Off Topic Jeremy Corbyn

Page_Moss_Kopite said:

or perhaps you approve of the Tory plan to make unemployed people work 40hrs a week for their benefit payment.whistle

Click to expand...

There are some people who are genuinely unemployed, and there are some who have never done a day job in their lives.
I personally know some University graduates working McDonald, just because of their dignities. If lazy people can do some
work to collect dole money all well and good.

This is Anfield said:

There are some people who are genuinely unemployed, and there are some who have never done a day job in their lives.
I personally know some University graduates working McDonald, just because of their dignities. If lazy people can do some
work to collect dole money all well and good.

Click to expand...

There are multi-millionaires employing people on a cash in hand basis, they pay low wages, avoid contributing to the employees NI stamp and make huge profits by avoiding paying proper tax contributions etc, there are many top earners involved ii tax evasion which costs the country more than the total benefits system expenditure.
You can bet IF Corbyn()ever got the keys to number 10 he'd go after those i mentioned as well as work dodgers.


[HASHTAG]#fairerisbetter[/HASHTAG]

This is Anfield said:

There are some people who are genuinely unemployed, and there are some who have never done a day job in their lives.
I personally know some University graduates working McDonald, just because of their dignities. If lazy people can do some
work to collect dole money all well and good.

Click to expand...

And you pretend you're not influenced by the Murdoch-Mail Axis? The 'problem' with the Labour Party is that, from the day Blair and Mandelson took over, it's become acceptable to point at the unemployed as being the main cause of unemployment. That is why we only have different coloured flavours of Tory ice-cream on the menu at every election, and the flaccid, spineless acceptance by what was the working-class to accept that any job on zero-hours contracts, low pay and no terms and conditions is some sort act of benevolence from a business culture that rewards its executives thousands of times that wage, and regards you as the useless peasant that you take so much pride in being. And as to a worker who has terms and conditions and a decent pension, well they're the selfish bastards in the new scenario, aren't they? Listen to the Mail and the Murdoch rags, and the solution is to drag them down to the same chattel status as the rest of the workforce, and to even further reward the bankers and executives for making it happen.

I re-read The Ragged Trousered Philantropists a few weeks ago. I was at college when I read it last, and it seemed as dated as its Brass pisstake made it out, then. Now? Change the roles from plasters and decorators to call-centre workers and Poundland employees and it's not so different any more.

This is Anfield said:

There are some people who are genuinely unemployed, and there are some who have never done a day job in their lives.
I personally know some University graduates working McDonald, just because of their dignities. If lazy people can do some
work to collect dole money all well and good.

Click to expand...

I'd rather be out of work than be working in McDonalds and getting abuse from some of the rabble that go in there

afcftw said:

Whether change is needed or not, Corbyn won't be the man to bring it about, he won't win a national election for Labour because he will be too easy to attack given his stance on certain subjects. I can't imagine labour winning back UKIP votes with open immigration his ideal solution, or winning the middle ground when he would take risks with our futures with his ridiculous economic policy. There are just too many angles to attack him from and whilst it may rally the left, it'll push away the centre.

And if he really gave a **** about people being represented he'd be pushing for Proportional Representation instead of throwing a few working class labour MPs through the same ****ty system.

Click to expand...

I dont understand that coming from you. You could apply that first sentence to Farage and UKIP.

Sometimes it's about principles and bringing about change the best way you can. Isnt that what UKIP voters believe?

Treble said:

I dont understand that coming from you. You could apply that first sentence to Farage and UKIP.

Sometimes it's about principles and bringing about change the best way you can. Isnt that what UKIP voters believe?

Click to expand...

I think it's good for politics to have characters like that involved and I like that corbyn has a clear stance, that doesn't mean I think he is capable of winning an election. I don't think Farage is capable of becoming PM either because he is too divisive. Same with corbyn. I could see corbyn leading the Green Party to record numbers, but at the helm of the Labour Party I can't see him getting the kind of support nationally that labour would need to form a government.

afcftw said:

I think it's good for politics to have characters like that involved and I like that corbyn has a clear stance, that doesn't mean I think he is capable of winning an election. I don't think Farage is capable of becoming PM either because he is too divisive. Same with corbyn. I could see corbyn leading the Green Party to record numbers, but at the helm of the Labour Party I can't see him getting the kind of support nationally that labour would need to form a government.

Click to expand...

I used to believe that philosophy - that in order to bring about change you have to have power. But if you have to sell your principles to get power, then it defeats the whole purpose. It's a paradox. Blair shattered that illusion. I now believe (naively perhaps) that power comes through change, NOT the other way round

Up the revolution But seriously, I think I'd rather have Labour destroy itself in a battle to regain some essence of principle in its core values, than have another generation of New Labour that I have fck all in common with or that resembles the party I once believed in.

Treble said:

I used to believe that philosophy - that in order to bring about change you have to have power. But if you have to sell your principles to get power, then it defeats the whole purpose. It's a paradox. Blair shattered that illusion. I now believe (naively perhaps) that power comes through change, NOT the other way round

Up the revolution But seriously, I think I'd rather have Labour destroy itself in a battle to regain some essence of principle in its core values, than have another generation of New Labour that I have fck all in common with or that resembles the party I once believed in.

Click to expand...

I hope the Labour Party collapses from in fighting and allows the other left wing parties and possibly a new party to fight it out in the power vacuum.

Then we just have to figure out how to collapse the Tories...

afcftw said:

a new party ..

Click to expand...

How about "Old Labour", with the core values the party used to have and was founded upon.

Just an idea like.

Page_Moss_Kopite said:

How about "Old Labour", with the core values the party used to have and was founded upon.

Just an idea like.

Click to expand...

Preferably no form of Labour, with the core values being taken on by fresh faces and new parties

And I'd say the same for the Tories!

Get rid of the FPTP system and get rid of the two parties who have taken it in turns to **** the country!

afcftw said:

Preferably no form of Labour, with the core values being taken on by fresh faces and new parties

And I'd say the same for the Tories!

Get rid of the FPTP system and get rid of the two parties who have taken it in turns to **** the country!

Click to expand...

You look very Liberal in your view although I agree with your first past the post comment.

It was "fresh faces" within the (New) Labour Party that took it as far to the right as the old Liberal Party.
The old labour party shot itself in the foot by having a leader that went by that very name, also Kinnock, but a move to the left will arrive in the not to distant future due to the Tory policies and cuts since the austere years kicked in, its a natural reaction from those at the bottom to demand a slice of what those at the top have.

My political stance leans far more left than right on most matters.
Foreign aid is the one that pisses me off, and my stance on that oddly, seems more right wing.
Not a single ****ing penny of UK Tax payers money should be spent on ANY person, persons or place that is not in the UK, UNLESS we have a surplus.
If we are rolling in cash and another country needs help, then fair enough, but if we have a situation where people are working full time and STILL cannot afford to feed their families and are having to go to ****ing food banks, and we are giving away billions in foreign aid.....then something is not right.
We pay that money in, we should get first dibs on it, its that simple. Also, having a situation where someone is working 40 hours per week and is unable to run a household is ****ing ludicrous.....pay needs to increase in line with inflation.

Also, I am sorry but rich people just don't pay enough tax. We get these entrenched corporatist ****ers saying "Oh well rich people will just leave the country if they get taxed too much". Thats bollocks, history doesn't show that happens at all, many studies have also proven it to be bollocks (look it up), its just scare mongering bullshit they say "Oh, yeah, well, well, we'll leave!! Hmph!" Empty threats.

Refugees? Well, its a matter of common sense, can we take these people in without serious negative impact to our own people? If the answer is no, then sorry.
Problem is, a lot of people do not distinguish between a migrant and a refugee, a migrant is someone who lives in a perfectly safe control (like Poland, for example) and wants to come to the UK to better themselves and earn more money and therefore contribute to our society. A refugee is someone who is unable to return to their country through fear of being killed or tortured due to a difference of political opinion, religion, or sexuality. Refugees should find the nearest safe place to their country that will take them in, that place is not Britain. (Turkey, Lebanon and Germany have really stepped up with the whole Syria thing, hats off to them).

Now as far as Syrians go, with the whole civil war and unrest......this is the same **** Britain went through hundreds of years ago, we have seen it all, invasions (Normans, Romans, Vikings), civil wars, plagues, etc. Where the **** did we have to run to?
Seriously, if I were a Syrian man, I would probably have to send my wife and daughter away to safety, and rather than run, I would have to pick up a gun and fight.
If Syria is not going to get military aid from the EU (and I am not saying it should), then its citizens need to stop running and ****ing fight, because its the only way this is getting resolved.
Its like Rambo said to those missionaries who are going into Burma on a peace keeping mission

Rambo: Are you bringing any weapons?
Douchebag: Of course not
Rambo: Then you aint gonna change a thing.

Treble said:

I used to believe that philosophy - that in order to bring about change you have to have power. But if you have to sell your principles to get power, then it defeats the whole purpose. It's a paradox. Blair shattered that illusion. I now believe (naively perhaps) that power comes through change, NOT the other way round

Up the revolution But seriously, I think I'd rather have Labour destroy itself in a battle to regain some essence of principle in its core values, than have another generation of New Labour that I have fck all in common with or that resembles the party I once believed in.

Click to expand...

Without power you cannot effect change that's a simple fact of life. In the political spectrum you cannot bring about change unless you've already gained the power, otherwise you are just a voice on the periphery. Therefore you need to sell your ideas for change in order to gain the power with which to deliver it.

The reality is, that in the modern UK culture, anything left of the middle ground appears to be unelectable. Blair recognised that and delivered Labour lite in order to achieve the goal of power. Whilst a return to 'old skool' Labour values and policies might appeal to a large number of it's current membership, there's no way of Gods earth that it'll appeal to the broader spectrum of the electorate and therefore be able to gain the power with which to deliver it's ideas.

Labour needs to start again, forget the policies and ideas of yesteryear, equally do the same with the Blair era and beyond. Literally start with a blank piece of paper and formulate a set of ideals and policy ideas that stem from them, that would help create a fairer, more just and equal society.

Tobes said:

Labour needs to start again, forget the policies and ideas of yesteryear, equally do the same with the Blair era and beyond. Literally start with a blank piece of paper and formulate a set of ideals and policy ideas that stem from them, that would help create a fairer, more just and equal society.

Click to expand...

But old Labour's policies were to "create a fairer, more just and equal society"

I accept that times change and progress and so does society's tolerance levels to what's seen as the current norm, the unions power has diminished and so have Labour's appeal to the blue collar working class.

The Labour Party should either be what it was created for or those within its ranks that are unhappy with its core values should form a new party with a name such as "The UK Social Democratic Party but even in its former existence that party was formed by disgruntled centralist Labour MP's that forgot why they went into politics to begin with.

Politics in the UK will never be what it once was but dinosaurs like meself can't stand New Labour's middle of the road politics but would never vote for anyone else based on a hatred of the Tory Party and there not being a credible left wing political alternative to New Labour that has any chance this millennium of getting into government.

[HASHTAG]#onelonevoiceisbutaspitintheocean[/HASHTAG]

Page_Moss_Kopite said:

But old Labour's policies were to "create a fairer, more just and equal society"

Click to expand...

Maybe the whole idea and ethos was this but the policies that may well have had that intention did not always have the desired result.

I think the term liberal or progressive has gotten a bad rep to be honest.
I mean in my mind its this: People have the right to be of any sexuality they wish, practice any religion they wish, and hold any belief they wish, so long as it does not hurt anyone else. 2 consenting adults and all that.
Things like transgenders, fine with me if thats how you identify (just don't try to retconn the past please).

Even the left take things too far though. I cannot stand in this country, for instance, that you can be arrested for being racist...........
If you are racist, you are a ****ing knob, and I have no respect for you......but a crime? Come on ffs.
The punishment for beating someone up because you think they are a dick, and beating someone up because you hate their race should be the same.
The fact that the motivating factor that precipitated the crime can change your punishment is ****ing ludicrous. Its the same ****ing crime!!!!
You are not going to rehabilitate a racist, especially not by sending them to prison!
Racism is slowly being eradicated in our society by education.

Also, there are instances where business, such as hotels, florists, etc, have been punished, fined, whatever for refusing to serve gay people (ie letting them stay in your hotel or providing flowers for a gay wedding), this is absolute bullshit. Telling a business that they HAVE to serve this or that person. Sure if they are providing a necessary government service like that stupid bitch Kim Davis then fair enough, but a ****ing florist? Just go find another flower shop guys! Its their money they used to start that business, you should be able to reserve the right to refuse anyone you wish. I am all for letting everyone know just how racist, or homophobic said business is, and through word of mouth, hurting that business, they are losing out on custom at the end of the day and are shooting themselves in the foot for their bigotry, but punishing a business for refusing to serve someone?? Madness, that sets an awful precedent, what else will the government be able to force you to do in future huh?
Again, once these ignorant ****s see that, by not serving gay people or people of a certain race, they will alienate everyone and their business will fail, then future generations of businessmen wont make the same mistake.

So I am left, but not militant left
Anyway, irrelevant rant over.

Page_Moss_Kopite said:

But old Labour's policies were to "create a fairer, more just and equal society"

I accept that times change and progress and so does society's tolerance levels to what's seen as the current norm, the unions power has diminished and so have Labour's appeal to the blue collar working class.

The Labour Party should either be what it was created for or those within its ranks that are unhappy with its core values should form a new party with a name such as "The UK Social Democratic Party but even in its former existence that party was formed by disgruntled centralist Labour MP's that forgot why they went into politics to begin with.

Politics in the UK will never be what it once was but dinosaurs like meself can't stand New Labour's middle of the road politics but would never vote for anyone else based on a hatred of the Tory Party and there not being a credible left wing political alternative to New Labour that has any chance this millennium of getting into government.

[HASHTAG]#onelonevoiceisbutaspitintheocean[/HASHTAG]

Click to expand...

That's as maybe, but they formulated policies that would be unelectable today. There has to be a grasp on reality within Labour as it seeks to redefine itself. The country is a different place with a different set of needs than it had 30/40 or 50 years ago. It therefore needs a completely fresh outlook and doesn't need to be tied to some of the ideals of yersteryear that some of their own e.g. you, maybe wish they would do. They'll be a minority party and an ever increasing political irrelevance if they take the worng path in the coming months / years.

The sheer greed of companies that have done well profit wise during these times of austerity is ****ing disgraceful, now that the national minimum wage is to be increased next year from £6.50 to £7.20 there's panic and threats to peoples jobs, if you're over 25 you are entitled to £7.20 but those under 25 get a lesser rate, so the ****s are looking to hire only people under 25 or take on self employed staff who are not entitled to the nmw by right.
And to cap it all they are threatening to pass any increase in the nmw on to the public who buy their products or use their services.
But these drastic measures will only apply north of Watford gap due to the Tories feathering their nest in the South East.

http://news.sky.com/story/1548628/living-wage-shockwaves-hit-prices-and-jobs

[HASHTAG]#wheresadecenttradeunionwhenyouneedone[/HASHTAG]

Page_Moss_Kopite said:

The sheer greed of companies that have done well profit wise during these times of austerity is ****ing disgraceful, now that the national minimum wage is to be increased next year from £6.50 to £7.20 there's panic and threats to peoples jobs, if you're over 25 you are entitled to £7.20 but those under 25 get a lesser rate, so the ****s are looking to hire only people under 25 or take on self employed staff who are not entitled to the nmw by right.
And to cap it all they are threatening to pass any increase in the nmw on to the public who buy their products or use their services.
But these drastic measures will only apply north of Watford gap due to the Tories feathering their nest in the South East.

http://news.sky.com/story/1548628/living-wage-shockwaves-hit-prices-and-jobs

[HASHTAG]#wheresadecenttradeunionwhenyouneedone[/HASHTAG]

Click to expand...

Employers who have large numbers of staff are facing losing a considerable percentage of their profits with an 8% hike in their wage bill overnight.

It's not 'sheer greed' that's behind the comments they've made, they're merely pointing out the facts, that either they'll have to find an alternative way of reducing their labour costs, or increase prices to the consumer.

I like the idea of the living wage proposals, however my view on them was somewhat tainted when I realised that in true Tory tradition the prime driver for the proposal was to reduce the tax credits budget. However, it's also naive to think that considerably higher labour costs aren't going to impact on employment levels, so they'll end up saving with one hand and handing out with the other.......

Na, the companies mentioned in the Sky News article are just the tip of the iceberg and the reaction of other companies will be as sly and underhanded and possibly even more because of corporate greed, so we were told we were all in this financial slump together and that it was going to hurt, hasn't and won't hurt everyone.

We've seen wages frozen at pre-austerity rates, less value for our money and increases in the cost of some essentials along the way, but now the the Chancellor says there's enough wealth in the country and growth in the currency/economy to give those on low wages a mere 70p an hour payrise theres iron girder.

Which ever way you like to dress it up Tobes stunts like those in the article will lead to an even bigger black economy than there is now, which will in turn cost the country more.