Jeremy Corbyn Elected

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?

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

Or pragmatism 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.

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.

What principles has JC ditched?

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.

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

Exactly.

I am confused.

If someone is a pluralist, where are principles?
I thought he was supposed to be very principled?

What is the point in having principles, to ditch them when reality strikes?

Does this mean that everyone knows that although you may be rebelling, when reality strikes, they re going to be ditched?

Interesting.

Not really fair in that case, against those who you are rebelling against.

So far as JC is concerned, 'pluralist' seems to mean different things to different people. To some it means he listens to the other more with it people around him, to others it simply means that he keeps changing his mind when they tell him not to be a silly billy.

Oh dear no soon but he is democratic and inclusive enough to want to form policies that are just that - democratic and inclusive. Democracy in action.

I have already had to look up the definitions of pragmatism and pluralist this morning.

If I am understanding correctly, definition of pluralist is
dictionary.reference.com/browse/pluralistic

He is that?
I got the impression that he has not changed his views on anything since the 70s or 80s.

Now you are saying that he is loose on his views?

Well said whitewave

JC is, and has always been a pluralist. What you are experiencing is nothing more than what we can expect. Democracy in action. The Labour Party is now in a period of debate and formulation of its policies that will gradually emerge after undoubtedly much heated argument. Democracy in action.
As Leader JCs job is to steer these debates towards a consensus, and then take them and present them to the voter.

Oh for a decent integrated transport system, granjura! We don't live in the sticks, but have one bus per hour to our nearest large town - 3 miles away - and the last one goes in at 1900h and back at 1920h. To add insult to injury, the route is the only one in the area served by this particular company, so fare deals are impossible. When we moved here we had 3 buses per hour till 2300h. We have the busiest crossroads for miles around, which has got worse as the bus service did. No train service - we've a station ripe for reopening, but it probably never will. At the moment we have a car and can still trek the mile uphill to the nearest decent bus link, but this doesn't apply to all.

The triumph of pragmatism over principle

Halleluya!

It is a shame a lot more people dont go through that experience.

If he didnt do that, I doubt he would have lasted 1 month in power.

His head must be all over the place, having to ditch stuff he has held dear most of his life.
It only took 9 days, for him to sober up as it were.

The general population tends to think that governments are in charge. They are to a degree.
But sometimes I think that lawyers and banks ultimately have more power than they do.

My mother used to not like banks in the 70s. She realised what they were like back then.
I have grown up hearing about banks. Dont worry, I very much agree with you Eloethan.

jingle I posted something a while ago which stated that the subsidy given to the railways is now, I think, four times what it was when the railways were nationalised. A spokesman for, I think it was called RailFuture - who seemed to be neither pro nor anti Corbyn's proposal - said that, given the very small subsidies that successive governments had previously given to the service before privatisation, the railways had done a pretty good job. It is a fact that when something is privatised, not only is it still necessary to pay for investment, staff, ongoing maintenance, etc., but it is also necessary to pay shareholders - so there is an extra expense. This can either come from cutting investment or cutting corners, increased fares - and we all know that our rail fares are the highest in Europe - or in cutting staff or freezing/cutting pay.

elegran durhamjen responded to Ana's question "why didn't it [the railways] stay under public ownership then" - so Ana initiated the questioning - and received an answer - but then got all snippy when she was similarly challenged.

The argument that has been used about subsidies to the railways is that most people don't travel regularly by rail so why should they subsidise those that do? This is, of course, the usual divide and rule tactic that, if taken to its logical conclusion, implies that it is a reasonable premise that people should only contribute to those services which they use.

I heard a news item today which reported Farage as saying neither the railway companies nor any other companies can be re-nationalised because of EU rules. If that's true - and I don't know if it is - that seems really worrying to me.

I agree with whitewave's point about water companies. At one time people had to agree to have a water meter but it seems that several water companies now force people into having them. We do not and will not voluntarily have one installed, not because we're bothered about our own water bill but because we don't agree with the principle of water metering. It places even more pressure on families with young children and on individuals or carers dealing with continence issues - there is a public health dimension. My mum was encouraged to have a meter on the basis that she got a "special rate". Recently that "special rate" was abolished so having induced people to install a meter the terms upon which it was agreed are then changed. I also agree with her point about South coast trains. My son and his partner and children moved to West Sussex but moved back to Chingford again because of the very unreliable and crowded rail service.

soontobe You keep saying the same thing about quantitative easing but, as several commentators have said, in effect quantitative easing is ongoing because financial institutions are loaning money to more and more people and businesses who are hardly keeping their heads above water and who may well at some stage be unable to service their debt. The EU itself is also using quantitative easing, as the Guardian reported in January this year:

"European government borrowing rates also plummeted to record lows after Draghi said a programme of quantitative easing (QE) worth ??60bn a month would start in March and last until at least next September or when inflation returned to near its 2% target."

My feeling - and that of many other people - is that we have a financial system that is out of control, with banks so sure that whatever mess they make governments will have to clear it up. One scandal follows another - manipulation of interest rates and currencies and no doubt they are even now finding new ways of using the system to their own ends. One man is imprisoned for a long time for engaging in these sorts of practices. I find it difficult to believe that none of his colleagues or bosses were aware of what was happening. Banks were fined for mis-selling products but who will ultimately pay those fines - their customers I suspect.

We've got buses! But they don't run in the morning at a time to suit people going to work because the roads are too busy and they couldn't stick to a timetable!
(or so I was told)