Jeremy Corbyn - straight talking 2
Labour Party

Corbyn's moral mission for a kinder, more inclusive politics

 

A bit doddery and oafish, Jeremy Corbyn stumbled and stammered through his first Conference speech like a 1950s grey-bearded puritan. He was robed in a bright red tie, though the knot hung just half-an-inch too low for unimpeded consideration of his message: it’s not easy to focus on the face when the eyes are constantly drawn to the jugular notch. But he didn’t care: this was his pulpit, his chapel and his mission. He was sober and straight, and his faithful congregation clapped right on cue to the euphoric refrains of joy.

But the sermon was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the rest of the country. Labour’s messiah flitted from statistics to stuff, and then from random facts back to stuff, all interspersed with amorphous blurb and arbitrary stuff, most of which was apparently plagiarised from some obscure blog (ie not used without permission, but pre-published and used without attribution).

But Jeremy Corbyn did get one or two things right, and it would be scrimpy, not to say un-Christian, not to give credit where it’s due. He issued a direct challenge to the Prime Minister in the cause of Ali Mohammed al-Nimr:

Intervene now personally with the Saudi Arabian regime to stop the beheading and crucifixion of Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, who is threatened with the death penalty for taking part in a demonstration at the age of 17. While you’re about it, terminate that bid made by our Ministry of Justice to provide prison services for Saudi Arabia which would be required to carry out the sentence that would be put down on Ali Mohammed al-Nimr. We have to be very clear what we stand for in human rights, because a refusal to stand up is the kind of thing that really damages Britain’s standing in the world.”

That’s a bold gauntlet to throw down, but justice and righteousness demand it. It is intolerable that the British Government is not only silent in the face of Saudi barbarism, but the Ministry of Justice is complicit in the administration of the inhumane Saudi prison regime; and, it appears, the Government colluded in a “secret Saudi deal” to secure the election of Saudi ambassador Faisal Trad to the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Labour’s new leader also urged his party members and supporters to “cut out the abuse, cut out the misogyny and get back to real politics”:

Politics that’s kinder, more inclusive. Bottom up, not top down. In every community and workplace, not just in Westminster. Real debate, not necessarily message discipline all the time. But above all, straight talking. Honest. That’s the politics we’re going to have in the future in this party and in this movement.

That’s nice. Don’t carp about his sloppy-knotted tie: focus on the lectern banner. These are his values, if not British values. Perhaps Jeremy Corbyn has been colluding in a secret deal with the Bishops. It’s not quite plagiarised, but the aspiration has been lifted straight out of the Pastoral Letter issued by the Church of England just before the 2015 General Election:

It is a call for a new direction that we believe our political life ought to take.. Our country is hungry for a new approach to political life that will “change the political weather”.. We are suggesting the trajectory for a new kind of politics – one which works constructively with a ferment of different ideas and competing visions.. We need a new political story that will enable the people of Britain to articulate who they are, what they want to become and how they will work together to live virtuously as well as prosperously.. At this election, we can sow the seeds of a new politics.. we need new, informal and independent structures.. this may be an election that sows the seeds from which a new narrative might emerge.. If the country is ever to enjoy a new politics which reflects our beliefs about human flourishing, we must work with others to make that vision attractive..

By calling for a politics which is “Bottom up, not top down. In every community and workplace, not just Westminster”, Jeremy Corbyn echoed David Cameron’s abortive ‘Big Society’. The Prime Minister was wrong to let the vision fade away: people are alienated and cynical because they feel detached and disempowered. The Bishops prescribed subsidiarity as the remedy:

The Church of England strongly supported The Big Society. We saw that the philosophy it represented commanded support from well beyond the Conservative party. The title of the project is not what matters. The time may not have been ripe for the ideas to be translated into practical policies. But the ideals that The Big Society stood for should not be consigned to the political dustbin – they could still be the foundation for the new approach to politics, economics and community which we seek.

So, let’s be kinder and more decent to Jeremy Corbyn, as he exhorts, because with fairness and decency is how we’d all like to be treated. Try to focus on the good in his first Conference speech, despite its oratorical deficiencies, not to say a black hole of oratorical incapacity. There’s no need for linguistic art or oral flourish when you’re seeking neither to entertain nor persuade. You can fizz with his ideas, or bugger off.

He doesn’t care about winning power, you see: his political principles are all. But he was right to focus on housing needs and mental health, even if he barely dedicated a whole line to what is, for many, a debilitating darkness. It isn’t much, granted; but these two points, along with the two sections quoted, shine in the gloom of an essentially Marxist thesis of higher taxes, economic intervention, more wealth redistribution and state-enforced equality.

God cares about the words we use, and Jeremy Corbyn used some nice ones. If truth, honesty and grace are to supplant malign negativity of our political discourse – the slander, abuse, obscene filth, gossip, ugly blogging and Twitter hate – then this politician will indeed fulfil the Bishops’ vision “for a new approach to political life that will ‘change the political weather'”.

Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers (Eph 4:29).

Let’s see how many Labour Party members are renewed in their hearts, and how many of their supporters are transformed into the Corbyn likeness. And then let’s see how long it lasts.

  • David

    He seeks to transform society, without first, transforming the hearts of followers. Only God can transform individual hearts through their salvation, through grace. It is only when sufficient individual hearts have been transformed by the love of God that society itself can achieve big, positive improvements. All this has been proven by historical events and processes. Did Soviet Marxism produce justice and happiness ? But the evangelical movements of this country, of the 18th C, produced much good fruit.
    As Psalm 111 has it, “The fear of The Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all who practice it have good understanding”.
    Why fear ? Because fear leads to repentance, repentance to salvation and grace, and then daily, we learn to love God more and more, who tells us to love our fellow human beings…
    Marxism, Socialism and what have you utopianism, cannot transform society, only God can achieve that, but first we must start with each individual heart…there is no short cut.

    • Darach Conneely

      I wonder what transformed the Good Samaritan’s heart?

      • David

        Mr Corbyn, obviously !

    • sarky

      And back in the real world…….

      • David

        You mean, your little world.

      • David

        Your reality is tiny.

        • sarky

          As is your……

          • David

            Infantile !

          • sarky

            Oops, should have read ‘as is yours….’.
            Your answer is very telling though.

  • len

    Our society is in terminal decline.however good the intentions , however wonderful the dream like all other dreams when the honeymoon is over reality will set in..
    Man cannot change himself however hard he tries he always slips back.Of course God knew this from the beginning that`s why God did not try to reform the old fallen creation ,did not give him religion,did not tell him to ‘do better’ but took the old creation to the Cross at Calvary and finished it forever.

    A New Creation was started at the Resurrection IN Christ Jesus and God either views us as in the Old Creation or in the New Creation in Christ.

    Corbyns brave new World or brave new/old Labour is trying to produce life into what God has condemned as dead and will produce little of any lasting affect.

  • Anton

    The tie perhaps is the most ridiculous item of clothing ever.

    • dannybhoy

      On him, or on anybody?

      • Anton

        I meant on anybody! Good on him for not voluntarily constricting himself.

        • dannybhoy

          I think they were originally designed as napkins or nose wipes for those who wore trousers without pockets..

          • Anton

            I had presumed that they were a way of keeping cold air out and preserving a warm air pocket inside your shirt or upper body garment in winter.

          • dannybhoy

            Well you presumed wrong, did’ncha! ;0)

          • Anton

            I don’t know. Can you give a reliable reference for your assertion, please?

          • Malcolm Smith

            I can’t say why they were invented, but there is a reason why they have been retained. An ethologist ie a specialist in behaviour explained why the Western suit-and-tie has take over the world. The jacket makes a man’s torso look longer, his shoulders broader, and his neck wider (due to the lapels), while the tie draws your eyes up to his face. In other words, it emphasizes his masculinity.

          • Anton

            That makes sense for the jacket, which became popular among men in offices who did less manual labour and therefore had a less manly physique. But I find the assertion that a tie draws viewers eyes up to the face somewhat arbitrary.

          • dannybhoy

            No, I can’t, but I like what Malcolm says below. I always feel more masculine with a tie on, and of course my face is one of my finer features..

          • Anton

            I always feel more like a con man with a tie on.

        • Anton – As I understand it the wearing of ties by businessmen goes back to the days of the first coffee-houses where merchants gathered to do business. At that time a ruff was typical neck-wear so the coffee-houses provided napkins that were tucked in at the neck. Men then started walking from one coffee-house-meeting to the next still wearing their neck-tucked napkins, and the constant wearing of such became a symbol of someone who was a successful businessman who had many meetings to attend. This lead to people designing and bringing their own napkins with them, and eventually the wearing of coloured neck-ties because a standard part of a businessman’s attire.

          So if you see someone wiping their mouth on their tie they are actually using it correctly!

          • Anton

            No doubt Corbyn will remember that when at Buckingham Palace…

  • Dreadnaught

    Corbyn displays an appalling naivete – nice in child but not in a politician. No wonder Red Len McClusky is heaping praise on him – makes manipulation much easier. I believe his sentiments are genuine but he is no Statesman fit to represent UK on the World Stage. He would make a good Quaker in parish politics I think, but that’s about it. Derek Hatton used the same tactic Millitant Tendency used of disguising a sheep in sheep’s clothing when an actual Quaker was head of Liverpool City Labour run Council and he was Deputy Leader, pulling all the strings until Kinnock stepped in..`

    • IanCad

      Excellent Dred.

      Small point; but more than naivete, an abiding characteristic of the left is that they assume the rest of the electorate to be as reasonable as they believe themseves to be.

  • Busy Mum

    “Politics that’s kinder, more inclusive. Bottom up, not top down. In every community and workplace, not just in Westminster. Real debate, not necessarily message discipline all the time. But above all, straight talking. Honest.”

    Could Mr Corbyn please go in to school and tell this to my daughter’s humanities teacher? She recently told the class (mixed girls and boys, ages 15 and 16) that she ‘hoped they were all feminists because they ought to be’. If I go in and complain I will be dismissed as a right-wing nutter (or tagged as an extremist, I suppose) but she won’t be able to say that to Mr Corbyn, will she now?

    • sarky

      Prehaps the humour/context was lost in the re telling of the tale.

      • Busy Mum

        If there was any humour, it was lost on my daughter before she relayed it to me…and I doubt there was any in the first place…they have just started a unit on Women’s Rights…..

        • Coniston

          Perhaps your daughter should have asked the teacher why feminists were so obsessed with killing babies.

          • James60498 .

            The problem is that she (and her mum) would be treated as right wing nutters

          • sarky

            I reckon it’s because the teacher is obviously a high priest in the illuminati.

          • James60498 .

            No, just a worker ant.

            Even a left wing teacher has the brain power to know what is required by the collective.

          • Busy Mum

            We had a teacher who applauded her sixth-form students for ripping down UKIP posters in town during the run-up to the General Election…..any person who is willing to teach ‘citizenship’ in a UK school must be suspect in my book!

          • Tutanekai

            Feminists kill babies?!?!

            First I’ve heard of it.

            When and where were all these babies killed? Why wasn’t it in the papers? Or is “kill” a Christian euphemism for something else?

          • carl jacobs

            Or is “kill” a Christian euphemism for something else?

            No, it’s a biological fact. They were alive – manifesting every attribute of life that you manifest. Now they are dead. What do you call it when someone dies as a result of the deliberate actions of another? Badminton?

          • Tutanekai

            But who died? What babies are you talking about?

            I’ve never heard of a feminist baby massacre before. When and where did it happen?

          • carl jacobs

            Don’t be willfully obtuse. Or at least try to make a clever attempt at it.

          • Tutanekai

            My, we are testy, aren’t we?

            I genuinely didn’t understand what was meant by the term “baby killer”. I still don’t understand why such accusatory, emotive and polarising language is necessary. You won’t convert many feminists to your point of view by spitting insults at them.

          • carl jacobs

            My, we are testy, aren’t we?

            A not-very-clever attempt at being a smart-ass brings out the worst in me. My bad.

          • Tutanekai

            Believe whatever you like. Clearly you don’t believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt though.

            Whatever, your problem. Not mine.

          • carl jacobs

            You need to rehearse that “Who? Me?” line in front of the mirror a few more times so that you can carry it off with some conviction.

          • Carl, the name “Tutanekai” is from a well known Maori love story. Tutanekai had an intimate relationship with a male companion. Nowadays, the word “Takatapui”, derived from it, is used for homosexual culture amongst the Maori.

          • Hi Jack

            Also.
            Unless my dyslexia has got the better of my but Isn’t Tutanekai a French colony too ?although I though mouris werent frenchuie, but like the well cool New Zealand loyal British empire natives who like have cool tattoos and played rugby and whose national anthem is named after an artery , called G-d save new Zealand in English (who are equally nice , I remember an English new Zealand girl talk non stop about her country, which seems very beautiful abs rustic: Plu she said they all great each other by rubbing our noses together. Which I did. She seemed very happy with me doing that.

          • Never heard of Tutanekai as a French colony, Hannah.

            It is Maori custom to rub noses. It’s known as “Hongi” and is done by pressing one’s noses and foreheads together at the same time. As for kissing on the lips, Jack suspects you know already she was fibbing.

          • Sam

            Dude

            Thinking Hannah’s meaning Tahiti????

          • Lol …. has she been drinking?

          • Anton

            I prefer a hangi.

          • Have you ever sampled one?

          • Anton

            Yes, I lived in Australia for several years and visited New Zealand.

          • Hi Linus.

          • Inspector General

            You reckon that’s Linus, Jack? If it is, it says something for Cranmer’s marvellous blog that not even dissolute rotters can stay away for long…

          • “dissolute rotters” …. are you referring to Corrigan?

            Why the deception in this case? It can only be wounded pride.

          • Inspector General

            Would never call Corrigan dissolute.

          • sarky

            “Many, many more hundreds of eggs are fertilized than become humans,” he says, because not all of those eggs will attach to a woman’s uterine wall and result in pregnancy. But if you’re going to hold that as a standard—that life begins at conception and any egg that’s fertilized has the same rights as an individual—well, “Whom do you sue? Whom do you throw in jail?” he asks. “Every woman who has had a fertilized egg pass through her? Every guy whose sperm has fertilized an egg and then it didn’t become a human?”

          • carl jacobs

            At what point does someone “become human?” What is the ontological dividing line?

          • sarky

            Crikey Carl, how long is a piece of string??
            My own view is that you become truly human once you become self aware.

          • “My own view is that you become truly human once you become self aware.”

            Ummm … you’ve a way to go then, Sarky.

          • CliveM

            Ouch………….!

          • carl jacobs

            how long is a piece of string?

            I don’t know. Give me a piece of string and a measuring device. I’ll whip up a Kalmam Filter in about three minutes that will both estimate the answer and provide the confidence interval. I guarantee that you will know the answer with sufficiency. But what has that to do with anything? I asked you for an objective biological boundary that separates the non-human “fetus” from a human child. I didn’t ask you about the length of a piece of string.

            And once again. If a fetus isn’t human, then what is it?

          • alternative_perspective

            Apparently it’s the vagina. A bit more 3D than a singular line but just as arbitrary.

          • And planes have engine failure and fall to the ground killing people. Not the same as Pan Am Flight 103.

          • James60498 .

            Why is that a good point?

            People die of illness. In accidents. In fact we will all die and in the vast majority of cases, it will not be anyone else’s fault. No one will be sued. No one will be thrown in jail. Obviously and quite rightly.

            Some babies die before birth, all die eventually. If no one set out to deliberately kill or was unreasonably reckless then no one should be blamed. Whether it’s an unborn baby or a 100 year old.

            Only someone wanting an excuse to kill babies could possibly think this is a good point.

          • Nice bowtie. Like an older version on Matt Smith’s Dr who….

          • carl jacobs

            Heretic! Jon Pertwee is the Doctor. All others are imposters and pretenders.

          • sarky

            It can only be Tom Baker!!

          • carl jacobs

            Baker is the un-Doctor. No legitimate Time Lord would wear that ridiculous hat and even more ridiculous scarf.

          • sarky

            Nor would they name a car Bessie??

          • carl jacobs

            ‘Bessie’ is a perfectly fine name for a car. My brother once had a car he called “The Blue Flash.” It was a powder blue ’66 Fairlane with broken fuel gauge.

          • sarky

            I have a deep suspicion of anyone who names their car 🙂

          • CliveM

            Pertwee did have the first Master incarnation though.

          • Sputum Flange

            If he is, as you say, the un-Doctor, he is all the better for it.
            The Definitive Doctor.

          • CliveM

            Rubbish :0(

          • dannybhoy

            Nope William Hartnell, Patrick Troughton were the first Time Lord incarnations. It subsequently went rapidly downhill. Especially when the Daleks encountered stairs……

          • sarky

            Don’t you know? They fly these days!

          • dannybhoy

            Really?
            (But do I care?)
            No, I don’t!
            I live in a Nuclear and Dalek- free zone anyway..

            Having read and enjoyed Andy Weir’s “The Martian” I will make the effort to go see it at the cinema. Another sci-fi film I can recommend is ‘Moon’ with Sam Rockwell. Very entertaining.

          • CliveM

            Blasphemy, get the rack out. It’s Patrick Troughton.

            Although I like Matt Smith as well.

          • carl jacobs

            I shall declare myself Pope just so I can anathematize you.

          • CliveM

            I’ll be patriarch Michael to your Pope Leo and excommunicate you!

          • sarky

            Ha ha spot on.

          • James60498 .

            One minute a baby is alive. You can see it. At an early stage you can see it clearly alive with a Scan. You can feel it kick. Then someone does something to it. Tears it apart. Poisons it. Take your pick.

            And then it is dead.

            What do you call it then?

          • Tutanekai

            Ah, I understand now. You mean abortion, don’t you?

            I think most feminists would argue that abortion is not the same as killing, but I’ll leave that up to them because it’s something I don’t know much about, being as I’m a man and everything.

            I will say that if you go around accusing feminists of being baby killers, you’all almost certainly end up being labeled a right wing nutter though. If you say you don’t support abortion because you believe that the unborn have a right to life, you might be taken a bit more seriously. But spitting “baby killer” at every feminist you meet probably does your cause more harm than good. Your call though.

          • carl jacobs

            Ah, I understand now.

            See, now, that’s the point where you should have tried to be clever. But maybe with more practice.

            I think most feminists would argue that abortion is not the same as killing

            I’m sure they would. They have all sorts of euphemisms to disguise what is being done. “Product of conception.” “Mass of cells.” And of course the every popular “fetus.” What the hell is a fetus anyways? According to its DNA structure, I mean. Is it a bumblebee? No. Is it a leopard. No. How about a housecat? Or a potted geranium? Or the fungus on the kitchen sink? Or perhaps the ever popular Elephas maximus in the living room? No, no, no, and no. A fetus is an … un-child. It’s biologically human in every way. But it has been legally defined as an un-child so that it may be killed with impunity.

            It’s easy to deny the reality of killing when you control the definition of the victim.

          • Tutanekai

            Definitions?

            Definitions like “evil monster” that make it ok to murder (judicially) prisoners in the US, you mean?

            Or how about the “brave hero” soldiers we send to die in the name of freedom?

            Most humans have no problem meting out death in circumstances they approve of. It’s always justified when they think it’s necessary, but they disagree about what determines that neccessity..

            I don’t know whether the foetus meets the criteria that define a living being, but if it does, aborting it is no more (or less) an act of killing than executing a criminal or sending a soldier into the firing line.

            You can draw your line in any arbitrary place you like and label anything that falls on the wrong side of it as evil. Both Christians and feminists do that. So how are they different?

          • carl jacobs

            You didn’t answer my question, I see. That would be the “If a fetus isn’t human then what is it?” question.

            I was making a point about ontology and not authority – the difference between which your response deliberately confuses. Criminals aren’t executed because they are declared non-human. Soldiers don’t kill non-human entities. Neither are they sacrificed because they are non-human. In both cases, men acknowledge that they kill other men. The humanity of the dead man hasn’t been defined away. Both cases that you mention would require that killing a man be justified by the exercise of proper authority. (Which of course you already know.) But in the case of abortion, no justification is required. Why? Because it isn’t really killing, you see, because there isn’t yet a human to kill. So if it isn’t a human, then what is it? The whole ethical case for abortion hangs on that question.

            Well, in practice it doesn’t. The case for abortion hangs on the desire for adult autonomy and the humanity of the child is utterly irrelevant. The typical pro-abortionist doesn’t actually care about my question at all. That’s why the arguments used to justify abortion could just as easily be used in service to infanticide. You would just have to draw the arbitrary line between human and non-human in a slightly different place.

          • Tutanekai

            I see, it’s OK to kill as long as you have what you consider to be “proper authority”.

            Who gave you that authority, then? God?

            When “proper authority” stems from an unproven God, it becomes a license for self-righteous zealots to impose their vision on everyone by pain of death. We saw it in Europe during the Inquisition. We’re seeing it in the Middle East now with IS.

            “Proper authority” is nothing more than self-justification for murder.

            And when does a foetus become human? When it’s capable of independent life. Before then it’s an adjunct of a woman’s body. She therefore has the final say about what happens to it.

            It seems to me that you want to move your “proper authority” into the womb, which from the point of conception would then no longer belong to the woman in whose body was situated, but would rather become a ward of the state – of your “proper authority”.

            Why stop at the womb? I mean, what if a pregnant woman doesn’t eat correctly? What if she drinks alcohol? Why not clap her in irons for the duration of her pregnancy, and force-feed her a balanced diet, and prevent her from drinking or taking drugs, or doing anything else that could impinge upon the right of the foetus to live? After all, if the foetus’s rights trump every other consideration, surely your “proper authority” can, on its behalf, ride roughshod over whatever paltry and unimportant needs and desires a woman might have.

            You’re happy enough to kill when it suits you, but you’re not happy to let a woman make that same decision. What does that make you?

          • James60498 .

            I acknowledge that there are a small number of women who call themselves feminists who do not support abortion.

            But the vast majority of feminists would not share their opinion that they are indeed feminists at all.

          • Tutanekai

            That may be true. But most women who self-identify as feminists share a conviction that a woman has a sovereign right over her own body.

            If we take the situation of a woman who’s pregnant following a rape, which is not an uncommon occurence, does a belief in the sanctity of life give you the right to compel her to give birth to her rapist’s child?

          • James60498 .

            Yesterday you said that being a man you knew nothing about abortion.

            Clearly that’s the case, if you think that more than a tiny proportion of abortions are following rape. Yes. The sanctity of life applies.
            One appalling act does not make another right.

            But if you are prepared to make abortion illegal except in those cases then we will have saved the overwhelming majority of babies.

            Perhaps if you want to learn a bit about the subject, you could have a look at this website. After all, despite denying any knowledge of abortion, you claim to know about all feminists. In fact I will tell you what. You know nothing about abortion and a lot more than I do about feminists. Let’s both look at it.

            http://www.feministsforlife.org

          • Tutanekai

            Who do you think I am? I assure you, I can’t make anything illegal. I don’t have that kind of power. But even if I did, in this case, I would not exercise it.

            A ban on abortion is not something that can be imposed from on high by men, and probabaly some women too, who think that all they have to do is snap their fingers and all the women in the country will obey them meekly. Even if abortion were made illegal, women would keep on having abortions. That’s the flaw in your plan, because unless you’re willing to incarcerate every woman of childbearing age, how will you stop them terminating their pregnancies by whatever means they can?

            It isn’t really about abortion, is it? It’s about you telling women they must not have one. It’s about you enshrining your particular politico-religious viewpoint in law and making a criminal out of anyone who refuses to obey you. In fact, it’s really all about YOU. There’s no other explanation, because banning abortion won’t stop abortion. But it will make you feel as though you’re in control, and give you that nice English feeling that appearances are being saved, even if as a result abortions keep on happening, and a large number of women fall victim to the unsanitary practices of the backstreet abortionists along the way. If they’re punished for their sin, so much the better eh?

            This is not something I can support. Women have the right to choose and that’s the way it must stay. After all, isn’t your religion all about free will? If these women are sinning, it’s between them and God. Let them make their own decisions and answer for them just as you will have to (if there is a God, of course).

          • James60498 .

            So what else do you apply that to?

            Murder of already born people? Child abuse? Terrorism? Theft? Dangerous driving? What about rape?

            If you wish to apply that to everything then you are consistent if insane. If not then it is a meaningless excuse.

          • Tutanekai

            If prevented from murdering, a woman will not see her body swell and be taken over by a parasitic being that grows inside her against her will and causes excruciating pain and even permanent damage when being expelled.

            If prevented from abusing a child, she will not suffer from pre-eclampsia and perhaps die.

            Every time she is prevented from committing a terrorist act, there will be no cumulative damage to her reproductive system that may culminate in the painful and debilitating condition of vaginal prolapse.

            If prevented from stealing she will not find herself covered in stretch marks and varicose veins.

            And if she can’t drive dangerously, she won’t be afflicted with weeks, perhaps even months of intense nausea and vomiting.

            Yet all of these things can or may happen to her if she’s prevented from terminating her pregnancy.

            You go make all the laws you like that heap all the burdens in the world on the shoulders of women, and then when they’re not willing to bear them, call them criminals and say “serves you right, dirty murderess” when they die or are severely injured by the backstreet practitioner you forced them to resort to. On your conscience be it.

          • James60498 .

            If I can prevent babies from being killed then I am delighted that it be on my head.

            As for you, for someone who yesterday claimed to have no opinion and not even know what we were talking about you seem remarkably opinionated.

            Not knowledgeable though so you were half right.

          • Tutanekai

            I’ve explained the abortion argument from the feminists’ perspective. At no point did I say I share their beliefs. But I do understand them. And they make sense when considered in the context of the feminist/atheist world view.

            For me it all hinges around two things: 1) is there a God? and 2) does he disapprove of abortion?

            As we have no proof of God’s existence, we can have no proof of his attitude to the termination of pregnancies. We can surmise, but we cannot know.

            So as far as I’m concerned, the jury is out on abortion, and will remain so until Christians prove that God is real and that the Bible is indeed his word.

          • Royinsouthwest

            In the Merchant of Venice Shylock was told he could have his “pound of flesh” provided he did not spill any blood. Abortion would not be controversial if it were performed without ending the life of the baby.

          • Hi

            In my sci find book that I’m writing that one advanced alien species have a treaty with earth that allows for women to have an alternative by “teleporting” babies
            from the womb into artificial “exo wombs”.

          • Tutanekai

            What, you mean decanting the foetus into a tank where gestation can be completed and the resulting baby adopted by parents that actually want it?

            I have a feeling that’s the direction in which human reproduction is heading. Surrogacy is just an intermediate step. What woman would actually want to go through all the inconvenience, pain and physical damage of pregnancy and childbirth if an alternative that didn’t consist of getting someone else to do what you don’t want to existed? And there must be infertile couples and gay couples looking to have children too. Anything that helps them avoid the hassle and potential pitfalls of surrogacy would surely be welcome.

            I wonder how Christians would react to artificial gestation. Would it be a sin because the pain of childbirth is something that women are supposed to endure as punishment for the sin of Eve? In which case, can Christian women resort to any kind of pain relief during delivery?

            I guess these questions will be answered in the future. For the time being however, unwanted foetuses will continue to be terminated, as there’s no alternative that doesn’t involve making a woman endure something she refuses to endure. Would YOU force her to? How? Chain her up for 9 months?

            Abortion has been with us since the beginning of time, and outlawing it merely drives it underground, which often results in the death or injury of the woman having the abortion. This was one of the reasons that abortion was legalised: to prevent the damage done to otherwise healthy women by the backstreet abortion trade.

            Maybe that’s what Christians want, though. Abortion made illegal and the women who resort to it anyway either maimed or killed as punishment for their sin. God’s retributive justice right here on earth.

          • Busy Mum

            “to prevent the damage done to otherwise healthy women by the backstreet abortion trade.”

            A woman who thinks she is in need of an abortion is not a healthy woman. The whole abortion argument needs to shift its focus from the sanctity of life onto the woman and why she is in this predicament in the first place.

          • Tutanekai

            That’s right, labelling women considering an abortion sick in the head will win them – and society as a whole – over to your cause!

            Sorry, but those tactics didn’t work with homosexuality. What makes you think they’ll bring you victory over abortion? Do you actually want to be on the losing side, the better to live out your calling as a Christian martyr?

          • Busy Mum

            I have tried to keep this daughter as un-streetwise as possible; she only asked me recently what an abortion is and even when I explained in as little detail as possible, she turned green….She doesn’t even know what a feminist is really, so she felt quite threatened by a teacher who told her she ought to be something about which she knows nothing; all I know is she came home and asked to drop humanities because she couldn’t see why she needed to spend time learning about something called women’s rights. She has grown up in a house where boys and girls are treated equally – neither have any rights, only responsibilities :)) To avoid giving the impression to the more critical commentators on here that this is beyond the pale, I stress that the parents in this house have no rights either – we have heavy duties, and maybe a few well-earned privileges.

          • sarky

            I was brought up unstreetwise and boy was the world a shock and a bit scary. I haven’t made that mistake with my kids.

          • Busy Mum

            I would far rather my children found the world shocking and scary than be totally desensitised to all the horror. She is streetwise enough to know who to avoid – that’s good enough for me.

          • sarky

            Good luck with that.

        • sarky

          And thats a bad thing for your daughter because……..?

          • Busy Mum

            ….in a day and age of ‘inclusion’, she felt totally excluded by the teacher. Just like your children might feel if a teacher stood up and said they and all the other children in the class had better be ‘creationists’ or else….

          • sarky

            Except that’s never going to happen is it?

          • Busy Mum

            No, because if a teacher did that, they would lose their job. Double standards you see…..I know of another teacher who asked a class of 11 year olds, 2 weeks into starting at their new secondary school, to put their hands up if they ‘believed in being gay’. One child was honest enough to keep his hand down because he didn’t know what it meant so couldn’t honestly say whether or not he believed in it….the teacher proceeded to announce to the whole class that this child must also be a racist…The school reluctantly issued an apology but that child is labelled now – great.

          • sarky

            It all happens in the schools were you live doesnt it?
            Im glad to say these seem to be isolated incidents.

          • Busy Mum

            I would hazard a guess that they are not isolated incidents at all and that either nothing happens in the schools where you live, or else you just don’t know what is going on:)

          • sarky

            I know exactly what’s going on in my kids education, just never encountered anything like this…Ever.

          • Busy Mum

            Of course you haven’t – your children are probably all on message and wouldn’t dream of questioning anything like this, yet alone mentioning it to you 🙂

          • sarky

            If you mean by on message, that they don’t discriminate against anyone – then yes and I’m damn proud of that.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Because anything that is to the disadvantage of boys and men will be ignored. Take fatal accidents in the workplace, for example. The Health and Safety Executive in the UK produces annual statistics on this subject but does not give a breakdown by gender. Why is that when government departments and agencies are normally all too happy to classify people by gender, sexuality, ethnic origins etc.?

            According to a report on the State of Men’s Health in Europe,
            “men account for 95% of fatal workplace accidents.”

            https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ineqcities/resources/resource-documents/state-of-mens-health-in-europe-ec-2011-report

            Most reasonable men and most reasonable women will accept that it is natural that potentially dangerous work should be undertaken predominantly by men. Feminists only object when there is a certain amount of glamour attached to the occupation, e.g. serving in the armed forces. They don’t make a fuss about the paucity of women in deep sea trawlers.

            Will the unit on women’s rights in Busy Mum’s daughter’s school say anything about the “inequality” in workplace accidents? Will it include anything about “honour” killings and female genital mutilation? I suspect, possibly wrongly, that it will stick to typical politically correct topics.

          • Busy Mum

            You suspect quite correctly; I have older children than this daughter and if I had known what I know now about what goes on in schools, I would have home-educated the lot of them.

          • David

            Well said !

          • sarky

            Honour killings and fgm are actually one of this governments priorities.
            As for the rest, would you be happy to see women in that’s roles?
            I have no problem working with women, some of them have bigger kahunas than the men!!

          • Royinsouthwest

            FGM is certainly not a government priority. Why do you think only one person has ever been prosecuted for it? That surgeon was acquitted, quite rightly, because what he did was put a stitch in the wrong place. As for “honour” killings what evidence is there that the government is doing anything to confront the attitude of some immigrants that murder is less dishonourable than a woman having sex with someone they disapprove of?

            Finally, as for women in typically male roles, I’ve no objection to that if they are good enough. What I wrote made it quite clear what I do object to. That is biased teaching in the education system.

          • sarky

            Fgm is a priority. Many girls have been stopped from going abroad when there is suspicion that this is the reason they are going.

          • Royinsouthwest

            If the authorities have information about a crime being planned then you would expect them to intervene. That does not make FGM a priority unless you expect any crime that is not a “priority” to be ignored. And what action is taken against those who were planning the FGM?

  • carl jacobs

    We have to be very clear what we stand for in human rights, because a refusal to stand up is the kind of thing that really damages Britain’s standing in the world.

    No doubt he will issue a strongly-worded finger wagging in the direction of ISIS as well. With just as much potential impact.

    Why is he doing this? To be seen. That’s the necessary implication of his focus on “Britain’s standing in the world.” Who is the intended audience? Progressives in Europe and other Western countries. No other opinions matter to his assessment of Britain’s “standing in the world.” What is supposed to happen? The intended audience is supposed to provide rapturous applause. Anything else? No. The Saudis won’t listen. He knows this. It’s not about doing something effective. It’s about striking a moral pose to display one’s virtuous nature.

    Actual influence proceeds from application of power and not the application of vanity. Jeremy Corbin would do well to remember that the predominance of western concepts of human rights is a derivative of western power. As the later retreats, the former will retreat along the same path. Weakness doesn’t get to make the rules.

    • “Actual influence proceeds from application of power and not the application of vanity.”

      And there was Jack thinking that good old Christian virtue and reaching out in good faith to others of goodwill, could be influential.

      • carl jacobs

        Haven’t I taught you better than that by now?

        • Inspector General

          You still with Calvin and all those other reformation nasties…

          • carl jacobs

            The bishop sends out evangelists to minister to Boko Haram. The Minister of State sends out soldiers to kill them. He does not “[reach] out in good faith to others of goodwill.” The Minister of State does not evangelize. The Bishop does not (or at least should not) kill. That is the proper division of labor.

            Jack does not grasp the concept.

          • Inspector General

            Bishops sending out evangelists to Boko Haram is rather like what King David did to his soldier, without a wife involved…

          • You mean the concept of irony, Carl?

          • carl jacobs

            What irony? You say stuff like that all the time, and you mean it. Like for example every time I mention that Matthew 6 isn’t a political treatise. You are an internationalist and an idealist. You rage at Realpolitik simply because you wish it wasn’t true. But there is a good reason the word ‘Real’ is embedded in Realpolitik.

          • This is true …. Jack wasn’t using irony. The world is a wicked place but truth and justice are the only the only paths to follow. Christian moral principles should be followed by Christian states and by Christian leaders.

          • carl jacobs

            Just like Neville Chamberlain.

          • CliveM

            It could be argued that poor Neville failed to follow the paths of Christian virtue, when he handed the Czechs to the Nazis on a plate.

          • carl jacobs

            Well then. Perhaps we should talk about Czechoslovakia instead. Should it not have turned the other cheek? Should it not have offered its cloak in addition to its coat? Blessed are the peacemakers.

          • dannybhoy

            Yeah,
            just think, if as a nation we had been peacemakers, we would have welcomed the Spanish Armada, or Napoleon Bonaparte, or even Herr Hitler..
            What utter nonsense! What the individual’s faith guides them to do is up to them, but individuals are members of a society.
            If the leaders of that society refuse to protect that society or turn the other cheek in the face of an aggressor; what happens to freedom then?

          • Just how is making material concessions to aggressors, in an attempt to appease and thus avoid war, consistent with a Christian approach to international relations? Sounds more like Realpolitik, albeit misjudged, to Jack.

          • carl jacobs

            Interesting that you responded about Chamberlain but not about Czechoslovakia.

            Just how is making material concessions to aggressors, in an attempt to appease and thus avoid war, consistent with a Christian approach to international relations?

            I don’t know, Jack. You have never told me what a “Christian approach to international relations” is. You only ever speak about it in vague generalities. Read my response to Clive about Czechoslovakia and tell me the proper response for that state in terms of Matthew 6.

          • You have heard of “Just War Theory”, Carl.

          • carl jacobs

            Yes, Jack. I just don’t see it in Matthew 6. Perhaps you could point it out to me.

          • Try: “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”

          • carl jacobs

            I see you have adopted the French method of argument: “Surrender.”

            😉

      • Sam

        Dude

        Exactly: the UN is the legitimate body for collective international action. An example was set with peace loving and entirely free nations such as Saudi Arabia being on the human rights committee . ISIS can be negotiated with to ease the UN’s collective mind and of course the UN will be firm or else the UN will be very angry with ISIS … and they will write a letter, telling them how angry they are……

      • carl jacobs

        That’s what Neville Chamberlain thought.

        • Chamberlain didn’t think.

          • Inspector General

            Not fair on Chamberlain, who did his best to keep us out of war. Of course, with retrospect…

          • Fair enough …. but all the signs were there. As you say, hindsight.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    Jezza reminds me of Michael Foot. Scruffy, intelligent, non-confrontational; the sort of man you’d love to have as a granddad. But if his idealism ever becomes reality it will leave this country defenceless, bankrupt, mostly out of work, and dominated by rabid feminists and other social engineers. The problem is not him but the fact that he stands for the Left, and a rather extreme version of it too. I am also wary of leaders who delegate too much policy-making to the ordinary people. The ordinary people of this country are not an homogenous group, and Labour only represents a minority of them.

    • Hi

      At least Michael Foot was against fascist appeasement and supported the second world war… Jez would have had the swastika over downing street, whilst saying Germans and Jews should engage in a peace process, even as the Nazis slaughtered Jews. That is what kind of far left idiotic , wave the white flag, support Britains enemies first , don’t appreciate the defence forces, strike to bring down a democratically elected government, tax us all till we leave, destroy enterprise and destroy Entrepreneurialism and reprogram Britannia into self loathing , non patriotic stuff that the far left (who have clearly infiltrated Labour) have elected. Ghastly.

      • Politically__Incorrect

        I couldn’t agree more Hannah. Michael Foot did not cosy up with terrorists and holocaust deniers the way Corbyn does. He keeps some very dodgy company, and that is likely to be a turn-off for many people, along with the Alice-in-Wonderland economic policies he believes in

      • CliveM

        Hear , hear!

        Thought of standing for parliament?

  • CliveM

    Call me a cynic, but why should I believe him when he calls for a kinder, gentler, inclusive form of politics? Who is he going to include? Well to date it seems to be Hamas, holocaust deniers, terrorists in general and pretty much any unsavoury with a grudge against this country. Why would you include them?

    He talks about bottom up decision making. Well in addition to the grudge merchants we have now included those who couldn’t tell you when WW2 was fought and who Hitler was, and who are unfit to run their own lives, never mind have a say in others.

    He came across as a lightweight who is trying to convince everyone he is well meaning.

    I would trust him with my last fiver, but not with anything important. I look at those who he calls his friends and I ask myself, is this man naive or is he trying to con us?

    I think probably both.

    • Hi clive

      It’s quite funny that today (for random reasons, involving my bro shlomo, spitting image and Lord bucket head) I was watching a documentary about how the Callaghan Labour government fell. It seems that he could have survived if he’d have agreed to a pipeline between Ireland and Britain. But Callaghan vetoed the idea by fuming this govt isn’t for sale. Even in those days , even with polarised politics the politicians on both sides seemed more affable and gentlemanly. I think it’s because that generation of politicians were either WWII veterans or older or had the experience of national unity to crush the common Nazi evil, so could be *trusted * in areas no one should be giving Mr bean any access to…

      In fact if Corbyn becomes PM the uk will just become a joke, open to invasion and bankruptcy : I believe he supports the Jamaicans in getting “restitution” for slavery – i.e. a chance for third world chancers to enrich themselves, because Cameron’s uncles brothers, sisters, sixth cousin, ten times removed sir Godfrey Dashing It all was a slave owner- but the uk should pay trillions because it’s the only way we “atone” for such stuff…. I wonder if Corbyn will pay out for Farhud? Doesn’t hold one’s breath: that’s just Jews. So it’s unimportant.

      • dannybhoy

        In any case there wouldn’t have been enough small Paddies to make it cost effective..

      • Darter Noster

        Britain must pay full and fair compensation to Carribean countries for the slave trade!

        And then present Italy with a bill for the countless Britons enslaved and killed by the Roman Empire! Modern Italy has gotten away with that atrocity for too long, and the people of Italy bear personal responsibility for Roman crimes!

        • DanJ0

          What have the Romans ever done for us?

      • CliveM

        A few years back the BBC re-ran its election broadcast of the 1979 election. It was an eye opener. They all seemed more honest, there was less sound bite bull shit.

        We may have progressed in some ways, but our politicians have regressed.

      • Sir Walter Tyrell

        The present day effects of past slavery are difficult to unravel. Historically, since ancient times, slavery was usually supply-led, a means of offloading war captives. The British involvement in it was closely linked to the arms trade with West Africa, which also enabled the supply of slaves. It was probably the arms trade which was the really profitable part. One result was that black African slaves (there had also been white, Irish slaves as a result of 17th Century transportations) could be used to prop up a very poor Jamaican economy on a small and overpopulated island whose economy was driven by organized crime, slave plantations and subsistence farming by escaped or abandoned slaves. Slavery was used to create a hell on earth for those who were shipped to Jamaica at the time.
        When slavery ended, the economy inevitably collapsed – notwithstanding the compensation paid to former slave owners.
        But, nevertheless, the result today is a middle-income economy with a GDP per head more than 50% greater than Nigeria, over 150% greater than Ghana and six times that of Benin. In other words, all present-day Jamaicans, regardless of what proportion of their ancestors in te last 20 generations were slaves or slave-owners, are doing reasonably well, not fantastically well, reasonably well off the backs of the slaves. They cannot pay compensation to their own great-great-great-great-great grandparents but does anyone owe present-day Jamaicans themselves any compensation at all? Are they not the beneficiaries?

        • Powerdaddy

          Maybe you should go the whole hog and say we should be compensated for their ‘resettlement’?

          :/

          • Sir Walter Tyrell

            No, I’m not defending the slave trade. But those who really suffered from it are long since dead. Those who are still alive cannot really claim to have suffered or to be owed reparations which might have been due – from themselves among others – to their ancestors.

          • Powerdaddy

            There are people still alive today who saw racial segregation.
            Slavery was the bastion of racism that continues to this day.

            Are you completely blind to the world you live in?

          • Sir Walter Tyrell

            To the extent that racial segregation happened in Jamaica, those who are still alive who experienced it should address their complaints to other Jamaicans.

          • Powerdaddy

            Other Jamaicans? Arawak indians? Forced into slavery and not long after the Europeans showed up were all dead. No complaints from them poor souls. Another disgusting act of ‘civilization’ by the white man.

            And as for your “good eventually came from slavery” ramblings. Not in the world I live in, Walter.

          • Sir Walter Tyrell

            You’re deliberately misrepresenting what I said and now shifting your ground from slaves from Africa to the Arawak who were largely dispossessed by the Spaniards. I hate to be rude, but you have nothing worth contributing.

          • Powerdaddy

            “Are they not the beneficiaries?”
            Worthy contribution?

          • Sir Walter Tyrell

            To the extent that people have benefited from the past labours of slaves, those people are overwhelmingly living in Jamaica, including descendents of both slaves and slave-owners. There is little question that Jamaica as it is was built mostly on slave labour, so yes, the descendents of slaves do benefit from that. That does not make slavery a good thing.

          • Dreadnaught

            The descendants of slaves should be asking themselves am I happy living in Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad etc or would I be better off in Liberia or Nigeria etc?
            In any case slavery was common practice in Africa long before whitemen became involved. The people who captured their ancestors in the first place were other Africans.

        • dannybhoy

          Personally I am sick and tired of those Afro Caribbeans or Africans of any sort who go on and on about how we enslaved them, robbed them of dignity, robbed them of their cultural history and plundered their lands..
          Yes we were involved in slavery, but we outlawed it. We did to an extent plunder their lands, but that’s what humans do anyway.
          It was all a long time ago, and all the other folk we British exploited or conquered through Empire have gotten over it and made new lives for themselves.
          If these folk are so bitter and resentful, why do they remain in “the lands of the Oppressor”? They really don’t have to stay here.
          If they live here, they have the same opportunities to get on as any other minority community. It’s really up to them use the opportunities and make something of themselves.
          There’s absolutely no way I want to see any more apologies issued or reparations made.
          Our nation is in enough debt already..

  • Inspector General

    He’s good, we’ll give him that. Ever since this living fossil was rediscovered, he’s been flying high.

    It’s rather reminiscent of Stalin’s death in 1953, and what could have been. Imagine if a member of the 1916 Bolshevik Old Guard had come forward and said to the relieved grieving, “Comrades, It didn’t have to be this way. I’ll show you a new golden age that will be”. Of course, it didn’t happen. Couldn’t have done. Stalin had had his old fellow revolutionaries who didn’t sing his tune shot.

    Corbyn himself will eventually be politically shot before the next election. Has to be. For if he leads them forward (if lead be the word) in 2020, there will be record Labour votes in the towns and cities that will always turn out for Labour. Not since Tony Blair’s first term will Labour have been so popular in traditional Labour seats. As for gains. Maybe one seat, or two. But not many.

    And the rest of the country, they’ll go for Cameron’s successor. The electorate there will continue to hold the Lib-Dems head under the water and go for the Conservatives. A vote for the Lib-Dems risks letting Corbyn in, just as the same this year risked letting Milliband in.

    It’s a shame they’ll get rid of him before then – but will they? Who is going to burst the bubble. Who is brave enough to take on this party hero, and the bubble grows by the day…

    • dannybhoy

      I still think the whole thing will self destruct. Perhaps Jeremy will grow tired of being the focus of attention, or annoyed because his pet ideas will crumble under scrutiny.

      • Inspector General

        Not at all. Jeremy is not like other men…

    • CliveM

      He’ll lose them seats. There will be no labour gains in England, just losses, possibly one or two gained in Scotland.

  • Phil R

    Straight talking, honest politics.

    I think the country is ready for that line.

    Nobody will believe the Conservatives or the Lib Dems ( or even new Labour) if they try to steal his clothes.

    And these new clothes seem to be getting more popular……

    • Anton

      He means what he says, unlike many. Shame that what he says is such rubbish.

      • Phil R

        The thing is there are a number of policies that would appeal even to Conservative voters. Cancel HS2 and nationalise the rail etc.

    • Darter Noster

      Corbyn was put forward on the basis that only an idiot would vote for him.

      The classic mistake of New Labour and Tories alike was to underestimate the number of idiots out there.

      • Phil R

        They seem to be underestimating people’s disdain for what the three main parties have colluded for

        • Darter Noster

          When you say ‘people’, it’s worth bearing in mind that the people getting excited about Corbyn are minuscule in number.

          I sympathise fully with disdain for the ‘political class’, but the fact is that Corbyn’s policies would be an unmitigated disaster.

          The reason the economic policies of the 3 main parties became so similar is that, for all their flaws, they worked a damn sight better than Corbyn’s and McDonnell’s ever would.

          • Phil R

            For those working in sports direct etc and the public sector the consensus of the main 3 parties has not worked.

            just take one aspect. Immigration has pushed up house prices and lowered wages.

            zero hours contact anyone?

          • Darter Noster

            That’s why I said ‘for all their flaws’; current economic policies are far from perfect, and no economic policies ever will be, but allowing Corbyn and McDonnell to bankrupt the country through massive taxes on business and individuals, through deficit spending, money-printing, whacking up benefits and letting union activists loose again will do those people you mention no favours at all.

            And as for immigration – I agree with you, but Corbyn and his acolytes are the last people on the planet you should vote for if you want it curbing.

          • Phil R

            Current lib lab con economic polices are a disaster for Britain. I am not stating that labour are any better but they offer the only proper alternative people have been offered for a long time.

            Also honest politics straight talking

            Would ypu disagree that the centre stands/stood for the exact opposite In people’s minds?

    • CliveM

      “And these new clothes seem to be getting more popular……”

      You say that based on what evidence? At the moment the most positive thing I hear said about him is he is pitiable.

      • Phil R

        My gut feeling is that he is far stronger now than a week ago.

        • CliveM

          He appears weak, he was trashed and humiliated by his own shadow cabinet today over Trident. He daren’t do anything about it as no one else will serve in it.

          • Phil R

            He is not claiming to be strong. Quite the reverse it seems. He sees himself as implementing the will of the 35% that elected him.

            Do you think that the 35% will really care that much?

            He does not have to win over any lib dems or cons. There is a huge chunk of potential voters that so not vote. I think he sees his message is for them.

          • Anton

            Yes, and he has the guaranteed vote of everybody in public service unions and benefits recipients.

          • Phil R

            Many in the public services were Conservative voters until relatively recently. New Labour and then with more gusto to the Tories declared war on the public sector.

            They have list a huge chunk of support and only have their irrational dislike (of mosly middle class workers and families ) to blame

  • Dreadnaught

    I felt a distinct flush of anger when I saw this asrsehole proudly singing The Red Flag but not the National Anthem and his vile chum McDonnell raising the clenched fist salute like some latter-day Che Guevara in a suit. What a bunch of Wolfies they really are.

  • John Page

    Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers (Eph 4:29). Seems apt yet even though it is quoted by the writer
    it is ignored by the writer and many on this thread – curious?

  • Phil R

    For all of you that think that DC has the edge or is the better leader. Read this from Peter Hitchens off his blog reference Syria and Russia’s recent intervention.

    Amusing, but sums up our despair at their incompetence nicely.

    “Russia may have thought this through more
    carefully than the USA. But the Kremlin has still made a terrible
    mistake. The USA is no longer run (as Russia still is) by disillusioned
    cynics seeking the least worst outcome. It is in the hands of Utopian
    idealists and there is no limit to the horrors they can unleash upon the
    earth in the names of freedom and democracy. Ask anyone in Baghdad.
    Meanwhile the British government is in the hands of political teenagers
    whose combat experience –if they have any at all – was gained at the
    dinners of the Bullingdon Club.”

    Corbyn or Dave? Nothing to chose between them. I want another option… please!