The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[tonyh29]

Apparently he used one line that was written for Ed & was given permission to do so.

He appears to have used about 8  or more paragraphs  written by Heller  for Milliband in 2011 but never used 

no big deal far as I can see unless they were given to him written on a giant stone slab

[snowychap]

Another line or two from Mr Heller:

Tony Blair led the Labour party the way Basil Fawlty ran his hotel on Gourmet Night, insulting and abusing the long-stay residents in the hope of attracting a better clientèle.

 

[Demitri_C]

He comes across like a nice bloke but I think he seems to have big ideas but not explaining how he intends to pay for them

[chrisp65]

He comes across like a nice bloke but I think he seems to have big ideas but not explaining how he intends to pay for them

Agreed, it's all a bit 'aspirational' at the moment. But then, he's been in the job for less than 3 weeks and it's the best part of 5 years before the next election.

Shadow Chancellor speech about getting Starbucks and Google and Amazon to pay tax is a great idea and the right thing to do and should be pursued. But implementation might be slightly trickier. Similarly, they've stated they want to slash the benefits culture which must be a good thing. There are too many benefits cheats and we need to start strangling off their supply of lifestyle subsidy and money for free. I'm a big fan of that idea. 

[Richard]

Well he's said that if he was PM he would not use Nuclear weapons. In itself sticks to his principles etc but basically letting any potential enemy know that the high cost defensive system we have will not be used ,  thus nullifying the threat we have.  Nice one

[chrisp65]

If we were in imminent threat of nuclear attack, genuinely at risk of atomic war, from a known force we could retaliate to, how long do you think Corbyn would be in charge?

I'd worry more about real day to day life and leave future nuclear armageddon for the speculative after dinner conversation.

Making it law for striking workers to have to wear a special coloured armband to identify themselves is, for me, quite a sinister development proposed by Cameron. I'd work on that one before getting too worried about unspecified future nuclear winter coinciding with Corbyn's possible time in high office.

[markavfc40]

He comes across like a nice bloke but I think he seems to have big ideas but not explaining how he intends to pay for them

 

 

I’d imagine part of it will be funded by those of us who can afford to be paying more in tax. Won’t go down well with some but I have always maintained I would be happy to pay a few quid more in taxes if it helped to ensure that we had better public services and that the less fortunate amongst us – the elderly, sick, disabled etc were better looked after.

 

In terms of the standard of its public services this country is going rapidly backwards and the standard of services in no way reflects the wealth of this country.

 

I am not sure whether we are too selfish though as a nation to vote in a party/party’s that may ask those of us who can to give more. We saw in the most recent election a social conscience went out the window due to the fear of losing a couple of quid in the pocket.

 

Edited September 30, 2015 by markavfc40

[Richard]

If we were in imminent threat of nuclear attack, genuinely at risk of atomic war, from a known force we could retaliate to, how long do you think Corbyn would be in charge?

I'd worry more about real day to day life and leave future nuclear armageddon for the speculative after dinner conversation.

Making it law for striking workers to have to wear a special coloured armband to identify themselves is, for me, quite a sinister development proposed by Cameron. I'd work on that one before getting too worried about unspecified future nuclear winter coinciding with Corbyn's possible time in high office.

I'm afraid there's a bit more to it than that.  His party are yet to have a policy discussion on Trident,  in making this comment today he has undermined that discussion and said even if his party votes to retain trident he wont use it. I think even his Shadow Defence Secretary realises that as she said his comments were "unhelpful"

[Demitri_C]

He comes across like a nice bloke but I think he seems to have big ideas but not explaining how he intends to pay for them

 

 

I’d imagine part of it will be funded by those of us who can afford to paying more in tax. Won’t go down well with some but I have always maintained I would be happy to pay a few quid more in taxes if it helped to ensure that we had better public services and that the less fortunate amongst us – the elderly, sick, disabled etc were better looked after.

 

In terms of the standard of its public services this country is going rapidly backwards and the standard of services in no way reflects the wealth of this country.

 

I am not sure whether we are too selfish though as a nation to vote in a party/party’s that may ask those of us who can to give more. We saw in the most recent election a social conscience went out the window due to the fear of losing a couple of quid in the pocket.

 

I dont think many wealthy would oppose paying more tax but the money has to be distributed correctly. It should NOT go to those who have been unemployed and too lazy too work as there are a lot of people that get this. Those with proven disabilities who cant work yes should be supported as should be the elderly.

I think going after companies like starbucks is a great idea and I would support that. My other concern with Corbyn is he seems quite soft. i dont think he will have that ruthless streak in him if a a really tough decision is required.

 

I personally do not think he will do as badly in the polls as that drip Miliband did despite what the media say

[snowychap]

I dont think many wealthy would oppose paying more tax but the money has to be distributed correctly. It should NOT go to those who have been unemployed and too lazy too work as there are a lot of people that get this.

How many people?

And what proportion of the tax take/government spending does this amount to?

People don't have a problem with increases in taxes for this reason. They have a problem with increases in taxes and they pick out something trivial yet difficult to argue against such as this (money going to the lazy) as an easy justification for their stance.

 

Edited September 30, 2015 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

 

I'm afraid there's a bit more to it than that.  His party are yet to have a policy discussion on Trident,  in making this comment today he has undermined that discussion and said even if his party votes to retain trident he wont use it. I think even his Shadow Defence Secretary realises that as she said his comments were "unhelpful"

 

 

No, that's exactly the same point.

IF the whole party discusses it and decides their policy is not ever to press the button and to decommission, that's a different thing at that point and will probably lose them the next election - so it then remains a purely academic talking point anyway. But Corbyn reiterating that he himself would be against it and wouldn't press the button, but is happy to have a chat is what we all already knew.

Corbyn personally not pressing the button in a fantasy future scenario does not automatically equate with us not fighting back in the 2023 nuclear holocaust. I think everything about Corbyn suggests that in a properly shitty massive war scenario with our cities and tens of millions of lives at stake he would declare his utter unsuitability as a war leader and step down. But its all just fantastical guessing of the future with a string of IF words in it.

Meanwhile, on planet earth, er, bedroom tax! bastards! has come in whilst the rich are told they can keep more of their money. We've given £3,000,000 to China to promote amateur chinese football and a steel plant in Redcar with 1,700 jobs is closing.

Edited September 30, 2015 by chrisp65
if you ain't captured the quote it didn't happen!

[tonyh29]

When did free school meals go ? 

 

[Xann]

A switch has to be on in the US for Trident to work.

We couldn't use it without the go ahead from Washington.

Doesn't matter who's in charge over here.

Makes that big spend all seem a bit pointless.

Since we're not interested in building our own delivery system, lease the Yanks some land and let them pay for the nukes.

[MakemineVanilla]

A switch has to be on in the US for Trident to work.

We couldn't use it without the go ahead from Washington.

Doesn't matter who's in charge over here.

Makes that big spend all seem a bit pointless.

Since we're not interested in building our own delivery system, lease the Yanks some land and let them pay for the nukes.

Add those factors to the fact we 'only' have 200 warheads compared with France's 300 and Russia's 8000, it is hard to think up a country we could bully into submitting to our will.

[chrisp65]

When did free school meals go ? 

 

what?

[tonyh29]

We don't keep any of our nukes on land though  , they are submarine based since around 1997

 

I thought BAE were developing "Concept 35" for the new Tridents ?

[Xann]

We don't, the Yanks do. The deterrent in Germany isn't sub based.

Concept 35  is a quiet sub, doesn't make much odds to missile guidance.

[tonyh29]

When did free school meals go ? 

 

what?

[chrisp65]

Sounds like Eamon Holmes has had an awful interview with JC. Lots of questions that referenced Man Utd and the colour of ties and FA Cup analogies.

I'd have to confess, I hadn't even realised Holmes was still on the telly?

Indie

He began the interview by asking Mr Corbyn: “It wasn’t such a good night for you last night, because I know you're an Arsenal supporter, but it was all going so well and then look at what happened last night. Every young lad has a dream of appearing in the FA cup final, and scoring the winning goal, and I was looking at you and the love there was for you in the room, and you were basking in it - was yesterday your FA cup final?”

 

This just 24 hours after Corbyn complained that much of the media was a banal shitfest.

 

[Richard]

 

I'm afraid there's a bit more to it than that.  His party are yet to have a policy discussion on Trident,  in making this comment today he has undermined that discussion and said even if his party votes to retain trident he wont use it. I think even his Shadow Defence Secretary realises that as she said his comments were "unhelpful"

 

 

No, that's exactly the same point.

IF the whole party discusses it and decides their policy is not ever to press the button and to decommission, that's a different thing at that point and will probably lose them the next election - so it then remains a purely academic talking point anyway. But Corbyn reiterating that he himself would be against it and wouldn't press the button, but is happy to have a chat is what we all already knew.

Corbyn personally not pressing the button in a fantasy future scenario does not automatically equate with us not fighting back in the 2023 nuclear holocaust. I think everything about Corbyn suggests that in a properly shitty massive war scenario with our cities and tens of millions of lives at stake he would declare his utter unsuitability as a war leader and step down. But its all just fantastical guessing of the future with a string of IF words in it.

Meanwhile, on planet earth, er, bedroom tax! bastards! has come in whilst the rich are told they can keep more of their money. We've given £3,000,000 to China to promote amateur chinese football and a steel plant in Redcar with 1,700 jobs is closing.

No you have missed the point spectacularly,  whether you are aware of it or not.  Several members of the shadow cabinet disagree with you and have come out and said so today,  one Labour MP has said that Corbyn's words would make the "grotesque horror of a nuclear holocaust" more likely.. Corbyn also believes debate is just about making sure people come round to his point of view.

It seems you are saying Corbyn will only be prime minister in certain times I think the public have a right to be clear that they vote for a PM.  Thankfully he will never have the title Prime Minister so in that respect the point is moot