Jeremy Corbyn

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Jeremy Corbyn

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 37 of 464 < 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 >

Stuk Top half 24 Aug 15 5.50pm
Quote serial thriller at 24 Aug 2015 5.03pm Quote Stuk at 24 Aug 2015 1.41pm Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 5.30pm Quote The White Horse at 23 Aug 2015 5.03pm Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 3.15pm A recent survey claimed around a third of the electorate would be more likely to vote for Labour with Corbyn in charge. Most support nationalising the railways and the energy companies, keeping the NHS public, are against military intervention in Syria as they were against Iraq, and even the IMF argues against austerity. Not only does Corbyn represent the views of a sizeable percentage of the population, he actually resides in the majority view on a number of issues, putting him in stark contrast to almost anyone else in the two major parliamentary parties. Of course, public perception changes, and that is something else you have to factor in. Should the leader of the opposition take positions against austerity, against military intervention, against widespread outsourcing, it is likely that more of the public will be convinced by views which have until now been largely kept out of mainstream discourse. That's exemplified no better than by Farage, who brought immigration and Europe in to the mainstream. I wish all of the above was true, but it just isn't , is it? He's a joke, even a proper lefty like me can see that. He'll pick up the tiny green and tusc vote, but. Labour will lose voters to the Tories and Lib Dems. Not true? The whole first paragraph is pretty much exclusively factual. I can get the links out for you if you fancy I'm not a labour member, and have never voted for Labour in my life. I'm still very much in two minds as to whether I would vote for Corbyn were he to be elected; the reason that I'm sticking up for him so vigorously is because of the soothsaying which the vast majority of people I encounter seem to take pleasure in with regards to Corbyn. There is a fatalistic acceptance among so many people across the political spectrum that Corbyn will inevitably lose, and I think it's a view which is being fuelled almost exclusively through a very narrow right-wing analysis of political history. For example, everyone is harking back to the 83 election as proof that radical politics can't win, but what about the 74 election, where Labour's manifesto was arguably more radical than the one Foot lost with? Equally, why aren't people recognising the significance of the SDP split which fractured the Labour vote? Or you could point to the fact that the reemergence of the left is occurring throughout the Western world, and is achieving incredible success, be it in Scotland, Spain, Greece or New York. People could acknowledge that we have an incredible brew of variables which is causing this rise, namely a rejection of austerity, a fatigue with foreign interventionism and an anger at growing inequality. History never repeats itself because everything is constantly changing, everything is constantly new. I'm not saying he will win, I understand it would be an incredible achievement should he do so. But I know for absolute certain, and I can back it up with as many historical parallels as you wish (Obama, Mitterand, Syriza) that prophesying inevitable defeat is ludicrous. Believing that myth is to accept in full the version of reality and public attitudes created by those on the right. Links do not make anything "factual". You're off your rocker is my conclusion. I'll use the post from the WH as my factual evidence for this. Out of interest, what do you classify as being a fact? The number of grams in a kilogram. Do you need any more? Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 24 Aug 15 5.50pm

Quote serial thriller at 24 Aug 2015 5.03pm

Quote Stuk at 24 Aug 2015 1.41pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 5.30pm

Quote The White Horse at 23 Aug 2015 5.03pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 3.15pm

A recent survey claimed around a third of the electorate would be more likely to vote for Labour with Corbyn in charge. Most support nationalising the railways and the energy companies, keeping the NHS public, are against military intervention in Syria as they were against Iraq, and even the IMF argues against austerity. Not only does Corbyn represent the views of a sizeable percentage of the population, he actually resides in the majority view on a number of issues, putting him in stark contrast to almost anyone else in the two major parliamentary parties.

Of course, public perception changes, and that is something else you have to factor in. Should the leader of the opposition take positions against austerity, against military intervention, against widespread outsourcing, it is likely that more of the public will be convinced by views which have until now been largely kept out of mainstream discourse. That's exemplified no better than by Farage, who brought immigration and Europe in to the mainstream.

I wish all of the above was true, but it just isn't , is it? He's a joke, even a proper lefty like me can see that. He'll pick up the tiny green and tusc vote, but. Labour will lose voters to the Tories and Lib Dems.

Not true? The whole first paragraph is pretty much exclusively factual. I can get the links out for you if you fancy

I'm not a labour member, and have never voted for Labour in my life. I'm still very much in two minds as to whether I would vote for Corbyn were he to be elected; the reason that I'm sticking up for him so vigorously is because of the soothsaying which the vast majority of people I encounter seem to take pleasure in with regards to Corbyn. There is a fatalistic acceptance among so many people across the political spectrum that Corbyn will inevitably lose, and I think it's a view which is being fuelled almost exclusively through a very narrow right-wing analysis of political history.

For example, everyone is harking back to the 83 election as proof that radical politics can't win, but what about the 74 election, where Labour's manifesto was arguably more radical than the one Foot lost with? Equally, why aren't people recognising the significance of the SDP split which fractured the Labour vote?

Or you could point to the fact that the reemergence of the left is occurring throughout the Western world, and is achieving incredible success, be it in Scotland, Spain, Greece or New York. People could acknowledge that we have an incredible brew of variables which is causing this rise, namely a rejection of austerity, a fatigue with foreign interventionism and an anger at growing inequality. History never repeats itself because everything is constantly changing, everything is constantly new.

I'm not saying he will win, I understand it would be an incredible achievement should he do so. But I know for absolute certain, and I can back it up with as many historical parallels as you wish (Obama, Mitterand, Syriza) that prophesying inevitable defeat is ludicrous. Believing that myth is to accept in full the version of reality and public attitudes created by those on the right.

Links do not make anything "factual".

You're off your rocker is my conclusion. I'll use the post from the WH as my factual evidence for this.

Out of interest, what do you classify as being a fact?

The number of grams in a kilogram. Do you need any more?

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller The Promised Land 25 Aug 15 10.01am
Quote matt_himself at 23 Aug 2015 10.25pm Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 5.30pm Quote The White Horse at 23 Aug 2015 5.03pm Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 3.15pm A recent survey claimed around a third of the electorate would be more likely to vote for Labour with Corbyn in charge. Most support nationalising the railways and the energy companies, keeping the NHS public, are against military intervention in Syria as they were against Iraq, and even the IMF argues against austerity. Not only does Corbyn represent the views of a sizeable percentage of the population, he actually resides in the majority view on a number of issues, putting him in stark contrast to almost anyone else in the two major parliamentary parties. Of course, public perception changes, and that is something else you have to factor in. Should the leader of the opposition take positions against austerity, against military intervention, against widespread outsourcing, it is likely that more of the public will be convinced by views which have until now been largely kept out of mainstream discourse. That's exemplified no better than by Farage, who brought immigration and Europe in to the mainstream. I wish all of the above was true, but it just isn't , is it? He's a joke, even a proper lefty like me can see that. He'll pick up the tiny green and tusc vote, but. Labour will lose voters to the Tories and Lib Dems. Not true? The whole first paragraph is pretty much exclusively factual. I can get the links out for you if you fancy I'm not a labour member, and have never voted for Labour in my life. I'm still very much in two minds as to whether I would vote for Corbyn were he to be elected; the reason that I'm sticking up for him so vigorously is because of the soothsaying which the vast majority of people I encounter seem to take pleasure in with regards to Corbyn. There is a fatalistic acceptance among so many people across the political spectrum that Corbyn will inevitably lose, and I think it's a view which is being fuelled almost exclusively through a very narrow right-wing analysis of political history. For example, everyone is harking back to the 83 election as proof that radical politics can't win, but what about the 74 election, where Labour's manifesto was arguably more radical than the one Foot lost with? Equally, why aren't people recognising the significance of the SDP split which fractured the Labour vote? Or you could point to the fact that the reemergence of the left is occurring throughout the Western world, and is achieving incredible success, be it in Scotland, Spain, Greece or New York. People could acknowledge that we have an incredible brew of variables which is causing this rise, namely a rejection of austerity, a fatigue with foreign interventionism and an anger at growing inequality. History never repeats itself because everything is constantly changing, everything is constantly new. I'm not saying he will win, I understand it would be an incredible achievement should he do so. But I know for absolute certain, and I can back it up with as many historical parallels as you wish (Obama, Mitterand, Syriza) that prophesying inevitable defeat is ludicrous. Believing that myth is to accept in full the version of reality and public attitudes created by those on the right. Let's look at the 'incredible success' the left is achieving. Scotland - the SNP's success is far more to do with nationalism than anti austerity. Podemos - their support is shrinking as the economy recovers and are now 'embracing the enemy' by doing deals and forming alliances with the PSOE. Syriza - it's laughable that anyone can call this a 'success'. They have led Greece into being an economic colony of Bonn, are divided down the middle and are now simply doing deals to retain power. And therein lies the nub. These parties can push their populism as much as they like when they are in opposition, yet when they achieve power, they do deals and become centre left or liberal. The exception being the SNP which is feeding a bullying, nationalism cause to preserve its power and mask some of the very real failings of its governance in Scotland. Syriza is now 'fighting the enemy' and creating enemies to preserve their power - isn't that something the left claim the right do with Islam or the war on drugs? If you want to believe that the World is on the verge of a grassroots left revolution, please do. However the facts of the situation lend to a feeling that this is not the case plus even when the occasional commie nutjob does get elected they fairly quickly revert to type - meaning either they compromise their 'principles' or they split their party in many divisions and start fighting their comrades. The SNP argument I think doesn't work. If it was simply nationalistic sentiment that was driving them, they wouldn't have needed to have formed the clear political narrative which they did to gain so many votes, but actually by positioning themselves to the left of Labour on issues like austerity and nuclear weapons they appealed to people's dissatisfaction with Labour on social justice. They didn't use the UKIP policy of simply blaming everything on a union, which would've been the thing to do were nationalism a sufficient argument to gain vote. The far left movement has brought the successes of electoral victories, and those governments have enacted some positive policies. But, and you'll be surprised by this Matt, I actually completely agree with you. One serious criticism of Corbyn style politics is that it cannot address what are global issues on a national basis and cannot adequately deliver subversive economic policies in a world where capital is transnational. It's something Mitterand realised in the 80s, when he came to power on a socialist mandate but ended up pushing back, and it's something Syriza have realised, that especially when you are in a political union like the EU, not following the line is incredibly difficult and perhaps impossible. That's why I focus my efforts on grassroots movements and away from parliamentary politics - because while I think electoral success is important in a lot of ways, you need a constant global movement pushing people's perceptions with those successes for it to have any lasting impact. Edited by serial thriller (25 Aug 2015 10.06am) If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4
Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller

The Promised Land 25 Aug 15 10.01am

Send a Private Message to serial thriller

Quote matt_himself at 23 Aug 2015 10.25pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 5.30pm

Quote The White Horse at 23 Aug 2015 5.03pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 3.15pm

Not true? The whole first paragraph is pretty much exclusively factual. I can get the links out for you if you fancy

Let's look at the 'incredible success' the left is achieving. Scotland - the SNP's success is far more to do with nationalism than anti austerity.

Podemos - their support is shrinking as the economy recovers and are now 'embracing the enemy' by doing deals and forming alliances with the PSOE.

Syriza - it's laughable that anyone can call this a 'success'. They have led Greece into being an economic colony of Bonn, are divided down the middle and are now simply doing deals to retain power.

And therein lies the nub. These parties can push their populism as much as they like when they are in opposition, yet when they achieve power, they do deals and become centre left or liberal. The exception being the SNP which is feeding a bullying, nationalism cause to preserve its power and mask some of the very real failings of its governance in Scotland. Syriza is now 'fighting the enemy' and creating enemies to preserve their power - isn't that something the left claim the right do with Islam or the war on drugs?

If you want to believe that the World is on the verge of a grassroots left revolution, please do. However the facts of the situation lend to a feeling that this is not the case plus even when the occasional commie nutjob does get elected they fairly quickly revert to type - meaning either they compromise their 'principles' or they split their party in many divisions and start fighting their comrades.

The SNP argument I think doesn't work. If it was simply nationalistic sentiment that was driving them, they wouldn't have needed to have formed the clear political narrative which they did to gain so many votes, but actually by positioning themselves to the left of Labour on issues like austerity and nuclear weapons they appealed to people's dissatisfaction with Labour on social justice. They didn't use the UKIP policy of simply blaming everything on a union, which would've been the thing to do were nationalism a sufficient argument to gain vote.

The far left movement has brought the successes of electoral victories, and those governments have enacted some positive policies. But, and you'll be surprised by this Matt, I actually completely agree with you. One serious criticism of Corbyn style politics is that it cannot address what are global issues on a national basis and cannot adequately deliver subversive economic policies in a world where capital is transnational. It's something Mitterand realised in the 80s, when he came to power on a socialist mandate but ended up pushing back, and it's something Syriza have realised, that especially when you are in a political union like the EU, not following the line is incredibly difficult and perhaps impossible. That's why I focus my efforts on grassroots movements and away from parliamentary politics - because while I think electoral success is important in a lot of ways, you need a constant global movement pushing people's perceptions with those successes for it to have any lasting impact.

Edited by serial thriller (25 Aug 2015 10.06am)

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller The Promised Land 25 Aug 15 10.04am
Quote Stuk at 24 Aug 2015 5.50pm Quote serial thriller at 24 Aug 2015 5.03pm Quote Stuk at 24 Aug 2015 1.41pm Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 5.30pm Quote The White Horse at 23 Aug 2015 5.03pm Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 3.15pm A recent survey claimed around a third of the electorate would be more likely to vote for Labour with Corbyn in charge. Most support nationalising the railways and the energy companies, keeping the NHS public, are against military intervention in Syria as they were against Iraq, and even the IMF argues against austerity. Not only does Corbyn represent the views of a sizeable percentage of the population, he actually resides in the majority view on a number of issues, putting him in stark contrast to almost anyone else in the two major parliamentary parties. Of course, public perception changes, and that is something else you have to factor in. Should the leader of the opposition take positions against austerity, against military intervention, against widespread outsourcing, it is likely that more of the public will be convinced by views which have until now been largely kept out of mainstream discourse. That's exemplified no better than by Farage, who brought immigration and Europe in to the mainstream. I wish all of the above was true, but it just isn't , is it? He's a joke, even a proper lefty like me can see that. He'll pick up the tiny green and tusc vote, but. Labour will lose voters to the Tories and Lib Dems. Not true? The whole first paragraph is pretty much exclusively factual. I can get the links out for you if you fancy I'm not a labour member, and have never voted for Labour in my life. I'm still very much in two minds as to whether I would vote for Corbyn were he to be elected; the reason that I'm sticking up for him so vigorously is because of the soothsaying which the vast majority of people I encounter seem to take pleasure in with regards to Corbyn. There is a fatalistic acceptance among so many people across the political spectrum that Corbyn will inevitably lose, and I think it's a view which is being fuelled almost exclusively through a very narrow right-wing analysis of political history. For example, everyone is harking back to the 83 election as proof that radical politics can't win, but what about the 74 election, where Labour's manifesto was arguably more radical than the one Foot lost with? Equally, why aren't people recognising the significance of the SDP split which fractured the Labour vote? Or you could point to the fact that the reemergence of the left is occurring throughout the Western world, and is achieving incredible success, be it in Scotland, Spain, Greece or New York. People could acknowledge that we have an incredible brew of variables which is causing this rise, namely a rejection of austerity, a fatigue with foreign interventionism and an anger at growing inequality. History never repeats itself because everything is constantly changing, everything is constantly new. I'm not saying he will win, I understand it would be an incredible achievement should he do so. But I know for absolute certain, and I can back it up with as many historical parallels as you wish (Obama, Mitterand, Syriza) that prophesying inevitable defeat is ludicrous. Believing that myth is to accept in full the version of reality and public attitudes created by those on the right. Links do not make anything "factual". You're off your rocker is my conclusion. I'll use the post from the WH as my factual evidence for this. Out of interest, what do you classify as being a fact? The number of grams in a kilogram. Do you need any more? So when I say 'Most of the public support renationalising the railways' or 'the IMF are against austerity', how are those statements any less factual than, say, 'rain comes from clouds' or 'Palace scored 2 goals on Saturday'? If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4
Alert a moderator to this post

serial thriller

The Promised Land 25 Aug 15 10.04am

Quote Stuk at 24 Aug 2015 5.50pm

Quote serial thriller at 24 Aug 2015 5.03pm

Quote Stuk at 24 Aug 2015 1.41pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 5.30pm

Quote The White Horse at 23 Aug 2015 5.03pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 3.15pm

Not true? The whole first paragraph is pretty much exclusively factual. I can get the links out for you if you fancy

Links do not make anything "factual".

You're off your rocker is my conclusion. I'll use the post from the WH as my factual evidence for this.

Out of interest, what do you classify as being a fact?

The number of grams in a kilogram. Do you need any more?

So when I say 'Most of the public support renationalising the railways' or 'the IMF are against austerity', how are those statements any less factual than, say, 'rain comes from clouds' or 'Palace scored 2 goals on Saturday'?

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 25 Aug 15 11.38am
Quote serial thriller at 25 Aug 2015 10.04am Quote Stuk at 24 Aug 2015 5.50pm Quote serial thriller at 24 Aug 2015 5.03pm Quote Stuk at 24 Aug 2015 1.41pm Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 5.30pm Quote The White Horse at 23 Aug 2015 5.03pm Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 3.15pm A recent survey claimed around a third of the electorate would be more likely to vote for Labour with Corbyn in charge. Most support nationalising the railways and the energy companies, keeping the NHS public, are against military intervention in Syria as they were against Iraq, and even the IMF argues against austerity. Not only does Corbyn represent the views of a sizeable percentage of the population, he actually resides in the majority view on a number of issues, putting him in stark contrast to almost anyone else in the two major parliamentary parties. Of course, public perception changes, and that is something else you have to factor in. Should the leader of the opposition take positions against austerity, against military intervention, against widespread outsourcing, it is likely that more of the public will be convinced by views which have until now been largely kept out of mainstream discourse. That's exemplified no better than by Farage, who brought immigration and Europe in to the mainstream. I wish all of the above was true, but it just isn't , is it? He's a joke, even a proper lefty like me can see that. He'll pick up the tiny green and tusc vote, but. Labour will lose voters to the Tories and Lib Dems. Not true? The whole first paragraph is pretty much exclusively factual. I can get the links out for you if you fancy I'm not a labour member, and have never voted for Labour in my life. I'm still very much in two minds as to whether I would vote for Corbyn were he to be elected; the reason that I'm sticking up for him so vigorously is because of the soothsaying which the vast majority of people I encounter seem to take pleasure in with regards to Corbyn. There is a fatalistic acceptance among so many people across the political spectrum that Corbyn will inevitably lose, and I think it's a view which is being fuelled almost exclusively through a very narrow right-wing analysis of political history. For example, everyone is harking back to the 83 election as proof that radical politics can't win, but what about the 74 election, where Labour's manifesto was arguably more radical than the one Foot lost with? Equally, why aren't people recognising the significance of the SDP split which fractured the Labour vote? Or you could point to the fact that the reemergence of the left is occurring throughout the Western world, and is achieving incredible success, be it in Scotland, Spain, Greece or New York. People could acknowledge that we have an incredible brew of variables which is causing this rise, namely a rejection of austerity, a fatigue with foreign interventionism and an anger at growing inequality. History never repeats itself because everything is constantly changing, everything is constantly new. I'm not saying he will win, I understand it would be an incredible achievement should he do so. But I know for absolute certain, and I can back it up with as many historical parallels as you wish (Obama, Mitterand, Syriza) that prophesying inevitable defeat is ludicrous. Believing that myth is to accept in full the version of reality and public attitudes created by those on the right. Links do not make anything "factual". You're off your rocker is my conclusion. I'll use the post from the WH as my factual evidence for this. Out of interest, what do you classify as being a fact? The number of grams in a kilogram. Do you need any more? So when I say 'Most of the public support renationalising the railways' or 'the IMF are against austerity', how are those statements any less factual than, say, 'rain comes from clouds' or 'Palace scored 2 goals on Saturday'? Is that "the whole first paragraph"? No, it's not. And when you say "most of the public" you again are not using a fact. You don't know most of the public, and neither does whomever's research you claim backs up this statement. The "IMF are not against austerity" either. The IMF has to treat each country and their needs differently. Palace scored 3 goals on Saturday. You're not very good at this. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 25 Aug 15 11.38am

Quote serial thriller at 25 Aug 2015 10.04am

Quote Stuk at 24 Aug 2015 5.50pm

Quote serial thriller at 24 Aug 2015 5.03pm

Quote Stuk at 24 Aug 2015 1.41pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 5.30pm

Quote The White Horse at 23 Aug 2015 5.03pm

Quote serial thriller at 23 Aug 2015 3.15pm

Not true? The whole first paragraph is pretty much exclusively factual. I can get the links out for you if you fancy

Links do not make anything "factual".

You're off your rocker is my conclusion. I'll use the post from the WH as my factual evidence for this.

Out of interest, what do you classify as being a fact?

The number of grams in a kilogram. Do you need any more?

So when I say 'Most of the public support renationalising the railways' or 'the IMF are against austerity', how are those statements any less factual than, say, 'rain comes from clouds' or 'Palace scored 2 goals on Saturday'?

Is that "the whole first paragraph"? No, it's not.

And when you say "most of the public" you again are not using a fact. You don't know most of the public, and neither does whomever's research you claim backs up this statement.

The "IMF are not against austerity" either. The IMF has to treat each country and their needs differently.

Palace scored 3 goals on Saturday. You're not very good at this.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 25 Aug 15 10.44pm
How true: [Link] "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 25 Aug 15 10.44pm

How true:

[Link]

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 26 Aug 15 7.55am
The four stooges were on the radio this morning discussing immigration. Corbyn thought it was an unmitigated blessing, especially good for our children apparently, and so no need for controls whatsoever. Any Burnham challenged this and pointed out the damaging effect on jobs and wages. The other too came out with the usual weasel words about how they understood peoples' concerns but would do f-all about it. mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 26 Aug 15 7.55am

The four stooges were on the radio this morning discussing immigration. Corbyn thought it was an unmitigated blessing, especially good for our children apparently, and so no need for controls whatsoever. Any Burnham challenged this and pointed out the damaging effect on jobs and wages. The other too came out with the usual weasel words about how they understood peoples' concerns but would do f-all about it.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 26 Aug 15 10.19am
I think a lot of people are seeing how long, protracted and an utter shambles this leadership contest is and thanking god that Miliband didn't get into no. 10... as the format is down to him as he changed it after the Falkirk debacle. Basically the whole process began shortly after the May General Elections and is nowhere near completion. The lacklustre choice of candidates and shambolic voting system should ensure a Tory victory whoever is chosen, but Corbyn will be the best option for the Tories. Nice.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 26 Aug 15 10.19am

I think a lot of people are seeing how long, protracted and an utter shambles this leadership contest is and thanking god that Miliband didn't get into no. 10... as the format is down to him as he changed it after the Falkirk debacle.

Basically the whole process began shortly after the May General Elections and is nowhere near completion.

The lacklustre choice of candidates and shambolic voting system should ensure a Tory victory whoever is chosen, but Corbyn will be the best option for the Tories.

Nice.

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 26 Aug 15 10.30am
I see that Corbyn is now addressing the major issues of the day: he will consider women-only rail carriages. Perhaps if he becomes Labour Leader, and after the next General Election, we could have Labour-voters-only rail carriages - wouldn't need very many and would keep them away from the rest of us. mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 26 Aug 15 10.30am

I see that Corbyn is now addressing the major issues of the day: he will consider women-only rail carriages.

Perhaps if he becomes Labour Leader, and after the next General Election, we could have Labour-voters-only rail carriages - wouldn't need very many and would keep them away from the rest of us.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

lloydy st ives cornwall 26 Aug 15 11.44am
This is what he actually said Corbyn stresses that he would prefer not to introduce women-only carriages. “Some women have raised with me that a solution to the rise in assault and harassment on public transport could be to introduce women-only carriages. My intention would be to make public transport safer for everyone from the train platform to the bus stop to the mode of transport itself,” he says.
Alert a moderator to this post

lloydy

st ives cornwall 26 Aug 15 11.44am

This is what he actually said
Corbyn stresses that he would prefer not to introduce women-only carriages. “Some women have raised with me that a solution to the rise in assault and harassment on public transport could be to introduce women-only carriages. My intention would be to make public transport safer for everyone from the train platform to the bus stop to the mode of transport itself,” he says.

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 26 Aug 15 12.11pm
Quote lloydy at 26 Aug 2015 11.44am This is what he actually said Corbyn stresses that he would prefer not to introduce women-only carriages. “Some women have raised with me that a solution to the rise in assault and harassment on public transport could be to introduce women-only carriages. My intention would be to make public transport safer for everyone from the train platform to the bus stop to the mode of transport itself,” he says. For completeness, the rest of the quote was: "However, I would consult with women and open it up to hear their views on whether women-only carriages would be welcome - and also if piloting this at times and [on] modes of transport where harassment is reported most frequently would be of interest." Sounds like 'consider' to me. mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 26 Aug 15 12.11pm

Quote lloydy at 26 Aug 2015 11.44am

For completeness, the rest of the quote was:
"However, I would consult with women and open it up to hear their views on whether women-only carriages would be welcome - and also if piloting this at times and [on] modes of transport where harassment is reported most frequently would be of interest."

Sounds like 'consider' to me.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

lloydy st ives cornwall 26 Aug 15 12.17pm
Second bit gets reported first bit doesn't
Alert a moderator to this post

lloydy

st ives cornwall 26 Aug 15 12.17pm

Second bit gets reported first bit doesn't

Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall 26 Aug 15 1.21pm
Where did the idea even come from? I do quite often read of incidents on the trains in the local paper but the vast majority of cases are muggings or people masturbating. Maybe have another ticket barrier on the train so plebs can't get in to 1st Class. Segregation is only enforced by the threat of a fine if there's an inspector. Now you're likely to be branded a rapist for going in the wrong carriage if you can't get a seat elsewhere. So even 'considering' the idea is going too far.
Alert a moderator to this post

johnfirewall

26 Aug 15 1.21pm

Where did the idea even come from?

I do quite often read of incidents on the trains in the local paper but the vast majority of cases are muggings or people masturbating. Maybe have another ticket barrier on the train so plebs can't get in to 1st Class. Segregation is only enforced by the threat of a fine if there's an inspector. Now you're likely to be branded a rapist for going in the wrong carriage if you can't get a seat elsewhere. So even 'considering' the idea is going too far.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 37 of 464 < 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Jeremy Corbyn

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors