[Update] Jeremy Corbyn wins Labour Leadership - Page 25

Osem · 19-09-2015, 13:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I'd rather a person of principle than one without.It's a shame that being a politician these days means you can't be principled

.

Me too. However, the leader of a major party having 'principles' is one thing, having credible policies in support of those 'principles' is quite another in Corbyn's case. It'd also be nice if said 'principles' extended to minor details like acceptable/respectful behaviour in public and shadow cabinet appointments.

Ramrod · 19-09-2015, 14:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I'd rather a person of principle than one without.It's a shame that being a politician these days means you can't be principled

.

Him being principled isn't the problem. It's his principles that I have a problem with.

GrimUpNorth · 19-09-2015, 14:58

Jeremy over Donald any day of the week. He makes George Snr & Jnr look like puppy dogs and that should scare the whole world. So it's better the devil you've got than the devil the Americans could give us.

Cheers

Grim

papa smurf · 19-09-2015, 16:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Jeremy over Donald any day of the week. He makes George Snr & Jnr look like puppy dogs and that should scare the whole world. So it's better the devil you've got than the devil the Americans could give us.

Cheers

Grim

what about jeb?? there's scope for another Iraq invasion the bush family might not be finished

GrimUpNorth · 19-09-2015, 16:58

Not too worried about Jeb, as I think he's in possession of the family's brain cell. Donald scares me - he's capable of starting a war that'll only ever end in a scoredraw.

Cheers

Grim

**Maggy** · 19-09-2015, 17:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Him being principled isn't the problem. It's his principles that I have a problem with.

The principled are more likely to trip themselves up.The other sort just lie through their teeth until they can no longer be economical with the truth.

TheDaddy · 19-09-2015, 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

Corbyn is opposed to foreign military intervention as a matter of principle. If he had some great insight into events and voted based on them, then fair dos - but he didn't. He voted against it because he always does. That's a fine exercise of principle for a single-minded activist but it won't wash if he wants to be PM.

Really, I thought the other day in the leader debates he said he was sure there were situations where British forces could be deployed overseas but he just couldn't envisage them there and then. Sounded like a perfectly reasonable answer to me but predictably he was slaughtered for not wanting to be a war monger

---------- Post added at 19:38 ---------- Previous post was at 19:36 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

If Saddam was such a "nice man", why were there UN sanctions and a no-fly zone? Did the super-gun, scud missiles fired upon Israel, chemical weapons programmes with their use on the Marsh Arabs all not exist?

For such a "cute and fluffy" kind of guy he sure killed a lot of people and was intent on killing even more. Bit like the IRA, ISIS, Al-Qaeda etc, all "supported" by Corbyn.

Its been done to death, he wasn't a threat to his own people or his neighbours, he wasn't stockpiling wmds, he wasn't involved with Islamic terrorists etc etc the rationales used for war were all false end of, if we wanted saddam out we should've done it when he was a menace.

papa smurf · 20-09-2015, 10:32

Jeremy Corbyn reveals first official policy: To renationalise the railways

Jeremy Corbyn unveils his first official policy since becoming leader of the Labour Party, with plans for a “People’s Railway” under which his government would fast-track a renationalisation of England’s rail network.

The plans would lead to a third of franchises being brought under public ownership by 2025 if he became prime minister at the next election. Mr Corbyn will announce that each route would be renationalised when its franchise expired. Some five out of 16 franchises are due to expire between 2020 and 2025, including East Coast, Southern and TransPennine Express.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10509504.html

**Hugh** · 20-09-2015, 10:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Really, I thought the other day in the leader debates he said he was sure there were situations where British forces could be deployed overseas but he just couldn't envisage them there and then. Sounded like a perfectly reasonable answer to me but predictably he was slaughtered for not wanting to be a war monger

---------- Post added at 19:38 ---------- Previous post was at 19:36 ----------

Its been done to death, he wasn't a threat to his own people or his neighbours, he wasn't stockpiling wmds, he wasn't involved with Islamic terrorists etc etc the rationales used for war were all false end of, if we wanted saddam out we should've done it when he was a menace.

Whilst I mostly agree with you, I think the Kuwaitis, Iraq Marsh Arabs, and the Kurds may disagree with you on the point I highlighted.

nomadking · 20-09-2015, 11:19

Along with the UN, which agreed to sanctions and a no-fly zone. How long should sanctions have gone on for?

20-09-2015, 11:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Jeremy Corbyn reveals first official policy: To renationalise the railways

Jeremy Corbyn unveils his first official policy since becoming leader of the Labour Party, with plans for a “People’s Railway” under which his government would fast-track a renationalisation of England’s rail network.

The plans would lead to a third of franchises being brought under public ownership by 2025 if he became prime minister at the next election. Mr Corbyn will announce that each route would be renationalised when its franchise expired. Some five out of 16 franchises are due to expire between 2020 and 2025, including East Coast, Southern and TransPennine Express.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10509504.html

Wonder if he has thought how much it will cost to do that. I assume the likes of Virgin trains won't simply write off the 1.5 billion investment they have made in 70 new trains for the west coast line, over the last few years?

papa smurf · 20-09-2015, 11:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Banana

Wonder if he has thought how much it will cost to do that. I assume the likes of Virgin trains won't simply write off the 1.5 billion investment they have made in 70 new trains for the west coast line, over the last few years?

just wait till he gets his teeth into power /gas and water

20-09-2015, 12:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Banana

Wonder if he has thought how much it will cost to do that. I assume the likes of Virgin trains won't simply write off the 1.5 billion investment they have made in 70 new trains for the west coast line, over the last few years?

Yes, zero. Nationalization will take place "...when its franchise expires" Btw, many rail companies, including Virgin have leased their trains from the State, SWT lease 100% of their trains

link

denphone · 20-09-2015, 12:24

The three big train leasing companies are Porterbrook , Angel Trains and The Eversholt Rail Group and none of them are owned by the state and there are several small train leasing companies as well..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_t...asing_services

20-09-2015, 12:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carlos Carboni

Yes, zero. Nationalization will take place "...when its franchise expires" Btw, many rail companies, including Virgin have leased their trains from the State, SWT lease 100% of their trains

link

Thats strange on their media relations page they state the following?

"Since 1997, Virgin Trains has introduced over 70 new trains at a cost of £1.5 billion. The service carries more than 34.5 million passengers a year and Virgin Trains employs approximately 3,290 staff."