What the Few wore is irrelevant. It hardly mattered when they were risking their lives to defend the nation.
The least Corbyn could do is show some respect to those far more courageous than himself. Dodging questions from SKY on Parliament Green isn't particularly brave.
Get the fashion police to take him out and shoot him
Have another sly swig of hooch. I'm guessing you get angrier as the booze wears off, and the hangover kicks in.
How sad and unintelligible can you get. Get help.
PS: Try reading between dribbles , I am either drinking or it is wearing off and have a hangover, the two are incompatible though a cretin like yourself would not understand that
Come on, that was quite funny.
Only if you are not right in the head, which "it" is not. I prefer at least a few functioning braincells at least from commenters.
Well, we can't always have what we want can we.
For sure. Though he did have a funny one recently which I complimented him on , I presume male as a female could not be so silly as to post as he does.
part2 'Was the last Labour government fiscally irresponsible? Britain had a modest budget deficit on the eve of the economic crisis of 2008, but as a share of G.D.P. it wasn’t very high – about the same, as it turns out, as the U.S. budget deficit at the same time. British government debt was lower, as a share of G.D.P., than it had been when Labour took office a decade earlier, and was lower than in any other major advanced economy except Canada. It’s now sometimes claimed that the true fiscal position was much worse than the deficit numbers indicated, because the British economy was inflated by an unsustainable bubble that boosted revenues. But nobody claimed that at the time. On the contrary, independent assessments, for example by the International Monetary Fund, suggested that it might be a good idea to trim the deficit a bit, but saw no sign of a government living wildly beyond its means. snip Beyond that, however, Labour’s political establishment seems to lack all conviction, for reasons I don’t fully understand. And this means that the Corbyn upset isn’t about a sudden left turn on the part of Labour supporters. It’s mainly about the strange, sad moral and intellectual collapse of Labour moderates.'
He's right. Except for the politics of the situation. Ed Balls spent the first years of his shadow chancellor trying to explain all this to voters and seemed to get nowhere. Maybe he started too late as Alan Johnson had the job initially, maybe gave up too soon, maybe he was forced to by internal pollsters and focus groupies - who knows, we'll have to wait for the memoire.
The essential problem is, rightly or wrongly, the vast majority of voters believe we have "maxed out" and there needs to be a reduction in spending.
Corbo handing off the pensioner vote by refusing to sing GSTQ - what a dope.
Why make an unforced error which confirms yesterday's evening attack line? If he had mined would anyone have noticed. The guy is a fool.
The man is a passionate republican, why the hell should he have to sing something that he doesn't agree with? You'll say that he's disrespectful but I'd say that he's being honest, and I say that as a supporter of the Monarchy.
I just can't get excited about it. I also think it is ok to be a bit selective in his principles concerning parliament. To be an effective LOTO, he probably needs to compromise on the PC issue, but I don't think it is compulsory to sing the national anthem. This ain't North Korea.
An interesting article by Krugman in the New York Times 'Jeremy Corbyn, a long-time leftist dissident, has won a stunning victory in the contest for leadership of Britain’s Labour Party. Political pundits say that this means doom for Labour’s electoral prospects; they could be right, although I’m not the only person wondering why commentators who completely failed to predict the Corbyn phenomenon have so much confidence in their analyses of what it means. But I won’t try to get into that game. What I want to do instead is talk about one crucial piece of background to the Corbyn surge — the implosion of Labour’s moderates. On economic policy, in particular, the striking thing about the leadership contest was that every candidate other than Mr. Corbyn essentially supported the Conservative government’s austerity policies. Worse, they all implicitly accepted the bogus justification for those policies, in effect pleading guilty to policy crimes that Labour did not, in fact, commit. If you want a U.S. analogy, it’s as if all the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2004 had gone around declaring, “We were weak on national security, and 9/11 was our fault.” Would we have been surprised if Democratic primary voters had turned to a candidate who rejected that canard, whatever other views he or she held? In the British case, the false accusations against Labour involve fiscal policy, specifically claims that the Labour governments that ruled Britain from 1997 to 2010 spent far beyond their means, creating a deficit and debt crisis that caused the broader economic crisis. The fiscal crisis, in turn, supposedly left no alternative to severe cuts in spending, especially spending that helps the poor. These claims have, one must admit, been picked up and echoed by almost all British news media. It’s not just that the media have failed to subject Conservative claims to hard scrutiny, they have reported them as facts. It has been an amazing thing to watch — because every piece of this conventional narrative is completely false.'
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
The deficit wasn't the issue, and as an own-currency issuing nation with low inflation, austerity may or may not have been needed at that time. The issue was and is the size and rate of growth of the State, and the rate of spending between 1997-2010, which included the boom years (although of course we all know what Gordo thought about that).
Miss Plato, Mr. Isam, I suspect there's still rather a bit of doubt about polling [though Corbyn's win was good for the pollsters], and it's some years off.
I remain of the view that In remain firm favourites, although the scales have shifted somewhat due to Merkel's madness.
Merkel is changing the odds, not Corbyn. If the two leaders pushing Out are Farage & Corbyn, God help that campaign.
What's really interesting is the idea that Cameron might get pushed into an Out position.
Hilary Benn, that's the shadow foreign secretary, said that “Jeremy has made it very clear . . . we will be campaigning to remain in the EU under all circumstances”.
"In the British case, the false accusations against Labour involve fiscal policy, specifically claims that the Labour governments that ruled Britain from 1997 to 2010 spent far beyond their means, creating a deficit and debt crisis that caused the broader economic crisis."
Krugman is quite remarkably silly for someone who presumably has at least an average IQ. No-one, not a single sentient being, has ever claimed that the last Labour government created 'a deficit and debt crisis that caused the broader economic crisis.'
Yes. Our deficit ballooned when the tax base that Brown thought was their in perpetuity collapsed. He increased spending by 50% in real terms for10 straight years and ran deficits throughout that. The crisis when it came crippled our tax base which even then was not supporting Browns spending.
Comments
The essential problem is, rightly or wrongly, the vast majority of voters believe we have "maxed out" and there needs to be a reduction in spending.
How does Labour square that circle?
The deficit wasn't the issue, and as an own-currency issuing nation with low inflation, austerity may or may not have been needed at that time. The issue was and is the size and rate of growth of the State, and the rate of spending between 1997-2010, which included the boom years (although of course we all know what Gordo thought about that).
'all circumstances'
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5c/18/e7/5c18e724eda542d5b4573edb2e74342e.jpg
A second election this year after a hung parliament is now off the agenda so the Tories probably have a chunky war chest to splurge.