ChatterBank1 min ago
Why Are Labour Frightened Of Jeremy Corbyn, Is He The Left's Nigel Farage?
58 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
because he is an obvious loser on the Neil Kinnock scale
Big fan of tax-and-spend, centralisation of planning and everything else, the man at the ministry knows best for everyone, and re nationalization
all known vote - losers
You recollect Arthur Scargill during one of the elections ? every time he opens his mouth Labour loses a million votes....
Big fan of tax-and-spend, centralisation of planning and everything else, the man at the ministry knows best for everyone, and re nationalization
all known vote - losers
You recollect Arthur Scargill during one of the elections ? every time he opens his mouth Labour loses a million votes....
I note that Corbyn has, amongst others, two policies that might prove popular with many of us here on AB, and the nation in general......namely the renationalisation of the railways and energy companies.
I don't see any other candidate putting these policies forward !
By the way AOG, Corbyn and Farage have nothing in common whatsoever !
Not even a little bit !
Corbyn is one of 232 Labour's MPs elected a few weeks ago, and Farage only has one MP, and its not him !
Good try though, to muddy the waters !
I don't see any other candidate putting these policies forward !
By the way AOG, Corbyn and Farage have nothing in common whatsoever !
Not even a little bit !
Corbyn is one of 232 Labour's MPs elected a few weeks ago, and Farage only has one MP, and its not him !
Good try though, to muddy the waters !
And just what is wrong about nationalising Royal Mail ?
I seem to recall that a certain lady Leader of the Tory Party stopped short of hiving off Royal mail, despite her complete indifference when it came to selling all the rest of Britain's family silver. One of the few things I agreed with her on.
I seem to recall that a certain lady Leader of the Tory Party stopped short of hiving off Royal mail, despite her complete indifference when it came to selling all the rest of Britain's family silver. One of the few things I agreed with her on.
I totally support the renationalisation of the railways and energy companies. It'll never happen though. It's a nice dream. Also, I never trust a man with a Harold Shipman beard. Corbyn will take the Labour party waaaayyy back in time and will ensure they are unelectable for at least another decade, maybe a generation.
Retrocop....while there might, just might, have been a reason to have nuclear weapons in the past, just who are they supposed to deter now ?
As everybody keeps pointing out, our enemies these days aren't the Ruskies, its Islamic terrorists, mostly our home grown variety. Just who are we going to drop a nuclear missile on now ? ISIL ?
As everybody keeps pointing out, our enemies these days aren't the Ruskies, its Islamic terrorists, mostly our home grown variety. Just who are we going to drop a nuclear missile on now ? ISIL ?
Togo....none of those countries are ever going to drop a nuclear bomb on Britain.
The main reason why we thought we needed nuclear weapons was that America used us as a stationary aircraft carrier, moored just off the coast of Europe, for many years. Those American bases would have been the targets for Russian missiles, not the rest of Britain.
Pakistan and India might very well drop one on each other, and Israel might let one off if somebody poked them hard enough in the backside. Ditto with the Mad Dog state of N Korea, but I still can't see how nuclear missiles protect Britain, or from whom.
When Argentina invaded the Falklands, we sent a modern Armada, together with some Vulcan bombers, instead a Trident missile. Of course, we don't have any aircraft carriers now !
Our economy could be completely transformed if we had the guts to cancel the program to replace Trident. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, all of South America, most of Asia, and almost all of Europe seem to get along very well without nuclear weapons, so why do we need them ?
The main reason why we thought we needed nuclear weapons was that America used us as a stationary aircraft carrier, moored just off the coast of Europe, for many years. Those American bases would have been the targets for Russian missiles, not the rest of Britain.
Pakistan and India might very well drop one on each other, and Israel might let one off if somebody poked them hard enough in the backside. Ditto with the Mad Dog state of N Korea, but I still can't see how nuclear missiles protect Britain, or from whom.
When Argentina invaded the Falklands, we sent a modern Armada, together with some Vulcan bombers, instead a Trident missile. Of course, we don't have any aircraft carriers now !
Our economy could be completely transformed if we had the guts to cancel the program to replace Trident. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, all of South America, most of Asia, and almost all of Europe seem to get along very well without nuclear weapons, so why do we need them ?
Mikey. I loathe the b****y things as much as anybody. I was a teenager during the Cuban crisis and the Vietnam war and remember the fear even now. I also remember Hungarian children joining us at primary school during the Hungarian uprising crisis. The sad fact is we cannot uninvent them. A bully of any creed or persuasion is still a bully. Whilst we have our own deterrent we are not likely to be bullied by a nuclear armed nutter.
A bully is always a coward remember, they target the timid or weak.
A bully is always a coward remember, they target the timid or weak.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.