Jeremy Corbyn Elected

Exactly.

I think you might have hit the nail on the head there soon.

You can be principled personally, but in the position of power for many reasons you cannot go it alone. Many people in politics on all sides are principled, others are not, but the PM and Leader of the Opposition cannot have the luxury of principles all the time.

What principles has JC ditched?

rose you are right. JC recognises that in order to succeed he has to take the Labour Party with him, he is therefore open to debate like any good leader should be, anything else is a dictatorship.
Democracy in action.

Eleothan, I did not 'get all snippy when similarly challenged'.

Durhamjen made one of her usual assumptions about what I actually meant, and as it was a wong assumption I could hardly be expected to explain it.

Or pragmatism in action.

Love to debate this all day, but have to go out.

It is too soon to make a definite pronouncement on JC. He hasn't actually done anything yet except get elected and make a few noises. In a year's time we can start another thread on him, with a bit more data to go on.

Maybe he's had o change his stance on some issues because he knows that the priority at this time is to try to unite the party behind him.
Call it making compromises, conceding to keep the peace.

DC called the EU referendum even though it was against his stated principles, to pacify the extreme right wing of his party.

In which case TriciaF, rebels should bear that in mind.

Trident, queen, poppies, are the principles so far.

Don't be silly, Ana. If I made the wrong assumption surely you ought to tell me what the correct assumption is, i.e., what you really meant.
That's what normal people do, isn't it?

We've been through all this on the other thread. And quite a few people commented that you were being unreasonable, so I don't think it's me who's being silly.

No, Ana, you did not tell me what you did mean. You just told me I was wrong in my assumptions, as you are still doing.
Please can you tell me what you did mean.

This was your question:

'Can you explain why it's okay for foreign government railway companies to own railways in Britain but not our own government?'

At no point had I said I thought that. You assumed that I must think that (as is your wont).

Perhaps you could point out where I actually said I believed that, as someone asked you to previously.

The meat has been completely gnawed from that bone until no-one really cares to chew it any more.

Why not leave it and get on with discussing Corbyn?

I would have done if Eloethan hadn't made her 'snippy' comment.

I'll leave durhamjen to her interrogation tactics if she really wants to continue appearing foolish.

My post crossed with your previous one, Ana

One of the main criticisms of politicians is that they don't stick to their promises or principles. Quite often I expect this is because they find they have to compromise in order to achieve anything at all. Corbyn hasn't had to do this yet so I expect he's on a steep learning curve, especially if he doesn't want the Labour Party to have split factions or to lose good politicians. As elegran says, it's too early to know what he's capable of as a leader of one of the main political parties in Britain. I don't think it's too early to say that if he truly believes in democracy, he's going to have to compromise on quite a lot of things if he wants the party to win in elections.

Which rather means, to me anyway, that his previous views have been rather a waste of time. To him and to us.

When he could actaully try and push his actual views through, he finds he cant.

It happens to a lot of (most?) politicians. What seems a clear-cut way forward, viewed from the back rows of the opposition benches, becomes a slalom course for a leader when the whole of the MP's, the party, and the electorate, have to be behind him/her to achieve their aim of getting a majority in the House and actually altering the course of a whole country. There are many shades of grey between black and white.

'Questioning tactics' ? Not quite sure what else there is to do if anyone makes a really vague and short statement about something, without any explanation of what was meant.

Thinking about it, there seems to be only 3 possible options, ignore (which may be considered rude or unfair- we've discussed this before, remember the Clan Bear discussions about ignoring being a tactic in early man civilisations as a punishment) question (which may be seen as rude or unfair) or make assumptions depending on context of the rest of the discussion (which ... ditto).

Or?

Sigh...

Are you saying it's not alright for foreign governments to own our railways,then, Ana?