Forums Forums General Forums A - Z Lifestyle Politics Today

Not at all true, out of the 36 people that nominated Corbyn, at least 31 have either said that they don't regret nominating him or they have declared their intent to vote for him.

Out of the 36 there are 22 that have declared they are going to vote Corbyn, 9 that are going to vote for others and 5 that haven't declared who they are going to vote for.

Out of the 9 that are going to vote for others, at least 7 have said they don't regret nominating Corbyn.

In fact, I only know of Margeret Beckett that has said she has regretted nominating Corbyn but there are currently three I haven't accounted for:- Jo Cox, Louise Haigh, and David Lammy. I would doubt David Lammy regrets it.

I think they're probably saving face: anyway, it hardly matters since it's going to be a long time before any left-wing government is elected.

Apologies for my naivete but can any one explain to me why the general consensus is that a socialist(left wing) Labour Party would be unelectable? The Scottish people are exactly the same as ourselves. They are not a different culture. Yet they have, overwhelmingly, voted for the SNP. A political party far more socialist (left wing) than Labour.

Could be because a socialist left wing party as opposed to centre left, will not sit well with the European Union. Pushing through reforms would be much more difficult and probably stagnant in many cases,as EU basically calls the tune now. Think of the present Greek Government and what fences they have had to jump over.

Mr Corbyn has raised the issue of considering 'women only' rail carriages in response to the increase in sex offences being up by 25%.
We had this once before , introduced in 1874 which were finally scrapped in the 1970's . This man seems to be stuck somewhere in the dark ages.

More carriages to cover demand and therefore higher fares.

Is it a good idea or not ?

Despite the usual lambasting he got, he did not express an opinion, he merely suggested it should be looked at.

I disagree with it in practice, its financially infeasible. A cheaper more practical solution could be more comprehensive CCTV monitoring combined with panic buttons (along with substantial fines for false usage).

Something that lasted 96 years (well more than half of the life of railways) but was cut for cost saving purposes cannot automatically assumed to belong to the dark ages.

I still agree with the national ID card system, anybody that boards a train should be registered, it is compulsory to confirm identity in hotels, work places and other transports (especially aircraft) and nobody thinks anything of it.

Maybe Mr Corbyn is not the crackpot leftie he is made out to be. These people backing his financial plans are not idiots.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...king-anti-austerity-policies-corbynomics

Personally I think the gov have gone too far with their austerity measures but still looking after their well to do cronies

Early on in his speech to Parliament Osborne said: "Indeed, the sale of government assets this year will deliver the largest privatisation proceeds of all time, higher than the previous record in 1987."

The Conservative Party plans to raise £31 billion ($47.7 billion) this year by selling off publicly owned assets, the most ever raised from privatisation in a single year.


click

It looks as if it is mostly banks which were bailed out a number of years ago, at phenomenal cost to the public purse. So if they get a return by selling the shares etc. that were privately owned in the first place, they have simply
recuperated the original bailout.

When it comes down to companies, Governments can only go so far, because in the end we will have nothing left to sell. Once that happens, the shit hits the fan, as it did with various other entities.

Government are far too interested in "getting in power" than the long term future of the country.

Asset stripping OUR property to fund their political gains and their mates pockets should be a crime.

Politics of Syrian conflict. Oh my gosh !

Listening to Parliament, today. It seems to be Syria..President Assad is bombing and using chemical weapons against his own people, assuming they must be the opposition to Assad.

To help him do that, he has brought in ISIS.

Iran and Russia support President Assad.

Israel hates Syria, Iran and Russia.

Britain and USA although having come to some treaty with Iran just recently, are allies with Israel.

Iran supports Hammas plus other terrorist groups,

Hammas are active in Palestine, Israel hates Palestine and Hammas. Palestine hates Israel.

ISIS are now touching the borders of Europe.

Turkey is fighting PKK instead of ISIS, PKK is fighting ISIS

Now there is discussion as to how things are about to proceed and pan out.

My own view on fall out of getting involved:

If Britain gets involved in the overthrow of Assad , Russia and Iran are not going to be happy.


Israel could get dragged into the equation if ISIS get into Israel. We will defend Israel and we also support Palestine.

Russia has 20 million Muslims.

Bombing our enemy's enemy, is not a good option and I think we should let them get on with it and keep us out. Otherwise we could end up fighting in all four corners and win none of them.

Watching and listening to Parliament is quite eye opening. Some of these MP's including local from Wirral and Liverpool would do better to be paying attention on what is being said by the Prime Minister, rather than asking the same questions over and over again in a different way. The repeated answers to which they have obviously missed, whilst playing away on their 'twitter' accounts. So much time could be saved.

3.30pm the house was FULL. Still under discussion and now 5.00pm and it's half empty. Damn, dinner time must be calling ! They've sneaked out one by one and would appear that nothing is more important, than their dinners.

The Labour Leadership Election has less than 72 hours left for members/ affillated members and supporters to vote.

PlusOne got his vote.I have been jibbed.

Any other Lefties been rejected?

Assad is the only realistic chance of bringing stability to the region, ISIS cannot be beaten, war with them is pointless.

Stability would be a lot better than what we have got, even if it means not having your best buddy as leader.

The UK should not carry out any air strikes in Syria, there are no sustainable benefits and it will increase antagonism and reduce any chances of peace.

If ISIS are not beaten, then Syria will surely become their Caliphate ?

Does that matter as long as it brings stability to the region?