Corbyns Inertia

I don't think we will

Many of us always realised that nuclear deterrence was just a temporary illusion- and that proliferation would put an end to this- as soon as 2 madmen got involved- as we have now. We live in very dangerous times.

M A D

so I am with JC on this.

We have a nuclear deterrent, which, the second that Corbyn became PM, would cease to be a deterrent.
So no, he should never become PM, and hopefully, he never will.
It’s not about using it, but having it and saying you will use it if provoked by another country threatening to use theirs.

The man is a dead loss in every conceivable way.

that logic, lemongrove, does not work when 2 madmen get involved, and when proliferation means so many unstable countries have nuclear weapons too.

I so hope for our grandchildren that Friday is not right- but we do live in a VERY dangerous world at the moment.

We do live in a dangerous world.
Even when many countries have their own nuclear power it is still a deterrent, who would use it knowing it’s going to ‘come right back atcha’.
As for madmen, neither Trump nor Kim are truly mad and even they have their advisors.

Interesting article in the FT about how John McDonnell wants to reduce mortgage lending - making it harder for banks to give mortgages.

"Labour eyes curb on UK mortgage lending"

"It could be politically risky to implement a policy that could diminish the supply of mortgages"

The article explains he's trying to boost lending to small businesses, however by cutting mortgage lending there's no guarantee that banks would lend to business instead and the way that they're proposing to do this - using capital regulations - will be problematic.

Sounds like just the ticket for all those young voters hoping to get on the housing ladder!

The Corbynites want rid of nuclear ware fare, many in the country want to keep it as a deterrent .

Surprisingly to some, many on the right wing also see no point in spending vast amounts of cash on nuclear weapons.

The Corbyn Peace Prize story which seems to have aroused many shouts of 'unfairness' by Corbyns followers, Momentum , Corbyn activists on social media , sqwawkbox, The Canary etc. is nothing more than a stunt in my opinion to try and raise the image of Corbyn on one hand and to try and make out Corbyn is hard done by when it comes to the media.

As far as I can see nobody from the Labour Party, Momentum , sqwawkbox , The Canary reported Corbyn had won the prize at the time it was given in September but I am always happy to be corrected.

Primrose 65

The Daily Politics interview on the subject was interesting to see how the story evolved.

Corbyn didn't have time to collect his prize until November ? And being awarded a peace prize for saying 'I wouldn't press the button' isn't in the league of Dr King or Mandela

So are we now saying it's the responsibility of political parties (who arguably only reach the already converted) to write national news stories? If so we are treading a very dangerous propaganda path. It is the responsibility of the national media to report stories of national interest without bias or favour. The fact that this was reported internationally (and many stories are picked up from them) but not in the UK is very troubling. This business of why wasn't it on party media is just a red herring.

I wonder how long this poor dead horse is going to be continually flogged?

The International Peace Bureau was founded in the 19th century and has a long and respectable history. It awards the prize to someone who has contributed outstandingly to peace, disarmament and human rights.

To rubbish such an old establishment is to sound mealy mouthed and unpleasant.

It says much about the character of the man himself to not make a song and dance of the prize, but to accept it quietly and graciously.

You see this is the problem I have with Corbyn and his facing two ways.

He says he won't 'Push the Button' so he get's a Peace Prize..
He is anti Trident and wants to scrap it.
BUT
He says he respects the Labour policy to keep Trident
It was in the Labour Manifesto to keep Trident.

Now we all know if Labour were the Government with Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott/Thornberry at the helm Trident would probably be top of the 'get shut of' list to do.

That brings us back it to the Party within a Party scenario of new and 'return' Labour members and Momentum/Jeremy for Leader who would agree with him not the Parliamentary Labour Party or the NEC.

It also brings us back to the hopes of Momentum to influence on the NEC.

It doesn't matter what the subject , Momentum/Jeremy for Leader , is what some have called it 'ENTRYISM ' (the infiltration of a political party by members of another group, with the intention of subverting its policies or objectives.).

What's not to understand? Retaining Trident was a party decision. Corbyn respects party decisions. End of. Simples!

Diane Abbott said end of November that she would back a second referendum on the final deal- then quickly backtracked saying her words had been mis-interpreted. Starmer and Umuna are certainly in favour.

So now, we just do not know Labour's stance at all. Personally, whether I approve or not of Corbyn and the Labout Party manifesto- is suddenly irrelevant. Brexit is just too important - and we do know JC's stance on the EU for a very long time. Labour seems to be as split as ever- and as the Tories. On the one hand the old guard, with JC, fiercefully anti EU, and the young guard, very open to the EU and prepared to fight Brexit and give people a say, once we know what we are actually talking about.

And they re mocked as 'Champagne Socialists' and suffer massively because of the New Labour, tainted by Blair going to war on Irak. What a mess.

www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/labour-mixed-brexit-message-1-5324068

I don't see any problem with not knowing Labour's stance.
Labour do not need to have one, as they are not in power. They can continue having discussions about it until the next general election.

I think that you need to listen to labour’s Brexit shadow minister, that will tell you what you need to know. JC has given a very competent and reliable mp the responsibility and is content to rely on Starmers judgement being progressed with input from other labour members.

It is clear that JC from his tweets is intent in doing just that. His thoughts are constantly consumed with the poor and underprivileged, and it is obvious to anyone reading these thoughts that policy will be firmly rooted in improving their lot.

It is also clear that labour’s message is quite deliberately ambiguous. As I’ve said on another thread, Labour is not the government, they do not yet need to set out their table, mind you neither has the government. They are the official opposition and members of a sovereign parliament. Their job is to scrutinise, and debate where necessary, and subsequently vote for or against the final negotiations.

The official opposition party does not need a stance ?

Strange how people who claim to have been long-standing members of the Labour party do not know how Labour works.
As whitewave says, they discuss. They come to conclusions when they need to, usually at party conferences. They do not browbeat their own members into taking a stance against the government on something as important as Brexit, nor should they.
The electorate itself is still divided, as is the membership.

Here is the press release for Corbyn's award from the IPB, saying why he was awarded it, and when the presentation would be.

www.ipb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Press-release_MacBride-Peace-Prize-2017.pdf

There was no need for the media to say anything about it in September, as it wasn't awarded until 24th November.
Just for those who want to find reasons to criticise him even more.

Politicians are criticised , he is a politician

I don't see any problem with not knowing Labour's stance. Labour do not need to have one, as they are not in power.

I disagree.
You cannot hold the government to account if you do not know what account to hold them to. The Labour Party are as much to blame for any 'Brexit chaos' as the Tories.
A strong opposition with a clear Brexit strategy is absolutely needed for our democracy to work.

On brexit

Q. Would you back a second referendum ?

Tom Watson - you should not rule anything out

Diane Abbott - the Labour Party does not support a second referendum

Brexit isn't a party political problem, and May should not try to make it one.
Most of her MPs were against it, yet when some of them vote against her, she sacks the one that she can.
That can't be right.