• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

Corbyn represents traditional Labour politics but the left overs from "New Labour" and the new style MPs do not.

The Labour party members however have become sick of the soft, "Tory wannabe politics" and want their party to represent them. (Just my pov)

Not going to happen though is it whilst a large % of the MP's don't agree with him. They have been looking for a chance to oust him from the moment he took charge.
 
Not going to happen though is it whilst a large % of the MP's don't agree with him. They have been looking for a chance to oust him from the moment he took charge.

Plus all the traditional Labour voters, his support is from the nouveau left, the old rank and file just shake their heads in disbelief.
 
and your point is?

That it's not £350m or even £250m.

Or it's around 25% (at the most generous estimate) of what we spend on defence, at a time when we're under zero threat of invasion and shouldn't really be involved in any wars.
 
The labour party hasn't been a socialist party for years.

It was a social democratic party, Corbyn is trying to remake it into a socialist party, but the MPs are not socialists.

Okay - no different to the Socially Liberal Con's.

It confuse's the heck out of me.

Anybody who doesn't bomb for the corporations is fine by me. Looks like he's a gonna ............shame
 
According to the two MPs that brought the motion, they have no confidence in Corbyn's leadership ability.
 
That it's not £350m or even £250m.

Or it's around 25% (at the most generous estimate) of what we spend on defence, at a time when we're under zero threat of invasion and shouldn't really be involved in any wars.

Depends which way you're arguing, £276m before we are given dictated money.
 
According to the two MPs that brought the motion, they have no confidence in Corbyn's leadership ability.

Sound a bit better then "We don't like him or his beliefs" doesn't it.
 
I'd love Tony back!

(Don't start banging on about the Iraq War, I didn't live here at the time and know nothing about it!)
 
That it's not £350m or even £250m.

Or it's around 25% (at the most generous estimate) of what we spend on defence, at a time when we're under zero threat of invasion and shouldn't really be involved in any wars.

I still don't see what point you are trying to make. Whatever millions of pounds figure per week you want to use, it went to the EU.

Whatever % of the defence budget it is seems unrelated to me.
 
I'd love Tony back!

(Don't start banging on about the Iraq War, I didn't live here at the time and know nothing about it!)

I wouldn't - actor & massive charlatan.

Had a mandate in 97 which would have allowed him to really change this country for the better & did bugger all with it (& I didn't vote for Labour as didn't fully trust him, but wasn't upset when they got the mandate that they did)
 
It's not the thread, but minimum wage, investing in schools and teachers, overseas aid, devolved government in NI and peace process, cut youth unemployment, paternity leave etc were all pretty good.
 
I still don't see what point you are trying to make. Whatever millions of pounds figure per week you want to use, it went to the EU.

Whatever % of the defence budget it is seems unrelated to me.

The point is that it's not really a significant portion of government spending, plus Leave grossly overstated the figures.
 
It's not the thread, but minimum wage, investing in schools and teachers, overseas aid, devolved government in NI and peace process, cut youth unemployment, paternity leave etc were all pretty good.

I'd accept some of that, but most governments manage some good (even if the bad vastly outweighs that, as it does with some) though would dispute the schools funding

I was working in frontline education during virtually all of their reign (started in Jan 99) & it was not as beneficial as you might think - yes more money, but most ring fenced on items that were not the priority for schools, but made good soundbites in the public domain. If the money had come free of ties then it would have had much greater beneficial impact.
 
So that means it didn't happen then?
It means I know nothing about it or the context, I lived in the middle of nowhere with just a short wave radio for news.

I get that Labour has changed, which is why I left. He might be the antichrist to some, but Blair was the only labour leader to be elected in my life time and he did a lot less damage to the country than any other PM I have seen
 
The point is that it's not really a significant portion of government spending, plus Leave grossly overstated the figures.

Tell that to people who rely on 'EU' funding, and I think both sides made exaggerated claims.
 
It means I know nothing about it or the context, I lived in the middle of nowhere with just a short wave radio for news.

I get that Labour has changed, which is why I left. He might be the antichrist to some, but Blair was the only labour leader to be elected in my life time and he did a lot less damage to the country than any other PM I have seen

Aside from Dave, he's probably the biggest reason we are where we are now. People had long been cynical about politicians but Blair took it to another level. Major is the leader that deserves most credit over NI and its was Blair that opened the door to backdoor privitisation of the NHS and turning schools into Academies.

NHS and Schools did improve hugely and for that he deserves credit. However, the needless deaths of several hundred thousand people is a big one for me. If I killed 20 people tomorrow I wouldn't expect people to defend me by saying what a good parent I was.
 
Back
Top