Jeremy Corbyn, thoughts?

[MARYROSE02]

Nothing wrong with searching for solutions to difficult problems by speaking to who ever required. A lot goes on behind the scenes anyway that is not brought to public attention. If there hadn't been armed conflict over the Falklands, few would have bothered anyway. Gibraltar was suggested as joint rule with Spain.

Can to cost of Trident warrant its continuation? Does it really in anyway influence the vastly superior armed Russia in any way?

Joint rule over Gibraltar against the wishes of the people who live there (whilst Spain continues to hold its own "Gibraltar" with its colonies in N Africa.

 

Same with Falklands except even less of a claim by Argentina.

 

Do you mean that Russia discounts Britain's Trident missiles when considering war with Britain and / or Europe?

 

Do you want Britain to unilaterally disarm? That served Ukraine rather well did it not when they gave up their nuclear weapons.

 

Or do you think we should just let the USA carry the whole burden?

 

The point about the left is that it always seems to be Britain and the USA who are in the wrong.

[BacktoDemocracy]

Often, we do have to 'talk to terrorists' but when Corbyn talked the IRA was he being a visionary, or was he doing what those on the left often seem to do, i.e. appear to oppose anything pro-British? So, Falkland Islands? Give it to Argentina. It's theirs. Trident? Get rid of it. We don't have to wait until Russia gets rid of its nuclear arms. We should do it first as a gesture of good faith.

Do you think the UK's trident is any deterrent to Russia, they could lay waste to the UK and survive anything we throw at them, it bankrupts the country to keep it and upgrade to the next madness whilst the country is forced to withdraw assistance from the disabled and limit medical interventions, tell me which other European country maintains a so called nuclear deterrent which strips their citizens of proper care and reduces them to relying on food bank charities, the UK is supposed to be an advanced country yet not only are people reduced to relying on charity but now people have to travel now from one side of the country to the other to keep themselves in work, whilst big business gorge on government contracts that are of no benefit to its citizens, when is the UK going to wake up and realise that its being fed a complete load of lies that benefit only one class in society and that citizens in other European countries enjoy a significantly better standard of living without them enduring the kinds of pressures that are experienced by workers and citizens in the UK.

[MARYROSE02]

Do you think the UK's trident is any deterrent to Russia, they could lay waste to the UK and survive anything we throw at them, it bankrupts the country to keep it and upgrade to the next madness whilst the country is forced to withdraw assistance from the disabled and limit medical interventions, tell me which other European country maintains a so called nuclear deterrent which strips their citizens of proper care and reduces them to relying on food bank charities, the UK is supposed to be an advanced country yet not only are people reduced to relying on charity but now people have to travel now from one side of the country to the other to keep themselves in work, whilst big business gorge on government contracts that are of no benefit to its citizens, when is the UK going to wake up and realise that its being fed a complete load of lies that benefit only one class in society and that citizens in other European countries enjoy a significantly better standard of living without them enduring the kinds of pressures that are experienced by workers and citizens in the UK.

So if it was 1939 again, you would be arguing for Britain to stop building Spitfires and Hurricanes on the grounds that Germany possessed too many planes for us to defend ourselves?

 

How do you know that Russia could destroy Britain without suffering serious attacks from just one of our nuclear Subs?

 

Which other countries in Europe are nuclear armed? France tho not a member of NATO?? But we are and we have responsibilities.You might trust Russia but I dont know why?

[BacktoDemocracy]

So if it was 1939 again, you would be arguing for Britain to stop building Spitfires and Hurricanes on the grounds that Germany possessed too many planes for us to defend ourselves?

N

How do you know that Russia could destroy Britain without suffering serious attacks from just one of our nuclear Subs?

8

Which other countries in Europe are nuclear armed? France tho not a member of NATO?? But we are and we have responsibilities.You might trust Russia but I dont know why?

Completely fallacious argument, no comparison between the two periods of time or circumstances, one was a situation where there was an equality of manpower, technology and resources and now there is no parity between us and Russia and why would Russia want to expend the resources to invade us, what advantage would be gained, do we honestly think the uk is the last bastion of democracy such that russia wants to wipe us out so they can conquer the world, in your dreams.

[flag of convenience]

Joint rule over Gibraltar against the wishes of the people who live there (whilst Spain continues to hold its own "Gibraltar" with its colonies in N Africa.

 

Same with Falklands except even less of a claim by Argentina.

 

Do you mean that Russia discounts Britain's Trident missiles when considering war with Britain and / or Europe?

 

Do you want Britain to unilaterally disarm? That served Ukraine rather well did it not when they gave up their nuclear weapons.

 

Or do you think we should just let the USA carry the whole burden?

 

The point about the left is that it always seems to be Britain and the USA who are in the wrong.

 

At the end of the day it is USA that calls the shots and influences outcomes. Do you seriously consider UK and France seriously dictates Russian policy due to having a few weapons? The cost is enormous and surely could be better spent. Anyway it looks like it won't be an issue with the toning down of contentious policies.

 

I'm afraid the left have got it right in recent times with regards to overseas intervention. Well going back sometime now as include Vietnam in that scenario. The right have made significant blunders in creating an unsafe world.

[flag of convenience]

So if it was 1939 again, you would be arguing for Britain to stop building Spitfires and Hurricanes on the grounds that Germany possessed too many planes for us to defend ourselves?

 

How do you know that Russia could destroy Britain without suffering serious attacks from just one of our nuclear Subs?

 

Which other countries in Europe are nuclear armed? France tho not a member of NATO?? But we are and we have responsibilities.You might trust Russia but I dont know why?

 

Well Russia has showed the only cohesive policy in the Syrian fiasco to date. Not sure why anyone would trust any side after recent experience.

[akiralx]

Joint rule over Gibraltar against the wishes of the people who live there (whilst Spain continues to hold its own "Gibraltar" with its colonies in N Africa.

 

Same with Falklands except even less of a claim by Argentina.

 

 

The wishes of the people who live there are of secondary importance to the UK's economic and strategic aims. If the inhabitants want to live on British soil they can always move there. If the UK props up the Falkands it will be as a result of the resources there not the residents.

 

One article I read made another unrelated but valid point: the right love waging wars but hate dealing with the refugees that are the inevitable result. The Daily Mail is full of reader comments urging the Middle East to be blown skyhigh to defeat ISIS - and then under the next article they demand that minimal refugees be allowed into the UK!

[MARYROSE02]

The wishes of the people who live there are of secondary importance to the UK's economic and strategic aims. If the inhabitants want to live on British soil they can always move there. If the UK props up the Falkands it will be as a result of the resources there not the residents.

 

One article I read made another unrelated but valid point: the right love waging wars but hate dealing with the refugees that are the inevitable result. The Daily Mail is full of reader comments urging the Middle East to be blown skyhigh to defeat ISIS - and then under the next article they demand that minimal refugees be allowed into the UK!

Pre The Falklands War you might have been right but post war Britain has made too much of an investment to give it to Argentina. In any case, it is as much a part of Britain as The Isle of Wight, as is Gibraltar.

 

Britain becoming involved in wars dies not automatically create refugees. Should we have left Kuwait to its fate when Saddam invaded in 1990?

 

Personally, I wish we did stay out of The Middle East but we are damned if we do and damned if we don't, and yes, we DO need the oil.

[flag of convenience]

Pre The Falklands War you might have been right but post war Britain has made too much of an investment to give it to Argentina. In any case, it is as much a part of Britain as The Isle of Wight, as is Gibraltar.

 

Britain becoming involved in wars dies not automatically create refugees. Should we have left Kuwait to its fate when Saddam invaded in 1990?

 

Personally, I wish we did stay out of The Middle East but we are damned if we do and damned if we don't, and yes, we DO need the oil.

 

And that poster remains right. Expediency will usually always win out over sacrifice. Considering the messages sent out by Britain, whom regardless of advise to the opposite withdraw military protection from The Falklands in the name of economics. The results were costly indeed. Same applies to Kuwait. Iraq felt they had a free hand after consulting Americans. (they long felt Kuwait was within their jurisdiction anyway) Another very costly error that in turn assisted in destabilising the region.

 

Most wars of significance creates refugees. Even if eternally displaced. As such neither war needed take place at all.

[Thom]

Comrade Corbyn is not getting his own way!

 

Jeremy Corbyn has suffered a major blow to his authority after a bid by the Labour leadership to press for a vote on the renewal of the Trident nuclear programme was overwhelmingly rejected at the party’s conference.Hours after the opening of the event in Brighton, Britain’s largest trade unions and the party membership spurned a call for the conference to hold a debate and a vote on Wednesday about whether Britain should renew Trident.

In a severe embarrassment to Corbyn, who won the support of the main trade unions in the leadership contest, the call for a debate on Trident was supported by just 0.16% of the trade union vote. The support among constituency Labourparties was little higher at 7.1%.

Shadow cabinet members, who had earlier welcomed a signal by Corbyn that he would allow a free vote on Trident, were scathing about the new leader’s conference debut. “Chaos and confusion rule the day,” said one frontbencher.

Another senior figure said: “Delegates did not feel they wanted the party to have to debate such a divisive issue. Common sense has prevailed.”

 

He should go the full Stalin on them.

[flag of convenience]

Love it the way he gets up the noses of the neo cons. Let's be having a little bit more of that please Mr Corbyn.

[kungfustu]

Just spoke to my Dad who is a socialist at heart and trade union man but married to a true blue. He says he feels torn. Said that the Islamaphobia has reached epic proportions because there are radicals sitting outside the mosques handing out leaflets and police do nothing (can't act, no laws broken) There's a lot of fear.

He says he doesn't agree with Corbyns policies and says older he gets more cynical he gets; he agrees a lot of Corbyns policies are common sense and visionary but feels not workable in 21st century....we're too far gone.

 

I think your dad is not far off the mark......we have had a lot of economic migrants coming to our country in the past 10 years.....with all these refugees massing on Europes border and the threat from IS......there are many very normal people with very good values on both sides of the political divide that have had enough.....In 2 to 3 years time the UK will be out of Europe.

[kungfustu]

Corbyn......when I hear his right hand man repeating the word "Solidarity":shocked:......I just think they are dated and equally as out of touch as some on the right.....some of the things I have heard them say.....taxing big business.....they claim they can raise up to 25 billion this way.....they cannot agree amongst themselves on many policies and it seems there are some within the party already plotting to get rid of him.....his heart is in the right place.....he wants to do the right thing but as was said so much better by Quinkela than I can match.....he is just not suited to the job and although some of his ideas may appear right.....they will just never work.

[Petkula73]

In my humble opinion I find it a bit depressing that young people are fooled by Jeremy Corbyn. All the things he says sound wonderful, until you scratch a bit further under the surface and realise he has no idea how to actually pay for any of it, other than writing a blank cheque. The whole idea of printing money is just ludicrous. When the world was heading in to melt down in 2008 we had little choice but to bail out the banks and print money, but that was as a reaction to an emergency. It would be so foolish to take an economy in recovery and do this again just for the sake of creating a few thousand short term public sector jobs.

 

Personally, I also found it disgraceful that he failed to sing the national anthem. So what if he's a republican? He is representing his party, not himself. Time to man up and swallow his schoolboy principles. Even Alex Salmond knocked him down on this one, saying he would have sung regardless of his personal opinions.

 

I give him a couple of months before the hysteria dies down and people begin to realise there's a reason that in 32 years as an MP he's never held a cabinet or shadow cabinet role... Hopefully he'll be gone before 2020 and replaced by someone more sensible like David Milliband.

[MARYROSE02]

In my humble opinion I find it a bit depressing that young people are fooled by Jeremy Corbyn. All the things he says sound wonderful, until you scratch a bit further under the surface and realise he has no idea how to actually pay for any of it, other than writing a blank cheque. The whole idea of printing money is just ludicrous. When the world was heading in to melt down in 2008 we had little choice but to bail out the banks and print money, but that was as a reaction to an emergency. It would be so foolish to take an economy in recovery and do this again just for the sake of creating a few thousand short term public sector jobs.

 

Personally, I also found it disgraceful that he failed to sing the national anthem. So what if he's a republican? He is representing his party, not himself. Time to man up and swallow his schoolboy principles. Even Alex Salmond knocked him down on this one, saying he would have sung regardless of his personal opinions.

 

I give him a couple of months before the hysteria dies down and people begin to realise there's a reason that in 32 years as an MP he's never held a cabinet or shadow cabinet role... Hopefully he'll be gone before 2020 and replaced by someone more sensible like David Milliband.

I hate republicans. I would not mind if changing to a republic meant a fairer society. or we saved money or had a more efficient Govt.

 

Ask him which country he would prefer to live? The USA or Canada?

[bristolman]

In my humble opinion I find it a bit depressing that young people are fooled by Jeremy Corbyn. All the things he says sound wonderful, until you scratch a bit further under the surface and realise he has no idea how to actually pay for any of it, other than writing a blank cheque. The whole idea of printing money is just ludicrous. When the world was heading in to melt down in 2008 we had little choice but to bail out the banks and print money, but that was as a reaction to an emergency. It would be so foolish to take an economy in recovery and do this again just for the sake of creating a few thousand short term public sector jobs.

 

Personally, I also found it disgraceful that he failed to sing the national anthem. So what if he's a republican? He is representing his party, not himself. Time to man up and swallow his schoolboy principles. Even Alex Salmond knocked him down on this one, saying he would have sung regardless of his personal opinions.

 

I give him a couple of months before the hysteria dies down and people begin to realise there's a reason that in 32 years as an MP he's never held a cabinet or shadow cabinet role... Hopefully he'll be gone before 2020 and replaced by someone more sensible like David Milliband.

 

He just lives in loud cuckoo land and that is exactly why he won't be taking Labour into the next election. People generally aren't stupid and realise so much of what he says is pie in the sky. Don't get me wrong I totally agree in a fairer society but haven't heard anything he has said which would lead me to believe he was able to deliver it.

[MARYROSE02]

He just lives in loud cuckoo land and that is exactly why he won't be taking Labour into the next election. People generally aren't stupid and realise so much of what he says is pie in the sky. Don't get me wrong I totally agree in a fairer society but haven't heard anything he has said which would lead me to believe he was able to deliver it.

Well, we could disband our armed services for a start and sell off all their equipment and properties.

 

Sell off Royal family 's assets and property next.

 

Sell all the remaining big houses, mansions, etc.

 

Dismantle all the football clubs and sell their stadiums.

 

What have I left? Can't sell the prisons as we need them to hold all the class enemies.

[Thom]

" I want a debate", says Corbyn, " but if you win a majority and decide against my wishes then I will ignore you!"

 

He is all for openness and discussion , but when it comes to the crunch, he may choose to ignore you.Some democrat.

[bristolman]

" I want a debate", says Corbyn, " but if you win a majority and decide against my wishes then I will ignore you!"

 

He is all for openness and discussion , but when it comes to the crunch, he may choose to ignore you.Some democrat.

 

He is enjoying his 15 minutes of fame. In a few years people will be saying Jeremy who ?

[srg73]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

 

Makes my blood boil, I am an 80's kid and the IRA were a daily threat in London and to think these two now have political influence worries me! Simply put, anti British.

 

S

[Quinkla]

Makes my blood boil, I am an 80's kid and the IRA were a daily threat in London and to think these two now have political influence worries me! Simply put, anti British.

Whereas standing on a city wall and opening fire on a peaceful demonstration is pro-British? Or opening fire on a car full of teenage joyriders? Or passing names and addresses of Republican lawyers to loyalist paramilitaries? Or locking up innocent Irish men in revenge for bombings?

 

Just saying. Neither side comes out of the Troubles covered with glory.

[srg73]

I'm part Irish and believe me, none of my relatives supported republican action sponsored by American underworld money. The IRA did not speak for many Irish people being a very small minority terrorist organisation and yes UK were at war with them.

 

I feel Corbin is being found out to be far too left wing for the general UK public to pallet and as such he will be short lived and be remembered as a low point for the Labour Party. I am right leaning in my political views however I applaud a strong Labour Party to ensure policies are politically tested and the Conservatives held to account for their decisions. At the moment the system contains one strong party with remaining parties being fringe or special interest, not healthy politically.

 

S

Edited October 11, 2015 by srg73

[Quinkla]

The IRA did not speak for many Irish people.

Yet the Shinners have gone on to achieve considerable electoral success. It's a funny old world.

[srg73]

Ireland is a little bigger than Northern Ireland! The IRA were meant to represent the Republic Of Ireland which they did not, only their own interests. Yes they have a voice in NORTHERN IRELAND!

[flag of convenience]

Whereas standing on a city wall and opening fire on a peaceful demonstration is pro-British? Or opening fire on a car full of teenage joyriders? Or passing names and addresses of Republican lawyers to loyalist paramilitaries? Or locking up innocent Irish men in revenge for bombings?

 

Just saying. Neither side comes out of the Troubles covered with glory.

 

Pretty much the case. It was only through 'behind the scene talking that a resolution was able to finally be reached. I'd say mistakes were definitely made on all sides many tragic. Sadly the nature of war.