Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

CaledonianCraig wrote:

GSC wrote:The Scots voted to remain part of the UK.

The UK voted to leave the EU. Every Scottish vote counted the same as every other UK citizen. I don't see the issue.

The Scots (a good number if you look at post-ref stats from neutral sources) decided to vote no on varying issues. One of the main ones was because they feared losing their place in Europe. That won loads of votes for Better Together and has proved to be fruitless for the voters as they are now out of Europe.

The issue is that many Scots sees Scotland as its own country - sure not independent - but very close to it as they have their own government. However, when they vote by 62% to remain in Europe and end up being taken out of Europe it becomes a big issue to many. Yes we know the UK voted to exit but there are perhaps a million plus Scots who fail to recognize or accept being part of the UK or see themselves Scottish first and foremost and feel how they vote should hold more water than it does in the current union.

Sorry Craig, but that's democracy. Why should somebody in Edinburghs vote count more than someone's in London? Almost as ridiculous as Mhairi Black complaining that a region with more inhabitants had more MPs representing it than another region with less MPs.

But such is the politics of the SNP, always phrasing as Scotland vs the rest of the UK (or more accurately England) when Scotland voted to be part of the UK.

Ent wrote:Boris gets jumped on because he makes gaffes regularly. Personally think he's a bit of an idiot and don't buy the bumbling is put on.

Why would Davidson's sexuality be an issue, it's 2017...

Don't know, ask Rees-Mogg, once you've puller HH out of his bottom.

Ent wrote:Boris gets jumped on because he makes gaffes regularly. Personally think he's a bit of an idiot and don't buy the bumbling is put on.

Why would Davidson's sexuality be an issue, it's 2017...

It certainly comes to something when you have someone like BJ as, apparently, a serious candidate for leader of one of our main political parties and, potentially, a PM. He's a berk. The fact he can string some long words together on paper is not a reason he should be anywhere near real power. I seriously doubt he'd get an easy ride in any case, given his flip-flop betrayals of the Brexit campaign.
As for Rees-Mogg....dear God....

Politics here is becoming as polarised, and as sh!te, as in America.

What is the world coming to when Conservative members and voters get the leader they want.

LionsV2 wrote:What is the world coming to when Conservative members and voters get the leader they want.

That's fine. No problem with that. We get the leaders we deserve.

navyblueshorts wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:What is the world coming to when Conservative members and voters get the leader they want.

That's fine. No problem with that. We get the leaders we deserve.

Simplistic nonsense.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:What is the world coming to when Conservative members and voters get the leader they want.

That's fine. No problem with that. We get the leaders we deserve.

Simplistic nonsense.

Pointless comment, try to contribute. You don't think that populations deserve the leaders they elect?

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:What is the world coming to when Conservative members and voters get the leader they want.

That's fine. No problem with that. We get the leaders we deserve.

Simplistic nonsense.

Pointless comment, try to contribute.

Irony is alive and well..

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Emily Thornberry is favorite for the Labour leadership now.......5/1...6/1...etc

Hope you guys of a betting disposition lumped on when I said she would be a shoo in when she was back on 16/1 ...

A Corbyn loyalist will get the job.............The threshold is now only 10% of MPs (30 left wingers at least).....It is a left wing membership............They will think it is time a Woman got the job...

Len McClusky of Unite loves her...

Getting Emily Thornberry in would be a sure tactic to keep Labour out.

Personally think the next leader will be Jarvis or Starmer, but Saint Jeremy will hang on for a little while longer.

Jarvis was part of the coup..........Starmer has a left wing membership to contend with

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:What is the world coming to when Conservative members and voters get the leader they want.

That's fine. No problem with that. We get the leaders we deserve.

Simplistic nonsense.

Nice. It's true though, no matter that you think otherwise. If 'we' don't engage in politics, hold politicians to account, step forward to take part in politics and are too apathetic to vote on and debate issues, we get exactly who we deserve. Pretty self-apparent really.

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:What is the world coming to when Conservative members and voters get the leader they want.

That's fine. No problem with that. We get the leaders we deserve.

Simplistic nonsense.

Nice. It's true though, no matter that you think otherwise. If 'we' don't engage in politics, hold politicians to account, step forward to take part in politics and are too apathetic to vote on and debate issues, we get exactly who we deserve. Pretty self-apparent really.

So I engaged.....Voted Green and deserve a Tory leader.......

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:What is the world coming to when Conservative members and voters get the leader they want.

That's fine. No problem with that. We get the leaders we deserve.

Simplistic nonsense.

Nice. It's true though, no matter that you think otherwise. If 'we' don't engage in politics, hold politicians to account, step forward to take part in politics and are too apathetic to vote on and debate issues, we get exactly who we deserve. Pretty self-apparent really.

So I engaged.....Voted Green and deserve a Tory leader.......

Statement refuted with aplomb.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:What is the world coming to when Conservative members and voters get the leader they want.

That's fine. No problem with that. We get the leaders we deserve.

Simplistic nonsense.

Nice. It's true though, no matter that you think otherwise. If 'we' don't engage in politics, hold politicians to account, step forward to take part in politics and are too apathetic to vote on and debate issues, we get exactly who we deserve. Pretty self-apparent really.

So I engaged.....Voted Green and deserve a Tory leader.......

You could argue that voting Green anywhere other than Brighton mean that you deserve a Tory leader, yes.

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:What is the world coming to when Conservative members and voters get the leader they want.

That's fine. No problem with that. We get the leaders we deserve.

Simplistic nonsense.

Nice. It's true though, no matter that you think otherwise. If 'we' don't engage in politics, hold politicians to account, step forward to take part in politics and are too apathetic to vote on and debate issues, we get exactly who we deserve. Pretty self-apparent really.

So I engaged.....Voted Green and deserve a Tory leader.......

You could argue that voting Green anywhere other than Brighton mean that you deserve a Tory leader, yes.

So you deserve someone you completely disagree with because there aren't candidates for a party sharing your views in every constituency in the country? Good logic.

Scottrf wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:What is the world coming to when Conservative members and voters get the leader they want.

That's fine. No problem with that. We get the leaders we deserve.

Simplistic nonsense.

Nice. It's true though, no matter that you think otherwise. If 'we' don't engage in politics, hold politicians to account, step forward to take part in politics and are too apathetic to vote on and debate issues, we get exactly who we deserve. Pretty self-apparent really.

So I engaged.....Voted Green and deserve a Tory leader.......

You could argue that voting Green anywhere other than Brighton mean that you deserve a Tory leader, yes.

So you deserve someone you completely disagree with because there aren't candidates for a party sharing your views in every constituency in the country? Good logic.

No, you deserve someone you completely disagree with because you voted for a party that didn't stand a chance of winning the seat in your constituency.

Pr4wn wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:What is the world coming to when Conservative members and voters get the leader they want.

That's fine. No problem with that. We get the leaders we deserve.

Simplistic nonsense.

Nice. It's true though, no matter that you think otherwise. If 'we' don't engage in politics, hold politicians to account, step forward to take part in politics and are too apathetic to vote on and debate issues, we get exactly who we deserve. Pretty self-apparent really.

So I engaged.....Voted Green and deserve a Tory leader.......

You could argue that voting Green anywhere other than Brighton mean that you deserve a Tory leader, yes.

So you deserve someone you completely disagree with because there aren't candidates for a party sharing your views in every constituency in the country? Good logic.

No, you deserve someone you completely disagree with because you voted for a party that didn't stand a chance of winning the seat in your constituency.

But what if you vote for someone that does have a chance, and has completely the opposite viewpoint of the leader? And they even win their seat. But still you have a leader you deserve because umm... phrases.

So voting for the party who you agree with is wrong because you didn't tactically vote for a party you don't agree with?

Scottrf wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:What is the world coming to when Conservative members and voters get the leader they want.

That's fine. No problem with that. We get the leaders we deserve.

Simplistic nonsense.

Nice. It's true though, no matter that you think otherwise. If 'we' don't engage in politics, hold politicians to account, step forward to take part in politics and are too apathetic to vote on and debate issues, we get exactly who we deserve. Pretty self-apparent really.

So I engaged.....Voted Green and deserve a Tory leader.......

You could argue that voting Green anywhere other than Brighton mean that you deserve a Tory leader, yes.

So you deserve someone you completely disagree with because there aren't candidates for a party sharing your views in every constituency in the country? Good logic.

No, you deserve someone you completely disagree with because you voted for a party that didn't stand a chance of winning the seat in your constituency.

But what if you vote for someone that does have a chance, and has completely the opposite viewpoint of the leader? And they even win their seat. But still you have a leader you deserve because umm... phrases.

Without going into too much pedantry, I think that the point is that the nation as a whole deserve the leaders it gets. Truss chose to make it personal.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Emily Thornberry is favorite for the Labour leadership now.......5/1...6/1...etc

Hope you guys of a betting disposition lumped on when I said she would be a shoo in when she was back on 16/1 ...

A Corbyn loyalist will get the job.............The threshold is now only 10% of MPs (30 left wingers at least).....It is a left wing membership............They will think it is time a Woman got the job...

Len McClusky of Unite loves her...

Getting Emily Thornberry in would be a sure tactic to keep Labour out.

Personally think the next leader will be Jarvis or Starmer, but Saint Jeremy will hang on for a little while longer.

Jarvis was part of the coup..........Starmer has a left wing membership to contend with

I was at the count for the two Barnsley constituencies on the night of the GE. 

Great fun watching Dan Jarvis amend his victory speech from a pitch for leadership to a ‘well done Jeremy’ angle.

Pr4wn wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:What is the world coming to when Conservative members and voters get the leader they want.

That's fine. No problem with that. We get the leaders we deserve.

Simplistic nonsense.

Nice. It's true though, no matter that you think otherwise. If 'we' don't engage in politics, hold politicians to account, step forward to take part in politics and are too apathetic to vote on and debate issues, we get exactly who we deserve. Pretty self-apparent really.

So I engaged.....Voted Green and deserve a Tory leader.......

You could argue that voting Green anywhere other than Brighton mean that you deserve a Tory leader, yes.

So you deserve someone you completely disagree with because there aren't candidates for a party sharing your views in every constituency in the country? Good logic.

No, you deserve someone you completely disagree with because you voted for a party that didn't stand a chance of winning the seat in your constituency.

But what if you vote for someone that does have a chance, and has completely the opposite viewpoint of the leader? And they even win their seat. But still you have a leader you deserve because umm... phrases.

I think that the point is that the nation as a whole deserve the leaders it gets. Truss chose to make it personal.

That's what the Jews thought when they got Hitler.........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:What is the world coming to when Conservative members and voters get the leader they want.

That's fine. No problem with that. We get the leaders we deserve.

Simplistic nonsense.

Nice. It's true though, no matter that you think otherwise. If 'we' don't engage in politics, hold politicians to account, step forward to take part in politics and are too apathetic to vote on and debate issues, we get exactly who we deserve. Pretty self-apparent really.

So I engaged.....Voted Green and deserve a Tory leader.......

My sympathies. I voted LD .

Pr4wn wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:What is the world coming to when Conservative members and voters get the leader they want.

That's fine. No problem with that. We get the leaders we deserve.

Simplistic nonsense.

Nice. It's true though, no matter that you think otherwise. If 'we' don't engage in politics, hold politicians to account, step forward to take part in politics and are too apathetic to vote on and debate issues, we get exactly who we deserve. Pretty self-apparent really.

So I engaged.....Voted Green and deserve a Tory leader.......

You could argue that voting Green anywhere other than Brighton mean that you deserve a Tory leader, yes.

So you deserve someone you completely disagree with because there aren't candidates for a party sharing your views in every constituency in the country? Good logic.

No, you deserve someone you completely disagree with because you voted for a party that didn't stand a chance of winning the seat in your constituency.

But what if you vote for someone that does have a chance, and has completely the opposite viewpoint of the leader? And they even win their seat. But still you have a leader you deserve because umm... phrases.

Without going into too much pedantry, I think that the point is that the nation as a whole deserve the leaders it gets. Truss chose to make it personal.

Amazing. Someone gets it ...

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:What is the world coming to when Conservative members and voters get the leader they want.

That's fine. No problem with that. We get the leaders we deserve.

Simplistic nonsense.

Nice. It's true though, no matter that you think otherwise. If 'we' don't engage in politics, hold politicians to account, step forward to take part in politics and are too apathetic to vote on and debate issues, we get exactly who we deserve. Pretty self-apparent really.

So I engaged.....Voted Green and deserve a Tory leader.......

You could argue that voting Green anywhere other than Brighton mean that you deserve a Tory leader, yes.

So you deserve someone you completely disagree with because there aren't candidates for a party sharing your views in every constituency in the country? Good logic.

No, you deserve someone you completely disagree with because you voted for a party that didn't stand a chance of winning the seat in your constituency.

But what if you vote for someone that does have a chance, and has completely the opposite viewpoint of the leader? And they even win their seat. But still you have a leader you deserve because umm... phrases.

Without going into too much pedantry, I think that the point is that the nation as a whole deserve the leaders it gets. Truss chose to make it personal.

Amazing. Someone gets it ...

I got the point....Just thought it was wishy washy......Like with the Clinton stuff it gives useless politicians a get out of jail card...

"Well it was the fault of the public for not being engaged.."

In what sense? Are politicians meant to save us from ourselves?

Corbyn engaged the kids more than Ed Miliband did..

That is the fault of the public...Not Ed ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:What is the world coming to when Conservative members and voters get the leader they want.

That's fine. No problem with that. We get the leaders we deserve.

Simplistic nonsense.

Nice. It's true though, no matter that you think otherwise. If 'we' don't engage in politics, hold politicians to account, step forward to take part in politics and are too apathetic to vote on and debate issues, we get exactly who we deserve. Pretty self-apparent really.

So I engaged.....Voted Green and deserve a Tory leader.......

You could argue that voting Green anywhere other than Brighton mean that you deserve a Tory leader, yes.

So you deserve someone you completely disagree with because there aren't candidates for a party sharing your views in every constituency in the country? Good logic.

No, you deserve someone you completely disagree with because you voted for a party that didn't stand a chance of winning the seat in your constituency.

But what if you vote for someone that does have a chance, and has completely the opposite viewpoint of the leader? And they even win their seat. But still you have a leader you deserve because umm... phrases.

Without going into too much pedantry, I think that the point is that the nation as a whole deserve the leaders it gets. Truss chose to make it personal.

Amazing. Someone gets it ...

I got the point....Just thought it was wishy washy......Like with the Clinton stuff it gives useless politicians a get out of jail card...

"Well it was the fault of the public for not being engaged.."

Yep, we shouldn't let crappy politicians get away with anything. I wasn't trying to imply that everything bad about current politics is down to the electorate.

So in conclusion... Clinton lost because of misogny... and then...She didn't lose because of it... but we can't prove misogny didn't exist in the Election.

Then... The Country deserves the Government it gets.. and then....It isn't all down to the Country..So it probably doesn't..

I think we should move on mate...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So in conclusion... Clinton lost because of misogny... and then...She didn't lose because of it... but we can't prove misogny didn't exist in the Election.

Then... The Country deserves the Government it gets.. and then....It isn't all down to the Country..So it probably doesn't..

I think we should move on mate...

And I thought you were, generally, one of the more sensible here. Well done on your WUM commentary, above, and its deliberate misinterpretation of nuance. A perfect exemplar of many a recent troublesome post.

You know what? Nothing on here ever changes the opinions of anyone here. More or less the definition of pointless. Dyed in the wool and never going to change. Enjoy.

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So in conclusion... Clinton lost because of misogny... and then...She didn't lose because of it... but we can't prove misogny didn't exist in the Election.

Then... The Country deserves the Government it gets.. and then....It isn't all down to the Country..So it probably doesn't..

I think we should move on mate...

And I thought you were, generally, one of the more sensible here. Well done on your WUM commentary, above, and its deliberate misinterpretation of nuance. A perfect exemplar of many a recent troublesome post.

You know what? Nothing on here ever changes the opinions of anyone here. More or less the definition of pointless. Dyed in the wool and never going to change. Enjoy.

Don't get sensitive on me....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Corbyn engaged the kids more than Ed Miliband did..

That is the fault of the public...Not Ed  ??

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

If we have a bad prime minister, mp etc we get the opportunity to vote them out next time around - we don't get to blame their opponent for not engaging the electorate enough etc

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:What is the world coming to when Conservative members and voters get the leader they want.

That's fine. No problem with that. We get the leaders we deserve.

Simplistic nonsense.

Nice. It's true though, no matter that you think otherwise. If 'we' don't engage in politics, hold politicians to account, step forward to take part in politics and are too apathetic to vote on and debate issues, we get exactly who we deserve. Pretty self-apparent really.

So I engaged.....Voted Green and deserve a Tory leader.......

You could argue that voting Green anywhere other than Brighton mean that you deserve a Tory leader, yes.

So you deserve someone you completely disagree with because there aren't candidates for a party sharing your views in every constituency in the country? Good logic.

No, you deserve someone you completely disagree with because you voted for a party that didn't stand a chance of winning the seat in your constituency.

But what if you vote for someone that does have a chance, and has completely the opposite viewpoint of the leader? And they even win their seat. But still you have a leader you deserve because umm... phrases.

Without going into too much pedantry, I think that the point is that the nation as a whole deserve the leaders it gets. Truss chose to make it personal.

Amazing. Someone gets it ...

I got the point....Just thought it was wishy washy......Like with the Clinton stuff it gives useless politicians a get out of jail card...

"Well it was the fault of the public for not being engaged.."

Yep, we shouldn't let crappy politicians get away with anything. I wasn't trying to imply that everything bad about current politics is down to the electorate.

We get the opportunity to vote them out, that is how we don't let them get away with things.

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:So in conclusion... Clinton lost because of misogny... and then...She didn't lose because of it... but we can't prove misogny didn't exist in the Election.

Then... The Country deserves the Government it gets.. and then....It isn't all down to the Country..So it probably doesn't..

I think we should move on mate...

And I thought you were, generally, one of the more sensible here. Well done on your WUM commentary, above, and its deliberate misinterpretation of nuance. A perfect exemplar of many a recent troublesome post.

You know what? Nothing on here ever changes the opinions of anyone here. More or less the definition of pointless. Dyed in the wool and never going to change. Enjoy.

Maybe if there was some discussion there would be. Doesn't appear to be in demand, just people sniping at each other.

I'll be surprised if May lasts much longer..........Been a bad week... not only has the Vegas shooter overshadowed the Conference......But pretty much everything that could go wrong went wrong today it seems.............Luck is like the tide.. when it is out it really is out and she was cheap shotted today by events.....

She's come in from 3/1 to 7/5 to go this year................Me thinks the end will come sooner rather than later.....

For her own well being if nothing else..

Never bet against BoJo...

The speech today has been overblown, an idiot like that will do more harm to the opposition with older voters I'd have thought, total lack of respect.

Johnson is waiting for the perfect moment to pounce and from his perspective it's a lot easier if he gets stepped down.

I thought the speech was a lot like May's premiership so far. She's spluttering, struggling and stumbling her way through it, desperately trying to show a more human side to herself. But she just can't.

With regard to Johnson, I cannot think of a more sycophantic, self-serving snake in British politics.

Jeremy Corbyn.

Care to say why? Or are you just wumming?

Where was your reasoning or are you above all that?

He's a vile slimeball who uses each and every event in this country as a photo opportunity, his links to Gerry Adams are unforgivable and his association with Diane Abbott just as bad. He'll economically cripple this country given the chance just to make sure the rich are that little bit poorer, not giving a damn of the effect it will have on the poor.

As Margaret Thatcher said; 'The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money' or 'Socilalists would rather have the poor poorer as long as the rich were less rich'. Sums up Corbyn perfectly to me.

It's OK for you to badmouth politicians you don't like but anyone doing it to your idols is seemingly unacceptable.

Not really, you just don't really offer a very compelling argument. You mention his links to Diane Abbott, strangely. Not sure what she's done that's so nefarious other than have politics that you disagree with.

Boris Johnson, on the other hand, has backtracked on everything and undermined his superiors for his entire career.

- The architect of the most famous lie of the Brexit campaign wasn't even a Brexit supporter until fairly late-on when he thought it would help him realise his ambition to become PM.
- He told an ex-senior fire officer to "get stuffed" when it was put to him that massive cuts to emergency services budgets may endanger the public.
- He compared the EU to the Nazis
- He wrote this about FGM "Almost every dollar of Western aid seems tied to some programme of female emancipation — stamping out clitorectomy, polygamy, bride-price, or whatever. And while some readers may feel vaguely that the African male should not be stampeded into abandoning his ancient prerogatives, one cannot doubt the care — bordering on obsession — with which Western workers pursue their ends.”
- He railed against the city of Liverpool for failing to accept that Hillborough was their own fault.
- He was sacked by the Times for fabricating a quotation.
- He was sacked by Michael Howard for lying about his private life.
- We all saw his puerile, crass and offensive comments yesterday about Libya.

While Corbyn is far from the perfect Labour leader, you're making assertions about his policies and quoting Thatcher, seemingly to try to use that as evidence to back up your claims? All a bit odd, really.

Corbyn can be accused of being many things. Economically illiterate is one for sure. But to accuse him of being a sycophant is ridiculous. He's been an MP since 1983 and before that, he worked in trade unions fighting for the rights of others. He's a former chair of the Stop the War coalition. He was a prominent anti-apartheid campaigner.

As for his "links" to Gerry Adams, this has all been well-documented. He's a firm believer in dialogue being used to resolve conflict. He met with Adams and even with former IRA members in an attempt to resolve the ongoing conflict in Northern Ireland. He has never come out in favour of Adams or the IRA.

Diane Abbott; 'every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.'

You're aware yes that nobody involved in the peace process in Northern Ireland knows of any involvement Jeremy Corbyn had, he seemingly has managed to convince the blind that he's Jesus based on nothing. Strange how you've not provided any evidence for your opinions, being such a stickler for such things this surprises somewhat, now you clearly don't understand the emotions surrounding the troubles and how could you reading about it online.

You mention dialogue but as far back as 1985 he voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement because it didn't suit the IRA quite enough for his liking, he used the excuse of being for the unification of North and South as a whole Ireland. It takes a special kind of stupid to think a back bench MP with no backing is talking to the IRA in an attempt to broker peace.

I can use whatever quotes and sources I wish to back up my claims, as a Thatcherite I find her quotes on Socialism to be telling and relevant; it's primary aim is to take wealth away from the rich with promises of distributing it elsewhere. That of course never happens but it sounds good though doesn't it, I fortunately grew out of believing such rubbish many years ago, maybe one day you will too.

I see you've fallen for believing that the Brexit slogan meant using all of that money for the NHS, tut tut.

The thread title should be change to Political wind up...............

https://goo.gl/images/y8R3hp

Corbyn is a genuinely decent guy, as much politics will taint anyone. I dont think he is PM material and his politics would be disastrous for Britain. He would have made a better social worker.

Boris Johnson is horribly outdated individual. A career, self serving politician that would be more at home centuries ago in Imperial Age Britain.

The Conservatives are a mess and Labour dont really offer a credible alternative. Both parties have and will succeed in taking Britain back decades over the coming years I fear.

catchweight wrote:Corbyn is a genuinely decent guy, as much politics will taint anyone. I dont think he is PM material and his politics would be disastrous for Britain. He would have made a better social worker.

Boris Johnson is horribly outdated individual. A career, self serving politician that would be more at home centuries ago in Imperial Age Britain.

The Conservatives are a mess and Labour dont really offer a credible alternative. Both parties have and will succeed in taking Britain back decades over the coming years I fear.

Couldn't agree more.

catchweight wrote:
The Conservatives are a mess and Labour dont really offer a credible alternative. Both parties have and will succeed in taking Britain back decades over the coming years I fear.

Yes, but they will both be propped up by the ancient FPTP system, the outdated media, and millions of pounds in donations.

Sorry but genuinely decent guys don't have numerous links to terrorist organisations nor do they turn a blind eye to antisemitism. People seem to think he's a decent guy based on very little.

LionsV2 wrote:Sorry but genuinely decent guys don't have numerous links to terrorist organisations nor do they turn a blind eye to antisemitism. People seem to think he's a decent guy based on very little.

Deliberately misleading crap and you know it.

It's not misleading whatsoever, inviting members of the IRA to parliament after the Brighton bombing, you might wish to overlook all that but I'm not.

LionsV2 wrote:It's not misleading whatsoever, inviting members of the IRA to parliament after the Brighton bombing, you might wish to overlook all that but I'm not.

Which politicians haven't had meetings with terrorists? Of course it's misleading to say 'links with' when you mean 'met with'. You find ways to excuse the behaviour of people you like (Rees-Mogg, BoJo) and attack those that don't.