Labour have announced an additional 4 bank holidays (UK has the lowest public holidays in Europe) St David's Day (March 1), St Patrick's Day (March 17), St George's Day (April 23) and St Andrew's Day (November 30)
That's the Labour Party for you in a nutshell. While the country wants to talk about Brexit, the economy, The NHS, Social Care, housing..............all Corbyn can come up with is give the public (ie, the employed masses, many of which are affiliated to the Trade Unions) 4 more public holidays.
And some of you want to vote for him.................jeez.
Labour have announced an additional 4 bank holidays (UK has the lowest public holidays in Europe) St David's Day (March 1), St Patrick's Day (March 17), St George's Day (April 23) and St Andrew's Day (November 30)
That's the Labour Party for you in a nutshell. While the country wants to talk about Brexit, the economy, The NHS, Social Care, housing..............all Corbyn can come up with is give the public (ie, the employed masses, many of which are affiliated to the Trade Unions) 4 more public holidays.
And some of you want to vote for him.................jeez.
I think you will find union workers make up only about 15% of the total workforce.
Labour have announced an additional 4 bank holidays (UK has the lowest public holidays in Europe) St David's Day (March 1), St Patrick's Day (March 17), St George's Day (April 23) and St Andrew's Day (November 30)
That's the Labour Party for you in a nutshell. While the country wants to talk about Brexit, the economy, The NHS, Social Care, housing..............all Corbyn can come up with is give the public (ie, the employed masses, many of which are affiliated to the Trade Unions) 4 more public holidays.
And some of you want to vote for him.................jeez.
You must have missed him banging on about the NHS and Social care over the last 6 months and only in the last few days spoke about Education. Besides which we are like a week into a snap election campaign.............jeez.
Labour have announced an additional 4 bank holidays (UK has the lowest public holidays in Europe) St David's Day (March 1), St Patrick's Day (March 17), St George's Day (April 23) and St Andrew's Day (November 30)
That's the Labour Party for you in a nutshell. While the country wants to talk about Brexit, the economy, The NHS, Social Care, housing..............all Corbyn can come up with is give the public (ie, the employed masses, many of which are affiliated to the Trade Unions) 4 more public holidays.
And some of you want to vote for him.................jeez.
Wtf has trade union membership got to do with it. Only about 25% of the U.K. Workforce are TU members but let's not let that stop having a dig.
Labour have announced an additional 4 bank holidays (UK has the lowest public holidays in Europe) St David's Day (March 1), St Patrick's Day (March 17), St George's Day (April 23) and St Andrew's Day (November 30)
Well that's stupid, it'll mean up to 7 bank holidays between march and may, then just 1 between then and late November.
Plus Easter can be the same weekend as at George's day.
We need more bank holidays, but we need them in summer and autumn, not all crush into 2 months of spring.
I think it's a good idea but i see your point, maybe the early May Bank Holiday could be moved to July.
Labour have announced an additional 4 bank holidays (UK has the lowest public holidays in Europe) St David's Day (March 1), St Patrick's Day (March 17), St George's Day (April 23) and St Andrew's Day (November 30)
St Pat's day is already a bank holiday in the whole of Ireland and the jocks have a bank holiday for St Andrew's day.
Labour have announced an additional 4 bank holidays (UK has the lowest public holidays in Europe) St David's Day (March 1), St Patrick's Day (March 17), St George's Day (April 23) and St Andrew's Day (November 30)
That's the Labour Party for you in a nutshell. While the country wants to talk about Brexit, the economy, The NHS, Social Care, housing..............all Corbyn can come up with is give the public (ie, the employed masses, many of which are affiliated to the Trade Unions) 4 more public holidays.
And some of you want to vote for him.................jeez.
Which party has spoken more about the NHS and housing than Labour?
This is doing the rounds at the moment and does highlight the choice very well. If it was just based on principles it would be a no brainer for Corbyn but people don't seem to trust him on economic issues and of course the main papers will destroy him (probably as they are worried about having to pay more tax under a Corbyn government).
Banker's Bonus tax is a populist and worthless measure. Most bankers were not at fault during the credit crunch, not sure why they should be scapegoated because stupid people don't understand how finance works. Even if a tax was brought in, bankers would just change their contracts for other incentives or better raises instead to avoid the tax.
This is doing the rounds at the moment and does highlight the choice very well. If it was just based on principles it would be a no brainer for Corbyn but people don't seem to trust him on economic issues and of course the main papers will destroy him (probably as they are worried about having to pay more tax under a Corbyn government).
Except it doesn't. It just uses emotive and biased language to guide the gullible into a certain way of thinking. So we get "bedroom tax" instead of "reduction in subsidy for those with a spare bedroom". And "Mansion Tax" instead of "Additional Tax on just about every dwelling place in London". And bollocks like "human rights bill" what does that even mean? We already have a Human Rights Act in place.
This is doing the rounds at the moment and does highlight the choice very well. If it was just based on principles it would be a no brainer for Corbyn but people don't seem to trust him on economic issues and of course the main papers will destroy him (probably as they are worried about having to pay more tax under a Corbyn government).
Except it doesn't. It just uses emotive and biased language to guide the gullible into a certain way of thinking. So we get "bedroom tax" instead of "reduction in subsidy for those with a spare bedroom". And "Mansion Tax" instead of "Additional Tax on just about every dwelling place in London". And bollocks like "human rights bill" what does that even mean? We already have a Human Rights Act in place.
I don't think most people know the full name of each parliamentary bill, so it is just a general comparison rather than an expert document. Most people don't have the time or passion for politics to look at details so a snapshot can be useful.
This is doing the rounds at the moment and does highlight the choice very well. If it was just based on principles it would be a no brainer for Corbyn but people don't seem to trust him on economic issues and of course the main papers will destroy him (probably as they are worried about having to pay more tax under a Corbyn government).
Except it doesn't. It just uses emotive and biased language to guide the gullible into a certain way of thinking. So we get "bedroom tax" instead of "reduction in subsidy for those with a spare bedroom". And "Mansion Tax" instead of "Additional Tax on just about every dwelling place in London". And bollocks like "human rights bill" what does that even mean? We already have a Human Rights Act in place.
Corbyn survived Marr well. Half the interview was challenging Corbyn in terms of whether he would reduce planet Earth to a nuclear winter, I am glad to say he continually said he would urge talks and peace in a nuclear threat scenario. My generation grew up with the real threat of what a Nuclear war would mean. I wonder if younger folks really understand what a nuclear war would mean. For one it wouldn't be a computer game where you can re set and start again. Corbyn would not press the nuclear button, nor would I, so from that personal perspective at least I agree with him.
Corbyn survived Marr well. Half the interview was challenging Corbyn in terms of whether he would reduce planet Earth to a nuclear winter, I am glad to say he continually said he would urge talks and peace in a nuclear threat scenario. My generation grew up with the real threat of what a Nuclear war would mean. I wonder if younger folks really understand what a nuclear war would mean. For one it wouldn't be a computer game where you can re set and start again. Corbyn would not press the nuclear button, nor would I, so from that personal perspective at least I agree with him.
There's a great scene from Yes Prime Minister which perfectly encapsulates this conundrum. The PM, as the leader of a nuclear state and one of the five members of the UNSC, needs to state he would be willing to push the red button.
Now we all know that he wouldn't, but he can't say he wouldn't.
This is doing the rounds at the moment and does highlight the choice very well. If it was just based on principles it would be a no brainer for Corbyn but people don't seem to trust him on economic issues and of course the main papers will destroy him (probably as they are worried about having to pay more tax under a Corbyn government).
Except it doesn't. It just uses emotive and biased language to guide the gullible into a certain way of thinking. So we get "bedroom tax" instead of "reduction in subsidy for those with a spare bedroom". And "Mansion Tax" instead of "Additional Tax on just about every dwelling place in London". And bollocks like "human rights bill" what does that even mean? We already have a Human Rights Act in place.
I don't think most people know the full name of each parliamentary bill, so it is just a general comparison rather than an expert document. Most people don't have the time or passion for politics to look at details so a snapshot can be useful.
Not very useful when some of it is historical though. If that was the concept, then why are things like "Support for the IRA Corbyn For May Against" omitted I wonder?
Corbyn in a bit of car crash on Marr when asked if he would sanction a drone strike to kill al-Baghdadi.
I liked that he said he would want to understand how the strike would help end the conflict first. Crazy that people have a problem with him but not a former Prime minister who walks in the room and just asks a general "who's the bad guy then?".
Corbyn in a bit of car crash on Marr when asked if he would sanction a drone strike to kill al-Baghdadi.
I liked that he said he would want to understand how the strike would help end the conflict first. Crazy that people have a problem with him but not a former Prime minister who walks in the room and just asks a general "who's the bad guy then?".
And a current prime minister who hid a failed missile test from parliament before an important vote.
Corbyn survived Marr well. Half the interview was challenging Corbyn in terms of whether he would reduce planet Earth to a nuclear winter, I am glad to say he continually said he would urge talks and peace in a nuclear threat scenario. My generation grew up with the real threat of what a Nuclear war would mean. I wonder if younger folks really understand what a nuclear war would mean. For one it wouldn't be a computer game where you can re set and start again. Corbyn would not press the nuclear button, nor would I, so from that personal perspective at least I agree with him.
I don't understand why they have to spend so much time asking a pacifist what they think of war. Whilst I do understand that security may be one of their biggest concerns of a Corbyn led government, we already know his position and I don't believe that a future nuclear war is that high on everyone's voting priority. Pacifism is not something I personally agree with, but it is something I can respect. I believe it is a much harder path, as violence is often easy and Millions have chosen to walk it. Except for Ghandi, right pillock that one.
Corbyn survived Marr well. Half the interview was challenging Corbyn in terms of whether he would reduce planet Earth to a nuclear winter, I am glad to say he continually said he would urge talks and peace in a nuclear threat scenario. My generation grew up with the real threat of what a Nuclear war would mean. I wonder if younger folks really understand what a nuclear war would mean. For one it wouldn't be a computer game where you can re set and start again. Corbyn would not press the nuclear button, nor would I, so from that personal perspective at least I agree with him.
I don't understand why they have to spend so much time asking a pacifist what they think of war. Whilst I do understand that security may be one of their biggest concerns of a Corbyn led government, we already know his position and I don't believe that a future nuclear war is that high on everyone's voting priority. Pacifism is not something I personally agree with, but it is something I can respect. I believe it is a much harder path, as violence is often easy and Millions have chosen to walk it. Except for Ghandi, right pillock that one.
I am not a pacifist, and I would have risked all fighting the Nazis. However the destruction of the entire planet and all life on it in a Nuclear conflict is something I want to have no part of. However boys like to play with their toys as the dropping of that big bomb in Afghanistan has indicated. Korea and the USA seem to be particularly salivating about getting the nukes out of the box and giving them a go. In the case of the USA, the land of the spree killer (as opposed to the terrorist killer) it is not a great leap of imagination to believe that they would elect a spree killing president.
This is doing the rounds at the moment and does highlight the choice very well. If it was just based on principles it would be a no brainer for Corbyn but people don't seem to trust him on economic issues and of course the main papers will destroy him (probably as they are worried about having to pay more tax under a Corbyn government).
Having looked at that, I agree far more with the left hand side than the right. In fact all of it! I just think Corbyn doesn't sell his positions well enough and the establishment have worked out how to influence. The left needs a leader who knows how to use anger in the same way it's opponents do. It used to be something they were good at!
Comments
And some of you want to vote for him.................jeez.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39681186
My generation grew up with the real threat of what a Nuclear war would mean. I wonder if younger folks really understand what a nuclear war would mean. For one it wouldn't be a computer game where you can re set and start again.
Corbyn would not press the nuclear button, nor would I, so from that personal perspective at least I agree with him.
Now we all know that he wouldn't, but he can't say he wouldn't.
However boys like to play with their toys as the dropping of that big bomb in Afghanistan has indicated.
Korea and the USA seem to be particularly salivating about getting the nukes out of the box and giving them a go. In the case of the USA, the land of the spree killer (as opposed to the terrorist killer) it is not a great leap of imagination to believe that they would elect a spree killing president.
As far as i can tell, it's champagne socialists who work in the city and students who have yet to have a job.
Nobody outside the cities vote for them.