# Corbyn has won



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Hopefully we may now see a shake up of the political scene. He thrashed the other sleaze balls


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYY


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYY


Oddly we agree


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

Bit of a victory for the little guys, but will be very interesting to see how it pans out, how much influence he's allowed to have..... still a glimmer of hope IMO


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I'm really pleased too and think he is going to ignite more interest in politics which has really taken a bashing over the last 10 years or so. I hope he retains his individuality and doesn't join the Teflon grey suited brigade. I won't pretend to agree with his politics but am looking forward to the debates to come and seeing how much influence he will have.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Oddly we agree


We do  Do you think its something in the water? 



Muze said:


> Bit of a victory for the little guys, but will be very interesting to see how it pans out, how much influence he's allowed to have..... still a glimmer of hope IMO


I agree, but how good it feels to have that glimmer of hope


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Great news


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> We do  Do you think its something in the water?


Nope. I just think we both recognize someone that seems to be genuine. Might not agree with all he stands for but can admire someone who seems to truly care.

Far to many in all areas of life who are just self serving.

Do hope I'm right about him. My father was a Labour voter all his life and since I've been an adult, they've been just a bunch of liars and idiots


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Great news.
He stands for the good in the world, this is a positive for politics and should engage those who do not vote and the young as well, he is not just like the others and that's always a good thing.


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

Good on him. We need more front benches who listen to their voters.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Whoo hoo!

And the fact that his win was so comprehensive, winning through on the first round and across the board of old and new membership, is very, very promising for the future of the party, despite the fact that the media are still trying to pretend it will divide the labour party.

His acceptance speech was brilliant - it's like a breath of fresh air is wafting through politics. Hope it continues.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Muze said:


> Bit of a victory for the little guys, but will be very interesting to see how it pans out, how much influence he's allowed to have..... still a glimmer of hope IMO


Agree totally. I am delighted he's won and the days ahead will be interesting. Already the Tories are mud-slinging - "the countries security and our families security is at risk!!!" Oh f*ck off...... The Tories are the ones who have ripped this country apart and it's time they got the kick up the jacksy that Corbyn is gonna give them.

We now have someone in politics who does the job for the good of everyone else and not for his own self-serving purposes!!!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> The Tories are the ones who have ripped this country apart


Don't forget their clone Tony Blair and his social climber wife


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

rona said:


> Don't forget their clone Tony Blair and his social climber wife


Some people have short memories


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

MoggyBaby said:


> Agree totally. I am delighted he's won and the days ahead will be interesting. Already the Tories are mud-slinging - "the countries security and our families security is at risk!!!" Oh f*ck off...... *The Tories are the ones who have ripped this country apart *and it's time they got the kick up the jacksy that Corbyn is gonna give them.
> 
> We now have someone in politics who does the job for the good of everyone else and not for his own self-serving purposes!!!


I think Blair and Brown did a pretty good job at that and lets not forget the next government was a coalition not just Tory. However I hope Corbyn does live up to expectations and can make a difference but only time will tell.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rona said:


> Don't forget their clone Tony Blair and his social climber wife


Agree on the Blair bit, but not so much on Cherie Blair, who fought on many social justice cases that other barristers turned down for fear of an establishment backlash.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Just to say that I am so happy today! 
And the fact that Corbyn has Tom Watson as deputy (and Watson has already said he will support him) means that he has a juggernaut of a politician who will stand firm with him against a media onslaught. He's done it before after all.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Beware the fear mongers are already crawling out of the woodwork. First Michael Fallons now Priti Patel - what pathetic attempts at scaremongering "labour are now a serious risk to our nations security, our economys security & your families security."  Funnily enough their party is the one I fear - their policies are destroying everything I hold dear. I find that truly terrifying.

I think this send up of all the scaremongering is very funny -


----------



## oliviarussian (Sep 2, 2010)

He's been my local MP for over 25 years and has looked after his local patch very well in my opinion, a dedicated principled man


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Beware the fear mongers are already crawling out of the woodwork. First Michael Fallons now Priti Patel - what pathetic attempts at scaremongering "labour are now a serious risk to our nations security, our economys security & your families security."  Funnily enough their party is the one I fear - their policies are destroying everything I hold dear. I find that truly terrifying.


Noush you know how much I hate these memes - your post makes it appear that the meme is an attempt to discredit Corbyn by the tories when its not - that has been written by a Corbyn/labour supporter which I think should be made clear in your post.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

im glad he won, there might actually be a point in voting in the next election, there might actually be a choice.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Noush you know how much I hate these memes - your post makes it appear that the meme is an attempt to discredit Corbyn by the tories when its not - that has been written by a Corbyn/labour supporter which I think should be made clear in your post.


Gosh really? I thought it was obvious the meme was just a send up the right wing scaremongering . Thanks for the heads up though RPH, I'll go back & clarify


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

porps said:


> im glad he won, there might actually be a point in voting in the next election, there might actually be a choice.


My OH has just said the same.
And he hasn't voted in the GE since as long as I've known him.

According to some reports (Twitter, LabourList, Independent, etc), thousands have already applied to be full party members since the leadership election results. Some of them may have already been £3 voters who waited and hedged their bets, but some are completely new members.
That's promising, and even if it is an over-estimation, I can really see this happening over the next few days


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Gosh really? I thought it was obvious the meme was just a send up the right wing scaremongering . Thanks for the heads up though RPH, I'll go back & clarify


Yes, I read it twice as well (then felt stupid, lol!)


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

I have to say recently there have been some things that have made me feel awful about the human race, especially in this country, but today I think is a good day and a triumph for those who want things to be better and a kinder society.
This result and the turnout at the march to support the poor refugees.

Then add in the little covered Vivianne Westwood has driven a tank into Camerons home to protest fracking, well maybe we are on an about turn into a better and more caring and considerate future.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

silvi said:


> Yes, I read it twice as well (then felt stupid, lol!)


Well to be fair, my posts are as clear as mud sometimes lol


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

silvi said:


> My OH has just said the same.
> And he hasn't voted in the GE since as long as I've known him.
> 
> According to some reports (Twitter, LabourList, Independent, etc), thousands have already applied to be full party members since the leadership election results. Some of them may have already been £3 voters who waited and hedged their bets, but some are completely new members.
> That's promising, and even if it is an over-estimation, I can really see this happening over the next few days


My hubby has just joined the labour party. Hes never been a member of any party before.  (as much as I love Jeremy, I'll never join as i'm Green through & through though lol)


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> *I think Blair and Brown did a pretty good job at that* and lets not forget the next government was a coalition not just Tory. However I hope Corbyn does live up to expectations and can make a difference but only time will tell.


As I said in an FB post earlier - since Blair took over, the Labour Party has been more purple* than red! The differences between them and the Tories was so slim that most of the populace couldn't even be bothered to vote because there was so little to vote for. It was either Conservative or Labservative.

*To clarify - not UKIP purple but the colour you get when Blue & Red are mixed together.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

Perhaps the message will get through - we want to vote for people who want to change the world, not people who want to be leader.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Good that he won purely as voters in a general election actually have a choice but how many "supporters" who voted for him actually are going to support him long term as members of the party. How many simply joined to vote him in and will he get the support he needs to strengthen the party long term?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I'm really looking forward to see what he does about the shadow cabinet posts, whether he will keep some of the Blair/Brown starlets or whether he dumps them all and goes for a totally fresh approach although I suspect we might be seeing the rebirth of Ken Livingstone


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Goblin said:


> Good that he won purely as voters in a general election actually have a choice but how many "supporters" who voted for him actually are going to support him long term as members of the party. How many simply joined to vote him in and will he get the support he needs to strengthen the party long term?


A lot of the £3 supporters are applying to join up as we speak, plus many who didn't join or support previously.
I agree, he will need all the help he can get, so I really hope that today's euphoria turns into tomorrow's continued, active support.
But I refuse to worry about that today


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I'm really looking forward to see what he does about the shadow cabinet posts, whether he will keep some of the Blair/Brown starlets or whether he dumps them all and goes for a totally fresh approach although I suspect we might be seeing the rebirth of Ken Livingstone


Evidently 7 have already resigned (but as the new party leader is supposed to choose his new shadow cabinet, I feel that their 'resignation' was a little uncalled for ).


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Good that he won purely as voters in a general election actually have a choice but how many "supporters" who voted for him actually are going to support him long term as members of the party. How many simply joined to vote him in and will he get the support he needs to strengthen the party long term?


My hubby for one. If Corbyn can inspire someone like my hubby to join, I'm very hopeful there will be many more.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

silvi said:


> Evidently 7 have already resigned (but as the new party leader is supposed to choose his new shadow cabinet, I feel that their 'resignation' was a little uncalled for ).


This speaks volumes, to me, as to the real reason half of these people are MP's. They are in it as it looks good on their CV and there are some nice little perks. Now that they will actually have to LISTEN to their constituents, and take on board their issues, and - god forbid - actually do some work, they chuck their dummies out of the pram and go off in a sulk. My respect goes to those who have said they will still support Corbyn even though there are some areas they do not agree on. They are doing the job for the right reasons.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Saw this on twitter - it tickled me:Hilarious 


I am absolutely shocked to find Tristram Hunt isn't an actual Tory MP. I genuinely thought he was.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

More people have joined labout today then any day in their history!

Yet somehow there are peopke within the party who object so fiercly to him, even though the people have clearly said this is what we want.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> More people have joined labout today then any day in their history!
> 
> Yet somehow there are peopke within the party who object so fiercly to him, even though the people have clearly said this is what we want.


I've been watching the news channels further to the news breaking - the nay-sayers and doom-mongers have all been on camera, tripping over their faces, as they predict the 'downfall of the United Kingdom' further to this result. SERIOUSLY??? When you look at all that is happening in the world at this time and they think a 66 yr old man is going to bring about the collapse of our nation. I'm screaming at the tv "Open your eyes you stoopid moron - this man has engaged the whole country in politics and has woken up a nation that had slipped into a coma from the same old, same old boring politics we have been fed since 1997."

I am really interested to see where Corbyn takes this but, for just getting the country to see there can be hope for the future, he deserves a massive pat on the back.

Now it is onwards and, hopefully, upwards!!!


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> I've been watching the news channels further to the news breaking - the nay-sayers and doom-mongers have all been on camera, tripping over their faces, as they predict the 'downfall of the United Kingdom' further to this result. SERIOUSLY??? When you look at all that is happening in the world at this time and they think a 66 yr old man is going to bring about the collapse of our nation. I'm screaming at the tv "Open your eyes you stoopid moron - this man has engaged the whole country in politics and has woken up a nation that had slipped into a coma from the same old, same old boring politics we have been fed since 1997."
> 
> I am really interested to see where Corbyn takes this but, for just getting the country to see there can be hope for the future, he deserves a massive pat on the back.
> 
> Now it is onwards and, hopefully, upwards!!!


I have no idea why they are doing it, well I do, they are scared.
If he isn't in power how on earth is he going to bring down the UK? He is about to rip open politics and theyvare not happy.

There are some funny tweets, taking the micky of their statement that labour are a risk to our security and families, saying labour will come to your door and steal your womenfolk. 
It really is odd, they said they wanted him in, now they seem scared.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> I have no idea why they are doing it, well I do, they are scared.
> If he isn't in power how on earth is he going to bring down the UK? He is about to rip open politics and theyvare not happy.
> 
> There are some funny tweets, taking the micky of their statement that labour are a risk to our security and families, saying labour will come to your door and steal your womenfolk.
> It really is odd, they said they wanted him in, now they seem scared.


I read this article yesterday which is very interesting. It may explain a few things.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tories-should-fear-jeremy-corbyn-6423285


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Is it just me who absolutely loves the fact he is out the on parliament square with the people while the ones in power are what? At the cricket?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Good that he won purely as voters in a general election actually have a choice but how many "supporters" who voted for him actually are going to support him long term as members of the party. How many simply joined to vote him in and will he get the support he needs to strengthen the party long term?


Who knows? However, as the figures show, he was not only voted in by the new supporters who joined up just to viote him in. He was voted in resoundingly by the regular members (121, 751 of a possible 245,520 votes) and the affiliated members (41,217 votes out of a possible 71,546 votes), not just the regsistered supporters (88,449 votes out of a possible 105,598 votes)
http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/results-of-the-labour-leadership-and-deputy-leadership-election

That's a huge mandate from all areas of the party, including the long term members. I guess most leaders would give their right arm for that kind of mandate.

I don't suppose it will be all plain sailing - which leader is lucky enough to have that? But one thing is for sure - UK politics just got a whole lot more interesting.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Who knows? However, as the figures show, he was not only voted in by the new supporters who joined up just to viote him in. He was voted in resoundingly by the regular members (121, 751 of a possible 245,520 votes) and the affiliated members (41,217 votes out of a possible 71,546 votes), not just the regsistered supporters (88,449 votes out of a possible 105,598 votes)
> http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/results-of-the-labour-leadership-and-deputy-leadership-election
> 
> That's a huge mandate from all areas of the party, including the long term members. I guess most leaders would give their right arm for that kind of mandate.
> ...


I have made an appointment to see my doctor next week about changing my medication. This current stuff is just no good - it keeps making me agree with Spellweaver and that is simply not on!!!! lol lol


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

silvi said:


> Evidently 7 have already resigned (but as the new party leader is supposed to choose his new shadow cabinet, I feel that their 'resignation' was a little uncalled for ).


Agree - somehow the words "leaving before they are pushed out" spring to mind.



emmaviolet said:


> More people have joined labout today then any day in their history!
> Yet somehow there are peopke within the party who object so fiercly to him, even though the people have clearly said this is what we want.


It's not surprising that some politicians don't want to disturb the status quo - as someone on here has already said, under Corbyn they might have to actually get off thei @rses and do the work they are being paid for. But after such as resounding success, perhaps quite a few of them might suddenly decide that they were mistaken. I hope they do - either that, or leave the party altogether and join the tories if all they want is the same old same old.



MoggyBaby said:


> I've been watching the news channels further to the news breaking - the nay-sayers and doom-mongers have all been on camera, tripping over their faces, as they predict the 'downfall of the United Kingdom' further to this result. SERIOUSLY??? When you look at all that is happening in the world at this time and they think a 66 yr old man is going to bring about the collapse of our nation. I'm screaming at the tv "*Open your eyes you stoopid moron - this man has engaged the whole country in politics and has woken up a nation that had slipped into a coma from the same old, same old boring politics we have been fed since 1997*."
> 
> I am really interested to see where Corbyn takes this but, for just getting the country to see there can be hope for the future, he deserves a massive pat on the back.
> 
> Now it is onwards and, hopefully, upwards!!!


Agree - especially with the bit in bold. Very interesting article btw.

Heh heh - SW and MB agreeing about politics - and they said Corbyn's result was the most astounding thing to happen today ....


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

rona said:


> Don't forget their clone Tony Blair and his social climber wife


Here we go again, can't you think of anyone else to moan about, you're really getting boring.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Great result. Congratulations due to Corbyn, his deputy and all his supporters. (Oh, and anyone who got 100/1).

Strong start from him; he won't be a lazy leader for sure. Very dignified victory speech too. One can't but admire him regardless of personal politics.

Screw the naysayers and assorted losers, (especially that one up north).


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> might be seeing the rebirth of Ken Livingstone


This is slightly concerning



Happy Paws said:


> Here we go again, can't you think of anyone else to moan about, you're really getting boring.


 I hardly ever post on political threads? However I do think Blair needs to be charged with war crimes


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

It was mentioned that, as Opposition Leader, Corbyn will be invited to join the Queens Privy council. I'll bet Lizzie saw the result today and (quietly inside) cheered for joy! At last she has a thoughtful, genuine and caring person to converse with when compared to the chinless wonders that have been served up in the last 23 years!


----------



## tincan (Aug 30, 2012)

MoggyBaby said:


> It was mentioned that, as Opposition Leader, Corbyn will be invited to join the Queens Privy council. I'll bet Lizzie saw the result today and (quietly inside) cheered for joy! At last she has a thoughtful, genuine and caring person to converse with when compared to the chinless wonders that have been served up in the last 23 years!


He opposes the Monarchy MB


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

rona said:


> This is slightly concerning
> 
> I hardly ever post on political threads? However I do think Blair needs to be charged with war crimes


I think Mr Corbyn might agree with you on that point too Rona.

I only just realised his brother is Piers Corbyn the climate change sceptic. Bet that makes for some interesting family get together discussions


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

tincan said:


> He opposes the Monarchy MB


Then that is REALLY gonna make for some fun sessions!!!


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

rona said:


> I hardly ever post on political threads? However I do think Blair needs to be charged with war crimes


In that case they should have had Thatcher up as well, for the Falklands War, if she hadn't left them undefended they wouldn't have been a war in the first place and then she sank the ARA General Belgrano in neutral wars.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Happy Paws said:


> In that case they should have had Thatcher up as well, for the Falklands War, if she hadn't left them undefended they wouldn't have been a war in the first place and then she sank the ARA General Belgrano in neutral wars.


Slightly different reasons for the wars and in 1994.....................
"exclusion zones are historically declared for the benefit of neutral vessels; during war, under international law, the heading and location of a belligerent naval vessel has no bearing on its status. In addition, the captain of the _Belgrano_, Héctor Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate (as did the Argentine government in 1994"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Exclusion_Zone

Even reading the Spanish articles about Hector Bonzo, he was adamant that the sinking was an act of war, legitimate and the men that died were heroes not victims


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

and you believe what Wikipedia says


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Happy Paws said:


> and you believe what Wikipedia says


As I said, many other sites not English say similar
http://www.lanacion.com.ar/702442-general-belgrano-crimen-o-acccion-de-combate

http://www.perfil.com/sociedad/Desp...an-Bonzo-heroe-de-Malvinas-20090424-0011.html
"
*Tenía 76 años y había polemizado con Cancillería porque para él el hundimiento del Belgrano no fue un "crimen de guerra"*

*"Fue un hecho de guerra. Los actos de quienes están en la guerra, como el ataque del submarino, no son un crimen. Fue un hecho desgraciadamente y lamentablemente lícito. El crimen es la guerra. Nosotros estuvimos en el frente de combate y sufrimos las consecuencias. Yo desde el día 30 tenía orden de disparar y si delante mío hubiese estado el submarino que había salido a la superficie por una avería, yo le tiraba con los quince cañones hasta hundirlo. Llamarlo "crimen" fue una acción psicológica de guerra".*

*Translated*
*"He was 76 and had polemics with the Foreign Ministry because for him the sinking of the Belgrano was not a "war crime".*

*" It was an act of war. The acts of those in war, as the attack submarine, not a crime. It was a fact unfortunately and regrettably lawful. The crime is war. We were in the battlefront and suffer the consequences. I from day 30 had orders to shoot and if front of me had been the submarine had surfaced by a fault, I tugged with fifteen guns to sink. I call it "crime" was a psychological act of war ".*

I never believe one single site I always try to find the truth


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rona said:


> Slightly different reasons for the wars and in 1994.....................
> "exclusion zones are historically declared for the benefit of neutral vessels; during war, under international law, the heading and location of a belligerent naval vessel has no bearing on its status. In addition, the captain of the _Belgrano_, Héctor Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate (as did the Argentine government in 1994"
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Exclusion_Zone
> 
> Even reading the Spanish articles about Hector Bonzo, he was adamant that the sinking was an act of war, legitimate and the men that died were heroes not victims


I've read both the articles you mentioned by the way.

My take on this is that, as captain of the Belgrano and a military man, Héctor Bonzo would have wanted his men to be remembered as heroes rather than victims. 
But that doesn't mean that the Belgrano's sinking was right.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

silvi said:


> I've read both the articles you mentioned by the way.
> 
> My take on this is that, as captain of the Belgrano and a military man, Héctor Bonzo would have wanted his men to be remembered as heroes rather than victims.
> But that doesn't mean that the Belgrano's sinking was right.


Lots of things aren't right in wartime. The man recognized it as war and stated that if he had seen the sub, he would have sent an exocet it's way......................


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> *Lots of things aren't right in wartime*. The man recognized it as war and stated that if he had seen the sub, he would have sent an exocet it's way......................


Of course lots of things are wrong in war time. The difference is, you are prepared to allow Thatcher to be worng in war time but not Blair. Touch of the double standards there, methinks!

Imo they are *both* war criminals.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> Of course lots of things are wrong in war time. The difference is, you are prepared to allow Thatcher to be worng in war time but not Blair. Touch of the double standards there, methinks!
> 
> Imo they are *both* war criminals.


As is Cameron for his bombing of Syria, arming cruel regimes. His answer to the refugee crisis?? - bomb Syria some more! WTH? .

This on Thatcher by John Pilger is VERY interesting.

*Dance on Thatcher's grave, but remember there has been a coup in Britain*
*25 April 2013*
In the wake of Thatcher's departure, I remember her victims. Patrick Warby's daughter, Marie, was one of them. Marie, aged five, suffered from a bowel deformity and needed a special diet. Without it, the pain was excruciating. Her father was a Durham miner and had used all his savings. It was winter 1985, the Great Strike was almost a year old and the family was destitute. Although her eligibility was not disputed, Marie was denied help by the Department of Social Security. Later, I obtained records of the case that showed Marie had been turned down because her father was "affected by a Trade dispute".

The corruption and inhumanity under Thatcher knew no borders. When she came to power in 1979, Thatcher demanded a total ban on exports of milk to Vietnam. The American invasion had left a third of Vietnamese children malnourished. I witnessed many distressing sights, including infants going blind from a lack of vitamins. "I cannot tolerate this," said an anguished doctor in a Saigon paediatric hospital, as we looked at a dying boy. Oxfam and Save the Children had made clear to the British government the gravity of the emergency. An embargo led by the US had forced up the local price of a kilo of milk up to ten times that of a kilo of meat. Many children could have been restored with milk. Thatcher's ban held.

In neighbouring Cambodia, Thatcher left a trail of blood, secretly. In 1980, she demanded that the defunct Pol Pot regime - the killers of 1.7 million people - retain its "right" to represent their victims at the UN. Her policy was vengeance on Cambodia's liberator, Vietnam. The British representative was instructed to vote with Pol Pot at the World Health Organisation, thereby preventing it from providing help to where it was needed more than anywhere on earth.

To conceal this outrage, the US, Britain and China, Pol Pot's main backer, invented a "resistance coalition" dominated by Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge forces and supplied by the CIA at bases along the Thai border. There was a hitch. In the wake of the Irangate arms-for-hostages debacle, the US Congress had banned clandestine foreign adventures. "In one of those deals the two of them liked to make," a senior Whitehall official told the Sunday Telegraph, "President Reagan put it to Thatcher that the SAS should take over the Cambodia show. She readily agreed."

In 1983, Thatcher sent the SAS to train the "coalition" in its own distinctive brand of terrorism. Seven-man SAS teams arrived from Hong Kong, and British soldiers set about training "resistance fighters" in laying minefields in a country devastated by genocide and the world's highest rate of death and injury as a result of landmines.

I reported this at the time, and more than 16,000 people wrote to Thatcher in protest. "I confirm," she replied to opposition leader Neil Kinnock, "that there is no British government involvement of any kind in training, equipping or co-operating with the Khmer Rouge or those allied to them." The lie was breathtaking. In 1991, the government of John Major admitted to parliament that the SAS had indeed trained the "coalition". "We liked the British," a Khmer Rouge fighter later told me. "They were very good at teaching us to set booby traps. Unsuspecting people, like children in paddy fields, were the main victims."

When the journalists and producers of ITV's landmark documentary, Death on the Rock, exposed how the SAS had run Thatcher's other death squads in Ireland and Gibraltar, they were hounded by Rupert Murdoch's "journalists", then cowering behind the razor wire at Wapping. Although exonerated, Thames TV lost its ITV franchise.

In 1982, the Argentine cruiser, General Belgrano, was steaming outside the Falklands exclusion zone. The ship offered no threat, yet Thatcher gave orders for it to be sunk. Her victims were 323 sailors, including conscripted teenagers. The crime had a certain logic. Among Thatcher's closest allies were mass murderers - Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in Indonesia, responsible for "many more than one million deaths" (Amnesty International). Although the British state had long armed the world's leading tyrannies, it was Thatcher who brought a crusading zeal to the deals, talking up the finer points of fighter aircraft engines, hard-bargaining with bribe-demanding Saudi princes. I filmed her at an arms fair, stroking a gleaming missile. "I'll have one of those!" she said.

In his arms-to-Iraq enquiry, Lord Richard Scott heard evidence that an entire tier of the Thatcher government, from senior civil servants to ministers, had lied and broken the law in selling weapons to Saddam Hussein. These were her "boys". Thumb through old copies of the Baghdad Observer, and there are pictures of her boys, mostly cabinet ministers, on the front page sitting with Saddam on his famous white couch. There is Douglas Hurd and there is a grinning David Mellor, also of the Foreign Office, around the time his host was ordering the gassing of 5,000 Kurds. Following this atrocity, the Thatcher government doubled trade credits to Saddam.

Perhaps it is too easy to dance on her grave. Her funeral was a propaganda stunt, fit for a dictator: an absurd show of militarism, as if a coup had taken place. And it has. "Her real triumph", said another of her boys, Geoffrey Howe, a Thatcher minister, "was to have transformed not just one party but two, so that when Labour did eventually return, the great bulk of Thatcherism was accepted as irreversible."

In 1997, Thatcher was the first former prime minister to visit Tony Blair after he entered Downing Street. There is a photo of them, joined in rictus: the budding war criminal with his mentor. When Ed Miliband, in his unctuous "tribute", caricatured Thatcher as a "brave" feminist hero whose achievements he personally "honoured", you knew the old killer had not died at all.

_An edited version of this article originally appeared in the New Statesman_

http://johnpilger.com/articles/danc...but-remember-there-has-been-a-coup-in-britain


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Noush I seriously thought better of you than to post an article about dancing on someone's grave. I found it disgusting then and I find it equally disgusting now. I couldn't stand Tony Benn but I would never take pleasure in his death or post articles about dancing on his grave  Its easy to accuse Rona of double standards but some of the so called "caring left" are quite uncaring when it suits them.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Noush I seriously thought better of you than to post an article about dancing on someone's grave. I found it disgusting then and I find it equally disgusting now. I couldn't stand Tony Benn but I would never take pleasure in his death or post articles about dancing on his grave  Its easy to accuse Rona of double standards but some of the so called "caring left" are quite uncaring when it suits them.


Oh, ey up - siuppose this thread will now be disappearing because it's offended someone.

Thatcher was as great a dictator as Hussein or Putin. If people wish to dance on her grave, then instead of blaming them, blame *her* for creating such feelings with her callous indifference to the suffering she caused. Take off your rose tinted specs and read the meat of Pilger's article. If this were about any other leader than Thatcher, you would be up in arms about the things said leader has done, whether they were alive or dead - but because it's Thatcher and she's dead, that somehow means that no-one is allowed to display their dislike and contempt.

Just because the woman is dead does not mean that we have to pretend she was an angel. She was a vile human being wihtout a shred of humanity in her and I refuse to be hypocritical and pretend she was wonderful just because she is dead. I respect people who have earned my respect, not villains whose only spurious claim for respect is that they have died.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> Oh, ey up - siuppose this thread will now be disappearing because it's offended someone.


I do hope not.
It started out as a happy thread and most of us were celebrating Corbyn's victory. I would hate it if the thread disappeared just because of a remark made in an article.
Seems a bit ridiculous if it did..... but we'll see.....


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> Oh, ey up - siuppose this thread will now be disappearing because it's offended someone.
> 
> Thatcher was as great a dictator as Hussein or Putin. If people wish to dance on her grave, then instead of blaming them, blame *her* for creating such feelings with her callous indifference to the suffering she caused. Take off your rose tinted specs and read the meat of Pilger's article. If this were about any other leader than Thatcher, you would be up in arms about the things said leader has done, whether they were alive or dead - but because it's Thatcher and she's dead, that somehow means that no-one is allowed to display their dislike and contempt.
> 
> Just because the woman is dead does not mean that we have to pretend she was an angel. She was a vile human being wihtout a shred of humanity in her and I refuse to be hypocritical and pretend she was wonderful just because she is dead. I respect people who have earned my respect, not villains whose only spurious claim for respect is that they have died.


Firstly I didn't say the thread or the article offended me. I said I found it disgusting which I do. Your comments are of course your opinion which you are entitled to but thankfully there are many decent people around who find the thought of dancing on someone's grave vile. Please also do not presume to tell me who and what I would be up in arms about because by the way for a lot of the Thatcher years I was voting labour  I even went out canvassing door to door for the labour party in the 1987 election. I haven't asked anyone not to display dislike or contempt but dancing on someone's grave is by most decent peoples standards taking protest too far. Neither have I asked you to pretend she was wonderful just because she is dead. If you are comfortable being so disrespectful and full of bile and vitriol then carry on.

@silvi I have no intention of asking for the thread to be closed and I agree it started out as a nice thread but have a read back to find the first poster who turned it nasty


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> @silvi I have no intention of asking for the thread to be closed and I agree it started out as a nice thread but have a read back to find the first poster who turned it nasty


I have no wish to go back and see 'who said what to who', as it really doesn't bother me that much.

My thoughts on Thatcher is that her views on people and politics were vile. I had read that Pilger article some time ago and I agreed with it.
Like you, I find the idea of dancing on anyone's grave distasteful, but I can also see why many of those affected badly by the Thatcher regime would feel happy to do it.

I didn't think that it would be you who complained about this thread, but it does seem that others who may not even comment on a thread are quite happy to get it removed, rather than perhaps discuss why certain things are said.
There is another thread running alongside this one that has just had an article linked to that I find offensive, but I would rather point out why I find that article offensive than have the thread banned (or even the article removed).
Sadly, others don't always feel the same.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

silvi said:


> *I have no wish to go back and see 'who said what to who', as it really doesn't bother me that much.*
> 
> My thoughts on Thatcher is that her views on people and politics were vile. I had read that Pilger article some time ago and I agreed with it.
> Like you, I find the idea of dancing on anyone's grave distasteful, but I can also see why many of those affected badly by the Thatcher regime would feel happy to do it.
> ...


It doesn't really bother me that much either and usually I let things like that go by but I found it a bit rich when Rona was being accused of double standards.

I have never asked for a thread to be closed because I personally found something offensive other than a poster abusing other members with the C word which on the main dog chat part of the forum seemed wrong, even our recent heated Nazi thread although I found some peoples views and posts distasteful I neither reported them or asked for the thread to be closed. Not been following the other thread you mention so have no idea about the article but I too find it frustrating when people not even participating in a thread get it closed down.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Noush I seriously thought better of you than to post an article about dancing on someone's grave. I found it disgusting then and I find it equally disgusting now. I couldn't stand Tony Benn but I would never take pleasure in his death or post articles about dancing on his grave  Its easy to accuse Rona of double standards but some of the so called "caring left" are quite uncaring when it suits them.


I didn't read it that way RPH. To me he was saying, by all means dance on her grave but her legacy lives on in New labour (eta hopefully NL is now extinct!). Is it just me who read it that way? And just to add, my Dad was a miner, her policies affected me & my family directly- she tried to starve us! lol I couldn't stand the woman, she represented greed & cruelty, but I didn't dance on her grave when she died, I felt nothing. However, living through that strike, I can understand why many did.

.


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

WTF? Turn your back for a minute and decent thread goes feral!!


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> I didn't read it that way RPH. *To me he was saying, by all means dance on her grave but her legacy lives on in New labour (eta hopefully NL is now extinct!). Is it just me who read it that way?* And just to add, my Dad was a miner, her policies affected me & my family directly- she tried to starve us! lol I couldn't stand the woman, she represented greed & cruelty, but I didn't dance on her grave when she died, I felt nothing. However, living through that strike, I can understand why many did.
> .


That's how I read it too.
Same with 'that' song that went top of the charts with people celebrating.
There was no victory there.
I was quite young when she was removed from office, but I remember my Dad saying then that those celebrating in the street (and they were down my way) were celebrating much too soon, as the changes she had made to society still lived on.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Oh, ey up - siuppose this thread will now be disappearing because it's offended someone.





rottiepointerhouse said:


> Firstly I didn't say the thread or the article offended me. I said I found it disgusting which I do.
> 
> @silvi I have no intention of asking for the thread to be closed and I agree it started out as a nice thread but have a read back to find the first poster who turned it nasty


There are many folks on this forum who I'd say are petty enough to ask for a thread to be closed because someone said something that they disagreed with. However, at absolutely NO TIME, would I put RHP as being one of them. Surely you all know her better than that!!! 

RHP - we may not always agree on stuff but I totally respect the way you always say how you feel even if that is going totally against the grain of the thread.



Muze said:


> WTF? Turn your back for a minute and decent thread goes feral!!


I wouldn't say that. Any political thread is bound to come round to Maggie at some point as - like her or loathe her - she is a massive part of our modern political history.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I haven't asked anyone not to display dislike or contempt but dancing on someone's grave is by most decent peoples standards taking protest too far.


That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, please don't presume you stand for most decent peoples' standards. We tend to judge people by our own standards and most decent people I know hold trurh to be a high standard, and would refuse to copromise that truth in false homage just because someone is dead. Do you speak respectfully of Hussein or Bin Laden just because they are dead?



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Neither have I asked you to pretend she was wonderful just because she is dead. If you are comfortable being so disrespectful and full of bile and vitriol then carry on. If you are comfortable being so disrespectful and full of bile and vitriol then carry on.
> .


I am neither full of bile nor vitriol and as for being disresepctful - telling the truth is much more respectful than pretending to honour someone dishonourable just because they are no longer alive. For that is all I am doing - merely telling the truth as I - and millions of others - see it. And yes, it makes me much more comfortable to tell the truth as I see it than to smarm about with false piety and pretend we must not speak ill of anyone, no matter how vile they have been in life, just because they is now dead.


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

Some people, and their families, lost everything due to Thatcher.... and some are still paying for it decade on, they hate her for a reason and tbh I cannot blame them.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

MoggyBaby said:


> There are many folks on this forum who I'd say are petty enough to ask for a thread to be closed because someone said something that they disagreed with. However, at absolutely NO TIME, would I put RHP as being one of them. Surely you all know her better than that!!!


Agreed.
And I did say so!


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

silvi said:


> Agreed.
> And I did say so!


Which is why I didn't need to quote ya!!!


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Muze said:


> Some people, and their families, lost everything due to Thatcher.... and some are still paying for it decade on, they hate her for a reason and tbh I cannot blame them.


She affected my family a lot. My dad lost his job, my family in the North were badly damaged.

However, I will always read the manifesto of every party as I do not believe that there is a party for life but several things from fracking, to the inheritance tax and welfare of animals did not make me want to vote Tory on this occasion. I shan't say who I did as that's private. I haven't yet vote blue but if they did mind to care for the values I hold true which most are around equality for childless and those who are parent, and the environment then yes I may vote for them. But at the moment they see me as a cash cow because I sadly cannot keep a pregnancy to term and that is disgusting, it's making a mockery of loss. They rather repulse me at the moment.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Anyway. Corbyn seems a very nice man who lives by his principles


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

MoggyBaby said:


> There are many folks on this forum who I'd say are petty enough to ask for a thread to be closed because someone said something that they disagreed with. However, at absolutely NO TIME, would I put RHP as being one of them. Surely you all know her better than that!!!
> 
> RHP - we may not always agree on stuff but I totally respect the way you always say how you feel even if that is going totally against the grain of the thread.


Thank you MB 



Spellweaver said:


> That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, please don't presume you stand for most decent peoples' standards. We tend to judge people by our own standards and most decent people I know hold trurh to be a high standard, and would refuse to copromise that truth in false homage just because someone is dead. Do you speak respectfully of Hussein or Bin Laden just because they are dead?
> 
> I am neither full of bile nor vitriol and as for being disresepctful - telling the truth is much more respectful than pretending to honour someone dishonourable just because they are no longer alive. For that is all I am doing - merely telling the truth as I - and millions of others - see it. And yes, it makes me much more comfortable to tell the truth as I see it than to smarm about with false piety and pretend we must not speak ill of anyone, no matter how vile they have been in life, just because they is now dead.


So its fine for you to presume things about me but I mustn't do the same about you? how does that equal democracy and fairness then? Whilst I completely agree we all have different standards I do hold that most decent people would not find dancing on the grave of someone in any way decent regardless of the circumstances.

As to Hussein and Bin Laden no I don't speak of them with fondness or admiration but neither did I rejoice at their death, I found the way Hussein was treated at the end of his life and the footage of his execution repulsive and it made me ashamed to be human. You can call that false piety and pretence if it makes you feel better but those are my values and I don't give a flying f--k whether anyone else shares them. That is me being true to myself although you prefer to call it me pretending to honour someone dishonourable and smarm with false piety, fine you can think what you like of me but you won't find me being viscous to suit someone else.



Muze said:


> Some people, and their families, lost everything due to Thatcher.... and some are still paying for it decade on, they hate her for a reason and tbh I cannot blame them.


I completely understand why some people hate her and I'm not suggesting they shouldn't. However I also remember the winter of discontent - the power cuts, the shortages, the rubbish piling up in the streets and the dead bodies not buried so I know that hard as she was someone had to be brave enough to break the stranglehold the unions had over this country at the time. I think she went too far and I'm not against unions at all but I don't think they should hold as much power as they did in those days and some of the reforms such as flying pickets were necessary. Also lets not forget many families also benefited greatly from her policies by buying their council houses and becoming home owners for the first time - not heard of many including the labour voters handing them back to the local authorities or even giving a percentage of the massive profits many of them made back to the government.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So its fine for you to presume things about me but I mustn't do the same about you? how does that equal democracy and fairness then?


So you don't think it is democratic and fair for me to reply to you in the same tone and using the same words as you used to me?



rottiepointerhouse said:


> I However I also remember the winter of discontent - the power cuts, the shortages, the rubbish piling up in the streets and the dead bodies not buried so I know that hard as she was someone had to be brave enough to break the stranglehold the unions had over this country at the time. I think she went too far and I'm not against unions at all but I don't think they should hold as much power as they did in those days and some of the reforms such as flying pickets were necessary.


You see unions as having had a stranglehold over the country, I see brave working men and women standing up for their rights. You see someone being brave in taking on the unions, I see someone who did not give a flying f--k about the needs of ordinary working people.

But talking about unions, I hope Corbyn manages to stop Cameron crippling the unions even more when they discuss the Trade Unions BIll in the Commons tomorrow. There's a lot not to like about the bill but the fact that the tories want the unions to disclose personal details of all their members to the police is, imo, the UK taking one huge step forward towards that nazi state that people said could never happen in the UK in the disappeared thread.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Also lets not forget many families also benefited greatly from her policies by buying their council houses and becoming home owners for the first time - not heard of many including the labour voters handing them back to the local authorities or even giving a percentage of the massive profits many of them made back to the government.


And also let's not forget all the people who are either homeless or living in crowded conditions today as a direct result of her selling off all the council houses and not replacing them.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> And also let's not forget all the people who are either homeless or living in crowded conditions today as a direct result of her selling off all the council houses and not replacing them.


You beat me to it.
Not to mention the many council house buyers who lost everything as well as the roof over their head when interest rates skyrocketed.

And agree on the Unions too.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Well, we now might have a proper Labour party (instead of a New Labour/Tory copycat party), if Labour supporters are as keen on a Labour way of life this is their big chance to get back to the days of Wilson and having unions run the country, the Tories must be partying all week on this, the died-in-the-wool Labour voter (cloth cap, whippets, council house, tin bath) must number about 20 now, the "New Labour" voters must be carcking it big time

Im just hacked off that Corbyn was 200-1 against winning 4 months ago and i didnt stick £50 on him...


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

I think I may be dreaming : Labour elect a new leader. FIrst thing he does is go on a march to support the refugees, second thing is turn down Andy Marr and do this instead:

From the Guardian:
"Attended and spoke at Camden & Islington NHS Mental Health Trust's Fun Day - important annual community engagement event," he said on Twitter along with pictures of him talking to locals at a small park in central London.

He travelled by taxi to the event after leaving his north London home without any comment to waiting journalists.

Corbyn told the small crowd at St Pancras Gardens that this was his first official engagement as Labour leader, "because I'm a local MP and support the work of the trust and all the volunteer groups and all the other groups that come together to build that community around mental health"_._

He said: "As a society we have to recognise that one in four of us during our lifetime will suffer a degree of depression, some of it will be very severe, some of it will be less so. Many of us will become sufferers of Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. We all have family or friends who are going through periods of stress.

"And now this can be dealt with, it can be supported, it can be treated. It can be treated by various therapies, talking therapies, as well as drug therapies. In some cases people need to go into hospital to be cared for and supported. But we have to do two things - recognise that mental health is an intrinsic part of our national health service ... it's instrinsic, central and absolutely the main part of it for many people and their lives.

"Stop the jokes, stop the cheap jibes, stop the unpleasant language to describe people who are going through a crisis in their lives and recognise that we could all be in that place."


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

rona said:


> Anyway. Corbyn seems a very nice man who lives by his principles


How come he's an MP then?......


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Muze said:


> Some people, and their families, lost everything due to Thatcher.... and some are still paying for it decade on, they hate her for a reason and tbh I cannot blame them.


Many millions (and not just Tory supporters) reaped great reward from Thatcher's days, buying council houses they would never have owned and buying shares when only the rich could have done it previously, the trouble is many wont stick their heads above the trenches and admit it, how many paid 70% (or less) for a house then and its worth ten-fold now?.... some win, some lose, last time i checked that applied to many things unconnected to politics


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

rona said:


> Nope. I just think we both recognize someone that seems to be genuine. Might not agree with all he stands for but can admire someone who seems to truly care.
> 
> Far to many in all areas of life who are just self serving.
> 
> Do hope I'm right about him. My father was a Labour voter all his life and since I've been an adult, they've been just a bunch of liars and idiots


Absolutely! I do hope he maintains his integrity - it's a dirty pond he's diving into. He has a huge job ahead of him to pull the Labour party round - but I've been impressed by the way he actually answers questions, doesn't prevaricate and doesn't get involved in the mud-slinging.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> So you don't think it is democratic and fair for me to reply to you in the same tone and using the same words as you used to me?
> 
> You see unions as having had a stranglehold over the country, I see brave working men and women standing up for their rights. You see someone being brave in taking on the unions, I see someone who did not give a flying f--k about the needs of ordinary working people.
> 
> ...





Spellweaver said:


> So you don't think it is democratic and fair for me to reply to you in the same tone and using the same words as you used to me?
> 
> You see unions as having had a stranglehold over the country, I see brave working men and women standing up for their rights. You see someone being brave in taking on the unions, I see someone who did not give a flying f--k about the needs of ordinary working people.
> 
> ...


No I said how was it fair or democratic for you to make presumptions about who and what I would be up in arms about then tell me not to make presumptions,

I do not see the unions as having a stranglehold over the country now but I did see them as having one then (1979) - do you recall the distress of the families who could not get their deceased relatives buried? or make shift deep freezers in hospital car parks? Whilst I agree some of the union members were brave others were not and behaved in a despicable fashion with their intimidation of anyone who would not join their strikes - the word "Scab" still makes me shudder to this day. I think holding a ballot before a strike, banning mass pickets and banning the closed shop were all necessary reforms and also agree unions should not be able to automatically donate part of members subs to any political party without the member's permission. However I agree with you that unions having to disclose details of their members to the police is a step too far.

As for right to buy I didn't say I agreed with it, I said a lot of labour voters benefited from it and I don't see them handing any of the profits made from their discounts back to the state. Like it or not it did create a whole new generation of home owners but I do think the local authorities should be forced to spend a decent percentage of the money on building more affordable housing.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Shadow cabinet posts announced

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34240869

I thought I read somewhere that he was going to appoint 50 % of the top posts to women but there doesn't appear to be many in there.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Shadow cabinet posts announced
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34240869
> 
> I thought I read somewhere that he was going to appoint 50 % of the top posts to women but there doesn't appear to be many in there.


I really don't see that it matters whether he appoints men or women to the front bench jobs, as long as he appoints people who he thinks are right for the job.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

silvi said:


> I really don't see that it matters whether he appoints men or women to the front bench jobs, as long as he appoints people who he thinks are right for the job.


This is exactly what I was going to say; sometimes the best woman for the job happens to be a man - and vice versa!

Giving women jobs because of their sex is NOT treating them (us!) equally, any more than giving someone a job because of who they know or are related to, is. Jobs should be given on merit, not to fulfil quotas of people of a particular sex/colour/religion/physical or mental disability/sexual orientation. This wouldn't happen in most other areas - or at least I hope it wouldn't. I would hate to think that (e.g.) my surgery was being performed by someone who got his/her job to make up numbers in a target percentage. I want somebody who knows what they are doing. It's the same with running the country,


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

So far I think he's picked well, I just hope the party get behind him and stop been petty, *Good Luck to the Guy* and his team, they can't be any worse than anything we've had before.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Well - I'm really pleased that we have someone with integrity in charge who isn't likely to be bullied or influenced against his better judgement.

After the self-serving, incompetent egotists we've been stuck with, he is a breath of fresh air - and i hope will make ALL parties reconsider their behaviour - personal and professional.

I'm rejoining the Labour Party. I left after the Iraq fiasco when, TBH, I just couldn't stick it any more.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> No I said how was it fair or democratic for you to make presumptions about who and what I would be up in arms about then tell me not to make presumptions,
> 
> I do not see the unions as having a stranglehold over the country now but I did see them as having one then (1979) - do you recall the distress of the families who could not get their deceased relatives buried? or make shift deep freezers in hospital car parks? Whilst I agree some of the union members were brave others were not and behaved in a despicable fashion with their intimidation of anyone who would not join their strikes - the word "Scab" still makes me shudder to this day. I think holding a ballot before a strike, banning mass pickets and banning the closed shop were all necessary reforms and also agree unions should not be able to automatically donate part of members subs to any political party without the member's permission. However I agree with you that unions having to disclose details of their members to the police is a step too far.
> 
> As for right to buy I didn't say I agreed with it, I said a lot of labour voters benefited from it and I don't see them handing any of the profits made from their discounts back to the state. Like it or not it did create a whole new generation of home owners but I do think the local authorities should be forced to spend a decent percentage of the money on building more affordable housing.


The labour party was formed by the trade unions to represent the working class - they are organically linked. This attack on the unions is a sinister attempt by the tories to destroy their opposition, and according to those in the know, removing automatic donations may indeed financially ruin the labour party. Union money is the cleanest money in politics, it comes from actual working people not from hedge funders or big business where the majority of tory funding comes from.

The tories reward their donors with NHS contracts, fracking licences - peerages. Democracy for sale - this is what needs sorting out.

I know you hate memes so apologies in advance for posting this, but we need to remember how important the unions are & what they've given us.



.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Like the look of him..
But anyone can enlighten me as what is his stand on Gibraltar / Spain issues?
Would he support us or trade us?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

silvi said:


> I really don't see that it matters whether he appoints men or women to the front bench jobs, as long as he appoints people who he thinks are right for the job.


I didn't say it matters Silvi, I don't agree with appointing women to jobs unless they are the best candidate but I was rather surprised at home many white middle aged men he has appointed, just had an expectation of a broader mix.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> The labour party was formed by the trade unions to represent the working class - they are organically linked. This attack on the unions is a sinister attempt by the tories to destroy their opposition, and according to those in the know, removing automatic donations may indeed financially ruin the labour party. Union money is the cleanest money in politics, it comes from actual working people not from hedge funders or big business where the majority of tory funding comes from.
> 
> The tories reward their donors with NHS contracts, fracking licences - peerages. Democracy for sale - this is what needs sorting out.
> 
> ...


Thank you but I do understand what unions are for and how they formed, Tolpuddle Martyrs and Chartism etc. I am not against unions but I am against them having too much power and holding the country to ransom. None of you seem to answer my questions about the winter of discontent but never mind. I cannot for the life of me understand how you can think it is fair or democratic or acceptable for unions to take money from their members and give it to a political party without asking that member's permission. If you were in a union which suddenly aligned itself to UKIP to protect jobs for British workers would you be happy for part of your subs to be given to UKIP? or is it the old double standards again - its OK for it to happen as long as its going to my party but not yours.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I didn't say it matters Silvi, I don't agree with appointing women to jobs unless they are the best candidate but I was rather surprised at home many white middle aged men he has appointed, just had an expectation of a broader mix.


Well, considering that some women turned him down, including Evette Cooper and Liz Kendall, he went with the most suitable our of those willing to serve with him.
I noticed that the press pounced upon a remark by Diana Johnson MP:
"It is so very disappointing - old fashioned male dominated Labour politics in the top positions in Shadow Cabinet #notforgirls"
Was this anything to do with the fact that the person Johnson supported, Evette Cooper, came third in the leadership election? Or that she is pro 'New Labour'?

But even so, I think that Corbyn's selections so far have been pretty balanced:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34241395
(Who's who in Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet)


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I do not see the unions as having a stranglehold over the country now but I did see them as having one then (1979) - do you recall the distress of the families who could not get their deceased relatives buried? or make shift deep freezers in hospital car parks? Whilst I agree some of the union members were brave others were not and behaved in a despicable fashion with their intimidation of anyone who would not join their strikes


This is why I think Maggie was needed at the time she came along. She went on far too long and went far too far but I dread to think what the alternatives could have been.

This is why Corbyn is needed now, to try and bring some form of balance back.

Nothing to do with party politics or allegiances, just how I personally see it.

*This *conservative government has listened to some of what the people have said and totally misunderstood it and knee jerk reacted, or have been so arrogant as to have ignored the majority completely.

I've had dealing with people in the old boys network and it's a very sad and frightening place to look for people to run or country. They truly have no understanding of what really matters, it's like dealing with a group of overgrown schoolboys


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

cheekyscrip said:


> Like the look of him..
> But anyone can enlighten me as what is his stand on Gibraltar / Spain issues?
> Would he support us or trade us?


No idea to be honest.
But we can always ask him


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Thank you but I do understand what unions are for and how they formed, Tolpuddle Martyrs and Chartism etc. I am not against unions but I am against them having too much power and holding the country to ransom. None of you seem to answer my questions about the winter of discontent but never mind. I cannot for the life of me understand how you can think it is fair or democratic or acceptable for unions to take money from their members and give it to a political party without asking that member's permission. If you were in a union which suddenly aligned itself to UKIP to protect jobs for British workers would you be happy for part of your subs to be given to UKIP? or is it the old double standards again - its OK for it to happen as long as its going to my party but not yours.


Unions are democratic, non profit, and members can easily 'opt out' of funding the labour party. The same can't be said for shareholders of the big businesses that bank roll the tory party. Corporate funding isn't, in any way shape or form, democratic. We're now in a situation where corporate lobbyists dictate government policies as payback. The tories are on a mission to crush the unions & destroy labour.

To quote wonderful Harry Leslie Smith -

_*When a gov't sets out to destroy trade unions & demonises it's opposition as threat to national security you've got makings of dictatorship*_


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Unions are democratic, non profit, and members can easily 'opt out' of funding the labour party. The same can't be said for shareholders of the big businesses that bank roll the tory party. Corporate funding isn't, in any way shape or form, democratic. We're now in a situation where corporate lobbyists dictate government policies as payback. The tories are on a mission to crush the unions & destroy labour.
> 
> To quote wonderful Harry Leslie Smith -
> 
> _*When a gov't sets out to destroy trade unions & demonises it's opposition as threat to national security you've got makings of dictatorship*_


Sorry I don't agree Noush. They should not be allowed to take money and give it to a political party of any colour without the express permission of the member, not an opt out but an opt in. I like the way the left always demonise business but overlook the union fat cats on inflated salaries who are as out of touch with their membership as politicians are with the electorate. You think the tories are heading for a dictatorship, many think labour under Corbyn would be heading for communism - both extremes and neither very palatable.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

cheekyscrip said:


> Like the look of him..
> But anyone can enlighten me as what is his stand on Gibraltar / Spain issues?
> Would he support us or trade us?


I know in relation to the Falklands he wants to open up more talks between the argentina government and the Falklands in terms of joint governing. I guess it's reasonable to think he would say the same regarding Gibraltar maybe. *shrug*


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> How come he's an MP then?......


I've thought all morning on this and am hoping I'm right that he may be one of those who went into politics because he thought he could make a difference instead of like modern MPs who seem to just make it a career choice.

I didn't think there were any left after Mo, hoping I'm proved wrong


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

stuaz said:


> I know in relation to the Falklands he wants to open up more talks between the argentina government and the Falklands in terms of joint governing. I guess it's reasonable to think he would say the same regarding Gibraltar maybe. *shrug*


There is nothing to sharing when Argentina and Spain are bullies and on doorstep of respectively of Falklands and Gibraltar. 
We want firm stand that we stay British.
Non negotiable from our point of view.

If Corbyn does not respect wishes of those British people and those who fought for rights to our self-determination then he is not to be trusted.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

cheekyscrip said:


> There is nothing to sharing when Argentina and Spain are bullies and on doorstep of respectively of Falklands and Gibraltar.
> We want firm stand that we stay British.
> Non negotiable from our point of view.
> 
> If Corbyn does not respect wishes of those British people and those who fought for rights to our self-determination then he is not to be trusted.


I agree, the will of the people should be respected, the Falklands voted to remain British so unless they change there mind then I see it as a mute point. Same for Gibralter.

As for Scotland... isn't it strange how the SNP announce they are thinking about a new Referendum (Once in a lifetime... lol) on the day Corbyn was announced as leader.... anyone would think they didn't want his leadership on there front pages... hmmmm nah I must be imagining it


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> There is nothing to sharing when Argentina and Spain are bullies and on doorstep of respectively of Falklands and Gibraltar.
> We want firm stand that we stay British.
> Non negotiable from our point of view.
> 
> If Corbyn does not respect wishes of those British people and those who fought for rights to our self-determination then he is not to be trusted.


This from the Telegraph....

Mr Corbyn said in an interview with the BBC in 2013 that a "degree of joint administration" might resolve the conflict over the Falkland Islands. He has not stepped back from the suggestion since making it.

He said: "Other situations like this, for example the dispute between Finland and Sweden over the Aman Islands, was sorted out by some degree of joint administration while maintaining nationality.

"It was done with Hong Kong, it has been done to some extent with Gibraltar. There is a way forward.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

We here resent the agreement which for opening the frontier allowed any disputes on sovereignty..this is where problem started. If Spain wanted be part of Nato and then European Common Market or how was it called before EU...then they had to open the frontier anyhow and Britain was in position to finish it all for good and incorporate Gibraltar into UK at least on the same status as Channel Islands.
Spanish left and many Spanish people are not bothered with Gibraltar. It will not put bread on the table..it is just point scoring propaganda...but it is vital for us and our environment...our work on street cats, dog rehoming, bird sanctuary, Rock Nature Reserve and so on.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Corbyn wont last as Labour leader till the next election, the knives will be out, and if he did it would mean a further 5 years of Tory rule

let us give thanks for this blessing


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

I don't know tbh, I thought that..... but he has the support of people who felt they had nobody to represent them at the last election and either didn't vote at all or went SNP/UKIP/Green.

Those people clever enough to see past the tabloid headlines and mainstream media generally are really getting behind him and it's a real joy to see some hope given to vulnerable people. 

if nothing else, he's really stirring up debate and getting people interest in politics, making them feel like they maybe they do have a say after all!


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...t-just-pay-lip-service-any-more-10500516.html

A Shadow Minister for Mental Health!

Even if it comes to nothing election-wise - he does seem determined to make an impact. Any one else get a nice email from him asking what you wanted to ask the Prime Minister at PMQ?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Jonescat said:


> Any one else get a nice email from him asking what you wanted to ask the Prime Minister at PMQ?


Yes. And I answered it 
Did you send him a question?


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

I did too..... I asked him what he'd do for people like me basically (in more detail than that!).

Have to admit the minister for mental health even took me by surprise, let's hope it isn't all too good to be true!


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

I haven't answered yet but I am going to - am probably dithering too much about exactly how to word it


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Simply pleased I will not be around if he gets in as PM. No chance of considering going back to the UK with even the possibilty of him getting in. Still think we need a middle ground between Tory/Corbyn. Had once hoped that was the Lib-dems but that didn't turn out that well.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Where can I ask? Surely our folk want to know?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

I see the SNP want another referendum on independence, if that was a yes vote 56 SNP MP's might have to leave Westminster


Please say YES Scotland, preyty please


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Goblin said:


> Simply pleased I will not be around if he gets in as PM. No chance of considering going back to the UK with even the possibilty of him getting in. Still think we need a middle ground between Tory/Corbyn. Had once hoped that was the Lib-dems but that didn't turn out that well.


Dont worry about Corbyn becoming PM, it simply wont happen, the majority of Labour MP's didnt want him as leader!


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

^ You are likely correct. George Osborne is the overwhelming favourite to be our next PM in 2020. But three months ago could you have imagined Corbyn winning the leadership election? He shouldn't be under-estimated.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Satori said:


> ^ You are likely correct. George Osborne is the overwhelming favourite to be our next PM in 2020. But three months ago could you have imagined Corbyn winning the leadership election? He shouldn't be under-estimated.


He might be a Labour party vote winner, but is he a General election vote winner?


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Colliebarmy said:


> He might be a Labour party vote winner, but is he a General election vote winner?


Personally, I don't think so. I think the press will try to destroy him. But we live in strange times. The more he was assassinated by Blairites in the run-up to the leadership election, the more popular he became.

And let's not underestimate how much he is a social media phenomenon and how many young people will reach majority, and be eligible to vote, by 2020. Oh, andhow many older (Tory) voters will die, and be ineligible to vote, by 2020. Stranger things have happened.

Interestingly, you can get 7/4 against him surviving 2016 so the bookies think he will be gone. But that's the same folk who were offering 200/1 against him being where he is now. I might take that 7/4.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Goblin said:


> Simply pleased I will not be around if he gets in as PM. No chance of considering going back to the UK with even the possibilty of him getting in.


Perfectly safe to come back with that possibility looming. Just don't bring your assets with you.


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

Heaven forbid the wealthy should pay their way!

2020 is a long way off, anything could happen before then, BUT.... as I said before, there seem to be hoards of the disenfranchised re-energised by Corbyn's win.... those that didn't vote or voted for minor parties.... if they all rally behind Labour, there's a chance for real change.

Quick hide your fortune!!!


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Muze said:


> Quick hide your fortune!!!


Little bit early for that maybe but stay liquid. Decrease exposure to UK property market and increase exposure to USD dollar and Swiss Franc and overweight yield rather than growth. Open off-shore accounts,if you haven't already, (preferably Swiss cantonal) and be ready to act.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I can imagine many buy to let landlords are feeling a bit uneasy as its been suggested he wants to bring back fair rents and extend right to buy to privately rented properties too. That should flood the market with houses for sale which might bring prices down a fair bit. 

So he is taking his place on the Privy Council, thought he might have boycotted that.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So he is taking his place on the Privy Council, thought he might have boycotted that.


He needs to be on the inside to make a difference


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Colliebarmy said:


> Corbyn wont last as Labour leader till the next election, the knives will be out, and if he did it would mean a further 5 years of Tory rule
> 
> let us give thanks for this blessing


Well, Labour as it stands is unelectable anyway! They are Tories in heart and soul even though they would deny it. We are likely to get at LEAST 5 more years of Tory misrule - cleaning out this rubbish is going to take a while. After all, it's been mounting up for many years.

I'm hoping that Corbyn will take Labour back to its roots - to really giving a damn about people. He might not get elected himself, but if he gives us a real alternative to the self-serving, egotistical f/wits we have creaming what they can in the way of expenses, directorships, consultancies etc then he will be doing the entire country a service. RICH AND POOR!

I think that there are MPs on the backbenches who DO care about more than their own entitlements - but they have no clout. We need people like Corbyn to encourage more of the right sort.

Personally I think that if someone is an MP, then that is their job and they shouldn't be allowed a second job/income.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Muze said:


> Heaven forbid the wealthy should pay their way!
> 
> 2020 is a long way off, anything could happen before then, BUT.... as I said before, there seem to be hoards of the disenfranchised re-energised by Corbyn's win.... those that didn't vote or voted for minor parties.... if they all rally behind Labour, there's a chance for real change.
> 
> *Quick hide your fortune!!!*


All safely in a sock under the mattress! Thanks for the warning


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

cheekyscrip said:


> Where can I ask? Surely our folk want to know?


I'd try here Jeremy Corbyn <[email protected]>
I guess it will go through to the team rather than the man himself but I'd hope someone would answer.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

rona said:


> He needs to be on the inside to make a difference


Indeed. Being a Privy Counsellor doesn't mean you get to attend. The council rarely, if ever, meets in full. The quorum for a meeting is tiny and Cameron decides who attends.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

My dad used to say the Labour party was the party of the working man, and they made sure you had to work....and they would put the country back on its feet, cos no-one would be able to afford a car......


----------



## tincan (Aug 30, 2012)

Look forward to the mud slinging , as childish as that is , they will not get in , in 2020 .... who wants to return to that nightmare ... And no i am not a Tory supporter


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Satori said:


> Indeed. Being a Privy Counsellor doesn't mean you get to attend. The council rarely, if ever, meets in full. The quorum for a meeting is tiny and Cameron decides who attends.


Though doesn't it mean you have to kiss the hand of the Queen?


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Though doesn't it mean you have to kiss the hand of the Queen?


Me? No. He will have to though. And he will. He will lose enormous political capital if he doesn't.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

tincan said:


> Look forward to the mud slinging , as childish as that is , they will not get in , in 2020 .... who wants to return to that nightmare ... And no i am not a Tory supporter


One can't but look forward to the entertainment value of this situation. It's like CBB on steroids. Question time will finally be worth watching again; not that JC himself will appear. Imagine Corbyn as PM and Trump as president shaking hands on the lawn of the whitehouse.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Colliebarmy said:


> My dad used to say the Labour party was the party of the working man, and they made sure you had to work....and they would put the country back on its feet, cos no-one would be able to afford a car......


Sounds like your dad dispensed the same deep wisdom as you do now. Apples, trees, and falling spring to mind . . .


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Though doesn't it mean you have to kiss the hand of the Queen?


I wouldn't find that a problem myself. It's just a tradition. Better than kissing the @rse of Big Business . . .


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Sorry I don't agree Noush. They should not be allowed to take money and give it to a political party of any colour without the express permission of the member, not an opt out but an opt in. I like the way the left always demonise business but overlook the union fat cats on inflated salaries who are as out of touch with their membership as politicians are with the electorate. You think the tories are heading for a dictatorship, many think labour under Corbyn would be heading for communism - both extremes and neither very palatable.


But its ok for corporations to bankroll a party in return for favours? I think 'the left' is disgusted that big business has been given a free reign to do as it likes, even if it impacts on the lives of ordinary people or trashes the environment. A government serving the interests of corporate interests, lobbyists, banksters cares about one thing & one thing only - ££££££££££££££.

This isn't only undemocratic - this is corruption: "*Conservatives offer day of special access to ministers for £2,500"* http://www.theguardian.com/politics...r-day-of-special-access-to-ministers-for-2500

Well the Trade Union Bill passed. Bless Caroline Lucas, another MP who, like Corbyn, cares abut ordinary people & isn't there to serve her own interests. http://www.carolinelucas.com/latest/caroline-stands-up-to-‘draconian’-trade-union-bill









Caroline stands up to 'draconian' Trade Union Bill
Monday, September 14, 2015

- Green MP is 'prepared to take non-violent direct action'

- Government's approach 'reeks of hypocrisy' says Lucas.

Caroline will vote against the Trade Union Bill later today. She said today that she will fight the legislation in Parliament and, if it passes into law, be prepared to take 'non-violent direct action to resist it'.

Caroline said:

"The Trade Union Bill being debated today represents a savage and vindictive assault on UK employment rights - hitting at the heart of protections enshrined in international conventions. For a Government elected by only 24% of eligible voters to propose a 40% minimum turnout for public sector strikes reeks of hypocrisy.

I'll be working with MPs from across the political parties in fighting this draconian piece of legislation as it passes through Parliament. If the Bill is passed into law, I would be prepared to join trade unionists and others in taking non-violent direct action to resist it."

ENDS


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Comparison between election and strike vote is like comparing apples and oranges. They are not the same thing.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> Corbyn wont last as Labour leader till the next election, the knives will be out, and if he did it would mean a further 5 years of Tory rule


5 years? 30 years more like.. I'm not old enough to remember ever living under anything other than a tory goverment (blair and brown were just tories in red ties remember). Much as i hate to agree with you, i do think that if corbyn fails or is exposed as being as corrupt as the rest of them then thats the final nail in the coffin to any kind of opposition to conservatism in this country.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Quite an interesting article here about authenticity and how its easier to be sincere/authentic as an individual but not so easy as a party.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-34245926


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Quite an interesting article here about authenticity and how its easier to be sincere/authentic as an individual but not so easy as a party.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-34245926


But the article is simplistic and frankly wrong.
Can't speak for Greece, but I can speak a little as regards Spain:


> "Spain - Anti-austerity movement Podemos made dramatic gains in local and regional elections earlier this year but has been tarnished by its association with Syriza, and commentators say it has subtly begun to distance itself from the situation in Greece"


That's what the BBC says....

But the BBC has never given its viewers an in-depth look at Podemos (it means 'we can' by the way). It has constantly called Podemos 'an extreme left wing political party'.
It isn't either of those things.

Podemos began life as a disparate group of anti-government protest 'peoples' movements (both left and right wing). The one thing that united the group was anti-austerity. But that's all.
In the South, the movement took on members from the PSOE (Socialists) and the Communist Party, but that is not unusual, as the South of Spain has always been left wing (with good reason). But in Madrid, for example, Podemos contained groups from the students movements, green movements, anti-bullfighting movements, anti-war movements, and even nationalist movements. In fact, any concern considered as not being addressed by the PP (Conservative) Government came under the auspices of the things that Podemos would strive to address.

When the local and regional elections came around, Podemos did well, rather like (sadly) UKIP did well here in our council elections. But the General Election will be a totally different matter, because people will be looking at the 'big' parties (PSOE [plus Communist] and PP) and members of the Podemos movement will not necessarily all vote left of centre.
Podemos candidates may or may not do well, but I think that, whether people vote for them or not (And I personally think many will go for a traditional party again), it will not be their (reported) links to Syriza that will lead to people's decisions one way or another. It will be how Podemos address Spanish national issues and how they relate to 'the man on the street'.
Spanish voters are not stupid. Their political past has shown them just how much they could lose when making the wrong decisions.

The slur tactics used here by the BBC against anyone remotely 'left wing' would not convince a Spaniard; of that I'm sure.
So the BBC using the Podemos movement as an example of its 'the left wing cannot win because it's tainted' agenda, shows a complete lack of understanding of Spanish politics.
But then again, I'm not at all surprised about that....

Incidentally, while Podemos is a new movement for change, the Labour Party is an old, established political party.
Podemos has done a lot of damage to all three main Spanish political parties, taking voters from all of them...at least for now.

But with Corbyn as Labour Leader, his agenda becomes part of British politics, rather than coming in from the outside, as Podemos has had to do.
Anti austerity and other measures proposed by Corbyn, as part of a main political party's agenda, would be no longer 'an outside issue', but part of mainstream politics.
And that's what the BBC fears.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Thank you for taking the time to explain the Spanish political parties - sounds complicated but think I get the gist. 

I was more interested in the article from the point of how Corbyn will deal with the very wide differences of opinion in the labour party and how he continues to come across as sincere and authentic when he has to get party backing for policies rather than just speaking from his own personal view point. It is certainly going to be interesting watching how things develop.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

One thing I noticed today


rottiepointerhouse said:


> Thank you for taking the time to explain the Spanish political parties - sounds complicated but think I get the gist.
> 
> I was more interested in the article from the point of how Corbyn will deal with the very wide differences of opinion in the labour party and how he continues to come across as sincere and authentic when he has to get party backing for policies rather than just speaking from his own personal view point. It is certainly going to be interesting watching how things develop.


Yes sorry. I get a bit carried away because the BBC constantly gets Spanish politics so wrong 

And I did see your point (just didn't address it, lol!).

My point still stands though. I think that as the Labour Party is (for want of a better term...) part of the political establishment, it appears much more dangerous to those who hate Corbyn's ideas than a broad-spectrum, all-compassing party like Podemos.

With Corbyn, the issue seems to be in how much of his personal ideas he can make Labour Party policy and how much he agrees to take on ideas from other members of his shadow cabinet.
But I think that the shadow cabinet is on the back foot here, especially those members who would not have chosen Corbyn as leader.

They will have to have a long, hard think about how their personal views align with the views of the majority who elected Corbyn.

Corbyn is openly stating that he will listen to them, but at the same time it is obvious that their views will have to be re-thought a little at least.

I found this article this morning by John Healey MP, who did not support Corbyn, but who had been made shadow minister for housing and planning:
Why I'm Serving in Jeremy Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet
Healey understands that he will have to have a re-think on the policies he follows as an MP elected to stand for the Labour Party.

What is interesting to me, is how many others will feel the same, or whether, as the media hopes, Labour will implode upon itself.
Will see.....


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Colliebarmy said:


> My dad used to say the Labour party was the party of the working man, and they made sure you had to work....and they would put the country back on its feet, cos no-one would be able to afford a car......


Yeah, the working man is loads better off under the tories. Now not only cant they afford a car, but they cant afford the rent or even afford to feed themselves :/ Happy days.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> *But its ok for corporations to bankroll a party in return for favours? I think 'the left' is disgusted that big business has been given a free reign to do as it likes, even if it impacts on the lives of ordinary people or trashes the environment. A government serving the interests of corporate interests, lobbyists, banksters cares about one thing & one thing only - ££££££££££££££.*
> 
> This isn't only undemocratic - this is corruption: "*Conservatives offer day of special access to ministers for £2,500"* http://www.theguardian.com/politics...r-day-of-special-access-to-ministers-for-2500
> 
> ...


Well said, Noush.

The Conservative party has many wealthy backers which aren't interested in promoting Labour as a (proper) Labour government wouldn't be in the interests of the rich and greedy. Money is poured into Tory coffers by people who are at the top of the tree and want to stay there.

Perhaps we need legislation preventing ANY financial backing of ANY party by ANYONE private or public. Or perhaps all monies donated could go into a big pot and each party receive an equal (not proportional) share with which to run and manage campaigns.

And Caroline Lucas in another of the very few who are trying to make a real difference in the way things are run.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

If you didn't see his full speech to the TUC today it is well worth trying to get it on catch-up. He was superb.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Satori said:


> If you didn't see his full speech to the TUC today it is well worth trying to get it on catch-up. He was superb.


He is showing his true colours, refusing to sing the national anthem at the Battle of Britain event today, but happy to shake the Queens hand to get his Privvy seal money.....2 faced or what?


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

I'm a Royist by I never sing the national anthem I will stand for it but the words, oh dear, I hate it, about time it was changed glory to one person is not a national anthem.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Colliebarmy said:


> He is showing his true colours, refusing to sing the national anthem at the Battle of Britain event today, but happy to shake the Queens hand to get his Privvy seal money.....2 faced or what?


No connection whatsoever to my comment. Typically.

What is Privvy seal money?


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Happy Paws said:


> I'm a Royist by I never sing the national anthem I will stand for it but the words, oh dear, I hate it, about time it was changed glory to one person is not a national anthem.


Same here - I think it's an absolute dirge. And nobody knows the words anyway. (And for all we know, he is tone deaf - maybe his singing is not only embarrassing for him but off-putting for everyone else.)


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Just watched "An Inspector Calls"(JB Priestly) on i-player. If you want to see the casual abuse of power by the monied classes, and the helpless suffering of the working class only a hundred years ago, I suggest you watch it. This play is a timeless classic, and this version is well-acted and I found it very moving. First time I saw it years ago it was the Alistair Simm version - this is updated but keeps that period feel. Without the unions and the Labour party we'd still be there. Zero hours contracts are no better than having to stand outside the factory gates in the hope of a day's work - they are iniquitous but businesses love them. And of course, the Conservatives have no intention of doing anything about them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02z80kq/an-inspector-calls


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

Colliebarmy said:


> He is showing his true colours, refusing to sing the national anthem at the Battle of Britain event today, but happy to shake the Queens hand to get his Privvy seal money.....2 faced or what?


Terrible polititian if he can't sing lol


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I think he has a wicked sense of humour 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...n-puts-vegan-in-change-of-farming-policy.html

"Vegan Kerry McCarthy has been put in charge of farming and agriculture policy in Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet."


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

lostbear said:


> Same here - I think it's an absolute dirge. And nobody knows the words anyway. (And for all we know, he is tone deaf - maybe his singing is not only embarrassing for him but off-putting for everyone else.)


While the press is covering this non story the vote has passed to cut family tax credits, pushing many more families into poverty. Funny how this is not the big news, but don't sing the national anthem...


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

emmaviolet said:


> While the press is covering this non story the vote has passed to cut family tax credits, pushing many more families into poverty. Funny how this is not the big news, but don't sing the national anthem...


Absolutely! Never mind the iceberg, just keep re-arranging the deck chairs . . .


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

lostbear said:


> Absolutely! Never mind the iceberg, just keep re-arranging the deck chairs . . .


Disgusting, sky news are not mentioning it, this singing is their second story, I cannot believe they are not reporting this!


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Muze said:


> Terrible polititian if he can't sing lol


Most of them will sing, dance and bend over for anyone with a chequebook.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Plenty of footballers don't sing the National Anthem and nobody seems to complain about that


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

rona said:


> I think he has a wicked sense of humour
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...n-puts-vegan-in-change-of-farming-policy.html
> 
> "Vegan Kerry McCarthy has been put in charge of farming and agriculture policy in Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet."


TBF.... i turned veggie after years of working on farms ( I think anyone would!) .... I'd like to hear more about this person before judging her on her diet


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Thank you but I do understand what unions are for and how they formed, Tolpuddle Martyrs and Chartism etc. I am not against unions but I am against them having too much power and holding the country to ransom. None of you seem to answer my questions about the winter of discontent but never mind. * I cannot for the life of me understand how you can think it is fair or democratic or acceptable for unions to take money from their members and give it to a political party without asking that member's permission.* If you were in a union which suddenly aligned itself to UKIP to protect jobs for British workers would you be happy for part of your subs to be given to UKIP? or is it the old double standards again - its OK for it to happen as long as its going to my party but not yours.


They do have to ask your permission. At the moment, they have to ask you if you want to opt out of paying towards the labour party when you join. The government wants to change that to asking you if you want to opt in.

And I did answer your questions about the winter of discontent - I explained that where you saw unions with a stranglehold on the country, I saw working men and women fighting for their rights. I did not see the people on strike or the unions as being the cause of what happened during that winter - the blame for all that lies securely on the head of an unbending, unyieiding and uncaring conservative government who did not want the working class to be paid a fair wage.



Goblin said:


> Simply pleased I will not be around if he gets in as PM. No chance of considering going back to the UK with even the possibilty of him getting in. *Still think we need a middle ground between Tory/Corbyn*. Had once hoped that was the Lib-dems but that didn't turn out that well.


We had that. It was headed by Blair and was called New Labour. It didn't work.



emmaviolet said:


> While the press is covering this non story the vote has passed to cut family tax credits, pushing many more families into poverty. Funny how this is not the big news, but don't sing the national anthem...


Absolutely disgusting. It's a prime example of tory backed, tory led media trying to deflect people's attention away from the tories taking away our rights (ie the trade union reforms) and making the poor poorer (the cut in family tax credits) whilst at the same time trying to villify the opposition.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Very pleased to hear he appointed a shadow minister for mental health too. Hope the Tories follow suit and appoint a minster as well.


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

lostbear said:


> Just watched "An Inspector Calls"(JB Priestly) on i-player. If you want to see the casual abuse of power by the monied classes, and the helpless suffering of the working class only a hundred years ago, I suggest you watch it. This play is a timeless classic, and this version is well-acted and I found it very moving. First time I saw it years ago it was the Alistair Simm version - this is updated but keeps that period feel. Without the unions and the Labour party we'd still be there. Zero hours contracts are no better than having to stand outside the factory gates in the hope of a day's work - they are iniquitous but businesses love them. And of course, the Conservatives have no intention of doing anything about them.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02z80kq/an-inspector-calls


Love David Thewlis. Great adaption.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> They do have to ask your permission. At the moment, they have to ask you if you want to opt out of paying towards the labour party when you join. The government wants to change that to asking you if you want to opt in.
> 
> And I did answer your questions about the winter of discontent - I explained that where you saw unions with a stranglehold on the country, I saw working men and women fighting for their rights. I did not see the people on strike or the unions as being the cause of what happened during that winter - the blame for all that lies securely on the head of an unbending, unyieiding and uncaring conservative government who did not want the working class to be paid a fair wage.


The winter of discontent was during a labour government in the Autumn and Winter of 1978-79 which was followed by the election of Margaret Thatcher in May 1979 so the unbending, unyielding and uncaring government was Labour not Tory. Utter chaos and not my idea of brave men and women fighting for their rights.

https://libcom.org/history/1978-1979-winter-of-discontent


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

lostbear said:


> Just watched "An Inspector Calls"(JB Priestly) on i-player. If you want to see the casual abuse of power by the monied classes, and the helpless suffering of the working class only a hundred years ago, I suggest you watch it. This play is a timeless classic, and this version is well-acted and I found it very moving. First time I saw it years ago it was the Alistair Simm version - this is updated but keeps that period feel. Without the unions and the Labour party we'd still be there. Zero hours contracts are no better than having to stand outside the factory gates in the hope of a day's work - they are iniquitous but businesses love them. And of course, the Conservatives have no intention of doing anything about them.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02z80kq/an-inspector-calls


I watched it too. And I thought it was a very good adaptation.

What struck me is the irony that the BBC can show us this 'Great British Classic', written by a socialist, and feel proud to do so.
But when a modern-day politician has the same values as Priestly, the BBC appears to be doing all they can to discredit him.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

lostbear said:


> Just watched "An Inspector Calls"(JB Priestly) on i-player. If you want to see the casual abuse of power by the monied classes, and the helpless suffering of the working class only a hundred years ago, I suggest you watch it. This play is a timeless classic, and this version is well-acted and I found it very moving. First time I saw it years ago it was the Alistair Simm version - this is updated but keeps that period feel. Without the unions and the Labour party we'd still be there. Zero hours contracts are no better than having to stand outside the factory gates in the hope of a day's work - they are iniquitous but businesses love them. And of course, the Conservatives have no intention of doing anything about them.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02z80kq/an-inspector-calls


I thought it was brilliant.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

rona said:


> I think he has a wicked sense of humour
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...n-puts-vegan-in-change-of-farming-policy.html
> 
> "Vegan Kerry McCarthy has been put in charge of farming and agriculture policy in Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet."


Yeh I can't believe he appointed an MP with a strong and long standing interest in the environment to the post of shadow environment secretary, what kind of madness is that?



Colliebarmy said:


> He is showing his true colours, refusing to sing the national anthem at the Battle of Britain event today, but happy to shake the Queens hand to get his Privvy seal money.....2 faced or what?


If we wanted to obligate people to sing then we should have let Hitler's boys roll on through. He stood in respectful silence like many, many people do - it's perfectly acceptable (unless you're a fascist..). The press are acting like he tore up his hymn sheet and started singing communist anthems at the top of his voice rather than the reality that he paid his respects in a different but equally dignified way (using the freedoms we apparently fought for in the war).


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Muze said:


> TBF.... i turned veggie after years of working on farms ( I think anyone would!) .... I'd like to hear more about this person before judging her on her diet


Who's judging. I think it's hilarious.
Not the way to win the farming vote though now is it? 
Suppose it doesn't matter, there's so few of them now and he probably wants to share the land out equally anyway


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

I agree with CB. As he is willing to say an oath to the queen as part of the process to join the privy council he gave up his right to not sing the national anthem at the service. He should do both or neither.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Don't forget, pmq's today. JC at the opposition dispatch box this week. Should be very interesting.. Live coverage on Daily Politics or BBC Parliment.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

BBC news are holding a forum on him not singing, they are not covering the tax credit cuts. This is such a smokescreen, the tories are just killing themselves with laughter.

Sadly I think JC will resign, he didn't even ask for this and this sort of attention is beyond belief considering what is going on in the world and our country. It just shows how corrupt our media really is, to those who didn't believe it before and after the election.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

lostbear said:


> Well said, Noush.
> 
> The Conservative party has many wealthy backers which aren't interested in promoting Labour as a (proper) Labour government wouldn't be in the interests of the rich and greedy. Money is poured into Tory coffers by people who are at the top of the tree and want to stay there.
> 
> ...


Likewise LB!

These wealthy backers include the likes of nondom media moguls Rupert Murdoch & Lord Rothermere! - telling lies on behalf of government via their media empires. The tories need the media to spin their lies & to never hold them to account or they'd never get elected!

I'd like to see big money taken right out of politics, its the only way to stop this shameless corruption.

Talking of Caroline Lucas, did you see the brilliant letter she wrote to Corbyn? http://linkis.com/independent.co.uk/gQtI8

And her response to him winning -
http://www.carolinelucas.com/latest...-election-real-boost-for-progressive-politics

_"Jeremy's success in this contest is a real boost for progressive politics. For the first time in my memory Labour will be led by someone who stands up for the radical changes demanded by the challenges we face.

I am looking forward to working with Jeremy to provide a concerted and strong opposition to this Government and to push for the constitutional changes, like reform of our voting system, that Britain's multi-party, devolved political system demands.

I will also be urging him to join me in championing urgent action on climate change and building an economy that works for our children and grandchildren - two of the greatest challenges we face_."



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Very pleased to hear he appointed a shadow minister for mental health too. Hope the Tories follow suit and appoint a minster as well.


Unlikely. Unfortunately the tories are dismantling mental health services


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)




----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Jobeth said:


> I agree with CB. As he is willing to say an oath to the queen as part of the process to join the privy council he gave up his right to not sing the national anthem at the service. He should do both or neither.


He has to join the privy council to influence policy or he wouldn't be doing his job.

Why does he have to sing the national anthem? He's an athiest republican. He was there to commemorate the Battle of Britain. The idea that 75 years later it would be obligatory to profess belief in something you don't in order to be accepted by corrupt media institutions that fully supported the Nazis (the Daily Mail) and hacked phones belonging to the royals and the families of dead soldiers (the Sun/news international) is beyond belief.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

noushka05 said:


>


It really doesn't matter though, the press have already done their job.

We need a media/news outlet that isn't influenced and can report the actual truth, not the truth as those with a agenda wish you to see it.

The independant used to be more about the truth, but they have been taken iver and bought by someone who wishes to tow the line now and has vested interests. It's actually very worrying when you sjt and think about it.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

emmaviolet said:


> It really doesn't matter though, the press have already done their job.
> 
> We need a media/news outlet that isn't influenced and can report the actual truth, not the truth as those with a agenda wish you to see it.
> 
> The independant used to be more about the truth, but they have been taken iver and bought by someone who wishes to tow the line now and has vested interests. It's actually very worrying when you sjt and think about it.


'He who controls the media controls the masses'. The tories are dismantling the NHS & welfare state, getting rid of all the 'green crap', they've managed to double the deficit, austerity is a proven lie - yet many people still have no idea of the truth! - because journalists & reporters will never hold Tory ministers to account! However any little thing Corbyn does will be scrutinised & if possible spun into a HUGE deal! Just like they did in the Scottish Independence vote & the GE. This is the magnitude of the corruption we face. The neocons fear Corbyn because he is a threat to their neoliberal ideology - thats why hes attacked by not only the tories & the media but by new labour also.

.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

emmaviolet said:


> The independant used to be more about the truth, but they have been taken iver and bought by someone who wishes to tow the line now and has vested interests. It's actually very worrying when you sjt and think about it.


In a story ostensibly about the Tories breaching copyright law today they provide a direct link to this video....

https://www.facebook.com/conservatives/videos/vb.8807334278/10153403951429279/?type=2&theater

So, they even have the Independent doing their viral marketing for them it seems.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

It doesn't bother me one bit whether he sang the National Anthem or not, how we pay respect to the dead is a personal issue and I don't believe in forced participation in anything (as we discussed a couple of months ago about the minutes silence that we keep having inflicted on us). However I do think he will need to address how he deals with official state occasions if he is not prepared to participate and joining the privy council means he is prepared to advise the Queen and show loyalty to her so if he doesn't feel he can do that (which he is entitled to do) then he would be better staying away from such occasions. In the same way when Remembrance Sunday comes and they hold the service I think it would be a terrible shame for the day to be about whether he wears a red or a white poppy. If I was attending such a ceremony and didn't feel I could wear the red poppy then I wouldn't go.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

The whole singing thing is a mute point in my opinion. A bit like hiring women story that was at the start of the week.

He stood there quite peacefully and respectfully. If I was in his shoes I would have done the exact same thing.

There has to be some irony that he was at an event to remember people who fought for our freedom and our rights, yet he is blasted over not singing which is his choice and his right. The same choices that our brave servicemen and women fought to keep.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> Great news.
> He stands for the good in the world, this is a positive for politics and should engage those who do not vote and the young as well, he is not just like the others and that's always a good thing.





rona said:


> Anyway. Corbyn seems a very nice man who lives by his principles


Yes he seems a very very nice man, along with his Hamas and IRA friends.

The man is a barking old relic - fine for him to stick to the same old dogma from 30 years ago when he just stood alone fighting his own campaign, but he is now supposedly the leader of the Labour party and in theory a possible Prime Minister


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

emmaviolet said:


> BBC news are holding a forum on him not singing, they are not covering the tax credit cuts. This is such a smokescreen, the tories are just killing themselves with laughter.
> 
> Sadly I think JC will resign, he didn't even ask for this and this sort of attention is beyond belief considering what is going on in the world and our country. It just shows how corrupt our media really is, to those who didn't believe it before and after the election.


I thought he put himself forward as a candidate - he could have withdrawn at any time like Chuka Umunna did if he didn't like the inevitable attention that comes with the job.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> It doesn't bother me one bit whether he sang the National Anthem or not, how we pay respect to the dead is a personal issue and I don't believe in forced participation in anything (as we discussed a couple of months ago about the minutes silence that we keep having inflicted on us). However I do think he will need to address how he deals with official state occasions if he is not prepared to participate and joining the privy council means he is prepared to advise the Queen and show loyalty to her so if he doesn't feel he can do that (which he is entitled to do) then he would be better staying away from such occasions. In the same way when Remembrance Sunday comes and they hold the service I think it would be a terrible shame for the day to be about whether he wears a red or a white poppy. If I was attending such a ceremony and didn't feel I could wear the red poppy then I wouldn't go.


But if he wore a red poppy, the media would call him a hypocrite. He can't win really.

I remember my older sister's ex boyfriend. He was caught in a demo in London and taken to court charged with 'affray' (a black guy wearing a hoodie is bound to be a troublemaker, right?).

His court appearance happened to be in the week leading to Remembrance Day and he was wearing a red poppy.
The judge asked him why he was wearing a poppy when he was anti-government.
He answered that he was wearing the poppy to show respect for 'the poor bastards who died in the wars through no fault of their own'.
He got off the affray charge, but was cautioned for contempt of court.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

And now it's PM Question time.
Wonder whose questions he is going to ask?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

silvi said:


> *But if he wore a red poppy, the media would call him a hypocrite. He can't win really.*
> 
> I remember my older sister's ex boyfriend. He was caught in a demo in London and taken to court charged with 'affray' (a black guy wearing a hoodie is bound to be a troublemaker, right?).
> 
> ...


I guess it depends on why he wouldn't want to wear the red poppy - I can't see any harm in him wearing one to show support for the war dead (you can be against war but still support/remember those who died and their families sacrifices) but if its against his principles to do so then he shouldn't attend as why would you attend an event to show support and remember the war dead if you feel strongly enough not to want to wear the red poppy?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I guess it depends on why he wouldn't want to wear the red poppy - I can't see any harm in him wearing one to show support for the war dead (you can be against war but still support/remember those who died and their families sacrifices) but if its against his principles to do so then he shouldn't attend as why would you attend an event to show support and remember the war dead if you feel strongly enough not to want to wear the red poppy?


I just think it's ridiculous (and sinister) that the media is concentrating on 'the poppy dilemma' when we have just seen two hurtful Bills get passed in Parliament without hardly a mention. And the more that they are allowed to discuss this, the more hurtful legislation will be passed with hardly a comment.

But I honestly feel that there is no reason why a person who is anti-war cannot attend a remembrance ceremony.
This is to respect those who were killed an injured fighting on the government's behalf. It in no way condones war, but respects servicemen and women.
I really see no conflict of interest here.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

silvi said:


> I just think it's ridiculous (and sinister) that the media is concentrating on 'the poppy dilemma' when we have just seen two hurtful Bills get passed in Parliament without hardly a mention. And the more that they are allowed to discuss this, the more hurtful legislation will be passed with hardly a comment.
> 
> But I honestly feel that there is no reason why a person who is anti-war cannot attend a remembrance ceremony.
> This is to respect those who were killed an injured fighting on the government's behalf. It in no way condones war, but respects servicemen and women.
> I really see no conflict of interest here.


But that is the trouble with having such a unique/controversial leader - the media will focus on those things rather than the issues. Not sure what you mean by "the more they are allowed to discuss this" - surely not suggesting censorship?

As to the poppy issue I agree with you that you can be anti-war and still attend a remembrance ceremony but you can also be anti-war and wear a red poppy so I think unless he can do both he would be better not to do either purely so that he does not become the story on that particular day.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> But that is the trouble with having such a unique/controversial leader - the media will focus on those things rather than the issues. *Not sure what you mean by "the more they are allowed to discuss this" - surely not suggesting censorship?*
> 
> As to the poppy issue I agree with you that you can be anti-war and still attend a remembrance ceremony but you can also be anti-war and wear a red poppy so I think unless he can do both he would be better not to do either purely so that he does not become the story on that particular day.


Agree that the poppy issue is a problem, hence my comment in bold.
But I don't mean censorship.

One of the key issues that the Left should be addressing is the media. Not censoring it, but finding a way to get a different message across to ordinary people, so that they have a real choice.
I have to believe that, considering the situation in this country, given the choice many people would reject the spoon feeding that mainstream media gives us for an alternative way of receiving their 'news'.
That's the way to stop these futile smoke screens that we are fed on all TV channels and throughout the press. If the media loses its audience, it has to adapt to survive.
And I know that would never be easy....


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Why some people don't sing the National Anthem

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34268442


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

A new National Anthem?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> Yes he seems a very very nice man, along with his Hamas and IRA friends.
> 
> The man is a barking old relic - fine for him to stick to the same old dogma from 30 years ago when he just stood alone fighting his own campaign, but he is now supposedly the leader of the Labour party and in theory a possible Prime Minister


All his political career hes been an advocate for peace & for social justice. What better values could a PM possibly have? Non imo.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

silvi said:


> A new National Anthem?


Love it. Trying to work out the year as some well known faces there who look so much younger. Seems the issues haven't changed a great deal though


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

silvi said:


> A new National Anthem?


lol Great clip!  (with the added bonus of a young Roger Taylor in the audience )


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Love it. Trying to work out the year as some well known faces there who look so much younger. Seems the issues haven't changed a great deal though


No idea of the year, but we used to have a copy on video


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> Yes he seems a very very nice man, along with his Hamas and IRA friends.
> 
> The man is a barking old relic - fine for him to stick to the same old dogma from 30 years ago when he just stood alone fighting his own campaign, but he is now supposedly the leader of the Labour party and in theory a possible Prime Minister


Prince Charles is 'friends' with the IRA then?


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

silvi said:


> A new National Anthem?


Thanks for sharing that  too funny


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_I just think it's ridiculous (and sinister) that the media is concentrating on 'the poppy dilemma' when we have just seen two hurtful Bills get passed in Parliament without hardly a mention_
Couldn't agree more, so why did Corbyn turn up at a national memorial service looking as if he'd just rolled in from a heavy night out? There's no way he didn't know it would grab the headlines.


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

havoc said:


> _I just think it's ridiculous (and sinister) that the media is concentrating on 'the poppy dilemma' when we have just seen two hurtful Bills get passed in Parliament without hardly a mention_
> Couldn't agree more, so why did Corbyn turn up at a national memorial service looking as if he'd just rolled in from a heavy night out? There's no way he didn't know it would grab the headlines.


He knew but he refuses to play their game!

And why are the tabloid panicking about his tie when the government have just cut tax credits..... grow some brain cells you fecking drones!!


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

It's all very well saying he knew but refuses to play their game but the man is now leader of a party and if he wants to make serious changes he needs to lead that party to power. I couldn't give two hoots if he doesn't want to sing or what colour poppy he may choose to wear. I do care if he deliberately antagonises the very people who should be his support. It ain't the monied classes who throng the Mall at royal events or wait outside hospitals when a royal baby is due. He's a republican and that's fine with me but he wasn't at the service as Corbyn the individual.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

havoc said:


> _I just think it's ridiculous (and sinister) that the media is concentrating on 'the poppy dilemma' when we have just seen two hurtful Bills get passed in Parliament without hardly a mention_
> Couldn't agree more, so why did Corbyn turn up at a national memorial service looking as if he'd just rolled in from a heavy night out? There's no way he didn't know it would grab the headlines.


Does it matter though? Really in the face of everything?

Some people are just naturally messy/scruffy, it does no harm and does not make them awful people. I would rather someone who looks like he does and has principles then someone like Cameron who can scrub up perfectly but is responsible for plunging people into severe poverty and doesn't give a dam about it.
Obviously some people care more about appearances then politics, maybe those people should get their priorities right.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Does it really hurt to make a bit of effort to make worthwhile changes? I'm saddened if he can't be bothered for the sake of those he claims to care about.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

havoc said:


> _I just think it's ridiculous (and sinister) that the media is concentrating on 'the poppy dilemma' when we have just seen two hurtful Bills get passed in Parliament without hardly a mention_
> Couldn't agree more, so why did Corbyn turn up at a national memorial service looking as if he'd just rolled in from a heavy night out? There's no way he didn't know it would grab the headlines.


You've had some good relies to that one already 
But I would also say that the guy turned up after constantly working for the last goodness knows how many days. He probably hadn't had much sleep either.
Would you have rather he spent time out of his busy schedule to consider his wardrobe?


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

lennythecloud said:


> Yeh I can't believe he appointed an MP with a strong and long standing interest in the environment to the post of shadow environment secretary, what kind of madness is that?


I've not really followed this, I normally vote Tory (except when Labour promised a ban on hunting). But just caught a minute or so comment on car radio, seems she's anti badger cull, pro TB vaccination, and the NFU's attempt at ridicule of her backfired. Apparently she has some strange idea that cows are bring asked to produce much more milk than is natural (yes, it's not normal to have hip bones sticking out and udders dragging on the ground), and chickens are being asked to produce more eggs than normal (also true - without interference they lay a clutch of about 20 eggs and sit for 3 weeks to hatch them. They moult feathers in Autumn and go off lay until spring,but are thwarted by breeding and artificial lighting). Speaking as a farmer ( small scale, just killed our first 2 beef animals, as well as keeping pigs, sheep, goats and poultry), I'm getting a bit sick of the NFU claiming to represent me. I don't vote Labour (normally) but will be watching this woman with interest, she at first glance seems an intelligent, compassionate woman who might just make a difference.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Muze said:


> He knew but he refuses to play their game!
> 
> And why are the tabloid panicking about his tie when the government have just cut tax credits.....* grow some brain cells you fecking drones!*!


So only Corbyn supporters have brain cells now. Thats a new one on me  I'll take that in the light hearted sense I'm sure you intended Muze 

It really doesn't bother me if he is scruffy and he did look smarter in a tie for PMQs but so what? I'm much more interested in his policies and watching how he goes about getting the rest of the Labour party to accept them never mind the wider population. I also don't much like the underlying theme that runs through all these threads that anyone who doesn't accept/follow/support left wing policies is somehow brain washed/doesn't understand how the media works/is incapable of looking up things for themselves and coming to their own decisions about things. I'm afraid attitudes like that will only alienate the voters you want to attract back to Labour.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

havoc said:


> Does it really hurt to make a bit of effort to make worthwhile changes? I'm saddened if he can't be bothered for the sake of those he claims to care about.


Again, as I just said some people can take an hour tongt ready and still look scruffy/rumpled.

To me it doesn't matter, and I like to look nice myself, but to me it really doesn't matter, I like principled people, it doesnt matter what people wear, so long as he is clothed it is a non issue.
David Camero always looks smart along with IDS, but they are harmful sociopaths, so it really makes no difference.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Harry sums up exactly how I feel.








*Harry Leslie Smith*‏
 As a RAF veteran of WW2 I'm not offended by Corbyn not singing #*nationalanthem* but I am offended by politicians who sell guns to tyrants

6,420 retweets 3,895 favorites


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So only Corbyn supporters have brain cells now. Thats a new one on me  I'll take that in the light hearted sense I'm sure you intended Muze
> 
> It really doesn't bother me if he is scruffy and he did look smarter in a tie for PMQs but so what? I'm much more interested in his policies and watching how he goes about getting the rest of the Labour party to accept them never mind the wider population. I also don't much like the underlying theme that runs through all these threads that anyone who doesn't accept/follow/support left wing policies is somehow brain washed/doesn't understand how the media works/is incapable of looking up things for themselves and coming to their own decisions about things. I'm afraid attitudes like that will only alienate the voters you want to attract back to Labour.


I don't see this thread going that way to be honest.
And I read Muze's post as addressed to the media, which I do agree with.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Anyone else think that Cameron smirked his way through PMQs and gave Corbyn a virtually pat on the head?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_Would you have rather he spent time out of his busy schedule to consider his wardrobe?_
I would rather he had taken the time to realise he was there to represent many people, the majority of whom probably would have preferred he had shown a little more respect.

_ the guy turned up after constantly working for the last goodness knows how many days. He probably hadn't had much sleep either_
The same would be true whoever had won the leadership contest. If you're suggesting he doesn't have the stamina required for the position then there isn't much hope for him continuing in it.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rona said:


> Anyone else think that Cameron smirked his way through PMQs and gave Corbyn a virtually pat on the head?


Cameron did smirk his way through question time, because that is the way he reacts to anyone he finds threatening.
I see it as a form of passive aggression.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

havoc said:


> _Would you have rather he spent time out of his busy schedule to consider his wardrobe?_
> I would rather he had taken the time to realise he was there to represent many people, the majority of whom probably would have preferred he had shown a little more respect.


How do you know what the majority think any more than we do?
_


havoc said:



the guy turned up after constantly working for the last goodness knows how many days. He probably hadn't had much sleep either

Click to expand...

_


havoc said:


> The same would be true whoever had won the leadership contest. If you're suggesting he doesn't have the stamina required for the position then there isn't much hope for him continuing in it.


I just knew you would pick up on that comment 
You know that I meant that he was obviously extremely busy and his time was better spent doing his work and being at the ceremony, rather than spending time with a 'dresser' as Cameron et al probably do.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Catharinem said:


> I've not really followed this, I normally vote Tory (except when Labour promised a ban on hunting). But just caught a minute or so comment on car radio, seems she's anti badger cull, pro TB vaccination, and the NFU's attempt at ridicule of her backfired. Apparently she has some strange idea that cows are bring asked to produce much more milk than is natural (yes, it's not normal to have hip bones sticking out and udders dragging on the ground), and chickens are being asked to produce more eggs than normal (also true - without interference they lay a clutch of about 20 eggs and sit for 3 weeks to hatch them. They moult feathers in Autumn and go off lay until spring,but are thwarted by breeding and artificial lighting). Speaking as a farmer ( small scale, just killed our first 2 beef animals, as well as keeping pigs, sheep, goats and poultry), I'm getting a bit sick of the NFU claiming to represent me. I don't vote Labour (normally) but will be watching this woman with interest, she at first glance seems an intelligent, compassionate woman who might just make a difference.


Kerry McCarthy is a fantastic politician Catherine , passionate about wildlife & the environment. She has been awesome in her opposition to the disgusting badger cull. Here she is speaking at one of the stop the badger cull marches.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_I just knew you would pick up on that comment 
You know that I meant that he was obviously extremely busy and his time was better spent doing his work and being at the ceremony, rather than spending time with a 'dresser' as Cameron et al probably do._
As do all good politicians. Never seen Nicola Sturgeon anything other than well turned out. I want Corbyn to be good and to do good but it won't happen if he doesn't realise it isn't all about him as an individual.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Colliebarmy said:


> He is showing his true colours, refusing to sing the national anthem at the Battle of Britain event today, but happy to shake the Queens hand to get his Privvy seal money.....2 faced or what?


So. Is there such a thing as "Privvy seal money" or did you just make that up?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

havoc said:


> _I just knew you would pick up on that comment
> You know that I meant that he was obviously extremely busy and his time was better spent doing his work and being at the ceremony, rather than spending time with a 'dresser' as Cameron et al probably do._
> As do all good politicians. Never seen Nicola Sturgeon anything other than well turned out. I want Corbyn to be good and to do good but it won't happen if he doesn't realise it isn't all about him as an individual.


But surely if he goes the 'dresser' route (plus the all-encompassing 'how to look and act good in politics' look that they tried with poor Gordon Brown and then even less successfully with Ed Milliband) he is making it about him?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

No please don't turn him into one of the grey teflon suited brigade. I would hate to see that. I like his individuality and hope he has the courage to stick with it and tell them to go take a hike. I get fed up with the way people judge others on appearance, I'm not remotely interested in fashion and live in polo shirts with sweatshirts for a bit of colour in winter  my Mum who is 78 rolls her eyes at me like I'm such a let down but I don't give a fig.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_ I like his individuality and hope he has the courage to stick with it and tell them to go take a hike_
I want it to be about the job he does which means not drawing attention to himself for any reason other than that. Success in that means we don't ever notice what he's wearing.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

havoc said:


> _ I like his individuality and hope he has the courage to stick with it and tell them to go take a hike_
> I want it to be about the job he does which means not drawing attention to himself for any reason other than that. Success in that means we don't ever notice what he's wearing.


Like I said earlier on I think its a shame if the whole whether he sings or whether he wears a red poppy or a white takes over coverage of special days/ceremonies but I don't think that needs to come down to what he wears. Personally I find Theresa May's silly shoes a distraction and even though I'm a Tory and I quite like Boris he could do with a hair cut now and then but it really doesn't make any difference in the grand scheme of things does it?


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

I think he knows exactly what he's doing, he's clever and has that calm about him that will eventually be respected.

If he was a nothing, the tabloids wouldn't be running scared!

He's given so many people a reason to go on.... he will remembered if nothing else


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

He appears to be a man who sticks firmly by his principles and, bizarrely, this is what people are criticising him for. 

He is an atheist and a republican. It would've been enormously hypocritical of him to sing 'God save the Queen'.

His approach to PMQ's was an absolute breath of fresh air. Far more important to focus on that than whether he wore a tie or sang a song.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

bearcub said:


> He is an atheist and a republican. It would've been enormously hypocritical of him to sing 'God save the Queen'.


Every MP who enters the House of Commons must pledge allegiance to HM (Sin Feinn wouldnt so didnt enter the house) and if forming a Government it is *Her Majesty's Government*, not his, as for the *NATIONAL ANTHEM*, if he cant sing that on the a day remembering a NATIONALLY important time...

He may have principles, just not the right ones..

So then..

No God
No Royalty
Unions in charge
Spend whats in the coffers

Some serious vote winners there....

As I say, those Labour MP's who want to win the next GE will be sharpening the knives already


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

Jeez CB...... I know we don't agree on anything, but I thought you were smarter than that tbh.

Religion, royalty and elitism have no place in politics!


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Love it. Trying to work out the year


Somewhere around 1985/6 believe it or not.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Muze said:


> Jeez CB...... I know we don't agree on anything, but I thought you were smarter than that tbh.
> 
> Religion, royalty and elitism have no place in politics!


So why has he joined the Privy Council then?


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

He's a Christian actually.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

Colliebarmy said:


> Every MP who enters the House of Commons must pledge allegiance to HM (Sin Feinn wouldnt so didnt enter the house) and if forming a Government it is *Her Majesty's Government*, not his, as for the *NATIONAL ANTHEM*, if he cant sing that on the a day remembering a NATIONALLY important time...
> 
> He may have principles, just not the right ones..
> 
> ...


Surely if his ultimate plan was to get rid of the royals the only way to do so would be to become prime minister?

It's easier to make change from the inside.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Apparently Cameron was heard singing these words to the anthem lol


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So why has he joined the Privy Council then?


Probably because he has to!

Can't deny, he seems too good to be true, but it's early days.
And let us little guys have our few days of hope, because we've been so despondent for so very long xx


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> He's a Christian actually.


Interesting; I hadn't read that anywhere.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

bearcub said:


> Interesting; I hadn't read that anywhere.


Perhaps because it doesn't fit in with the view the media want us to have of him?

I didn't know he was a Christian either. But I hadn't even thought about his religious beliefs.
It's his politics I'm interested in.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Muze said:


> Probably because he has to!
> 
> Can't deny, he seems too good to be true, but it's early days.
> And let us little guys have our few days of hope, because we've been so despondent for so very long xx


Why does he have to? I don't think its obligatory for the opposition leader to be a member but I could be wrong. This article shows the wording of the oath they have to take

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-accepts-place-on-privy-council-a2947281.html

for those who don't wish to follow the link its

The current wording, which has been around since Tudor times, states: "You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same.

"You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council."

I don't think there is any reason for you not to have hope, much as I enjoy debating the policies I don't agree with I do respect the guy and hope he stays true to his beliefs and doesn't join the ranks of politicians in it for their own ends who are just so boring that the whole nation was virtually turned off from politics.


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

Hmmm...... will have to read up on that one


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Love it. Trying to work out the year as some well known faces there who look so much younger. Seems the issues haven't changed a great deal though


The whole thing is here 



 if anyone is so inclined.... see how many celebs you can recognise!

Stuff this political tosh


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

Jeremy Corbyn accepts an 85% pay rise AND a taxpayer-funded official car | Daily Mail Online

Just saw this Hmmm


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

Honeys mum said:


> Jeremy Corbyn accepts an 85% pay rise AND a taxpayer-funded official car | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Just saw this Hmmm


As its the Daily Mail I would take it with a pinch of salt. But even though he is a keen cyclist, I kinda would expect him to get a tax payer funded car really. As leader of the opposition he would be expected to attend certain high profile events and meet world leaders, etc. Can't see it looking great turning up sweaty and such to meet the Pope for example or attend remembrance day. Not to mention traveling around the country. At the moment being an MP he really only 'needs' to travel around his local area, but I would imagine he would be expected to travel around the country now. He would also have the ability to 'work' in the car if he so chose to.

As for the pay rise... well they all get paid too much anyway


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Good for him. He deserves it. Bigger job = bigger salary. £125k still seems a pittance for the job size imo.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

stuaz said:


> As leader of the opposition he would be expected to attend certain high profile events and meet world leaders, etc. Can't see it looking great turning up sweaty and such to meet the Pope for example


Surely he wouldnt want to meet the Pope with him being an agnostic?

(Maybe atheist)


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

stuaz said:


> Surely if his ultimate plan was to get rid of the royals the only way to do so would be to become prime minister?
> 
> It's easier to make change from the inside.


I bet he sings "The Red Flag" at union meetings


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

Colliebarmy said:


> Surely he wouldnt want to meet the Pope with him being an agnostic?
> 
> (Maybe atheist)


Just an example. Even myself as an atheist, if I was invited to an event to meet the Pope I would most likely attend.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

stuaz said:


> Just an example. Even myself as an atheist, if I was invited to an event to meet the Pope I would most likely attend.


Same here. I'm also an atheist but I wouldn't mind meeting him. I'd quite like to say thank you to him for warning about the dangers we face if we fail to tackle climate change. That's a huge deal for a Pope to be so outspoken about this issue, he really cares about not only people but animals & the environment. Best Pope ever! imo lol

Just to add, I'm no royalist, so it would gall me if I was pressured into singing the national anthem. Neither would I wear a red poppy (I did a thread about why a while ago). And it certainly doesn't mean I don't respect & remember those who fought for us either.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Colliebarmy said:


> I bet he sings "The Red Flag" at union meetings


Why wouldn't he?  Hes a socialist & its the song of the socialist movement.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> Just to add, I'm no royalist, so it would gall me if I was pressured into singing the national anthem[/QUOTE
> 
> I'm no royalist either, but I understood that service was to remember the heros of The Battle of Britain.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Honeys mum said:


> I'm no royalist either, but I understood that service was to remember the heros of The Battle of Britain.


It's quite possible to remember something without breaking into song.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

stuaz said:


> Just an example. Even myself as an atheist, if I was invited to an event to meet the Pope I would most likely attend.


Why?

I would feel that I was taking the place of a believer. I'd feel a fraud and terribly uncomfortable


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

@Honeys mum 
The service was about those who fought but the song has no connection.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

rona said:


> Why?
> 
> I would feel that I was taking the place of a believer. I'd feel a fraud and terribly uncomfortable


He is of course a major figure in the Catholic Church and even though I'm not a believer that doesn't mean my mind is closed. A day when you learn nothing is a day wasted in my opinion.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

stuaz said:


> He is of course a major figure in the Catholic Church and even though I'm not a believer that doesn't mean my mind is closed. A day when you learn nothing is a day wasted in my opinion.


Fair enough.

I have tried several times to get my head around what it is about God and religion that attracts people,but it's like the reason people want kids or want to get married. I just can't get it and gave up trying to understand many years ago.

Learning is one thing, banging your head against a brick wall is another


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rona said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> I have tried several times to get my head around what it is about God and religion that attracts people,but it's like the reason people want kids or want to get married. I just can't get it and gave up trying to understand many years ago.
> 
> Learning is one thing, banging your head against a brick wall is another


So you don't understand wanting a lifetime mate and producing offspring with the same species as yourself, but you keep a different species mammal as a companion? Ooh, my head hurts! ( Must be the brick wall, will use facepalm next time!).


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> So you don't understand wanting a lifetime mate and producing offspring with the same species as yourself, but you keep a different species mammal as a companion? Ooh, my head hurts! ( Must be the brick wall, will use facepalm next time!).


Yep that's right


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Catharinem said:


> So you don't understand wanting a lifetime mate and producing offspring with the same species as yourself, but you keep a different species mammal as a companion? Ooh, my head hurts! ( Must be the brick wall, will use facepalm next time!).


 I'm confused. You can have a lifetime mate without being married can't you. What has producing offspring with the same species as yourself got to do with anything - I wasn't aware we could produce them with another species or did I miss something in Biology at school  I don't get kids either but fully respect those of you who do and have reproduced but what has that got to do with keeping a different species as a companion? Now my head hurts too


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

rona said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> I have tried several times to get my head around what it is about God and religion that attracts people,but it's like the reason people want kids or want to get married. I just can't get it and gave up trying to understand many years ago.
> 
> Learning is one thing, banging your head against a brick wall is another


Yeah I don't get religion ether tbh and talking to some religious nuts is like banging your head against a brick wall!! 

I think its what makes life more interesting that we don't all like the same or want the same.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2015)

porps said:


> It's quite possible to remember something without breaking into song.


Speak for yourself, I still have to sing my A B C's to remember them


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I'm confused. You can have a lifetime mate without being married can't you. What has producing offspring with the same species as yourself got to do with anything - I wasn't aware we could produce them with another species or did I miss something in Biology at school  I don't get kids either but fully respect those of you who do and have reproduced but what has that got to do with keeping a different species as a companion? Now my head hurts too


 Well, I see marriage as promising a lifetime of yourself, through good or bad etc etc. Not to say non marriage relationships don't last, or all marriages do, but Rona said she couldn't see the point of marriage, I said it was a lifetime mate, which implies commitment from both sides. You can have a lifetime mate without marrying, but if the original intent is a lifetime mate through thick or thin, they why wouldn't you commit to that? A promise to go through life together has to be worth more than a vague hope you'll muddle through, but if not there's always someone else. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I still believe in marriage being something worth having, and worth fighting for. She couldn't see the point of children, I was comparing the "point" of children ( producing offspring which is a natural instinct - in fact reproducing is one of the 7 signs of life, along with metabolism etc) with the "point" of interspecies companionship. Not saying marriage and children is for everyone, and neither is dog ownership, but just found it strange for her to "get the point" of interspecies companionship whilst not "getting the point" of intraspecies natural behaviour.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> You can have a lifetime mate without marrying, but if the original intent is a lifetime mate through thick or thin, they why wouldn't you commit to that? .


You can commit to that without marrying.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> <snip> She couldn't see the point of children, I was comparing the "point" of children ( producing offspring which is a natural instinct - in fact reproducing is one of the 7 signs of life, along with metabolism etc) with the "point" of interspecies companionship. Not saying marriage and children is for everyone, and neither is dog ownership, but just found it strange for her to "get the point" of interspecies companionship whilst not "getting the point" of *intraspecies natural behaviour*.


I don't see the point of children - the majority, in my opinion, are horrible little things. I get the purpose of them with regards to the continuation of the species but when I read about women who physically ache to have one..... That leaves me scratching my head. I have never wanted them and never had them.

I also take umbrage with suggestion that having them is 'natural behaviour' - I think we have reached a point in our evolution where children are no longer 'natural behaviour'. In fact, I find this suggestion to be highly offensive to those of us who chose not to have children - I'm unnatural am I? Do you know how often this slur has been thrown at me over the years because of my CHOICE not to reproduce? I also find it offensive for those who desired children and could not have them. Are they unnatural for not being able to reproduce?

Maybe if more people, like Rona & myself, were able to control this 'natural behaviour' the planets population would not be increasing at such an unsustainable rate.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

porps said:


> You can commit to that without marrying.


I'd like a promise to actually be a promise, for better, for worse, etc. And when I said my vows I took them very seriously indeed, it just wouldn't be the same to just be living with somebody. Marriage is supposed to be taken seriously and difficult to get out of, that's why it is " a solumn occasion not to be undertaken lightly"

Your poster makes zero sense. I mean compulsory dog microchips are coming in April, doesn't mean the Government will stop you rehoming your dog, just make it harder to be abandoned.

We've got a bit off Corbyn and the Pope haven't we? Was meant to be a light aside, Rona didn't get religion, marriage or children, I just pointed out that she "got" dogs.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Catharinem said:


> I'd like a promise to actually be a promise, for better, for worse, etc. And when I said my vows I took them very seriously indeed, it just wouldn't be the same to just be living with somebody. Marriage is supposed to be taken seriously and difficult to get out of, that's why it is " a solumn occasion not to be undertaken lightly"
> 
> Your poster makes zero sense. I mean compulsory dog microchips are coming in April, doesn't mean the Government will stop you rehoming your dog, just make it harder to be abandoned.
> 
> We've got a bit off Corbyn and the Pope haven't we? Was meant to be a light aside, Rona didn't get religion, marriage or children, I just pointed out that she "got" dogs.


 Yes we have digressed somewhat. I've been married for over 30 years and I took my vows seriously too but if my OH starting to behave in a violent/unfaithful or disrespectful manner towards me I would not hesitate to leave him and I'm sure he would do the same if I did the same to him so what difference does the bit of paper make? My parents were married for 20 years and had two children but could not remain faithful to each other and so divorced so perhaps I have a jaded view of these things. If I found myself on my own again I would not bother to get married again but would live in sin, over the brush or whatever you want to call it. As for the whole reproduction thing - if it floats you boat then fine but for plenty of us it doesn't. I looked after my cousins children once and all that neediness completely freaked me out . It might seem the most natural thing in the world to you but I say thank god for contraception


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> I'd like a promise to actually be a promise, for better, for worse, etc. And when I said my vows I took them very seriously indeed, it just wouldn't be the same to just be living with somebody. Marriage is supposed to be taken seriously and difficult to get out of, that's why it is " a solumn occasion not to be undertaken lightly"
> .


I would argue that if you cant trust a partners promises unless they sign some bit of paper then maybe that isnt the right person to settle down with forever in the first place.

I do concede that marraige can sometimes be extremely convenient - often it would be silly not to get married after weighing up the pros and cons. But marraige isnt commitment, its just a legal document, commitment is something that happens in the heart (actually the brain but allow me some poetic license).

. yes we have got a bit off topic, it's called conversation.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

MoggyBaby said:


> I don't see the point of children - the majority, in my opinion, are horrible little things. I get the purpose of them with regards to the continuation of the species but when I read about women who physically ache to have one..... That leaves me scratching my head. I have never wanted them and never had them.
> 
> I also take umbrage with suggestion that having them is 'natural behaviour' - I think we have reached a point in our evolution where children are no longer 'natural behaviour'. In fact, I find this suggestion to be highly offensive to those of us who chose not to have children - I'm unnatural am I? Do you know how often this slur has been thrown at me over the years because of my CHOICE not to reproduce? I also find it offensive for those who desired children and could not have them. Are they unnatural for not being able to reproduce?
> 
> Maybe if more people, like Rona & myself, were able to control this 'natural behaviour' the planets population would not be increasing at such an unsustainable rate.


 Sorry if I've caused offense, I understand if you've had things thrown at you in a derogatory manner in the past, and would never make assumptions about people who don't want or can't have children. I did say marriage and children weren't for everyone, and neither was dog ownership. For many women it is still a natural behaviour to coo over children, hardwired into us. And yes it can be controlled, not suggesting we only have "relations" to have babies. But there's a lot of us out there who have done our reproducing, got our kids to a reasonable age, know we shouldn't have more at our age, but still find ourselves gawping into other people's prams, or queuing up top hold a friend's new baby. Everybody's different, I'm genuinely sorry if what I said caused you upset, we never know the past of those we partly get to know through forums, so don't always know when our words will hurt.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Catharinem said:


> Sorry if I've caused offense, I understand if you've had things thrown at you in a derogatory manner in the past, and would never make assumptions about people who don't want or can't have children. I did say marriage and children weren't for everyone, and neither was dog ownership. For many women it is still a natural behaviour to coo over children, hardwired into us. And yes it can be controlled, not suggesting we only have "relations" to have babies. But there's a lot of us out there who have done our reproducing, got our kids to a reasonable age, know we shouldn't have more at our age, but still find ourselves gawping into other people's prams, or queuing up top hold a friend's new baby. Everybody's different, I'm genuinely sorry if what I said caused you upset, we never know the past of those we partly get to know through forums, so don't always know when our words will hurt.


I wasn't 'hurt' - not at all. I am more than big enough & bolshy enough to deal with this issue. I was actually more offended because I thought that we had all finally started to move on from women only being on the planet for the sake of reproduction purposes.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

I've been with my partner for nearly 10 years and although he has proposed to me quite a few times, we've still no intention of marrying any time soon. We ideally want to pop down the registry office, sign a form to ensure the state recognises us as 'married' or 'civil partners' and then carry on with what we were doing, no fuss, no unnecessary expense. We are throughly committed to each other, live as a married couple and we don't need any sort of wedding or ceremony to prove that.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I've been with my OH for 23 years.....what's that about commitment?

Don't need a bit of paper

http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/city/city_index/214133-city-index-marriage-lengths

We've more than doubled the average marriage length


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

MoggyBaby said:


> I don't see the point of children - the majority, in my opinion, are horrible little things. I get the purpose of them with regards to the continuation of the species but when I read about women who physically ache to have one..... That leaves me scratching my head. I have never wanted them and never had them.
> 
> I also take umbrage with suggestion that having them is 'natural behaviour' - I think we have reached a point in our evolution where children are no longer 'natural behaviour'. In fact, I find this suggestion to be highly offensive to those of us who chose not to have children - I'm unnatural am I? Do you know how often this slur has been thrown at me over the years because of my CHOICE not to reproduce? I also find it offensive for those who desired children and could not have them. Are they unnatural for not being able to reproduce?
> 
> Maybe if more people, like Rona & myself, were able to control this 'natural behaviour' the planets population would not be increasing at such an unsustainable rate.


I agree with everything you have said. I don't like children as you say they are horrible little things. The planet can go on like this we can't feed everyone as it is, people should start to be responsible about how many kids they have and stop expecting other people to pay for them. Give me a dog anytime you know where you stand with them.​


----------

