O/T Corbyn...time to go?

[Roger Ramjet]

As for the mega rich giving to conservative party funds, how is that (conceptually) any different to the unions and others giving money to the labour party. If you were to suggest that neither party should have access to political donations, I'd be with you: but not your "one rule for one party, another for another" b/s

If you could shift that massive chip off your shoulder, one could have a sensible debate, but you are more "one-eyed" than a very one eyed thing, as Baldrick might say

 

[ramAnag]

Think you need to edit/delete that last sentence in post #100 Rog.
I’m not altogether comfortable finding myself agreeing with RB and I wish he’d stop posting pictures, but the Tory party is the party of sleaze...our society is as divided as it currently is at least partly as a result of the behaviour of the rich and some things, including Grenfell imo, are just off limits as far as attempts at humour are concerned.

It’s also all bloody again!

 

[RedBasie]

Let me suggest one word: TRADE. We are ever more dependent on their LNG and piped gas supplies and it behoves any government to secure the country's future energy supplies. Just an example. Also, in case you did not realise, Brexit has made it incumbent on us to develop new markets and suppliers.

Continue to sit in your ivory tower by all means, but there are those nearer the coal face that have to keep your ivory tower replete with resources while you pontificate

I would prefer to develop renewables rather than bribe and launder the money of those who have control of finite resources due to run out this century. As regards ivory towers you remind me of those blackmailing militarists with a finger on the button who keep reminding everyone that is they keep the World peace and recommend the likes of Trump for a Nobel peace prize.

 

[Roger Ramjet]

I concur as regards renewables and the need to shed dependence on carbon based energy resources, but realistically is it plausible in the immediate future? The solution really has to be to stop wasting what limited resource we do have, for example on personal gas guzzling cars. But that aint going to happen either until they are taxed out of existence, which will be extremely divisive. In fact I can see the "right to bear wheels" being the next "right to bear arms" when (if) the USA ever come to their senses and curtail the latter. Personal freedoms, huh: who needs them. Damn those liberals.

I recognise that the oil majors etc have no incentive to develop alternative energy sources as it would slash the profits. Same reasoning as the pharmaceutical giants have no reason to find a cure for cancer when they can keep making money on product to treat it. We probably both distrust capitalism equally in this regard.

 

[RedBasie]

Just like Corbyn and his cronies, you only see what you want to see!

So what does it say, especially the left one ?

 

[RedBasie]

I concur as regards renewables and the need to shed dependence on carbon based energy resources, but realistically is it plausible in the immediate future? The solution really has to be to stop wasting what limited resource we do have, for example on personal gas guzzling cars. But that aint going to happen either until they are taxed out of existence, which will be extremely divisive. In fact I can see the "right to bear wheels" being the next "right to bear arms" when (if) the USA ever come to their senses and curtail the latter. Personal freedoms, huh: who needs them. Damn those liberals.

I recognise that the oil majors etc have no incentive to develop alternative energy sources as it would slash the profits. Same reasoning as the pharmaceutical giants have no reason to find a cure for cancer when they can keep making money on product to treat it. We probably both distrust capitalism equally in this regard.

Whether it's realistic or not I'm not going to endorse bribery and corruption in my own country to keep me feeling Ok in my Ivory Tower for the next few years.

 

[Mistaram]

Let me suggest one word: TRADE. We are ever more dependent on their LNG and piped gas supplies and it behoves any government to secure the country's future energy supplies. Just an example. Also, in case you did not realise, Brexit has made it incumbent on us to develop new markets and suppliers.

Continue to sit in your ivory tower by all means, but there are those nearer the coal face that have to keep your ivory tower replete with resources while you pontificate

(one word trade ) Yes your right but you might like to tell our idiot of Secretary of State that He's the one who after the Salsbury poisoning said " Russia should go away and shut up " The very same Gavin Williamson who dined with Lobov Chernui the wife of a former Putin minister in exchange for £30,000 for Tory party funds Imagine the outcry if a Labour MP has done that

 

[The real Swaley]

I never judge potential leaders on the cut of their suit Swale and neither have I mentioned ‘security’, that came from elsewhere.

I understand and agree with your point about local elections but at a time when the Tory government is as inept as any I can remember I’d expect a strong opposition to be hammering home the advantage at this time and they haven’t.

My question about Corbyn as a potential leader stems from his failure to show leadership over two enormous issues...Brexit and anti Semitism.
Has he ever made his philosophy clear over Brexit? I think not, largely because he is understandably fearful of alienating Labour’s traditional support, but the country needs to see some clear thinking from a would be leader. A strong, united opposition would have slaughtered the disunited rag bag of Brexiteer/Tory self interest but the only Party leader demonstrating real clarity of thought is Vince Cable.

As regards anti-Semetism it’s easier imo. As Basie has said, being anti Zionist and opposed to the treatment of Palestinians does not make one an ‘anti-Semite’...but all we hear from Corbyn is a deafening silence.

I do not doubt that he is an intelligent man with a clear sense of social justice...whether that makes him a credible national leader or an ironic barrier to the change you and I would both welcome remains my
question.

Anag I explained why even with an apparently inept Tory government and the answer is Brexit!

He is caught between a rock and hard place on brexit - his stance is to be lukewarm and aim for some compromise which provides the best bits of the EU whilst emoving the bits he doesn't like - but a large proportion of Labours core voters are in the leave camp or at least ambivalent towards it, if that wasn't the case i'm sure like any good politician he would be exploiting that for political capital whatever his personal views.

The anti semitism issue is a case of the right wing trying to smear him as indeed is the accusation he is a Russian sympathiser - one can be anti zionist or at least against the massacre of palestinians and the illegal occupation of their land without being against Jews per se, however the ignorant press like to mix things up deliberately.

 

[ramAnag]

All of which I have said myself and agree with.

None of which explains why Corbyn himself can’t come out and explain things better...that’s what being a leader is about.

 

[RedBasie]

All of which I have said myself and agree with.

None of which explains why Corbyn himself can’t come out and explain things better...that’s what being a leader is about.

Explaining things better opens yourself up to Tory criticism who's media barons dictate public opinion among the unthinking. Maybe he's doing a Tony Blair & Gordon Brown who deliberately refused to say how they would achieve their spending targets without increasing taxation. Unfortunately they have to contend with human nature to become electable who want things like an improved NHS etc but do not want to pay for them. Again unfortunately it is that "Me First" society that rule the roost at the moment which the Tories will always exploit..

 

[MadAmster]

I recognise that the oil majors etc have no incentive to develop alternative energy sources as it would slash the profits. Same reasoning as the pharmaceutical giants have no reason to find a cure for cancer when they can keep making money on product to treat it. We probably both distrust capitalism equally in this regard.

I am loathe to go all conspiracy theorist on folk BUT........

...... I believe that the alternate enegry sources are known and that the oil majors own the patents and will only use the alternates once oil becomes no longer financially viable in about 50 years.

I also believe that there are known cures for some, if not all, types of cancer but the patents are held by Big Pharma and the cures are damned cheap and would ruin them financially.

 

[RamShackle]

(First time poster. Moving over here from the mad place)

As regards the conspiracy, I can't buy into that. With the amount of scientists looking to crack e.g. Nuclear Fusion any discovery of an alternative energy source would have been out in the open within a few months at most.

Peoples egos drive the need to pass on tit-bits and once that happens the blood-hounds of the scientific world would have put the worlds science community onto it in a flash.

Wouldn't put good ol' fashioned corruption to keep the fossil fuel giants in buiness for another 20 years though!

 

[MadAmster]

Thought you'd been released Shackle .

New ideas would become public very quickly these days but there are things from the pre internet days when it was much easier to "bury" stuff. Was Tesla the mental fool they had us believe or is there something to his ideas? Maybe not the finished article but very close and very cheap make. The electricity companies would want that kept under wraps.

 

[RedBasie]

Just a thought.