All things Labour Party

92% of Express readers want us out if the EU. I think they have all been confused by whether statins are good or bad and still waiting for the oft reported cures for arthritis and Alzheimer's, the benefits of a walk and a good nights sleep and how to fit more broccoli (cures all) in their diet.

They'll have to give away these papers soon as no one under 40 is buying Telegraph or Express I wager.

I despair at lunchtime in our office at how many staff, mostly youngsters, are looking at Mail online - most openly admit they don't know difference between left and right wing as well. Depressing

Not you though. You're jolly clever.

 

I notice youve not linked up any ranting pro-Jezza blog posts "for the sake of balance", recently, have you?

 

Go on, post up another and maybe the rest of us can judge your critical faculties.

Indeed I am jolly clever. But I am no longer a full member of this fascist ****fest so I only get three posts. I save them for special occasions.

Indeed I am jolly clever. But I am no longer a full member of this fascist ****fest so I only get three posts. I save them for special occasions.

Saints web a "facist ****-fest"

Absolutely brilliant

I think you've been misled by the media. Most of the General Secretaries' roles are comparable to those of business leaders with whom they negotiate (and, it has to be said, work very closely in many industries and businesses). So it's quite understandable that their salaries should be begin to approach the levels of those business leaders - although of course theyre nowhere near those levels in reality.

 

The other, very important, point to make is this. Their salaries are considered and agreed by the membership. The same membership that votes for industrial action. The 'barons' do not make these decisions without the approval of their members.

 

Shame private enterprise doesn't do the same, eh?

What exactly is this supposed to mean, especially in relation to the rest of your post? Or was it an example of the "sweeping generalisation" that you so disliked in your previous post?

If you are trying to make a confused point about who should determine salaries in the private sector, then you are mistakenly comparing a Union (entirely reliant upon it's members for its existence) with a private company who trade. I cannot see a comparison at all.

I shall go away and have a Sherman with my swastika glove to try and find some enlightenment.

I think you've been misled by the media. Most of the General Secretaries' roles are comparable to those of business leaders with whom they negotiate (and, it has to be said, work very closely in many industries and businesses). So it's quite understandable that their salaries should be begin to approach the levels of those business leaders - although of course theyre nowhere near those levels in reality.

 

The other, very important, point to make is this. Their salaries are considered and agreed by the membership. The same membership that votes for industrial action. The 'barons' do not make these decisions without the approval of their members.​

 

Shame private enterprise doesn't do the same, eh?

I've been a Union member for over 20 years and although I do get a say in who is elected as General Secretary, I've never once had the opportunity to decide what their renumeration should be. I wouldn't pay Len McCluskey in washers.

Indeed I am jolly clever. But I am no longer a full member of this fascist ****fest so I only get three posts. I save them for special occasions.

And this post is indeed very special. Well done.

Indeed I am jolly clever. But I am no longer a full member of this fascist ****fest so I only get three posts. I save them for special occasions.

Is there a plot you've recently mislaid? Or is this the natural progression among Corbynists of a devoted doe-eye to a gimlet-eyed Stalinist?

This is merely confirmation of what was said earlier - that Corbynists regard all voters to the right of them as terminally stupid or, worse, actually murderers of poor and disabled people.

Welcome to the new politics, as George Orwell might have said.

Is there a plot you've recently mislaid? Or is this the natural progression among Corbynists of a devoted doe-eye to a gimlet-eyed Stalinist?

 

This is merely confirmation of what was said earlier - that Corbynists regard all voters to the right of them as terminally stupid or, worse, actually murderers of poor and disabled people.

 

Welcome to the new politics, as George Orwell might have said.

You're obsessed with eyes. Did you do an essay at uni about how eye characteristics determine political preference.

To this lazy journalist you're either doe-eyed, gimlet-eyed or swivel-eyed, although I guess new labour types could be chalked up as just being blind.

You're obsessed with eyes. Did you do an essay at uni about how eye characteristics determine political preference.

 

To this lazy journalist you're either doe-eyed, gimlet-eyed or swivel-eyed, although I guess new labour types could be chalked up as just being blind.

He's obsessed with using the same phrases to the point of ridicule. The Phil Space of Blairite Labour.

So now the Corbynists are turning a blind eye to the exclusion of Muslim women from Labour party candidature. How not surprising.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/06/activist-condemns-labour-response-to-jeremy-corbyn-letter-charges-of-bias-against-muslim-women

So now the Corbynists are turning a blind eye to the exclusion of Muslim women from Labour party candidature. How not surprising.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/06/activist-condemns-labour-response-to-jeremy-corbyn-letter-charges-of-bias-against-muslim-women

Ha classic shot into foot. I'll help you out with the reading and comprehension.

Its not Corbyn who turned a blind eye. The letter appealing for help from Corbyn was only sent yesterday. The letter alleges decades of misogyny by Muslim Labour councillors - ie under Blair and Brown's watch. There was a formal complaint made by the MP for Luton which was not acted on under Milibands watch in February 2014. Corbyn is being asked to clear up the mess he has inherited and is being made aware of. Lets give him more than 24 hours eh?

I wonder why you were so silent for decades but jump on it now? There's a whiff of something pungent.

http://www.mwnuk.co.uk//go_files/resources/422693-Labour%20Party%20Complaint%20Letter.pdf

He's obsessed with using the same phrases to the point of ridicule. The Phil Space of Blairite Labour.

I think Herbal is more than a little red-eyed.

Ha classic shot into foot. I'll help you out with the reading and comprehension.

 

Its not Corbyn who turned a blind eye. The letter appealing for help from Corbyn was only sent yesterday. The letter alleges decades of misogyny by Muslim Labour councillors - ie under Blair and Brown's watch. There was a formal complaint made by the MP for Luton which was not acted on under Milibands watch in February 2014. Corbyn is being asked to clear up the mess he has inherited and is being made aware of. Lets give him more than 24 hours eh?

 

I wonder why you were so silent for decades but jump on it now? There's a whiff of something pungent.

http://www.mwnuk.co.uk//go_files/resources/422693-Labour%20Party%20Complaint%20Letter.pdf

Wrong again.

Uncharacteristically, Corbyn central have responded clearly and quickly - to slap the women's complaint down. From the article you didn't read:

In a statement on Friday evening, a Labour spokesman made no attempt to address the specific allegations and gave no hint the issue would be looked at any further, saying the party had “selection procedures [that] include strong positive action procedures such as all-women shortlists and rules to ensure women are selected in winnable council seats”.

Labour had “the best record of any party in selecting women and [black, asian and minority ethnic] candidates” the spokesman said, adding that those candidates who were unsuccessful had the right to appeal.

Corbyn's gang could have said they'd look into it, as most political machines would do, if only to deflect - but no.

In a statement on Friday evening, a Labour spokesman made no attempt to address the specific allegations and gave no hint the issue would be looked at any further, saying the party had “selection procedures [that] include strong positive action procedures such as all-women shortlists and rules to ensure women are selected in winnable council seats”.

LOL, so he addressed the issue, but in unspecific terms, and also gave no hint that the issue would not be looked at any further.

Wrong again.

 

Uncharacteristically, Corbyn central have responded clearly and quickly - to slap the women's complaint down. From the article you didn't read:

 

In a statement on Friday evening, a Labour spokesman made no attempt to address the specific allegations and gave no hint the issue would be looked at any further, saying the party had “selection procedures [that] include strong positive action procedures such as all-women shortlists and rules to ensure women are selected in winnable council seats”.

 

Labour had “the best record of any party in selecting women and [black, asian and minority ethnic] candidates” the spokesman said, adding that those candidates who were unsuccessful had the right to appeal.

 

Corbyn's gang could have said they'd look into it, as most political machines would do, if only to deflect - but no.

That was a holding statement from an unnamed press officer in response to questions about a letter sent earlier the same day they probably hadnt seen and Corbyn hadnt yet read. But Corbyn is to blame and Blair, Brown and Miliband are home free.

You should go work in the media, maybe the Sun, they could use your skills there, or corporate communications for the Saudi army.

LOL, so he addressed the issue, but in unspecific terms, and also gave no hint that the issue would not be looked at any further.

You're clearly not up to speed with Corbyn central's modus operandum. Here's another example. A "key member" of Crobyn's campaign team, Momentum, has, it turns out, a conviction for electoral fraud - she pleaded guilty to registering more than a hundred voters. Here's the Corbynists' response:

"Marsha-Jane Thompson does excellent work for Momentum as a social media manager. Over a decade ago, she plead guilty to an offence and completed community service. Marshajane's conviction is now spent. She has always been open about the conviction, which she still deeply regrets, with her employers."

Leaving aside the fact that the conviction was on March 29 2006 - so actually less than a decade, rather than "over a decade" - you have to read very carefully to catch the nuance of "the conviction, which she deeply regreets." I'm sure she does regret the conviction. It would be better, would it not, if she regretted the criminal acts?

This is relevant for two reasons. Firstly, she committed the fraud while working as a housing officer at Newham council - so an officer of the authority some of whose members she was trying to fraudulently get reelected.

Secondly, in 2010, four years after her "deeply regretted" conviction, she became a very vocal defender of the corrupt former mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman. She led protests to Labour's NEC after it sacked Rahman for allegedly doing exactly what she was convicted for in 2006.

It doesn't seem she regrets vote rigging per se, from this - merely getting caught and acquiring a criminal record. And as she's so valuable to the Corbynists, they appear to take exactly the same view.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12144213/Key-member-of-Jeremy-Corbyns-campaign-team-has-conviction-for-election-fraud.html

At the heart of both these stories - the Corbynist's electoral fraud and the pressure on Asian women candidates - is a deeper problem of (mostly postal) voting fraud and coercion among South Asian communities in Britain. But when Corbynists start not only benefitting from it but actively participating in it, it's not exactly a good look for the "new politics".

Old New Labour - the 'Tory-lites' - did at least disown Rahman and his corrupt little fiefdom. It seems Corbynists revel in this corruption and actively take part in it.

You're clearly not up to speed with Corbyn central's modus operandum. Here's another example. A "key member" of Crobyn's campaign team, Momentum, has, it turns out, a conviction for electoral fraud - she pleaded guilty to registering more than a hundred voters. Here's the Corbynists' response:

 

"Marsha-Jane Thompson does excellent work for Momentum as a social media manager. Over a decade ago, she plead guilty to an offence and completed community service. Marshajane's conviction is now spent. She has always been open about the conviction, which she still deeply regrets, with her employers."

 

Leaving aside the fact that the conviction was on March 29 2006 - so actually less than a decade, rather than "over a decade" - you have to read very carefully to catch the nuance of "the conviction, which she deeply regreets." I'm sure she does regret the conviction. It would be better, would it not, if she regretted the criminal acts?

 

This is relevant for two reasons. Firstly, she committed the fraud while working as a housing officer at Newham council - so an officer of the authority some of whose members she was trying to fraudulently get reelected.

 

Secondly, in 2010, four years after her "deeply regretted" conviction, she became a very vocal defender of the corrupt former mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman. She led protests to Labour's NEC after it sacked Rahman for allegedly doing exactly what she was convicted for in 2006.

 

It doesn't seem she regrets vote rigging per se, from this - merely getting caught and acquiring a criminal record. And as she's so valuable to the Corbynists, they appear to take exactly the same view.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12144213/Key-member-of-Jeremy-Corbyns-campaign-team-has-conviction-for-election-fraud.html

 

At the heart of both these stories - the Corbynist's electoral fraud and the pressure on Asian women candidates - is a deeper problem of (mostly postal) voting fraud and coercion among South Asian communities in Britain. But when Corbynists start not only benefitting from it but actively participating in it, it's not exactly a good look for the "new politics".

 

Old New Labour - the 'Tory-lites' - did at least disown Rahman and his corrupt little fiefdom. It seems Corbynists revel in this corruption and actively take part in it.

and she was not the only one of Corbyn's with links to Rahman in Tower Hamlets in 2010. The man who accused the world of smearing Rahman in 2014 after campaigning for him in 2010. Russia Today Pundit Ken Livingstone.

You're clearly not up to speed with Corbyn central's modus operandum. Here's another example. A "key member" of Crobyn's campaign team, Momentum, has, it turns out, a conviction for electoral fraud - she pleaded guilty to registering more than a hundred voters. Here's the Corbynists' response:

 

"Marsha-Jane Thompson does excellent work for Momentum as a social media manager. Over a decade ago, she plead guilty to an offence and completed community service. Marshajane's conviction is now spent. She has always been open about the conviction, which she still deeply regrets, with her employers."

 

Leaving aside the fact that the conviction was on March 29 2006 - so actually less than a decade, rather than "over a decade" - you have to read very carefully to catch the nuance of "the conviction, which she deeply regreets." I'm sure she does regret the conviction. It would be better, would it not, if she regretted the criminal acts?

 

This is relevant for two reasons. Firstly, she committed the fraud while working as a housing officer at Newham council - so an officer of the authority some of whose members she was trying to fraudulently get reelected.

 

Secondly, in 2010, four years after her "deeply regretted" conviction, she became a very vocal defender of the corrupt former mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman. She led protests to Labour's NEC after it sacked Rahman for allegedly doing exactly what she was convicted for in 2006.

 

It doesn't seem she regrets vote rigging per se, from this - merely getting caught and acquiring a criminal record. And as she's so valuable to the Corbynists, they appear to take exactly the same view.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12144213/Key-member-of-Jeremy-Corbyns-campaign-team-has-conviction-for-election-fraud.html

 

At the heart of both these stories - the Corbynist's electoral fraud and the pressure on Asian women candidates - is a deeper problem of (mostly postal) voting fraud and coercion among South Asian communities in Britain. But when Corbynists start not only benefitting from it but actively participating in it, it's not exactly a good look for the "new politics".

 

Old New Labour - the 'Tory-lites' - did at least disown Rahman and his corrupt little fiefdom. It seems Corbynists revel in this corruption and actively take part in it.

Not interested to be honest. I'm no fan of Corbyn or Labour, all political parties have their dodgy characters - the expenses scandal showed that. I just hate the crap served up by the press when they have it in for someone. Most of it is just meaningless nonsense spun in a way that implies something bad.

Not interested to be honest. I'm no fan of Corbyn or Labour, all political parties have their dodgy characters - the expenses scandal showed that. I just hate the crap served up by the press when they have it in for someone. Most of it is just meaningless nonsense spun in a way that implies something bad.

Yes, of course. You're probably right: the press completely made up the fraud conviction. Good that you can rise above the very foolish idea that such criminal acts are anything more than "meaningless nonsense," and that you think faking voters by the bucketload "doesn't imply something bad".

Jesus H Christ...

I was at Uni in the sixties when Trotskyites first tried entryism, and after helping Th***her in by causing chaos in the unions in the late seventies, Kinnock eventually ousted them.

B Liar then successfully managed entryism with wannabe Tories.

It now appears that the Trots are back in force in the party.

however there is a ray of hope in that it has been reported that the Party rules still require a putative leader to have 15% of the PLP as nominees.

Corbyn has no hope of this and it is rumoured that he will be out after disastrous local election results.

I still believe that the Labour governments of the 60s and 70s were the only decent governments that I can remember, I was a baby in the post war Labour government which gave us the NHS and nationalised key industries after WW2.

If this is so then we can look forward to a new Labour leader and bitter local party infighting.

I don't think the labour Party will survive in its present form, so the Trots will have ensured decades more of Tory misrule.

however there is a ray of hope in that it has been reported that the Party rules still require a putative leader to have 15% of the PLP as nominees.

Corbyn has no hope of this and it is rumoured that he will be out after disastrous local election results.

It's always the hope that gets you in the end.

Can you see that light at the end of the tunnel....

Corbyn has now missed the last five parliamentary Labour party meetings. Great leadership.

And he has launched the Labour local elections campaign..... In an area which had no local elections in may.

http://order-order.com/2016/02/09/calamity-corbyns-comical-campaign-cock-up/

So Corbyn wears a "I heart unions" badge to PMQs but doesn't even bring up the junior doctors' strike - on which he would have the government easily on the ropes.

Brilliant.

A ComRes poll at the weekend gives the Tories an astonishing 14 point lead over Labour, with Labour now at 27% - all this at a time when Cameron and the Tories are in several godawful messes at the same time.

So well done, Corbynistas! Keep up the excellent work.

"who are you?"

...even some of his front bench laughed at him!!!

"who are you?"

 

...even some of his front bench laughed at him!!!

 

Funny how the look on Burnham's face morphs from 's****** s******' to 'oh God I actually managed to lose a leadership race with this guy'.

Oh my god. That was pretty cringeworthy. And clearly rehearsed. What a d*ckhead!

Oh my god. That was pretty cringeworthy. And clearly rehearsed. What a d*ckhead!

It may have been rehearsed Lou, but the set up came from a Labour MP shouting at Cameron about what his mum would do. When Labour is reduced to being the straight man for Tory jokes you know it's been a bad day.

Aside from that, Corbyn was woeful today - as bad as I've ever seen him. He managed to ask one question that was completely unintelligible, and Cameron simply brushed off his questions about weekend NHS deaths by producing his own figures which Corbyn was unable to challenge.

Hopeless.

It may have been rehearsed Lou, but the set up came from a Labour MP shouting at Cameron about what his mum would do. When Labour is reduced to being the straight man for Tory jokes you know it's been a bad day.

 

Aside from that, Corbyn was woeful today - as bad as I've ever seen him. He managed to ask one question that was completely unintelligible, and Cameron simply brushed off his questions about weekend NHS deaths by producing his own figures which Corbyn was unable to challenge.

 

Hopeless.

I don't disagree with your analysis on Corbyn. But Cameron doing 'patronising' always makes him look like a slimy condescending pr*ck, and while the other "who are you?" clip is a genuinely funny response, watching a whole room laughing at one man standing up, is pretty unedifying.

Yup, that's where we've got to - I'm now feeling sorry for Corbyn. Not good.

I don't disagree with your analysis on Corbyn. But Cameron doing 'patronising' always makes him look like a slimy condescending pr*ck, and while the other "who are you?" clip is a genuinely funny response, watching a whole room laughing at one man standing up, is pretty unedifying.

 

Yup, that's where we've got to - I'm now feeling sorry for Corbyn. Not good.

Agree. Not a unique view either. Even the comments in the Daily Mail were strongly anti Cameron jibes.

"The Commons basically lost the plot after that. Some Tory MPS were literally crying with laughter. On the Labour front bench Tom Watson and Angela Eagle looked like they were trying not to smirk. The last part was effective, but the initial comments on the suit were dreadful. The sight of a rich, powerful man in an expensive suit lambasting someone for wearing a cheap one was not attractive. Chances are, Cameron will come to regret it, despite how well it went down in the chamber. It contained the unmistakeable suggestion that when the prime minister meets average Joes in public he is secretly looking down his nose at them. As with the refugee comment a few weeks ago, you felt he'd revealed a glimpse of his true character."

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/02/24/pmqs-verdict-corbyn-lets-cameron-get-away-with-it-as-commons

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3461949/PMQs-descends-playground-mum-jibes-David-Cameron-claims-anti-cuts-mother-tell-Jeremy-Corbyn-proper-suit-sing-national-anthem.html#comments

I don't disagree with your analysis on Corbyn. But Cameron doing 'patronising' always makes him look like a slimy condescending pr*ck, and while the other "who are you?" clip is a genuinely funny response, watching a whole room laughing at one man standing up, is pretty unedifying.

 

Yup, that's where we've got to - I'm now feeling sorry for Corbyn. Not good.

I don't feel sorry him at all, I'm afraid. Consider the subject-matter: thousands of people dying at weekends in our hospitals. The junior doctors themselves have a quite detailed and, to my mind, convincing rebuttal to this. But Corbyn's chronic inability to master a brief - especially if it's not one of his cherished and contrarian 'foreign policy' issues - is a disaster. It's a disaster above for for the people who look to the Labour party to protect them from the actions of cretinous toffs like Cameron and Hunt.

I don't disagree with your analysis on Corbyn. But Cameron doing 'patronising' always makes him look like a slimy condescending pr*ck, and while the other "who are you?" clip is a genuinely funny response, watching a whole room laughing at one man standing up, is pretty unedifying.

 

Yup, that's where we've got to - I'm now feeling sorry for Corbyn. Not good.

he is being eaten alive in there...as time passes by, he is becoming more and more irrelevant

It is a bit weird that corbyn is effectively anonymous over the whole Europe issue.

I don't feel sorry him at all, I'm afraid. Consider the subject-matter: thousands of people dying at weekends in our hospitals. The junior doctors themselves have a quite detailed and, to my mind, convincing rebuttal to this. But Corbyn's chronic inability to master a brief - especially if it's not one of his cherished and contrarian 'foreign policy' issues - is a disaster. It's a disaster above for for the people who look to the Labour party to protect them from the actions of cretinous toffs like Cameron and Hunt.

Well, it was a moment of empathy for a man in an embarrassing position. But I accept that's my human weakness, and it would gain no thanks from the man himself. If he just laughed or something, he would have gained some control from the situation. But to just stand there and take it, looking a bit ruffled, was not good and made him looked a bullied man. Which is not a position of leadership.

But regardless of Corbyn, clips like that don't do politics any favours. And in the other one, Cameron is a prat of the highest order.

Corbyn's approval rating within party membership has risen since he was elected leader:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/02/new-poll-puts-jeremy-corbyns-leadership-strong-position

Corbyn's approval rating within party membership has risen since he was elected leader:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/02/new-poll-puts-jeremy-corbyns-leadership-strong-position

Good for him, and them.

Just the small problem that those people are utterly irrelevant.

But hey, Jeremy I'd popular with people that are going to vote Labour anyway. Whoopee.

The more I see **** like that the more I think what a bunch of tossers we have in our parliament. We pay these people to debate serious issues not throw schoolboy insults around. Makes you wonder what the point of voting is.

Oh my god. That was pretty cringeworthy. And clearly rehearsed. What a d*ckhead!

What a ****. That pathetic power move of moving quickly after he says something for dramatic effect. Nauseating posho

Well, it was a moment of empathy for a man in an embarrassing position. But I accept that's my human weakness, and it would gain no thanks from the man himself. If he just laughed or something, he would have gained some control from the situation. But to just stand there and take it, looking a bit ruffled, was not good and made him looked a bullied man. Which is not a position of leadership.

 

But regardless of Corbyn, clips like that don't do politics any favours. And in the other one, Cameron is a prat of the highest order.

But by far the most humiliating failure for Corbyn, in terms of its wider effects, is his dreadful handling of Cameron's comeback on the 11,000 more deaths at weekends than weekdays in the NHS.

Cameron was quoting from a BMJ paper that Hunt has also referred to frequently. In fact, Hunt's ONLY source for his original 6,000 figure, and the 11,000 used by both Hunt and Cameron, is this paper.

Yet the paper:

(a) defines "weekends" as Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday, and "midweek" as Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. So it's saying there are more deaths in four days per week than three days per week;

(b) makes no causal connection between the death rates and the quality of medical care:

and © makes no claims about whether any of the higher numbers of deaths at weekends were preventable.

So junior doctors are having their contracts torn up and their pay cut on the back of one of the most specious claims the Tories have made in recent years about the quality of care in the NHS, and on what one can only call a pack of lies in the "interpretation of the BMJ paper.

That Corbyn couldn't offer any semblance of an attack on this when Cameron appeared to stump him with the 11,000 number is frankly atrocious and a betrayal of the junior doctors and NHS patients. We expect Cameron and Hunt to damage the NHS, we expect Corbyn to defend the NHS. He failed. Again.

But by far the most humiliating failure for Corbyn, in terms of its wider effects, is his dreadful handling of Cameron's comeback on the 11,000 more deaths at weekends than weekdays in the NHS.

 

Cameron was quoting from a BMJ paper that Hunt has also referred to frequently. In fact, Hunt's ONLY source for his original 6,000 figure, and the 11,000 used by both Hunt and Cameron, is this paper.

 

Yet the paper:

 

(a) defines "weekends" as Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday, and "midweek" as Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. So it's saying there are more deaths in four days per week than three days per week;

 

(b) makes no causal connection between the death rates and the quality of medical care:

 

and © makes no claims about whether any of the higher numbers of deaths at weekends were preventable.

 

So junior doctors are having their contracts torn up and their pay cut on the back of one of the most specious claims the Tories have made in recent years about the quality of care in the NHS, and on what one can only call a pack of lies in the "interpretation of the BMJ paper.

 

That Corbyn couldn't offer any semblance of an attack on this when Cameron appeared to stump him with the 11,000 number is frankly atrocious and a betrayal of the junior doctors and NHS patients. We expect Cameron and Hunt to damage the NHS, we expect Corbyn to defend the NHS. He failed. Again.

Also that the death rate for those admitted at weekends is higher, but the death for those already in hospital at the weekend is not. That suggests it may be the nature of the admissions at weekends rather than the quality of care the care received. That is no great surprise as weekend admissions are usually emergency cases as opposed to the mix of elective and emergency during the week. Those admitted as emergencies are on average sicker and more likely to die than planned electives.

I see Corbyn is now saying that the money spent on the trident programme is a massive waste

only a few weeks ago, he was all up for building the new subs but not putting the missiles in...

Given that we are never going to use nuclear weapons it probably makes sense not to put them in subs. What would they be packing instead? Cruise missiles or the like?

Given that we are never going to use nuclear weapons it probably makes sense not to put them in subs. What would they be packing instead? Cruise missiles or the like?

have no idea what they would be packing as it would never happen

one day he is all up for the new subs and now he is saying the money is a total waste........which is it?

have no idea what they would be packing as it would never happen

 

one day he is all up for the new subs and now he is saying the money is a total waste........which is it?

I don't know, but would you say that money spent on a nuclear deterrent is money well spent when everyone knows that we will never use it?

I don't know, but would you say that money spent on a nuclear deterrent is money well spent when everyone knows that we will never use it?

that is a different argument

literally, the other week, he was all for the money being spent, today he isnt.

he is supposed to lead and bring people with him on such huge issues not flip/flop from week to week

that is a different argument

 

literally, the other week, he was all for the money being spent, today he isnt.

he is supposed to lead and bring people with him on such huge issues not flip/flop from week to week

He's always been anti trident, that is crystal clear. I think he said the Japanese idea of subs with other warheads was worth considering. I don't think he has ever said that was his preferred option.

Blowing billions on a bunch of nuclear weapons at a time when the country is skint is complete madness.

But he was all up for spending the vast cash. 2 days ago, he was saying it would be a huge waste

Which is it for him?

But he was all up for spending the vast cash. 2 days ago, he was saying it would be a huge waste

 

Which is it for him?

I guess he thinks it's a huge waste if he said that just two days ago.

I guess he thinks it's a huge waste if he said that just two days ago.

I guess next week it could be something different as he was on a completely different page just a few weeks ago.