Jeremy Corbyn (Vol. 3)

[WinstonWolf]

The Dangerous Elk said:

WinstonWolf said:

I think it's a new low from the 'caring left'.

Just emulating their idols, the mask always slips.

I think someone's just earned themselves an "I've been banned" badge...

[Burwood]

Balmoral said:

johnxjsc1985 said:

techiedave said:

Piece in the Guardian (I apologise for mentioning it's name).
Mentions some Labour MP's being at odds with Jezza if he goes for the peoples vote thing. They represent constituencies where people voted leave and they fear a backlash.



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/17/c...

Yes the next GE will be interesting. I have mentioned Boston in Lincs 76% for leave MP voted remain how can ask for their endorsements now?.

I live in a Conservative leave constituency with a leave MP, the constituency office contacted me recently to confirm some details with me on a separate matter and in conversation I was told that they are receiving large numbers of emails and phone calls from people saying if Brexit is cancelled they will never vote for them again, anecdotally it was said that they had heard that the Labour constituency office was receiving likewise. This is in a consituency with a leave MP, let alone a remain one.

That's why it's smart to be cross party agreement on potential ref 2. That way the voter can't single out any one Party

[HarryW]

Brave Fart said:

Balmoral said:

Did anyone see Ken Livingstone on RT this morning? Despite what the Parliamentary Labour Party want (remain) and Corbyn's supposed red line (no no deal), he made it quite clear that what he and his old muckers Corbyn and McDonnell want is to be in power with a free hand clear of the EU to put in place the first properly hard left socialist policies in over forty years.

Yes, makes sense. Think about it; you want to rearrange the UK in to a socialist model - you know, redistribute wealth, nationalise stuff, enhance workers' rights, all that. How much easier will that be with no deal? Especially if the UK punishes the Tories by electing a Labour government with a clear majority.

I believe that Corbyn is determined to frustrate ANY deal because he sees the chaos following no deal as Labour's best shot at power. And of course, we know that chaos undermining a capitalist society is something John McDonnell has long advocated.

Orderly Brexit? It's the last thing Corbyn wants.

That's exactly what I proffered last night in trying to understand Labours game plan on Brexit.

Given that their current silence outwardly appears illogical to most observers, if a bit hypocritical, it only means you do not yet understand why.... It will not take much longer for the true reason to be outed and go mainstream, watch the backlash mark my...

[Sway]

Burwood said:

That's why it's smart to be cross party agreement on potential ref 2. That way the voter can't single out any one Party

True. Instead they get rightly disengaged with the entire democratic edifice.

That's never a good thing.

[anonymous-user]

WinstonWolf said:

I think someone's just earned themselves an "I've been banned" badge...

What fun is a thread about Corbyn without at least one bitter socialist thrown in? Mods, please don't ban BORE on my account; I'm not going to kill myself!

[Balmoral]

Sway said:

Burwood said:

That's why it's smart to be cross party agreement on potential ref 2. That way the voter can't single out any one Party

True. Instead they get rightly disengaged with the entire democratic edifice.

That's never a good thing.

They vote for neither or even not at all.

[Sway]

Balmoral said:

Sway said:

Burwood said:

That's why it's smart to be cross party agreement on potential ref 2. That way the voter can't single out any one Party

True. Instead they get rightly disengaged with the entire democratic edifice.

That's never a good thing.

They vote for neither or even not at all.

Exactly.

I cannot recall a single successful outcome from a large percentage of the electorate feeling disenfranchised, especially considering the turnout trend reversal that's occurred with and since the referendum.

[andy_s]

Sway said:

Burwood said:

That's why it's smart to be cross party agreement on potential ref 2. That way the voter can't single out any one Party

True. Instead they get rightly disengaged with the entire democratic edifice.

That's never a good thing.

I said long ago that it should have been a cross-party committee doing the negotiations, then they all have blood on their hands rather than the 'lurking in the sidelines ready to pounce to take advantage of the chaos' we see today.

This bunch of chumps couldn't organise a round of drinks, good luck with getting any politician to agree to anything when they are split between constituency, party whip, referendum result and their own views.

They aren't bothered about the country, Corbyn just wants a go at the train set, more chaos the better for him - reprehensible. PM was fked from the get-go, no one understood what a negotiation entails and still don't - people still pontificating about a situation we should have got a grip of by now - ha too late suckers, that boat sailed long ago. Electorate are no better, still honking and whinging - where is that 'bulldog spirit' invoked only 2 1/2 years ago that would see us through transition and onto a better future? fking nowhere, kidding ourselves with our rose tinted specs on again.

Sang froid, huh, so much for that.

[Balmoral]

I agree that Brexit should have a bipartisan endeavor, with the whole department for exiting the EU and maybe even the Minister being chosen across party's.

[Smiler.]

fblm said:

WinstonWolf said:

I think someone's just earned themselves an "I've been banned" badge...

What fun is a thread about Corbyn without at least one bitter socialist thrown in? Mods, please don't ban BORE on my account; I'm not going to kill myself!

Ha, what did I miss?

I'm sure that will be your fault, sounds like it was

According to another troubled poster, anyone poking fun at Dianne Abbott is racist & sexist.

Anyway, no one is going to miss Colossal.

[johnxjsc1985]

Smiler. said:

:

According to another troubled poster, anyone poking fun at Dianne Abbott is racist & sexist.

.

Wow that's Techiedave finished then and he was such a breath of fresh air

[Mort7]

BOR said:

I've thought about it, but don't think you have.

I would say that it is the opposite of hypocritical for a high earner or someone with lots of bedrooms to be in favour of socialism, knowing that that person would see their own wealth reduced if a socialist government introduced higher tax rates on earnings or a bedroom tax.

I would still like to see you put a number on it.

No, you really haven't. My particular example has nothing to do with bedrooms, it was highlighting the hypocrisy of someone from a privileged background, who did as little actual work as possible, spouted Socialist Worker Party drivel, and then went back home to enjoy an opulent lifestyle courtesy of daddy's wealth. Geddit?

For the answer to your question re bedrooms and wealth, that depends on the type of socialist you are. Some 'socialists' talk the talk, while amassing great personal wealth. They advocate state education whilst sending their kids to private school, etc, etc. That seems a tad hypocritical to me, but then I will admit to being out of touch with current socialist thinking.

There's some sage advice, which you may be familiar with, which can be traced back to Ancient Greece. It goes "If you are not a socialist when you are 20, then you have no heart. If you are still a socialist when you are 40, then you have no head.", which sums things up nicely for me.

BTW, is this the 5 minute argument, or the full 1/2 hour?

[Balmoral]

johnxjsc1985 said:

Smiler. said:

:

According to another troubled poster, anyone poking fun at Dianne Abbott is racist & sexist.

.

Wow that's Techiedave finished then and he was such a breath of fresh air

Au contraire, Techidave was always quite complimentary and much enamoured of her, and obviously very envious of Mr Corbyn.

[djohnson]

Mort7 said:

According to t'internet, Corbyn's net worth is around £3 million, and Bragg's is £3.5 million.

Corbyn has published his tax return, if I recall correctly it shows his salary and a small pension from an earlier role but no interest / investment income. His house isn’t worth anything like 3m and he’s very unlikely to have managed to get 2m+ into ISA (which of course doesn’t need to be declared on a tax return) and hence either he’s omitted investment income / interest from his tax return or he isn’t worth that much. Any source for the 3m number? Might be interesting if his tax return is wrong!

[SpeckledJim]

djohnson said:

Mort7 said:

According to t'internet, Corbyn's net worth is around £3 million, and Bragg's is £3.5 million.

Corbyn has published his tax return, if I recall correctly it shows his salary and a small pension from an earlier role but no interest / investment income. His house isn’t worth anything like 3m and he’s very unlikely to have managed to get 2m+ into ISA (which of course doesn’t need to be declared on a tax return) and hence either he’s omitted investment income / interest from his tax return or he isn’t worth that much. Any source for the 3m number? Might be interesting if his tax return is wrong!

His wife’s tax return?

[djohnson]

SpeckledJim said:

djohnson said:

Mort7 said:

According to t'internet, Corbyn's net worth is around £3 million, and Bragg's is £3.5 million.

Corbyn has published his tax return, if I recall correctly it shows his salary and a small pension from an earlier role but no interest / investment income. His house isn’t worth anything like 3m and he’s very unlikely to have managed to get 2m+ into ISA (which of course doesn’t need to be declared on a tax return) and hence either he’s omitted investment income / interest from his tax return or he isn’t worth that much. Any source for the 3m number? Might be interesting if his tax return is wrong!

His wife’s tax return?

Good point. Don’t think that’s published and you’re right could be she’s holding the investments.

[anonymous-user]

SpeckledJim said:

His wife’s tax return?

That's where the Russians will be giving him the money

[HoHoHo]

The Dangerous Elk said:

WinstonWolf said:

I think it's a new low from the 'caring left'.

Just emulating their idols, the mask always slips.

He really is a nasty horrible bitter little old man

Still I’m happy he’s still around, it makes the Liar-bour that little bit more unelectable

[Pan Pan Pan]

Burwood said:

Balmoral said:

johnxjsc1985 said:

techiedave said:

Piece in the Guardian (I apologise for mentioning it's name).
Mentions some Labour MP's being at odds with Jezza if he goes for the peoples vote thing. They represent constituencies where people voted leave and they fear a backlash.



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/17/c...

Yes the next GE will be interesting. I have mentioned Boston in Lincs 76% for leave MP voted remain how can ask for their endorsements now?.

I live in a Conservative leave constituency with a leave MP, the constituency office contacted me recently to confirm some details with me on a separate matter and in conversation I was told that they are receiving large numbers of emails and phone calls from people saying if Brexit is cancelled they will never vote for them again, anecdotally it was said that they had heard that the Labour constituency office was receiving likewise. This is in a consituency with a leave MP, let alone a remain one.

That's why it's smart to be cross party agreement on potential ref 2. That way the voter can't single out any one Party

The vote in the first referendum in 2016 on the matter of remaining in, or leaving the EU was across supporters of all political parties, so no particular political party could be singled out as being either the party of remain or leave.

[otolith]

CrutyRammers said:

otolith said:

BOR said:

How many bedrooms can my house have?

How many do you need?

I absolutely bloody love otolith. Always incisive and straight to the nub of the matter.

Very kind of you to say so!