Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

It has always been the case that you had to be a member for a period of time to vote to pick your local MP candidate or local councillors and it would seem logical that the same reasoning would apply to a voting for the leader - the strange thing was allowing people in the previous election to join up and vote straight away - I honestly don'y recall much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the years regarding the selection process that had always been in place.

Corbyn will win - the party will split then momentum can put whatever new selection process in place they want - presumably across the board for all levels of representation... I await with much anticipation to see how many Burgon clones they can find to stand for power because at least when you have people that incompetent put in front of microphones you are guaranteed a but of light entertainment.

Its easy to pick a thread of logic out of any situation to try and indirectly argue against a point. What you've said is logical but its also not what people are up in arms about. No one would have cared if it was decided months ago its the fact it was done for political purpose and after their campaigns to get people to join up and vote.

The argument that the right of the party can offer better leadership is laughable when they can't see that through such obvious scheming and constant bullshit they're just burying the valid criticisms. If 80% of what you see is agenda driven crap no one is going to believe the other 20%

Thats politicians for you i guess.
 
explain that to me - what rights are different
There are loads. If the agency calls and says you've got a 02:00am start for a driving job and gives you the address, you might find when you get there that they didn't actually want a driver, they wanted someone for the warehouse with maybe a couple of hours driving per week. They say "We told the agency what we wanted. They're always doing this. I can understand if you want to go home". This is exactly what happened to me a while back. I had already done about 30 mins before I asked when I should start loading. I went home, called the agency later that morning. They apologised. That's it. No money.

That afternoon they called to say I had a 06:00 start at another company for the following day. I arrived and sat around until 09:30 when they said there had been a mix up. They had asked for 3 drivers, the agency had sent 3 drivers (including me), but 4 drivers had turned up. One EU guy had turned up, having worked the previous day, and been sent on a delivery run, even though the agency hadn't sent him. Again, home I went with no money.

Another day I was delivering for IKEA. 06:00 start. My driver's mate called at the end of our 2nd run to say we were heading back to the (Bristol) depot from rural Oxfordshire and would be back at about 19:20 (according to my satnav). Someone in the office said one of their lorries was having a bad day and we were to rendezvous with them in Oxford and take 4 deliveries off them and deliver them on our way back. They were big deliveries. By the time we'd unloaded the flatpacks from the lorry onto our van and made the deliveries it was 23:20 when we made it back. That's a 17:20 working day with a 30 minute break. When I got my pay it showed as a flat daily rate of £90. When I complained that it was effectively under minimum wage they eventually gave me an extra £50.

Also, you never know if or when or where you'll be working. Yeah, quite a bit different to a normal job.
 
Its easy to pick a thread of logic out of any situation to try and indirectly argue against a point. What you've said is logical but its also not what people are up in arms about. No one would have cared if it was decided months ago its the fact it was done for political purpose and after their campaigns to get people to join up and vote.

The argument that the right of the party can offer better leadership is laughable when they can't see that through such obvious scheming and constant bullshit they're just burying the valid criticisms. If 80% of what you see is agenda driven crap no one is going to believe the other 20%

Thats politicians for you i guess.

Yep, pretty much spot on. People who are defending this are ignoring the central reason why people are annoyed; the fact that it's been done for the sole reason of who's leading the race. This just wouldn't have happened if the new members were signing up for Smith. Showing such contempt to new members is embarrassing.

And the second part is correct too. Smith's a wet blanket who lacks any form of charisma and is leading an unsuccessful coup - if he's the best to offer then quite frankly he won't do much better in 2020 than Corbyn against a PM who seems to be snapping up the centre vote quite well.
 
There are loads. If the agency calls and says you've got a 02:00am start for a driving job and gives you the address, you might find when you get there that they didn't actually want a driver, they wanted someone for the warehouse with maybe a couple of hours driving per week. They say "We told the agency what we wanted. They're always doing this. I can understand if you want to go home". This is exactly what happened to me a while back. I had already done about 30 mins before I asked when I should start loading. I went home, called the agency later that morning. They apologised. That's it. No money.

That afternoon they called to say I had a 06:00 start at another company for the following day. I arrived and sat around until 09:30 when they said there had been a mix up. They had asked for 3 drivers, the agency had sent 3 drivers (including me), but 4 drivers had turned up. One EU guy had turned up, having worked the previous day, and been sent on a delivery run, even though the agency hadn't sent him. Again, home I went with no money.

Another day I was delivering for IKEA. 06:00 start. My driver's mate called at the end of our 2nd run to say we were heading back to the (Bristol) depot from rural Oxfordshire and would be back at about 19:20 (according to my satnav). Someone in the office said one of their lorries was having a bad day and we were to rendezvous with them in Oxford and take 4 deliveries off them and deliver them on our way back. They were big deliveries. By the time we'd unloaded the flatpacks from the lorry onto our van and made the deliveries it was 23:20 when we made it back. That's a 17:20 working day with a 30 minute break. When I got my pay it showed as a flat daily rate of £90. When I complained that it was effectively under minimum wage they eventually gave me an extra £50.

Also, you never know if or when or where you'll be working. Yeah, quite a bit different to a normal job.
Yes... but that's not workers rights
You know safety in the workplace minimum wage etc (which you say applies to you hence you get the same rights as non zero hours contracted staff)
I actually use zero hours contracts for some of our subcontractors as their company can't afford the insurance premiums for them on certain sites... or the legalities of a contract only allow 2 or 3 sub contract tiers ... good tool for those circumstances but their actual rights are no different to directly employed full time labour (and I typically have to pay around 50% more than I pay my direct staff)

Workers rights and contract specifics are very different things... I agree the contracts can be mis-used but it is their mis-use rather than their existence that is the issue imo
 
What did Owen Smith learn from his years of lobbying for Pfizer and Amgen? Medicines should be cheaper.

I've officially changed my opinion on this election. We can't possibly keep a mind as sharp as his away from the Labour leadership even one day longer.
 
I eagerly await the "FURY AS SMITH WANTS TO NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS" headlines from Sun, Mail, et al.
 
Don't even know if I can be bothered voting at this point.
 
Though JESUS CHRIST how's this for spin

 
Though JESUS CHRIST how's this for spin



Haven't actually seen Smith's comments but his camps explanation of his comments are exactly the same as Corbyn's camp has just said Corbyn's posistion is. It's just bizarre constantly trying to paint himself as different to Corbyn by being exactly the same as him.

Massive own goal for Smith.
 
I'm amazed the 'debate' even got going after Owen had said "Good morning" to those in attendannce. At least without him spending the next 10 minutes clarifying that he also hoped they had a good afternoon, evening and night and that, despite his comment using a singular term, he hoped their 'good morning' would not be a one off event. Plus 'good' is a subjective term, so a good morning could possibly be different for each audience member and as such that wish should be taken on a case by case basis.
 

I fully agree, it's a disqualifying remark for me. Just also shameless from Corbyn's camp, given he's said on TV before that they could be negotiated with.
 
I fully agree, it's a disqualifying remark for me. Just also shameless from Corbyn's camp, given he's said on TV before that they could be negotiated with.

Yes the fact Corbyn's camp are bold enough to use it is pretty :lol:
 
I don't think Corbyn talked about sitting down in the negotiating table with ISIS, he was talking about diplomatic back channels which is a completely different thing really and is probably already happening, because why not?
 
Smith showing again how hopeless he is. Said it before...the man is genuinely every bit as incompetent and incapable of being a major political leader as Corbyn is. Comments like his ISIS ones, even if they've been spun since then, further demonstrate that.

Yeah, Corbyn's camp have probably spun it. But that's just preparation for the tearing apart he'd get by the Tories if he was actually Labour leader. Comments like that would be brought up all the way to 2020. If Labour can't present anyone remotely credible to oppose Corbyn then they should just get behind him. Otherwise, they are the ones who're splitting the party and causing division, if they weren't already.
 
You can stick a fork in the Labour party now, it's done.
 
Fecks sake. How hard was it to get a sensible, intelligent, competent challenger?

The people who he is challenging on behalf of have not been acting sensibly, intelligently or competently for a year now, what did you expect? This is why I wanted people to get behind Corbyn. They've torn the party in half on the basis of competency and they have none to offer. Now they will say "look what happened" and blame it on the left.
 
The people who he is challenging on behalf of have not been acting sensibly, intelligently or competently for a year now, what did you expect? This is why I wanted people to get behind Corbyn. They've torn the party in half on the basis of competency and they have none to offer. Now they will say "look what happened" and blame it on the left.

Yeah, it's a bit embarrassing at this stage. The basis of the coup was largely supposed to be incompetent and unelectable...and those behind the coup have responded by presenting a candidate who is perhaps even more incompetent and not showing any signs he'd make the party electable.

If the Labour moderates don't want Corbyn in charge then they have to give a credible candidate. If they refuse to do and don't back him, their claims that Corbyn's destroying the party ring hollow because it's them who are doing it by openly defying their leader whilst presenting no viable alternative to what he's doing.
 
What part of the NATO principle of "collective defence" - where an attack on one member is considered an attack on all members -does Corbyn not get?!

Corbyn replied to the question of a NATO country being attacked by Russia, saying: "I would want to avoid us getting involved militarily by building up the diplomatic relationships and also trying to not isolate any country in Europe to bring them up."

Pushed on whether he would become involved if he had to, he said: "I don't wish to go to war. What I want to do is achieve a world where we don't need to go to war, where there is no need for it. That can be done."

The man is a liability. Heaven help us if WE are attacked and our NATO allies have the same pathetic airy fairy attitude he has to our responsibilities.
 
The man is a liability. Heaven help us if WE are attacked and our NATO allies have the same pathetic airy fairy attitude he has to our responsibilities.

Don't worry.... if anybody attacks us prime minister Corbyn can retaliate with our nukes... oh wait he has already cnuted up the principal of a nuclear deterant by saying he won't use it (but let's still pay for the subs and stick conventional weapons on them)
 
Don't worry.... if anybody attacks us prime minister Corbyn can retaliate with our nukes... oh wait he has already cnuted up the principal of a nuclear deterant by saying he won't use it (but let's still pay for the subs and stick conventional weapons on them)

Thank goodness he still has the ability to write a stiff warning letter and wag his finger! The man is a pillock.
 
Thank goodness he still has the ability to write a stiff warning letter and wag his finger! The man is a pillock.
LOL

I have this feeling that you are trying to deflect attention away from the worst pm we had in years, yes im talking about the man that led the uk out of the eu.
 
I want to live in a world where we dont have to go to war too.

Is that so wrong?

So do I Stan! BUT if we are threatened or worse still attacked we have to stand up for ourselves. Hence the point of NATO. Comrade Corbyn will stand up for us and protect us by writing a very very angry letter. Sorry mate. Not enough.

As for Cameron...he didn't have to give us a vote but chose to. Not his best decision BUT you can't blame him for those muppets that voted to leave the EU.
 
So do I Stan! BUT if we are threatened or worse still attacked we have to stand up for ourselves. Hence the point of NATO. Comrade Corbyn will stand up for us and protect us by writing a very very angry letter. Sorry mate. Not enough.

As for Cameron...he didn't have to give us a vote but chose to. Not his best decision BUT you can't blame him for those muppets that voted to leave the EU.

I think you're just confused when a Labour leader doesnt as a matter of fact use tough words to try and win votes on security.

No where did Corbyn or has Corbyn said he'd never use force. His first focus is on diplomacy and sees war as a very last resort, do you really think it should be the other way round?

Sure id wish he'd make his message somewhat more palatable to the public but its preferable to continued intervention in unnecessary wars.
 
I want to live in a world where we dont have to go to war too.

Is that so wrong?
I suppose the main trouble is it sounds like it comes from a Miss America speech. "I want to end war, end poverty, and for everyone to be kind to one another". Okay Jeremy, and what are you doing for your talent?
 
I suppose the main trouble is it sounds like it comes from a Miss America speech. "I want to end war, end poverty, and for everyone to be kind to one another". Okay Jeremy, and what are you doing for your talent?

Is that his actual quote? Because if you paraphrase something to sound like your idea of a miss America speech then it's probably going to sound like one.
 
So do I Stan! BUT if we are threatened or worse still attacked we have to stand up for ourselves. Hence the point of NATO. Comrade Corbyn will stand up for us and protect us by writing a very very angry letter. Sorry mate. Not enough.

As for Cameron...he didn't have to give us a vote but chose to. Not his best decision BUT you can't blame him for those muppets that voted to leave the EU.

Yes you can, totally

Talk of nuclear weapons, have I woken up in the 80's? Is thatch still noshing Reagan

You may not have read the news for 35 years but we are actually being attacked n the streets these days mate, in cities with convential weapons, that's where we're at.
 
I think you're just confused when a Labour leader doesnt as a matter of fact use tough words to try and win votes on security.

No where did Corbyn or has Corbyn said he'd never use force. His first focus is on diplomacy and sees war as a very last resort, do you really think it should be the other way round?

Sure id wish he'd make his message somewhat more palatable to the public but its preferable to continued intervention in unnecessary wars.

He's said our Nuclear subs would patrol the world without their nuclear warheads which seems more than a little stupid. Sorry but we need a strong leader and it's clear he's not.