Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

[Raulduke]

Well you claim you've read it! From the sound bites I've seen he's very soft on defence, he doesn't like nuclear deterrent which I get but every country has it you can't just potentially get rid of it. I remember once before he suggested we talk to the terrorists, whilst I admire his enthusiasm we have to be realistic, these people don't want to talk they just want blood shed. There does that reasoning satisfy you now?

No they don't, not even close to every country has nuclear weapons. Most Nato countries don't even have nuclear weapons. Corbyn's position on nuclear weapons wouldn't even be considered a controversial one in most parts of the world.

 

[Stanley Road]

He's got a month to prove his credentials and the Labour parties credentials. Eds policies were popular, policies alone don't get people's votes unfortunately.

Tories have had years to do that but they keep getting re-elected

 

[Kentonio]

No they don't, not even close to every country has nuclear weapons. Most Nato countries don't even have nuclear weapons. Corbyn's position on nuclear weapons wouldn't even be considered a controversial one in most parts of the world.

The only reason most NATO countries don't have them, is because the US, UK and France (the current or former western Great Powers) have provided the nuclear shield that NATO relies on for its existence. The only plausible excuse for getting rid of our nuclear deterrent is that we can continue to rely on the US and France's nuclear weapons for our defence. If we want a free ride, then the consequence is that we have to accept a greater degree of authority on the part of those who continue to maintain their weapons.

 

[Ubik]

Thats the NEC and disciplinary committee. The same one that banned someone for once voting green from voting in the leadership election (for corbyn).

It is still dominated by progress members, and they run it as blair taught them to, no dissent, purge anyone who does not follow the one true path.

It is actually ironic that they often call corbyn the 'dear leader', because he seems quite big on decentralized power within the party and giving the members more say. Blair was the one who demanded complete control and restructured the entire party to get it, something his supporters are still benefiting from now.

Yeah, this isn't correct. NEC is roughly 50/50 pro-Corbyn and Corbynsceptic.

 

[WackyWengerWorld]

Has to be Rachel Reeves.

"feckless poor" and "hard working majority" - has to be a Tory surely?

As it is renationalising Rail/Energy companies would benefit everyone, money for schools/nhs benefits everyone, home building helps everyone

 

[Classical Mechanic]

"feckless poor" and "hard working majority" - has to be a Tory surely?

As it is renationalising Rail/Energy companies would benefit everyone, money for schools/nhs benefits everyone, home building helps everyone

Looks like fake news to me. Someone posts a snippet of a quote from a 'legit' 'source'. It won't cut it in the transfer forum so why in the serious business of politics?

 

[Drifter]

Fake or not .That is how the Tories see the working poor .The same working poor that they call the hard working majority

 

[Smores]

Looks like fake news to me. Someone posts a snippet of a quote from a 'legit' 'source'. It won't cut it in the transfer forum so why in the serious business of politics?

Agreed so much of this stuff going round the internet these days. Where there's an existing narrative there's someone making shit up to get attention. Dubious of anything without a solid source.

 

[Smores]

The only reason most NATO countries don't have them, is because the US, UK and France (the current or former western Great Powers) have provided the nuclear shield that NATO relies on for its existence. The only plausible excuse for getting rid of our nuclear deterrent is that we can continue to rely on the US and France's nuclear weapons for our defence. If we want a free ride, then the consequence is that we have to accept a greater degree of authority on the part of those who continue to maintain their weapons.

Authority on what exactly?

Your other post on Russia is questionable as well. The assumption you're implying is that the consequences that come with a full scale conventional war wouldn't be sufficient deterrent but nuclear bombs would? The damage inflicted by conventional weapons these days is surely enough to prevent world war?

I'm fine with the argument we shouldn't free load off others security but i just don't see any sense in the argument its neccesary.

 

[ZupZup]

At the moment... it's true policies aren't so important. Nowhere near as important as media backing anyway. A blind vote on policy would yield completely different results. Theresa May is somehow seen as a competent leader... based on what?

Times will change though and I envisage a future where the media wield far less power in this respect as younger generations are far more distrustful and cynical of what the media tells them. They get a lot more political discourse from social media than the MSM and I think it shows in that age is now one of the most reliable predictors for political view.

I find it funny when news reporters will ask a member of the public about Jeremy Corbyn and the majority will blindly spout that they couldn't vote for him because 'he's useless' or 'an idiot'. If they were actually pressed further on why they though that, 9 out of 10 would start stumbling over their words as they drew a blank.

 

[Unmutual]

Theresa May is somehow seen as a competent leader... based on what?

She was the longest serving Home Secretary of the modern era?

 

[Nogbadthebad]

She was the longest serving Home Secretary of the modern era?

Who singularly failed to control immigration (immigration from outside the EU that she had full control of increased significantly while she claimed she was trying to hit targets of 10,000s per year). She also failed to even use the controls of EU immigration that we have, instead laying off around a third of border control workers, and took 3 years to extradite a hate preacher because she could not follow the basic procedures of law, and kept blaming the law for stopping her (it was her own incompetence).

Still seeing nothing but an incompetent liar, just as we see now.

 

[ZupZup]

She was the longest serving Home Secretary of the modern era?

The most competent thing she has done as leader is realise what an absolute liability she is and refuse to engage with the public or take part in any meaningful debate.

 

[Smores]

Don't know about the delivery as didn't watch but Corbyns speech on security was excellent. The Minister of Peace thing is an own goal but i dont see how anyone could argue with the rest of what was said.

 

[Unmutual]

123455

 

[Dobba]

Given everything a Home Secretary has to do, and given the length of her tenure, that's not a long list. Unless you take the view that every single thing someone tries must always succeed, or you're a failure. Compared to the long list of the failures of, say, Osborne, IDS or Jeremy Hunt, she's been solid. Particularly when consider what a graveyard Home Sec has been over the years for politicians.

And this?

http://www.independent.co.uk/studen...bbc-panorama-exposes-toeic-scam-a6958286.html

 

[Unmutual]

123456

 

[DenisIrwin]

Fake or not .That is how the Tories see the working poor .The same working poor that they call the hard working majority

I think a lot of people on the left fail to realise that without the Lords and Masters the serfs wouldn't have any work.

 

[Oscie]

Don't know about the delivery as didn't watch but Corbyns speech on security was excellent. The Minister of Peace thing is an own goal but i dont see how anyone could argue with the rest of what was said.

But what did it say. Unless May counters with a "war makes me wet" then whose narrative is he challenging?

 

[Smores]

But what did it say. Unless May counters with a "war makes me wet" then whose narrative is he challenging?

Doesn't need to challenge anything in my opinion although he did on arms sales, US lapdog. Campaigning on these issues is usually more about vision and he laid one out that most importantly couldn't be considered weak.

I always look at the Telegraph these days and they haven't attacked it directly. Used unnamed Labour MPs to bash him on IRA instead.

 

[Oscie]

Arms sales are important to our economy.

 

[Kentonio]

Arms sales are important to our economy.

Slavery used to be too.

 

[Cassidy]

Arms sales are important to our economy.

Sigh

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

"feckless poor" and "hard working majority" - has to be a Tory surely?

As it is renationalising Rail/Energy companies would benefit everyone, money for schools/nhs benefits everyone, home building helps everyone

How does nationalising London's railways help the villages and towns who have minimal or no rail services at all?

Could not these billions set aside for the energy sector, not be better spent on renewables or improved urban planning?

Don't know about the delivery as didn't watch but Corbyns speech on security was excellent. The Minister of Peace thing is an own goal but i dont see how anyone could argue with the rest of what was said.

Reading between the lines, he'll maintain the 2% spending requirement but generally adopt a more isolationist approach to foreign policy. An anti-NATO slant too, when he alluded to the deployment of British forces in the Baltic.

A further notable omission, particularly for him, was that of the Falklands. I suspect that he personally would happily open talks with regard to sovereignty; the same with Gib.

 

[ZupZup]

How does nationalising London's railways help the villages and towns who have minimal or no rail services? Could not those billions set aside for the energy sector, be better spent on renewables or improved urban planning?

Surely if we were thinking long term... state run energy providers would make money for the Government which could be spent on clean energy initiatives or any other area that the Government wishes to invest in. All whilst helping to regulate prices in the industry through competition.

The financial implication of any investment decision has to be considered over the longer term... not just initial start-up costs.

 

[Unmutual]

123456

 

[DenisIrwin]

Arms sales are important to our economy.

We ought to put it to the people: Do you want a rampant peace-monger in charge of this country?

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Surely if we were thinking long term... state run energy providers would make money for the Government which could be spent on clean energy initiatives or any other area that the Government wishes to invest in. All whilst helping to regulate prices in the industry through competition.

The financial implication of any investment decision has to be considered over the longer term... not just initial start-up costs.

If a prospective government is thinking long-term, they ought to invest the money directly, today. How much profit do you suppose that a bloated state-run system will create? Labour are talking about an awful lot of expenditure here, and it seem poorly focused.

A far better proof against fuel poverty, would be to help people in their homes. Pay for 1million solar panels, in full (all a resident need do is ask for the installation). Make it mandatory that every new housing development meets a green quota. If you're going to be an interventionist regime the least you could do is be useful.

 

[sun_tzu]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...al-Air-Force-has-available-to-fight-Isil.html

Note the source, this is not a left wing conspiracy.

You do realise that's 50 spare planes taking into account all the other planes on active operations elsewhere?... you know like actually working combat operational planes so all that article does is prove you were wrong in saying 50 operational planes in total

 

[Dobba]

Arms sales are important to our economy.

And drug dealers make a fortune, what is your point?

 

[PedroMendez]

Surely if we were thinking long term... state run energy providers would make money for the Government which could be spent on clean energy initiatives or any other area that the Government wishes to invest in. All whilst helping to regulate prices in the industry through competition.

The financial implication of any investment decision has to be considered over the longer term... not just initial start-up costs.

Brilliant plan. The government should start businesses in all sectors to make money. After all, investing taxes is totally the job of the government.

 

[Untied]

If a prospective government is thinking long-term, they ought to invest the money directly, today. How much profit do you suppose that a bloated state-run system will create? Labour are talking about an awful lot of expenditure here, and it seem poorly focused.

A far better proof against fuel poverty, would be to help people in their homes. Pay for 1million solar panels, in full (all a resident need do is ask for the installation). Make it mandatory that every new housing development meets a green quota. If you're going to be an interventionist regime the least you could do is be useful.

Retrofitting homes is a great policy. Requires a lot of low to moderately skilled labour, helps tackle fuel poverty and reduce our carbon emissions. But we are now talking about how the state should invest heavily in the energy sector. And to be honest there's no particular reason why it has to be either/or.

Don't know about the delivery as didn't watch but Corbyns speech on security was excellent. The Minister of Peace thing is an own goal but i dont see how anyone could argue with the rest of what was said.

I hate living in a country where having a Minister for Peace might be considered an own goal.

 

[DenisIrwin]

Here's his speech on Foreign Policy in full:

Jeremy Corbyn's Chatham House speech, full text
The Spectator
14-18 minutes
Chatham House has been at the forefront of thinking on Britain’s role in the world. So with the General Election less than a month away, it’s a great place to set out my approach: on how a Labour Government I lead will keep Britain safe, reshape relationships with partners around the world, work to strengthen the United Nations and respond to the global challenges we face in the 21st century.

And I should say a warm welcome to the UN Special Representative in Somalia, Michael Keating, who is here today. On Monday, we commemorated VE Day, the anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany in Europe.

VE Day marked the defeat of fascism and the beginning of the end of a global war that claimed seventy million lives. General Eisenhower, supreme commander of the Allied forces in 1944, went on to become Republican President of the United States during some of the most dangerous years of the Cold War in the 1950s.

In his final televised address to the American people as President, Eisenhower gave a stark warning of what he described as “the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the military-industrial complex.” “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry”, he said, “can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defence with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

Sadly, in the more than half a century since that speech, I think it’s clear that Eisenhower’s warning has not been heeded. Too much of our debate about defence and security is one dimensional. You are either for or against what is presented as “strong defence”, regardless of the actual record of what that has meant in practice.

Alert citizens or political leaders who advocate other routes to security are dismissed or treated as unreliable. My own political views were shaped by the horrors of war and the threat of a nuclear holocaust. My parents met while organising solidarity with the elected government of Spain against Franco’s fascists during the Spanish civil war.

My generation grew up under the shadow of the cold war. On television, through the 1960s and into the seventies, the news was dominated by Vietnam. I was haunted by images of civilians fleeing chemical weapons used by the United States.

I didn’t imagine then that nearly fifty years later we would see chemical weapons still being used against innocent civilians. What an abject failure. How is it that history keeps repeating itself? At the end of the cold war, when the Berlin Wall came down we were told it was the end of history. Global leaders promised a more peaceful, stable world. It didn’t work out like that.

Today the world is more unstable than even at the height of the cold war. The approach to international security we have been using since the 1990s has simply not worked. Regime change wars in Afghanistan Iraq, Libya, and Syria – and Western interventions in Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen – have failed in their own terms, and made the world a more dangerous place.

This is the fourth General Election in a row to be held while Britain is at war and our armed forces are in action in the Middle East and beyond. The fact is that the ‘war on terror’ which has driven these interventions has failed.

They have not increased our security at home – just the opposite. And they have caused destabilisation and devastation abroad.

Last September, the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee published a report on David Cameron’s Libyan war. They concluded the intervention led to political and economic collapse, humanitarian and migrant crises and fuelled the rise of Isis in Africa and across the Middle East. Is that really the way to deliver security to the British people? Who seriously believes that’s what real strength looks like?

We need to step back and have some fresh thinking. The world faces huge problems. As well as the legacy of regime change wars, there is a dangerous cocktail of ethnic conflicts, of food insecurity, water scarcity, the emerging effects of climate change. Add to that mix a grotesque and growing level of inequality in which just eight billionaires own the same wealth as the 3.6 billion poorest people.

And you end up with a refugee crisis of epic proportions affecting every continent in the world. With more displaced people in the world than since the Second World War. These problems are getting worse and fuelling threats and instability. The global situation is becoming more dangerous.

And the new US President seems determined to add to the dangers by recklessly escalating the confrontation with North Korea, unilaterally launching missile strikes on Syria, opposing President Obama’s nuclear arms deal with Iran and backing a new nuclear arms race.

A Labour Government will want a strong and friendly relationship with the United States. But we will not be afraid to speak our mind. The US is the strongest military power on the planet by a very long way. It has a special responsibility to use its power with care and to support international efforts to resolve conflicts collectively and peacefully.

Waiting to see which way the wind blows in Washington isn’t strong leadership. And pandering to an erratic Trump administration will not deliver stability. When Theresa May addressed a Republican Party conference in Philadelphia in January she spoke in alarmist terms about the rise of China and India and of the danger of the West being eclipsed.

She said America and Britain had to ‘stand strong’ together and use their military might to protect their interests. This is the sort of language that led to calamity in Iraq and Libya and all the other disastrous wars that stole the post-Cold War promise of a new world order.

I do not see India and China in those terms. Nor do I think the vast majority of Americans or British people want the boots of their young men and women on the ground in Syria fighting a war that would escalate the suffering and slaughter even further. Britain deserves better than simply outsourcing our country’s security and prosperity to the whims of the Trump White House. So no more hand holding with Donald Trump.

A Labour Government will conduct a robust and independent foreign policy – made in Britain. A Labour Government would seek to work for peace and security with all the other permanent members of the United Nations security council – the US, China, Russia and France. And with other countries with a major role to play such as India, South Africa, Brazil and Germany. The ‘bomb first, talk later’ approach to security has failed. To persist with it, as the Conservative Government has made clear it is determined to do, is a recipe for increasing, not reducing, threats and insecurity.

I am often asked if as prime minister I would order the use of nuclear weapons. It’s an extraordinary question when you think about it – would you order the indiscriminate killing of millions of people? Would you risk such extensive contamination of the planet that no life could exist across large parts of the world? If circumstances arose where that was a real option, it would represent complete and cataclysmic failure. It would mean world leaders had already triggered a spiral of catastrophe for humankind.

Labour is committed actively to pursue disarmament under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and we are committed to no first use of nuclear weapons. But let me make this absolutely clear. If elected prime minister, I will do everything necessary to protect the safety and security of our people and our country. That would be my first duty.

And to achieve it, I know I will have to work with other countries to solve problems, defuse tensions and build collective security. The best defence for Britain is a government actively engaged in seeking peaceful solutions to the world’s problems. But I am not a pacifist.

I accept that military action, under international law and as a genuine last resort, is in some circumstances necessary. But that is very far from the kind of unilateral wars and interventions that have almost become routine in recent times. I will not take lectures on security or humanitarian action from a Conservative Party that stood by in the 1980s – refusing even to impose sanctions – while children on the streets of Soweto were being shot dead in the streets, or which has backed every move to put our armed forces in harm’s way regardless of the impact on our people’s security.

Once again, in this election, it’s become clear that a vote for Theresa May could be a vote to escalate the war in Syria, risking military confrontation with Russia, adding to the suffering of the Syrian people and increasing global insecurity. When you see children suffering in war, it is only natural to want to do something. But the last thing we need is more of the same failed recipe that has served us so badly and the people of the region so calamitously.

Labour will stand up for the people of Syria. We will press for war crimes to be properly investigated. And we will work tirelessly to make the Geneva talks work. Every action that is taken over Syria must be judged by whether it helps to bring an end to the tragedy of the Syrian war or does the opposite.

Even if ISIS is defeated militarily, the conflict will not end until there is a negotiated settlement involving all the main parties, including the regional and international powers and an inclusive government in Iraq. All wars and conflicts eventually are brought to an end by political means.

So Labour would adopt a new approach. We will not step back from our responsibilities. But our focus will be on strengthening international co-operation and supporting the efforts of the United Nations to resolve conflicts.

A Labour Government will respect international law and oppose lawlessness and unilateralism in international relations. We believe human rights and social justice should drive our foreign policy. In 1968, Harold Wilson’s Labour Government signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

As prime minister, I hope to build on that achievement. Labour’s support for the renewal of the Trident submarine system does not preclude working for meaningful, multilateral steps to achieve reductions in nuclear arsenals. A Labour Government will pursue a triple commitment to the interlocking foreign policy instruments of: defence, development and diplomacy. For all their bluster, the Tory record on defence and security has been one of incompetence and failure.

They have balanced the books on the backs of servicemen and women. Deep cuts have seen the Army reduced to its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars. From stagnant pay and worsening conditions, to poor housing. The morale of our service personnel and veterans is at rock bottom.

And as the security threats and challenges we face are not bound by geographic borders it is vital that as Britain leaves the EU, we maintain a close relationship with our European partners alongside our commitment to NATO and spending at least 2 per cent on defence.

That means working with our allies to ensure peace and security in Europe. We will work to halt the drift to confrontation with Russia and the escalation of military deployments across the continent.

There is no need whatever to weaken our opposition to Russia’s human rights abuses at home or abroad to understand the necessity of winding down tensions on the Russia-Nato border and supporting dialogue to reduce the risk of international conflict. We will back a new conference on security and cooperation in Europe and seek to defuse the crisis in Ukraine through implementation of the Minsk agreements.

We will continue to work with the EU on operational missions to promote and support global and regional security. This means our Armed Forces will have the necessary capabilities to fulfil the full range of obligations ensuring they are versatile and able to participate in rapid stabilisation, disaster relief, UN peacekeeping and conflict resolution activities. Because security is not only about direct military defence, it’s about conflict resolution and prevention, underpinned by strong diplomacy.

So the next Labour Government will invest in the UK’s diplomatic networks and consular services. We will seek to rebuild some of the key capabilities and services that have been lost as a result of Conservative cuts in recent years.

Finally, while Theresa May seeks to build a coalition of risk and insecurity with Donald Trump, a Labour Government will refocus Britain’s influence towards cooperation, peaceful settlements and social justice. The life chances, security and prosperity of our citizens are dependent on a stable international environment. We will strengthen our commitment to the UN. But we are well aware of its shortcomings, particularly in the light of repeated abuses of the veto power in the UN Security Council.

So we will work with allies and partners from around the world to build support for UN reform in order to make its institutions more effective and responsive. And as a permanent member of the Security Council we will provide a lead by respecting the authority of International Law.

To lead this work, Labour has created a Minister for Peace who will work across the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We will reclaim Britain’s leading role in tackling climate change, working hard to preserve the Paris Agreement and deliver on international commitments to reduce carbon emissions.

Labour will re-examine the arms export licensing regulations to ensure that all British arms exports are consistent with our legal and moral obligations. This means refusing to grant export licences for arms when there is a clear risk that they will be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law. Weapons supplied to Saudi Arabia, when the evidence of grave breaches of humanitarian law in Yemen is overwhelming, must be halted immediately.

I see it as the next Labour’s Government task, as my task, to make the case for Britain to advance a security and foreign policy with integrity and human rights at its core. So there is a clear choice at this election.

Between continuing with the failed policy of continual and devastating military interventions, that have intensified conflicts and increased the terrorist threat. Or being willing to step back, learn the lessons of the past and find new ways to solve and prevent conflicts. As Dwight Eisenhower said on another occasion: If people “can develop weapons that are so terrifying as to make the thought of global war almost a sentence for suicide, you would think that man’s intelligence would include also his ability to find a peaceful solution.”

And in the words of Martin Luther King “The chain reaction of evil – hate – begetting hate, wars producing more wars – must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark days of annihilation”. I believe we can find those solutions. We can walk the hard yards to a better way to live together on this planet.

A Labour Government will give leadership in a new and constructive way and that is the leadership we are ready to provide both at home and abroad. Thank you.

 

[ZupZup]

Brilliant plan. The government should start businesses in all sectors to make money. After all, investing taxes is totally the job of the government.

Who said anything about starting businesses in all sectors? Oh... you did that thing where you make up an argument that someone hasn't made and came up with your very own sarcastic riposte! Honestly, great work.

 

[Unmutual]

123456

 

[berbatrick]

Brilliant plan. The government should start businesses in all sectors to make money. After all, investing taxes is totally the job of the government.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/14/business/private-vs-government-utilities.html
Written before Enron: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blackout/regulation/timeline.html
A successful case study: http://www.yesmagazine.org/commonomics/nebraskas-community-owned-energy

About the company I pay every month, a short story in 3 parts:
http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/ti...ies-commission-appointees/Content?oid=3662711
http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/du...ating-the-clean-water-act/Content?oid=4441001
http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/duke-energy-had-a-very-very-good-week/Content?oid=5052011


It's not even controversial that utilities aren't exactly the sites of perfect competition with an array of small firms and consumers with access to all of them, and perfect information both ways. I have to pay a private monopoly for my internet and electricity; there is literally no competition.

On things like integrating solar power, etc, you would hope state-run utilities would be less hostile than private.

 

[DenisIrwin]

This is the kind of empty talk that irritates me with Corbyn. Yes we should push for peace talks, yes we should push for a UN investigation into alleged war crimes and yes we should seek a UN mandate for military action. But when one side absolutely flat refuses to engage in peace talks, when the UN cannot investigate or resolve because one side's allies can veto any resolution the UN makes even if every other country agrees, when every diplomatic effort has been exhausted and the killing continues, then what?

Corbyn never gives a straight answer. If he was honest, he'd say what he probably believes, which is that we should still do nothing. Stand back and let it happen, in case we make things worse. However he knows that most people would find that morally repugnant. So he feigns action by setting unattainable goals and swearing he'd do something as soon as they're reached.

To give a straight answer you have to have a question. This was a speech. He is honest and does say what he believes - unlike you who are inventing the words he didn't say at all: "which is that we should still do nothing". Don't you see the fecking irony here? You dare to say he is dishonest by inventing words he never uttered which you disagree with. Absurd!

This government didn't "press for war crimes to be properly investigated" over the recent incident at all. The British and western MSM rely on "journalists" working in the area where the chemical attack was supposed to have taken place. They fund and support the White Helmets. They were therefore in a good position to negotiate safe passage for independent investigators - and the Russians and Syrians were all for it. Instead, we got a load of make-believe bullshit from anonymous "sources". They do prefer the aggressive "bomb first ask questions later" stance all the way. And I don't see that pushing for a UN mandate for military action is totally in line with his desire to see a peaceful, negotiated settlement. The party least likely to cooperate in peace talks are the very people the west-backed "journalists" and "white helmets" operate amongst. They are the ones that walked away from the latest talks. The Syrian and Russian governments certainly can be negotiated with. We should help them remove AlQaeda and affilated terrorist groups and demand that Saudi Arabia cease spreading Wahabi throughout the region and call on all foreign powers to cease their support of groups active in Syria.

Sorry... just realised I am getting a bit off-topic. There's another thread for this.

The point was made. Your attack on Corbyn for being dishonest and not saying what he believes is both ironic and absurd.

 

[PedroMendez]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/14/business/private-vs-government-utilities.html
Written before Enron: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blackout/regulation/timeline.html
A successful case study: http://www.yesmagazine.org/commonomics/nebraskas-community-owned-energy

About the company I pay every month, a short story in 3 parts:
http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/ti...ies-commission-appointees/Content?oid=3662711
http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/du...ating-the-clean-water-act/Content?oid=4441001
http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/duke-energy-had-a-very-very-good-week/Content?oid=5052011


It's not even controversial that utilities aren't exactly the sites of perfect competition with an array of small firms and consumers with access to all of them, and perfect information both ways. I have to pay a private monopoly for my internet and electricity; there is literally no competition.

On things like integrating solar power, etc, you would hope state-run utilities would be less hostile than private.

Stuff like rail and electricity are very difficult topics. Both sides have good arguments and it is not entirely clear which model is the best. Yet the privatisation of mail services was unambiguously successful in other countries. The majority of concerns, that support public ownership, simply don’t apply.

His arguments are missing the point and are irrelevant for the issue. That was my point.

 

[Unmutual]

123456

 

[DenisIrwin]

Right. Because there are no other Corbyn speeches out there to look at...

No. I'm not going to rise to that bait.