It's a Labour, Lib Dem, SNP co-alition. It'll be mental but fun to see what happens.

It definitely isn't any of the current neofascists in blue rosettes who wish to an end to workers rights and want the chance to privatise more of the NHS. They will definitely negotiate a good outcome for themselves and their wealthy backers.

Why do we see it Spart yet millions of working class people vote conservative. This has to be true because the upper and middle classes make up 10% of the electorate. It amazes me that the Tories get anywhere near power and can only do so because ordinary working people inexplicably vote for them. It's mind boggling.

comment by lastapostleofvidal (U1491)
posted 2 hours, 51 minutes ago
We live in a parliamentary democracy. An extension of that is that the MPs you vote for should choose their leader, otherwise you get the current Labour fiasco. The notion of having purely Labour members vote on who the leader should be is an anachronism - this excludes all Labour voters who don't choose to be members for example, millions and millions of them. Labour should let its MPs decide who the leader should be, otherwise there is no chance of unity within parliament and the party just looks amateurish as it does at present.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vidal, those who don't support Corbyn are Blaire's Tory New Labour lot who fear losing their cushy jobs. If Corbyn gets elected they will swing right behind him. Hopefully he can win and weed them out. That's the fight he has. His speech today is an attack on them as much as it is the Tories.

I felt better after today's speech. I hope the Northern UKIP areas take notice and get back in line. The problem is the SNP and the weakness of the Lib Dems.

We are exiting the EU, labour are behind that too so they need to be positive about that with a clear message of getting the right deal for all of the UK.

He also needs to get across the point that a Union is a good thing not a bad thing.

I think it's too much to ask of him at this time. I think he has a great chance to get his message across and will close the gap considerably over the next six weeks. Hopefully it will be enough to form a coalition against the Nasty Party (Teresa's words, not mine) .

It's mind boggling alright and totally frustrating.

So we berate the electorate for being too thick to appreciate Corbyn and berate his colleagues who think he's crap. I agree with political commentators who say that Corbyn prefers the comfort of opposition where he can retain his purity to the reality of real-life politics where inevitably compromise on many issues is required. Doing some good is better than doing none at all. Corbyn would not be able to stomach the thought that he had "sold out" in some way. He's actually being a selfish leader in that regard. He may be true to his principles but he isn't wise enough to know how to pick his battles. Unless Labour can gain wider appeal they won't get in and that's that.

I am now in retreat until August and will then gauge the mood of the nation. You all remain wrong.

I'm not berating the fact that the electorate doesn't appreciate Corbyn. I can understand that. I'm not berating the fact that people cannot see past the massive spin put forward by May and the Brexit agenda (37% in favour?)

I simply cannot fathom why the electorate cannot see the sheer inequity and unfairness and the fact that they are worse off and will continue to be worse off under the mandate of the Conservatives.

Promises are easy to make and hindsight is brilliant - £350m to the NHS and immigration to be curbed - not happening. Why do the lies continue to be perpetuated and believed?

Presumably they think that the alternatives are worse View.

comment by lastapostleofvidal (U1491)
posted 29 minutes ago
So we berate the electorate for being too thick to appreciate Corbyn and berate his colleagues who think he's crap. I agree with political commentators who say that Corbyn prefers the comfort of opposition where he can retain his purity to the reality of real-life politics where inevitably compromise on many issues is required. Doing some good is better than doing none at all. Corbyn would not be able to stomach the thought that he had "sold out" in some way. He's actually being a selfish leader in that regard. He may be true to his principles but he isn't wise enough to know how to pick his battles. Unless Labour can gain wider appeal they won't get in and that's that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
YOu can only make that judgement on Corbyn by agreeing with other people's opinions because he hasn't had the chance to lead yet. He is in the comfort of opposition but has shown strength facing up to his critics within and outside his party. Don't fall for the press spin Vidal.

comment by Iwaslevel (U4836)
YOu can only make that judgement on Corbyn by agreeing with other people's opinions because he hasn't had the chance to lead yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Most people make a judgement on Jeremy Corbyn simply by looking at his stance on various political issues, not by listening to other people's opinions.
For starters, he wants to scrap Trident and the UK to leave Nato. Without the deterrent of Trident and Nato, what action will he actually take if Russia keeps on sending its planes to nudge British airspace?
He has also completely misunderstood the Greek bailout crisis. He has overlooked the fact that Greece has had to borrow money because its tax collection system is inadequate and unable to provide money to the Greek government to pay for public services. And now Greece is unable to repay its borrowed money because its government still can't gather enough money via its tax collection system. So Greece is going to have to cut its public spending until it can get its tax system sorted out.
Jeremy Corbyn has also talked about fixing a 'rigged system' and 'putting the power back in the hands of the people' and he doesn't set out exactly how he's going to do that. Hello Jeremy. Governments are formed and leaders elected to run the country so that 60 million people don't have to. If the people don't like what you do in government, they'll vote somebody else in. If people don't think you're up to the job of leading the country, they'll never vote your party in.
And that's precisely where Jeremy Corbyn and Labour are now, and we all know it.

Aries. How the hell do approximately 100 nations get on without Trident. They must lie quaking in their beds every night fearing imminent invasion. Maybe they comfort themselves in the knowledge that even if they had it they couldn't use it without the permission of the US so they might as well spend their taxes on something useful. Trident is just a vanity weapon so British PMs can pretend they are still big boys.

How has he understood the Greek bail out. There isn't much to understand. Greece was forced in to bail out as it would have been bankrupted had they reneged. Why weren't the financiers more forgiving? Because like the Russian Oligarchs they want to be able to buy bits of Greek industry etc at knockdown prices.

Very good of you reiterate the Daily Mail line. Hurrah, for the Blackshirts.

comment by ViewThisistheStart? (U1581)
posted about an hour ago
Promises are easy to make and hindsight is brilliant - £350m to the NHS and immigration to be curbed - not happening. Why do the lies continue to be perpetuated and believed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
People need to remember who it was that made that statement of giving £350m to the NHS. It wasn't the Conservative government, it wasn't UKIP and and it wasn't Leave.EU. It was Vote Leave, a cross-party organisation of Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem MPs and supporters.

Spartacus, there are over 200 countries in the world. Are you saying that 100 countries have Trident (or an equivalent deterrent) and 100 do not? And if they don't have any defence deterrent, why do you think that is?
If you think Trident or any similar defence capability is a vanity weapon, would you scrap it, and would you also scrap the UK's navy, army and air force too? Or else at what level would you set the UK's armed forces defences?
Among what you wrote about Greece, name me one Greek industry Russian oligarchs would like to buy at knockdown prices.
Finally, please point out what Daily Mail line I have reiterated.

Aries less than 20 countries possess nuclear weapons over 200 do not.
We dont need trident we don't need nuclear weapons we are not a global power our army is now so small that in Military terms it not even classified as an Army.
Our only worth on the world stage is to bomb wherever America wants us to bomb to give their warmongering credibility.
Corbyn's right pull back from trying to police the world, scrap trident and spend the money on something worthwhile.

Teresa May voted to remain in the EU. Does that mean that she will be putting that in her manifesto? No, I thought not too. That's because I know she is working towards the goals of her party not her own personal ones.

Aries, maybe you need to look at what Labour is standing for rather than Corbyn's personal views.

So Aries, more countries seem to manage without Trident. Does that strengthen or weaken the case?

It strengthens it Spart because without us paying for our nuclear weapons those countries would be attacked by the Russians.

Banning Nuclear weapons in this country is sadly a long way off.

#LabourIsntWorking

Rameses, I agree 100% that the UK should play no part in policing the world outside of the UN. Take the Middle East as an example. Whatever our involvement there post-WWI and WW2, and Tony Blair's Labour government's disastrous action in Iraq in 2003, would you agree we have to draw a line and play no further part there? Stop arms sales to all of those countries and let Turkey, Iran and the Arab League sort it out between them?
Iwas, of course the prime minister will work towards her party's goals. What do you expect her to do? Work towards Labour's goals? Let's see what the Conservative and Labour manifestos contain. I am sure voters will decide for themselves on June 8. As for the prime minister's personal goals, I don't know what those are. Do you?

No way is any administration going to refuse arms deals with the Saudis et al: even Corbyn wouldn't attempt that.

comment by aries22 (U1203)
posted 3 hours, 25 minutes ago
Rameses, I agree 100% that the UK should play no part in policing the world outside of the UN. Take the Middle East as an example. Whatever our involvement there post-WWI and WW2, and Tony Blair's Labour government's disastrous action in Iraq in 2003, would you agree we have to draw a line and play no further part there? Stop arms sales to all of those countries and let Turkey, Iran and the Arab League sort it out between them?
Iwas, of course the prime minister will work towards her party's goals. What do you expect her to do? Work towards Labour's goals? Let's see what the Conservative and Labour manifestos contain. I am sure voters will decide for themselves on June 8. As for the prime minister's personal goals, I don't know what those are. Do you?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I wrote before, one of May's goals was to stay in the EU, in fact she was a staunch advocate of it. I accept that she has to lead the country through Brexit even though she disagrees with it. Corbyn wants to ban the bomb but he leads a party that doesn't and he has agreed to do that by dropping his objections. It's called leadership.

The media will always spout the personal opinions of Corbyn where they believe they are against public opinion but remain silent when they are seen as popular.

I think May was sitting on the fence on Brexit, ready to be in favour of whichever way the vote went. She certainly was not STAUNCHLY in favour. Her opportunistic positioning came off and she is now PM.

But as Ken Clarke has said. Brexit negotiations are a 'man size' job and I simply don't think she will succeed in getting a good outcome.

I have come to see her as opportunistic and mendacious. You cannot believe a word she says.

thriceramdini, nice to know that chauvinistic views are alive and well, yours and Ken Clarke's. A 'man-size job' and you agree with Ken Clarke that she will not succeed. You and I would certainly not succeed and we are male, so what do you conclude from that?
And how do you conclude that she is mendacious?
Do you believe what Jeremy Corbyn or John McDonnell or Tim Farron say?

Do you see man-size tissues as sexist.