TOPIC: Labour party shambles.

Love this quote from the Press Association, 3rd Jan.....

Meanwhile, Labour former minister Kim Howells described Mr Corbyn and his team as "superannuated Trotskyite oppositionists" who have brought the party to its knees.

Asked about the state of the party on Pienaar's Politics, he said: "It keeps me awake at night.

"I've never seen the party in such a deplorable state.

"It isn't an opposition - in a democracy you've got to have an opposition and we haven't got one at the moment.

"These are superannuated Trotskyite oppositionists, they are not real politicians and I'm afraid it's a disaster as far as I'm concerned."

Hear, hear!

Amazing the amount of support that Corbyn has then if that is the case. He is attracting a lot of young people and people who had given up because of the similar nature of the parties. He is a huge breath of fresh air in the face of a corrupt and deeply unpleasant government. Just an opinion of course,

The conservatives will realise they've screwed themselves over in about 20 years, by how theyve treated the younger population

Labour are at long last a genuine opposition. Their past two election pledges of "austerity lite" is frankly laughable that people would consider it an "opposition". Its not really surprising that they lost those elections. As bad as the tories have been, if there's no decent opposition, many just won't bother voting at all.

Since Corbyn was elected as leader, more people have joined the Labour party than there are in the ENTIRE Tory party. Don't let a few disgruntled toffs in red ties lead you to believe that they think the same as the rest of the party. They don't.

Jeremy has woken the old left wingers, well done to him The increase in party membership is impressive, as stated above more NEW members under Corbyn than the Conservatives in total, that is paying members of course, the majority of which will be Union members.

However the drab dreary days of left wing, Unionised politics are over, the World has moved on as has everyone's standard of living. The sad thing is no-one is taking Jeremy seriously (other than his comrades) as he has no policies or presence.

Jeremy's supporters will need to be resilient as they will be in the Wilderness for decades..................I predict a party split and breakaway.

The Conservative party has had its own internal opposition since the days of John Major which has challenged its leadership as effectively as the Labour party. I think the Labour party needs to go through this period of self-reflection to decide what it really stands for. New Labour's tory-lite policies were stunningly successful at grabbing the middle ground but it left the Labour party without a heart. As a result the Blairite politicians who are still around either appear shallow and hypocritical or closer to the Tories with their views. Corbyn is probably good for the Labour party as the end result will be to find something they believe in or they will reach the conclusion that the Labour party as an English socialist party has had its day in the sun and can only survive as a minority party.

Corbyn is a throwback , very much-from the Michael Foot / Tony Benn era of politics.Dont think he will ever lead Labour to power.
Labour shifted its policies and aimed itself more to the middle ground in an attempt to gain power , this proved to be successful under Blair.That middle ground has now been taken back by the Torries .
It's a difficult one for Labour , does it fight for the middle ground , does it shift towards the left slightly in a more tactical move or does it back Corbyn and go down the left socialist route.

The one thing I do know for certain is the vast majority of the British electorate do not like extremism in any shape or form, which is why this massive shift to the left makes Labour unelectable. A split looks inevitable and Corbyn and his comrades will be hung out to dry where they belong.

cufcmike wrote:
I didn't bother to vote at the last election because I didn't see Labour as an alternative. If as a party they come out aganst bombing Syria and Trident I would definately vote for them but sadly as much as I like Corbyn he desn't seem to have the strength of character to win over the party. As for socialist politics being unpopular the SNP took virtually 100% of Scotland on an 'invest in us' platform so it can work.

The SNP won most of the Scottish seats on the wave of being beaten in the referendum.
Their actual record in Government is appalling,if anybody actually looks.

Clear mandate for party leader
Massive membership increase
Increased share of vote in last by-election (while tories collapsed to 9%)

The Labour party is a shambles? Of course not. If you believe it is, it's because you lap up the drivel the right wing media gives to you. Try to think straight, silentone.

What do you do for a living? Work for The Sun?

Happyblue wrote:
You make it sound like treating the young like shit is something new happyblue youngsters have always been treat like shit but what happens is they grow up get jobs get a house start a family and end up fearing the day that a left wing labour government comes into power and taxes them till the pips squeak .
Thats why the tories get in thats what happens thats life im affraid..

Socialism is dead and buried, it is just a few have not realised it yet. However, we do need a good opposition party, something Labour will never be until they decide who they are and what they stand for. Currently labour stands for, 1) Oppose everything the ruling party suggests, no matter what (best action to p people off) 2) In-party fighting 3) Demote anyone in the Party who dares to have a different view (laughable). 4) A leader who is a puppet for Militant Republican Bully Boys, who sit at the top of our old Unions.

Change is needed, this will not happen under Jezza I'm afraid.

Not anymore. Labour don't even bother putting taxes up now. That way when they get thrown out they can point out that the tories are squeezing the poor again to line the pockets of their rich mates.

Would be funny if it wasn't our lives that are being played with.

Taken from the Socialist Party website 11-11-15

"The almost daily attacks on Corbyn show how serious the threat to his position is. What is urgently needed is a 'council of war'. This should include left wing-led unions like the FBU, the RMT, the PCS and others, along with serious socialist organisations inside and outside Labour. It must discuss how a real campaign could be mounted to take on the Blairites in the Parliamentary Labour Party and the councils and transform Labour into a real anti-austerity party."

Looks like a Civil War is looming...................

Happyblue wrote:
do you think they'll be bothered, sitting in their mansions supping fine wines? they're not bothered now are they?

We are actually quite lucky in this country to have some socialist features in place such as free universal health care.

thesilentone wrote:

1) That is the job of the opposition!
2 & 3) Every political party in the world is a hotbed of infighting. At least the infighting hasn't led to a political opponent publishing a book with stories about him shagging pigs!!
4) Any evidence of that?

Surely what is most important currently is what the Government is going to do for Cumbria and particularly regarding the floods. The Tories have cut spending on flood defences by 14% in the past 5 years despite knowing that climate change is increasing the likelihood of floods by 60%. Yet at the same time we have spent 25m sending soldiers to Latvia to help there, 77m to the Philippines for flood defences and 125m taking a central role in the civil war on Syria. Whether you like Corbyn or not, and he is not very inspiring to me, at least the money he saves cutting back on these stupid military adventures can be spent keeping our people dry!

www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan...ng-uk-flood-defences

Calling Corbyn a puppet for unions is laughable, when Hameron is a puppet for the banks, and the corporations that don't pay any tax.

cufcmike wrote:

I thought you may find this more acceptable than calling him a Terrorist Sympathiser !

"Jeremy Corbyn has suggested that there is “equivalence” between the British Army and the IRA, in a remark likely to make his sympathies for the terrorist group a central issue in the Labour leadership election.
In an interview on BBC Radio Ulster, the frontrunner repeatedly ducked opportunities to condemn the IRA violence that cost many hundreds of lives during the Troubles. Instead, he repeatedly turned the focus to the behaviour of British forces. He suggested that the army was little better than the IRA, which conducted a bombing campaign in the province and on the mainland over three decades."

So what you're saying is, is that the British Army caused no harm to any innocent people at all, in Ireland?

The "terrorist sympathiser" remarks normally come from when he said about how Bin Laden should have been brought to trial, rather than killed, unarmed, on the spot. We are trying to give "democracy" to these countries, but it seems only when the circumstances are right. Saddam Hussein was actually brought to trial, but we go to these countries because of their "barbaric" practices, such as, the death penalty, and then end up sending Hussein back there, so he can be given, you got it, the death penalty.

thesilentone wrote:
And because of that people in Cumbria should vote for a man who considers it more important to bomb the Syrian Army than build flood defences? Not very communal

To the thread title, Thought it could'nt get any worse with that wet blanket Red Ed in charge, But sadly it has, I'm afraid its years in the wilderness for the Labour Party....

Corbyn is starting the process of laying the foundations for the future of the party ,starting with hardliners taking over at local levels and implementing his policies,the use of postal voting increases Labour's turnout in constituencies hopefully moderate members will come to the fore and see off these Trotskyist's.

Despite promising affordable housing a family earning the national average average salary can now not afford to buy a house in 91% of Britain. Yet building companies are being given 20bn of land by the Tory Government!
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/j...olicy-2016?CMP=fb_gu

Markovitch wrote:
Nothing like using other peoples misery to try and score a point in a political debate.

The real fact is they spent a shit ton of money on flood defences in cumbria and they failed, what would you suggest they do next put a 60ft wall along the banks of every river in the [censored] county.

cufcmike wrote:
How would Corbyn command any respect from the armed forces if he was the PM and how could we trust him to to command the army for that matter, the man isn't cut out to be a PM, he is entitled to his anti war sympathies and ideas and in all fairness we would all love there to be no more wars but is that likely to happen with the likes of IS, Putin and NK in the world, nevermind the USA.

Well,thats not going to be an issue.

The armed forces wouldn't respect a man who stopped them from being killed in meaningless wars? If we saved 100bn on useless nuclear weapons we could boost spending in other areas of the military. Watch this at 11 minutes where the head of the US military (from whom we will buy our weapons from and who will operate them) tells us Trident doesn't work. Who respects someone who spends 100bn on something that doesn't work?!

Waiting for Corbyns party reshuffle. Jeremy old son, Old Chinese proverb, You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear......

Markovitch wrote:
You expect to be taken seriously after posting that video lol

The thing is Trident is and always has been a deterrent, hard to knock its success on that score because it has done what it says, deterred the idiots from launching nuclear bombs at each other.

Then again you want to get rid of the "deterrent" just as North Korea test a nuclear warhead that can fit on top of a missile.

Maybe we can send Corbyn and his pals in to talk them out of doing anymore tests and to promise not to do it again.

Maybe North Korea have developed the atomic bomb as a deterrent to stop themselves being attacked by America.
After all the Korean war has not ended, just a cease fire so far, albeit still in force from the early 1950's..

bluealf wrote:
Did you even read the post? Did you watch the head of the US armed forces, the number 1 guy in the US military? He told you in plain English the bloody thing doesn't work. If the head of Chief of Staffs, Colin Powell, is saying that on TV you think the NKs don't know? To be quite honest if you don't understand that a missile system that doesn't work is no deterrent I despair. Let them buy the thing and cut spending on mental health, it is too late.

What an absolute arse you are

bluealf wrote:
I'd quit while you're behind alf, you're making yourself look like a proper rivet here.

Aye, look what a big deterrent it was against Argentina, thank God they didn't invade, oh wait...
Alf man
1) Germany, all of Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, Portugal, indeed all of Europe except us and France don't have nuclear weapons. Is Germany a nuclear wasteland? Croatia? Switzerland?
2) If NK is going to fire a bomb at us it will have to come across either Russia or the US and they both have anti nuclear missile defences so we are safe
3) The planned system we are going to buy will be operated by the US so Cameron can't fire it even if he wants, he has to ask the US
4) The US has troops on active service in 147 countries www.activistpost.com/2015/11/u-s-militar...5-of-the-planet.html Russia 2, China 1 and NK 0! So who do we need defending from?
5) One of the countries we are being told we need to protect ourselves against is China. Cameron has just given them the contracts to build nuclear power stations for us so in principle if we try to fire at China they can turn off the electric and the bloody things won't leave the ground
6) The 100bn could be used for pensions, NHS, flood defences, education or something that is actually useful- even spending on defence but in the UK would be a massive improvement on the current US based plan
We are only talking about nuclear weapons, Cameron has troops in countries like the Philippines, Latvia, Sierra Leone and of course Syria. Why? Why cut the money for flood defences for that? Vote for Corbyn and we will all be dry, watching United on a Saturday and having a pint in the Magpie. Vote for Cameron and you'll be paying for treatment for your arthritis caused by swimming upstairs

Argentina invaded an island with ground troops, they didn't conduct a nuclear first strike which the deterrent is for. Apples to oranges (or yes, it worked)

1. Are all under the NATO deterrent's umbrella. Which the UK deterrent forms part of.
2. NK have sub surface launch capability and closing in on that being nuclear capable. They won't need to launch over Russia/US, they'll be able to do it from the English Channel.
3. Incorrect, UK deterrent is independent and can be fired when if and when desired (And at whomever). Though we hopefully wouldn't be daft enough to do so other than in an Allied approved return strike scenario. Which is the whole point of the deterrent. Deter a first strike with M.A.D.
4. Take a look at the world, there's always some cvnt bent on something.
5. Yes, they run off mains electricity....muppet.
6. 3.3 Billion per year (30years) for Trident/replacement is a drop of piss in the ocean compared to the 2016 budgets for Pension (153.3bn), Health (137.9bn) and Welfare (110.5bn). The defence budget in total is a mere 45bn.


A vote for Corbyn is a vote for dragging everyone down to the breadline with the exception of party leaders and the select party puppets. If I wanted that, I'd head to Russia, China, North Korea or Zimbabwe.

Outright Socialism doesn't work.

The problem with socialism,is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

I'm sure if Labour could disassociate itself from the unions,it might get some more support. I for one do not want to be ruled by any of them,particularly that scruffy scouse [censored],whichever one he his.

1) So we have to bear the full cost of defending Germany, Spain, Italy, etc etc
2) North Korea currently doesn’t have submarines that can launch nuclear missiles at Britain. Even if it did how long would it take them to sail at 10 knots per hour round Patagonia and up the Atlantic Ocean!! www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/11/up...arine-missile-test-0
3) Technically you are correct but as we will lease our nukes from the US, they will require servicing in the US and joint command will be with the US how can we say they are under British command. www.politico.eu/article/uk-trident-nuclear-program/
4) Usually the US as the statistics show
5) Well they do in America and Russia so why wouldn’t they here? If the power went out in a naval base you think everyone would just continue as if nothing had happened.
6) Except the cost of making them operational has now risen to 130bn www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/sep/18...hidden-cost-revealed

Here is the a Royal navy technician talking about the current state of the UK nuclear system, this is what you want us to invest in. wikileaks.org/trident-safety/ Fires starting due to toilet rolls! Floods, pumps failing!

Instead we could
Replacing Trident with a new nuclear weapons system will cost at least £100 billion. To put this huge amount of money into perspective, this money could pay for:
► Fully funding all A&E; services in hospitals for 40 years
► Employing 150,000 new nurses
► Building 1.5 million new homes
► Tuition fees for 4 million students
► Insulating 15 million homes
‘It is quite frankly unbelievable that at a time of austerity, when every item of public expenditure has to be justified to the N’th degree, that the biggest proposed UK investment programme has received so little public scrutiny.’
Madeline Held, Nuclear Education Trust Chair

So a vote for Cameron will enable the people of Cumbria to swim through their living rooms reflecting how the Germans are safe from nuclear attack, that's nice

The UK is suffering from an enormous superiority complex if it thinks we need nuclear weapons.

We are the laughing stock of Europe.

We no longer have an empire.

Our culture is becoming more and more dumbed down as it becomes more Americanised and dominated by the gutter press, and as a result we are a nation increasingly populated by utter simpletons. Why the hell do we need nuclear weapons to defend ourselves? Who really gives a toss about us or takes us seriously enough to want to ever nuke us?*

*Before anyone references ISIS, take a moment to consider that they hate everyone equally and no amount of nuclear deterrent would be enough to stop them if they somehow got their hands on a nuke.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

loser wrote:


You really are a positive person Loser, you would think you did'nt like living in the UK ?

Nah it's just fine for me. Sure you can like living in any civilised country if you have the ability to make a decent life for yourself. Don't get me wrong there are places I'd rather live but broadly speaking we have it pretty good living here for the time being.

Funny for you to pipe up though. Anyone would think that you didn't like working in your sh*te job due to the bitterness you hold towards those in jobs with strong Unions.



Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

loser wrote:


Wrong again, I have absolutely nothing against Union Members, what I detest are the Fat, Lazy, Bully Boy Republicans who run some of the Unions who under normal circumstances could not run a hot-dog stall, holding us to ransom and making normal people suffer.

What I detest are the Fat, Lazy, Bully Boy Republicans who under normal circumstances could not run a hot-dog stall, holding us to ransom and making normal people suffer.[/quote]

Weren't those the exact words used to describe Curle last season?? Are you Billy Paynter in disguise??!!