I have just realised that my media of choice is Biased McBiased Face

ICBM

Snap said:

The other parties are marginally less useless, but really, can anyone with true sense seriously believe that the modern day labour party is the right choice for a government? 

I don't. But I do seriously think they are the lesser of the two evils which have a chance of winning this time. If only the Lib Dems were competent/hadn't damaged their reputation so terminally… and even then I'm not sure.

Corbyn is useless, but May is dangerous. I'd rather have useless.

I also don't think you can accuse him of being a champagne socialist - he isn't poor, but he has by no means used his career to enrich himself in the way most have. Until he became leader he routinely returned the lowest expenses claims of any MP, and (as I understand it) used some of his salary to pay his staff. He's not whiter than white for sure - none of them are - but I don't think he's that much of a hypocrite.

fields5069

Drew_TNBD said:

fields5069 said:

Snap said:

I think the mainstream media coverage so far has been poor - definitely not even handed or without bias. So I don't watch it or listen to it, or read it.

Corbyn is full of shit. He is nothing like the "working class" heroes he pretends to empathise with. The bloke is from a very priveleged upbringing and is sitting on a nice pension which he will be drawing very soon, whilst enjoyinglife in his lovely home. He went to a boys only selective grammar school that offers boarding.

Not only is Corbym full of shit, he is propped up by jumped up little idiots like Owen Jones & Co, and has a shadow cabinet full of some of the most noteworthy incapably berks known to politics: Diane Abbott and John McDonnell.

Marxist states have been responsible for some of the most horrendous inequality and torment. They advocate this stuff, they really do.

The other parties are marginally less useless, but really, can anyone with true sense seriously believe that the modern day labour party is the right choice for a government?

How many true Marxist states have existed? I don't know of any true communist states, and must admit I don't know the difference between the 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states#Marxist.E2.80.93Leninist

Possible, but the goalposts don't really have to move much. But really all you have to do is consider what a true communist or Marxist state is. Whether one has ever existed or not is, to a great extent, absolute fact and not opinion. An egalitarian state which is not egalitarian is a nonsense.

Just noticed the list, thanks. I don't have full info for all of them, but China has a corrupt ruling elite.

Heartfeltdawn

ICBM said:

I realised a while ago why the BBC political department is so pro-May and anti-Corbyn now.

It's because they're still New Labour Blair/Mandelson-loving champagne socialists.

Consequently they hate Corbyn and everything he stands for. Also by some sort of perverse logic, since New Labour was really a Tory-lite party with red ties, they think May's Tory party is closer to that than either Corbyn's Labour or Farron's Lib Dems.

It completely explains their biased reporting on Scottish Independence - bear in mind Blair set up the Scottish Parliament precisely to (as he thought) kill off the demand for independence - the EU referendum, parliamentary business in general, and now the election.

Which is what I've been saying for ages. There's also the anti-union element within the BBC. The NUJ and the Beeb have been at loggerheads for years over the fat pensions going to the management whilst actual journalists get cut. 

Heartfeltdawn

Drew_TNBD said:

How is Corbyn not a champagne socialist? The guy earns just under 80K a year (suspiciously he's under his own threshold for tax hikes!) and lives his life in government. That man of the people schtick he runs is baloney.

Because he doesn't drink champagne? 

Why does earning £80k mean you have to renounce socialism? And he certainly doesn't live his life in government.

Heartfeltdawn

Snap said:

I think the mainstream media coverage so far has been poor - definitely not even handed or without bias. So I don't watch it or listen to it, or read it.

Corbyn is full of shit. He is nothing like the "working class" heroes he pretends to empathise with. The bloke is from a very priveleged upbringing and is sitting on a nice pension which he will be drawing very soon, whilst enjoyinglife in his lovely home. He went to a boys only selective grammar school that offers boarding.

Not only is Corbym full of shit, he is propped up by jumped up little idiots like Owen Jones & Co, and has a shadow cabinet full of some of the most noteworthy incapably berks known to politics: Diane Abbott and John McDonnell.

Propped up by Owen Jones? My reading glasses must be defective. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/01/corbyn-staying-not-good-enough

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/03/labour-leadership-why-jeremy-corbyn-wont-be-listening-owen-jones

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/owen-jones-jeremy-corbyn-brink-disaster_uk_579e6b4ae4b0f42daa4a6944

Get things right: Jones baked Corbyn when he won the leadership election. That was the right thing to do. It's also the right thing to do when that same leader does close to fuck all and has had less political impact than that of incontinent tapir shedding its load over the steps of Westminster. 

He got his chance to present his case and he was found to be sorely lacking. 

Reverend

Drew_TNBD said:

fields5069 said:

Drew_TNBD said:

ICBM said:

I realised a while ago why the BBC political department is so pro-May and anti-Corbyn now.

It's because they're still New Labour Blair/Mandelson-loving champagne socialists.

Consequently they hate Corbyn and everything he stands for. Also by some sort of perverse logic, since New Labour was really a Tory-lite party with red ties, they think May's Tory party is closer to that than either Corbyn's Labour or Farron's Lib Dems.

It completely explains their biased reporting on Scottish Independence - bear in mind Blair set up the Scottish Parliament precisely to (as he thought) kill off the demand for independence - the EU referendum, parliamentary business in general, and now the election.

How is Corbyn not a champagne socialist? The guy earns just under 80K a year (suspiciously he's under his own threshold for tax hikes!) and lives his life in government. That man of the people schtick he runs is baloney.

Is there another way to gain control over a country, apart from revolution? Revolution would never work in such an apathetic country such as ours.

There have been protests, marches, etc., but you have to look to other areas of Europe to see passion en masse. So the political system really is the only way to effect change. When your work becomes your life, I think £75k is a fair wage.

Work is everyone's lives!! £75K for being an ineffective opposition leader... someone is getting robbed!

Revolution is childish bullshit. 

You'll be first up against the wall,  bumface...

Viva the people's republic of Harrow. 

Snap

jellyroll said:

Snap said:

I think the mainstream media coverage so far has been poor - definitely not even handed or without bias. So I don't watch it or listen to it, or read it.

Without wishing to appear pedantic....

you do wish to be indeed!

I SHOULD have said, I don't watch, listen read, ANYMORE.

Snap

Heartfeltdawn said:

Snap said:

I think the mainstream media coverage so far has been poor - definitely not even handed or without bias. So I don't watch it or listen to it, or read it.

Corbyn is full of shit. He is nothing like the "working class" heroes he pretends to empathise with. The bloke is from a very priveleged upbringing and is sitting on a nice pension which he will be drawing very soon, whilst enjoyinglife in his lovely home. He went to a boys only selective grammar school that offers boarding.

Not only is Corbym full of shit, he is propped up by jumped up little idiots like Owen Jones & Co, and has a shadow cabinet full of some of the most noteworthy incapably berks known to politics: Diane Abbott and John McDonnell.

Propped up by Owen Jones? My reading glasses must be defective. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/01/corbyn-staying-not-good-enough

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/03/labour-leadership-why-jeremy-corbyn-wont-be-listening-owen-jones

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/owen-jones-jeremy-corbyn-brink-disaster_uk_579e6b4ae4b0f42daa4a6944

Get things right: Jones baked Corbyn when he won the leadership election. That was the right thing to do. It's also the right thing to do when that same leader does close to fuck all and has had less political impact than that of incontinent tapir shedding its load over the steps of Westminster. 

He got his chance to present his case and he was found to be sorely lacking. 

Can't stand Jones. He's a proper arse IMO.

Legionreturns

A quick look at A) History and B ) The restof Europe, and the Labour manifesto doesn't actually look "hardline socialist" or "radical left-wing" ...it fits right in line with what everyone else thinks is center left. None of the policies are particularly hard left unless your starting point is way to the right. This is where our mainstream politics have been shunted, thanks to Blair.

Fretwired

ICBM said:

I also don't think you can accuse him of being a champagne socialist - he isn't poor, but he has by no means used his career to enrich himself in the way most have. Until he became leader he routinely returned the lowest expenses claims of any MP, and (as I understand it) used some of his salary to pay his staff. He's not whiter than white for sure - none of them are - but I don't think he's that much of a hypocrite.

In 2016 he claimed £132,000 for staff expenses, so that doesn't add up.

Drew_TNBD

Heartfeltdawn said:

Drew_TNBD said:

How is Corbyn not a champagne socialist? The guy earns just under 80K a year (suspiciously he's under his own threshold for tax hikes!) and lives his life in government. That man of the people schtick he runs is baloney.

Because he doesn't drink champagne? 

Why does earning £80k mean you have to renounce socialism? And he certainly doesn't live his life in government.

Like I said, his man of the people schtick is false. He has about as much in common with the common man as I do with Germaine Greer.

fields5069

Fretwired said:

ICBM said:

I also don't think you can accuse him of being a champagne socialist - he isn't poor, but he has by no means used his career to enrich himself in the way most have. Until he became leader he routinely returned the lowest expenses claims of any MP, and (as I understand it) used some of his salary to pay his staff. He's not whiter than white for sure - none of them are - but I don't think he's that much of a hypocrite.

In 2016 he claimed £132,000 for staff expenses, so that doesn't add up.

He can claim slightly more than that, so I presume it was easier to pay for one member of staff out of his own wages rather than split their wage across "allowance" and "personal".

octatonic

ICBM said:

Snap said:

The other parties are marginally less useless, but really, can anyone with true sense seriously believe that the modern day labour party is the right choice for a government? 

I don't. But I do seriously think they are the lesser of the two evils which have a chance of winning this time. If only the Lib Dems were competent/hadn't damaged their reputation so terminally… and even then I'm not sure.

Corbyn is useless, but May is dangerous. I'd rather have useless.

I also don't think you can accuse him of being a champagne socialist - he isn't poor, but he has by no means used his career to enrich himself in the way most have. Until he became leader he routinely returned the lowest expenses claims of any MP, and (as I understand it) used some of his salary to pay his staff. He's not whiter than white for sure - none of them are - but I don't think he's that much of a hypocrite.

I agree.
You can criticise Corbyn for a lot but he is a principled individual and he doesn't have a particularly extravagant life.
He earns approximately what you would expect for a man in his position (in 2015-16 was £114,342 and paid £35,298 in tax).
He earns a bit from giving speeches- but it is nickel and dime stuff really certainly compared to what Osbourne, Cameron, Blair and Clegg get.

I should say that I don't actually have a problem with politicians having outside interest... as long as they are declared and don't interfere with the task of being an MP.

There seems to be an attitude about that tries to tear down anyone on the left who has had any sort of success by making the 'champagne socialist' accusation.
Having a bit of money saved doesn't make you a champagne socialist.
Having a house doesn't make you a champagne socialist.

The things that Corbyn has should be what society is able to provide to all in our society.
That isn't socialism- it is fulfilling just the basic needs that we all have- a place to live and enough money saved to live out our lives.
 
I'd like to see a government implement some policies that 
Is Corbyn the man to do it?
Well, I doubt Labour will get a majority and once they lose he'll probably have to go.

Fretwired

Corbyn maybe be principled and I'm sure he comes across as a decent guy, but the biggest problem is he does not control or lead his own party (hence May's strong and stable leadership mantra). When people moan about the media they forget that it was his own MPs who were briefing the press against him. Many wanted to get rid of him, and were quite open about criticising him as a person and his polices in the press and on TV. Even his manifesto was leaked.

Listen as his own MPs call on him to resign:




Were he to be elected it would be a disaster.

Garthy

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-criticised-by-victims-families-after-failing-to-condemn-the-ira-10442683.html

Principled like holding a minute's silence for IRA members killed on their way to bomb a police station?

siremoon

ICBM said:

Corbyn is useless, but May is dangerous. I'd rather have useless.

Corbyn is dangerous precisely because he is useless

Snap

He also sympathises with Hamas, the IRA, to name two terror organisations.

I repeat: he's an idiot.

Fretwired

siremoon said:

ICBM said:

Corbyn is useless, but May is dangerous. I'd rather have useless.

Corbyn is dangerous precisely because he is useless

Its the people behind Corbyn who are dangerous. He didn't even write his own manifesto.

ESBlonde

I could not see the UK doing anything but disappearing up its own orifice with JC thinking he was in charge.
Principles he may have, he's surrounded by idiots because most successful intelligent people will have nothing to do with him and he has achieved the sum total of the root square of 'F*All'.
On the question of support for fromer military personnel this countries lack of social and health support is appalling enough, JCs rude lack of engagement with them and continued support for the former enemies is disgusting.

The BBC does seem to live in it's own bubble at times and the move of it's breakfast news up north was an attempt to dispell that effect somewhat, that said the other main 'news' media also have a similar 'bias' at this time.

monquixote

Heartfeltdawn said:

ICBM said:

I realised a while ago why the BBC political department is so pro-May and anti-Corbyn now.

It's because they're still New Labour Blair/Mandelson-loving champagne socialists.

Consequently they hate Corbyn and everything he stands for. Also by some sort of perverse logic, since New Labour was really a Tory-lite party with red ties, they think May's Tory party is closer to that than either Corbyn's Labour or Farron's Lib Dems.

It completely explains their biased reporting on Scottish Independence - bear in mind Blair set up the Scottish Parliament precisely to (as he thought) kill off the demand for independence - the EU referendum, parliamentary business in general, and now the election.

Which is what I've been saying for ages. There's also the anti-union element within the BBC. The NUJ and the Beeb have been at loggerheads for years over the fat pensions going to the management whilst actual journalists get cut. 

The BBC pension scheme was the same for all staff (or it was when I was there. ) and was very good but not so much for new joiners.

Journalists tend to get treated better than just about any staff because for some reason it's always considered newsworthy if anything they don't like happens.