This site uses cookies

General Discussion

11 May 2017 14:58

It looks good to me, re-nationalization, scrapping uni fees, protecting the NHS, low-cost housing... the only party looking to take on the neoliberal status-quo.


But then I decide how to vote based on policy not personality and I don't read hate-fuelled right-wing tabloids.

3 Agrees
11 May 2017 15:19

Who will pay for all this?  Even the Labour spokesman on R4 this morning wouldn't say, just that the costings are TBA.

4 Agrees
11 May 2017 15:34

It's a draft, so TBA. I'll wait and see what unfolds. 

At least some politicians show willing to break the control of the corporatocracy which governs the UK.

I'd suggest a cessation of tax avoidance by the super rich and corporations would be a start.

As if the Tories had a clue about the costs involved in Brexit.. What politician really knows 'who will pay for this'?


I know who's paying a high price for having the Tories in government though.


The poor, disabled, the elderly, immigrants, refugees, single parents, families on low and middling incomes feeling 'the squeeze', students, school children, young people, the unemployed, those on benefits, people with mental health problems, health care professionals, all public services, teachers, social workers, etc... 


Who's reaping the rewards


Bankers, rich CEOs, dodgy housing developers, corrupt politicians, racists, xenophobes, aristocrats, landowners, multi-national corporations, etc.



3 Agrees
11 May 2017 16:52

I think you are going to be very disappointed on June 9th.

4 Agrees
11 May 2017 17:03

Maybe, guess you identify with the latter group then.

11 May 2017 17:12

@Indy Scot, same old lefty crap that is continuously said with absolutely no evidence.

The Tories run the country well with their common sense approach.

Labour's ideas are ridiculous.  

If we all went mad and voted Labour in, the reality is that workers would suffer high taxes to pay for the lazy. We all know this to be true.

4 Agrees
11 May 2017 17:27

@Paul guess you identify with the latter group too - same old right wing crap. the tories run the country extremely well for the wealthy - but not for anyone else. anyone voting to maintain this status quo is just misinformed or oblivious to reality.


And why do you use 'we' as in 'we all know this to be true'? who do you think you're writing on behalf of? The right-wing of



3 Agrees
11 May 2017 23:51

Corbyn has said how he will pay for it.....he's going to borrow £500bn.

Yep, £500,000,000,000 or about £7650 for every man, woman and child in the country.

Who's going to pay that back then?


Like I said elsewhere - Simplistic ideology!!!

10 Agrees
12 May 2017 11:45

@HuwMatthews You have not referred elsewhere to Corbyn's Labour as having a 'simplistic ideology'.


This was your comment:


"@Indy Scot
Is there anyone that you won't throw insults at?
Everyone who disagrees with your simplistic ideology seems to be fair game to you.
As I said before - Troll"
Unless you suspect that Jeremy Corbyn is posting on here under the pseudonym Indy Scot. 
Or am I just the focus for your hatred of Jeremy Corbyn and anger issues?
Re-nationalization would make funds available that would usually line the pockets of corporations and stop the outflow of capital to overseas interests.
Of course what Corbyn is suggesting is pretty radical and a reversal of 40 years of neoliberalism.
Where did you get the above figures? You've not referenced it, so why should anyone believe it's credible?
The nation is more than a business to be reduced down to a monetary valuation and  in any case privatization of every aspect of society simply hasn't worked.
The Tories can't even reduce the deficit, let alone the national debt. It's ironic that the right-wing press think they can make an economic argument and they're clueless regarding Brexit and trade deals.
Do some people actually believe that there's nothing wrong with this Tory run Britain??
1 Agree
12 May 2017 13:49
12 May 2017 16:26

The Daily Mirror. You're having a laugh right?

There's not much point having a discussion with a regurgitator of the tabloid press.


@HuwMatthews2's post relates to a story dating the 25th september 2016. Has Corbyn linked the £500 bn figure to the draft manifesto that has come to light in the last couple of days?

This just appears like a very tenuous link.

1 Agree
12 May 2017 17:11

We would be better off getting the monkeys at Paignton Zoo to run the country than Corbyn, Abbott and rest of the fools.

I've booked the Friday off to celebrate Theresa's victory and our nation's bright future.

7 Agrees
12 May 2017 19:29

@Indy Scot


The Mirror is reporting what Corbyn stated on the Andrew Marr programme. Unfortunately I can't find the clip but there is a transcript on the net.

You say it doesn't link to the recently announced Manifesto - how else is he going to pay for it?


You say "renationalisation would make funds available". How? If you buy something back the seller doesn't usually give you cash as well!! Perhaps that's why their financial forecasts are such a mess? The only way to not have to spend anything, on the railways for example, is to wait for the franchises to expire. That'll take 30 odd years!!! Corbyn will be 97 plus by then - so he won't want the railways as he'll have his bus pass and mobility scooter!!!


As for the Mirror - a left of centre, pro-Labour (in 2015) rag - I thought it would be your 'go to' source! Perhaps I should have found a quote from Pravda.

2 Agrees
12 May 2017 20:01

@HuwMatthews2 Are you kidding I don't read tabloids full stop, They're for the 'dumbed down'. I can't believe you referenced a tabloid!

The mirror is sensationalist and often not factual. Thinking all left leaning people read the mirror is very simplistic.


Today's 'I' is reporting a £50 bn figure. So according to them you're out by a factor of 10.


The Manifesto is a draft and it has been leaked, the details will be made public next week. Why not wait til then - I'm all for a reversal of privatization, nationalization would make profits made available to the Exchequer instead of going to shareholders, etc. I made that point very clear. 

Yes it's radical - maybe franchises will have to cancelled? How should I know. You question me like I'm a member of the shadow cabinet. 


Why are you so angry? Other people on this forum simply think Corbyn has no chance - I'm just taking an interest in the manifesto draft, with an open mind.


Your crappy attitude towards me all boils down to my views on the British army in Northern Ireland and your irrational hatred of Corbyn as a supposed traitor and IRA sympathizer which began on this thread


After that thread you've replied to my posts with a lot of passive-aggression. It's getting tiresome.


So I'm a Pravda reading communist now am I?? And you claim I have a 'simplistic ideology'. You have a tendency for puerile remarks. Grow up.


@HuwMatthews2 we are never going to agree on matters relating to corbyn, northern ireland, the british army, the british nation, the left vs the right...

Elsewhere on this site I've been critical of Corbyn, I listed 5 errors he made as leader. Yet you are obsessed with this idea that I am a staunch Corbynite or a Commie it seems. 


That says a lot more about you than me. You assume I'm pro-Labour - maybe I'm just figuring out who to vote for , maybe I've never even voted Labour before.


Are you intent on perpetuating this conflict on every thread I appear? What outcome are you looking for? Could you please answer these questions.

Thanks - enjoy your evening.

12 May 2017 21:34

@Indy Scot




1. I am not out by any factor - Corbyn confirmed on the Andrew Marr prog that the "£500 bn is an approximate figure". I'm therefore quoting him not the Mirror. The Mirror link is only because I can't find the Marr link. You seem to have more time on your hands so perhaps you can.


2. Cancelled franchises attract compensation; ergo cost.


3. I'm not angry. Yet another assumption you make about an individual (you make these assumptions/allegations frequently).


4. I couldn't give a flying fig what you think about the British Army in N. Ireland. I see you also insulted Leatash on that subject. To quote a couple of films: 'You don't know man, you weren't there!' Corbyn was. Commemorating dead terrorists and encouraging republicans not to give up the 'Armed Struggle' for a united Ireland. Many people died as a result of it continuing - he has the blood of UK citizens on his hands - he is a traitor.


5. I'm passive aggressive am I? Really? Read back through your comments and all of the people you have insulted because they disagree with you. I quote: "You have a tendency for puerile remarks. Grow up." !!! See what I mean? Probably not.


6. I don't care who you vote for or what your political leanings are. It is quite obvious that they are waaaaaaay left of centre. You talk about 'Progressive Alliances' to get the Tories out - hardly democratic to withdraw candidates so that the options are reduced for the electorate and minor parties get MPs. Why don't you work towards a manifesto, from any party (other than Conservative obviously), that the British public might vote for en masse? It's because you know that your radical, simplistic, retro thinking just doesn't cut it for the majority of people who care about this/their country. Therefore you, and others like you, connive and conspire to get your own way. Not the way I do things which is why we will never see eye to eye on very much.


7. I am having a good evening. I hope you have the same.

6 Agrees
13 May 2017 00:05
1. You took an Andrew Marr clip from 25th Sept 2016 and applied it to a story that broke this week.
2. Like I said how should I know. I'm not a member of the shadow cabinet. It's a draft manifesto that has been leaked. I'll wait and read the official one when released.
3. You're angry when adressing my posts. No need to get so defensive. Anger is perfectly natural, but if it gets out of control it can be damaging. You seemed quite civil on the first thread.. until I mentioned Corbyn and my perspective of the troubles in NI, then your posts seem anger fuelled and unpleasant. That's my perception of you on here. 
4. I told you I lost family in the troubles, they were there. You believe Corbyn is a traitor, that is your opinion. Have I offended Leatash, has she told you that? I thought I showed empathy and understanding to military personnel; they're exploited - victims really.
5. Who have I personally insulted - I asked you this question before. You evaded answering it. Can you provide examples from previous posts?
I also told you that you're welcome to report me, if you can substantiate your claims.
6. You obviously do care who I vote for. Hence your 7 bullet points, you wouldn't reply if you didn't care. It really bothers you that I even acknowledge a man like Corbyn.
A progressive alliance is not waaaay left of centre, it is lablelled centre left, but I would not place most of Labour's MPs and the Lib Dems there, but rather centre right.
I have considered voting tactically as I oppose the Tories, but if you have read my posts elsewhere you'd know that I'd very reluctantly vote Lib Dem. Just because I have talked about it it doesn't mean I advocate it, I'm weighing up my options. 
I don't believe we have a democracy in this country anyhow, first past the post favours two party politics, in any case elections are just about power I don't believe they've been about democracy in my lifetime.
I'd only vote for a progressive alliance if it deliver PR, a written constitution, a federal system for the nations and regions, an elected second chamber, environmental protectionism..
I think the British public might vote for that en masse - You might notice that Corbyn is not campaigning for any of those things.
How do you know what the majority of people in this country care about? or what cuts it for them? How can you be so vociferous on their behalf? 
And what do you mean by this county? It's looking more like 2-4 countries to me. Time will tell how many you speak for.
I can't decide if I'm in favour of Scottish independence, an English Republic, self rule for the Welsh and a unified Ireland. Or if all nations states are a waste of time. Probably the latter. Definitely get rid of the monarchy though and the aristocrats.
I care about people not a construct called the nation, in any case nation states are becoming meaningless in a global world. My thinking is anything but retro or simplistic.
I'm sorry to disappoint you but I'm not Jeremy Corbyn, I think socialism like capitalism is an inherently flawed system. I think a new ideology is necessary for the global problems facing us in the 21st Century - but I have no idea what that might be.
It's pointless trying to pin an ideology on me, I just think Corbyn and Lucas are the best options from a poor offering of leaders and parties.
Left and right are both linked to infinite growth which is not viable on a planet with finite resources. 
So I 'connive and conspire to get my own way' do I? Do you think I command some all-powerful, international underground network of spies and activists? Ooh scary, all a bit Cold War isn't it?
Do you think my input on is the beginning of our global domination? 
Are you actually paranoid or just very insecure?
7. Glad you're having a good evening, thanks for keeping us entertained.
8. I asked you a question: Are you intent on perpetuating this conflict on every thread where I appear? What outcome are you looking for? Could you please answer these questions
We will never see eye to eye, I have already stated that we'll never agree. Why did you answer so many questions with bullet points but not this last one? Shall I keep asking every time you keep this farcical discussion going?
13 May 2017 11:21

As I intimated, we'll agree to disagree.


So I'm now either "paranoid or just very insecure" but that's not an insult at all!


I didn't answer your last question because it is meaningless - There is no conflict and I am not angry. You do not impact upon my life enough for me to have any emotions towards you.

4 Agrees
13 May 2017 12:00

If we agree to disagree why are you perpetuating this argument? It won't lead anywhere. If you answer my questions which relate to your accusations then maybe we can resolve something.


Who have I personally insulted - I asked you this question before. You evaded answering it once more. Can you provide examples from previous posts?


The Pravda comment and this rant "Therefore you, and others like you, connive and conspire to get your own way."  show you're quite capable of being insulting.

I find being constantly labelled a troll by you insulting. 


What exactly am I plotting? Seeing as I'm a conniver? Your accusations are getting tedious.


I don't know if you are paranoid or insecure, that is why I asked you. It was a question - a valid one given the bizarre 'conniving and conspiring' comment about 'me and others like me'. Do you understand?

If you feel insulted by a question that's not my problem. Maybe you're just too sensitive. 


Are you intent on perpetuating this conflict on every thread where I appear? What outcome are you looking for? Could you please answer these questions.


13 May 2017 15:23 this is Trolling at its best.


Better that after this I just ignore you.



9 Agrees
13 May 2017 17:08

@ HuwMathews2 and everyone else that Indy Scot has tried to play games with, don't feed the Troll.

If everyone ignores this person they will just get fed up and give up.

7 Agrees
13 May 2017 17:30

@ZIGGY who have i played games with, why do you accuse me of being a troll? care to substantiate your claims?

Comment Please sign in or sign up to post