Topic: General Political discussion with kesey-style vibes & tantric breathing stuff...

[Yorkykopite]

There were plenty of people on here (Including me) that were very vocal about being optomistic with his vision for the Labour Party. There were many more than happy to let him prove himself as the leader and to give him time to grow into that role.

I wasn’t one of them. I most definitely fall into WLR’s category of Labour supporters who thought Corbyn would be a disaster right from the start. The reasons were legion and it’s boring to repeat them.

I am very happy to say I was right though.

[Sangria]

Clutching straws here with your Tax analogy as if.  I dont call Cameron implementing Article 50 a political win either just some people seem to forget that Corbyn did not implement it the tories did so in the end they and especially Cameron are the reason this country is where it is now. 

It's not clutching straws, and in practice it's not an analogy. The above is the effect of Brexit. The Brexit that Corbyn, before all other politicians, called for.

And if you reckon that Corbyn can do nothing, and everything is in the hands of the government, why is he taking a salary as leader of the opposition? Opposition to the government is supposed to be a loyal part of British democracy. If he doesn't do this job, why is he taking money for it? How does that differentiate him from Frottage, who takes money for being an MEP whilst not doing his job? Frottage's supporters excuse him from everything he does too as he's somehow "on their side", despite being as far from the working class as Corbyn is.

[Yorkykopite]

Meanwhile the most dangerous politician in Britain - Johnson not Corbyn - has privately told the ERG he wouldn’t be against proroguing Parliament to push through a No Deal Brexit if that’s what it took.

The man definitely has a fascist inside of him.

[Mag Hull]

Meanwhile the most dangerous politician in Britain - Johnson not Corbyn - has privately told the ERG he wouldn’t be against proroguing Parliament to push through a No Deal Brexit if that’s what it took.

The man definitely has a fascist inside of him.

100% this. Meanwhile the Labour party is arguing the toss over the political purity of a man with a messiah complex who successfully delivered tangible benefits for the country versus a man with a messiah complex who has successfully delivered tangible benefits for his inner circle.

[Robinred]

100% this. Meanwhile the Labour party is arguing the toss over the political purity of a man with a messiah complex who successfully delivered tangible benefits for the country versus a man with a messiah complex who has successfully delivered tangible benefits for his inner circle.

Beautifully put.

[Yorkykopite]

100% this. Meanwhile the Labour party is arguing the toss over the political purity of a man with a messiah complex who successfully delivered tangible benefits for the country versus a man with a messiah complex who has successfully delivered tangible benefits for his inner circle.

I’m not sure who you’re talking about. Blair?

[Mag Hull]

I’m not sure who you’re talking about. Blair?

Yeah Blair v Corbyn!

[Jiminy Cricket]

Before i start this post is simply an observation, not a put down, not meant to demean anybody but maybe a reason for some of the animosity, I am not sure about the general ages of posters but i would guess some of you joined the party or became able to vote around the time that Blair was the leader and as such his socialism is perhaps the only socialism you became comfortable with. 

For myself and others who are perhaps older and this was not the socialism i signed up for as a centre left supporter, the problem as i see it is Blair  took the party way too far to the right and now for many Corbyn has taken or tried to take the party way too far to the left.

 Leaving out the obvious problems within his leadership and himself as a person, the policies we had in place to combat the way austerity has decimated the vulnerable in society and frankly created this  'fuck you i am alright' mentality within communities was shameful and in many cases downright criminal.

Now you will say none of these good policies matters because of Brexit and to some extent i agree with you but Brexit is still best part of a year away it wont get done by the autumn no matter how much these Tory candidates talk it up however to the people on the streets and the others struggling to get through life now these policies would have been a much needed lifeline.

They say never say never but i cannot see this party ever lurching back to the position Blair took it to,  so even when Corbyn goes my belief is the next candidate elected will be from the left of the party.

A couple of final points we get thrown about in here Corbyn supporters are all sychophants but could the manic blairight supporters have be classed all  sychophants  as well at the time ?

We get well unelected people  making decisions now such as Milne but does he have anymore power in the party than Campbell used to enjoy within the party we get Corbyn's inner circle blasted in here but Blair , Mandelson and Campbell were just the same inner circle who even omitted Brown and Prescott from the decision making at times .

So all i see is the same system used just now they are all from the left and previously they were all from the right.

None of this defends Corbyn the person or AS in the party before somebody tries to claim it does . 

Corbyn has made loads of mistakes and still is but frankly senior politicians didn't put the party first when they should have done and Corbyn is guilty of the same charge

I think you are way off in your assessment of the majority of posters here at RAWK (on these these political threads at least). You are certainly way off when it comes to me. I was too young to vote in '79 and to properly appreciate what it meant. By '83, although still too young to vote, I was aware enough to be vehemently against her, the Tories and what they stood for. Of course, I voted against the Tories (and for Labour) in the next GE and ever since. I really liked Neil Kinnock, and John Smith. Blair, on a personal level, I could not stand. I disliked his style of government, and felt that he and it were too far to the right. But in the main, his Government did good for the country. Where I seriously departed was over the Iraq war - I thought it was a monumental mistake. I felt Blair was ramming it through for reasons I could I could not (and still do not) understand. Now, given all that, I still have no problem agreeing with Blair when he is correct about something. I'd do the same for anyone else.

Although I would not have to liked to see him as leader, I liked Tony Benn. He was a serious student of history, but (I think) he quite regularly draw the wrong conclusions. I think he was honest and an honest broker. I mention Benn because he was from the same section of the party as Corbyn. However, Corbyn possesses none of Benn's better attributes. But I cannot say that Corbyn posses all of Benn's negative attributes, since he does not even attempt to study history, so there is no option for him to draw wrong conclusions. Corbyn is incurious, dishonest, and decidedly unsuited to be leader of the Labour Party, let alone, PM. And before you get on your high horse, and engage in whataboutary, yes of course this is true of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson and most potential Tory PMs too. But, since that is a given, what is the fucking point of discussing it!?

The problem with Corbyn has fuck all to do with Blair. This has everything to do with an inept, dishonest charlatan leading the party the vast majority members of here generally support. And while some people continue to provide succour for Dear Leader, there will be push-back from me and (self evidently) many others around here too.

[Sangria]

I think you are way off in your assessment of the majority of posters here at RAWK (on these these political threads at least). You are certainly way off when it comes to me. I was too young to vote in '79 and to properly appreciate what it meant. By '83, although still too young to vote, I was aware enough to be vehemently against her, the Tories and what they stood for. Of course, I voted against the Tories (and for Labour) in the next GE and ever since. I really liked Neil Kinnock, and John Smith. Blair, on a personal level, I could not stand. I disliked his style of government, and felt that he and it were too far to the right. But in the main, his Government did good for the country. Where I seriously departed was over the Iraq war - I thought it was a monumental mistake. I felt Blair was ramming it through for reasons I could I could not (and still do not) understand. Now, given all that, I still have no problem agreeing with Blair when he is correct about something. I'd do the same for anyone else.

Although I would not have to liked to see him as leader, I liked Tony Benn. He was a serious student of history, but (I think) he quite regularly draw the wrong conclusions. I think he was honest and an honest broker. I mention Benn because he was from the same section of the party as Corbyn. However, Corbyn possesses none of Benn's better attributes. But I cannot say that Corbyn posses all of Benn's negative attributes, since he does not even attempt to study history, so there is no option for him to draw wrong conclusions. Corbyn is incurious, dishonest, and decidedly unsuited to be leader of the Labour Party, let alone, PM. And before you get on your high horse, and engage in whataboutary, yes of course this is true of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson and most potential Tory PMs too. But, since that is a given, what is the fucking point of discussing it!?

The problem with Corbyn has fuck all to do with Blair. This has everything to do with an inept, dishonest charlatan leading the party the vast majority members of here generally support. And while some people continue to provide succour for Dear Leader, there will be push-back from me and (self evidently) many others around here too.

I disagreed with Blair on foreign policy. But I could stomach it as long as the bulk of domestic policy, and the general direction, was something I agreed with. That was true of Blair. Brown. Milliband. Just about every Labour leader I could envisage. I disagreed with Corbyn on foreign policy. But he could play his private games as long as the bulk of domestic policy and the general direction was something I agreed with. I couldn't imagine a Labour leader of which this was not true. Corbyn proved my imagination was limited. "Don't push the far right." Back in 2015, could you imagine any Labour leader who would fail this test?

[oldfordie]

To be fair, though, it turned out that the countdown was completely meaningless, since it could be extended anyway. Triggering article 50 early didn't lead to an early Brexit, it just meant we'd get to see the government's inability to deliver it sooner rather than later (which may or may not have been Corbyn's plan to begin with ).

It was more about holding the Tories to account and influencing public opinion. triggering art 50 without any thought to what Brexit actually meant was irresponsible and stupid. I don't believe he meant Art 50 should be triggered immediately but it did show he hadn't given much thought to how he would respond to the obvious questions in the event of a vote to leave. "We must trigger art 50 NOW".
It was about telling the Tories to back up and be more responsible when they argued for the triggering of art 50. he had plenty of arguments to justify this, Cameron announced a massive study into the impact of brexit in all sectors straight after the referendum. the impact reports. this was hardly mentioned by anyone at the time.
The argument is obvious, it's irresponsible to trig art 50 until we get the results of the impact statements. millions of jobs are on the line if we get this wrong. Labour accepts the result of the referendum but we will hold you to account and force you to act responsibly. we must wait for the impact reports before trig art 50.
It wasn't just the vote to trig art 50, the Tories dictated public opinion on Brexit at all stages for at least 18 months.

[Statto Red]

Leadsome & McVile eliminated from the Tory leadership contest, McVile finished bottom. A few more could withdraw by the time the second round ballot gets underway.

[So… Howard Philips]

100% this. Meanwhile the Labour party is arguing the toss over the political purity of a man with a messiah complex who successfully delivered tangible benefits for the country versus a man with a messiah complex who has successfully delivered tangible benefits for his inner circle.

And don't forget the blatant nepotism, what with him and McDonnell employing each other's sons.

[ShakaHislop]

Help to Buy: 'Most users did not need help report finds'

Almost two-thirds of homebuyers who used the government's Help to Buy scheme could have bought a home without it, an official report has said.

However, they may not have been able to buy the house they wanted without the help, the report from the National Audit Office (NAO) found.

It also found that one in 25 of participants had household incomes of over £100,000.

The scheme did help boost the profits of building firms, the NAO said.

It was too early to determine if the scheme had delivered value for money for the taxpayer, the report said.

"Help To Buy has increased home ownership and housing supply, particularly for first-time buyers," Gareth Davies, head of the NAO, said.

"However, a proportion of participants could have afforded to buy a home without the government's help.

"The scheme has also exposed the government to significant market risk if property values fall, as well as tying up a significant public financial capacity.

"The government's greatest challenge now is to wean the property market off the scheme with as little impact as possible on its ambition of creating 300,000 homes a year by 2021," he said.

The scheme comes in two forms, Help to Buy loans and Help to Buy Individual Savings Accounts (Isas).

In the first version, the government lends up to 20% of the cost of a newly built property, or 40% within Greater London, so buyers need only a 5% deposit and a 75% mortgage to buy it.

Those purchasing a new-build home are not charged interest for the first five years.

The Help to Buy ISA was launched later, in December 2015, and is open to first-time buyers in the UK.

Savers receive a 25% bonus from the government when they withdraw the money they have saved to buy their first property. The maximum purchase price is £250,000, or £450,000 in London.

The maximum government bonus that someone can receive is £3,000, if they have saved £12,000.

"By 2023, the government will have invested up to £29bn in the scheme, tying up cash which cannot be used elsewhere," the NAO said.

Bigger firms made the most of the scheme.

Between 2013 and 2018 more than half the sales in England made by Redrow, Bellway, Taylor Wimpey, Barratt and Persimmon involved Help to Buy.
'Housing bubble'

Persimmon is the biggest beneficiary, with almost 15% of the sales made under the Help to Buy Scheme.

Persimmon saw its annual profits top £1bn last year.

Last year Persimmon's previous chief executive refused to answer questions about his £75m bonus, walking off-camera.

Jeff Fairburn said it was "unfortunate" he had been asked about the payout, which was reduced from £100m after a public backlash.

Mike Amey, managing director of global investment management firm Pimco, has told the BBC that profit on a house sold by Persimmon had trebled since Help to Buy was introduced, "roughly from £20,000 to £60,000".

Fran Boait, executive director of campaigning body Positive Money, said: "It's now beyond clear that rather than helping those who can't afford to buy a home, Help To Buy has mainly been a subsidy for a housing bubble, benefiting property developers and existing home owners."

The government's investment is expected to be returned from the scheme by 2032 after it closes in 2023. However, the size of the loans mean it is very much exposed to the performance of the housing market.

From April 2021, the scheme will be restricted just to first-time buyers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48610977

[oldfordie]

Leadsome & McVile eliminated from the Tory leadership contest, McVile finished bottom. A few more could withdraw by the time the second round ballot gets underway.

Hard to believe she thinks she good enough to be PM, she would have been destroyed answering any questions, probably one of the thickest MPs around. James O'Brien talks about her latest comments and our future PM Johnson.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obrien-looks-deeper-esther-mcveys-airport/

[Skeeve]

It's not so much about being devoted to Blair as being devoted to his brand of politics though, isnt it.

You wont find many holding Blair aloft anymore, because he himself is tainted. But that's not the same as people largely defending his brand of politics and his iteration of the Labour party. You'll find plenty of people holding that in high esteem still and wanting to revert (regress) back to it.

I would be fine with a more centre-left approach to Labour if it was merely a starting point, the problem with the Blair era was not that they took the part too far to the right from the outset so much as they continued to do so once they were elected. If they had taken advantage of their large majority to then shift the country towards the left it would have been fine as a starting point.

One obvious point for those praising the direction that Corbyn has taken the party, a flawed labour party in power is still fuckloads better than any tory government, prioritising ideological purity over becoming actually electable and getting into a position to enact the changes you want seems like a far worse failing in the long run.

[Sangria]

I would be fine with a more centre-left approach to Labour if it was merely a starting point, the problem with the Blair era was not that they took the part too far to the right from the outset so much as they continued to do so once they were elected. If they had taken advantage of their large majority to then shift the country towards the left it would have been fine as a starting point.

One obvious point for those praising the direction that Corbyn has taken the party, a flawed labour party in power is still fuckloads better than any tory government, prioritising ideological purity over becoming actually electable and getting into a position to enact the changes you want seems like a far worse failing in the long run.

The problem with praising Corbyn for moving the Overton window leftwards is his post-referendum actions, and how the idea of Brexit has moved steadily to the right until no deal is now expected. When you are the left sided leader of the opposition, and your first action after the referendum is to outflank the Tory government on the right, then you take your share of responsibility for the country moving towards the far right.

Whatever accusations may be levelled at Blair (and Brown, let's not forget half of Corbyn's rebellions happened in the 2 years of Brown's premiership), at no point did they approach the far right which is now the political mainstream. Corbyn's support for Brexit has positioned him unimaginably far to the right of any previous Labour leader.

[Statto Red]

Hard to believe she thinks she good enough to be PM, she would have been destroyed answering any questions, probably one of the thickest MPs around. James O'Brien talks about her latest comments and our future PM Johnson.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obrien-looks-deeper-esther-mcveys-airport/

Apparently she was destroyed by Lorraine Kelly the other day, Lorrane fucking Kelly, who presents one of the shallowest shows on TV, & an awful interviewer, oh & has that viile Dan Wootton on as a regular guest.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Grow up

You should take your own advice fella,you won't but you should.

St.Tony's biggest fan,real mature.

When was this mythical time when socialism ruled the UK ?

[oldfordie]

Apparently she was destroyed by Lorraine Kelly the other day, Lorrane fucking Kelly, who presents one of the shallowest shows on TV, & an awful interviewer, oh & has that viile Dan Wootton on as a regular guest.

Yeah and McVeys reply to Kelly in the media dropped her in it even more.
Something about Kelly not liking her because she was promoted over her head while they were both working at the same TV station. Kelly came out and give her true feelings on McVey, how she is everything thats so wrong with UK politics today, Toxic.
Another presenter said McVey was lying. she was only filling in for her temporary as she was on Maternity leave and had no permanent job to be promoted.
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/esther-mcvey-lorraine-kelly-gmtv-tory-leadership-contender-good-morning-britain-piers-morgan/

[west_london_red]

I wasn’t one of them. I most definitely fall into WLR’s category of Labour supporters who thought Corbyn would be a disaster right from the start. The reasons were legion and it’s boring to repeat them.

I am very happy to say I was right though.

To clarify I didn’t think Corbyn would be a disaster, I voted for him in the first leadership contest on the wave of optimism he to his credit he created. But by the second contest I was disillusioned enough to vote for Owen Smith. With regards to policies, I probably am still pro-Corbyn, I just think they need to packaged better and by someone with less baggage. But I also think he’s been treated far from fairly but sections of party and media from the get go or that he’s the devil incarnate as some people seem suggest. As with most things in life, people look at Corbyn in a very black and white perspective but there’s a lot of grey in between everyone seems to vacated.

[bigbonedrawky]

He didn't have to say anything. At the point he did, Cameron hadn't spoken, Gove hadn't spoken, Johnson hadn't spoken, Frottage hadn't spoken. The first politician to insist on the immediate invoking of article 50 was Jeremy Corbyn.

"Insist on the immediate invoking of article 50"  I'm fairly sure he did no such thing but I'll ask anyway... Have you got a link ? 

[Jiminy Cricket]

"Insist on the immediate invoking of article 50"  I'm fairly sure he did no such thing but I'll ask anyway... Have you got a link ?

Here you go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkmBdQ-t8cg

[Yorkykopite]

To clarify I didn’t think Corbyn would be a disaster, I voted for him in the first leadership contest on the wave of optimism he to his credit he created. But by the second contest I was disillusioned enough to vote for Owen Smith. With regards to policies, I probably am still pro-Corbyn, I just think they need to packaged better and by someone with less baggage. But I also think he’s been treated far from fairly but sections of party and media from the get go or that he’s the devil incarnate as some people seem suggest. As with most things in life, people look at Corbyn in a very black and white perspective but there’s a lot of grey in between everyone seems to vacated.

Not much grey for me (unless you mean his personality, which you don't). There again I've always treated him fairly I think and I don't recall ever describing him as the "devil incarnate", or anything like that. My bottom line is that he has never really belonged in the Labour tradition. Most of the stuff that has been achieved by the Labour party is not stuff he likes, including I would think the legislation passed, and the alliances made, by the Attlee government. The Blair achievevents of course revolted him, which is why he kept revolting!

These sorts of MPs have always existed in dribs and drabs throughout the party's history. Men - and sometimes women - "of conscience" who wish Britain was more like Russia, China, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Venezuela (cross out where appropriate). The Labour party has tolerated most of them. What it has never done before is made one its leader.  Until Corbyn.

Paying for it now.

[Sangria]

Not much grey for me (unless you mean his personality, which you don't). There again I've always treated him fairly I think and I don't recall ever describing him as the "devil incarnate", or anything like that. My bottom line is that he has never really belonged in the Labour tradition. Most of the stuff that has been achieved by the Labour party is not stuff he likes, including I would think the legislation passed, and the alliances made, by the Attlee government. The Blair achievevents of course revolted him, which is why he kept revolting!

These sorts of MPs have always existed in dribs and drabs throughout the party's history. Men - and sometimes women - "of conscience" who wish Britain was more like Russia, China, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Venezuela (cross out where appropriate). The Labour party has tolerated most of them. What it has never done before is made one its leader.  Until Corbyn.

Paying for it now.

What was it about Brown in particular that caused Corbyn to vote against the whip 200+ times during a 2.5 year period? There's a lot of talk about the demon Blair that the angelic Corbyn is the antithesis of. But it was during Brown's premiership when Corbyn ramped up his rebellions.

[Alan_X]

"Insist on the immediate invoking of article 50"  I'm fairly sure he did no such thing but I'll ask anyway... Have you got a link ? 

And yet even those of us who were critical of him were going to continue voting Labour as we'd done all our lives. Right up until he came out for Brexit.

"The British people have made their decision. We must respect that result and Article 50 has to be invoked now so that we negotiate an exit from European Union."

Jeremy Corbyn, 24th June 2016, first politician to call for article 50 to be invoked.

Feel free to argue over the precise meaning of 'now' as his defenders try to do but the timing and the meaning are there in black and white.

Video:

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/pBmuIHfFWdM?fs=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/pBmuIHfFWdM?fs=1</a>

For further clarity - see 2.00 in the interview when Dimbleby asks why he's arguing for an 'abrupt' invocation rather than taking stock as Daniel Hannan (the voice of sanity for fucks sake) and go "gently, gently rather than rushing headlong into Article 50..."

Corbyn: "...the people were asked their opinion, they've given their opinion, and it's up to parliament to now act on that opinion..."

[bigbonedrawky]

Here you go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkmBdQ-t8cg

Cheers have you got one where he insists on the immediate invoking of article 50 ?
 Did he start insisting after your 17 second video ended ?

[Alan_X]

To clarify I didn’t think Corbyn would be a disaster, I voted for him in the first leadership contest on the wave of optimism he to his credit he created. But by the second contest I was disillusioned enough to vote for Owen Smith. With regards to policies, I probably am still pro-Corbyn, I just think they need to packaged better and by someone with less baggage. But I also think he’s been treated far from fairly but sections of party and media from the get go or that he’s the devil incarnate as some people seem suggest. As with most things in life, people look at Corbyn in a very black and white perspective but there’s a lot of grey in between everyone seems to vacated.

What are Corbyn's economic policies?

[filopastry]

The likes of Milne and Murray having so much influence within the party REALLY doesn't sit well with me either, you can argue the toss with where Corbyn sits on the political spectrum but there isn't really much doubt where they are.

[Yorkykopite]

What was it about Brown in particular that caused Corbyn to vote against the whip 200+ times during a 2.5 year period? There's a lot of talk about the demon Blair that the angelic Corbyn is the antithesis of. But it was during Brown's premiership when Corbyn ramped up his rebellions.

I didn't realise that. It might have been nothing more than complacency. After several years of rebelling against his party without ever paying a price for it he must have felt he could act with impunity. And he could. Then it got to a point where he became almost cherished for his contrariness (remember how Blair saved his skin when it looked like his local party was about to de-select him?) By then he had to defy the Labour whip otherwise what was the point of him?

It was for a similar reason that enough Labour MPs voted to put him on the ballot for the initial leadership contest. They opposed practically everything he stood for but thought he'd be good for the laugh.

A laugh for Labour not the Tories. But it turned out to be a laugh for the Tories.

[Trada]

[Jiminy Cricket]

Cheers have you got one where he insists on the immediate invoking of article 50 ?
 Did he start insisting after your 17 second video ended ?

Same interview - Alan posted the longer version.

[west_london_red]

What are Corbyn's economic policies?

Have a look at party website and 2017 manifesto.

[Yorkykopite]

Same interview - Alan posted the longer version.

Oh God, I feel pretty sure that this thread is now going to get a long disquisition on what the word "insists" means.

[Alan_X]

Cheers have you got one where he insists on the immediate invoking of article 50 ?
 Did he start insisting after your 17 second video ended ?

As ever with Corbyn, when defending him it's critical to understand that the words that come out of his mouth don't actually mean what they seem to mean.

'Do it now' does not mean do it now. It means something else entirely in Corbynspeak.

'These anti-semitic terrorists are my friends' is simply a normal welcome that anyone one would use when introducing anti-semitic terrorists.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Oh God, I feel pretty sure that this thread is now going to get a long disquisition on what the word "insists" means.

Odds-on, innit.

[Mutton Geoff]

The likes of Milne and Murray having so much influence within the party REALLY doesn't sit well with me either, you can argue the toss with where Corbyn sits on the political spectrum but there isn't really much doubt where they are.

Just out of interest how did Mandelson and Campbell having to much influence sit with you?
if you say just as bad i can agree with you, i generally have no truck with spin doctors and shadowy characters making policies or manipulating them. For me the only people a leader needs around them should be members of the shadow cabinet and the deputy leader should have a much bigger role, the PR guys should do their job in the background to my way of thinking so as such i disliked Campbell and i detest Milne.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Feel free to argue over the precise meaning of 'now' as his defenders try to do but the timing and the meaning are there in black and white.

Video:

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/pBmuIHfFWdM?fs=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/pBmuIHfFWdM?fs=1</a>

For further clarity - see 2.00 in the interview when Dimbleby asks why he's arguing for an 'abrupt' invocation rather than taking stock as Daniel Hannan (the voice of sanity for fucks sake) and go "gently, gently rather than rushing headlong into Article 50..."

Corbyn: "...the people were asked their opinion, they've given their opinion, and it's up to parliament to now act on that opinion..."

Like the Drumpf morans that is all the Comrade sycophants have "Show me that" "Oh but that isn't what he meant" "MSM,Blairite,but the tories,grumble,grumble"

[Alan_X]

Have a look at party website and 2017 manifesto.

I did look at the party website. Did you read the document about ownership models? The Corbyn McDonnell model of business ownership in the long term is similar to the Venezuelan ideal of co-operatisation and collectivisation.

You may think it's about nationalising the post office and the choo-choos but the long term ideal is for small businesses like mine to be turned into cooperatives. It's a lovely ideal but everywhere it's been tried on a large scale it's been a disaster.

[Mutton Geoff]

As ever with Corbyn, when defending him it's critical to understand that the words that come out of his mouth don't actually mean what they seem to mean.

'Do it now' does not mean do it now. It means something else entirely in Corbynspeak.

'These anti-semitic terrorists are my friends' is simply a normal welcome that anyone one would use when introducing anti-semitic terrorists.

Or you could say the words coming out of his mouth you have decided what they mean from your most negative standpoint.

[filopastry]

Just out of interest how did Mandelson and Campbell having to much influence sit with you?
if you say just as bad i can agree with you, i generally have no truck with spin doctors and shadowy characters making policies or manipulating them. For me the only people a leader needs around them should be members of the shadow cabinet and the deputy leader should have a much bigger role, the PR guys should do their job in the background to my way of thinking so as such i disliked Campbell and i detest Milne.

Well they weren't literal communists, so while I agree it wasn't something I have ever been 100% comfortable with, its a bit of a different issue with Milne and Murray.