Cable Forum
Page 2 of 11 1 2 3456 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Corbyn's kerfuffle (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33702119)

Ignitionnet 18-01-2016 08:31
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthorn (Post 35817870)
I think he is suggesting that they are converted to conventional weapons, which is feasible as the yanks have converted some of their Ohios to ssgns.
Indeed. Although they still have 14 of the 18 carrying Trident II. The 4 remaining can carry, amongst other things, nuclear tipped cruise missiles.

The only real point in our having those submarines there is to deter a nuclear first strike against us.

Unlike the USA or Russia we don't have the benefit of enough land mass to put ICBMs far enough away from the coast that any incoming SLBMs will have an appreciable travel time and bombers are, for obvious reasons, vulnerable.

My local Labour party is I note considering a motion on unilateral disarmament that's recently come in. Unilateral disarmament is utter insanity.

Mr K 18-01-2016 09:11
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Actually, I've an idea for them. They could be converted into 'cruise' submarines - people would pay a fortune....

Replacement cost of trident is estimated to be £167bn ! (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6708126.html). More than the cost of the whole NHS for a year ! Bit expensive, for an out of date toy that nobody would ever use anyway.

We're in NATO - protected by the US - almost all other European countries don't feel the need for their own nuclear weapons. We're not a Super Power any longer, and insignificant to the Russians I'm sure.

Chris 18-01-2016 10:04
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35817876)
Actually, I've an idea for them. They could be converted into 'cruise' submarines - people would pay a fortune....

Replacement cost of trident is estimated to be £167bn ! (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6708126.html). More than the cost of the whole NHS for a year ! Bit expensive, for an out of date toy that nobody would ever use anyway.

We're in NATO - protected by the US - almost all other European countries don't feel the need for their own nuclear weapons. We're not a Super Power any longer, and insignificant to the Russians I'm sure.
Please try to understand the meaning of the word "deterrent".

For a nuclear deterrent to be "used", it must meet the following criteria:

1. It exists.
2. It works.
3. The will to launch it exists.

Note that *actually* firing it is not required for deterrence. Actually firing it is proof that deterrence had failed. At that point, it becomes a last-resort offensive weapon.

Trident is used 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, because Trident's primary mission is to deter an attack.

I'm not entirely sure why you artificially restrict your survey to other European nations. Nuclear weapons are proliferating in several other places, all of them less stable and posing a greater threat to our long-term security than Spain or Italy.

Though given your rather woolly thinking on this issue, I can't say I'm surprised that you don't understand how recent history might make the UK's ability to unilaterally defend itself something of a policy imperative.

heero_yuy 18-01-2016 10:49
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Speaking on the flagship Andrew Marr Show on BBC1, the Labour leader said: “They don’t have to have nuclear warheads on them.”

The bombshell came in a mind-blowing 15 minutes where Mr Corbyn also called for talks with Argentina over the future of the Falklands.

He said it was ridiculous to argue about it in the 21st century and labelled the 1982 sinking of their Belgrano battleship a disaster. Falklands hero Simon Weston last night accused him of being ignorant of history.

Incredibly, Mr Corbyn even called for negotiations with IS fanatics to find a peace deal and discover their “strong points”.

Insisting a “back channel” with the IRA had worked in the past, he mused: “There has to be a route through somewhere.”

Labour policy ... Corbyn was backed by trade union chief Len McCluskey

He also wanted to tear up the law to allow “sympathy” strikes, where workers in one part of an industry or public service back another.

And he appeared to support the return of flying pickets, which threatened to bring industry to its knees in the early 1970s.
Linky

Madness :mad:

Pierre 18-01-2016 10:51
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35817876)
We're in NATO - protected by the US - almost all other European countries don't feel the need for their own nuclear weapons. We're not a Super Power any longer, and insignificant to the Russians I'm sure.
Why would you entrust the nations security to another nation.

There's no guarantee the US would retaliate with nukes if they themselves were not attacked, regardless of NATO.

techguyone 18-01-2016 11:44
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Pierre is right, additionally Cold War soviet planning maps show that Russia wasn't interested in us in any way, only one. Which was to turn the UK into a glass carpark (not even hard given our small size) So forget your Red Dawn fantasies, Soviet Russia only wanted to remove UK as a staging point for the US.


All this bs about disarmament is great, if every Country was civilised & Westernised, sadly its not. It wasn't then, and it's even less now.

Now we have places like Pakistan with Nuclear capability, North Korea, Iran won't be far behind, if anything it's a more dangerous world than in the Cold War. We'd have to be crazily stupid to give it up now.

And for the people suggesting we un nuke the subs & convert them to attack subs, thats a non starter, boomers have a completely different profile, range, depth, speed, well you name it to an hunter killer sub (pretty obvious really or we'd just make one type and either put in missiles or torpedoes wouldn't we...)

I can't recall from the top of my head for sure, but I believe nuclear tipped tomahawk Cruise missiles were all removed too, as they contravened one of the SALT treaties (intermediate range) They too were US 'owned' btw.

And as far as nuclear capability in NATO goes, it's only really Germany that did not have native ability, US, French, UK do, Boxheads understandably not, as NATO was formed not long after WW2 and the Germans were still a bit... suspect.

Osem 18-01-2016 12:07
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
My God we used to chat about this unilateralist guff when I was at school well before Bruce Kent was running CND whilst living in cloud cuckoo land. Its supporters were as naïve and misguided then as they are now.

Events leading up to WWII ought to teach people that the US cannot be relied upon to come to the UK's aid. Had it not been for Pearl Harbour and IIRC some serious errors of judgement by Hitler and the weather, the UK would very likely have been invaded and the US would have looked on.

Ramrod 18-01-2016 12:45
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35817822)
Well, I like him (!) He's honest and hasn't changed his views or image to win votes.
Neither did Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin & Mao :D

He has changed his views though. He was the most rebellious MP for all those years but as soon as he got into power he's changed his ideas about rebellion in the ranks! :dozey:

---------- Post added at 12:45 ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 ----------

:)

TheDaddy 18-01-2016 16:29
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35817892)
Why would you entrust the nations security to another nation.
Why indeed

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thoms...dependent/9293

techguyone 18-01-2016 17:18
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
comments in the blog thankfully negate much of the nonsense spouted in the blog.

Ignitionnet 18-01-2016 18:32
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35817922)
I thought it was common knowledge that the missiles themselves are leased from the United States?

Given the navigation system on the missiles is entirely self-contained and programmed locally, not remotely, and we produce the warheads including their self-contained inertial guidance system at Aldermaston what kind of dependence did you have in mind beyond that the US supply us the launch vehicles?

Were they to withdraw their co-operation we would produce our own, however as it stands I know of no evidence to suggest that we cannot independently target and launch SLBMs.

TheDaddy 18-01-2016 19:23
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35817940)
I thought it was common knowledge that the missiles themselves are leased from the United States?

Given the navigation system on the missiles is entirely self-contained and programmed locally, not remotely, and we produce the warheads including their self-contained inertial guidance system at Aldermaston what kind of dependence did you have in mind beyond that the US supply us the launch vehicles?

Were they to withdraw their co-operation we would produce our own, however as it stands I know of no evidence to suggest that we cannot independently target and launch SLBMs.
Common knowledge amongst anyone who could be bothered to look, I'd bet the vast, vast majority thought our independent deterrent was entirely British though. In one or two ways it is entirely British, in that we cozy up to the world's only super power and do things on the cheap, what could go wrong with that policy

techguyone 18-01-2016 19:47
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Sorry but that's sounding a bit desperate Daddy, seeing as everything bar the missile bodies itself is ours, not really 'one or two things' I'd have thought it wouldn't exactly be.. pardon the pun 'rocket science' to make our own, if need determined us too, in fact just down the road from me we have Roxel who are particularly good at rocket motors.

I don't think it would be as catastrophic as you insinuate. Every major player in the World (yes us too) is fairly realistic and pragmatic about 'special relationships' in our case, seeing as we do all but the launch vehicle, I'd say we are not in a bad position.

TheDaddy 18-01-2016 20:12
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by techguyone (Post 35817951)
Sorry but that's sounding a bit desperate Daddy, seeing as everything bar the missile bodies itself is ours, not really 'one or two things' I'd have thought it wouldn't exactly be.. pardon the pun 'rocket science' to make our own, if need determined us too, in fact just down the road from me we have Roxel who are particularly good at rocket motors.

I don't think it would be as catastrophic as you insinuate. Every major player in the World (yes us too) is fairly realistic and pragmatic about 'special relationships' in our case, seeing as we do all but the launch vehicle, I'd say we are not in a bad position.
The bit that jumped of the page for me was the trident replacement white paper 2006 'the Pentagon has the UK hog tied, over a barrel but that's cheaper than a fully independent deterrent. It could be that guys full of it and that paper or that part of it never even existed but if it did realism and pragmatism can shove right of imo

roughbeast 18-01-2016 20:41
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Are we not forgetting that one of Corbyn's motives for unilateral nuclear disarmament is to restart the global process of disarmament?

At the point of the break up of the USSR, initiated under Reagan and Gorbachev, we had a wonderful opportunity to pursue disarmament apace. Gorbachev was whole-heartedly for getting rid of nuclear weapons altogether. Unfortunately we blew it. Subsequent western leaders acted in a triumphalist way, accepted ex-USSR states into NATO and / or the EU thus rubbing Russian noses in it. Gorbachev's agenda was shuffled away with the likes of Putin, determined as he is to restore Russian pride. Any chance of ridding the 3 superpowers of nuclear weapons was gone. Thanks for that NATO! Thanks for protecting us!

Folk here have raised the issue of the nuclear threat of small rogue nations like Korea and Pakistan. These remain a non-existent threat to us whilst they do not have long range delivery system. With nuclear weapons gone from the hands of Russia, China and NATO we could have jointly exerted moral, economic and, if necessary, military pressure on those states, ie. taking out their missile systems and warhead production with overwhelming conventional power.

We have managed to persuade Iran not to pursue a nuclear weapons programme largely only with economic pressure and even without us being able to negotiate from the moral high ground. The military option was clearly there, but was, as far as we know, unspoken in negotiation. So, let us not worry about small nation nuclear threats.

How about Russia and China then? Clearly, they could wipe us off the face of the earth in minutes. What damage could we do them, without the USA? Given their anti-missile systems could easily take out our 160 operational nuclear warheads I don't actually think trident, on its own, would stop them attacking us with a first nuclear strike. (Each submarine is armed with up to 16 Trident II missiles, each carrying warheads in up to eight MIRV re-entry vehicles.) The real deterrent is the USA, with 1900 operational warheads and 4500 in total. So what is the point of having our own nuclear weapons? We could never go it alone, so why have them?

Just picture the situation. Russia threatens to attack us with conventional weapons as part of an invasion force. (Can't think of a more likely reason.) We threaten with a nuclear strike to stop that, because our conventional forces are so puny we have nothing else to willy wave with. They say, "So what?" We call Washington. If we are lucky, the USA waves their bigger willy. Russians back off!

Returning to Corbyn's notion of nuclear powered submarines with conventional weapons, this is not such a mad idea given that Corbyn is not a total pacifist and recognizes that we must defend our homeland and other assets in a dangerous world. ( He is only a pacifist in that he is determined to settle disputes using diplomacy and the UN to their absolute limit. He knows that violence begets violence. ) We already have nuclear-powered hunter killer subs in service, being built and under commission. Converting and maintaining our nuclear ballistic missile launchers to conventional warheads or cruise missiles would keep our workers in employment whilst beefing up our conventional power.

BTW. Sentiment against the use of nuclear weapons isn't a wholly 'lefty' notion. In a 2005 Mori poll people were asked "Would you approve or disapprove of the UK using nuclear weapons against a country we are at war with?". 9% approved if that country did not have nuclear weapons, and 84% disapproved. 16% approved if that country had nuclear weapons but never used them, and 72% disapproved. 53% approved if that country used nuclear weapons against the UK, and 37% disapproved. So it seems that the only time most people would want to fire nuclear weapons is if we have already been attacked by nuclear weapons. I guess that by then they figured that the human race would be doomed so we might as well do a good job of it!

ianch99 18-01-2016 20:46
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35817940)
I thought it was common knowledge that the missiles themselves are leased from the United States?

Given the navigation system on the missiles is entirely self-contained and programmed locally, not remotely, and we produce the warheads including their self-contained inertial guidance system at Aldermaston what kind of dependence did you have in mind beyond that the US supply us the launch vehicles?

Were they to withdraw their co-operation we would produce our own, however as it stands I know of no evidence to suggest that we cannot independently target and launch SLBMs.
I find it difficult to believe that after so many years relying on the US to provide the delivery vehicle, the UK would have retained the highly specialised expertise when there was no ongoing requirement.

However, it has been pointed out that we cannot rely on the US:

Quote:
Events leading up to WWII ought to teach people that the US cannot be relied upon to come to the UK's aid. Had it not been for Pearl Harbour and IIRC some serious errors of judgement by Hitler and the weather, the UK would very likely have been invaded and the US would have looked on.
Also, didn't the US force the Trident programme on the UK when they decided, unilaterally, to wind up the Polaris programme?

I think the bottom line is Trident relies on the cooperation of the US whether we like it or not and it would be disingenuous to claim otherwise.

Ignitionnet 18-01-2016 21:26
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by roughbeast (Post 35817971)
How about Russia and China then? Clearly, they could wipe us off the face of the earth in minutes. What damage could we do them, without the USA? Given their anti-missile systems could easily take out our 160 operational nuclear warheads I don't actually think trident, on its own, would stop them attacking us with a first nuclear strike. (Each submarine is armed with up to 16 Trident II missiles, each carrying warheads in up to eight MIRV re-entry vehicles.) The real deterrent is the USA, with 1900 operational warheads and 4500 in total. So what is the point of having our own nuclear weapons? We could never go it alone, so why have them?
Moscow criterion.

No ABM system that we're aware of could handle our warheads, decoys and other penetration mechanisms.

It has never taken many warheads in the grand scheme to wipe us off the face of the planet. We have more nuclear targets per square mile than any other nation in the world.

At the height of the cold war Russia was believed to have hundreds of high yield weapons aimed at the UK, with upwards of half a gigaton of total yield.

Killing basically every man, woman and child in the UK would've required ~15% of the Soviet arsenal.

It would be illegal for us to ramp our nuclear weaponry back up - we have been multilaterally disarming for years, so the Moscow Criterion or similar are what we have.

---------- Post added at 21:23 ---------- Previous post was at 21:19 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35817974)
I find it difficult to believe that after so many years relying on the US to provide the delivery vehicle, the UK would have retained the highly specialised expertise when there was no ongoing requirement.

Also, didn't the US force the Trident programme on the UK when they decided, unilaterally, to wind up the Polaris programme?

I think the bottom line is Trident relies on the cooperation of the US whether we like it or not and it would be disingenuous to claim otherwise.
We have the delivery vehicles in our possession, and since we received them we have been trading missiles with the US for refurbishment, borrowing from one another's stockpiles.

They didn't force Trident on us, the decision was made to lease Trident when Polaris was obsoleted.

We definitely have the technology to make our own launch vehicles. Aside from our known expertise in propulsion, guidance (we were to supply computer cores for a certain major US space project), etc, you seriously think we haven't had a really close look at Trident? ;)

---------- Post added at 21:26 ---------- Previous post was at 21:23 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35817956)
The bit that jumped of the page for me was the trident replacement white paper 2006 'the Pentagon has the UK hog tied, over a barrel but that's cheaper than a fully independent deterrent. It could be that guys full of it and that paper or that part of it never even existed but if it did realism and pragmatism can shove right of imo
Thanks for that. Indicates that if the UK wanted / needed to we could produce a fully independent deterrent, but choose for cost reasons to lease Trident from the USA.

Of course Lockheed Martin are making money from it. Military industrial complex...

Osem 22-01-2016 20:28
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
One of Jeremy Corbyn’s most senior aides quit his post amid fears over the party’s failure to reach out to a broader section of voters, HuffPost UK has learned.

Neale Coleman, Labour’s Executive Director of Policy and Rebuttal, stepped down - after just three months in post - following concerns that he was unhappy at the lack of progress on reaching out to a wider range of public and party opinion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016...n_9041776.html

Osem 24-01-2016 10:19
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
A former Labour pollster has told the BBC that a report into why Labour lost the 2015 election is a "whitewash and a massive missed opportunity".

Deborah Mattinson completed voter research to feed into Dame Margaret Beckett's report, but says her evidence was not published.

Ms Mattinson told BBC Sunday Politics she was "very concerned" that lessons from the election would not be learned.

Labour said the Beckett report had "consulted far and wide".

Ms Mattinson, whose research was conducted in marginal constituencies in places including Croydon, Watford, Nuneaton and Glasgow, insists she had briefed Dame Margaret before the release of her report.

"I was somewhat disappointed not to see some of that reflected back," she said. "Yes, she picked up on the economy, but there actually was no analysis. It's reduced down to one bullet point in the report."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35392319

heero_yuy 24-01-2016 11:04
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
We got Labours message: Unelectable on so many fronts and now even more so.

Pierre 24-01-2016 12:25
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35817922)
That's just bollocks, so we buy the delivery system from the US, so what?

The system is Operationally independent, as stated in the blog.

Osem 24-01-2016 19:07
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Labour's leadership is heading "in the opposite direction to where voters are" on big issues, an ex-minister says.

Frank Field said Jeremy Corbyn was in touch on "economic injustices" but warned of an electoral "walloping" over security and migration.

Mr Corbyn is against Britain's nuclear weapons system and has called on the UK to accept more refugees.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35395469

Is he still 'thinking the unthinkable'?...

Osem 09-02-2016 08:32
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Shadow home secretary Andy Burnham says it may be "impossible" for Labour to reach an agreed position on Trident.

Mr Burnham, who backs renewal of the UK's nuclear weapons, said the review by shadow defence secretary Emily Thornberry would be "very difficult".

Ms Thornberry and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn do not want to renew Trident.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35528108

Quote:
Ms Thornberry gave Mr Corbyn's senior team of shadow ministers an outline of her thinking last week, but debate on the party's approach was delayed.

She told the Parliamentary Labour Party meeting on Monday she wanted to carry out the ongoing review of Labour policy on Trident in an "atmosphere of mutual trust and respect".

The Labour source told the Press Association that Ms Thornberry had also raised doubts about whether submarines were a safe way to carry the nuclear deterrent.

"She was talking to some people about drones and it was apparent it was absolutely possible that large submarines could be tracked and attacked by drones," the source added.

techguyone 09-02-2016 10:38
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
LOL wut?

Clearly Labour never ever want to regain power again. We need an alternative credible opposition party to temper the worst of Conservatism.

At this rate the Conservatives will be in power for another ten years, which may not be so good.

denphone 09-02-2016 10:46
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Indeed in a democratic society one certainly needs a strong opposition that's for sure.

Ignitionnet 09-02-2016 12:12
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35821152)
Indeed.

Quote:
Ms Thornberry also provoked concern when she accidentally told the MPs “at the end of the day, the policy will be changed by the national conference”. “That was a Freudian slip if ever there was one,” one MP told HuffPost UK.

"It was a toxic mix of Islington dinner party self-assuredness, total ignorance about the subject and complete indifference to the disastrous path down which she and Jeremy Corbyn are taking the Labour party,” one backbencher told HuffPost UK.

Ignitionnet 09-02-2016 21:24
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
More fun for Ms Thornberry.

techguyone 09-02-2016 22:11
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
That gets a LOL from me

Mr K 13-02-2016 11:53
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Apparently we now need Trident to 'punch above our weight' .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35566480

So it's no longer for defence, it's a status and willy waving thing. The UK hasn't been a superpower for a long time now, time we got used to that, we're just another European country, who are best sticking with our neighbours for defence. No wonder the US are keen for us to retain it, purely for their own first line of defence reasons. They totally control it anyway, so it wouldn't be used in UK interests.

We really don't need it, if only for the obscene cost. Jeremy may be not to everyones taste, but he's right on this one.

Hugh 13-02-2016 12:10
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
They don't 'totally control it', as has been previously explained in this thread...

Chris 16-02-2016 10:22
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
"The Americans control Trident" is a conspiracy theory in the vein of the alleged moon landing hoax or the 9/11 "truth" ... There is little point producing facts, as those who believe will continue to do so regardless.

Osem 21-02-2016 14:18
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
I was expecting someone to pop up and prove otherwise but they seem to have disappeared all of a sudden...

tweedle 21-02-2016 18:10
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35821816)
Apparently we now need Trident to 'punch above our weight' .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35566480

So it's no longer for defence, it's a status and willy waving thing. The UK hasn't been a superpower for a long time now, time we got used to that, we're just another European country, who are best sticking with our neighbours for defence. No wonder the US are keen for us to retain it, purely for their own first line of defence reasons. They totally control it anyway, so it wouldn't be used in UK interests.

We really don't need it, if only for the obscene cost. Jeremy may be not to everyones taste, but he's right on this one.
You just hate Britain, you're long term unemployed through laziness not need. An you HATE your country. Mostly due to envy and hate, you want everyone to have nothing because you cannot be arsed to provide yourself with nice things. Although RT may have a job for you.

techguyone 21-02-2016 22:05
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
tweedle, you really really need to get your head out of your butt, you've been here all of five minutes yet post after post I'm seeing borderline abuse to other members. See the light, get a grip and stop.

Mr K 22-02-2016 15:26
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweedle (Post 35823096)
You just hate Britain, you're long term unemployed through laziness not need. An you HATE your country. Mostly due to envy and hate, you want everyone to have nothing because you cannot be arsed to provide yourself with nice things. Although RT may have a job for you.
You seem to know a lot about me old chap ! However wrong on every count; you seem to be the only one full of 'hate'.

Stephen 22-02-2016 16:25
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Guys, refrain from personal attacks and insults please.

Stick the the thread topic

Kursk 24-02-2016 23:21
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
At great risk to my credibility as an 'informed' contributor, but to lighten the mood a little, here's an extract from today's DM that made me laugh:

Quote:
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn self-importantly told the House: "I was in Brussels meeting heads of government and leaders of European socialist parties, one of whom said to me..." At which point a loud (Tory) voice interrupted to supply the missing words: "Who are you?" MPs laughed heartily but Corbyn's front bench colleagues, Andy Burnham and Angela Eagle, more or less managed to retain their composure.
:D

Chris 25-02-2016 09:04
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Angela Eagle and Tom Watson could barely keep it together when Dave told him to wear a suit and sing the anthem yesterday. :D

heero_yuy 25-02-2016 09:07
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Almost as good as Ed Balls in "Your name's not down, you're not coming in" EU meeting. :D

Osem 25-02-2016 11:20
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35823754)
Almost as good as Ed Balls in "Your name's not down, you're not coming in" EU meeting. :D
Yes I see Balls is now doing his best to emulate Lembit Opik's dubious media career. :D

The only thing that's worse that the thought that this guy could have been running the UK's economy is the prospect that McDonnell could be. When you look at their key players in recent years you have to wonder where Labour dredges up these idiots - some broken, outdated, PC infested institution which is run with all the efficiency and quality control standards of British Leyland at its worst.

As for Corbyn, he's the political equivalent of a hippy who hasn't grown up and is still wandering around with a head full of nonsense wearing loons and saying 'hey man...'

ianch99 25-02-2016 14:22
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35823752)
Angela Eagle and Tom Watson could barely keep it together when Dave told him to wear a suit and sing the anthem yesterday. :D
Pretty childish of Dave to resort to personal insults ..

Hugh 25-02-2016 14:47
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35823820)
Pretty childish of Dave to resort to personal insults ..
Totally agree.

I thought Mr Corbyn's reply was confusing - "My mother would say "stand up for the principle of a health service, free, at the point of use, for everybody"".

Isn't that what we have?

denphone 25-02-2016 15:15
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
l just wish politicians from all sides would behave more becoming of what Members of Parliament should behave like and not throw childish insults at each other or behave like some sort of football hooligan.

Osem 25-02-2016 15:35
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
I love the way the usual lefties suspects love to dish out the insults - Bullingdon bully, Eton toffs, Flashman etc. etc. but spit their sad little dummies when they get some back. Given what he's been called by any number of Labour MP's over the years I think Cameron's been restrained in his language. He certainly hasn't resorted to the hateful and grossly offensive language uttered by the Shadow Chancellor and numerous other Labour figures.

Chris 25-02-2016 15:38
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35823820)
Pretty childish of Dave to resort to personal insults ..
Equally as childish as trying to beat Dave over the head with his own mother, and about as relevant to the issue.

Nevertheless, if they can't take it, they shouldn't dish it out.

Ken W 25-02-2016 15:46
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35823848)
Equally as childish as trying to beat Dave over the head with his own mother, and about as relevant to the issue.

Nevertheless, if they can't take it, they shouldn't dish it out.
Cameron and Corbyn needs their head bash together, there are more important things to discuss.

TheDaddy 25-02-2016 15:49
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35823752)
Angela Eagle and Tom Watson could barely keep it together when Dave told him to wear a suit and sing the anthem yesterday. :D
Pressure starting to show Dave, the public don't rate shinny suits and genuflecting at the cenotaph above actually staying behind and meeting the veterans for instance, all in the aftermath of that rather undignified assault on bozo the other day to

Chris 25-02-2016 16:01
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35823850)
Pressure starting to show Dave, the public don't rate shinny suits and genuflecting at the cenotaph above actually staying behind and meeting the veterans for instance, all in the aftermath of that rather undignified assault on bozo the other day to
You think so?

Perhaps you ought to look at the most recent approval ratings. This graphic is from Britain Elects/Yougov polling:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/at...1&d=1456416084

Hugh 25-02-2016 16:13
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Staying behind and meeting the veterans?

I suppose that balances out standing up in honour of the dead IRA terrorists killed by the SAS when they were going to blow up a NI Police Station, then?
Quote:
“Mr Jeremy Corbyn joined a 200-strong audience at London’s Conway Hall in paying tribute to the terrorists.

“Mr Corbyn, MP for Islington North, attacked the government’s Ulster policy and said troops should be pulled out of the Province.

“He told the meeting of the Wolfe Tone Society: ‘I’m happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland’.”
Probably the same terrorists who attacked British Army soldiers in Norn Iron.

And here is Mr Corbyn refusing to condemn what the IRA did (with some mealy-mouthed statements about "equivalence".

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/nor...land-1-6957328

ianch99 25-02-2016 16:45
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35823848)
Equally as childish as trying to beat Dave over the head with his own mother, and about as relevant to the issue.

Nevertheless, if they can't take it, they shouldn't dish it out.
I don't think Corbyn "dished it out" here. I think that you can and should differentiate between the standards of an idiot backbencher and the standards of the leader of the party.

TheDaddy 25-02-2016 17:26
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35823853)
Staying behind and meeting the veterans?

I suppose that balances out standing up in honour of the dead IRA terrorists killed by the SAS when they were going to blow up a NI Police Station, then?


Probably the same terrorists who attacked British Army soldiers in Norn Iron.

And here is Mr Corbyn refusing to condemn what the IRA did (with some mealy-mouthed statements about "equivalence".

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/nor...land-1-6957328
Bit surprised you think that balances things out, personally I don't like what he did there or his views on terrorist types in general if they're actually as being reported but then I don't like someone attempting to make political capital out of remembrance day and then not even taking the time to even speak to the actual veterans either.

---------- Post added at 17:26 ---------- Previous post was at 17:24 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35823851)
You think so?

Perhaps you ought to look at the most recent approval ratings. This graphic is from Britain Elects/Yougov polling:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/at...1&d=1456416084
Are they the same polls that got the last election so wrong? Are they the same ones that has Farage showing worse than corbyn and the less said about tim who the better

Osem 25-02-2016 18:04
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35823851)
You think so?

Perhaps you ought to look at the most recent approval ratings. This graphic is from Britain Elects/Yougov polling:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/at...1&d=1456416084
:D

It's apt that Corbyn's popularity rating seems all too reminiscent of so many Labour leaders. It also bears a striking resemblance to what the UK's economy would do with more Labour clowns running the show. It won't bother the usual suspects though, they're well used to deluding themselves.

Damien 25-02-2016 18:25
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35823862)
Are they the same polls that got the last election so wrong? Are they the same ones that has Farage showing worse than corbyn and the less said about tim who the better
Well they're also the same polls that got the Labour leadership election right.

I think the Corbyn supporters are clutching at straws if they are assuming the polls are all wrong. It's not as if there is much about Corbyn's leadership so far that we can look at and assume will do well with the electorate. I don't get where they think this hidden support is going to come from. Not to mention it's historically the Tories, not Labour, who've been underrepresented in opinion polling.

Osem 25-02-2016 18:30
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35823881)
Well they're also the same polls that got the Labour leadership election right.

I think the Corbyn supporters are clutching at straws if they are assuming the polls are all wrong. It's not as if there is much about Corbyn's leadership so far that we can look at and assume will do well with the electorate. I don't get where they think this hidden support is going to come from. Not to mention it's historically the Tories, not Labour, who've been underrepresented in opinion polling.
Straws are all they have.

TheDaddy 25-02-2016 18:46
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35823881)
Well they're also the same polls that got the Labour leadership election right.

I think the Corbyn supporters are clutching at straws if they are assuming the polls are all wrong. It's not as if there is much about Corbyn's leadership so far that we can look at and assume will do well with the electorate. I don't get where they think this hidden support is going to come from. Not to mention it's historically the Tories, not Labour, who've been underrepresented in opinion polling.
Polls this early mean very little unless the media's incessant non stories and blatant lies are finally starting to resonate, I mean it was only a couple of months back corbyn was pretty close

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/12...end-otherwise/

Oh and for the record I'm not a corbyn supporter, yet, I just like sticking up for him at the moment because there's so much rubbish written about him, wonder if it's got anything to do with him threatening to break up the press barons

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...n-labour-media

ianch99 25-02-2016 18:55
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35823871)
:D

It's apt that Corbyn's popularity rating seems all too reminiscent of so many Labour leaders. It also bears a striking resemblance to what the UK's economy would do with more Labour clowns running the show. It won't bother the usual suspects though, they're well used to deluding themselves.
Exactly who is Osem aiming to insult here? Kevin Spacey maybe ;)

richard s 25-02-2016 20:18
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
I see the Torys are changing the electorial boundary's again due to population increases aparently! this will loose Labour 24 MPs.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/boundary-changes

denphone 25-02-2016 20:28
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Just remember Richard they are doing it for the betterment of the country as we are all in this together...

Hugh 25-02-2016 20:37
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Actually, they are doing it to standardise the numbers of voters in each constituency....
Quote:
The commissions said seats would have to have to have no fewer than 71,031 voters and no more than 78,507. Hundreds of constituencies currently do not reach the minimum number of people.

ianch99 25-02-2016 20:51
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35823922)
Actually, they are doing it to standardise the numbers of voters in each constituency....
Do you think they would be doing it if they were losing the MPs? Honest answers please ..

Osem 25-02-2016 21:17
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35823922)
Actually, they are doing it to standardise the numbers of voters in each constituency....
Seems reasonable to me.

Hugh 25-02-2016 21:25
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35823929)
Do you think they would be doing it if they were losing the MPs? Honest answers please ..
They're losing 14...

https://www.politicshome.com/party-p...oundary-change
Quote:
The Conservatives look set to only lose 14 of their MPs in the review that will cut the number of Commons seats by 50

Osem 25-02-2016 21:28
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
The Tories don't need to fix the size and nature of constituencies to suit them. Labour wiped themselves out in Scotland and there's no sign of Corbyn's cronies doing any better.

ianch99 25-02-2016 21:50
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35823940)
but from the same article:

Quote:
Labour 'could lose 24 seats' after constituency boundary change

Political analyst Lewis Baston says marginal constituencies such as Harlow, Stevenage, Great Yarmouth and Carlisle will become more inclined towards the Conservatives

Katie Ghose, chief executive of Electoral Reform, said: “The constituencies which saw the biggest drop are largely student seats and deprived areas — groups which are already under-represented. The areas with the biggest rise are largely wealthier areas. This patchy picture means electoral registration, and the number of parliamentary seats representing each area, is getting more unequal by the year.”
Not good for democracy in this country ..

Hugh 25-02-2016 22:16
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35823944)
but from the same article:



Not good for democracy in this country ..
I answered the question you asked - would they be doing this if they were losing MPs, and they are losing MPs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35823929)
Do you think they would be doing it if they were losing the MPs? Honest answers please ..
So it's bad for democracy that constituencies should be roughly the same size?

Perhaps it would help democracy if the students and others registered to vote...

Chris 25-02-2016 22:49
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35823862)

Are they the same polls that got the last election so wrong? Are they the same ones that has Farage showing worse than corbyn and the less said about tim who the better
You mean the polls that consistently over-stated support for Labour and its leader? Yes, I suppose they are ...

ianch99 25-02-2016 23:52
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35823947)
I answered the question you asked - would they be doing this if they were losing MPs, and they are losing MPs.


So it's bad for democracy that constituencies should be roughly the same size?

Perhaps it would help democracy if the students and others registered to vote...
I will rephrase the question m'lud: "if they were losing more MP's than Labour".

The democracy bit refers to the increasing lack of balance in the 2 party system we have. Without the numeric ability of the opposition to effectively challenge the Government in power, we get bad government. If the opposition are reduced by a number by twice the amount of the government's this just adds to the imbalance.

Hugh, you may even agree with me on this? ;)

techguyone 26-02-2016 08:33
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
waaah

It's been unequal for years, this is simple balancing, it would have been done in the last Govt but Cleggy threw a wobbler.

This is a good thing.

1. Equal sized constituencies
2. Less politicians, which in turn equals less costs to us regardless of the political party.

TL/DR

Now the Country is split into equal sized chunks - good for real democracy.

Hugh 26-02-2016 08:47
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35823959)
I will rephrase the question m'lud: "if they were losing more MP's than Labour".

The democracy bit refers to the increasing lack of balance in the 2 party system we have. Without the numeric ability of the opposition to effectively challenge the Government in power, we get bad government. If the opposition are reduced by a number by twice the amount of the government's this just adds to the imbalance.

Hugh, you may even agree with me on this? ;)
Perhaps the imbalance could be resolved by the main opposition party having policies that people would vote for, rather than needing less votes per constituency? ;)

Damien 26-02-2016 08:54
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35823886)
Polls this early mean very little unless the media's incessant non stories and blatant lies are finally starting to resonate, I mean it was only a couple of months back corbyn was pretty close

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/12...end-otherwise/

Oh and for the record I'm not a corbyn supporter, yet, I just like sticking up for him at the moment because there's so much rubbish written about him, wonder if it's got anything to do with him threatening to break up the press barons

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...n-labour-media
The problem with Corbyn is that he is rubbish at his job. That isn't the media's fault. There are some papers that will against him no matter what (Sun, Mail, Telegraph) but he doesn't get favorable press from those who would be sympathetic towards him such as The Guardian.

This is his own fault. He is awful at dealing with the media. For example it's bad enough that he equivocates on the issue of the Falklands but any half-decent politician would bat any questions about it away easily. He suggests a possible 'deal' with Argentina.

He is rubbish at dealing with his party. He puts nonsense people in serious posts. He announces policy decisions without even consulting the shadow minister responsible for that policy area. He or his allies get the Momentum mob to do hatchet jobs on MPs who are viewed as unsupportive before backing away.

They're awful at general politics as well. Corbyn is far too slow at PMQs. Cameron makes mistakes in answers which Corbyn never seems to spot and instead moves away to a different question. There have been times where Cameron is clearly struggling with a topic and Corbyn could go for it but then he suddenly changes tact and lets him off. The day of the Doctors strike he asked about housing, when the Tories are infighting about Europe he asks about Doctors and I assume if there was a massive scandal about housing Corbyn would ask about trade union reforms.

Instead what happens if Labour's press office issues condemnations or criticisms of what Cameron has said in PMQs after the fact because their leader was too slow to do it in person. It gets even worse if they think Cameron was mean because they love that more than anything. The next few days are then dominated by Labour complaining that Cameron wasn't very nice to them.

ianch99 26-02-2016 08:56
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35823992)
Perhaps the imbalance could be resolved by the main opposition party having policies that people would vote for, rather than needing less votes per constituency? ;)
Absolutely right but the fact remains: this change is seen as politically rather than democratically motivated.

Chris 26-02-2016 09:10
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35823994)
Absolutely right but the fact remains: this change is seen as politically rather than democratically motivated.
Well of course it is. That's because the party in opposition stands to lose out. However the reason they stand to lose out is because they allowed the situation to develop to their advantage over many years while they were in power, by failing to address the extreme lag in the boundary revision process. It would have been dealt with shortly after the 2010 election, except that Nick Clegg cut off his nose to spite his face in a petulant act of revenge after the Tories threw out Lords reform.

Having constituencies of equal size is an absolute no-brainier. Yet political reality is that the only time this sort of reform is ever going to happen is when the party that is disadvantaged by the status quo gets into power. Labour can squeal all it likes, but it's just hypocrisy.

techguyone 26-02-2016 09:17
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
1 Attachment(s)
Chris said it all very accurately.

ianch99 26-02-2016 10:39
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35823995)
Well of course it is. That's because the party in opposition stands to lose out. However the reason they stand to lose out is because they allowed the situation to develop to their advantage over many years while they were in power, by failing to address the extreme lag in the boundary revision process. It would have been dealt with shortly after the 2010 election, except that Nick Clegg cut off his nose to spite his face in a petulant act of revenge after the Tories threw out Lords reform.

Having constituencies of equal size is an absolute no-brainier. Yet political reality is that the only time this sort of reform is ever going to happen is when the party that is disadvantaged by the status quo gets into power. Labour can squeal all it likes, but it's just hypocrisy.
I don't care too hoots abour Labour. I do care about having a healthly opposition in this 2 party system we have. I am concerned that a Government voted into power by a minority of the electorate will have no real oppostion to what ever policies it want to put into power for years to come.

These changes will ensure that a vote in the commons will be a lesser risk and they are putting plans together to gag the Lords ...

---------- Post added at 10:39 ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by techguyone (Post 35823996)
Chris said it all very accurately.
Grow up

Osem 26-02-2016 10:45
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35823995)
Well of course it is. That's because the party in opposition stands to lose out. However the reason they stand to lose out is because they allowed the situation to develop to their advantage over many years while they were in power, by failing to address the extreme lag in the boundary revision process. It would have been dealt with shortly after the 2010 election, except that Nick Clegg cut off his nose to spite his face in a petulant act of revenge after the Tories threw out Lords reform.

Having constituencies of equal size is an absolute no-brainier. Yet political reality is that the only time this sort of reform is ever going to happen is when the party that is disadvantaged by the status quo gets into power. Labour can squeal all it likes, but it's just hypocrisy.
:tu:

Labour and hypocrisy? Who'd have thought...

Hugh 26-02-2016 12:33
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35824011)
I don't care too hoots abour Labour. I do care about having a healthly opposition in this 2 party system we have. I am concerned that a Government voted into power by a minority of the electorate will have no real oppostion to what ever policies it want to put into power for years to come.

These changes will ensure that a vote in the commons will be a lesser risk and they are putting plans together to gag the Lords ...

---------- Post added at 10:39 ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 ----------



Grow up
Did you have those concerns in 1997, when Labour were elected in with 43.2% of those who voted, or in 2001 when Labour were elected with 40.7% of those who voted, or in 2005 when Labour were elected with 35.2% of those who voted?

btw, I agree with you about the dangers of not having an effective opposition, but I don't think we should gerrymander the constituencies to protect the Labour vote.

techguyone 26-02-2016 13:30
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Not only do I agree with Chris, but Hugh too

No hoots needed (two btw not too)

ianch99 26-02-2016 14:43
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35824030)
Did you have those concerns in 1997, when Labour were elected in with 43.2% of those who voted, or in 2001 when Labour were elected with 40.7% of those who voted, or in 2005 when Labour were elected with 35.2% of those who voted?

btw, I agree with you about the dangers of not having an effective opposition, but I don't think we should gerrymander the constituencies to protect the Labour vote.
I take your point on the Labour majorities. The same is also true for one of Thatchers victories from memory. My concern is this change, whether you think it merited by natural justice or just a political smash & grab, is a step towards an effective 1 party state :( I say this because of the pathetic state of the Labour party, the unrepresented UKIP voters and the swing to SNP from Labour in Scotland. All these, combined, leave us in a very different place to when Labour won in 1997 etc.

Hugh 26-02-2016 14:50
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Agreed - we need to reform the voting system, but the two parties that could do that, won't...

TheDaddy 26-02-2016 16:40
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35823993)
The problem with Corbyn is that he is rubbish at his job. That isn't the media's fault. There are some papers that will against him no matter what (Sun, Mail, Telegraph) but he doesn't get favorable press from those who would be sympathetic towards him such as The Guardian.

This is his own fault. He is awful at dealing with the media. For example it's bad enough that he equivocates on the issue of the Falklands but any half-decent politician would bat any questions about it away easily. He suggests a possible 'deal' with Argentina.

He is rubbish at dealing with his party. He puts nonsense people in serious posts. He announces policy decisions without even consulting the shadow minister responsible for that policy area. He or his allies get the Momentum mob to do hatchet jobs on MPs who are viewed as unsupportive before backing away.

They're awful at general politics as well. Corbyn is far too slow at PMQs. Cameron makes mistakes in answers which Corbyn never seems to spot and instead moves away to a different question. There have been times where Cameron is clearly struggling with a topic and Corbyn could go for it but then he suddenly changes tact and lets him off. The day of the Doctors strike he asked about housing, when the Tories are infighting about Europe he asks about Doctors and I assume if there was a massive scandal about housing Corbyn would ask about trade union reforms.

Instead what happens if Labour's press office issues condemnations or criticisms of what Cameron has said in PMQs after the fact because their leader was too slow to do it in person. It gets even worse if they think Cameron was mean because they love that more than anything. The next few days are then dominated by Labour complaining that Cameron wasn't very nice to them.
I don't bother with pmq's anymore, I used to like it but simply got bored of the pantomime it's turned into and I'll think you'll find it is the media's fault when they make stuff up, it's been relentless from day 1 and hasn't missed a beat since

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...tright-6470638

rhyds 26-02-2016 16:51
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Left wing excuses list:

1: Blame the "biased" media for reporting unfavourably
2: Blame the "fooled" electorate for voting the wrong way
3: Blame Thatcher

To be fair however, there is a Right wing excuses list too


1: Blame the "biased" media for reporting unfavourably
2: Blame the "fooled" electorate for voting the wrong way
3: Blame the EU

heero_yuy 29-02-2016 11:33
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
SELF-styled “erratic Marxist” Yanis Varoufakis who was forced to resign as finance minister after Greece plunged into a debt crisis, has secured a new role advising the opposition Labour Party.

Jeremy Corbyn, who has sought to take the party of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown further to the left since he became leader in 2015, said Varoufakis would advise Labour in "some capacity" due to his experience from dealing with the European Union.
Linky

That's really going to enhance their economic credibility. :nutter:

Ramrod 29-02-2016 12:03
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by richard s (Post 35823915)
I see the Torys are changing the electorial boundary's again due to population increases aparently! this will loose Labour 24 MPs.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/boundary-changes
Not as bad as letting in hundereds of thousands of people in order to expand their voter base and calling anyone who objected a racist :dozey:

Osem 29-02-2016 13:18
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod (Post 35824532)
Not as bad as letting in hundereds of thousands of people in order to expand their voter base and calling anyone who objected a racist :dozey:
Yet another of those very inconvenient truths the usual suspects like to skirt around. They have to cling at straws mind you, they have Corbyn and McDonnell at the helm... :rofl:

Ramrod 02-03-2016 20:32
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
The Chancellor told the House: “Frankly, the fact that the Labour Party is now getting its advice from Yanis Varoufakis and the revolutionary Marxist broadcaster Paul Mason does not suggest to me that they have got an answer to economic security.

“Presumably they chose those two because Chairman Mao was dead and Mickey Mouse was busy.”
link
:rofl:

Osem 02-03-2016 21:42
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Well it is rather bizarre but then anyone who grew up in the 1970's is fully aware of the sort of nonsense Labour got up to. It's the usual suspects just proving how they've learned nothing.

heero_yuy 03-03-2016 14:29
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
NEW Labour's “light touch” regulation on the banking industry caused the financial collapse that nearly bankrupted Britain, according to Jeremy Corbyn.

The current Labour leader attacked his predecessors for “outsourcing economic policy to the City of London” during their time in Government.

It is a move bound to anger a lot of his own MPs, many of whom insist the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown governments were not to blame for the 2008 crash.
Linky

Osem 03-03-2016 21:03
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Well some of us have been saying that for years and the rose tinted brigade wouldn't have it... :D

tweedle 03-03-2016 21:28
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Well we had "old" labour that still do not understand the FACT they broke the back of UK industry and manufacturing with constant strikes.

We have "new" labour the caused a massive financial crisis and dragged us into war but refuse to acknowledge or admit it.

Now we have (as yet un-named) labour with clueless policies waiting to cause a as yet unknown calamity on us. I would lol but it's not funny.

Ramrod 04-03-2016 09:29
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Good article in the Spectator: Britain needs a museum of communist terror
Quote:
as many as 100 million have died from communism alone.

But awareness of this is fading. The generation that has grown up since the collapse of the Berlin Wall does not seem to understand the connection between communism and terror. Today, they are able to think that communism is the ultimate form of egalitarianism, a perfectly amiable ideology. In Britain and America, the far left is experiencing a surge of popularity.

Osem 04-03-2016 09:51
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod (Post 35825154)
Good article in the Spectator: Britain needs a museum of communist terror
Oh yes, over time those on the red side of the political equation have shown themselves to have as great a liking for extreme nastiness towards anyone who doesn't share their views as any right wing lunatic.

tweedle 04-03-2016 13:22
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
I just don't understand how Corbyn can think he is the voice of the working class. He grew up just down the road from me in Newport Shropshire an his family home was Yew Tree Manor house. A huge 7 bedroom mansion and he attended the private school that's costs a fortune per term to attend.

He then goes into journalism becoming chief reporter for a newspaper then politics, all the time being a very wealthy man. He has no idea of being poor, living on a extremely tight budget would be an alien concept to him.

Here is yew tree manor , an the fox pub opposite does a lovely Sunday dinner lol. So I'm not sure how intouch he can be with inner city working class.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...81453?hl=en-gb

Ignitionnet 04-03-2016 15:28
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35824526)
Linky

That's really going to enhance their economic credibility. :nutter:
Indeed. A Professor of Economic Theory, economic advisor to a multinational, and author of books on economics and game theory is a foolish choice to oppose the policies of the Conservative Chancellor and his 2:1 in Modern History.

Clearly not credible.

You may not agree with Varoufakis' politics, I don't, but he knows what he's talking about with regards to economics and rather than even for a moment giving credence to The Sun's implication that Varoufakis was responsible for Greece's debt crisis I'd recommend doing some reading.

He was forced out because he tried to resist the blood letting that Greece is going through now. His attempts to oppose the Troika were undermined by his own side - had he had his way Greece would likely have exited the Euro as it would've had an alternative to having the ECB strangulate its banks and subjugate its economy. As it was Syriza's, frankly, cowardice and delusion ensured he wasn't able to pursue a fallback plan.

heero_yuy 13-03-2016 10:25
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
LABOUR’S top donors have abandoned the party since Jeremy Corbyn became leader.

Figures show 24 of the 30 most generous backers have given nothing since his election in September.

But they have ploughed £140,000 into the private offices of past or future leadership rivals.

It will fuel rumours of a snap leadership challenge if Labour flop in May’s local elections.
Linky

Keep an eye on that shifty looking Brutus, Jezza.:D

Osem 13-03-2016 10:30
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
... and there was I thinking Corbyn would be Labour's saviour just like Brown was the world's... :rofl:

tweedle 21-03-2016 08:34
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Corbyns currently live on Skynews,

Looking very smart, combed hair, trimmed beard and smart suit an tie.

Sirius 21-03-2016 08:57
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweedle (Post 35828289)
Corbyns currently live on Skynews,

Looking very smart, combed hair, trimmed beard and smart suit an tie.
About time, he normally looks like he's been dragged through a hedge backwards :)

Mr K 21-03-2016 09:10
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Why does it matter what anyone looks like ?

denphone 21-03-2016 09:21
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Although not a fan of him that much at least he does not have that smarmy look which many career politicians have nowadays...

Osem 24-03-2016 07:55
Re: Corbyn's kerfuffle
 
Well you wouldn't expect someone who acts like some sort of corduroy clad 1970's student union throwback to be smarmy would you... ;)

Anyway someone's clearly very nervous at Labour HQ since it appears they need a list 'grading' their own MP's according to their supposed 'loyalty' to their glorious leader. McCarthy did something similar I believe... :D

Quote:
A list categorising some Labour MPs as hostile to their leader – purportedly drawn up by a senior aide to Jeremy Corbyn – has been leaked.

The Times newspaper says the document was drawn up by Mr Corbyn’s political secretary Katy Clark.

Among those considered “hostile” are Mayor of London candidate Sadiq Khan, former interim shadow chancellor Chris Leslie, John Woodcock, Ian Austin, Michael Dugher, Tristram Hunt and Yvette Cooper.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=la...egG&gws_rd=ssl


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:22.
Page 2 of 11 1 2 3456 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.