Corbyn voted new labour leader.

Original post by Fullofsurprises

That he didn't get rich enough to pose as a philanthropist by cosying up to right wing US corporate interests?

Oh if I had it my way Blair would be executed for war crimes but surely it also shows what type of man Corbyn is.

Reply 342

Fullofsurprises

20

Original post by Gears265

Oh if I had it my way Blair would be executed for war crimes but surely it also shows what type of man Corbyn is.

We don't know anything about Corbyn's charitable impulses. I very much doubt that he gives nothing, but it will be to causes rather than old fashioned charities, most likely.

Reply 343

Original post by redferry

I'm not talking about mps I'm talking about members - those of us that were put on the doorstep day after day in marginal seats in the run up to the election, but now feel unwelcome in our own party.

I felt unwelcome in a national party that voted for austerity and a regional party that screwed over a city's sports teams out of spite and brought shame on the city in the Pelka case. I saw Labour stand with the Tories in the referendum which we very nearly lost. With all this and a leader slating the unions I felt Labour no longer stood for me so I resigned my membership.

The above approach has lost us all but 1 MP in Scotland to a party that took the positions we should have taken. So when 1 leadership candidate at last takes a proper stance against the Tories and excites people all over Britain, I see someone who might be able to change that. The battle for the centre ground has failed. Give left of centre politics a proper chance, and if it fails it fails, but at least we will have more pride about it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 344

Original post by Gears265

Tony Blair won the award for charitable qualities this year. Jeremy Corbyn has never won that award. What does this say about Jeremy?

Jeremy Corbyn has never waged wars on a false premise but Tony has, what does that say about Tony?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 345

Original post by Midlander

Jeremy Corbyn has never waged wars on a false premise but Tony has, what does that say about Tony?

Posted from TSR Mobile

I have never voted for Labour and neither have my family. I wish the same could be said for you Labour supporters, you voted for Tony and any blood on his hands is also on your hands, how does that feel?

Reply 346

L'Evil Fish

18

Original post by Gears265

I have never voted for Labour and neither have my family. I wish the same could be said for you Labour supporters, you voted for Tony and any blood on his hands is also on your hands, how does that feel?

Tories voted for the invasion as well.

A quarter of the labour party were against.

Reply 347

Original post by Gears265

I have never voted for Labour and neither have my family. I wish the same could be said for you Labour supporters, you voted for Tony and any blood on his hands is also on your hands, how does that feel?

I wasn't eligible to vote when he was elected.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 348

Dylann

21

Original post by L'Evil Fish

Tories voted for the invasion as well.

A quarter of the labour party were against.

The opposition normally vote the same as whatever the government decides for things like wars and invasions, because the government have all the classified information that the opposition can't access, so they trust the government to make the right decision. Labour got the whole Saddam Hussein WMD thing completely wrong.

Credit to Labour and Miliband a couple of years ago when they rejected the decision to bomb Syria

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 349

username878267

15

Rather then focus on the 4.6 billion in cuts the Tories passed through yesterday the media focuses on corbyn not singing the national anthem- and people claim the media has no influence ?

Reply 350

Original post by L'Evil Fish

Tories voted for the invasion as well.

A quarter of the labour party were against.

Labour were in charge of home and foreign affairs, the power to manipulate evidence was within their hands and the Tories only responded on that merit. Labour spouted lies and the blood is on your hands for voting for them or your relatives'. Even in 2005 after the events spiralled out of control you all still put Blair in government, Labour voters clearly supported the invasion and are solely responsible for the consequences. The MPs elected under your hands supported this corrupt strategy knowing fall well Blair was a liar. You will call it loyalty but the rest of us call it conspiring with the enemy.

Original post by Midlander

I wasn't eligible to vote when he was elected.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yes but you would have and your relatives undoubtedly did so either way blood is on your hands.

Reply 351

Original post by Bornblue

Rather then focus on the 4.6 billion in cuts the Tories passed through yesterday the media focuses on corbyn not singing the national anthem- and people claim the media has no influence ?

These cuts were announced a long time ago during the budget, they were expected to pass as normal so why bring them up again, this was always to be expected and has had mass coverage already.

Reply 352

username878267

15

Original post by Gears265

These cuts were announced a long time ago during the budget, they were expected to pass as normal so why bring them up again, this was always to be expected and has had mass coverage already.

No they didn't receive mass scrutiny.
The right wing press barely touched them - they were passed into law yesterday's but of course the focus was on Corbyn not singing the anthem.

Reply 353

Original post by Bornblue

No they didn't receive mass scrutiny.
The right wing press barely touched them - they were passed into law yesterday's but of course the focus was on Corbyn not singing the anthem.

The BBC, Channel 4 news, Five news, Sky news, the Guardian, the Times, the mirror and the rest of the many left leaning tabloid papers scrutinised the cuts heavily, so what are you on about?

Reply 354

L'Evil Fish

18

Original post by Gears265

Labour were in charge of home and foreign affairs, the power to manipulate evidence was within their hands and the Tories only responded on that merit. Labour spouted lies and the blood is on your hands for voting for them or your relatives'. Even in 2005 after the events spiralled out of control you all still put Blair in government, Labour voters clearly supported the invasion and are solely responsible for the consequences. The MPs elected under your hands supported this corrupt strategy knowing fall well Blair was a liar. You will call it loyalty but the rest of us call it conspiring with the enemy.

Yes but you would have and your relatives undoubtedly did so either way blood is on your hands.

Lol I wasn't even 10 years old
My dad actually voted tory so, can't say that
Other members did vote labour, and by no means supported the invasion, even MPs of labour voted against, surely if they were against, then the tories should have seen that something must have been up
Like Miliband was against Syria, they should have stood against too
That's not to absolve Blair of the blame

Reply 355

Original post by L'Evil Fish

Lol I wasn't even 10 years old
My dad actually voted tory so, can't say that
Other members did vote labour, and by no means supported the invasion, even MPs of labour voted against, surely if they were against, then the tories should have seen that something must have been up
Like Miliband was against Syria, they should have stood against too
That's not to absolve Blair of the blame

In opposition you do not have access to the security secrets and therefore Tories had only what Labour fed them and worked from there. Expecting them to be psychic and read the minds of Labour is childish and plain stupid. You fail to address the point of why Labour voters still voted for Blair in 2005. They clearly supported the mass invasion and the war crimes. Labour voters worshipped the ground Blair walked on, it is actually quite sickening. Blair and his cabinet all worked in a close circle so the Labour Party as a whole was corrupt yet you people still supported them, strange?

Reply 356

L'Evil Fish

18

Original post by Gears265

In opposition you do not have access to the security secrets and therefore Tories had only what Labour fed them and worked from there. Expecting them to be psychic and read the minds of Labour is childish and plain stupid. You fail to address the point of why Labour voters still voted for Blair in 2005. They clearly supported the mass invasion and the war crimes. Labour voters worshipped the ground Blair walked on, it is actually quite sickening. Blair and his cabinet all worked in a close circle so the Labour Party as a whole was corrupt yet you people still supported them, strange?

If the MPs of Labour itself voted against, then it would have made sense to also do so.

You can't say it was all bad then, there were plenty of good things that occurred back then.

And it was a vote for labour, not necessarily Tony Blair himself.

As I said, I didn't support them then. How can I justify something that didn't happen?

Reply 357