Join the Labour Party and save your country!

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DUP - "Hold my blackcurrant cordial"

http://www.irishnews.com/news/northerni ... y-1408991/

I thought Jezza was an IRA man?

I think the point is that the DUP are propping up the very party that is attacking Corbyn for his cozying up to terrorists.

gotcha

rjsterry

Obviously with the DUP it's all very arm's-length. Maintain deniability and all that.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Leila Khaled, another friend of Jezza.
Perhaps he has developed amnesia again about other events he atteded.

https://order-order.com/2017/05/30/corb ... -hijacker/

Good find Bally.

I wonder if Leila Khaled is getting any bad press for sharing a platform with a beardy nutter who wants to hijack an entire country?

tailwindhome

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Leila Khaled, another friend of Jezza.
Perhaps he has developed amnesia again about other events he atteded.

https://order-order.com/2017/05/30/corb ... -hijacker/

Good find Bally.

I wonder if Leila Khaled is getting any bad press for sharing a platform with a beardy nutter who wants to hijack an entire country?

You literally started a thread encouraging people to vote for him.

Stevo_666

TailWindHome wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Leila Khaled, another friend of Jezza.
Perhaps he has developed amnesia again about other events he atteded.

https://order-order.com/2017/05/30/corb ... -hijacker/

Good find Bally.

I wonder if Leila Khaled is getting any bad press for sharing a platform with a beardy nutter who wants to hijack an entire country?

You literally started a thread encouraging people to vote for him.

Not literally, I did. Well spotted

Imagine if Corbyn hadn't won the leadership contest; Labour may well have won the last election. In the meantime, it can do no harm to trash his reputation. I've done my bit for the country

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Leila Khaled, another friend of Jezza.
Perhaps he has developed amnesia again about other events he atteded.

https://order-order.com/2017/05/30/corb ... -hijacker/

I wonder if Jezza has forgotten all 100 of these innocent mistakes?
https://order-order.com/2017/06/08/100-times-jeremy-corbyn-sided-terrorists/

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Leila Khaled, another friend of Jezza.
Perhaps he has developed amnesia again about other events he atteded.

https://order-order.com/2017/05/30/corb ... -hijacker/

I wonder if Jezza has forgotten all 100 of these innocent mistakes?
https://order-order.com/2017/06/08/100-times-jeremy-corbyn-sided-terrorists/

It won’t do any good. I keep pointing out he has been doing this for decades but nobody takes any notice

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Leila Khaled, another friend of Jezza.
Perhaps he has developed amnesia again about other events he atteded.

https://order-order.com/2017/05/30/corb ... -hijacker/

Good find Bally.

I wonder if Leila Khaled is getting any bad press for sharing a platform with a beardy nutter who wants to hijack an entire country?

You literally started a thread encouraging people to vote for him.

Not literally, I did. Well spotted

Imagine if Corbyn hadn't won the leadership contest; Labour may well have won the last election. In the meantime, it can do no harm to trash his reputation. I've done my bit for the country

You only need look to USA to see the risk involved in that approach.

Many of us would see a viable opposition as being good for democracy.

If we had a sane opposition would we have ended up in a better position with regards to Brexit?
If there was a sane Labour leader would the Tories be more likely to elect a sane successor to TM
What negative impact is the possibility of Corbyn/Mcdonell having on business confidence/investment sterling and borrowing costs.

It really could turn out to be an expensive bit of fun

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Leila Khaled, another friend of Jezza.
Perhaps he has developed amnesia again about other events he atteded.

https://order-order.com/2017/05/30/corb ... -hijacker/

I wonder if Jezza has forgotten all 100 of these innocent mistakes?
https://order-order.com/2017/06/08/100-times-jeremy-corbyn-sided-terrorists/

It won’t do any good. I keep pointing out he has been doing this for decades but nobody takes any notice

Maybe it needs more than just you to point it out - every little helps.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

You only need look to USA to see the risk involved in that approach.

Many of us would see a viable opposition as being good for democracy.

If we had a sane opposition would we have ended up in a better position with regards to Brexit?
If there was a sane Labour leader would the Tories be more likely to elect a sane successor to TM
What negative impact is the possibility of Corbyn/Mcdonell having on business confidence/investment sterling and borrowing costs.

It really could turn out to be an expensive bit of fun

If you have a look back at the link in the very first post, part of the idea is to let the looney left have its 'say', let it fail and consign it to the dustbin for some time. Not without risk granted, but even if the nutters do get in for a term, that will be enough to keep them out for the next generation - after which I won't care if I'm still alive. Some people are simply too young to remember how bad this lot were last time around.

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

You only need look to USA to see the risk involved in that approach.

Many of us would see a viable opposition as being good for democracy.

If we had a sane opposition would we have ended up in a better position with regards to Brexit?
If there was a sane Labour leader would the Tories be more likely to elect a sane successor to TM
What negative impact is the possibility of Corbyn/Mcdonell having on business confidence/investment sterling and borrowing costs.

It really could turn out to be an expensive bit of fun

If you have a look back at the link in the very first post, part of the idea is to let the looney left have its 'say', let it fail and consign it to the dustbin for some time. Not without risk granted, but even if the nutters do get in for a term, that will be enough to keep them out for the next generation - after which I won't care if I'm still alive. Some people are simply too young to remember how bad this lot were last time around.

Tell you what Stevo, here's a link to Labour's 2017 GE manifesto. Seeing as you're such an economic genius , tell us how these policies would have run the country into the ground. Let's assume there won't be a massive oil crisis this time to cripple the economy. Try comparing with other major economies to see how the UK would have stood with Labour in charge.

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

You only need look to USA to see the risk involved in that approach.

Many of us would see a viable opposition as being good for democracy.

If we had a sane opposition would we have ended up in a better position with regards to Brexit?
If there was a sane Labour leader would the Tories be more likely to elect a sane successor to TM
What negative impact is the possibility of Corbyn/Mcdonell having on business confidence/investment sterling and borrowing costs.

It really could turn out to be an expensive bit of fun

If you have a look back at the link in the very first post, part of the idea is to let the looney left have its 'say', let it fail and consign it to the dustbin for some time. Not without risk granted, but even if the nutters do get in for a term, that will be enough to keep them out for the next generation - after which I won't care if I'm still alive. Some people are simply too young to remember how bad this lot were last time around.

Tell you what Stevo, here's a link to Labour's 2017 GE manifesto. Seeing as you're such an economic genius , tell us how these policies would have run the country into the ground. Let's assume there won't be a massive oil crisis this time to cripple the economy. Try comparing with other major economies to see how the UK would have stood with Labour in charge.

I make no claims of economic genius, but it usually helps to know a bit more about it than whoever you're debating it with For starters, anyone who thinks that a Corbyn government would be overall good for the economy is very unlikely to be an economic genius...

Also I'm sure you know that to write a detailed deconstruction of all the points where they will harm the economy will take quite some time. (BTW Does that include that reading in between the lines of the weasel wording, or do you really think that a manifesto is exactly what they would do if elected?).

Anyway to save time there are plenty of articles on this subject and not all from sources that are Tory sympathisers. For example:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/corbyn-labour-mc-donnel-brexit-dangerous-for-the-uk-a7859501.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11870215/Jeremy-Corbyns-policies-will-hurt-economy-Mark-Carney-suggests.html
https://www.ft.com/content/fb397f44-e64b-11e7-97e2-916d4fbac0da
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-4509308/ALEX-BRUMMER-Labour-s-tax-policy-cripple-Britain.html

You can of course still look at Labours' previous records, as the oil crisis did not on its own account for the high level of strikes and union disruption, 25% inflation, having to go cap in hand to the IMF and the massive brain drain from punitive taxes etc. But I'm sure you know that.

So, now you tell me how a Corbyn government would be good for the UK

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

I make no claims of economic genius, but it usually helps to know a bit more about it than whoever you're debating it with For starters, anyone who thinks that a Corbyn government would be overall good for the economy is very unlikely to be an economic genius...

Really? Because you are stating that a Corbyn government would see Labour kicked into opposition for decades. So if you are claiming this with your usual levels of certainty and self-confidence, you must be an absolute genius.

Stevo 666 wrote:

Also I'm sure you know that to write a detailed deconstruction of all the points where they will harm the economy will take quite some time. (BTW Does that include that reading in between the lines of the weasel wording, or do you really think that a manifesto is exactly what they would do if elected?).

Great, so now you decide that they would be a disaster because of the policies that you THINK they would enact. That makes debating really easy. In all honesty, I don't think you'd be capable of doing a detailed deconstruction of their points. That's not meant as an insult by the way, probably only a fraction of 1% of the population would be able to do that.

Stevo 666 wrote:

Anyway to save time there are plenty of articles on this subject and not all from sources that are Tory sympathisers. For example:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/corbyn-labour-mc-donnel-brexit-dangerous-for-the-uk-a7859501.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11870215/Jeremy-Corbyns-policies-will-hurt-economy-Mark-Carney-suggests.html
https://www.ft.com/content/fb397f44-e64b-11e7-97e2-916d4fbac0da
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-4509308/ALEX-BRUMMER-Labour-s-tax-policy-cripple-Britain.html

Do you know the difference between "there will be some negative consequences" and "total disaster"?

Stevo 666 wrote:

You can of course still look at Labours' previous records, as the oil crisis did not on its own account for the high level of strikes and union disruption, 25% inflation, having to go cap in hand to the IMF and the massive brain drain from punitive taxes etc. But I'm sure you know that.

And I'm not so sure that you're aware that problems can build up for ages before suddenly exploding. For example, inflation might have peaked under Labour, but it was at high levels even before the oil crisis, when the Tories were in power. I could easily counter that Labour still managed to hold unemployment rates down to about half the level they reached in the 1980s.

Stevo 666 wrote:

So, now you tell me how a Corbyn government would be good for the UK

I've already told you, I'm not planning on voting Labour just because of their Brexit policy. On just about every single policy issue, I'd still rather have Labour in power than the Tories, though.

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I make no claims of economic genius, but it usually helps to know a bit more about it than whoever you're debating it with For starters, anyone who thinks that a Corbyn government would be overall good for the economy is very unlikely to be an economic genius...

Really? Because you are stating that a Corbyn government would see Labour kicked into opposition for decades. So if you are claiming this with your usual levels of certainty and self-confidence, you must be an absolute genius.

Stevo 666 wrote:

Also I'm sure you know that to write a detailed deconstruction of all the points where they will harm the economy will take quite some time. (BTW Does that include that reading in between the lines of the weasel wording, or do you really think that a manifesto is exactly what they would do if elected?).

Great, so now you decide that they would be a disaster because of the policies that you THINK they would enact. That makes debating really easy. In all honesty, I don't think you'd be capable of doing a detailed deconstruction of their points. That's not meant as an insult by the way, probably only a fraction of 1% of the population would be able to do that.

Stevo 666 wrote:

Anyway to save time there are plenty of articles on this subject and not all from sources that are Tory sympathisers. For example:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/corbyn-labour-mc-donnel-brexit-dangerous-for-the-uk-a7859501.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11870215/Jeremy-Corbyns-policies-will-hurt-economy-Mark-Carney-suggests.html
https://www.ft.com/content/fb397f44-e64b-11e7-97e2-916d4fbac0da
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-4509308/ALEX-BRUMMER-Labour-s-tax-policy-cripple-Britain.html

Do you know the difference between "there will be some negative consequences" and "total disaster"?

Stevo 666 wrote:

You can of course still look at Labours' previous records, as the oil crisis did not on its own account for the high level of strikes and union disruption, 25% inflation, having to go cap in hand to the IMF and the massive brain drain from punitive taxes etc. But I'm sure you know that.

And I'm not so sure that you're aware that problems can build up for ages before suddenly exploding. For example, inflation might have peaked under Labour, but it was at high levels even before the oil crisis, when the Tories were in power. I could easily counter that Labour still managed to hold unemployment rates down to about half the level they reached in the 1980s.

Stevo 666 wrote:

So, now you tell me how a Corbyn government would be good for the UK

I've already told you, I'm not planning on voting Labour just because of their Brexit policy. On just about every single policy issue, I'd still rather have Labour in power than the Tories, though.

You may not be planning voting Labour but you still prefer them to the tories, and yet you can't or wont tell us how a Corbyn government would be good.

And if you think that Labour would stick to that manifesto, or that it sets out the whole story then you are naive. There is plenty of comment on what their plans entail and the likely consequences - maybe start by reading the links that I posted above.

rjsterry

With a certain irony, I note that Conservative MPs are now worried about entryism from Leave.EU supporters pushing for the replacement of Theresa May with someone more to their liking. Who'd do such a thing?

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

You may not be planning voting Labour but you still prefer them to the tories, and yet you can't or wont tell us how a Corbyn government would be good.

And if you think that Labour would stick to that manifesto, or that it sets out the whole story then you are naive. There is plenty of comment on what their plans entail and the likely consequences - maybe start by reading the links that I posted above.

OK, just a few examples - education: The Tories (and New Labour) spent billions of pounds on academies and free schools with no positive outcome. They could have spent that money on preventing experienced teachers from leaving the profession in droves, or maybe providing better facilities for vocational education or supporting the most vulnerable pupils.

Environment: The Conservatives tried (and failed) to use some really substandard scientific study to undermine the EU ban on neonicotinoids. Anyone who votes for a party which is happy to see the continued destruction of populations of key pollinators (hint: pollinators play a vital role in our food supply) should really give up the wise man act.

Defence: The nearest the world has come to nuclear war has been when one side or the other mistakenly believed they were possibly under attack. This has happened several times before, and there is no reason to believe it won't happen again. Therefore, scrapping Trident would, IMO, be a better policy than renewal, because you're less likely to be in the firing line if somebody tells Putin there are some ICBMs on the way.

Housing: Labour voted for legislation requiring that privately rented accommodation be fit for human habitation. The Tories voted against it.

Just a few examples of why I have never voted Tory and never will and am quite happy to see Labour ahead of the Tories in most recent opinion polls, even if they aren't going to get my vote.

As for your first sentence in the second paragraph, how do you propose that Corbyn will push through legislation which goes beyond what was in the manifesto considering that the Tories, Lib Dems and a significant number of Labour MPs would vote against it?

DeVlaeminck

Some speculation in the Guardian today that Chukka Umunna may be looking at setting up a new centrist political party. It does beg the question why he doesn't just join the Liberal Democrats - suppose he views their brand as toxic and of course he wouldn't be welcomed in as leader by their membership.

There's also a bit about some millionaire looking at setting up an anti-politics party along the lines of Macron in France - can't see that working given we don't have an elected president.

TheBigBean

To add a few to Finchy's list:
- Abolition of the PCTs and introduction of CCGs - The idea that clinicians with vested interests would do a better job of administration than adminstrators
- As above, but more doctors and nurses in the NHS instead of people capable of organising anything
- Effective taxes on renewable energy and removal of any subsidies for new onshore wind whilst at the same time offering tax breaks to shale oil exploration.
- Allowing up to £1m to be inherited tax free. Someone working on the national average salary would take 37 years to earn this amount and they would still need to pay tax on it. The Conservative party chose to do this at the same time as cutting everything else.
- The triple lock on pensions
- Requiring Brits to earn above a threshold to be able to live with their non-EU spouses who are not entitled to any benefits in any case
- Tuition fees
- Legal aid cuts
- Windrush scandal

Perhaps someone could remind me of positive things they have done.

rjsterry

Ham-fisted approach to stamp duty reform leading to lower receipts to the Exchequer and in part stalling the housing market.

UC implementation.

They did get marriage equality through, in spite of some of their own members.

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

Ham-fisted approach to stamp duty reform leading to lower receipts to the Exchequer and in part stalling the housing market.

In fairness, I don't think the primary purpose was to increase tax, instead it was to stop valuable properties being traded like gold. I appreciate it has probably put a bit of a dampener on your industry.

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Ham-fisted approach to stamp duty reform leading to lower receipts to the Exchequer and in part stalling the housing market.

In fairness, I don't think the primary purpose was to increase tax, instead it was to stop valuable properties being traded like gold. I appreciate it has probably put a bit of a dampener on your industry.

It's not really worked in that regard. The really top end stuff is still bought and sold for silly money but it has stopped everything moving at the threshold, where it is still vaguely normal (albeit pretty comfortable) people buying a home primarily to live in. Dare I say it, people like Stevo .

finchy

TheBigBean wrote:

Perhaps someone could remind me of positive things they have done.

Replaced modular exams at GCSE and A-level.
Stood behind the Iran nuclear deal when the USA pulled out.
I think they announced tougher sentencing for killer drivers, but don't know if they ever implemented it.

I think the parliamentary party probably would take a few other positive steps such as legalisation of soft drugs and prostitution, were they not absolutely terrified of the Daily Mail and its readership.

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You may not be planning voting Labour but you still prefer them to the tories, and yet you can't or wont tell us how a Corbyn government would be good.

And if you think that Labour would stick to that manifesto, or that it sets out the whole story then you are naive. There is plenty of comment on what their plans entail and the likely consequences - maybe start by reading the links that I posted above.

OK, just a few examples - education: The Tories (and New Labour) spent billions of pounds on academies and free schools with no positive outcome. They could have spent that money on preventing experienced teachers from leaving the profession in droves, or maybe providing better facilities for vocational education or supporting the most vulnerable pupils.

Environment: The Conservatives tried (and failed) to use some really substandard scientific study to undermine the EU ban on neonicotinoids. Anyone who votes for a party which is happy to see the continued destruction of populations of key pollinators (hint: pollinators play a vital role in our food supply) should really give up the wise man act.

Defence: The nearest the world has come to nuclear war has been when one side or the other mistakenly believed they were possibly under attack. This has happened several times before, and there is no reason to believe it won't happen again. Therefore, scrapping Trident would, IMO, be a better policy than renewal, because you're less likely to be in the firing line if somebody tells Putin there are some ICBMs on the way.

Housing: Labour voted for legislation requiring that privately rented accommodation be fit for human habitation. The Tories voted against it.

Just a few examples of why I have never voted Tory and never will and am quite happy to see Labour ahead of the Tories in most recent opinion polls, even if they aren't going to get my vote.

As for your first sentence in the second paragraph, how do you propose that Corbyn will push through legislation which goes beyond what was in the manifesto considering that the Tories, Lib Dems and a significant number of Labour MPs would vote against it?

Got sources for any of those? Quite a lot of that appears to be just your opinion.

Apart from union members and the long term unemployed, it is hard to see who would really benefit from New Old Labour policies. Apart from that, you'll need to do better than that to persuade me to vote for a party that is in reality hostile to business and anyone who works hard and tries to do the best for themselves and their families.

cycleclinic

Is it too much to ask to have political parties that are not at war with themselves? Is there any way out for labour without it splitting?

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You may not be planning voting Labour but you still prefer them to the tories, and yet you can't or wont tell us how a Corbyn government would be good.

And if you think that Labour would stick to that manifesto, or that it sets out the whole story then you are naive. There is plenty of comment on what their plans entail and the likely consequences - maybe start by reading the links that I posted above.

OK, just a few examples - education: The Tories (and New Labour) spent billions of pounds on academies and free schools with no positive outcome. They could have spent that money on preventing experienced teachers from leaving the profession in droves, or maybe providing better facilities for vocational education or supporting the most vulnerable pupils.

Environment: The Conservatives tried (and failed) to use some really substandard scientific study to undermine the EU ban on neonicotinoids. Anyone who votes for a party which is happy to see the continued destruction of populations of key pollinators (hint: pollinators play a vital role in our food supply) should really give up the wise man act.

Defence: The nearest the world has come to nuclear war has been when one side or the other mistakenly believed they were possibly under attack. This has happened several times before, and there is no reason to believe it won't happen again. Therefore, scrapping Trident would, IMO, be a better policy than renewal, because you're less likely to be in the firing line if somebody tells Putin there are some ICBMs on the way.

Housing: Labour voted for legislation requiring that privately rented accommodation be fit for human habitation. The Tories voted against it.

Just a few examples of why I have never voted Tory and never will and am quite happy to see Labour ahead of the Tories in most recent opinion polls, even if they aren't going to get my vote.

As for your first sentence in the second paragraph, how do you propose that Corbyn will push through legislation which goes beyond what was in the manifesto considering that the Tories, Lib Dems and a significant number of Labour MPs would vote against it?

Got sources for any of those? Quite a lot of that appears to be just your opinion.

Apart from union members and the long term unemployed, it is hard to see who would really benefit from New Old Labour policies. Apart from that, you'll need to do better than that to persuade me to vote for a party that is in reality hostile to business and anyone who works hard and tries to do the best for themselves and their families.

A brief history of nuclear near misses.
Housing
Neonicotinoids

Couldn't find the source I had in mind for education, it's a couple of years since I saw it.

When you say "anyone who works hard and tries to do the best for themselves and their families", do you mean rich people, or do you count people who go out and work hard but are on low wages? Where do you put young people who are now faced with £9k p.a. tuition fees if they want to go to university (something which did not apply to your generation)? Or those of us who are tenants and have to pay exorbitant rents to live in some of the crappiest accommodation in Western Europe?

TheBigBean

finchy wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Perhaps someone could remind me of positive things they have done.

Replaced modular exams at GCSE and A-level.
Stood behind the Iran nuclear deal when the USA pulled out.
I think they announced tougher sentencing for killer drivers, but don't know if they ever implemented it.

I think the parliamentary party probably would take a few other positive steps such as legalisation of soft drugs and prostitution, were they not absolutely terrified of the Daily Mail and its readership.

Thanks. The Iran deal is a good point. Does anyone have any others?

coopster_the_1st

TheBigBean wrote:

finchy wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Perhaps someone could remind me of positive things they have done.

Replaced modular exams at GCSE and A-level.
Stood behind the Iran nuclear deal when the USA pulled out.
I think they announced tougher sentencing for killer drivers, but don't know if they ever implemented it.

I think the parliamentary party probably would take a few other positive steps such as legalisation of soft drugs and prostitution, were they not absolutely terrified of the Daily Mail and its readership.

Thanks. The Iran deal is a good point. Does anyone have any others?

Respecting the democratic outcome of the referendum. Can you imagine Labour taking power in 2017 because the democratic outcome wasn't respected?

tangled_metal

What's been happening with labour the last two weeks? Before my holiday it was still antisemitism and that old grand dame of labour under threat of being kicked out.

Have I missed any Corbyn (really Mcdonnell's puppetry) action?

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

A brief history of nuclear near misses.
Housing
Neonicotinoids

Couldn't find the source I had in mind for education, it's a couple of years since I saw it.

When you say "anyone who works hard and tries to do the best for themselves and their families", do you mean rich people, or do you count people who go out and work hard but are on low wages? Where do you put young people who are now faced with £9k p.a. tuition fees if they want to go to university (something which did not apply to your generation)? Or those of us who are tenants and have to pay exorbitant rents to live in some of the crappiest accommodation in Western Europe?

I think we're getting back to the old sort of arguments that I used have with mamba where the general jist was 'life's unfair - somebody do something'. Well yes it is unfair. That's life.

Clearly some are more successful than others, its a competitive world. But in Labours skewed little world if you actually succeed in doing OK then effectively you become the enemy. As for tuition fees, lots has changed in 30 years but maybe we realise that we can't afford everything.

You say you won't vote Labour but you sound like you should

PS: got evidence to support your claim about the 'crappiest accommodation in Western Europe'?

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

What's been happening with labour the last two weeks? Before my holiday it was still antisemitism and that old grand dame of labour under threat of being kicked out.

Have I missed any Corbyn (really Mcdonnell's puppetry) action?

McDonnnell clearly has time on his hands as he's slamming a bunch of Lehman Bros employees for having a get together a decade after they were sacked. Apparently it's 'sickening', but I'm sure the canapes won't be that bad.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45251199

In other news, Corbyn is still in the shyte about anti-semitism.