Oh Jeremy Corbyn (5 Viewers)

mrtrench · Oct 5, 2017

My take on Corbyn and the IRA.

He's deliberately avoided saying that he condemns them in interviews, even when pressed he says "I condemn all violence". Why?

I think it is because he still has some political pressures not to condemn them - either by his own Left wing support base or because he still has some affinity to the ex-IRA or Sinn Fein leadership. It seems clear to me that he used to support them but either he has now reconsidered and cannot quite distance himself totally, or he still supports them but realises it would be political suicide to state it outright.

It's very similar to his response when asked if he is a Marxist. Won't answer the question.

Grendel · Oct 5, 2017

ccfctommy said:
You can also argue the amount of times unelected Farage is on Question Time is disproportionate.

Maybe just maybe the BBC does not have a left/right bias after all?

Question Time is now literally a shouting room for the left.

Last week there was a labour MP and an alleged comedian who was also a labour scriptwriter. The MP sounded like Oz the brickie but made less sense and the other socialist said all dictators are men. Every time they spoke there was whoops and cheers. Week before the other guest was the pretend socialist Will Self who sneered and made his usual socialist sound bytes again with massive applause from a clearly biased left wing audience.

Grendel · Oct 5, 2017

mrtrench said:
My take on Corbyn and the IRA.

He's deliberately avoided saying that he condemns them in interviews, even when pressed he says "I condemn all violence". Why?

I think it is because he still has some political pressures not to condemn them - either by his own Left wing support base or because he still has some affinity to the ex-IRA or Sinn Fein leadership. It seems clear to me that he used to support them but either he has now reconsidered and cannot quite distance himself totally, or he still supports them but realises it would be political suicide to state it outright.

It's very similar to his response when asked if he is a Marxist. Won't answer the question.

As well as when asked to condemn atrocities committed by his much heralded socialist leader of venazula

mrtrench · Oct 5, 2017

torchomatic said:
Therewasaworldwiderecession
There, did it in one word.

We've done this to death in other threads.

There was a world wide recession caused by banks. There are two main banking hubs in the world: New York and London. And at the time London was becoming bigger than New York.
The banking crisis was caused by their own stupidity but also by deregulation and credit bubbles in both the USA and UK. The people deregulating and encouraging the credit bubbles were Greenspan and Brown. New Labour has a lot to answer for in this case.

However, in addition, Brown had run a deficit for years before the crash. And even worse, he'd borrowed loads more on PFI: borrowing that wasn't reflected in government debt/ the deficit and has hampered us every year since. At the time, Ed Balls mentioned Keynes: "We should really spend during a recession". Interesting, because Keynes also said that governments should save during growth, paying back the debt. Had Brown not run a deficit and signed all those PFI agreements, the recession would have been less extreme.

Ian1779 · Oct 5, 2017

I love all of a sudden the plight of Venezuela becomes a hotbed of Tory morals.

Perhaps they've never heard of the Yemen - you know the place that gets bombed when May's government sell weapons to Saudi Arabia.

skybluegod · Oct 5, 2017

clint van damme said:
I haven't dismissed it, I disagree with it and don't understand it, that's not arrogance.

Suggesting that people are being strung along because they have other beliefs than you is arrogant and is dismissing it?
It’s like a Christian going to a Muslim, you’re being strung along by allah.

Grendel · Oct 5, 2017

Ian1779 said:
I love all of a sudden the plight of Venezuela becomes a hotbed of Tory morals.

Perhaps they've never heard of the Yemen - you know the place that gets bombed when May's government sell weapons to Saudi Arabia.

It's never been mentioned by anyone here other than Corbyn who holds it up as a model of socialism to be proud of.

Perhaps you agree and would like to live under a similar regime - at least it might open your eyes to what child poverty really means.

clint van damme · Oct 5, 2017

skybluegod said:
Suggesting that people are being strung along because they have other beliefs than you is arrogant and is dismissing it?
It’s like a Christian going to a Muslim, you’re being strung along by allah.

it's disagreeing with it, but you think what you like.

skybluegod · Oct 5, 2017

Ian1779 said:
I love all of a sudden the plight of Venezuela becomes a hotbed of Tory morals.

Perhaps they've never heard of the Yemen - you know the place that gets bombed when May's government sell weapons to Saudi Arabia.

You mention the trade of weapons with the saudi’s.
But how many civilians were killed during the Afghanistan/Iraq wars that Labour government backed bombing campaigns in?

clint van damme · Oct 5, 2017

Grendel said:
Question Time is now literally a shouting room for the left.

Last week there was a labour MP and an alleged comedian who was also a labour scriptwriter. The MP sounded like Oz the brickie but made less sense and the other socialist said all dictators are men. Every time they spoke there was whoops and cheers. Week before the other guest was the pretend socialist Will Self who sneered and made his usual socialist sound bytes again with massive applause from a clearly biased left wing audience.

but it wasn't that long ago there was a young tory on claiming to be a student working on a zero hour contract and defending them!!
Then there was the infamous episode from Yorkshire where a succession of middle aged men called for the bombing of all and sundry so I'm not sure where they fit in with your theory.

I would rather there were no plants by anyone but that's the climate we're in now.

chiefdave · Oct 5, 2017

clint van damme said:
I'd have laughed if security had tasered him.

I get that you can't stop anyone with a ticket getting in, although you would have thought they'd be on the lookout for known people like him. And equally he wouldn't be suspicious carrying a piece of paper but the amount of time he was allowed up close with the PM before anyone bothered to do anything was concerning.

What if it was someone with more serious intentions?

mrtrench · Oct 5, 2017

chiefdave said:
What if it was someone with more serious intentions?

You have to assume that it they'd more serious intentions they would have had a weapon which would have been found. I like his comedy; saw him in Edinburgh two years ago - but I don't think this was very funny. Not because it was May; because it was a poor joke.

skybluegod · Oct 5, 2017

chiefdave said:
.
What if it was someone with more serious intentions?

No doubt Jeremy Corbyn would have made a speech about how it was her own fault for making police cuts.

Captain Dart · Oct 5, 2017

mrtrench said:
You have to assume that it they'd more serious intentions they would have had a weapon which would have been found. I like his comedy; saw him in Edinburgh two years ago - but I don't think this was very funny. Not because it was May; because it was a poor joke.

I saw him this year, quite funny and not very PC. I only saw him to check out what he did, never watched his TV shows.

At the Tory conference he had combed his hair with a slick parting, hard to recognise compared to his usual persona, I doubt many conference goers are big fans.

Nick · Oct 5, 2017

Didn't he use his real name to get in? You would think putting some gel in your hair wouldn't be enough to trick everybody.

Ian1779 · Oct 5, 2017

skybluegod said:
You mention the trade of weapons with the saudi’s.
But how many civilians were killed during the Afghanistan/Iraq wars that Labour government backed bombing campaigns in?

Lots - and I was opposed to this war as were millions of people including the current leader of the Labour party who was particularly outspoken on the matter.
You would have thought that someone might have learnt from recent history.

mrtrench · Oct 5, 2017

I know nothing about Yemen so I won't comment on that. What I will say, is that a discussion about which party has made which mistake about which war seems pointless to me. All parties have been involved in wars, and often public opinion about whether they are just or not depends on the outcome. The people making the decisions at the time didn't have the benefit of being able to see into the future and so we must judge with the information available at the time. That's why I am slow to blame Blair for Iraq. Sure, he didn't have all the facts and assumed and mislead. But what if Hussein had have had WMD? He kept on pretending that he did...

I'm more interest in Corbynomics, because this is what I find so terrifying. What about rent controls? Are they effective? In my opinion absolutely not; they fail to identify the issues and will have consequences worse than the disease. This is why:

House prices and rents are too high because demand exceeds supply. Net immigration of 330,000 p.a. is part of the problem as is a lack of house building and in particular a lack of building new council houses. Our policies increase demand and suppress supply. What impact will adding rent controls into the mix have? Some landlords will sell - thus reducing supply further. The others will not spend the money maintaining the let accommodation. Nobody is a charity; they aren't going to lose money just because they like the idea of being a landlord. Osborn already stuck the boot into private landlords before he left and that has caused rents to go up more - exactly as expected. Some of you know that I have a vested interest in this topic: I do have some let houses. This summer I spent over £5k repairing them (£4k on one house where they had a ball bearing gun fight inside and broke windows and damaged furniture). I didn't even have that much as deposit and I don't know yet if I'll even get all of the deposit that I did have (landlord rules - has to be assessed by an arbitrator). However I've done the work anyway because it's wrong to let something in that state. If I don't get the deposit I will not make a profit on that house this year. Thus is life. I know that these incidents happen infrequently and so I will absorb it.

However, if I were forced by law to reduce rent or not permitted to raise it I would sell. I could never under-invest and let a slum because its not in my nature. The person who bought the houses might be a shark. He might not give a stuff for tenants. Rent controls have been tried before all over the world and they always result in slums.

For Corbs it's all about ideology: big state; controls... For me it's all about pragmatism. Yes, free markets are in my opinion far more effective than big state but I applaud May for bending her ideology and pledging to build more affordable housing.

skybluegod · Oct 5, 2017

Ian1779 said:
Lots - and I was opposed to this war as were millions of people including the current leader of the Labour party who was particularly outspoken on the matter.
You would have thought that someone might have learnt from recent history.

Very easy to say ' might have learnt from recent history;' But Corbyn would undoubtedly still continue arms trade with the US, which accounts for 20% of our exports, should we not sell to them because they might bomb the North Koreans? What about other countries?

Arms sales are worth £7.7 Billion to the economy, not exactly a small figure, and not one which can be easily wiped away, because of another Nations actions because of what we do with these weapons.

Moff · Oct 5, 2017

torchomatic said:
Who cut police numbers by 20K? A one word answer will suffice.

May has united the emergency services in their loathing of her. She has decimated the Police, and has left them standing on the precipice of being unable to cope.

I am apolitical, detest them all in equal measures, but that woman is Toxic.

skybluegod · Oct 5, 2017

mrtrench said:
I know nothing about Yemen so I won't comment on that. What I will say, is that a discussion about which party has made which mistake about which war seems pointless to me. All parties have been involved in wars, and often public opinion about whether they are just or not depends on the outcome. The people making the decisions at the time didn't have the benefit of being able to see into the future and so we must judge with the information available at the time. That's why I am slow to blame Blair for Iraq. Sure, he didn't have all the facts and assumed and mislead. But what if Hussein had have had WMD? He kept on pretending that he did...

I'm more interest in Corbynomics, because this is what I find so terrifying. What about rent controls? Are they effective? In my opinion absolutely not; they fail to identify the issues and will have consequences worse than the disease. This is why:

House prices and rents are too high because demand exceeds supply. Net immigration of 330,000 p.a. is part of the problem as is a lack of house building and in particular a lack of building new council houses. Our policies increase demand and suppress supply. What impact will adding rent controls into the mix have? Some landlords will sell - thus reducing supply further. The others will not spend the money maintaining the let accommodation. Nobody is a charity; they aren't going to lose money just because they like the idea of being a landlord. Osborn already stuck the boot into private landlords before he left and that has caused rents to go up more - exactly as expected. Some of you know that I have a vested interest in this topic: I do have some let houses. This summer I spent over £5k repairing them (£4k on one house where they had a ball bearing gun fight inside and broke windows and damaged furniture). I didn't even have that much as deposit and I don't know yet if I'll even get all of the deposit that I did have (landlord rules - has to be assessed by an arbitrator). However I've done the work anyway because it's wrong to let something in that state. If I don't get the deposit I will not make a profit on that house this year. Thus is life. I know that these incidents happen infrequently and so I will absorb it.

However, if I were forced by law to reduce rent or not permitted to raise it I would sell. I could never under-invest and let a slum because its not in my nature. The person who bought the houses might be a shark. He might not give a stuff for tenants. Rent controls have been tried before all over the world and they always result in slums.

For Corbs it's all about ideology: big state; controls... For me it's all about pragmatism. Yes, free markets are in my opinion far more effective than big state but I applaud May for bending her ideology and pledging to build more affordable housing.

Well that might be one of the best posts I have seen on this site, along with the one earlier in the thread.

clint van damme · Oct 5, 2017

mrtrench said:
I know nothing about Yemen so I won't comment on that. What I will say, is that a discussion about which party has made which mistake about which war seems pointless to me. All parties have been involved in wars, and often public opinion about whether they are just or not depends on the outcome. The people making the decisions at the time didn't have the benefit of being able to see into the future and so we must judge with the information available at the time. That's why I am slow to blame Blair for Iraq. Sure, he didn't have all the facts and assumed and mislead. But what if Hussein had have had WMD? He kept on pretending that he did...

I'm more interest in Corbynomics, because this is what I find so terrifying. What about rent controls? Are they effective? In my opinion absolutely not; they fail to identify the issues and will have consequences worse than the disease. This is why:

House prices and rents are too high because demand exceeds supply. Net immigration of 330,000 p.a. is part of the problem as is a lack of house building and in particular a lack of building new council houses. Our policies increase demand and suppress supply. What impact will adding rent controls into the mix have? Some landlords will sell - thus reducing supply further. The others will not spend the money maintaining the let accommodation. Nobody is a charity; they aren't going to lose money just because they like the idea of being a landlord. Osborn already stuck the boot into private landlords before he left and that has caused rents to go up more - exactly as expected. Some of you know that I have a vested interest in this topic: I do have some let houses. This summer I spent over £5k repairing them (£4k on one house where they had a ball bearing gun fight inside and broke windows and damaged furniture). I didn't even have that much as deposit and I don't know yet if I'll even get all of the deposit that I did have (landlord rules - has to be assessed by an arbitrator). However I've done the work anyway because it's wrong to let something in that state. If I don't get the deposit I will not make a profit on that house this year. Thus is life. I know that these incidents happen infrequently and so I will absorb it.

However, if I were forced by law to reduce rent or not permitted to raise it I would sell. I could never under-invest and let a slum because its not in my nature. The person who bought the houses might be a shark. He might not give a stuff for tenants. Rent controls have been tried before all over the world and they always result in slums.

For Corbs it's all about ideology: big state; controls... For me it's all about pragmatism. Yes, free markets are in my opinion far more effective than big state but I applaud May for bending her ideology and pledging to build more affordable housing.

So let me get this straight, better to have a PM who gets us involved in a war that killed hundreds of thousands based on a lie than one who tries to introduce rent controls, that's staggering.
And nowhere did the manifesto say landlords would be forced to reduce rents, the control would be on rises.

torchomatic · Oct 5, 2017

mrtrench said:
House prices and rents are too high because demand exceeds supply. Net immigration of 330,000 p.a. is part of the problem as is a lack of house building and in particular a lack of building new council houses. Our policies increase demand and suppress supply.

.....but I applaud May for bending her ideology and pledging to build more affordable housing.

I wouldn't applaud too loudly. Amber Rudd had already declared that the Tory party will continue with their right to buy policy so before you know it all these new council and social housing will have been sold off on the cheap. Again.

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 5, 2017

skybluegod said:
Yeah I found the link grendal, and if you look it’s a Labour Party response rather than one from Corbyn

Fucking hell. It was Corbyn's response!

Or are you suggesting that when questions are passed to him, and they're answered by his team they go rogue and decide to come up with random fictions?!?

He said the IRA should be condemned, he signed a motion condemning the IRA's actions.

But for some reason condemning all acts of terrorism is seen as worse than continually condemning merely the IRA.

Personally I'd be delighted to see the UDA and UVF's acts of terrorism condemned too, but I'm happy to accept people don't have to bang on about it time after time again to condemn it.

skybluegod · Oct 5, 2017

The only thing that I have liked that Corbyn has done is his UTurn on Trident, and his bowing to his party demands that it goes ahead.

skybluegod · Oct 5, 2017

Deleted member 5849 said:
Fucking hell. It was Corbyn's response!

Well considering the Article says it is a labour party response, it isn't is it?

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 5, 2017

skybluegod said:
Well considering the Article says it is a labour party response, it isn't is it?

It says it was passed to Corbyn, and answered by Corbyn's team!

No wonder he can't win an election if he's supposed to issue every press release and response personally, signed in his own blood!

skybluegod · Oct 5, 2017

Deleted member 5849 said:
It says it was passed to Corbyn, and answered by Corbyn's team!

No wonder he can't win an election if he's supposed to issue every press release and response personally, signed in his own blood!

No it doesn't say it was passed onto Corbyn, it only says it was to his team as you say, so not him?
As I say, he had multiple opportunities on air to condemn them, and was asked to condemn just them which he didn't do?

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 5, 2017

Fucking hell.

Jeremy has said that the he was opposed to the IRA’s armed campaign.

Putting his name to:

This House notes that it is 20 years since the mass killings of 21 people in Birmingham as a result of terrorist violence; deplores that such an atrocity occurred and again extends its deepest sympathy to the relatives of those murdered and also to all those injured

Not good enough.

You want to believe differently, and nothing's going to change that so there's not much point really, is there.

Grendel · Oct 5, 2017

Deleted member 5849 said:
Fucking hell. It was Corbyn's response!

Or are you suggesting that when questions are passed to him, and they're answered by his team they go rogue and decide to come up with random fictions?!?

He said the IRA should be condemned, he signed a motion condemning the IRA's actions.

But for some reason condemning all acts of terrorism is seen as worse than continually condemning merely the IRA.

Personally I'd be delighted to see the UDA and UVF's acts of terrorism condemned too, but I'm happy to accept people don't have to bang on about it time after time again to condemn it.

I'm suggesting when he said the bombs and the bullets were necessary actions to fulfill "the cause" that he's now saying it for political impunity - same as his apparent change of stance over the EU

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 5, 2017

Grendel said:
I'm suggesting when he said the bombs and the bullets were necessary actions to fulfill "the cause" that he's now saying it for political impunity - same as his apparent change of stance over the EU

I'm not even arguing with you (yet!). At least you acknowledge the here and now!

mrtrench · Oct 5, 2017

torchomatic said:
I wouldn't applaud too loudly. Amber Rudd had already declared that the Tory party will continue with their right to buy policy so before you know it all these new council and social housing will have been sold off on the cheap. Again.

Yeah, that policy is nuts. Stoking demand in a situation where supply is short.

mrtrench · Oct 5, 2017

clint van damme said:
So let me get this straight, better to have a PM who gets us involved in a war that killed hundreds of thousands based on a lie than one who tries to introduce rent controls, that's staggering.
And nowhere did the manifesto say landlords would be forced to reduce rents, the control would be on rises.

You got me. That's exactly what I said, almost verbatim.

skybluegod · Oct 5, 2017

Deleted member 5849 said:
Fucking hell.

Putting his name to:

Not good enough.

You want to believe differently, and nothing's going to change that so there's not much point really, is there.

My point is he is saying it through is aids and advisors. And refused to do so on live TV when asked similar questions? So while they, and yes he probably has told them to say these answers and that he does condemn the IRA. His previous actions suggest that he does not actually condemn the IRA.

fernandopartridge · Oct 5, 2017

skybluegod said:
You mention the trade of weapons with the saudi’s.
But how many civilians were killed during the Afghanistan/Iraq wars that Labour government backed bombing campaigns in?

Labour and Tory btw

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

skybluegod · Oct 5, 2017

fernandopartridge said:
Labour and Tory btw

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Wasn’t my point btw.

Oh Jeremy Corbyn (5 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency