drummonds Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Vote of no confidence forcing his resignation. Elect a new leader. But at least give him a chance first, he might be very good. That's what the opposition are really afraid of... that's a cracking idea. just need it putting in labour's constitution for it to become reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 All this rubbish about Corbyn making the party unelectable is a load of cobblers to put the frighteners on. Given that the party is currently already looking unelectable, you may be right. Jeremy Corbyn is the most aspirational of leaders... No need to buy a dictionary, there's plenty online. aspirational ˌaspɪˈreɪʃən(ə)l/ adjective having or characterized by aspirations to achieve social prestige and material success. "Social prestige and material success". Is that really what you think Jeremy Corbyn is about or are you just a product of NuLabour education policies? That's what the opposition are really afraid of... I think you mean the government. Labour are in Opposition. You can aspire to having a wealthy, decent, fair country, that fully rewards hard work and endeavour, but also helps the vulnerable and less fortunate. Aspire is a different word to aspirational. I've already given the definition above and it clearly doesn't mean what some people on here think it means. Aspiration doesn't just apply to stuffing your own back pocket y'know... Aspiration is a different word again. "Aspire" and "aspiration" are similar in concept, "aspirational" is something quite different. He's actually supportive of small and medium sized businesses. As a small business owner I would certainly back his suggested tax cuts for small businesses but as someone who already pays less tax than most people (due to having a Limited Company) would further tax cuts for me really be "decent" or "fair"? I'm not complaining mind, I really am aspirational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 (edited) You're confusing the words "aspirational" and "inspirational". I suggest asking Father Christmas for a dictionary this year. He is anti-aspiration because his brand of politics, socialism (and a fairly left wing version of it too), rewards people who get on in life, work hard, create jobs and earn more money by taxing them to death to dish out to those who don't aspire to anything beyond a benefit payment. Anna is quite right that politicians can aspire for different things for their country, rather than assume people want their politicians to satisfy their desire for things. Look at the 1945 Government - they aspired to create a lasting legacy for the people who fought WW2 and survived the Great Depression. But you maybe correct that he's inspirational too! Edited August 22, 2015 by Mister M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiseOwl182 Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Anna is quite right that politicians can aspire for different things for their country, rather than assume people want their politicians to satisfy their desire for things. Look at the 1945 Government - they aspired to create a lasting legacy for the people who fought WW2 and survived the Great Depression. But you maybe correct that he's inspirational too! Taxing success is not aspirational. Being inspirational is subjective. He doesn't inspire me, but he is certainly inspiring a number of left wing loonies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Taxing success is not aspirational. Being inspirational is subjective. He doesn't inspire me, but he is certainly inspiring a number of left wing loonies. What's wrong with using mainstream economic policies to fix our economic problems? Corbyn isn't suggesting anything radical. I wonder if you regard aspirational as targeting being one of the elite? Your chances are almost zero so why are you happy to support the enrichment of the 1% when you will never benefit, but wont support policies that support small and medium businesses, the true engine of growth in our economy?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Renationalisating perfectly good industries, reopening defunct coal mines and leaving NATO aren't radical? What does the daft old leftie need to do to get your attention? Free clown tuition for over 65's? Compulsory beard opportunities for women? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummonds Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Renationalisating perfectly good industries, reopening defunct coal mines and leaving NATO aren't radical? What does the daft old leftie need to do to get your attention? Free clown tuition for over 65's? Compulsory beard opportunities for women? i think taking money from hard working people to give to the feckless and idle appeals to certain elements on here because they are the feckless and idle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Renationalisating perfectly good industries, reopening defunct coal mines and leaving NATO aren't radical? What does the daft old leftie need to do to get your attention? Free clown tuition for over 65's? Compulsory beard opportunities for women? Rail industry: broken Water industry: broken Energy industry: broken There is a mainstream economic case for at least some parts of those industries being run by the state for national strategic reasons. I agree to a point about the coal mines as that policy doesn't stand much chance of success although there may be a case given that we still use tens of millions of tons of the stuff every year still, for keeping some mines at least in a mothballed state. Leaving NATO, for a politician who promotes peace that's a noble goal but not really an economic policy is it. None of his economic policies are loony left. Even the coal mines one is economically sensible if you want to consider the per-unit cost of energy generation versus other forms of generation. Obviously it would be a two fingered salute to environmentalists but I thought some of you right wingers might like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummonds Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Rail industry: broken Water industry: broken Energy industry: broken There is a mainstream economic case for at least some parts of those industries being run by the state for national strategic reasons. I agree to a point about the coal mines as that policy doesn't stand much chance of success although there may be a case given that we still use tens of millions of tons of the stuff every year still, for keeping some mines at least in a mothballed state. Leaving NATO, for a politician who promotes peace that's a noble goal but not really an economic policy is it. None of his economic policies are loony left. Even the coal mines one is economically sensible if you want to consider the per-unit cost of energy generation versus other forms of generation. Obviously it would be a two fingered salute to environmentalists but I thought some of you right wingers might like that. I seem to recall that during the 1970s the railways were pretty much broken and there were power cuts most winters. the reason that the uk doesn't base its electricity generation on uk coal is that proved unreliable too. so buying coal from eastern europe is not only cheaper but also guaranteed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Rail industry: broken Water industry: broken Energy industry: broken There is a mainstream economic case for at least some parts of those industries being run by the state for national strategic reasons. I agree to a point about the coal mines as that policy doesn't stand much chance of success although there may be a case given that we still use tens of millions of tons of the stuff every year still, for keeping some mines at least in a mothballed state. Leaving NATO, for a politician who promotes peace that's a noble goal but not really an economic policy is it. None of his economic policies are loony left. Even the coal mines one is economically sensible if you want to consider the per-unit cost of energy generation versus other forms of generation. Obviously it would be a two fingered salute to environmentalists but I thought some of you right wingers might like that. Coal mines are not economical in this country. By a mile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now