The Labour Party

Shall we form a whole new Party Bridgeit ? What shall we call it? How about ‘and now for something completely different’ Anyone can join, but will be rigorously interviewed by us first ( and it will cost a fiver.)Only serious
Applicants need apply......form an orderly queue please!

Not aimed at you Bridgeit and I certainly didn't mean to offend you or make you think you have to justify anything to me! I wasn't commenting on anyone's personal politics. I don't really care who people vote for - I don't like any of the options out there at the moment either!

Not sure who your post is aimed at Primrose , but for the record I am neither Conservative or Labour.

You should honestly admit that it wouldn't matter who it was Bridgeit you don't want any change; you are happy with what is being done to people

I wonder sometimes just when you will stop arrogantly telling people what to write and think

Todays lesson in cognitive dissonance, Bridgeit, that's all.

Your last sentence cannot be attributed to anything I think or believe in GG , so I would thank you not to second guess knowing anything about me.

I have commented earlier, that I think it is time to change the way we are governed I believe that a coalition government is the way forwards, especially with the EU departure looming,this surely takes us beyond party politics.

I feel JC hides behind this ambiguity in order to win support from the electorate, without us really knowing where his intentions would really take us.

I think you have muddled him up with Thatcher and the neoliberals - look what they have done to us without some people really noticing.

I don't think Corbyn is hiding anything. I think it is easy to see what he believes would be best for the most people. I am not sure I would want all that he might want; in fact I doubt it. However I do think we need to be pulled back from the brink of loosing all we hold dear and sometime that pull takes us a bit further in the opposite direction before it settles nicely in the middle and I am prepared to accept that to get out of the awful view of the world through the neoliberal eyes.

You should honestly admit that it wouldn't matter who it was Bridgeit, you don't want any change; you are happy with what is being done to people and, knowing this lot will not do anything different is okay by you.

Has not had

I wouldn’t say pricipled,but honest in terms of she seems too earnest to be dishonest even if she could be considered misguided , I just think he had a deviousness about him.

And May's ambiguity, Bridgeit? Where does that get us?

Talking about something other than the LP and Corbyn, Jen?

May's ambiguity is principled, is it, Bridgeit?

Apologies if that is not what you meant Anniebach

I agree, but I believe one is open & obvious to see ( even if not desirable & perhaps laughable at times) where the other is devious & not principled as he would have us believe.

Presumably Anniebach means

Multi-Party Agreement:
British Government
Irish Government
Political parties of Northern Ireland

British-Irish Agreement:
United Kingdom
Republic of Ireland

And May's ambiguity, Bridgeit? Where does that get us?

What do you mean by three sides, Annie?

Ideologies come in many guises, and are open to interpretation, therefore easier to obscure ones true colours. I feel JC hides behind this ambiguity in order to win support from the electorate, without us really knowing where his intentions would really take us.

Yes the Good Friday agreement came about with three sides talking to each other which shows Corbyn's excuse that he only talked and supported the IRA for peace was rubbish

"If you want peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies."
--

The question there is who you regard as your friends and who you regard as your enemies Gracesgran?

If you follow the principle - "If you want peace, you don't talk to your friends" - what does it mean if your friends are known to be IRA/Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran .?

If you follow the principle, which does have some mileage in it to be fair, " You talk to your enemies." who are your enemies if the IRA/Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran are not your enemies but friends then who would be your enemy?

There is a huge difference in 'talking to', 'speaking to' and giving your support/backing to certain groups / regimes .

There is a huge difference in 'talking to' regimes/political groups when you are doing so in an official / governmental capacity and when you are doing it independently .

That's good, lemon, because it wasn't to you, anyway, so I've no idea why you said that.
Shall we both go back to ignoring each other?

durhamjen your comment isn’t even worth my bothering about.

Oh I get it all right GG but think that anyone who believes Corbyn ‘talked’ to these organisations because he thought he could achieve something is naive in the extreme.He was a humble backbencher, and his meetings, rallies and talks with such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the IRA suited him and his agenda, in fact anything that was ‘against the establishment’ was meat and drink to him I bet.
You, of course, are free to believe whatever you like.

Corbyn said with hindsight he was wrong calling them friends, but he didn't say he was wrong talking to them.

The Good Friday agreement came about with three sides talking to each other.
If they'd all acted like some of you wanted them to, there would be no Good Friday agreement.
Of course, that might be what you want as well.

I know Lemongrove; you don't get it. I should stop worrying if I was you.

Some people are very naive.