All things Labour Party

[Wes Tender]

Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender

Or more correctly, allow them to keep more of their own money.

Buctootim:

Markets only work if they are regulated. Unregulated markets quickly become monopolies.

 

Not many people want a return to an absolute monarch with a few supplicant landowners and everbody else as serfs. If you had a grasp of some economic fundamentals you wouldnt write half the stuff you do.

 

Last edited by buctootim; Yesterday at 07:41 PM.

I don't know why in response to my post you have gone off on a tangent about unregulated markets and the monarchy. If you disagree with my post, why don't you counter it with something plausible and relevant? Do you disagree with my statement that instead of Cameron "shifting more money to the wealthy", it is more the case of allowing them to keep more of their own money? Let me see you demonstrate this grasp of ecomonic fundamentals you insinuate that you have by arguing the point. I took the position on this that Maggie Thatcher did, summed up by this quote of hers:-

 

"...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."

 

Economics isn't an exact science, so even the top economists get it wrong sometimes. For example, I presume that the EU took advice from their top economists over the chances of success of the EU single currency and look at what a disaster that has been.

 

Corbyn proposes a maximum earnings level apparently and I say that will result in either tax avoidance or the wealth creators leaving the country. Care to argue the toss over that?

 

The wheel having turned full circle, this is again appropriate from MT:

I sometimes think the Labour Party is like a pub where the mild is running out. If someone doesn't do something soon, all that's left will be bitter. And all that's bitter will be Left.

[Trader]

I wonder how the new look labour will effect things in Scotland? New labour clearly wasn't a hit and the SNP benefitted by taking the left side of the political spectrum. Scotland does seem to be quite left in it's leaning so a new more socialist Labour party might be a problem for the SNP?

 

Let's hope so.

[moonraker]

I give him 2 years tops he is unelectable as PM, this man has never had to make a decision that actually meant anything. Principles and ethics are to be admired, real decision makers and politicians must be cognoscente of the real world in their own time and do what works. No extreme left or right Government in History has ever really succeeded, indeed in the main they leave their countries far worse off. This man does not represent Labour, he represents an ideology that has failed elsewhere and that at best can positively influence some policies at worst would destroy this countries values, reputation and economy. I cant stand the Tories but Corbyn is not the answer and he has just handed the Tories at least another 5 years if not 10. One positive outcome maybe an honest realignment of Centre Left politics aka the SDP but this time not a gang 4 but a gang of 50 plus.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Human nature conquers all.

I don't blame people for acting in their own interest (within reason), but if it is creating a problem then that's where the government has to step in. And to be fair the government has reduced the tax breaks in its last Budget

[scotty]

I give him 2 years tops he is unelectable as PM, this man has never had to make a decision that actually meant anything. Principles and ethics are to be admired, real decision makers and politicians must be cognoscente of the real world in their own time and do what works. No extreme left or right Government in History has ever really succeeded, indeed in the main they leave their countries far worse off. This man does not represent Labour, he represents an ideology that has failed elsewhere and that at best can positively influence some policies at worst would destroy this countries values, reputation and economy. I cant stand the Tories but Corbyn is not the answer and he has just handed the Tories at least another 5 years if not 10. One positive outcome maybe an honest realignment of Centre Left politics aka the SDP but this time not a gang 4 but a gang of 50 plus.

 

Ed Miliband was unelectable as well, but labour still elected him leader. They might as well try an unknown quantity, Corbyn couldn't do any worse.

 

Even if it doesn't gain them anything electorally, at least there will be some sort of broadening of political debate. Blair and co just out-toried the tories, we haven't seen a left-wing alternative in decades.

[Saint-Armstrong]

[Lord Duckhunter]

Corbyn couldn't do any worse. .

 

He can.

[The Cat]

It will be interesting to revisit this thread in a year or two to see if people are as good (or bad) at judging politicians as they are at footballers.

[Saint-Armstrong]

Piers Morgan having a pop at Corbyn for not singing the national anthem.

[buctootim]

It will be interesting to revisit this thread in a year or two to see if people are as good (or bad) at judging politicians as they are at footballers.

 

Corbyn / Cameron / Ramirez can still can come good.

[buctootim]

Piers Morgan having a pop at Corbyn for not singing the national anthem.

 

Corbyn should have a pop at Morgan for being a fat smug **** no-one likes

[Batman]

could not even do his top button up for the service

 

scruffy ****

[Guided Missile]

Piers Morgan having a pop at Corbyn for not singing the national anthem.

The same Piers Morgan who printed fake photos of British soldiers abusing Iraqi PoW's. A right see you en tea if ever I saw one...

[Special K]

Silent during the anthem? I'm starting to like the fella.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

It will be interesting to revisit this thread in a year or two to see if people are as good (or bad) at judging politicians as they are at footballers.

(Mostly) happy to be proved wrong but I'll go on record and say I think Corbyn is and will be a disaster. No doubt his supporters will blame "the Blairites", which now appear to include the Guardian and 95% of Labour MPs, rather than their own poor judgment

[Johnny Bognor]

could not even do his top button up for the service

 

scruffy ****

 

If it wasn't for those brave souls, he wouldn't have the freedom to be a disrespectful ******

[Whitey Grandad]

Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender

Buctootim: I don't know why in response to my post you have gone off on a tangent about unregulated markets and the monarchy. If you disagree with my post, why don't you counter it with something plausible and relevant? Do you disagree with my statement that instead of Cameron "shifting more money to the wealthy", it is more the case of allowing them to keep more of their own money? Let me see you demonstrate this grasp of ecomonic fundamentals you insinuate that you have by arguing the point. I took the position on this that Maggie Thatcher did, summed up by this quote of hers:-

 

 

 

Economics isn't an exact science, so even the top economists get it wrong sometimes. For example, I presume that the EU took advice from their top economists over the chances of success of the EU single currency and look at what a disaster that has been.

 

Corbyn proposes a maximum earnings level apparently and I say that will result in either tax avoidance or the wealth creators leaving the country. Care to argue the toss over that?

 

The wheel having turned full circle, this is again appropriate from MT:

 

I don't agree that the Euro is not a success. I find it works quite well wherever I go. If Britain were in it it would be a considerable boost to our European sales. Why do you consider it a disaster?

[hypochondriac]

I don't agree that the Euro is not a success. I find it works quite well wherever I go. If Britain were in it it would be a considerable boost to our European sales. Why do you consider it a disaster?

 

Seriously? How can you look at Greece and consider it anything other than an utter disaster?

[Whitey Grandad]

Seriously? How can you look at Greece and consider it anything other than an utter disaster?

 

That's their fault for overspending and running a bloated public sector. As far as the powerhouse of Germany and France are concerned it's working fine. Spain, Ireland and Italy are all coping comfortably. The point about doing business within Europe is that you can have a uniform pricing structure across all countries. Can you imagine an Argos catalogue, for example, produced for every different country? I have a French bank account and I can use it all over Europe with no charges, it works wonderfully. We are in Ireland at the moment and I haven't seen any problems. They also use kilometres which seem much better.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

That's their fault for overspending and running a bloated public sector. As far as the powerhouse of Germany and France are concerned it's working fine. Spain, Ireland and Italy are all coping comfortably. The point about doing business within Europe is that you can have a uniform pricing structure across all countries. Can you imagine an Argos catalogue, for example, produced for every different country? I have a French bank account and I can use it all over Europe with no charges, it works wonderfully. We are in Ireland at the moment and I haven't seen any problems. They also use kilometres which seem much better.

Any economist, right or left, will tell you that Greece's inability to devalue its currency has massively hurt its economy. The same has been true in Spain, Ireland and Italy. If they could have made their exports cheaper they would not seen their economy tank so badly.

 

Its the same as when Churchill tried to tie us to the gold standard or Lamont tried to keep us in the ERM, you need flexibility of exchange rates if you are not a fully integrated country.

 

The recession here would have been much worse if we were in the Euro

 

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

[hypochondriac]

That's their fault for overspending and running a bloated public sector. As far as the powerhouse of Germany and France are concerned it's working fine. Spain, Ireland and Italy are all coping comfortably. The point about doing business within Europe is that you can have a uniform pricing structure across all countries. Can you imagine an Argos catalogue, for example, produced for every different country? I have a French bank account and I can use it all over Europe with no charges, it works wonderfully. We are in Ireland at the moment and I haven't seen any problems. They also use kilometres which seem much better.

 

The inflexibility of the euro made a bad situation much worse. No doubt Greece got themselves into it but the euro meant it was virtually impossible for them to get out without those huge bailouts. All those countries you mentioned coped much worse than the UK with the crash precisely because they were locked in to the euro. Retrospectively many old supporters of the euro have admitted it was fortunate we didn't decide to join. Financial union doesn't work properly without political union. I doubt you will find many who will agree with your pro euro stance for the UK. That's before you even mention things like my Italian relatives who still complain that the confusion from the change meant that almost everyone put their prices up and they never came down...

Edited 15 September, 2015 by hypochondriac

[Trader]

the confusion from the change meant that almost everyone put their prices up and they never came down...

 

A few on here will remember that is is exactly what happened after decimalisation.

[whelk]

An unlikely complimentary piece by Peter Hitchens in the Mail

 

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/09/my-evening-with-jeremy-corbyn.html

[aintforever]

Blair and co just out-toried the tories, we haven't seen a left-wing alternative in decades.

 

I don't get the Tory Blair thing, all we heard about before the election was how The Blair/brown government spent recklessly and left the country broke - doesn't sound very Tory to me.

 

Apart from the Iraq war (ok a big **** up) and not having a crystal ball to predict the world banking crisis I don't think they did a lot wrong.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

I don't get the Tory Blair thing, all we heard about before the election was how The Blair/brown government spent recklessly and left the country broke - doesn't sound very Tory to me.

 

Apart from the Iraq war (ok a big **** up) and not having a crystal ball to predict the world banking crisis I don't think they did a lot wrong.

 

50 Labour achievements

http://www.leedsne.co.uk/50_labour_achievements

 

Yet the Corbynites think it's better to shout from the margins as the Tories dismantle the welfare state.

 

This is interesting on maternity leave in particular:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/the-timeline-maternity-leave-2113236.html

 

European exceptions, 1988

 

 

In 1988 a European Commission report demonstrated the extent to which Britain lagged behind its contemporaries in employment law. The only state not to provide full statutory maternity leave, Britain had blocked the adoption of a draft directive setting out minimum standards on parental leave.

 

 

New Labour, 1999

 

 

Two years after New Labour swept into power, the Employment Relations Act granted all employees a minimum of three months' unpaid parental leave, while mothers were entitled to 18 weeks' paid leave.

[Sheaf Saint]

I don't get the Tory Blair thing, all we heard about before the election was how The Blair/brown government spent recklessly and left the country broke - doesn't sound very Tory to me.

 

Apart from the Iraq war (ok a big **** up) and not having a crystal ball to predict the world banking crisis I don't think they did a lot wrong.

 

Of course we did. That was the narrative that the Tories used to turn opinion against Labour (as if Gordon Clown hadn't already done enough in that respect!)

 

The fact is though, that up until the crash of 2008, George Osbourne broadly supported Labour's spending plans. It was only when the worldwide crash hit that he and Cameron saw an opportunity to alter the public discourse completely and lay the blame for the whole thing at Labour's door. Depressingly, it worked. To this day, I still encounter people who are convinced that the Labour government was solely to blame for the global banking crisis.

[Hockey_saint]

Of course we did. That was the narrative that the Tories used to turn opinion against Labour (as if Gordon Clown hadn't already done enough in that respect!)

 

The fact is though, that up until the crash of 2008, George Osbourne broadly supported Labour's spending plans. It was only when the worldwide crash hit that he and Cameron saw an opportunity to alter the public discourse completely and lay the blame for the whole thing at Labour's door. Depressingly, it worked. To this day, I still encounter people who are convinced that the Labour government was solely to blame for the global banking crisis.

 

I suspect they are currently doing the same with this "danger to national security" nonsense. We've probably got 5 years of this and by the end...Everyone will believe it despite the Labour deputy Watson coming out and saying he's totally against the removal of trident.

[Sheaf Saint]

I suspect they are currently doing the same with this "danger to national security" nonsense. We've probably got 5 years of this and by the end...Everyone will believe it despite the Labour deputy Watson coming out and saying he's totally against the removal of trident.

 

Yep. Unfortunately, when the government and the heads of the biggest newspapers and broadcast media are in bed with each other to the extent they are currently in the UK, they can pretty much say whatever they want people to believe, and the plebs will swallow it hook, line and sinker.

 

Today's Sun headline story is a prime example. They printed a picture of Corbyn wearing a jester's hat with the headline "Labour hypocrite: Lefty who hates the royals WILL kiss Queen's hand to grab £6.2m" - trying to suggest that Corbyn has only accepted a seat on the Privy Council in order to get a slice of funding that the Labour party would have got anyway. The 'expert' quoted in the story has already publicly stated that this is not what he intended and is extremely misleading (article here) but the millions of Sun readers who have already read and absorbed the article will undoubtedly have already made up their minds it is true, and the actual facts get consigned to a tiny mention on the internet, because it is not in the interests of the publishers to report that.

 

There are many who decry the BBC as a blatantly biased 'lefty' organisation. Well, by it's very nature it is a left-wing organisation - it is a public service broadcaster paid for out of public funds for the benefit of the entire population. But even if it is true that it has a left-wing bias, it still doesn't go anywhere near to balancing out the blatant, extreme right-wing bias of the major newspapers (Telegraph, Mail, Express, all the Murdoch papers) which have an uncomfortably powerful influence on public opinion.

[Hockey_saint]

Yep. Unfortunately, when the government and the heads of the biggest newspapers and broadcast media are in bed with each other to the extent they are currently in the UK, they can pretty much say whatever they want people to believe, and the plebs will swallow it hook, line and sinker.

 

Today's Sun headline story is a prime example. They printed a picture of Corbyn wearing a jester's hat with the headline "Labour hypocrite: Lefty who hates the royals WILL kiss Queen's hand to grab £6.2m" - trying to suggest that Corbyn has only accepted a seat on the Privy Council in order to get a slice of funding that the Labour party would have got anyway. The 'expert' quoted in the story has already publicly stated that this is not what he intended and is extremely misleading (article here) but the millions of Sun readers who have already read and absorbed the article will undoubtedly have already made up their minds it is true, and the actual facts get consigned to a tiny mention on the internet, because it is not in the interests of the publishers to report that.

 

There are many who decry the BBC as a blatantly biased 'lefty' organisation. Well, by it's very nature it is a left-wing organisation - it is a public service broadcaster paid for out of public funds for the benefit of the entire population. But even if it is true that it has a left-wing bias, it still doesn't go anywhere near to balancing out the blatant, extreme right-wing bias of the major newspapers (Telegraph, Mail, Express, all the Murdoch papers) which have an uncomfortably powerful influence on public opinion.

 

I personally found Michael Gove in the house of commons today shouting "why don't you just resign now" particularly repugnant. I do like (like in the sense it's so obviously orchestrated) how every tory MP has used social media to use the following variant of a line "he's in bed with terrorists" well, my answer to the Palestine example would be this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Balfour

 

Whilst finding the Jewish people a home was a good idea and it ultimately led to a lot of countries being created, the downside is that we'd already signed a pretty darn big agreement with the Arabs to allow the Palestinians to live independently in Palestine....Now, I don't mean to sound like that Scottish fellow but you can't really eject a people from their homes, replace them with some new settlers and expect a peaceful settlement....so who lit the touch paper for groups like Hammas? The conservative party.

[Sheaf Saint]

I personally found Michael Gove in the house of commons today shouting "why don't you just resign now" particularly repugnant.

 

Did he? I didn't catch that. There is not a single thing that Gove could do which would make my opinion of him any lower than it already is though.

[Whitey Grandad]

I personally found Michael Gove in the house of commons today shouting "why don't you just resign now" particularly repugnant. I do like (like in the sense it's so obviously orchestrated) how every tory MP has used social media to use the following variant of a line "he's in bed with terrorists" well, my answer to the Palestine example would be this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Balfour

 

Whilst finding the Jewish people a home was a good idea and it ultimately led to a lot of countries being created, the downside is that we'd already signed a pretty darn big agreement with the Arabs to allow the Palestinians to live independently in Palestine....Now, I don't mean to sound like that Scottish fellow but you can't really eject a people from their homes, replace them with some new settlers and expect a peaceful settlement....so who lit the touch paper for groups like Hammas? The conservative party.

 

The Arab-Jewish business has been going on for a lot longer than the Conservative Party. There's much that you can blame them for but laying the problems of the Middle East in with them is going way too far.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

The fact is though, that up until the crash of 2008, George Osbourne broadly supported Labour's spending plans. It was only when the worldwide crash hit that he and Cameron saw an opportunity to alter the public discourse completely and lay the blame for the whole thing at Labour's door. Depressingly, it worked. To this day, I still encounter people who are convinced that the Labour government was solely to blame for the global banking crisis.

 

That's because "Call me Dave " is the very worst type of wet Heath like Tory . A proper Tory knows you cut public spending in growth years , but these clowns were so wedded to the Blairite model they forgot all about basic economic reality . Everybody lost leave of their senses and believed this " no more boom and bust" pony .

 

Labour fully supported membership of the ERM , but I don't recall that from stopping them attacking the Tories when it went belly up. What comes around goes around .

[Hockey_saint]

The Arab-Jewish business has been going on for a lot longer than the Conservative Party. There's much that you can blame them for but laying the problems of the Middle East in with them is going way too far.

 

No, you are wrong. Whilst it is true Jewish-Arab tensions had been simmering for quite some time, walking in, promising to free the Palestines of the Turkish yoke (Boris is part Turkish by the way) and then, on the insistance of rich British Jewish banking families like the Rothschilds to completely ignore this and go ahead and agree with the Jewish Homeland

can be squarely.....and historically, fairly be posted at the feet of the conservative party and without Israel....No Hamas. And I digress, Jews lived peacefully in Palestine for a long time before we got there.

 

 

I find your assertation that the British cannot be blamed for the problems in the middle east (ergo the conservative party) a little uneasy as its all historical fact....especially coming from a "Labour supporter".

[View From The Top]

That's because "Call me Dave " is the very worst type of wet Heath like Tory . A proper Tory knows you cut public spending in growth years , but these clowns were so wedded to the Blairite model they forgot all about basic economic reality . Everybody lost leave of their senses and believed this " no more boom and bust" pony .

 

And there you have just way so many of the left voted for JC. He's a clean break from the sharp suited, career politician, tory-lite Blairites that are hardly discernible from the tories themselves.

 

I think it's fair to say that whilst many want a movement that is left of center they don't want a far (by UK standards) left movement. The majority of lefties I know what a central left party similar to many on mainland Europe.

[Sour Mash]

Yep. Unfortunately, when the government and the heads of the biggest newspapers and broadcast media are in bed with each other to the extent they are currently in the UK, they can pretty much say whatever they want people to believe, and the plebs will swallow it hook, line and sinker.

 

Today's Sun headline story is a prime example. They printed a picture of Corbyn wearing a jester's hat with the headline "Labour hypocrite: Lefty who hates the royals WILL kiss Queen's hand to grab £6.2m" - trying to suggest that Corbyn has only accepted a seat on the Privy Council in order to get a slice of funding that the Labour party would have got anyway. The 'expert' quoted in the story has already publicly stated that this is not what he intended and is extremely misleading (article here) but the millions of Sun readers who have already read and absorbed the article will undoubtedly have already made up their minds it is true, and the actual facts get consigned to a tiny mention on the internet, because it is not in the interests of the publishers to report that.

 

There are many who decry the BBC as a blatantly biased 'lefty' organisation. Well, by it's very nature it is a left-wing organisation - it is a public service broadcaster paid for out of public funds for the benefit of the entire population. But even if it is true that it has a left-wing bias, it still doesn't go anywhere near to balancing out the blatant, extreme right-wing bias of the major newspapers (Telegraph, Mail, Express, all the Murdoch papers) which have an uncomfortably powerful influence on public opinion.

The fact is, people have a choice if they buy the Telegraph, Express, Sun etc, but if they want to own a tv, they have no choice but to subsidise the BBC, regardless of whether they watch it, or if it reflects their views or interests. Newspapers can influence public opinion, but they're also a reflection of the public's views - if people didn't like what they write, they'd buy a different paper.

[Hockey_saint]

And there you have just way so many of the left voted for JC. He's a clean break from the sharp suited, career politician, tory-lite Blairites that are hardly discernible from the tories themselves.

 

I think it's fair to say that whilst many want a movement that is left of center they don't want a far (by UK standards) left movement. The majority of lefties I know what a central left party similar to many on mainland Europe.

 

No we don't but the irony that Marxism is a British idea shouldn't go unnoticed.

[Viking Warrior]

I will never trust Corbyn

He not only appoints a shadow chancellor who would rather honour IRA terrorist than the British armed forces and believes violence was the way forward by stating he would assainate thatcher

Then Corbyn is pro Hamas and hisbollah .im pro Palestinian but not those two terrorist groups

I would not be surprised if he will be in favour of ISIS in the future

[Sheaf Saint]

The fact is, people have a choice if they buy the Telegraph, Express, Sun etc, but if they want to own a tv, they have no choice but to subsidise the BBC, regardless of whether they watch it, or if it reflects their views or interests.

 

Yes that's true, of course. And that is also why I do not agree that they have a left-wing bias. It is clear that they go to great lengths to ensure that they give equal credence to all sides of any argument. I'm just pointing out that if there is a left-leaning within the organisation, it's quite understandable given that it is a nationalised service. Of course, you will never get the BBC coming out firmly in support of one political party over another in the way that the national newspapers do, and you will never see them reporting on news stories with such an obvious politically-motivated slant such as today's Sun headline that I mentioned earlier.

 

Newspapers can influence public opinion, but they're also a reflection of the public's views - if people didn't like what they write, they'd buy a different paper.

 

That is true only to a certain extent. There are many reasons why people buy a particular newspaper, and in many cases they will continue to do so completely oblivious to the prejudiced and manipulative way in which political stories are delivered.

[Hockey_saint]

I will never trust Corbyn

He not only appoints a shadow chancellor who would rather honour IRA terrorist than the British armed forces and believes violence was the way forward by stating he would assainate thatcher

Then Corbyn is pro Hamas and hisbollah .im pro Palestinian but not those two terrorist groups

I would not be surprised if he will be in favour of ISIS in the future

 

Wait, that'll be the next co-ordinated conservative party claim!....But again, should we mention pro-west Mujahaadin "freedom fighters" sponsored and armed by the Thatcher government who became Bin Laden's group who's splinter cell became ISIS?.....Although, no, we can't blame the conservative party for the Egyptian goddess of wealth.

[Lord Duckhunter]

And there you have just way so many of the left voted for JC. He's a clean break from the sharp suited, career politician, tory-lite Blairites that are hardly discernible from the tories themselves.

 

I think it's fair to say that whilst many want a movement that is left of center they don't want a far (by UK standards) left movement. The majority of lefties I know what a central left party similar to many on mainland Europe.

 

The problem is Corbyn is not the man to hang the leftie hat on , but there is nobody else . Maybe In another life Caroline Lucas could have been the one .

 

The Tories are in the same boat , it's all " middle managers " rather than deep thinkers with politcal convictions. David Davis has some interesting ideas , but he's persona non grata .

[hypochondriac]

Yes that's true, of course. And that is also why I do not agree that they have a left-wing bias. It is clear that they go to great lengths to ensure that they give equal credence to all sides of any argument. I'm just pointing out that if there is a left-leaning within the organisation, it's quite understandable given that it is a nationalised service. Of course, you will never get the BBC coming out firmly in support of one political party over another in the way that the national newspapers do, and you will never see them reporting on news stories with such an obvious politically-motivated slant such as today's Sun headline that I mentioned earlier.

 

 

 

That is true only to a certain extent. There are many reasons why people buy a particular newspaper, and in many cases they will continue to do so completely oblivious to the prejudiced and manipulative way in which political stories are delivered.

 

I don't think that's really true. The public aren't just a passive receptacle who swallow everything they hear. I don't think I know anyone who doesn't know that the mail and the sun have very silly articles in the main. Even people who buy them say that.

[Saint-Armstrong]

[View From The Top]

The problem is Corbyn is not the man to hang the leftie hat on , but there is nobody else . Maybe In another life Caroline Lucas could have been the one .

 

The Tories are in the same boat , it's all " middle managers " rather than deep thinkers with politcal convictions. David Davis has some interesting ideas , but he's persona non grata .

 

I don't disagree but just perhaps it opens the door for others. Time will tell of course.

[Sour Mash]

Yes that's true, of course. And that is also why I do not agree that they have a left-wing bias. It is clear that they go to great lengths to ensure that they give equal credence to all sides of any argument. I'm just pointing out that if there is a left-leaning within the organisation, it's quite understandable given that it is a nationalised service. Of course, you will never get the BBC coming out firmly in support of one political party over another in the way that the national newspapers do, and you will never see them reporting on news stories with such an obvious politically-motivated slant such as today's Sun headline that I mentioned earlier.

 

 

 

That is true only to a certain extent. There are many reasons why people buy a particular newspaper, and in many cases they will continue to do so completely oblivious to the prejudiced and manipulative way in which political stories are delivered.

Why should it be understandable if the BBc has any political bias? I don't think it is too much to expect them to be politically neutral.

 

What are the reasons for people to buy newspapers, apart from liking what is written and shown in them?

[Hockey_saint]

I hope this isn't another "donkey jacket incident" :s

[Gemmel]

I hope this isn't another "donkey jacket incident" :s

 

Actually that is exactly what this is., Michael foot all-over again.

 

The difference this time, is that Corbyn won't ever run for prime minister

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Wait, that'll be the next co-ordinated conservative party claim!....But again, should we mention pro-west Mujahaadin "freedom fighters" sponsored and armed by the Thatcher government who became Bin Laden's group who's splinter cell became ISIS? ...

 

But British & US assistance to the Mujadidin was itself a response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. So therefore it you lefties who are really to blame for everything then.

 

This is a fun game

[Orange]

The fact is, people have a choice if they buy the Telegraph, Express, Sun etc, but if they want to own a tv, they have no choice but to subsidise the BBC, regardless of whether they watch it, or if it reflects their views or interests. Newspapers can influence public opinion, but they're also a reflection of the public's views - if people didn't like what they write, they'd buy a different paper.

 

Something that lefties always seem to forget. I despise the BBC and what it stands for ,but if i want to own a TV i risk criminal prosecution if i don't sign up and fund it. No freedom of choice.

[Orange]

That's their fault for overspending and running a bloated public sector. As far as the powerhouse of Germany and France are concerned it's working fine. Spain, Ireland and Italy are all coping comfortably. The point about doing business within Europe is that you can have a uniform pricing structure across all countries. Can you imagine an Argos catalogue, for example, produced for every different country? I have a French bank account and I can use it all over Europe with no charges, it works wonderfully. We are in Ireland at the moment and I haven't seen any problems. They also use kilometres which seem much better.

 

You really saying everything is fine in Spain and Italy, and they've done well in the long run out the Euro? With their current levels of unemployment? I work with a lot of Spanish who laugh me out the room when i ask them about work, opportunities in Spain etc.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

How can you lead a nation when you refuse to even sing its national anthem? How as a leader can you expect loyalty from others when you have spent your entire political career refusing to display that quality yourself? How can you possibly appoint a man who has vowed to 'destroy capitalism' as your Chancellor of the Exchequer?

 

Opposites attract they say, but Jeremy Corbyn and the Parliamentary Labour Party looks like a marriage made in hell. Already 100 Labour MP's - including senior Shadow Cabinet members - are apparently determined to support the UK's continued membership of the EU come-what-may, while their new leader is a long term opponent of the Union. His future SNP allies are also committed to the EU and there seems little prospect of a future Labour Government without Scottish support.

 

So to lead this party effectively for the first time in his life Corbyn will have to learn to how to compromise on his cherished principles, just like any other serious grown-up politician would. Can he stomach that idea ... watch this space.