Hockey_saint

I never once said I was totally left and I'm sure I wrote on here that I once voted conservative. But I am also a disabled person and I hate to see the disabled being treated as badly as they have been. I also take offence to the term "the benefit classes" wtf does that even mean? More tory nonsense? I would have been more for new labour but the minute they bent over and said "ohhh please Mr Camoron, we've been very naughty boys and girls, please punish those working class oiks with things like removing working tax credits and say, whilst you're at it, kick that kid in the wheelchair as well"...well that was enough for me. Corbyn is a throwback and the wrong person for the job but the rest just seemed to want to allow more of the same.

You've seen my rants on here and me being the typical emotional leftie but this...I cannot disagree with. If I had the money I would do the same.

I think that's a little bit harsh. If you had to save for your retirement and wanted a steady income with a lump sum at the end....wouldn't you do the same?

Can't really disagree with that. I'd like to see how it plays out on both sides to be fair....What I'd really like to see is George Osborne succeed Dave.

I was going to say, this thread does seem pretty Rickie Lambert-esque from a few years ago.

That was pretty much my interpretation of it. Although have you seen this? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/29/yvette-cooper-legal-challenge-trade-union-bill-labour-leadership I think this sounds like a hornet's nest that could potentially make this all pretty pointless if we essentially end up with a right-wing engineered one party state.

It's a song. You can make anything up in a song. The US is only as powerful as it is now for ironically a couple of reasons: 1. All the immigrants you (for example the Irish) didn't initially want (the "anglo-saxon", slave-owning founding fathers certainly didn't want any Irish) and 2. All the war profiteering you made from the last 2 world wars (the first one you were only in for a year and had to borrow our airplanes). I am always confused as to why Americans dislike the French, when they should love them; they won them their country. Although Haiti is a good example of how much value France and England placed in the continent of North America. They lost that and essentially said sod it and gave you the colonies they had left in North America....Soooo I would suggest to you they valued the carribean islands (as did we at the time) much higher than the 13 colonies. But then most US citizens find it hard to comprehend what a tiny pawn they were in a global game.

Also, please don't use 1812 as an example as that was an unsuccessful land grab whilst our backs were turned dealing with the rest of the planet. I have caught the train from Toronto to Washington DC; it took me about 9 hours. The troops, with a written ceasefire agreement in their hands MARCHED, unopposed for that distance on foot, so you think a weaker army on foreign soil can do that for however long it took? Also, what happened when we got there? you fired at us. So burned your whole capital down (supposedly they still paint the white house today to remove the black burn marks). Blimey, the star-spangled banner is about us pulverising one of your cities. I've spent a lot of time in the US and most Americans I know and happily call friends don't spout such nonsense and this is from a guy who's spent 3 fourth of July's in your nation's capital whilst living with highly educated Americans for months.

Just how much indoctrinated nonsense can you fit in one quote.....If we truly wanted the 13 colonies back in 1776, we would have taken them. We beat you (not our native allies or German hessian troops who Andrew Jackson beat) in every city we fought until our "friends" in Europe gathered together and roundly gave us a bit of a pasting. Even then we STAYED...did you hear me? STAYED in North America, you did NOT kick us out. After we signed the FRENCH WON peace deal, we decided we'd make far more money trading with you...And defending you (read the Monroe Doctrine) and helping you militarily to grow as you have by enforcing such doctrine with the most powerful naval force for the last 300 years. So don't come on here spouting such stereotypical nonsense.

I've been to New Zealand 3 times (and want to return next year); If I was well enough, I would emigrate there in an instant (with my IT degrees and experience, I could easily). It's one of the most beautiful countries in the world. It is expensive however. A friend out there went for his perm. visa but failed because they found a growth on his lung...he seriously wants to return. And a German friend of mine worked out there for nearly 2 years as a segway tour guide across the water from Auckland in Devonport. Now that just sounds like a bloomin awesome job.

I'd be happy for people voting Burnham...I've said that before on here but the other candidates are directionless. career politicians who have no real values that I would ascribe to that of Labour.

Exactly. It may have been foolish of me to think Labour wouldn't eventually come to this impasse, this virtual conservative model but it has and as far as New Labour goes, I don't think I'm alone in saying that if you wish to have more of the same, then like a lot of the Liberal voters, you might as well switch to the conservative party because the difference is pretty vague and the only people that can "do" conservatism are...surprisingly....the conservatives.

I think it was Tony Blair or even Corbyn who said that everyone has bits of left and bits of right in them, It's tricky but there is a thin line and I think Labour recently crossed it; was it when Liz Kendall decided to tell the unemployed on benefits that Labour wasn't the party for them? I don't know....but did you see that Bevan reference? You know Enoch Powell told everyone to vote Labour as they felt the UK workforce, at the time, would be hurt by free roaming EU membership...That's what I meant, to change such a view and then just look at people who took that view as virtual vermin offended me. I like some aspects of New Labour, but what I do not like is this scramble for virtually the right; which they are doing now. I think a lot of votes were lost because it seemed "New Labour" had reached an impasse and had no clue where to go but to support whatever the tories say. If this is what New Labour is, then I want no part of that.

Does that matter? I mean, look at Tony Benn....so they're rich people with consciences? My old mum noted a while ago that Karl Marx himself was rich and that perhaps he didn't completely follow his own advice but is it not better to try (maybe fail) at making things more equal than to (and this is my main gripe with the current government) when you see desperate cuts needing to be made, to first of all sh&t on the weakest in society?

Come on CB, I'm never that clear....I suppose what I meant was that they were scrabbling around for some sort of purpose, a meaning and they ended seemingly like nothing more than a copy of the conservatives.(I.e. Tory-lite). It irritated me that they ignored issues such as immigration...more that they blatantly just called whoever mentioned it racists (when as you probably know, their stance was very different until Bevan changed his mind). I was annoyed when they chose Ed over David as, at that time, I felt he had a better chance at being elected. But today, I just see Corbyn, so radically different that I think "ok, maybe we could do with a big change in politics as he certainly does seem popular". People can change their mind and it depends what the politician plays on, I mean, the campaigning he's doing against hitting the disabled with all kinds of cuts resonates with me. I pay my taxes and would prefer them to go to them and not members of the Burlington club (I've gone off on a tangent there). But to say "ohh, you believed in it then but not now" is just too simplistic.

I was thinking that too actually. It did seem like an advert for "amazing hair replacement gel" in that it says "experts swear by it" with not a great deal of evidence to back it up.

I, like most people, don't purely think of an ideological basis...there are people I warm to and there are people I don't...their politics may be similar; they may not either, I think you're just trying to get a rise but either way, this article sounds interesting...I don't much I'd place economic theory trust ona former footballer though http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/22/jeremy-corbyn-economists-backing-anti-austerity-policies-corbynomics

Not really, it's only bizarre since you think I'm some hard left voter. The amount of tory MP's parachuted in during the 97 election and obviously Tony Blair was what made it a "tory-lite" party. Not the list of names you give. Milliband at the time was the wrong choice; it's as simple as that. His brother had charisma, even if he was clearly new Labour; it's also something Corbyn seems to have but Corbyn however is very different to Ed.

I do hope it is Boris...Even that bumbling buffoon has actively spoken out against a lot of the idiotic and dogmatic things this current regime are doing.

Maybe Louise Mensch would be a better choice...jesus you Tories. Desperation. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/22/louise-menschs-bid-to-smear-jeremy-corbyn-backfires

He was pushed in by the unions....His brother at the time was clearly the more popular choice and it's the reason the current voting system is in place....I think most people could see he was the wrong choice. I'm not going to give you any evidence based argument as to why but it was pretty clear from the outset.

Did it sound like it? Sorry for the misunderstanding. The world and it's mother could see that Ed Milliband was the wrong choice. I also see what you mean Lord Duckhunter.

The irony of course being that this was all brought about by the right-wing media's (and frankly anyone else who could see his brother stood a better chance) demonisation of the union's push for Ed Milliband. I certainly think left-of-centre is required and I've said that Burnham is probably their best chance but the problem with the candidates...Corbyn aside...and the party itself, is that they are running around like a bunch of headless chickens with no clear strategy or agenda of their own. This needs to change. They need to be tougher I think is the bottom line and come up with policies that challenge the government and don't particularly in general support them because that I think is the main issue here.

That's a description a Lib Dem councillor friend/ former Labour campaigner gave me once. His view was that Labour had to basically destroy itself to gain power so he might as well join a "proper" Liberal party...which kinda backs up the theory that Labour assumed in 1997 that they were heading towards a Lib/Lab coalition. We know Kinnock and Foot lost, we'll never know about Smith, he seemed like he was essentially heading Labour towards power with a centre kinda Scottish presbetarian outlook. So I'm not one to rush to think that they were totally unelectable if they held those views but had the right leader....it's far too easy to come to that conclusion. New thinking is required on the part of Labour, but I don't think it's New Labour that's needed as it's as toxic a brand as Tony Blair is.

See, since the days of Ramsay MacDonald, Labour have tried to not present a view of itself as anything "too far" left...i.e. electable but my view is that they've played it rather too cautious, they've sat back whilst the con-dem coalition blamed everything (literally everything) on them ad nauseum so I think a lot of people we see it as time to "punish the interlopers" because I think a lot of labour voters consider a lot of new labour to be champagne socialists, the prawn sandwich brigade of socialism as it were. A new direction is needed for the UK Labour party, I'm not completely sold on Corbyn but out of the bunch he is the only one who comes across as honorable and with good intentions...if misguided intentions. I also think if the new labourites do indeed stage a coup, that'll be Labour's chance of election success blown maybe for 20-odd years.