Jeremy Corbyn elected UK Labour leader in a landslide - Polidicks

camerons statement reminds me of a lot of the vitriol for political dissidents coming from countries like saudi/nk. to think that fundamental disagreement is a 'national security' issue is pretty laughable. the tories are a laughing stock to anyone remotely informed.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48674033]He can't criticise policy on twitter directly due to character limits. And all that Corbyn has done over his career proves right everything that he says. I don't see anything wrong with the tweet whatsoever.[/QUOTE] It's not criticism, it's fear mongering through the use of loaded words. And even if he [I]did[/I] have a legitimate critical statement to make that got lost in character limits, maybe he shouldn't try to make such a statement on twitter in the first place.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;48671127] [URL="http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/564049/MP-Tom-Watson-phone-hacking-scandal-gaming-session-Portal-2-hearing-Murdoch"]also this is labour's deputy leader[/URL][/QUOTE] This is what I am most excited about, its a damn shame that he didn't stand for the leadership position himself. He is awesome.

[QUOTE=Rossy167;48674120]Did your parents tell you all this? Because Conservatives being strong on economy isn't exactly correct. For starters there's no objectively right way. I for one disagree with the Conservative fiscal policy, I think now growth has kicked up again we're a bit too far deep to start an expansionary fiscal policy now but still I don't think we should have tried to cut out way out budget deficit and lack of growth in the first place. [editline]13th September 2015[/editline] Common courtesy, Corbyn wins and Cameron shakes his hand a congratulates him putting aside their disagreements. It's respect and politeness, even if they disagree politically.[/QUOTE] I was talking about perception, not reality, as any idiot could read.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48674303]I was talking about perception, not reality, as any idiot could read.[/QUOTE] Fair enough, still bothers the crap out of me that they're seen that way when it's blatantly not true. It's like our country is clearly electing people who's only strengths lie in misinformation and fear mongering.

[QUOTE=Shibbey;48673629][url]https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/642984909980725248[/url] Ayy[/QUOTE] wow what a nutter

I wish Corbyn would be a bit more reasonable but he seems to be intent on taking the labour party back to the 80's. I just want an Clement Attlee style labour leader, someone who looks after the vulnerable and does sensible nationalisation (like nationalising the railways which actually had popular support) rather than ideological nationalisation

Given the current situation (and how poorly things seem to be going in Germany), Corbyn's immigration policy alone will cost Labour countless votes.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;48676177]I wish Corbyn would be a bit more reasonable but he seems to be intent on taking the labour party back to the 80's. I just want an Clement Attlee style labour leader, someone who looks after the vulnerable and does sensible nationalisation (like nationalising the railways which actually had popular support) rather than ideological nationalisation[/QUOTE] But Corbyn is nationalising the railways I think that the important thing to remember is that Corbyn has at no point implied that his views will strictly, always become party policy - he's said that labour policy should be decided by a more democratic process and its pretty clear that some of his more radical views are opposed by labour, such as leaving nato or trident. What this will do is mean that a lot of ideas that have been taken for granted by cameron and centrist labour will suddenly be called into question, and thats a great thing And look ultimately every other candidate was so much more unelectable than corbyn [editline]14th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=elfbarf;48676461]Given the current situation (and how poorly things seem to be going in Germany), Corbyn's immigration policy alone will cost Labour countless votes.[/QUOTE] Perhaps among senior voters but he will make a large share of them back amongst young voters who generally dont bother to vote. Its tok early to tell though really, when even is the next election

[QUOTE=killerteacup;48677047] What this will do is mean that a lot of ideas that have been taken for granted by cameron and centrist labour will suddenly be called into question, and thats a great thing[/QUOTE] That's a point perhaps. Since the conservatives want to appeal to a wider audience they may take some of the more positive ideas from the 'New Labour' party and put a Tory spin on them to satisfy more centralist/lefties. Having a totally different party all together makes it harder for them to do that. They'll be on their own now.

No, it simply leaves them free to cut deeper and go straight for their own policies as they no longer have a serious opposition to keep them in check. Also, John McDonnell is a disaster whether you're pro or anti Corbyn.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48677337]No, it simply leaves them free to cut deeper and go straight for their own policies as they no longer have a serious opposition to keep them in check. Also, John McDonnell is a disaster whether you're pro or anti Corbyn.[/QUOTE] What about the new opposition makes them less serious

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48677337]No, it simply leaves them free to cut deeper and go straight for their own policies as they no longer have a serious opposition to keep them in check. Also, John McDonnell is a disaster whether you're pro or anti Corbyn.[/QUOTE] The whole things been a disaster. Turns out both Corbyn and McDonnell support homeopathy, I mean do we really want those sorts of people running the country.

Can anyone name any Corbyn policies that will appeal to middle class voters

[QUOTE=smurfy;48677537]Can anyone name any Corbyn policies that will appeal to middle class voters[/QUOTE] euro-skepticism? the first that would probably come to mind.

Apparently Angela Eagle will be shadow first sec of state, seems like that could be a compromise aimed at allowing him to have John McDonnell as shadow chancellor

[QUOTE=smurfy;48677574]Apparently Angela Eagle will be shadow first sec of state, seems like that could be a compromise aimed at allowing him to have John McDonnell as shadow chancellor[/QUOTE] she should really have been chancellor, currently corbyn seems to just be keeping all his friends at the top which wont do well for party loyalty.

Oh wait McDonnell was already confirmed lol shitstorm's brewing

[QUOTE=smurfy;48677582]Oh wait McDonnell was already confirmed lol shitstorm's brewing[/QUOTE] Yep, he decided to appoint a man who believes in Homeopathy, said he wishes he could go back in time and assassinate thatcher, that he thought that IRA were brave, and wants to bring in a maximum wage as his chancellor

No women in the great offices either it seems

I was kind of excited about Corbyn but now that he has McDonnell as Chancellor and has set up a Brocialist Shadow Cabinet.... not so much

If Corbyn had any chance of winning, the current shadow cabinet make-up pretty much dashes all hopes for that. Time for 10 years of Tory rule.

Most of the kippers I know voted for him.

Who's this idiot on BBC news "corbyn must appoint women!!" How about, "corbyn must appoint the people right for the job, regardless of gender!!"

[QUOTE=Jame's;48679226]Most of the kippers I know voted for him.[/QUOTE] Generally, people don't boast about the fact that their friends sabotaged an election.

[QUOTE=Jamsponge;48679402]Generally, people don't boast about the fact that their friends sabotaged an election.[/QUOTE] Do you actually believe this? Have you actually thought this? Corbyn won by a landslide. People signed up to the party to vote for him. an election needs votes and he gets them. Oh sorry didn't realise you were just mindlessly repeating what you read in the daily mail. You go right ahead and carry on.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;48679432]Do you actually believe this? Have you actually thought this? Corbyn won by a landslide. People signed up to the party to vote for him. an election needs votes and he gets them. Oh sorry didn't realise you were just mindlessly repeating what you read in the daily mail. You go right ahead and carry on.[/QUOTE] I thought 'sabotage' probably wasn't the best word for it; and trust me, I'm quite pleased about Corbyn being the new leader. Did you not read Jame's comment where he stated that his UKIP friends intentionally voted for somebody in an opposing party (which would require dishonestly joining the party and lying about your intent), presumably with the purpose of making Labour 'unelectable'?

[QUOTE=Jamsponge;48679786]I thought 'sabotage' probably wasn't the best word for it; and trust me, I'm quite pleased about Corbyn being the new leader. Did you not read Jame's comment where he stated that his UKIP friends intentionally voted for somebody in an opposing party (which would require dishonestly joining the party and lying about your intent), presumably with the purpose of making Labour 'unelectable'?[/QUOTE] Considering jeremy corbyn got 250,000 votes, 59% of the votes compared to andy burnham's 19, do you really think that say 100 000 people joined labour maliciously to vote corbyn in as some sort of undemocratic conspiracy? Are you that blind?

[QUOTE=killerteacup;48679800]Considering jeremy corbyn got 250,000 votes, 59% of the votes compared to andy burnham's 19, do you really think that say 100 000 people joined labour maliciously to vote corbyn in as some sort of undemocratic conspiracy? Are you that blind?[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say it was that much it must be in the tens of thousands.

[img]http://puu.sh/kaTJ3/bd9c1135f1.png[/img] not excited to see this for 5 years tbh