Not wanting to get into a debate with you, because, to me, you talk in riddles. However, how can you support May in Brexit talks, because "Everything equates to money and she will base her negotiations purely on financial accounts", when she can't even show her costings for her ill thought out manifesto? Especially as she would have known before Labour that she was going to call an election, so she has absolutely no excuse for not showing her financial expertise. Also, your comment "Corbyn is much more about the people rather than the $$$ and the EU will love telling him all the lovely people things that the EU always talks about while they negotiate whatever they want that suits the $$$ but is sold as "for the people." This is just condescending claptrap. I thought you were better than that. I will be voting for Corbyn, and just my opinion, I firmly believe that his team will be better negotiating with the EU, because Corbyn has history of sticking to his guns, (maybe not the best metaphor ) whereas Timid Theresa changes her mind when the going gets tough. Plus, JC hasn't threatened to withhold security support from the EU, as his opening gambit.
It was he closest I could get , finding a piss take of someone who had A - Lied about what they had read , or B ,Not be able to read .....
Believe what you want but Corbyn's right hand man is the one that said MI5 should be scrapped yet now is all over "protecting the people." Corbyn doesn't stick to his guns. He says what he thinks will get him into power just like the rest. He needs the student vote so he stays quiet about his anti EU views. All of a sudden he is on the side of the triple lock and protecting people's inheritances. HE is as bad as the rest and you're all gullibly falling for it just like the rustbelters in the US fell for Trump. At least if Saints don;t do well next year you'll all be able to happy clap in your sandals with comrade Corbyn not knowing whether he will revert to Socialist type or if the bulk part of the party will push him the Blairite way. Lots of talk about protecting UK citizens yet he'll be one of the first to complain (as he always has been) about human rights if there are suggestions of locking up people who wave black flags in the street (or park) or chant hate speech about UK citizens seemingly immune from hate speech laws.
Rarely post here but could you give examples of "all the lovely people things" that the EU say when they "negotiate whatever they want""? Not discrediting the statement but its a very vague, wishy washy statement! Don't agree with you but honestly asking out of interest
One thing Corbyn hasn't said and should have: All these anti-terrorist laws I voted against. Well they've worked, haven't they? He's on the money for me. Stop trading with Saudi Arabia and cut off the supply of young radicals through a better scheme of combatting radicalisation than we currently "enjoy".
Corbyn may "stick to his guns" but he really has little, if any, history of successfully negotiating with people which I would suggest makes him less likely to get a deal. I mean, he wasn't able to fill all his shadow cabinet posts because he couldn't convince enough MPs from his own party to serve in his shadow cabinet! As for not antagonising those you need to negotiate with, I'd say a supporter of Irish unification inviting IRA members to the House of Commons a few weeks after the IRA tried to murder the government was reasonably provocative and let's not forget he couldn't convince his wife not to send their children to a grammar school and ended up divorcing her over the issue.
Sinn Fein members, not IRA members. It was Thatcher's government who were secretly talking to the IRA at the time. I'd say getting 300,000 Labour Party members to vote for you as leader showed reasonably good negotiating skills. How many Tories voted for May?
He invited convicted IRA volunteers: https://www.ft.com/content/9f833a98-452c-11e7-8519-9f94ee97d996 Getting people to vote for you is called campaigning. Negotiating is not the same thing.
I don't get why any man who is a peace loving pacifist sould ever be criticised for it. Would you have kicked out Ghandi? Would you have laughed at MLK? I guess you only care for the Malcolm Xs of the world? The problem is that 'one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist' is a phrase many Brits are too arrogant to realise cuts both ways. Stop killing, and funding the killing, of innocent people's families and I think they might be less likely to come over here with a deathwish. The Tories are in the pockets of business - and one of the biggies is the amrs business. Yet people on this thread think a man of moral conviction is the real danger to world peace?
Whatever the outcome of the General Election, the Conservatives need a leader who is going to kick the backsides of its MPs over this Brexit nonsense, and it is a total nonsense, and take the party back to a position where it can become part of the European centre-right again. Pulling further away from the EU is utter stupidity. Our futures and the futures of our children and grandchildren is being citizens of the United Kingdom within the European Community. Anything else is total codswallop.
Or find the middle ground like he's done. He's behaved the complete opposite of trump who started off more moderate, went extreme to win votes and then hasnt been able to enact those extreme policies. Corbyn started off extreme and has found a more moderate middle ground that appeals to both the voters and his party. if he tried to go extreme he wont get the votes for it from his own ministers.
Of course Theresa May would never "antagonise" the EU by suggesting that they were trying to influence our election for her own narrow political gain... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...es-eu-trying-deliberately-interfere-election/
Nonsense. He has a long history of successful negotiations, mostly over local issues in his constituency. For example, it's in large part down to him that the Whittington Hospital still has it's A&E department. Ditto Holloway Library, and Archway swimming baths. Bit of a cheap shot, your comment about his wife and kids btw. And I don't think the Irish Republicanism slurs carry much weight either.
You'll have to do better than that. Campaigns against the closure of local services are almost always exactly that - campaigns. Straightforward protests/demonstrations rather than negotiations. They're certainly worlds away from the sort of negotiation we'll have to do with the EU. This article in the Corbyn-friendly Socialist Worker doesn't make any particularly special claims about Corbyn negotiating. In fact there's no mention at all of negotiations. I've done a quick search and I can find no evidence of Corbyn being involved in any negotiations here. I tend to agree with the activist quoted in the article who says "If Labour nationally hadn’t been worried about losing local seats, it wouldn’t have acted." Arranging a 5000 person march through Islington in the run-up to a close election may well convince an embattled government to change its mind in the hopes of shoring up its vote but those sort of tactics wouldn't have any impact on the EU negotiations. I'm not sure what you consider a slur. It's a fact that Corbyn was a vocal supporter of Irish unification and it's a fact that he chose to associate himself with Sinn Fein rather than the SDLP. It's also a fact that he invited convicted IRA volunteers to the Houses of Parliament weeks after the Brighton bombing. That's undeniably a provocative action, and I would say it's far more provocative than making some anti-EU comments during an election campaign.
That was momentum and other activists not Corbyn. And it wasn;t getting 300,000 "Labour members" to vote for him. It was persuading 300,000 people to sign up to the Labour party in order to vote for "their man."
You are taking people from the past for the good they did without addressing their failings! MLK was a full on churchman and very anti-science as well as being a non supporter of any modern day LGBQT issues. He plagiarised parts of his speeches and writings from others yet considered them "his property" and protected them as such. Not only that it is fully accepted that he plagiarised all the time to earn his doctorate. He was a serial adulterer despite being a clergyman Gandhi had a vast amount of flaws. Again a serial adulterer. He beat his wife. HE called women who used contraception "whores." HE considered women who had been raped "had lost their value as human beings." He justified "honour killings." He refused penicillin be given to his wife when she had bronchial pneumonia as it would be "a bankruptcy of my own faith." Not long after he contracted Malaria and 3 weeks later gave in and accepted Quinine to cure him. More importantly he was racist towards black people, stating many times his opinion that Indians were superior to "Kaffirs." He continually used the term "Kaffir" for Black Africans and supported apartheid. He wanted black people to be segregated from Indians in Africa!! In his own words: “Your Petitioner has seen the Location intended to be used by the Indians. It would place them, who are undoubtedly infinitely superior to the Kaffirs, in close proximity to the latter.” “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilised – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals. Each ward contains nearly 50 to 60 of them. They often started rows and fought among themselves. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company!” “Some Indians do have contacts with Kaffir women. I think such contacts are fraught with grave danger. Indians would do well to avoid them altogether.” While he considered Hitler's actions monstrous and wrote and spoke about wanting the war to end he also wrote in a letter to the British DURING the war "Hitler is not a bad man" in the same letter as he told Britain to stop fighting and suggesting sending our troops into the war was manslaughter. Saying that the British people should lay down their arms and surrender to the Nazis. He is not well considered by Jews either for his words about them remaining in Germany and "offered themselves to the Butcher's knife." While you can say that both were a force for good in many ways it is not right to forget their failings just as it is not right to only remember Churchill as some Great man for his wartime period while forgetting everything else. It is all well and good proclaiming people to be pacifists but in Gandhi's case especially he was a racist who promoted martyrdom. Racism is not what I call pacifism and by promoting martyrdom he advocates laying down and letting "dictators" take over. How can someone talk about non violence but keep those nasty blacks away from superior Indians? You talk about Corbyn being a pacifist yet the activists that are behind him are pretty violent. A lot of the "anti" groups that get great publicity are violent. There are countless examples through history of people whose words promote peace and harmony yet those words result in violent uprisings instead. Are we really at the point where we have convinced ourselves that those words were not intended to promote such actions? I'm all for equality and the message of MLK is a good one but I have no doubt that he (and those who were behind him and writing his speeches with him) were under no illusions that the result of those speeches would be anything other than violent uprisings. It is not enough to listen to Corbyn's words and take them at literal value when he knows the people behind him and under him would spit in the face of anyone who dared to say they were Tory or would charge into an EDL rally punching and kicking rather than have any notion of pacifism. Words are cheap. The intent behind the words is the key. Gandhi's words mean nothing when they came from such a horrible mind.
If I recall, Sinn Fein/IRA voted against the Treaty of Lisbon. So did the UK Conservative Party. You judge a party by the company it keeps!!!
