Voting for Jeremy Corbyn - the political equivalent of buying a Harley Davidson

That's what I was told.
I thought you were not a member any more?

That is not correct

There wasn't really a problem.
They were not speaking because the party wanted more grssroots speakers, ordinary people to speak.
Neither Khan nor Burnham were bothered.
They can speak now because there are some gaps in the programme because some speakers have backed out.
I am sure those who want to can make mischief out of that.

Yes Tegan I was pleased to hear that - clearly wiser counsel has prevailed. Both men have important roles and listening to what they say should be interesting

Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham didn't have a slot but there seems to have been a change of mind about it; am pleased to hear it! Maybe someone has been paying attention to my Facebook rants!! (can't beat a good rant....)

anniebach inspired by David Cameron?

I wasn't thinking of your posts GG

Ho, Ho, Ho. That would be funny err, if it was funny. Strangely, not everyone has changed their views as not everyone was so utterly entrenched and we all knew you were talking about you - you always do.

See Rudd was the latest potential candidate for leader. They must be absolutely desperate. No wonder Maybot still wears the crown albeit slightly tilted to one side and likely to fall off at any minute.

Can't be bothered with a return of the swarm, will not feed your need

Are you sure, Annie?

Not to run the country

Er - why did the Labour Party come into being?

Eleothan , I didn't know he worked to get militants back into the party until proof was shown on Chanel 4 news, good grief if I had know earlier I would not have supported him.

Again you are twisting my posts, I support unions I do not support governments controlled by unions, see the difference ?

So is Andy Burnham. He's speaking about homelessness, along with the metro mayor of Liverpool.

According to the BBC online, the Independent and the Guardian, Sadiq Khan is going to speak at the Labour party conference.

anniebach There is nothing wrong with changing your mind about whether you like or trust any politician - I felt optimistic about Tony Blair when he got in and was supportive of several of his initiatives. I started to change my mind when he championed the PFI arrangements. The final straw was the invasion of a country on a false pretext.

Changing your mind on the basis of a person's performance in office is one thing but to suddenly start criticising a person on the grounds of his political record, when you knew about that record, and had recently defended it, seems rather contrary:

"Anniebach Mon 17-Aug-15 10:50:28
I have no problem with Corbyn saying he had conversations with Hezbollah or Hamas or the IRA , talks are better than bombs , listening is better than bombs , The man is a pacifist. I doubt he exchanges Christmas cards or has cosy dinners with them. I have friends in the true sense of the word who are Tories , because they are friends it doesn't mean I share their values"

You originally said you had to be true to your socialist values by voting for Corbyn and you loudly criticised several of those who were openly critical or lukewarm about Corbyn, including Liz Kendall, Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper (whom you now support). You said it was wrong for people to equate the left wing with totalitarianism, communism - and now even fascism - and you derided several posters for comments made in that vein. Yet quite recently you made comparisons of those you judge to be "far left" with Hitler Youth.

What I think even stranger than changing your mind about Corbyn's political record and character, is the complete about-turn of your views on, amongst other things, unions. Having originally decried those who characterised unions as a negative and disruptive force, you then went on to make even more critical remarks about unions and their past record yourself.

I'm sorry if some people don't like old opinions being raked up but I feel the record needs putting straight.

By the way POGS, although I continued to vote for the Labour Party even when I disagreed with Blair (because I believe the party is more than just its leader), I had not been a member since 1979. I re-joined during Miliband's leadership - not Corbyn's.

Land value tax instead?

Yes Bsnd D is far too low to base changes on but I think that's the wrong direction of travel anyway. Council Tax is not related directly to ability to pay and all sorts of anomalies are thrown up which are beyond solution

Tegan, I like Chris Williamson. However, just because he says that he thinks those on band D and above should pay more council tax doesn't mean it will happen.
It's just an idea to discuss, I think.
There's definitely a need to alter the system by bringing in a greater number of bands, but D seems far too low.

I wasn't thinking of your posts GG

There you go again, Day6, saying there are Momentum supporters on here.
I actually do not know any and am not one myself, so who are you talking about?

Yes views change but why is this not accepted for all Posters?

Because the comments of some who have changed their views add nothing to the discussion as it is so very, very repetitious and boring and a purely personal attack?

I really enjoy your posts Tegan - they are always so refreshingly honest and open and, like many of us you can differentiate between general suppose for a party and thinking that means it's whole hearted support and you agree with everything that it says. That's one reason why I think the political threads get so tedious - people jump to ridiculous conclusions about you from one positive comment. We have a small number of parties in this country and it would be impossible for many of us to decide that one had all the answers and was always right. For me, it's about basic underlying philosophies and not actual policies which can blow with the wind

Links = good

Long drawn out comments on who said what when = big yawn.

But as you say " it is only a forum"

Day I think you are attributing far too much importance to certain links. The idea that a link is stultifying I really find puzzling - long detailed posts about who said what when on the other hand.....Personally I like to post a link which provides more information after I've given some information myself . That way it saves people reading it if they are not interested in the issue that I've flagged up. But either way, who cares? It's only a forum and if you don't like it....