All things Labour Party

Just saying savings can be made there. Which is quite obvious.

 

Never said it was a solution of any sorts

No. You said lots of savings.

Anyone else feel really depressed with politics right now?

 

The current incumbants don't really know what they're doing, and they're just trying to cut anything and everything they see.

 

New old Labour also don't know what they're doing, and have now become pretty much unelectable.

 

The Lib Dems were destroyed at the last election, and no-one will trust them.

 

What we need is a new middle party to take up the slack and apathetic voters. The country is crying out for it.

This. Unless Labour sort their **** out the next general election will just be a farce.

I'm probably more left leaning than most and even I would not fancy the idea of letting Corbyn loose in no. 10.

Just saying savings can be made there. Which is quite obvious.

 

Never said it was a solution of any sorts

So, faced with pruning £25 million, once the Ch Exec has had his salary cut to below that of the PM, you still have to find something like £24.96 million this year. So what will it be ? Libraries, Museums, Children's homes, Sure Starts, Road Safety, Planning, Environmental Protection, Car Parking.........because all of the 'fat' has already been disposed of.

Well this made me LOL

Labour MP Simon Danczuk ‘withdrew from China trip after refusing to fly economy’

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-mp-simon-danczuk-withdrew-from-china-trip-after-refusing-to-fly-economy-a3110891.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34782123

"Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been sworn in to the Privy Council...". I reckon that is quicker than DC took to "swear in" after he became party leader.

He kissed the Queen's hand apparently - would have had more respect for him if he'd actually stuck to his principles.

He kissed the Queen's hand apparently - would have had more respect for him if he'd actually stuck to his principles.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, innit Jeff.

He kissed the Queen's hand apparently - would have had more respect for him if he'd actually stuck to his principles.

Source?

Source?

"A party press officer said Mr Corbyn had 'complied with the normal processes'."

Rumours he slipped her a couple of digits likely to be ill-founded.

He kissed the Queen's hand apparently - would have had more respect for him if he'd actually stuck to his principles.

Thats less subservient than kneeling or bowing imo. Hand kissing used to be quite common.

He kissed the Queen's hand apparently - would have had more respect for him if he'd actually stuck to his principles.

He's ****ing ditching all his principles pretty quickly . Republician that now will sing the dirge . White poppy pacifist that now wears a red one. Kissing The queens hand , bottling it over trident .

Is this the " new politics" he's been going on about , because it looks pretty much like the old one to me .

He's ****ing ditching all his principles pretty quickly . Republician that now will sing the dirge . White poppy pacifist that now wears a red one. Kissing The queens hand , bottling it over trident .

Is this the " new politics" he's been going on about , because it looks pretty much like the old one to me .

In the face of all the sniping and sarcasm in the media 'principles' have to become flexible.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, innit Jeff.

When someone is as principled as he is, and can decide to disrespect those who have served our country, perhaps if he wanted to be flexible that would be where it should have been done.

says something when many council chiefs are on more than the prime minister.

lots of savings to be had there

Would make about as much difference as p!ssing in the sea.

And if you are in charge of a business with a turnover in excess of £250m, you don't get a Chief Exec for £75k a year.

When someone is as principled as he is, and can decide to disrespect those who have served our country, perhaps if he wanted to be flexible that would be where it should have been done.

He only has to jump through the hoops because simpletons like you believe all they read in the right wing press.

So, faced with pruning £25 million, once the Ch Exec has had his salary cut to below that of the PM, you still have to find something like £24.96 million this year. So what will it be ? Libraries, Museums, Children's homes, Sure Starts, Road Safety, Planning, Environmental Protection, Car Parking.........because all of the 'fat' has already been disposed of.

I agree that the cuts are horrific, but there are still some "efficiency" savings that can be made. However, these will be nowhere near the shortfall they are going to have to make up.

The Tories are playing silly buggers considering they have a clear run for the next term. Sold a few lies in the run up to the election and Cameron is doing his level best to make sure he keeps to his pledge that he won't be in charge come the next election.

As UJ said, it's somewhat sad that there is no political party one can have any faith in.

In the face of all the sniping and sarcasm in the media 'principles' have to become flexible.

Lol , good excuse .

He just like all the others , an unprincipled professional politician . New politics , my arse.

...As UJ said, it's somewhat sad that there is no political party one can have any faith in.

The very last thing you want to see in politics are parties or politicians so wedded to their 'principles' that they refuse to enter into compromise or seek some form of consensus on contentious issues. If you really doubt that then remember what Ulster's political scene looked like in the 1960's and 70's for example.

Remember, only the Sith deal in absolutes ...

He only has to jump through the hoops because simpletons like you believe all they read in the right wing press.

Independent is right wing now is it? Blimey.

Talk about simpletons, it's those who decided that to vote him in as opposition to the Tories. It's as if they want to keep the Tories in charge.

Independent is right wing now is it? Blimey.

 

Talk about simpletons, it's those who decided that to vote him in as opposition to the Tories. It's as if they want to keep the Tories in charge.

How is being a pacifist disrespectful to the armed forces. Surely the governments that send their troops into war to die for a bit of oil are the disrespectful ones?

How is being a pacifist disrespectful to the armed forces. Surely the governments that send their troops into war to die for a bit of oil are the disrespectful ones?

I think he should respect those who have defended our country, that's all. I think those that don't are pretty **** people in all honesty.

I think he should respect those who have defended our country, that's all. I think those that don't are pretty **** people in all honesty.

How is sending our young men and women to die in far flung places like the middle east, for oil or political reasons, showing them respect?

How is sending our young men and women to die in far flung places like the middle east, for oil or political reasons, showing them respect?

I'm not saying it is? I am saying that independent of who sent them out, not showing respect for them is not on.

It is also how you interpret why they were sent out. I agree, Labour's actions between 1997 and 2010 were pretty bad, but the man in the barracks doesn't make that choice, and should be respected for fighting for our country.

I'm not saying it is? I am saying that independent of who sent them out, not showing respect for them is not on.

 

It is also how you interpret why they were sent out. I agree, Labour's actions between 1997 and 2010 were pretty bad, but the man in the barracks doesn't make that choice, and should be respected for fighting for our country.

C'mon then Jeff. How was he disrespectful? I mean in real life, not regurgitating a tabloid headline.

My politics have always been right of centre but the media campaign against him is disgusting. This popped up on my twitter stream so I'll leave it here for your consideration.

The very last thing you want to see in politics are parties or politicians so wedded to their 'principles' that they refuse to enter into compromise or seek some form of consensus on contentious issues. If you really doubt that then remember what Ulster's political scene looked like in the 1960's and 70's for example.

 

Remember, only the Sith deal in absolutes ...

You seem to have fallen into the old trap of assuming another posters opinion, Charlie.

My statement affirms a belief that what is currently on offer from any political party does not inspire confidence in ability or a belief in progression. Nothing was said about principles.

I really do love how easily people become riled in defence of Corbyn! It makes winding people up on here soooo damn easy.

I really do love how easily people become riled in defence of Corbyn! It makes winding people up on here soooo damn easy.

Trolling or back pedalling? Either way makes you look a ****.

Does it really matter what Corbyn says and does? He has absolutely no chance of getting in power so it's largely pointless.

Does it really matter what Corbyn says and does? He has absolutely no chance of getting in power so it's largely pointless.

Of course, its not pointless. The scale and manner of any defeat will very much determine where the Labour Party goes next. A small defeat could mean that some of Corbyn's policies and proposals are reflected in future thinking; a large defeat gives the next leader the legitimacy to scrap the lot.

Of course, it also matters that the diagnosis is correct - why its important that Corbyn's ideas get a fair hearing and rise and fall on their (non) merits, not sabotaged or distorted by personal attacks etc. If the wrong lessons are learned, it could be the difference between the Labour party successfully realigning itself with the public and base on the one hand -and overshooting on the other.

That's not good for any competitive democracy.

Of course, its not pointless. The scale and manner of any defeat will very much determine where the Labour Party goes next. A small defeat could mean that some of Corbyn's policies and proposals are reflected in future thinking; a large defeat gives the next leader the legitimacy to scrap the lot.

 

Of course, it also matters that the diagnosis is correct - why its important that Corbyn's ideas get a fair hearing and rise and fall on their (non) merits, not sabotaged or distorted by personal attacks etc. If the wrong lessons are learned, it could be the difference between the Labour party successfully realigning itself with the public and base on the one hand -and overshooting on the other.

 

That's not good for any competitive democracy.

Labour are in a no lose situation with Corbyn. They are basically getting two chances at winning the electorate over. Corbyn offers something radically different to the mainstream, something many people said they wanted. In the next two to three years he will either galvanise a lot of new support, probably from younger voters, and be seen and capable of winning the election - or he'll be floundering with low opinion poll ratings and be ditched, replaced with someone conventional.

It would have been a mistake to elect any of the other candidates imo. They would have been another Miliband, largely inoffensive but not capable of selling a new vision to the additional 10% of voters they needed to reach. In two to three years hopefully someone better will have emerged.

I'm not saying it is? I am saying that independent of who sent them out, not showing respect for them is not on.

 

It is also how you interpret why they were sent out. I agree, Labour's actions between 1997 and 2010 were pretty bad, but the man in the barracks doesn't make that choice, and should be respected for fighting for our country.

You still have said how he has disrespected our armed forces. Was it the angle of his head that upset you?

I agree about Labour's actions between 1997 and 2010 which the Conservatives backed. At least Corbyn seems to be one of our few politicians that shows some sort of respect for the value of our armed forces lives and was against it.

Labour are in a no lose situation with Corbyn. They are basically getting two chances at winning the electorate over. Corbyn offers something radically different to the mainstream, something many people said they wanted. In the next two to three years he will either galvanise a lot of new support, probably from younger voters, and be seen and capable of winning the election - or he'll be floundering with low opinion poll ratings and be ditched, replaced with someone conventional.

 

It would have been a mistake to elect any of the other candidates imo. They would have been another Miliband, largely inoffensive but not capable of selling a new vision to the additional 10% of voters they needed to reach. In two to three years hopefully someone better will have emerged.

That may well be the case - but should there be a change in leadership before the next election, I can't see the transition being smooth or painless.

The only way new support is going to appreciate the constraints and realities of practical politics, IMO, is at the ballot box; to forego that opportunity, if Corbyn is pushed, will only make more myths and martyrs. Of course, Corbyn may step down; but then the Labour Party will face a fantastically difficult but not impossible job of explaining its volte-face in the face of charges of opportunism and incoherence.

Perhaps, the best case scenario is that Corbyn makes it to the election all while generating some interesting policy ideas (e.g. the FT, of all news outlets, has applauded Corbyn for some of his initial thinking on public investment). Even if the rest of his platform is unpalatable, those ideas partly tie the hands of Labour successors and force them to cooperate -rather than seek counter-revolution.

You still have said how he has disrespected our armed forces. Was it the angle of his head that upset you?

 

I agree about Labour's actions between 1997 and 2010 which the Conservatives backed. At least Corbyn seems to be one of our few politicians that shows some sort of respect for the value of our armed forces lives and was against it.

Well nobody asked me.

I disagree with reading an anti-war poem at a Rememberance Day celebration - it's not a time for him to grandstand his beliefs, its a time to morun and celebrate the dead who died ion wars, protecting and fighting for us.

Well nobody asked me.

 

I disagree with reading an anti-war poem at a Rememberance Day celebration - it's not a time for him to grandstand his beliefs, its a time to morun and celebrate the dead who died ion wars, protecting and fighting for us.

You disagree with him reading these beautiful words by a soldier of WW1 at a remembrance event? Have you even ever read the poem? You must put a lot of effort into being offended.

Move him into the sun -

Gently its touch awoke him once,

At home, whispering of fields unsown.

Always it woke him, even in France,

Until this morning and this snow.

If anything might rouse him now

The kind old sun will know.

Think how it wakes the seeds, -

Woke, once, the clays of a cold star.

Are limbs, so dear-achieved, are sides,

Full-nerved - still warm - too hard to stir?

Was it for this the clay grew tall?

- O what made fatuous sunbeams toil

To break earth's sleep at all?

Well nobody asked me.

 

I disagree with reading an anti-war poem at a Rememberance Day celebration - it's not a time for him to grandstand his beliefs, its a time to morun and celebrate the dead who died ion wars, protecting and fighting for us.

A poem written by a soldier serving at the front in World War One, who was awarded the Military Cross, and who died in action in the last month of the war.

Well nobody asked me.

 

I disagree with reading an anti-war poem at a Rememberance Day celebration - it's not a time for him to grandstand his beliefs, its a time to morun and celebrate the dead who died ion wars, protecting and fighting for us.

Celebrate the dead?

Who feeds you this **** Jeff - next you'll be claiming he was spitting on the graves of the dead. If you think reading Wilfred Owen's futility -a restrained, plaintive, naturalistic poem- is grandstanding, then generations of school children in this country have obviously been brainwashed.

Dare I say it, children younger than you have had no moral or intellectual difficulty of reconciling respect for the dead with a sense that war is often futile.

That may well be the case - but should there be a change in leadership before the next election, I can't see the transition being smooth or painless.

 

The only way new support is going to appreciate the constraints and realities of practical politics, IMO, is at the ballot box; to forego that opportunity, if Corbyn is pushed, will only make more myths and martyrs. Of course, Corbyn may step down; but then the Labour Party will face a fantastically difficult but not impossible job of explaining its volte-face in the face of charges of opportunism and incoherence.

 

Perhaps, the best case scenario is that Corbyn makes it to the election all while generating some interesting policy ideas (e.g. the FT, of all news outlets, has applauded Corbyn for some of his initial thinking on public investment). Even if the rest of his platform is unpalatable, those ideas partly tie the hands of Labour successors and force them to cooperate -rather than seek counter-revolution.

Being a broad church is no bad thing. People know the Labour party is split just as the Tories are over Europe and immigration (big business want it, rank and file dont). The Conservatives will change their leader at some point before the election. If Labour did the same it wouldnt be disastrous as long, as you imply, Corbyn wasnt seen to be stabbed in the back.

Celebrate the dead?

 

Who feeds you this **** Jeff - next you'll be claiming he was spitting on the graves of the dead. If you think reading Wilfred Owen's futility -a restrained, plaintive, naturalistic poem- is grandstanding, then generations of school children in this country have obviously been brainwashed.

 

Dare I say it, children younger than you have had no moral or intellectual difficulty of reconciling respect for the dead with a sense that war is often futile.

It's a lovely poem, I agree, but HE only read it because it was anti-war. It was a massive **** you to everyone who attended.

Couple that with the fact that he didn't bow low enough...disgraceful behaviour from a 'leader'.

I really do love how easily people become riled in defence of Corbyn! It makes winding people up on here soooo damn easy.

Trolling or back pedalling? Either way makes you look a ****.

It's a lovely poem, I agree, but HE only read it because it was anti-war. It was a massive **** you to everyone who attended.

 

Couple that with the fact that he didn't bow low enough...disgraceful behaviour from a 'leader'.

Rinse and repeat. Act like a tw at, get banned / assume new identity, claim bullying. How many forums and identities you going to go through?

Rinse and repeat. Act like a tw at, get banned / assume new identity, claim bullying. How many forums and identities you going to go through?

Oh go on then Tim, I'll reply to you just this once. I didn't realise you were replying to me above (I've had you on ignore since last year 'lying' incident).

In relation to the above, I said on Page 18 how the Tory press are wrong in the way they are treating Corbyn, in fact you've replied to that, yet you still defend him against me? Why would you be stupid enough to get embroiled in that? I know you love my attention, and it's something you crave from me, but why argue when you know I'm winding you up?? That's just plain weird.

In relation to my identities, how many have I had? I'd be interested to know, as you seem to think that I have been banned multiple times? If you can name more than 2 on this site, I'd be amazed.

Go on Tim, fill yer boots.

 

Couple that with the fact that he didn't bow low enough...disgraceful behaviour from a 'leader'.

Apparently he bowed as far as the Queen - was that disgraceful behaviour from a Monarch ?

Apparently he bowed as far as the Queen - was that disgraceful behaviour from a Monarch ?

Maybe he did that because he didn't want her to be criticised, he is a royalist after all.

 

Go on Tim, fill yer boots.

I don't need to. You've done it for me.

I don't need to. You've done it for me.

Wow, cryptic...

It's a lovely poem, I agree, but HE only read it because it was anti-war. It was a massive **** you to everyone who attended.

 

Couple that with the fact that he didn't bow low enough...disgraceful behaviour from a 'leader'.

You would rather he read some "pro-war", jingoistic verse by Rupert Brooke — the sort of patriotic nonsense that the establishment (and the public) applauded in the early days of WWI — when everyone was gung-ho about the conflict?

By the end of the war, most of the combatants realised that the whole effort was a futile and criminal enterprise. The almost-universal refrain at the end of that war was "Never again!" The poems that matter, then, from WWI are those from the likes of of Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon, Edmund Blunden, Isaac Rosenberg, Rupert Graves, and Edward Thomas. Poems that remind us (on Remembrance Day) about the reality of war — and about its futility. They are needed to counter the stirring, patriotic sentiments that are often full of empty rhetoric and delusion.

But there are still reactionaries who want to justify — even glorify — the futile sacrifice of such warfare. This was clearly evident in the lead up to the WWI centenary, when revisionists talked about the need — back then — to protect the homeland, and to struggle for freedom against the demonic Hun.

The need for an "anti-war" element in any Remembrance Day ceremony is clear: our children must know about the reality of war; and our leaders (political and military) must know that they are accountable — and must not sacrifice our young people on behalf of a lie.

And the anti-war message, of course, is not an insult to "everyone who attended". You'll find that many agree with the notion that one can both honour our war-dead AND decry the obscenity of organised warfare. That includes many veterans.

... If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace

Behind the wagon that we flung him in,

And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,

His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood

Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,

Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud

Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est

Pro patria mori.

— Wilfred Owen

Brilliant post Hamilton Saint!

You would rather he read some "pro-war", jingoistic verse by Rupert Brooke — the sort of patriotic nonsense that the establishment (and the public) applauded in the early days of WWI — when everyone was gung-ho about the conflict?

 

By the end of the war, most of the combatants realised that the whole effort was a futile and criminal enterprise. The almost-universal refrain at the end of that war was "Never again!" The poems that matter, then, from WWI are those from the likes of of Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon, Edmund Blunden, Isaac Rosenberg, Rupert Graves, and Edward Thomas. Poems that remind us (on Remembrance Day) about the reality of war — and about its futility. They are needed to counter the stirring, patriotic sentiments that are often full of empty rhetoric and delusion.

 

But there are still reactionaries who want to justify — even glorify — the futile sacrifice of such warfare. This was clearly evident in the lead up to the WWI centenary, when revisionists talked about the need — back then — to protect the homeland, and to struggle for freedom against the demonic Hun.

 

The need for an "anti-war" element in any Remembrance Day ceremony is clear: our children must know about the reality of war; and our leaders (political and military) must know that they are accountable — and must not sacrifice our young people on behalf of a lie.

 

And the anti-war message, of course, is not an insult to "everyone who attended". You'll find that many agree with the notion that one can both honour our war-dead AND decry the obscenity of organised warfare. That includes many veterans.

 

 

... If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace

Behind the wagon that we flung him in,

And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,

His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood

Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,

Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud

Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est

Pro patria mori.

 

— Wilfred Owen

Excellent post, but I was winding him up.

Excellent post, but I was winding him up.

I don't think so. That's not the way I read all of your comments in the same vein.