Corbyn and the Monarchy and Armed Forces.

So can you give me actual evidence for them being hard left? I am quite interested to understand which of their social democratic policies you consider beyond the pale.

Or

Is the fact that you continually repeat that they are hard left is done so without a shred of evidence provided?
I suggest you look at Labour policies being developed to assist you in your analysis.

The Fail? Oh....is that your amusing name for the DM?
Don't take any papers, and haven't for years, but when we did it was The Times....does that have an amusing name as well?
Corbyn and McDonnell.....not far left? ROFL

Nope wrong rose. The unions would have no more or less power than they do at present unless parliament changed the law.

Labour policy is decided at conference. It is the PLPs job to develop it. Labour policy will be decided by ALL.

You are letting the Fail get through to you again.

Is it your unsubstantiated opinion that they are far left or is it based on evidence?

If nobody had thought that, Corbyn would be PM right now.

Does anyone think that the Unions would not have more power ( a lot more) under a Corbyn McDonnell government?
Yes, I think they are far left , and so do a good number of Labour MP's and electorate.

I disagree NannyMcPhU, giving unions more power ?

If you look at the sort of economics and policies being developed by the Labour Party annie I think you will find that they have far more in common with social democratic policies than the old militant policies.

That's better Annie facts, are better than mere opinion.

However, I'm not sure that Labour is unelectable any more and I also think the Labour Party reflects in its manifesto what is a rather a more left view, rather than the extremes of Blairism or Trotskyism.

Corbyn is of the same politics as the militants who were expelled from the party in the eighties , the politics which made the Labour Party unelectable for 14 years . He led a campaign to get the expelled militants back in the party

I am also entirely unclear, where "hard left politics" has come from.

Corbyns policy if you take the trouble to study it takes much of its principles from the European social democratic tradition.
Principles that guide Merkel. Macron the Scandinavian countries etc. Hard left someone is allowing the hard right to fool them.

It takes a strong personality to stick to your beliefs but at the same time recognise democracy when they see it.

So is Yggdrasil, right to point out how Labour policies are agreed on. That's why the Manifesto was a good one. jC is clear about his own views on Trident but will lead on what is Labour policy. I believe it's right to debate Trident because the costs and benefits need to be set against the need for effective armed service personnel. We are an island yet our navy is diminishing.

You're right about that NannyMcPhu. Imagine how different things would be if we'd had a Labour leader like Wilson, who refused to allow the UK to be dragged into the Vietnam war.

The Labour Party is not like the Conservatives, it is really democratic. Policy is set at Conference, by the membership. As leader, Jeremy Corbyn's views are well known, at least by those in the party, if not the right-wing media. But if conference comes up with a different policy, that is what the party policy will be. The leader will then have to either support it, or resign. And if you truly believe in democracy, you support it.

You are entitled to your opinion Annie but please remember it is your opinion and not necessarily a fact because you state it.

That might be true rosesarered inasmuch as he was dismissed, ridiculed and not accepted by the PLP until he showed that he could carry the wider public with him. Now many are having to look at him with new eyes. He certainly isn't a New Labour man and those who pinned their colours securely to that particular flag are having to think again.

One think I can say for sure is that this man, Corbyn, would most definitely NOT have allowed himself and the country to be led, hand in hand bybthe likes of Bush, into the Iraqi war. Think of the consequences to the Middle East since then, the rise of Isis and the knock-on terrorist attacks in this country,

I'm positive that Jeremy Corbyn would NOT have taken us to war.

JC would not be my first choice as Labour leader. I'm not so cynical as to believe the 'scent' of victory is leading MPs to lower their criticism. Could it be, that like many others, they no,longer feel so anxious that he can only campaign and never lead.
I still have concerns, particularly about McDonnell and Abbot but the LP seems in bettter shape, more optimistic and alive than it did pre election campaign. That has to be a good thing for this country. Every government needs an effective opposition and its beginning to look as though we have that in the LP if not the LibDems sadly.

But corbyn isn't a man of principle

True, now that they are scenting the Labour Party may win next time Labour MP's are not so noisy about getting rid of Corbyn ( and in any case they can't get rid of him.)That doesn't mean they agree with his hard left politics.
I think that Corbyns aim all along is to take the Labour Party in as far a left direction as he can, deselecting enemies if he can along the way ( not just him personally doing this, his team,Momentum advisors etc.)

I'm wig Nanny on the issue of Corbyn's commttment to the democratic process in the Labour Party. its clear that the anxiety amongst MPs and many party members about his ability to lead, rather than simply campaign, has been lessened by his behaviour during and since the election.

That is my take on him exactly Nanny

My opinion, and I repeat this is only my opinion POGS (though there is the evidence out there to suggest this might be the case) is that the PLP will unite behind Corbyn, with a few exceptions.

I accept that as a long-time pacifist (as I am too) and a member of CND (I marched in my time) and a holder of a prestigious peace award Corbyn has views which some might consider different. As a back bencher he upheld his views and principles.

Now, however, he is the leader of the Labour Party and has another strongly held principle to uphold, that of democracy. I genuinely feel that this man, while still having strong anti-nuclear and pacifist views, recognises that as Leader the will of the majority within his party, democratically elected, is reflected in The Labour manifesto. And as a man of principle he will bow to the god of democracy.

My point is widely accepted that the PLP and the Corbyn/Momentum party are at odds on many defence aspects.

Widely accepted hey[rolls eyes] As far as I am aware the LP believes in this little thing called democracy - it may be a new concept to some Tories who think buying votes, etc., is OK, but whatever members of the PLP - after all they are individuals and will have differing opinions - or Jeremy Corbyn think or members of the party, whether they belong to momentum or not, think it is a vote in their Conference that makes policy - or am I wrong?

What no one should be expected to do is to suddenly tell the world that the views you have held for 50+ years have changed because the conference vote is different to your own view. I can imagine just what the likes of you, POGS would say if anyone did that.

I know the Cons like to keep these things under their hats and not make human-like comments but this Labour Party seems to appeal because we can see democracy isn't any easier for them than for us.

There is also the fact if Corbyn should be asked to form a government before the next General Election he would have to have a coalition or confidence and supply with the Greens, Plaid Cymru, the SNP who would ' all ' be only too willing partners to completely change the defence strategy of the UK.

The question is not what we feel as individuals but what the defence policy of the UK could look like under Corbyn. I don't think many will not understand where he stands on the matter.

NannyMcPhu

I said this:-

"Corbyn et al have over the years wanted our Security Services to be disbanded such as MI5. They are at odds with the Labour Party but again there seems to be an impasse ' for now' and the recent Labour Manifesto is at odds with their historic views. Again it is a case of 'towing the party line'."

I know what was in the Labour Manifesto.

My point is widely accepted that the PLP and the Corbyn/Momentum party are at odds on many defence aspects.

Why do you think the Shadow Defence Secretary Nia Griffith is at odds with the likes of Corbyn and Thornberry on occasion?

It is because Nia Griffith sticks to the Labour Party position but the gang of 4 go off piste and make their personal views known.

I was surprised she wasn't removed from the Shadow Cabinet to be honest. A sensible women in my opinion.

Corbyn is at odds with the Labour Party in general over several things, if he ever managed to get into power the next manifesto would be very different.
He is wedded to the idea of getting rid of Trident or any nuclear deterrent, and really only believes in using the armed forces for peacekeeping projects.
So, yes, POGS an excellent post from you.