
We have a fake smoke and mirrors economy
We basically launder Europe's money - we don't make anything of value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Not just Europe's money - we also help launder Russian, Middle Eastern and Far Eastern money in our Financial sector and housing sector - the house prices in the London are a great place to land large amounts of money that won't be frozen if the USA freezes assets as who owns them is so often unclear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
~:smoking:
The English Premier League: the world's biggest money laundering operation.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I get the feeling you are over-simplifying, as one look at wikipedia tells me that we do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Ignoring that, why is this a problem? Finances, services, industry, all these economic sectors are only as valuable as their consumers deem it and when it comes to exports the prosperity they bring are equally vulnerable to outside competetion and uncontrolable forces, so why do you consider industry any more secure?
Or are you arguing that we are over reliant on one sector? That makes much more sense as without diversity we'd be completely gutted should that one dominant sector fail or become obsolete; we'd have nothing subsantial to fall back on and thus collapse.
JC elected for our sins.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34237564
Well, he got over 59% of the vote, and the only people who don't like him are his fellow MP's. This raises the question of who has been selecting these MP's - my understanding is that Labour constituency parties still have the ability to select their own candidates.
So if Corbyn is so awesome how come there aren't more of him in Parliament already?
His shadow cabinet is a wonder to behold!
*gets popcorn*
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/u....rticle/2571919
Apparently an old one-time university friend and one of the local MPs was one of the MPs who backed JC and is jubilant in his success. They didn't get in the cabinet though... Related article pre-result
They didn't get chosen by the existing Labour party - the lovely party list system helps throttle democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
~:smoking:
As for more of Corbyn in Parliament, there is a number like Diane Abbott, Cat Smith (stealing from conversative incumbent), new shadow chancellor...there is a fair few.
Then there is the left wing SNP just dominating Scotland.
I think as a whole, Media Moguls are definitely gnashing their teeth to paint an alternative picture to reality, and this has contributed in the rise of UKIP, SNP, Corbyn and others not within the circle jerk. Culiminating in different spheres of Politics,"Real Politics "and Street Politics.
Tom and Jerry have been caught stealing war veterans butties. Very council house I'm sure.
That's all folks!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV3u6WOlVIk
Corbyn regularly has the lowest expense claims of any MP. He votes with his conscience and is not a careerist Blairite. He never sought high office, but it was thrust upon him. He doesn't go in for easy soundbites.
In his first PMQs he raised issues about sky high rents and the desperate state of our mental health services - two issues that politicians of the careerist, one-eye-on-the-focus-groups couldn't give a toss about.
He's up against an incredibly hostile, perhaps even shrill and desperate, press. They are combing over every detail, looking at everything he's ever done and said (the current Tory front bench wouldn't survive 5% of that scrutiny before the coke, whores and tax havens came out). They are extrapolating policy from nothing. Demonising policies like the renationalisation of the railways and getting rid of PPIs in the NHS - both of which are broadly popular among the public.
The usual tricks are at play. Trying to paint him as some pro-Hamas anti-semite, which is nonsense as even cursory research beyond the Murdoch headlines would show. He did indeed publicly champion a negotiated settlement with the IRA about 5 years before the Tory party did just that (in secret of course). Hilariously the Telegraph had a front page story calling him a hypocrite for having no women in the top shadow jobs - while the Telegraph has no women at all on it's 15 strong boardroom.
Good luck to him. He's going to need it. The knives aren't just out, they are being repeated plunged in.
Why should a private company have a quota for women in the boardroom?
That's probably the most misogynist statement I've heard in some time.
They shouldn't have a quota. They also shouldn't have a headline calling Corbyn a hypocrite when they are being monumentally hypocritical.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
I won't try and understand how my statement can be misogynist. I suspect you don't know what the word means.
Let me explain - a quote for the number of women in a given role implies that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
A: Women can't get there on merit.
B: Women are discriminated against and therefore can't get there on merit.
C: Both of the above (surprising what some believe).
Corbyn shouldn't even have defended his pics, he should have just told the media to bog off.
BTW, I don't think the media are being any harsher on him than any other new leader - the Torygraph is obviously trying to knife him but other than that I think he's getting fairly generous coverage.
You point to his expenses, where he has nothing to hide, as rightly being a badge of merit but I can equally point to his links to the IRA or Hamas, or his support for contemporary Russia, and those do raise questions, and possibly more serious ones than billing the taxpayer to have your moat cleaned.
Doesn't it just say that he's an MP for a constituency close to Westminster? Depending on personal wealth, the further away you are from London, the higher the expenses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
He does appear to live a genuinely frugal life, with an allotment and everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Mind you, I recall that the Ayatollah was a pious man - who subsequently suppressed democracy in Iran.
One can be simultaneously pious and a monster.
Nonsense. The press have been screaming from the front pages about him.
Links to the IRA and Hamas? That's nonsense. He has met with numerous groups over decades. He believes in engagement and discussion. According to loony zionist, rabid unionists and right wing media that might count as a "link", but to anyone with a brain it just shows that he's had a long political career.
Like the claim that he said Bin Laden's death was a tragedy. If you actually watch the programme in question, he is talking about the extra judicial killing which he thinks is wrong, that he should have stood trial, saying that the whole situation was tragedy after tragedy. Again, propaganda and smear.
"BTW, I don't think the media are being any harsher on him than any other new leader - the Torygraph is obviously trying to knife him but other than that I think he's getting fairly generous coverage." :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Really: Less than 24 hours after elections:
Attachment 16436
and is a Hamas friend as you now twice notice (ignoring btw his explanations), a menace to the state security, IRA sympathiser (?), and ate two sandwiches reserved to the veterans.
I think that we really need to give him some space to settle in and sort out what it is that he's doing. The muck raking is pathetic - yes he probably should have sun the National Anthem as he must realise he is a figurehead as well as an individual and sometimes that does mean one's own personal views have to come second.
I personally disagree with most of what he believes in but that is no reason to not give him the same fair hearing he allows others - politicians who serve the Polis as opposed to a group of braying children who serve themselves is not the worst thing in the world.
~:smoking:
Agree. I personally agree with most of what he say, but I want a real possibility to heard him, to know what he want to lead Labour Party. I don't want a new Alexis Tsipras
No one's going to answer my previous post?
Ok then.
can we get a confirmation on this one?Quote:
He campaigns for the national rights of Venezuelans and Palestinians; but he opposes self-determination in Northern Ireland and the Falkland Islands
Politicians who serve the Polis is exactly what a lot of the country dislike.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Polis means body of citizens... so some of the people don't like politicians that serve the people?
Doesn't private TV serve the people? Just look at the results...Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
You're gonna have to explain that one; I don't watch enough TV to know the difference between public and private.
For that matter Britain doesn't technically have public any more. We stopped broadcasting analogue 5 years ago; everything's digital now. Even then some of the best stuff was on the 5 main channels.
I don't imagine I agree with with Corbyn on many topics, however he at least talks like an adult. That all situations are complex and that compromise and dialogue are important. That you can't just have a single soundbite that then applies to every situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I think, fundamentally, he is in favour of peace, engagement, dialogue and compromise. He is not strident, he is not dogmatic. That doesn't really fit with the politics by soundbite/headline approach of our age. I am supportive of him just for that alone. It's time politics grew up. That it wasn't defined by the vested interests of media barons, who's desires are then badly implemented and expressed by tabloid headline writers.
Jeez - a Guido Fawkes link from Sky News? Like fascism sponsored by Coca Cola.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Given the choice I would rather have a duplicitous, lying media slave politician who might do what I think is the right thing over an independent straight talking and honest one that definitely wont.Quote:
I don't imagine I agree with with Corbyn on many topics, however he at least talks like an adult. That all situations are complex and that compromise and dialogue are important. That you can't just have a single soundbite that then applies to every situation.
I think, fundamentally, he is in favour of peace, engagement, dialogue and compromise. He is not strident, he is not dogmatic. That doesn't really fit with the politics by soundbite/headline approach of our age. I am supportive of him just for that alone. It's time politics grew up. That it wasn't defined by the vested interests of media barons, who's desires are then badly implemented and expressed by tabloid headline writers.
I'm hoping he'll be a good opposition leader and try to keep the Tories worse proclivities in check, however if he's really such an idiot as to want to impose foreign rule over British citizens out of some delusion of fair compromise, let alone give up the ultimate defense of the realm over some hippy ideal, then I don't want him anywhere near a majority government.
But of course I am not so eager to take a biased source at face value, so I'll wait on that confirmation.
Mea culpa, I thought it meant city.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
If I had to choose between a principled government and a clever government, and the two were mutually exclusive, I'd choose the clever government every time. Politicians aren't there to be good and noble. They're there to (attempt to) govern the country well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
You are also correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
My understanding of polis came from it's use in "policeman" which as the late Terry Pratchett often emphasized had an intended meaning of "man of the people"Quote:
Polis (/ˈpɒlɨs/; Greek: πόλις [pólis]), plural poleis (/ˈpɒleɪz/, πόλεις [póleːs]) literally means city in Greek. It can also mean citizenship and body of citizens.
Isn't the BBC public? I thought they locked me out of their app based on the argument that only British taxpayers pay for the program.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
As for the content, at least in Germany the public ones show mostly reality tv shows during the day, which apparently represent the best relation between low production costs and what the public wants to see. I would personally not classify that as quality entertainment for enlightened individuals, but maybe I'm elitist. I do however wish that our school system would produce only enlightened individuals.
AFAIK, it is headed by the board of trustees appointed by the British government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBCQuote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
It says the owner is the British public, so there we go.
I own it? News to me. If I refuse to pay the BBC 'tax' then they will send me to prison. Doesn't sound like I own it at all!
...let's just ignore that I forgot the status of the BBC and get to the part where I point out that the BBC produces a lot of quality entertainment that makes the stereotype of shit public TV unfamiliar to me.
The best overseas documentaries are the ones that remind me of the BBC. I'm not an atheist only because I worship at the church of David Attenborough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Where I read thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
and thatQuote:
The BBC is a corporation, independent from direct government intervention, with its activities being overseen by the BBC Trust (formerly the Board of Governors).
The Trust sets the strategy for the corporation, assesses the performance of the BBC Executive Board in delivering the BBC's services, and appoints the Director-General.
Whoever might own it, the government has a say in determining its politics and appointing its management.Quote:
The Royal Charter establishes that the Trust should have twelve trustees, including a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman and a member for each of the Home Nations of the United Kingdom. Appointments to the BBC Trust are made by Queen in Council, on the recommendation of UK government ministers.
What if you don't pay the tax for your car? Does that mean you don't own your car or your house either?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
You own it because you pay for it, you could even say that the state guarantees your ownership BECAUSE you pay your taxes.
If the state does not get sufficient taxes, it cannot guarantee any ownership and guaranteeing ownership is one of the major functions of a working government as it allows business to happen. So unless you do not want to be a British citizen anymore because you do not like the common policies you and the other citizens and the ancestors you are probably proud of voted for, there is no reason to complain. ~;)
That was my point somewhere, that I think it is just a stereotype. Yes, public TV in Germany does not produce great TV in general, but I find they do produce at least higher quality news. The private channels may have the higher quality TV series but their news often seem more sensational and in between they also show a lot of low quality reality TV. PBS in the US also seems to produce high quality documentaries etc. while the same can apparently not be said about national geographic or the history channel anymore unless you count men getting eaten by snakes and pulled out again or samurai vs. pirate analyses as high quality documentaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
That's not to say that there aren't some good private shows, but apparently there is also a lot of money in cheap sensational shows, especially when it comes to "infotainment".
Point - in Colonial America slaves paid for their food and lodging - they never got any wages at the end of the month.
So, while you point may not be entirely wrong you example is invalid.
-1o Internets.
¿Qué?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
¿What do slaves have to do with people voting for politicians?
Corbyn is attacked for not going to the rugby world cup opening ceremony along with a host of tory freeloaders as he had a prior engagement.
And his prior engagement was....? Meeting constituents and helping to sort out problems..ie his job.
What, he couldn't meet his constituents at the rugby match? And he calls himself an ENGLISHMAN?
Corbyn also is much less likely to have ****** a *** than Cameron.
Now we know why Milliband struggled with his bacon butty........eeewwwww
Simply payinf for something doesn't mean you own it - even in a democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Greased a pig?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Milked a cow?
Partook a fig?
Owned a pit?
Watered a Yew?
Eaten a rib?
Pleased a fan?
The suspense is killing me.
Well, do we have to?Quote:
Simply payinf for something doesn't mean you own it - even in a democracy.
It's another conceptual or even metaphysical question - what sort of ownership is he referring to, and what is the nature of ownership in general?
:hide:
Pleased a cow it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
So close!Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Will Corbyn encourage you to vote in the next election?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I probably would vote for Corbyn. He has talked about greater democratisation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Oh Good! More Power To The People!
When has that concept ever failed...? Let's hope we are not the next Greece or Venezuela which such great ideas as raising everyone's wage, purchasing loads of land and then building houses on them and then loosing money on the whole project
I would like to see greater democratisation at a local level where what people want is frankly less dangerous and more relevant - removing party affiliation from all local councils so there is more chance they are chosen on what they do not which party they are from.
~:smoking: