O/T Jeremy corbyn

[BigLadonOS]

MPs Tonight LOSE bid to block No Deal

How many more times is Corbyn going to have to lose before he gets it?

[ragingpup]

MPs Tonight LOSE bid to block No Deal

How many more times is Corbyn going to have to lose before he gets it?

Don't get hopes too high. It seems some tories not siding with opposition on this occasion but will do so if new pm goes down the no deal route. Plus for Labour is that it leaves the way open for parliament to intervene in run up to no deal and force general election by no confidence. Starmer afterwards reapplying pressure on behalf of mps onto Corbyn to back remain openly. He's under huge pressure now.

[KerrAvon]

Don't get hopes too high. It seems some tories not siding with opposition on this occasion but will do so if new pm goes down the no deal route. Plus for Labour is that it leaves the way open for parliament to intervene in run up to no deal and force general election by no confidence. Starmer afterwards reapplying pressure on behalf of mps onto Corbyn to back remain openly. He's under huge pressure now.

It was all smoke and mirrors in any event. The one and only way that Parliament can block a no deal is by revoking Article 50, if they can secure a vote upon that.

Unless you can tell me otherwise, Labour have got themselves into a postion where they support Brexit, but don't want either the deal or no deal. That's a bit tricky, as I'm sure you would agree.

[BigLadonOS]

Bring a GE on for me. I cannot wait to see the faces of the Labour and whoever is the Conservative leader faces when the BREXIT party walks in to 10 downing street.

[ragingpup]

I confess that I'm not sure what to make of all that.

I could be harsh and say that the fact that you are taking your politics from a site that you think suitable for children and your final sentence says something about you, but that would only risk upsetting you further.

I'm not sure where the 'prompting and provocation' comment came from. I told you what I thought without checking Wikipedia, child friendly sites or Momentum 'what to think and say' output. As far as I can see, you don't disagree with what I said, but are upset that I said it and are falling back on child suitable, inaccurate and self-contradictory definitions of what Labour stands for.

I have voted in every GE since 1983 and have never voted Tory.

How are my definitions of what labour stands for self contradictory?

I took a crystal clear definition of tory (agreed with you) and Labour (you were nowhere near). You look at all the definitions from neutral, and non momentum bodies that you like. None will define them as you define them. I used the simplest definition from a simple site. Care to post another definition of labour's natural ground from a more 'grown up' neutral dictionary that concurs with your 'party of benefits' slant? Go on, try it.

I think it's quite clear to anyone that I agree with your tory definition, as that fits in with most definitions from a neutral point of view. But you rather embarrassed yourself, and are continuing to dig yourself further with your squirming, by defining labour in a way that a 12 year old young tory would have done. You say here, with a pride that even Alan Partridge would struggle to muster, that you "told me what I thought without consulting wikipedia". That would be great if what you thought wasn't so embarrassingly vacuous, shallow and let's be Frank desperately in need of a smidgen of objectjective research support from Wiki or anywhere. You say you haven't voted tory, and aim to keep this pompous air of neautrality, but simply can't conceal the loaded venom you have for Labour. That's all well and good, completely fine with that, but if your two definitions of the main parties is anything to go by, surely you can see why no one on here believes you?

[KerrAvon]

How are my definitions of what labour stands for self contradictory?

I took a crystal clear definition of tory (agreed with you) and Labour (you were nowhere near). You look at all the definitions from neutral, and non momentum bodies that you like. None will define them as you define them. I used the simplest definition from a simple site. Care to post another definition of labour's natural ground from a more 'grown up' neutral dictionary that concurs with your 'party of benefits' slant? Go on, try it.

I think it's quite clear to anyone that I agree with your tory definition, as that fits in with most definitions from a neutral point of view. But you rather embarrassed yourself, and are continuing to dig yourself further with your squirming, by defining labour in a way that a 12 year old young tory would have done. You say here, with a pride that even Alan Partridge would struggle to muster, that you "told me what I thought without consulting wikipedia". That would be great if what you thought wasn't so embarrassingly vacuous, shallow and let's be Frank desperately in need of a smidgen of objectjective research support from Wiki or anywhere. You say you haven't voted tory, and aim to keep this pompous air of neautrality, but simply can't conceal the loaded venom you have for Labour. That's all well and good, completely fine with that, but if your two definitions of the main parties is anything to go by, surely you can see why no one on here believes you?

Well it's not your definition of what Labour stands for, is it? You have been clear that you took it from a child friendly website rather than working it out for yourself. Read it again to see if you can work out why it is inaccurate and self-contradictory yourself.

I still don't get what you are getting upset about. You accept that Labour represents high tax, big government. Unless you are totally detached from reality and haven't found it on a child friendly website, you also have to accept that they are a high benefit party (call it tackling inequality if that is more palatable for you).

A natural consequence of increasing benefits is that more people will choose a life on benefits as a lifestyle. It's as simple as that.

I think the problem may be that you get confused between the truth and what you want to believe. They aren’t always the same thing.

Whether people believe me is of little concern to me.

[rolymiller]

They will be exposed for what they are long before that big lad.

[BigLadonOS]

They will be exposed for what they are long before that big lad.

What are they roly?

[rolymiller]

What are they roly?

Fakes. They will do nothing for ex Labour voters. To think that a right wing politician is going to change his spots and suddenly support workers is naive in the extreme. Why should he? It is such a simple logic, I find it hard to understand that folks don;t get that.

[BigLadonOS]

Fakes. They will do nothing for ex Labour voters. To think that a right wing politician is going to change his spots and suddenly support workers is naive in the extreme. Why should he? It is such a simple logic, I find it hard to understand that folks don;t get that.

Well you have your opinion and I have mine. Lets wait and see who is right ok.