Jump to content

Jeremy Corbyn is the new Labour leader


bigmatt
 Share

Recommended Posts


We really need a proper, viable, slightly left of centre party. Or maybe even just a proper centre party, instead of the right wing tories and the not quite as right wing new labour.

 

I actually like Corbyn, and some of the things he does and stands for, but he is too far to the left and his key positions would be a disaster for the country if he was elected as PM. He'd tank the economy back to 3 day weeks, unending strikes etc, and the reality is that modern business doesn't just have to live with it, they'll move elsewhere.

 

And the thought of having a man who supports homeopathy in charge of the NHS sends chills down my spine. It's called being so open-minded, your brain has fallen out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of front-benchers quit as soon as the result came in.

 

Corbyn wants the military to be reduced to a Home Guard only, have separate train carriages for men and women, print more money into circulation and is a known sympathiser with various terrorist organisations.

 

There's more chance of me getting voted in as Prime Minister with JayFunk as the Home Secretary and Omega as Minister for Cats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, the separate train carriages was an idea he wanted to discuss with womens' leaders, not something he wanted to implement.

 

The defence budget needs cutting, we spend more than freaking Germany. 2% of GDP goes to defense and the only active war we're fighting is the "War on Terror", which basically serves the same purpose as the "war" in 1984. It can't be won because it's against a perpetual threat. The more we try to win it, the worst it becomes because we inevitably make even more enemies, it's a classic case of the hydra.

 

On a tangent, why we bother with ridiculously expensive next gen manned fighters or bombers, I really don't understand. They're stupidly expensive and not really any better than the previous planes except, maybe, at stealth. Convert existing jets (the F16 would be my choice) to remote controlled or semi-autonomous drones and build loads more because they're much, much cheaper than next gen planes. For the cost of a single Eurofighter, we could buy and drone-ify 4-5 F16's. Hell, make it 3. I can still tell you which side is going to win. And when the F16's kill the Eurofighter, we also loose the pilot we spent millions training too. It's just dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can't be won because it's against a perpetual threat. The more we try to win it, the worst it becomes because we inevitably make even more enemies, it's a classic case of the hydra.
So we should stop fighting it and let the terrorists do what they want?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, the separate train carriages was an idea he wanted to discuss with womens' leaders, not something he wanted to implement.

 

The defence budget needs cutting, we spend more than freaking Germany. 2% of GDP goes to defense and the only active war we're fighting is the "War on Terror", which basically serves the same purpose as the "war" in 1984. It can't be won because it's against a perpetual threat. The more we try to win it, the worst it becomes because we inevitably make even more enemies, it's a classic case of the hydra.

 

On a tangent, why we bother with ridiculously expensive next gen manned fighters or bombers, I really don't understand. They're stupidly expensive and not really any better than the previous planes except, maybe, at stealth. Convert existing jets (the F16 would be my choice) to remote controlled or semi-autonomous drones and build loads more because they're much, much cheaper than next gen planes. For the cost of a single Eurofighter, we could buy and drone-ify 4-5 F16's. Hell, make it 3. I can still tell you which side is going to win. And when the F16's kill the Eurofighter, we also loose the pilot we spent millions training too. It's just dumb.

2 % of GDP is actually a requirement of NATO and in fact imho should be higher. We pay much more on interest on debt.

Edited by bigmatt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we should stop fighting it and let the terrorists do what they want?

 

Repeating the same action, over and over and expecting different results is madness. We chopped the head off Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and got ISIS as a bigger problem. When/if we break ISIS, whatever emerges then will be an even bigger problem until eventually we've got the whole of the middle east wanting us dead. So fighting them looks like a real solid plan...

 

The real problem isn't even the organisation, it's the ideas it represents. It would be a shit load harder to radicalise people here if it weren't so easy to convince them we were waging an unjust war on Islam.

 

There's a reason they feel like that, and our war efforts like Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, unlawful detention, "collateral damage" from drone strikes, Apache gunships slaughtering civilians etc. don't exactly prove them wrong.

 

Tell me, we're at more risk or less risk now, after our intervention, than we were before it?

 

 

2 % of GDP is actually a requirement of NATO and in fact imho should be higher. We pay much more on interest on debt.

 

Yes, a requirement many other NATO countries don't meet. As you think we should be spending more, what exactly should we be spending that money on? The only serious threat, militarily speaking, is China. And they wouldn't need a war to get Europe to tow the line.

Edited by etz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Repeating the same action, over and over and expecting different results is madness. We chopped the head off Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and got ISIS as a bigger problem. When/if we break ISIS, whatever emerges then will be an even bigger problem until eventually we've got the whole of the middle east wanting us dead. So fighting them looks like a real solid plan...

 

The real problem isn't even the organisation, it's the ideas it represents. It would be a shit load harder to radicalise people here if it weren't so easy to convince them we were waging an unjust war on Islam.

 

There's a reason they feel like that, and our war efforts like Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, unlawful detention, "collateral damage" from drone strikes, Apache gunships slaughtering civilians etc. don't exactly prove them wrong.

 

Tell me, we're at more risk or less risk now, after our intervention, than we were before it?

 

 

 

 

Yes, a requirement many other NATO countries don't meet. As you think we should be spending more, what exactly should we be spending that money on? The only serious threat, militarily speaking, is China. And they wouldn't need a war to get Europe to tow the line.

The face of the enemy changes on a daily basis.

Edited by Kam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know much about him, whats he like/stand for?

 

Very like Corbyn, he's a close friend and ally. He was always bound to get the job of his choosing because of how hard he worked to shore him up. He's another old member of the 80's hard left. To put him at that time in perspective, he once was sacked by Ken Livingstone for being too militant. Ken Livingstone was painted as the moderate in that feud. He's smarter and more intellectual than Corbyn. I believe he and Jeremy Corbyn were the two most rebellious (voting against their party leaders instruction) in the last parliament.

 

I didn't know anything about his IRA comments, previously though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of front-benchers quit as soon as the result came in.

 

Corbyn wants the military to be reduced to a Home Guard only, have separate train carriages for men and women, print more money into circulation and is a known sympathiser with various terrorist organisations.

 

There's more chance of me getting voted in as Prime Minister with JayFunk as the Home Secretary and Omega as Minister for Cats.

 

I want to be minister of cats :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The face of the enemy changes on a daily basis.

The more it changes the more it stays the same. We're our own worst enemy and everything we try to do against our enemies not only fails, but only ever earns us more enemies and makes the situation worse.

 

Seriously, look up the actual history of the middle east with the US and UK. No need to go back to the Crusades, the last 150 ~ 200 years is bad enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...