Congratulations to Jeremy Corbyn

[For Us All]

The beef farmers aren't happy with Kerry's appointment,she thinks farting cattle harm the environment?

[geosname]

ONLY the idle sponging 10%?

Most of such people might back him , and so will many of the hard working people.

Obviously the idle, sponging and wealthy right wingers who can not possibly spend all of the money that they already have will not be backing him.

It depends upon what a person wants for the population in general. Many people want a fairer more equal society.

Some people are content to live with hardly any money in the bank so long as they have food on the table and a roof above themselves and their family. Others that have millions will not be content until they double their bank balance.

 

I dont think I know anyone who wouldnt like more money inb their bank

[Howjy04]

As the new Labour leader takes office and wants to stop Trident upgrading,the nut job in N.Korea increases nuclear weapon capability.**** off Corbyn,I'd prefer to be safe.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

let's hear the reality of his shadow govt policies not what the media are saying they will be...he will have to compromise to get agreement from colleagues and will probably get slaughtered by some for compromising but if he is to make progress, it's inevitable.

[mr.hobblesworth]

Many people want a fairer more equal society.

 

Unfortunately, not enough of us do.

 

I think that what Corbyn is going to need to do is not so much convince people that his policies are right, more to change the minds and hearts of vast sections of the general public. Since the economic downturn and the last labour government, many people have balked at the idea of helping the poorest, instead opting to label them scum. Time and time again, whether on here, in the media or in conversations, whenever the subject of the poor and vulnerable is raised, people just seem to go on about benefit claimants and the 'work shy', or blame immigrants. Just look at the disdain with which users of foodbanks were described earlier in the thread...

 

They dont all need to use food banks, many of them end up with no food because they refuse to work and have grown used to spending tax payers money on holidays, cars, mobile phones, x boxes, large screen TV's, hair extentions, make up, fake tan, fashion, nights out and etc and now their benefits have been cut they prefer to keep all of the above and go without food.

 

It's horrible and, of course, is perfect for the tories. Rather than getting angry and attacking the cause of their problems, the poor, the vulnerable and the working class are attacking their own. The reality of the situation, as proved time and time again is that public perception of the amount of public money spent on benefits for the unemployed is proportionally miniscule. One of the first things Corbyn needs to do is attack this.

 

Is it worth him trying to correct the public perception that Labour caused the economic meltdown? I'd have thought it should be a priority but with so many forces working against him, it might just be a losing battle.

[mr.hobblesworth]

As the new Labour leader takes office and wants to stop Trident upgrading,the nut job in N.Korea increases nuclear weapon capability.**** off Corbyn,I'd prefer to be safe.

 

**** off nuclear weapons, I'd prefer schools, hospitals, lifting people out of poverty and creating a fairer society.

[mr.hobblesworth]

The beef farmers aren't happy with Kerry's appointment,she thinks farting cattle harm the environment?

 

Methane from cattle is one of the biggest contributors to global warming and has a far bigger impact than the CO2 emissions from cars. The meat industry and people's incessant demand for it is totally unsustainable and, frankly, sick when much of the world is starving. Maybe for another thread though.

[Santa]

That said, the Tories appointed a minister for equality that voted against gay marriage and also appointed a chair of a cross part committee on health who believed in using homeopathy and astrology.

[For Us All]

If we ditched Trident,how many jobs would be lost?

[Howjy04]

Just watching Daily Politics.TUC,Shop stewards leader declares war.**** me ,what decade are we in?

[mr.hobblesworth]

Just watching Daily Politics.TUC,Shop stewards leader declares war.**** me ,what decade are we in?

 

Well, according to the tories' very own David Davies who has labelled his party's legislation as Franco-esque, the 40s and 50s.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/13/david-davis-attack-tories-trade-union-bill-franco

[Howjy04]

Well, according to the tories' very own David Davies who has labelled his party's legislation as Franco-esque, the 40s and 50s.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/13/david-davis-attack-tories-trade-union-bill-franco

 

You forgot to mention he agrees with most of the bill.

[mr.hobblesworth]

I didn't 'forget' anything. I omitted it to suit my argument.

 

However, he said some measures were draconian, including the requirement for picketers to give their names to the police.

 

The main point of the bill is to introduce a 50% turnout requirement for industrial action ballots, and a minimum positive vote by at least 40% of all those eligible to do so if the strike involves “important public services”.

 

This is being fiercely opposed by trade unionists, who say it threatens their right to strike, but there are a number of subsidiary measures that are also causing alarm. These include the suggestion that unions will have to give two weeks’ notice to the police if they plan to campaign via social media.

 

A consultation document also suggests that approved picket supervisors would have to take “reasonable steps” to tell police the name, contact details and location of those on the picket line. Workers would also have to wear an armband or badge to identify themselves.

 

The proposals have also been criticised by Liberty, Amnesty International and the British Institute of Human Rights.

 

[Howjy04]

If we ditched Trident,how many jobs would be lost?

 

Every buggar if we got nuked.;)

[cheeky]

My view on Trident is this:

 

If someone let's a nuclear bomb off, the world as we know it is done with. To let a nuclear bomb off, you would in the circumstances have to be a complete nutter. If you're a complete nutter and want to let one off you will, regardless of whether the UK has them or not. The "deterent" argument for having nuclear weapons in my eyes, is therefore a red herring. So why have them? Why not spend the billions on health and education instead given having Trident won't make any difference if some nut job decides he wants to go mental and nuke someone.