All things Labour Party

Probably. But Corbyn continues his speciality line in grumpy open-goal scoring. He forgets - did he ever know or care? - that the roots of the Labour party are substantially in the Christian socialist movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Outside of London - for Corbyn is as much a produce of the hermetic London elite as any of the 'Tory-lites' in his party - the free-chapel preachers (included among the 'ragged trousered philanthropists' of Robert Tressell's famous novel) in working class towns and cities were a critical in laying the foundations of popular support for Labour among working-class voters.

 

Besides, the refusal to issue a Christmas message makes Corbyn the prototypical Sad Old Git - hopelessly confusing a festive holiday enjoyed by atheists and other religionists alike with some kind of ritual of fundamental religiosity. It is not the latter, and never has been.

 

What an utter miserablist Corbyn is. Again.

Do you have a day off at all?

Do you have a day off at all?

If I've offended in some way you my job is done. And to all except the doe-eyed dimwits swooning over Corbyn, Happy Christmas!

I see Corbyn's bessie and comrade in Stop the War arms, Tariq Ali, has taken to insulting Kurds because of their support for action against ISIS. He's called them "stage Kurds" - witless stooges of the West, in other words.

 

Here's an excellent response from the Kurds' regional representative in London, basically telling Ali to go **** himself.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/12/we-need-talk-about-kurdistan

I'd feel bad for their stupidity if it wasn't very very offensive. Good god.

If I've offended in some way you my job is done. And to all except the doe-eyed dimwits swooning over Corbyn, Happy Christmas!

Hi Verbs, Im not sure if it would be possible for you to offend me. Feel free to have a go if it floats your boat. Why you think that is a job well done? Well, you crack on if it makes you feel like a big red beast of sexy joy.

As for 'doe-eyed dimwits swooning over Corbyn'? Barking up the wrong tree there Mouthy.

They're all c*nts.

And Merry Xmas.

More fodder for the doe-eyed dimwits...

Robert Harris has a nice line on the 'revenge reshuffle' presently underway:

The very definition of futility: a shadow cabinet "reshuffle" of people doing imaginary jobs in a future government that will never exist.

Dear Jeremy

Please, please, please make Diane Abbott Shadow Foreign Secretary.

So, Corbyn wants to reshuffle and get rid of shadow cabinet members who don't agree with him - how very Thatcherite! But then he backs down as he hasn't got the backbone to see it through. Lose, lose all round. Well done Jezza!

Dear Jeremy

 

Please, please, please make Diane Abbott Shadow Foreign Secretary.

I'm at the point where I'm with you on that. Good god.

Probably. But Corbyn continues his speciality line in grumpy open-goal scoring. He forgets - did he ever know or care? - that the roots of the Labour party are substantially in the Christian socialist movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Outside of London - for Corbyn is as much a produce of the hermetic London elite as any of the 'Tory-lites' in his party - the free-chapel preachers (included among the 'ragged trousered philanthropists' of Robert Tressell's famous novel) in working class towns and cities were a critical in laying the foundations of popular support for Labour among working-class voters.

 

Besides, the refusal to issue a Christmas message makes Corbyn the prototypical Sad Old Git - hopelessly confusing a festive holiday enjoyed by atheists and other religionists alike with some kind of ritual of fundamental religiosity. It is not the latter, and never has been.

 

What an utter miserablist Corbyn is. Again.

Sorry for the late response but I have just picked this up. Verbal, you are in danger of becoming another Hypo! I have not confused anything. I know full well that the "festive season" is enjoyed by many as an excuse for a party. That is why I made the point that those who celebrate the birth of the son of God are Christians (Hypos definition of a Christian is someone that follows Christ). There is clearly a difference between those who celebrate the birth of the saviour and those who don't give a toss but enjoy everything else that goes with it. That is why I mentioned about adopting the American practice of using the phrase "Happy Holidays" instead of "Happy Christmas" (although you watch all the people who don't "follow Christ" suddenly kick off if their right to say Happy Christmas is called into question!). As for "ritual fundamental religiosity" I went to the local church Nativity at Christmas and although you say it has nothing to do with the festive season, the Canon who gave the service seemed to disagree big time. I appreciate that it ties in with Paganism but as wilkipedia says "Christmas (meaning Christ's Mass) is am annual festival commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ, observed most commonly on 25th December as a religious and cultural celebration amongst billions of people around the world. A feast central to the Christian liturgical year, it is prepared for by the season of advent or the Nativity Fast and initiates the season of Christmastide which historically in the west lasts 12 days."

Sorry for the late response but I have just picked this up. Verbal, you are in danger of becoming another Hypo! I have not confused anything. I know full well that the "festive season" is enjoyed by many as an excuse for a party. That is why I made the point that those who celebrate the birth of the son of God are Christians (Hypos definition of a Christian is someone that follows Christ). There is clearly a difference between those who celebrate the birth of the saviour and those who don't give a toss but enjoy everything else that goes with it. That is why I mentioned about adopting the American practice of using the phrase "Happy Holidays" instead of "Happy Christmas" (although you watch all the people who don't "follow Christ" suddenly kick off if their right to say Happy Christmas is called into question!). As for "ritual fundamental religiosity" I went to the local church Nativity at Christmas and although you say it has nothing to do with the festive season, the Canon who gave the service seemed to disagree big time. I appreciate that it ties in with Paganism but as wilkipedia says "Christmas (meaning Christ's Mass) is am annual festival commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ, observed most commonly on 25th December as a religious and cultural celebration amongst billions of people around the world. A feast central to the Christian liturgical year, it is prepared for by the season of advent or the Nativity Fast and initiates the season of Christmastide which historically in the west lasts 12 days."

I'm not going to reopen this debate SOG, except to say I've gone through every one of these sentences and tried but failed to understand how you could mangle things so badly.. I'll leave it at that.

Dear Jeremy

 

Please, please, please make Diane Abbott Shadow Foreign Secretary.

Or please, please, please show you can make ANY decision, even if it's a stupid one.

wilkipedia says "Christmas (meaning Christ's Mass) is am annual festival commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ, observed most commonly on 25th December as a religious and cultural celebration amongst billions of people around the world.

There's little point quoting definitions these days. The dictionary definition of Boxing Day is "the first weekday after Christmas day" but most people conveniently ignore that...

Sorry for the late response but I have just picked this up. Verbal, you are in danger of becoming another Hypo! I have not confused anything. I know full well that the "festive season" is enjoyed by many as an excuse for a party. That is why I made the point that those who celebrate the birth of the son of God are Christians (Hypos definition of a Christian is someone that follows Christ). There is clearly a difference between those who celebrate the birth of the saviour and those who don't give a toss but enjoy everything else that goes with it. That is why I mentioned about adopting the American practice of using the phrase "Happy Holidays" instead of "Happy Christmas" (although you watch all the people who don't "follow Christ" suddenly kick off if their right to say Happy Christmas is called into question!). As for "ritual fundamental religiosity" I went to the local church Nativity at Christmas and although you say it has nothing to do with the festive season, the Canon who gave the service seemed to disagree big time. I appreciate that it ties in with Paganism but as wilkipedia says "Christmas (meaning Christ's Mass) is am annual festival commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ, observed most commonly on 25th December as a religious and cultural celebration amongst billions of people around the world. A feast central to the Christian liturgical year, it is prepared for by the season of advent or the Nativity Fast and initiates the season of Christmastide which historically in the west lasts 12 days."

Hold on a second, how do you know my definition of a Christian? You supposedly had me on ignore when I wrote that. Strange. Anyway my definition is pretty much a standard one, I've just checked an online definition and it's very similar to what I wrote initially. Once again you show a woeful lack of understanding regarding faith. Being a Christian in the vast majority of people's eyes is a fair bit more than simply celebrating the birth of Jesus once a year. I could call myself a Muslim and decide to fast once a year but it doesn't automatically make it so. So as normal you seem very confused again.

Also not sure what any of that has to do with what verbal wrote, but then you do like to shoot off on a tangent every so often.

Hold on a second, how do you know my definition of a Christian? You supposedly had me on ignore when I wrote that. Strange. Anyway my definition is pretty much a standard one, I've just checked an online definition and it's very similar to what I wrote initially. Once again you show a woeful lack of understanding regarding faith. Being a Christian in the vast majority of people's eyes is a fair bit more than simply celebrating the birth of Jesus once a year. I could call myself a Muslim and decide to fast once a year but it doesn't automatically make it so. So as normal you seem very confused again.

 

Also not sure what any of that has to do with what verbal wrote, but then you do like to shoot off on a tangent every so often.

So can we get this straight, Is Katie Hopkins a Christian or a Muslim?

Nice overspill of thread btw

So can we get this straight, Is Katie Hopkins a Christian or a Muslim?

 

Nice overspill of thread btw

Can we agree that she is a b*tch?

I'm not going to reopen this debate SOG, except to say I've gone through every one of these sentences and tried but failed to understand how you could mangle things so badly.. I'll leave it at that.

Fair enough Verbal

Can we agree that she is a b*tch?

Are you claiming all Katie' s are *****es? I work with a Katie who is lovely. Although there is another one who is a bit lazy. Come to think of it neither have denounced Katie Hopkins. Hmmm.

Fair enough Verbal

Hallelujah. You're learning.

Are you claiming all Katie' s are *****es? I work with a Katie who is lovely. Although there is another one who is a bit lazy. Come to think of it neither have denounced Katie Hopkins. Hmmm.

Not at all. I also know a lot of Katies who are lovely. It is just this one I have a problem with.

So that was just about the most incompetent, petty, small-minded, and above all irrelevant "revenge reshuffle" imaginable. It may be fodder to the doe-eyed dimwits who hang on Corbyn's every banal utterance but I wonder whether anyone at all in his cabal has stopped to consider how this plays among an electorate they actually do have to persuade to vote for them.

McFadden's sacking is the most cretinous of all. How thin-skinned to you have to be to dump on him for implying Stop the War's drumbeat anti-Westernism "infantilises" terrorists? Stop the War is not, thank the lord, the Labour party.

Hopeless.

So that was just about the most incompetent, petty, small-minded, and above all irrelevant "revenge reshuffle" imaginable. It may be fodder to the doe-eyed dimwits who hang on Corbyn's every banal utterance but I wonder whether anyone at all in his cabal has stopped to consider how this plays among an electorate they actually do have to persuade to vote for them.

 

McFadden's sacking is the most cretinous of all. How thin-skinned to you have to be to dump on him for implying Stop the War's drumbeat anti-Westernism "infantilises" terrorists? Stop the War is not, thank the lord, the Labour party.

 

Hopeless.

Unfortunately, at the moment, under Corbyn, Stop the War is the Labour Party.

They are dying on their arses. If Corbyn stays until the next election, the party could be pretty much finished. But then, the Party has been taken over by perennial whingers (Corbyn, Abbott, Livingstone and Corbyn's mate who lokes the IRA) who don't want the responsibility of Government anyway.

Hold on a second, how do you know my definition of a Christian? You supposedly had me on ignore when I wrote that. Strange. Anyway my definition is pretty much a standard one, I've just checked an online definition and it's very similar to what I wrote initially. Once again you show a woeful lack of understanding regarding faith. Being a Christian in the vast majority of people's eyes is a fair bit more than simply celebrating the birth of Jesus once a year. I could call myself a Muslim and decide to fast once a year but it doesn't automatically make it so. So as normal you seem very confused again.

 

Also not sure what any of that has to do with what verbal wrote, but then you do like to shoot off on a tangent every so often.

You made that definition a while back before I had you on ignore. Where did I ever say that being a Christian is just about celebrating the birth of Jesus once a year? What I did say is that if you do celebrate the birth of Christ (and there is a big difference between that and just having a p*ss up) then that is a pretty good indication that you are a Christian (following Christ etc). You are the one who seems to be confused mate. Also if you are not sure what it has to do with what Verbal wrote perhaps you need to go back and read it again and Verbals previous comments about Christmas etc.

ps Before you go off on one again about not being on ignore - I am responding to this because Whelk quoted it and not because I read the original.

You made that definition a while back before I had you on ignore. Where did I ever say that being a Christian is just about celebrating the birth of Jesus once a year? What I did say is that if you do celebrate the birth of Christ (and there is a big difference between that and just having a p*ss up) then that is a pretty good indication that you are a Christian (following Christ etc). You are the one who seems to be confused mate. Also if you are not sure what it has to do with what Verbal wrote perhaps you need to go back and read it again and Verbals previous comments about Christmas etc.

Wrong again. I made the definition after you proudly claimed you had me on ignore. You can go and check if you like. You claimed that Katie Hopkins was a Christian because she compared herself to christ and celebrated Christmas. Again you can go and check if you like as you tend to forget what you have said. The celebrate the birth of christ bit is something you have now added because you clearly realised the mistake you made. I would agree that celebrating the birth of christ is probably an indication that you have some Christian beliefs but doesn't in itself mean you are a Christian. As usual you are forgetting what you said and then claiming everyone else is confused about it. Most of what you wrote had no relevance to the topic in this thread but that's par for the course with you.

So that was just about the most incompetent, petty, small-minded, and above all irrelevant "revenge reshuffle" imaginable. It may be fodder to the doe-eyed dimwits who hang on Corbyn's every banal utterance but I wonder whether anyone at all in his cabal has stopped to consider how this plays among an electorate they actually do have to persuade to vote for them.

 

McFadden's sacking is the most cretinous of all. How thin-skinned to you have to be to dump on him for implying Stop the War's drumbeat anti-Westernism "infantilises" terrorists? Stop the War is not, thank the lord, the Labour party.

 

Hopeless.

Its like the January sales for the bitterites: you cant get everything you want - a Benn sacking was the little black dress you really had your heart set on; but having got to the shops, you're going to make sure you find something and there are bargains to be had (mcfadden, the po-faced but seriously effective jock isn't a bad consolation prize). Your baroque, insular obsession with the far left, as usual, cheapens a bigger point: that Labour has lost a capable operator on Europe at a time when the Tories are at sixes and sevens on the issue (though one wouldn't know it from your posts).

Its like the January sales for the bitterites: you cant get everything you want - a Benn sacking was the little black dress you really had your heart set on; but having got to the shops, you're going to make sure you find something and there are bargains to be had (mcfadden, the po-faced but seriously effective jock isn't a bad consolation prize). Your baroque, insular obsession with the far left, as usual, cheapens a bigger point: that Labour has lost a capable operator on Europe at a time when the Tories are at sixes and sevens on the issue (though one wouldn't know it from your posts).

Labour are a complete shambles. The country is in serious danger of losing an effective opposition. Absolute carnage today, one of the worst days politically I can ever remember for a single party, and what makes it worse is they started it with a reshuffle of their own calling. It could have been a day centred around a rejuvenated front bench and Corbyn taking Cameron to task over the floods

It is going to take Labour some time to shake off the shackles of the poor man's Tory party that Blair turned it into. The problem is that Cameron will get away with murder in the meantime.

Nice to see a positive media story about Corbyn! I do have a lot of sympathy for the bloke. Not only does he have to deal with a media that cant wait to exploit his latest faux pas, real or imaginary, but even the BBC, who are supposed Lefty Luvvies or whatever the phrase is now, have given him a hard time. It cant be easy having to accommodate all of the disgruntled Blairites either, who probably thought they could continue to make a career out of being a watered down Tory. What I find really interesting is the support he has at ground root level. An old school friend and I have just reunited through the powers of FB. I haven't seen or spoken to him since 1964 and had no idea of his politics before (and at 10 why should either of us ever spoken of politics?) but since Corbyn has become leader of Labour he has been like a dog with two d*cks. Corbyn, for all of his supposed faults and naivety, seems to have lit a flame under rank and file old school Labour supporters and Cameron will be a fool to underestimate what this could do to the Tory Party in future polls.

Nice to see a positive media story about Corbyn! I do have a lot of sympathy for the bloke. Not only does he have to deal with a media that cant wait to exploit his latest faux pas, real or imaginary, but even the BBC, who are supposed Lefty Luvvies or whatever the phrase is now, have given him a hard time. It cant be easy having to accommodate all of the disgruntled Blairites either, who probably thought they could continue to make a career out of being a watered down Tory. What I find really interesting is the support he has at ground root level. An old school friend and I have just reunited through the powers of FB. I haven't seen or spoken to him since 1964 and had no idea of his politics before (and at 10 why should either of us ever spoken of politics?) but since Corbyn has become leader of Labour he has been like a dog with two d*cks. Corbyn, for all of his supposed faults and naivety, seems to have lit a flame under rank and file old school Labour supporters and Cameron will be a fool to underestimate what this could do to the Tory Party in future polls.

He's the leader of a major (!) political party. His failings are supposed to be exposed. And if he's due a hard time, then he should get one. Same as any party leader. Just because you and your mate have a love in with him doesn't mean he's due any special treatment from the media at large.

He's the leader of a major (!) political party. His failings are supposed to be exposed. And if he's due a hard time, then he should get one. Same as any party leader. Just because you and your mate have a love in with him doesn't mean he's due any special treatment from the media at large.

I am not suggesting that he should get an easy ride, far from it. But it has been apparent that a lot of the flak from the media has not been justified.

I actually think that there has been a campaign to discredit him at every turn. I am not sure of the motivation for this and I can only assume it is because his ideas are considered dangerous by those who own and control our media. I watch Prime Minister's questions with disgust as Cameron toys with Corbyn. I would be tempted if I was Corbyn to use his questions and ask Cameron the time or ask him how his garden is doing. Cameron does not answer any questions put to him and takes the ****.

As noted in the other place

https://tompride.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/bbc-producer-deletes-blog-where-he-admits-political-manipulation-before-pm-questions/

As noted in the other place

 

https://tompride.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/bbc-producer-deletes-blog-where-he-admits-political-manipulation-before-pm-questions/

If 'whataboutery' wasn't frowned upon on here, I'd probably start posting links to articles highlighting where the media have briefed against all political parties and their leaders over the years to influence the news agenda

I actually think that there has been a campaign to discredit him at every turn. I am not sure of the motivation for this and I can only assume it is because his ideas are considered dangerous by those who own and control our media. I watch Prime Minister's questions with disgust as Cameron toys with Corbyn. I would be tempted if I was Corbyn to use his questions and ask Cameron the time or ask him how his garden is doing. Cameron does not answer any questions put to him and takes the ****.

I think you are right. For some time now Party politics have been almost indistinguishable from each other and so have the squeaky clean Party leaders. Corbyn doesn't fit the stereotype nor do his politics. It is no surprise to see the Murdoch backed media attack him at every turn as they want to keep his buddy in Downing Street. It is the manner of the attacks that I find unpleasant. Cut out the personal stuff and stick to the political stuff. Milliband was given the treatment too. Frankly I am pleased that there now seems to be some distance between the Tory and Labour Parties. For too long it was hard to tell them apart.

If 'whataboutery' wasn't frowned upon on here, I'd probably start posting links to articles highlighting where the media have briefed against all political parties and their leaders over the years to influence the news agenda

I watched BBC tv news for the first time in ages yesterday and was genuinely shocked by how partisan it was in a piece by Laura Kuesenburg about Corbyn's reshuffle. She was using words like 'farce', 'pantomime', 'disorganised' and 'lacking credibility'.

The reshuffle may or may not, depending on your politics, been any or all of those - but the supposedly independent BBC shouldn't be but broadcasting in that way about any political leader. When you think about previous holders of the Political Editor post - Michael Brunson, John Cole, Andrew Marr etc you realise how out of her depth she is.

I watched BBC tv news for the first time in ages yesterday and was genuinely shocked by how partisan it was in a piece by Laura Kuesenburg about Corbyn's reshuffle. She was using words like 'farce', 'pantomime', 'disorganised' and 'lacking credibility'.

 

The reshuffle may or may not, depending on your politics, been any or all of those - but the supposedly independent BBC shouldn't be but broadcasting in that way about any political leader. When you think about previous holders of the Political Editor post - Michael Brunson, John Cole, Andrew Marr etc you realise how out of her depth she is.

To be fair pretty much every news report on any subject uses hyperbole when describing the story. They cannot seem to report news without superfluous adjectives being used.

I watched BBC tv news for the first time in ages yesterday and was genuinely shocked by how partisan it was in a piece by Laura Kuesenburg about Corbyn's reshuffle. She was using words like 'farce', 'pantomime', 'disorganised' and 'lacking credibility'.

 

The reshuffle may or may not, depending on your politics, been any or all of those - but the supposedly independent BBC shouldn't be but broadcasting in that way about any political leader. When you think about previous holders of the Political Editor post - Michael Brunson, John Cole, Andrew Marr etc you realise how out of her depth she is.

Funny how the Corbynists unwittingly regurgitate their misogyny. Of course it has to be a woman who is 'out of her depth'. Of course all her more dependable comparators have to be men.

Besides, Laura Kuenssberg (this is the correct spelling, by the way) seems to have offered entirely balanced views on Corbyn's preposterous revenge reshuffle. Corbynists' views on how their hero and his cretinous clique should be covered amounts to an appeal for a British version of Pravda.

Funny how the Corbynists unwittingly regurgitate their misogyny. Of course it has to be a woman who is 'out of her depth'. Of course all her more dependable comparators have to be men.

 

Besides, Laura Kuenssberg (this is the correct spelling, by the way) seems to have offered entirely balanced views on Corbyn's preposterous revenge reshuffle. Corbynists' views on how their hero and his cretinous clique should be covered amounts to an appeal for a British version of Pravda.

Oh dear, your liberalism seems to have eaten itself. The world according to Verbal - Reports I agree with are entirely balanced. Reports I disagree with are preposterous, cretinous and Pravda like. I think I can see why your producing career bailed on you.

I am enjoying the cut of Verbal's jib on this thread.

Corbyn is an utter deluded c*nt, who is going to deliver us a generation of Tory rule - the thing he is supposed to be fighting against. He is making Labour as unelectable as it was under Foot, even worse than under Milliband or Kinnock.

He has put his own beliefs first and acted like a total hypocrite - the man who has voted against the party whip over 500 times in 30 years undertakes a Stalinist purge of his shadow cabinet.

I cant make my mind up if it is him that is the deluded c*nt, or is it getting so bad because he is being so badly advised by Abbot, Livingstone and Milne.

Corbyn will never ever win a general election

No you've got it all wrong. Corbyn's got the whole party army behind him. All 250,000 of them. He'll be fine.

I watched BBC tv news for the first time in ages yesterday and was genuinely shocked by how partisan it was in a piece by Laura Kuesenburg about Corbyn's reshuffle. She was using words like 'farce', 'pantomime', 'disorganised' and 'lacking credibility'.

 

The reshuffle may or may not, depending on your politics, been any or all of those - but the supposedly independent BBC shouldn't be but broadcasting in that way about any political leader. When you think about previous holders of the Political Editor post - Michael Brunson, John Cole, Andrew Marr etc you realise how out of her depth she is.

Head of BBC News is James Harding, Murdoch’s former editor and George Osborne's best friend, could this explain the BBC’s position with regard to the Govt and to it's current treatment of the opposition.

I just find the whole thing fasinating. Corbyn and his supporters appear to be in a complete world of their own, I guess these political types spend their whole lives surrounded by similar people and get carried away with their ideas. Then they get to a point where it becomes an internal struggle within the party and their own selfish agenda and desire for power outweighs what is in the best interests of the party. Just being in control of Labour is their victory, what happens at the general election or what it means for the rest of the country is irrelevant.

We need a new left of centre party, unions are an out dated concept anyway.

I just find the whole thing fasinating. Corbyn and his supporters appear to be in a complete world of their own, I guess these political types spend their whole lives surrounded by similar people and get carried away with their ideas. Then they get to a point where it becomes an internal struggle within the party and their own selfish agenda and desire for power outweighs what is in the best interests of the party. Just being in control of Labour is their victory, what happens at the general election or what it means for the rest of the country is irrelevant.

 

We need a new left of centre party, unions are an out dated concept anyway.

Couldn't agree more. They will insist it's all a big media conspiracy and the sheeple won't accept what is best for them when the inevitable happens and they lose the next election (if it gets that far.)

I just find the whole thing fasinating. Corbyn and his supporters appear to be in a complete world of their own, I guess these political types spend their whole lives surrounded by similar people and get carried away with their ideas. Then they get to a point where it becomes an internal struggle within the party and their own selfish agenda and desire for power outweighs what is in the best interests of the party. Just being in control of Labour is their victory, what happens at the general election or what it means for the rest of the country is irrelevant.

 

We need a new left of centre party, unions are an out dated concept anyway.

What would a left of centre party stand for?

Unions are outdated because a lot of what we consider work will be automated away (taxi drivers lorry drivers, bus drivers, shop workers, doctors pharmacists etc a lot of what hasn't been automated away will become part of the "gig" economy, something like zero hours contracts,a day here, a repair job there once the repair job is done then nothing until the next gig comes in. The question once this has happened which will be in 10 to 20 years is this....what kind of society will we have. How are people going to feed themselves?

Returning to Corbyn, I agree with him on so many things....railway nationalisation, power and water companies in public ownership. Trident replacement, who would we fire our 24 nuclear bombs at? Russia with its 2000 nuclear bombs, does having these deter the Russians or does having such a weapon make us more of a target of Russian attack?

Head of BBC News is James Harding, Murdoch’s former editor and George Osborne's best friend, could this explain the BBC’s position with regard to the Govt and to it's current treatment of the opposition.

Your innuendo that Harding at the BBC is somehow in Murdoch's pocket is nonsense. Harding was effectively fired by Murdoch for giving too much editorial space in The Times - a lot of it very negative to News Int - to the phone hacking scandal. As for being Osborne's 'friend', that must have been before Osborne's furious attack on Harding's BBC News for its coverage of the cuts.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/dec/08/james-harding-defends-bbc-coverage-cuts

More broadly, I do wish Corbynists would grow up. Their media conspiracies are the least of it. Their obsession with internal battles over things that actually matter is freakishly bizarre.

The best example was this last Monday. In the morning Corbyn gets everyone up early to wave placards against fare increases on the railways. A good and decent cause. In the afternoon, after much negative briefing by Suemas Milne, he begins his fantastically incompetent and nasty (and therefore highly newsworthy) "revenge reshuffle" - thereby blowing the train fares issue completely off the news agenda.

Self-defeating stupidity squared.

Your innuendo that Harding at the BBC is somehow in Murdoch's pocket is nonsense. Harding was effectively fired by Murdoch for giving too much editorial space in The Times - a lot of it very negative to News Int - to the phone hacking scandal. As for being Osborne's 'friend', that must have been before Osborne's furious attack on Harding's BBC News for its coverage of the cuts.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/dec/08/james-harding-defends-bbc-coverage-cuts

No-one mentioned being in Murdoch's pocket. The point, apparently lost on you, was that Harding has a history of working for right of centre publications. He is also on record as making the BBC newsroom more Israel friendly and has a decades long friendship with Osborne. Real friendships are not broken by one disagreement .

Couldn't agree more. They will insist it's all a big media conspiracy and the sheeple won't accept what is best for them when the inevitable happens and they lose the next election (if it gets that far.)

"Not long ago, if you wanted to seize political power in a country you had merely to control the army and the police. Today it is only in the most backward countries that fascist generals, in carrying out a coup d'état, still use tanks. If a country has reached a high degree of industrialization the whole scene changes. The day after the fall of Khrushchev, the editors of Pravda, Izvestiia, the heads of the radio and television were replaced; the army wasn't called out. Today a country belongs to the person who controls communications."

I watched BBC tv news for the first time in ages yesterday and was genuinely shocked by how partisan it was in a piece by Laura Kuesenburg about Corbyn's reshuffle. She was using words like 'farce', 'pantomime', 'disorganised' and 'lacking credibility'.

 

The reshuffle may or may not, depending on your politics, been any or all of those - but the supposedly independent BBC shouldn't be but broadcasting in that way about any political leader. When you think about previous holders of the Political Editor post - Michael Brunson, John Cole, Andrew Marr etc you realise how out of her depth she is.

John Cole or Andrew Marr would describe that utter effing shambles of a reshuffle in exactly that same way.

Corbyn, by some considerable distance is the most pathetic leader of a major political party in my lifetime. They say he has no credibility because he doesn't.

And let's not gloss over the fact that Seamus Milne has been asking Laura for advice on how to communicate Labour's message better. But yeah, it's her that's out of her depth.