You have to wonder why the BBC thought these to be the pertinent questions of the day, trident aside.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
That is certainly the type of front page story that would secure the tories a victory a week before the election. The country decides based upon such idiotic scare tactics branded by the trash.
Trident for me is an unwinnable issue, the party needs to move on to things it can win on and Corbyn needs to stop offering his personal opinions on the matter.
Trident for me is an unwinnable issue, the party needs to move on to things it can win on and Corbyn needs to stop offering his personal opinions on the matter.
Although the matter of Trident has the potential for splits within the party in the near term, i would consider his views on the Falklands and IS to be a greater threat to Labour's electoral hopes. Corbyn will be given a scenario in hwich he must stand up to Argentina either diplomatically or militarily, and the man is going to refuse to do so. Forget about lame ducks, he'll be a dead duck.
Switching to domestic policy issues for a moment:
Why has the Beckett Report been suppressed for all of these months by the leadership?
Secondly, what is the extent of Corbyn's housing policy for those people who wish to buy their own home? In what way does it differ from the Government's, which he has criticised?
Switching to domestic policy issues for a moment:
Why has the Beckett Report been suppressed for all of these months by the leadership?
Secondly, what is the extent of Corbyn's housing policy for those people who wish to buy their own home? In what way does it differ from the Government's, which he has criticised?
Last edited:
capitalist / blairite scum
I imagine his policy is to chuck them in the gulag for re-education
On housing, Corbyn's policy seems to be to build more affordable housing than the Tories are. And then of course there's the idea of a rent cap, which would have the dual effect of making it easier for tenants to save money for a deposit whilst renting, and also deincentivizing the hoarding of property by landlords which reduces the supply of affordable housing on the market and makes prices so high in the first place.
Where I live in Durham, landlords can get away with charging students 2-3 times the going rate so local renters can't find value-for-money accommodation in the city centre. Being able to charge students ~£400pm for a room in a terrace also incentivizes landlords to hoover up all the properties that would normally be ideal 'starter homes', driving up prices and pushing potential buyers (especially younger ones) miles out of town. I'm sure there are similar situations everywhere, not least in London. For all their spin, at the moment it's Tory housing policy and it's extreme deference to private landlords that is holding people back from owning their own homes.
That same 'extreme deference' that has resulted in private landlords launching a legal challenge to Osborne's punitive changes to the tax treatment of BTL?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...investors-to-challenge-tax-hike-in-court.html
EDIT: Rent cap and cooling the housing market are unlikely to prompt housebuilders to ramp up construction either, but hey ho...
What's wrong with his views on IS?
Opening up dialogue whilst they rape and kill and plot attacks in Western countries... Rather than you know blowing them up
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-cat-and-instead-simply-calls-it-the-cat.html
How long before the daily mail run Corbyn's foreign hitler-looking cat
How long before the daily mail run Corbyn's foreign hitler-looking cat
Okay cool, well I'm glad that our military action in Syria solved the problem and that there is no possible potential for benefits from back channel talks of any sort with them.
Good point... Let's parachute jez into Raqqa and let him negotiate world peace
Don't be thick. At some point, after the blowing-up, you still have to talk and organize a power structure/government...no matter who you are fighting. Now I do agree that ISIS can't really be negotiated with, but you can't really blow them all away either.
Still, it frustrates me that Corbyn isn't even slightly trying to play the game - I mean for fecks sake, how hard is it to just dodge the foreign policy questions?
This country is way too jingoistic and full of itself to ever really agree with him on that stuff, hence why we feel the burning need for the militaristic viagra that is Trident.
This country is way too jingoistic and full of itself to ever really agree with him on that stuff, hence why we feel the burning need for the militaristic viagra that is Trident.
I think the point was that negotiation with ISIS isn't a credible option at the moment, and we haven't seen anything else on the table from Jezza to resolve this.
Talk with the people you intend to help organise a power structure / government... That simply can't be isis or any "moderate isis" so don't talk to them and blow up as many as you can
It's all so simple, it's all so black and white.
I don't think his views on IS, once you get past the media spin, are that radical. Unless he's changed tone recently, its always been about a mediated solution in Syria, which isn't that controversial.
But I can't understand how anyone can side with Argentina over the Falklands, maybe thats me having been brainwashed by British discourse, but surely the self-determination of settlers supersedes the claim to the land from 200 years ago? If they want to be British let them be British, if they want to be Argentinian let them be Argentinian. You can't exactly ask the penguins which country they'd rather belong to.
The thing with the Falklands question was it was asked in the context of the new Argentinian president apparently wanting to be less combative with the UK on the Falklands, and basically saying that the issue is getting in the way of the two countries cooperating in other ways. Notice how Marr says "sovereignty and so forth". Talks would not have to end in Argentina owning the Falkland Island and could still be beneficial for both parties in terms of improving diplomatic relations. So one example I've seen is that British ships are banned from docking in Buenos Aires, furthermore any ship flying the Falklands flag is banned from docking in any port in the entire Mercosur bloc. Would it not be worth at least considering talks in an attempt to improve our relationship with such a big part of South America, especially while Argentina has a president who seems much less aggressive, and much more open on the issue?
To be honest I don't even know if what is the right answer but the way this is being debated as "don't let those argie cnuts on our Island you pacifist bastard!" seems facile to me.
But alas, we cannot show any weakness by talking to our enemies! For we are Britain! And we have nukes and stuff, so who the feck is gonna mess with us? Yeah, that's right.
PS Watching the video again he doesn't even actually say "no veto" he says the Islanders have a right to stay where they are and a right to decide on their own future. This is mad.
Last edited:
I don't see the point of the Falklands either. We came, we saw, we kicked their ass....now let's just give them back and move on.
Give over an island of brits to argentine rule, can only assume you're wumming, or I missed something earlier in the thread.
And yet, 15 years after the worst attack on US soil (note that ISIS haven't attacked UK yet), they talk to the Taliban.
They're British. Queue your wiki research......
What's wrong with calling his cat "El gato"? He's also 100% right that they don't recognize names.
And 15 years on it was still al qaeda that organised those attacks not the taliban... And they are still bombing aq
Last edited:
What does that mean?
I think we should renew Trident but even if you disagree with that view buying the subs and then not putting nukes on them seems quite a bizarre idea.
He needs to stop making policy on the hoof because he wants to answer the question to show how unlike all other politicians he is. He is still supposed to be a politician and these are the basics of being one. Don't make crazy shit up on the spot to look good just say its under review for a few years while you can come up with a cohesive policy.
He needs to stop making policy on the hoof because he wants to answer the question to show how unlike all other politicians he is. He is still supposed to be a politician and these are the basics of being one. Don't make crazy shit up on the spot to look good just say its under review for a few years while you can come up with a cohesive policy.
Corbyn's housing policy has little new to offer for those people desirous of purchasing a home, as opposed to renting or residing in a council property. Any of us could say that we are going to build more houses, yet i don't see why Labour's pledges should be believed over anyone else's. His viewing the problem through the prism of an Islington constituency doesn't help either: whilst the Tories' 400,000 cap should actually make a difference locally, the bottom line is that space is at a premium and voters may have no choice other than to move. Unless he wants to put up a few Shards in the borough.
Additionally, there is the issue of what housing stock to build and where, a decision which can leave properties empty on account of their unsuitability (this has been witnessed in towns and cities across the country since the boom years of the 2000s). You talk of 'affordable housing', yet all too often this translates into cheap, low quality and inadequate. The Coalition's loosening of planning restrictions can only have made the situation worse still.
Present policy, of whichever hue, is not going to alter the pattern of residence and why it is a challenge to meet the public demand. Better would be attempts to improve sustainability and infrastructure at some of our market and coastal towns, as well as smaller cities. HS2, which is probably the largest project of its kind current on the books, will benefit but a few large urban centres.
Besides the argument to reduce its sources of funding, which is more of a long term project anyway, Corbyn's ideas are of little immediate or practical benefit. He also opposed military intervention in Iraq; the Labour leader was happy to sit back and let events play out as they will, likely viewing them as some form of vindication. From a domestic standpoint, the position adopted on drone strikes and Jihadi John could not but be electorally damaging. From the plight of Yazidis to terrorism on European streets, the average voter is not going to want to hear that dialogue with IS is the basis by which a prospective PM will operate.
Whilst a truly horrifying thought, I don't believe that the President of USA really has that much power.Anyone else panicking yet?
No because polls are outdated.
I think the panic will set in after the Scottish and local elections
That's when it will hit home, just where they are at the moment.
Only the local elections should have an impact.
I don't think there is anything any Labour leader could do to redeem Scotland. The real damage was done during the referendum campaign
One of his supporters' arguments in favour of him during the leadership race was that only his leftwingness could win back Scotland, so I'd say it's fair to judge him on it.
The SNP are such an amorphous blob of a party that you can't really go toe to toe with them on anything. If Labour form a more coherent left wing option than the SNP then the SNP just appeal to their nationalist edge. The only way Labour could win back Scotland is by somehow splitting the nationalist vote, I just don't see it happening.
Then if the Scottish seats are effectively being written off Labour has a huge problem
One of the reasons according to their own report into the election for their poor performance was voters in England not wanting the SNP in a Westminister power sharing arrangement - So Labour needs to win a lot more English / Welsh seats to form a government and are Corbyns policies really going to achieve that? - I doubt it
Longer term should Scotland leave the union it will be an even more stark problem as there wont even be the possibility of an SNP - Labour coalition (though I think it would be so toxic long term to labour they would be idiots to do it anyway).
Tucked away in the you gov poll
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...m8d71xdb9/InternalResults_160115_Corbyn_W.pdf
If Jeremy Corbyn remains leader of the Labour party, how likely or unlikely do you think it is that they will win the next general election?
Very Likely 4%
Fairly Likely 10%
Fairly Unlikely 26%
Very Unlikely 43%
Dont Know 16%
Total likely = 14%
Total Unlikely = 69%
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...m8d71xdb9/InternalResults_160115_Corbyn_W.pdf
If Jeremy Corbyn remains leader of the Labour party, how likely or unlikely do you think it is that they will win the next general election?
Very Likely 4%
Fairly Likely 10%
Fairly Unlikely 26%
Very Unlikely 43%
Dont Know 16%
Total likely = 14%
Total Unlikely = 69%