The Nasty Labour Party - what they really stand for.

I am a Labour Party member and I agree envy and almost hatred is what is pouring from a section of the Labour Party since Corbyn became leader

Yes.

Being "labour critical" gets you labelled a life long Tory and hater of the underprivileged.

You either blindly adore or you are the enemy.

Even if you desperately WANT a left or centre party that you can still vote for

lemon, a poster said I was a target , seems bullying and threats and within the guidelines

Corbyns labour dont WANT to appeal to centrists. They hate centrists MORE than they hate the far right (makes sense now that they have more in common with extremists than liberal centrists) and they hate the middle classes more than they hate the super rich.

Its turn on your neighbour because they have 2 cars instead of your one mentality

Expressing concern for vulnerable children who are not in a position to make proper decisions is just that. I am amazed that so many people do not share concern for these poor souls.

No, you are doing the Labour "I care, you don't" thing. You are twisting the discussion.

The Labour stance on this thread is that young people come out of the services scarred for life and because they had a lousy home existence which made them 'vulnerable' they should not be recruited to the services.

Many others have tried to point out that yes, scarred individuals may have chickens coming home to roost in later life but why should all youngsters lacking nurture and care be denied an experience that for many, many is life-enhancing, providing so much which has been missing in their young lives? I am sure rigourous medical assessments can weed out those who would definitely not suited to the life and let's not pretend the armed forces no nothing about the effects of trauma. Those joining the police, fire and ambulance services can also be traumatised. I have a friend who taught and continued stress affected her later in life.

The term 'cannon fodder' is a nasty and dismissive phrase which assumes the worst about young recruits.

The term 'hero' describes most young people who, knowing the risks, sign up to protect their country. I prefer the latter. Officers die in combat too you know.

I suppose a thread entitled The Nasty Labour Party was never going to stimulate a measured and balanced debate. I am a LP member and I think they have many very worthwhile policies. I do not worship Jeremy Corbyn but I do think he has re-energised a LP that had lost its way (and members) and had become indistinguishable from the Tory Party. I do not think I am bitter, envious or hateful, but I do want a fairer society, and one with more support for those disadvantaged by reason of birth, circumstance, or ill health, than we have at present. As to child recruitment in our armed forces I was woefully uniformed about the detrimental effects that early enlistment can have on children from adverse backgrounds. The website, previously mentioned, "Veterans for Peace UK" has very interesting and informative articles about this.

The term 'cannon fodder' is a nasty and dismissive phrase which assumes the worst about young recruits.

Oh, FGS, Day6. It doesn't assume anything about the recruits. It's about the people who recruit them (and I don't mean the army recruiting officers before some starts getting indignant about their loved one who is an army recruiting officer). It's about the perceived views of the hierarchy, the 'elite', governments; call them what you like.

I sometimes wonder if we're even speaking the same language...

Which government has referred to them as cannon fodder? Only person in politics I hsve heard insult the military is Corbyn who referred to the British army as ‘ the unemployed ‘

It's quite funny. The phrase slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan is another hackneyed old phrase the left are turning to in desperation.

Others have said it, so many in the Labour ranks despise those not sharing their far left ideology. You could be as caring and compassionate and as poor as a church mouse but if you vote Conservative that, according to the left, somehow makes you rich, uncaring and offensive.

Oh and even more extreme than the brutal, uncompromising, blood-thirsty warrior Ghengis Khan.

It's about the people who recruit them

Oh, the 'hierarchy'? The 'elite'? Your words MaizieD

Well, they'll have to be crushed then - good for nothing elite and hierarchy, keeping us all in our place.

Nasty. First against the wall?

Come the revolution, eh?

16 year olds can marry, there are moves afoot to enable them to vote, they can leave school, open a bank account and numerous other grown up things, but becoming a junior member of the armed forces is somehow shock horror!! These young people can leave during their first six months without any questions being asked and at no detriment to themselves. I know his because my then 16 year old granddaughter had toyed with an army career. She spent a month during the school holidays with the army in Dorset. No, it wasn't for her so she decided on a different option. Nobody MAKES these young people stay if they don't want to, the modern army doesn't want reluctant soldiers, they are NOT regarded as 'cannon fodder ( what a ridiculously old fashioned derogatory expression!) The armed forces are a professional well motivated organisation fit for the challenges of the 21st century. The duty of care is paramount, reports of unacceptable behaviour are not tolerated, and weeded out and dealt with in an appropriate manner. Of course there are failures, like there are in every walk of life, but to imply that young people are somehow lured or press ganged, held against their will and then years later abandoned on the scrap heap is simply not true.

The leader of the Labour Party May well have excellent negotiating skills when dealing with diverse groups of disaffected people & those defending a specific cause , some may call this a gift, a passion, or compassion, however these skills do not transfer beneficially to main stream politics, because the skills required to run a country for the many not the few are laborious, diverse, for ever changing mundane situations where one solution does not fit all. That along side the double standards mentioned in the OP,is why this country is politically caught between a rock & a hard place.

'The UK is the only permanent member of the UN Security Council that still recruits 16-year-olds'

and that is for very good reasons, perhaps. It could never happen in Germany or Italy now, for sure- and they cannot believe it is happening in the UK.

Of course, anyoe can bring anectodal exemples of 'someone they know who had a good time of it' - but you need to look at the evidence and the statistics. Which show clearly, that some sections of the population are clearly targeted. Yes, training, travelling, skiing and having all sorts of adventures- the ads on TV and in the Press are indeed very alluring.

It should not be a Hobson's choice - under 18 should have hope, training, education, support and youth clubs (remember those- they were great no), etc- without having to join the army- often without true awareness of what it means. We also know that young disturbed kids dropped with a gun and more in a hostile environment, can and do 'lose it' and no wonder. Again, do some research, some reading ... there is plenty out there.

I am NOT a member of the Labour Party- thank you.

Day6 - I have never yet voted Labour in my life.

nigglie - I am not talking about "normal" 16 year olds. I live near the Brecon Beacons and can see how the "duty of care" regularly falls down.

It is so difficult to discuss this rationally - some people with a child in the forces might find my views objectionable - but that is because of the tendency to extrapolate: if lucky is saying that she has concerns about some vulnerable recruits then she must be insulting my child and all the other intelligent young men and women who are in the forces. That is not so. Of course it isn't.

I am a member of the Labour Party ..Thank you! Green would be the only other option!

I am a member of The Welsh Labour Party, come the election of the new leader of Welsh Labour, only then will I know if I will remain a member .

Day6

It's pretty clear that your degree wasn't in History.

I'm with Lazigirl, a thread with this title was always going to attraqct anti-JC and current LP rants; sorry I started reading now, won't bother again - the phrase 'talking to a brick wall' comes to mind.

I am very left wing, but I don't hate the middle classes or the very rich. What I hate is the system that allows so much inequality and so much needless suffering. I want to change this system with as little suffering as possible, but to do that we will need a mass movement to challenge those who are currently running it - possibly through a general strike.

Jeremy Corbyn's supporters see that he (and fellow left-wingers) have galvanised thousands, many of them younger people who previously thought party politics irrelevant.

Many people see that the political and financial status quo is damaging and creates very serious problems. And the Labour Party has the possibility now of carrying forward a program for change - we need communities, workers, ordinary people to take charge and ensure the wealth of this country goes to its people and not into offshore funds.

Strange, I find trying to talk to Corbynites as pointless as talking to. Brickwall

Many people see that the political and financial status quo is damaging and creates very serious problems. .................. - we need communities, workers, ordinary people to take charge and ensure the wealth of this country goes to its people and not into offshore funds.

I agree with this - but I am unconvinced that the Labour party - or indeed any party at all - will make this happen. I think they need more credible people in their cabinet to encourage people to vote for them. The Dianne Abbotts of this world just put people off - mind you, the other lot have got Boris and Gove!

Cheery though, Boris, Gove, JRM. v. Corbyn, McDonald , Abbott .

Would those who claim to be 'centrist" care to post some policies they feel show how much they care about things? You see there is a lot of condemnation and rhetoric about how left wingers are constantly deriding others but no actual information about what policies they favour. So if someone is criticising Labour party policies as too left wing, it would be good to know what centrist involves for them.

Many people see that the political and financial status quo is damaging and creates very serious problems. .................. - we need communities, workers, ordinary people to take charge and ensure the wealth of this country goes to its people and not into offshore funds.

I agree with this, too but I think that until 'the people' become more economics literate it will not happen. They are so wedded to the myth that a national economy can be run like a household economy that they can be conned into voting for the party which shouts loudest about debt and deficit and 'the need to cut expenditure' when in fact 'cuts' make no economic sense whatsoever.

The Labour party has a better grasp of this than do the tories , as evidenced by the link I posted to their video earlier today, but they haven't completely abandoned the 'cuts' myth because it's electorally unsafe to do so.

Why they didn't defend their handling of the economy more vigorously in 2010, 2015 and 2017 is a mystery to me, but I suppose it's because they're only just emerging from the deluded economic consensus of the Thatcher years and beyond.

Sorry to keep banging on about this but economics is at the heart of a country's, and its citizens', wellbeing.

Pointless question in my opinion, one would have to have trust in the leader who puts forward a manifesto