What no jeremy cobyn thread?

[cambsno]

Having read your posts I think you might not be advocating that he burn his red flag but I believe you are advocating that he renounce his principles in order to be allowed to take a principled stand and effect change. Doing this simply leaves you without principles.

What we need are more principled politicians not less and Corbyn, well known as a republican, has been voted in both by his constituents and labour party members- why sshould he be required to give them up.

I must be one of the few that don't get this. He hasn't snubbed I believe, he just us busy. He is 2 weeks into the job and Cameron took 3 months to do the same.

 

[cambsno]

The Corrie, tanning salon and nailbar bit wasn't about 'politics' but about how the trivial is much more value to more people than important issues, I fear for our future when a persons behaviour and values is judged less than their nails and hairstyle by such a large portion of the population.

I think that's the same for most of us. You class Corrie trivial, so do I, but the in laws won't miss an episode. Who is to say what is trivial? Many would say me taking photos of aircraft is trivial, or those that take photos of plants or buildings is trivial.

 

[cambsno]

I think that's the same for most of us. You class Corrie trivial, so do I, but the in laws won't miss an episode. Who is to say what is trivial? Many would say me taking photos of aircraft is trivial, or those that take photos of plants or buildings is trivial.

Looks count for a lot. If I interview and someone is poorly turned out they are unlikely to have a long interview!!

 

[cambsno]

Bloody phone!

 

[Phil V]

As I said, I always took it as a given that the number excluded EU migrants as they can't control it. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that or why stating my opinion and what I took as a given turns me into a spin doctor. What I took as a given is a true reflection of what I took as a given.

But ofcourse you know differently and you know that I am only saying that for spin? Just junk about it, what's in it for me? What would I gain by doing such a thing? Absolutely nothing, it is a nonsensical statement. But hey if you possess some kind of special skill to know myself better me, then maybe you should try and monetise that instead of trolling on Internet forums.

I've no idea what you have to gain, but the fact remains there was nothing ambiguous about the promise, you've imagined an 'obvious caveat' that simply didn't exist. We have no reason to guess your motive.

And even with your weakening of their promise, they still didn't stand by it. Which is fine IMHO because we know that immigration is a smokescreen, but it's a smokescreen they're continuing to use, they know immigration isn't a 'problem' because they have all the statistics to prove that, but they've created a climate of blame that they can use to push through other policies whilst the unthinking are looking in the other direction.

They've continued using it at the conference, they know they're spreading misinformation, but it helps their cause to do so. It's duplicitous at best, and damaging to the whole of society at worst. But that never bothered them so long as they could help their mates get richer.

If you want to see how unambiguous the rest of the world saw the promise, just google 'no ifs no buts'. It's all there from Theresa May to the Telegraph, from the sun to yvette cooper, right wing websites to the guardian. Not a trace that the promise excluded EU immigration

 

[Phil V]

...

There's a huge difference between someone being 'well turned out' and the vacuous obsession with nails, clothes and hair that many have, at the expense of education, family and values.

 

[dejongj]

Having read your posts I think you might not be advocating that he burn his red flag but I believe you are advocating that he renounce his principles in order to be allowed to take a principled stand and effect change. Doing this simply leaves you without principles.

What we need are more principled politicians not less and Corbyn, well known as a republican, has been voted in both by his constituents and labour party members- why sshould he be required to give them up.

On the contrary, I'm not saying he should give them up. I'm saying he should stand by them and be honest about them and be proud. Not this wishy washy stuff. If he is clear and open about it it will also take away any speculation about reasons why he does certain things whilst seemingly be hiding behind weak excuses.

You are misunderstanding me. I liked him, I thought he was different and stood by his principles. Although I don't agree with them I do respect them. So far I find it very disappointing and rather on the fence. So more of the same but from a different perspective.

 

[Phil V]

An update from 'more people have joined the Labour Party since JC was elected leader than the Lib Dems have' it's now true of the Conservatives too.

Not bad for someone with no appeal and the entire of the countries media attacking him.

 

[rjbell]

An update from 'more people have joined the Labour Party since JC was elected leader than the Lib Dems have' it's now true of the Conservatives too.

Not bad for someone with no appeal and the entire of the countries media attacking him.

I've not coughed up yet.

 

[Phil V]

I've not coughed up yet.

Me either, and I'm not sure it'll end well, but I like the fact we're engaging with socialism 20 years after it was declared dead.

 

[Llamaman]

Hilarious - Tory MP Alan Duncan has criticised Corbyn for missing the first Privy Council meeting. Who would do such a thing?

Well, Tory MP Alan Duncan would.

Hypocrite politicians - the gift that keeps on giving

 

[eeyore]

Mr Cameron took 3 months...

 

[mex]

Hilarious - Tory MP Alan Duncan has criticised Corbyn for missing the first Privy Council meeting. Who would do such a thing?

Well, Tory MP Alan Duncan would.

Hypocrite politicians - the gift that keeps on giving

Other 'hypocrites' who snubbed Brenda incude: Ian Duncan Smith, Michael Fallon, Damien Green, David Lidington ( who ' had better things to do than kiss hands'), Sir John Randal, Chris Grayling and others.

 

[cambsno]

Regardless of whether people agree or disagree with his policies, he does seem to be a genuinely nice person. I read something yesterday where he said that he has no intention of promoting his ideas by using personal attacks on people and he suggests respectfully listening to people's opinions and discussing them rather than just dismissing them just because they might originate from a different political party Arguing the points being made without attacking the person makes sense to me.


Steve.

Well that didn't last long!!!

So you have the vile Tom Watson refusing to apologise about his comments re: Leon Brittain which is disgraceful - at least have the guts to say you were wrong, but should you have said all this in the first place. Am sure he would be the first to complain if I said he was a p**** who abused boys!!!

Then, something that seems to have slipped past many is Helen Goodmans comment about Hunts wife, although Pickles saying it was vile is a bit OTT. Had this been said by a Tory or UKIP MP there would be outrage amongst many on here.

 

[dejongj]

And then there is the U-turn on the budget rules...amongst many others...He is turning into a proper politician now, a fast learner

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Well that didn't last long!!!

So you have the vile Tom Watson refusing to apologise about his comments re: Leon Brittain which is disgraceful - at least have the guts to say you were wrong, but should you have said all this in the first place. Am sure he would be the first to complain if I said he was a p**** who abused boys!!!

Then, something that seems to have slipped past many is Helen Goodmans comment about Hunts wife, although Pickles saying it was vile is a bit OTT. Had this been said by a Tory or UKIP MP there would be outrage amongst many on here.

Goodman comment was ridiculous, and not something anyone should say let alone someone in her position.. But I'm not sure sure Tom Watson has anything to answer for at all, indeed it seems the press are doing a real hatchet job on him, for as well as being Corbyn's right hand man he was a key part of the Leveson enquiry. Take this column for example, truly awful.

 

[cambsno]

Goodman comment was ridiculous, and not something anyone should say let alone someone in her position.. But I'm not sure sure Tom Watson has anything to answer for at all, indeed it seems the press are doing a real hatchet job on him, for as well as being Corbyn's right hand man he was a key part of the Leveson enquiry. Take this column for example, truly awful.

What about the hatchet job he did to Brittain? The fact the press have it in for him or was part of leveson is irrelevant. He made those comments and I would argue that his was far worse. I think her comment was ill advised but I don't think there was much malice - and am sure we have all said silly things in the past

Just read your link? So you think that calling someone fatso is worse than calling a dying man close to evil and a p****? I know what I would rather be called!

 

[Deleted member 49549]

What about the hatchet job he did to Brittain? The fact the press have it in for him or was part of leveson is irrelevant. He made those comments and I would argue that his was far worse. I think her comment was ill advised but I don't think there was much malice - and am sure we have all said silly things in the past

Just read your link? So you think that calling someone fatso is worse than calling a dying man close to evil and a p****? I know what I would rather be called!

Then what should he have done with the allegations that were passed to him? He is a man who is using his position to ensure these allegations are investigated.

 

[dejongj]

Then what should he have done with the allegations that were passed to him? He is a man who is using his position to ensure these allegations are investigated.

Absolutely pass them, but don't use personal pressure to ensure it is followed up, don't make it party political, and when it turns out that the so called witnesses aren't credible at all have the decency to be a grown man about it...

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Absolutely pass them, but don't use personal pressure to ensure it is followed up, don't make it party political, and when it turns out that the so called witnesses aren't credible at all have the decency to be a grown man about it...

I disagree, I want men in his position to ensure these allegations are followed up. Too many instances in the past of it not happening.

And lets not forget the investigations are ongoing.

 

[cambsno]

I disagree, I want men in his position to ensure these allegations are followed up. Too many instances in the past of it not happening.

And lets not forget the investigations are ongoing.

No problem with passing allegations to the police and making sure they are acted upon, but to basically name and shame like that is poor form and the to refuse to apologize when found to be wrong is well out of order.

Does he not believe in innocent till proven guilty, or is he now judge, jury and executioner as well as deputy pm?

 

[Deleted member 49549]

No problem with passing allegations to the police and making sure they are acted upon, but to basically name and shame like that is poor form and the to refuse to apologize when found to be wrong is well out of order.

Does he not believe in innocent till proven guilty, or is he now judge, jury and executioner as well as deputy pm?

What are you referring to in the bolded part?

 

[cambsno]

What are you referring to in the bolded part?

The fact that the police said there was no evidence and there are no charges. Maybe he did this for political reason, maybe it was a genuine mistake in trying to do good, but he said some pretty nasty things that were untrue yet will not apologize.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

The fact that the police said there was no evidence and there are no charges. Maybe he did this for political reason, maybe it was a genuine mistake in trying to do good, but he said some pretty nasty things that were untrue yet will not apologize.

?
The investigation is still ongoing.

 

[cambsno]

?
The investigation is still ongoing.

On the bbc. Seems to be done and dusted!

The Crown Prosecution Service found in July 2013 that there was not enough evidence for a prosecution over the claim Lord Brittan had raped a 19-year-old female student in 1967.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

edit.
Post got swallowed by my ipad. I'll try again tomorrow!

But the gist is that there are investigations ongoing. The matter you refer to I don't think is part of the info passed to the dpp by Watson.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

The fact that the police said there was no evidence and there are no charges. Maybe he did this for political reason, maybe it was a genuine mistake in trying to do good, but he said some pretty nasty things that were untrue yet will not apologize.

I don't think he is doing this for party political reasons - he as also spoken out about Lord Janner.

 

[dejongj]

He should for ones do the honourable thing and just go. Heck even as an MP he has barely voted and hardly spoken in debates. And he is the deputy? He made the police man go, he interfered with the direction, named people without proven evidence, but most of all: refuses to apologise about his actions. Nice judgement of those deputy of the Labour Party. Perhaps the leader will make him go? Not holding my breath.

 

[Phil V]

And then there is the U-turn on the budget rules...amongst many others...He is turning into a proper politician now, a fast learner

That's how it's being reported, but surely we're not stupid enough to fall for that
He hasn't made s u turn, he's refusing to agree to something his predecessor signed up to. That's a completely different thing, and we all know that.

But once again, even the best of commies at the BBC have chosen to report it as a U turn. So much for an unbiased approach

 

[Phil V]

I don't think he is doing this for party political reasons - he as also spoken out about Lord Janner.

This^
Whilst I'm not a fan, this reminds me of the chat the other day re people seeing evidence that we're not fully aware of. I certainly wouldn't be in favour of hushing up someone who has evidence of child sexual abuse.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

He should for ones do the honourable thing and just go. Heck even as an MP he has barely voted and hardly spoken in debates. And he is the deputy? He made the police man go, he interfered with the direction, named people without proven evidence, but most of all: refuses to apologise about his actions. Nice judgement of those deputy of the Labour Party. Perhaps the leader will make him go? Not holding my breath.

Has he?

Can you show the evidence, because according to Public Whip it appears he has put in more votes than either Cameron, Osborne or May.

 

[dejongj]

That's how it's being reported, but surely we're not stupid enough to fall for that
He hasn't made s u turn, he's refusing to agree to something his predecessor signed up to. That's a completely different thing, and we all know that.

But once again, even the best of commies at the BBC have chosen to report it as a U turn. So much for an unbiased approach

So they want to deliberately spent more money than they've got. Nice one.

 

[dejongj]

Has he?

Can you show the evidence, because according to Public Whip it appears he has put in more votes than either Cameron, Osborne or May.

It's from whathavetheydoneforyou, who in turn marks the source as public whip.

Why the immediate comparison with conservative? Are they your benchmark for what is good or something? For all I know theirs is worse, doesn't make the vile Tom Watson ok all of a sudden.

 

[Phil V]

So they want to deliberately spent more money than they've got. Nice one.

It's called investment! It's a proven method of creating a strong business / economy.

Whereas the obvious spending cuts to pay back the deficit we're currently seeing is throwing is further into debt. Clearly the answer is more spending cuts, removing more money from the economy, do reducing confidence and tax revenues leading to higher lending, leading to further cuts etc.

 

[cambsno]

It's called investment! It's a proven method of creating a strong business / economy.

Whereas the obvious spending cuts to pay back the deficit we're currently seeing is throwing is further into debt. Clearly the answer is more spending cuts, removing more money from the economy, do reducing confidence and tax revenues leading to higher lending, leading to further cuts etc.

Depends on what the investment is on. If its building schools, roads etc... then yes, it creates jobs and boosts economy, but investment should always be aligned to a business plan of sorts. Surely the principles of anyone from me or you to the Government should be looking at balancing the books and making sure we are not overspending. Yes, the deficit is not just down to Labour, it was the banks as well as the global recession which contributed, but had Labour been a bit more resoponsible last time the defecit would be less hence less cuts. Thing is Labour got unfairly criticised for bailing out the banks but having banks goto the wall would have cost us a lot more!

 

[dejongj]

This^
Whilst I'm not a fan, this reminds me of the chat the other day re people seeing evidence that we're not fully aware of. I certainly wouldn't be in favour of hushing up someone who has evidence of child sexual abuse.

Fully agree, nobody should be hushed up. That should never happen. However, we also must not put life changing allocations into the public domain which someone will never stand a chance of shaking off. We do operate a law that presume people innocent until proven otherwise.

And sure mistakes happen, he shouldn't have gone out with this, but then not even have the decency to apologise is not worthy of someone in his position as deputy leader. And still he is hinting that people haven't seen all the evidence. Well produce it then, ensure that there is a cast iron case until you public make allegations to individuals.

And then he is the big man, hiding behind the emotive language used by a victim, not his own words. The man couldn't even take responsibility for his own actions.

Now they want to spend lots and lots. They are a danger to the UK.

 

[cambsno]

So they want to deliberately spent more money than they've got. Nice one.

This^
Whilst I'm not a fan, this reminds me of the chat the other day re people seeing evidence that we're not fully aware of. I certainly wouldn't be in favour of hushing up someone who has evidence of child sexual abuse.

I dont think anyone wants to hush him in that respect. Sure, if you have evidence (although it seems to be heresay more than anything else), then you use the correct channels to report this, and if an MP then maybe you have a word at the highest level to ensure thats done. No problem there. My issue is what seems to be a witchunt and worst of all, to not apologise. Are you saying that if I believe someone is a kiddie fiddler I can not only report to police but seek as much publicity as I can on unproven allegations?

 

[Deleted member 49549]

It's from whathavetheydoneforyou, who in turn marks the source as public whip.

Why the immediate comparison with conservative? Are they your benchmark for what is good or something? For all I know theirs is worse, doesn't make the vile Tom Watson ok all of a sudden.

As far as I can see his voting record is pretty good, I think your numbers may have been misread.

 

[Llamaman]

Heck even as an MP he has barely voted and hardly spoken in debates.

I think you must be confusing him with someone else. He's been one of the most vocal and active backbenchers. It's the same Tom Watson who tried to ensure parliament had to vote on the Iraq war (thus defying his own party whip) - hardly a shrinking violet.

 

[dejongj]

As far as I can see his voting record is pretty good, I think your numbers may have been misread.

I think you must be confusing him with someone else. He's been one of the most vocal and active backbenchers. It's the same Tom Watson who tried to ensure parliament had to vote on the Iraq war (thus defying his own party whip) - hardly a shrinking violet.

I got it from here, as stated earlier.