You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn
June 17 2019 1.02pm

Jeremy Corbyn

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 2 of 422 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

 

View fed up eagle's Profile fed up eagle Flag Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 27 Jul 15 6.14pm Send a Private Message to fed up eagle Add fed up eagle as a friend

Corbyn wants to nationalise the banks, the railways and we all know that that would be a disater.
He wants nuclear dis-armourment, wants to boycott Israeli goods and believes Hamas are friends.
He believes profit is a dirty word and wants to fleece the rich, which will put off investors coming here.
He's a class warrior and wants to take us back to the politics of the eighties, which was a god awful time!
He also has close ties to the unions and will no doubt be another union puppet.
In short he's the new Michael Foot!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View serial thriller's Profile serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 27 Jul 15 6.30pm Send a Private Message to serial thriller Add serial thriller as a friend

Quote fed up eagle at 27 Jul 2015 6.14pm

Corbyn wants to nationalise the banks, the railways and we all know that that would be a disater.
He wants nuclear dis-armourment, wants to boycott Israeli goods and believes Hamas are friends.
He believes profit is a dirty word and wants to fleece the rich, which will put off investors coming here.
He's a class warrior and wants to take us back to the politics of the eighties, which was a god awful time!
He also has close ties to the unions and will no doubt be another union puppet.
In short he's the new Michael Foot!


Privatising the railways has lead to a massive decline in efficiency. Ticket prices are the highest in Europe, while the 200 billion subsidy the railways received from the government almost exactly matched the figure given to shareholders as payouts last year. In other words it's as corrupt as f*ck. A nationalised bank is a very interesting economic idea, and one we have to various degrees already, so definitely not a particularly radical policy.

I struggle to see what's wrong with the second point, and don't be so facile as to remove his comment from the context everyone now knows.

The third point is about as generalised as it gets.

At least he wants to take us to the politics of the 1980s as opposed to the 1880s which this government seems to want! In all seriousness, times have changed and so have the desires of the left. Austerity, tax avoidance and climate change are now huge issues that were barely discussed in the 80s. They are also issues which hold great levels of engagement for much of the public.

He has ties with the unions because the whole purpose of the Labour party is to offer a parliamentary voice to the Labour movement. Would I rather he represented the voices of the 8 million trade union members in this country, or the couple of dozen major donors to the Conservative party who are able to influence key elements of policy? Hmm, tough choice...

 


If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View chris123's Profile chris123 Online Flag hove actually 27 Jul 15 6.36pm Send a Private Message to chris123 Add chris123 as a friend

Quote serial thriller at 27 Jul 2015 6.30pm

Quote fed up eagle at 27 Jul 2015 6.14pm

Corbyn wants to nationalise the banks, the railways and we all know that that would be a disater.
He wants nuclear dis-armourment, wants to boycott Israeli goods and believes Hamas are friends.
He believes profit is a dirty word and wants to fleece the rich, which will put off investors coming here.
He's a class warrior and wants to take us back to the politics of the eighties, which was a god awful time!
He also has close ties to the unions and will no doubt be another union puppet.
In short he's the new Michael Foot!


Privatising the railways has lead to a massive decline in efficiency. Ticket prices are the highest in Europe, while the 200 billion subsidy the railways received from the government almost exactly matched the figure given to shareholders as payouts last year. In other words it's as corrupt as f*ck. A nationalised bank is a very interesting economic idea, and one we have to various degrees already, so definitely not a particularly radical policy.

I struggle to see what's wrong with the second point, and don't be so facile as to remove his comment from the context everyone now knows.

The third point is about as generalised as it gets.

At least he wants to take us to the politics of the 1980s as opposed to the 1880s which this government seems to want! In all seriousness, times have changed and so have the desires of the left. Austerity, tax avoidance and climate change are now huge issues that were barely discussed in the 80s. They are also issues which hold great levels of engagement for much of the public.

He has ties with the unions because the whole purpose of the Labour party is to offer a parliamentary voice to the Labour movement. Would I rather he represented the voices of the 8 million trade union members in this country, or the couple of dozen major donors to the Conservative party who are able to influence key elements of policy? Hmm, tough choice...


Do you remember life under BR?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Kermit8's Profile Kermit8 Flag Hevon 27 Jul 15 6.38pm Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

Cameron and the Eton elite and the vast majority of Tory MPs since way back are all class warriors. They have fought tooth and nail for their class and throw out a few crumbs as required to keep the rest docile and unquestioning.

Marx was right about a helluvalot of things too.

 


Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]


Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Kermit8's Profile Kermit8 Flag Hevon 27 Jul 15 6.41pm Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

Quote chris123 at 27 Jul 2015 6.36pm

Quote serial thriller at 27 Jul 2015 6.30pm

Quote fed up eagle at 27 Jul 2015 6.14pm

Corbyn wants to nationalise the banks, the railways and we all know that that would be a disater.
He wants nuclear dis-armourment, wants to boycott Israeli goods and believes Hamas are friends.
He believes profit is a dirty word and wants to fleece the rich, which will put off investors coming here.
He's a class warrior and wants to take us back to the politics of the eighties, which was a god awful time!
He also has close ties to the unions and will no doubt be another union puppet.
In short he's the new Michael Foot!


Privatising the railways has lead to a massive decline in efficiency. Ticket prices are the highest in Europe, while the 200 billion subsidy the railways received from the government almost exactly matched the figure given to shareholders as payouts last year. In other words it's as corrupt as f*ck. A nationalised bank is a very interesting economic idea, and one we have to various degrees already, so definitely not a particularly radical policy.

I struggle to see what's wrong with the second point, and don't be so facile as to remove his comment from the context everyone now knows.

The third point is about as generalised as it gets.

At least he wants to take us to the politics of the 1980s as opposed to the 1880s which this government seems to want! In all seriousness, times have changed and so have the desires of the left. Austerity, tax avoidance and climate change are now huge issues that were barely discussed in the 80s. They are also issues which hold great levels of engagement for much of the public.

He has ties with the unions because the whole purpose of the Labour party is to offer a parliamentary voice to the Labour movement. Would I rather he represented the voices of the 8 million trade union members in this country, or the couple of dozen major donors to the Conservative party who are able to influence key elements of policy? Hmm, tough choice...


Do you remember life under BR?


I do. Cheap rail tickets for a crap service as opposed to the stupidly expensive ones today but which are also for a crap service. And not owned by lots of foreign companies either funnelling the profits out of the UK.

 


Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]


Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
legaleagle Flag 27 Jul 15 6.43pm

Quote chris123 at 27 Jul 2015 6.36pm

Quote serial thriller at 27 Jul 2015 6.30pm

Quote fed up eagle at 27 Jul 2015 6.14pm

Corbyn wants to nationalise the banks, the railways and we all know that that would be a disater.
He wants nuclear dis-armourment, wants to boycott Israeli goods and believes Hamas are friends.
He believes profit is a dirty word and wants to fleece the rich, which will put off investors coming here.
He's a class warrior and wants to take us back to the politics of the eighties, which was a god awful time!
He also has close ties to the unions and will no doubt be another union puppet.
In short he's the new Michael Foot!


Privatising the railways has lead to a massive decline in efficiency. Ticket prices are the highest in Europe, while the 200 billion subsidy the railways received from the government almost exactly matched the figure given to shareholders as payouts last year. In other words it's as corrupt as f*ck. A nationalised bank is a very interesting economic idea, and one we have to various degrees already, so definitely not a particularly radical policy.

I struggle to see what's wrong with the second point, and don't be so facile as to remove his comment from the context everyone now knows.

The third point is about as generalised as it gets.

At least he wants to take us to the politics of the 1980s as opposed to the 1880s which this government seems to want! In all seriousness, times have changed and so have the desires of the left. Austerity, tax avoidance and climate change are now huge issues that were barely discussed in the 80s. They are also issues which hold great levels of engagement for much of the public.

He has ties with the unions because the whole purpose of the Labour party is to offer a parliamentary voice to the Labour movement. Would I rather he represented the voices of the 8 million trade union members in this country, or the couple of dozen major donors to the Conservative party who are able to influence key elements of policy? Hmm, tough choice...


Do you remember life under BR?

Yes.Don't remember it,overall and taking cost into account,as worse than life with Network South East,not to mention Great Western or Virgin.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View CheeseRolls's Profile CheeseRolls Flag Cheshire 27 Jul 15 6.45pm Send a Private Message to CheeseRolls Add CheeseRolls as a friend

As I see it, the Conservatives won with 24% of the population voting for them, about 35% of those registered to vote. That suggests a large proportion not aligned with them and their policies. No-one is going to out-Tory the Tories, they have the centre-right sewn up. Therefore, surely an effective opposition has to offer a real alternative. Labour, as it has been proven, largely supports (or won't oppose) the policies of both the coalition and the current government. They offer no opposition as it stands. Personally, I think they have to elect Corbyn and offer a modern set of social/left policies that offer something different even if only to start debates about the important issues and then see if enough of the 65% of the electorate who did not vote for this government side more with them and possibly inspire those who don't vote to do so. Tough ask though!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Sedlescombe's Profile Sedlescombe Flag Sedlescombe 27 Jul 15 7.10pm Send a Private Message to Sedlescombe Add Sedlescombe as a friend

Quote leggedstruggle at 27 Jul 2015 5.13pm

Quote phillanth at 27 Jul 2015 5.08pm

What's wrong with being a Marxist? Please explain?

The mountains of corpses they tend to generate?

If you are blaming Marx (and by extension COrbyn( ith the deaths say in the Soviet Union are you also willing to accept that Hayek/Friendman and therefore Cameron and Thatcher are responsible for the mass murders in Chile?


 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View fed up eagle's Profile fed up eagle Flag Between Horley, Surrey and Preston... 27 Jul 15 7.12pm Send a Private Message to fed up eagle Add fed up eagle as a friend

Well the far left posters seem to think that Corbyn is the mut's nuts. They don't see him as an idealistic clown who would place this country in great danger, but then they'd be happy living in a Marxist utopia where the rich and upwardly mobile are burnt at the stake whilst money is lavished on the terminally selfish, stupid and lazy.
Welcome to socialist paradise.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Sedlescombe's Profile Sedlescombe Flag Sedlescombe 27 Jul 15 7.13pm Send a Private Message to Sedlescombe Add Sedlescombe as a friend

Quote fed up eagle at 27 Jul 2015 5.27pm

Quote nickgusset at 27 Jul 2015 5.02pm

Quote fed up eagle at 27 Jul 2015 4.58pm

Well where to start! The guys as marxist as they come. Anyone see him on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday? I was listening to BBC Radio 5live this morning on the way to work and apparently even Tories are signing upto the Labour party and putting in a vote for him in the leadership race, along with hard line crazy leftists. Would be hilarious if he won the leadership contest. Labour would be even more unelectable, which serves them right after what they've done to this country.


So which part of his proposed policies do you not agree with and why?

How will he make labour more unelectable?

I'm genuinely interested in what you think about 70% of the public agreeing with rail nationalisation.

What are your concerns about Corbyn's plans for a national bank?

Do you not agree with investment for growth?

1) Nationalising the railways? That didn't work

2) He wants to return to the politics of the eighties

3) He's another union stooge

4) Has utter contempt for the middle class, which makes up a big swave of the population.

5) He won't deny that he's a marxist and has the support of extreme left factions, need I say more.

Edited by fed up eagle (27 Jul 2015 5.33pm)

Seriously. You are using the Railways AGAINST Corbyn. Ha Ha Ha Ha

I presume extreme left is anything you don't agree with.

Point 2 is actually the one valid argument you have. He does seem to be fighting the 1983 election all over again

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 27 Jul 15 7.32pm

Quote fed up eagle at 27 Jul 2015 7.12pm

Well the far left posters seem to think that Corbyn is the mut's nuts. They don't see him as an idealistic clown who would place this country in great danger, but then they'd be happy living in a Marxist utopia where the rich and upwardly mobile are burnt at the stake whilst money is lavished on the terminally selfish, stupid and lazy.
Welcome to socialist paradise.


A well thought out and reasoned response full of fact and evidence. Well done. There aren't enough posters of your calibre on HOL.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 27 Jul 15 7.53pm

Quote Sedlescombe at 27 Jul 2015 7.10pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 27 Jul 2015 5.13pm

Quote phillanth at 27 Jul 2015 5.08pm

What's wrong with being a Marxist? Please explain?

The mountains of corpses they tend to generate?

If you are blaming Marx (and by extension COrbyn( ith the deaths say in the Soviet Union are you also willing to accept that Hayek/Friendman and therefore Cameron and Thatcher are responsible for the mass murders in Chile?


Certainly I blame Marx whose dictatorship of the proletariat under Stalin caused at least 20,000,000 deaths - compared to deaths by the fascists in Chile put at between 4000 and 30,000 max. Obviously Corbyn is not responsible in any way for the crimes of the various Marxist regimes as Cameron is obviously not responsible for fascist Chile. The point is that Marxists tend to accelerate their atrocities when their mad schemes are seen to fail; they have to find victims to blame when reality contradicts their deluded beliefs.

 


mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 2 of 422 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn