Then the morning after the vote he said article 50 should be triggered immediately, then he whipped the party to vote for article 50 to be triggered without getting any amendments. The thing with Corbyn and the EU is that he just doesn't really care.
He's never hidden his position, which as I understand it is exactly as you outline, and, ironically, his principled and nuanced positions (he isn't just black & white generally and advocates what he believes in) are exactly what has him seen as unelectable by lots of people who probably agree with a much of what he says and complain about lying un-principled politicians. You know, "he wears cords so he must be crap...if only he was a power dressing dis-ingenuous bastard" sort of arguments
Money doesn't disappear, but the debt does grow.
He has principles. But if you don't like them, he has others.
The biggest problem with the deficit is that you like voting in parties that offer lower taxes then theres no money coming in,.i pay around double the tax in nl then I would for the same salary in the uk. So you keep your shitty infrastructure and crap services but hey, you can afford an extra pint a week.
He didn't push through article 50, it was passing through regardless if Labour’s position. My point is that if he was supposedly campaigning to remain because the Tories would do terrible things with their Brexit deal, it doesn't make a great deal of sense that he'd happily vote for it to go through without a single amendment, no commitments to the single market or workers rights, nothing for EU citizens with residency, nothing.
He's asked if being gay is a sin. Not if homosexual sex is a sin.
What's his take on rimming?
Not sure he's ever been asked. You got any political journalist friends who are leaving their job in the near future?
Personally I just don't like having party leaders who can't give a binary answer to whether homosexual sex is okay or not. I think it legitimises homophobic attitudes.
Sounds like you are in a similar position to us. Thats exactly what management have said here.
I do personally think it is compatible with liberal thinking. I just don't judge politicians in a liberal manner. Every vote for his party is seen as justification for everything about him. I just want him to lie and say it's fine, so a few million people aren't voting for a man with a deliberately ambiguous position on homosexuality.
This is pretty much his argument. 'I'm a sinner, you're a sinner, so what does it matter if I think practising homosexuality is a sin' is basically how he's stated it previously.
I'd say so. I just find that less likely.
I certainly agree with that. It just doesn't stop it being preferable, in my view, to saying homosexual sex is okay.
It is strange given the hullabaloo of Brexit and the nashing of teeth that followed the result, that people would still rather vote for the party that made it possible and who refuse to slow down as we approach this apocalyptic chaos, than choose an alternative party that pethaps doesn't want to starve poor children.
