Hornet
Member
- Joined
- 16 Jul 2013
- Messages
- 724
Why not build Scunthorpe in Israel instead...
Would that not mean that the Israeli National Anthem would Change? I was thinking it could be 'Any Old Iron'!
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Jeremy Corbyn & Tom Watson elected leader and deputy leader of the Labour Party
- Thread starter deltic
- Start date
- Status
Would that not mean that the Israeli National Anthem would Change? I was thinking it could be 'Any Old Iron'!
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Apparently he got an ice pick that made his ears burn !
RichmondCommu
Established Member
Why? The UK needs the EU far more than the EU needs the UK! I don't think the nation could afford to see car plants and their suppliers closing if we voted to leave the EU.
Butts
Veteran Member
DarloRich
Veteran Member
but whatever happened to the great Elmyra and Sancho Panza
12CSVT
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 2,612
There are No More Heroes anymore
I, too would be in favour of The Stranglers' 'No More Heroes' being made the National Anthem (albeit as a second choice to The Sex Pistols 'God Save the Queen')
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg2np37JNEg
DaveHarries
Established Member
He didn't see the point either.
On another note I see that, if one of the national newspapers is to be believed this morning (not one of the gutter press variety) Corbyn and Co are showing their true colours. Not content with the fact that 3 of this shadow cabinet back the Milbank riots (2002?) when a fire extinguisher got thrown at a policeman - for which JC said that the 36 months in jail given to the thrower was "over the top" - we now find out what he plans so do if he gets in to no. 10 - which I sincerely hope he doesn't.
Only people with no sense will vote for him.
Dave
southern442
Established Member
Having had a glance at my grandmother's Times today, I can still see that the papers are still bullying Corbyn.
Yes, Rupert, Labour have now got a leader that is slightly more left wing than the 'light blues' that Labour used to have. Get over it.
Yes, Rupert, Labour have now got a leader that is slightly more left wing than the 'light blues' that Labour used to have. Get over it.
Arglwydd Golau
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2011
- Messages
- 1,421
It's not a surprise. Even the 'Guardian' can't get over it!!
DaveHarries
Established Member
TBH I will never vote Labour whoever leads that lot. Certainly don't want a socialist in charge. I would rather Labour woke up with a serious hangover after downing their sorrows on loosing the next election. I would never accept JC as PM.
Dave
Dave
Last edited:
Purely out of interest can I ask why you would never want a socialist in charge?
DaveHarries
Established Member
Hmm, it would be interesting to see what Britain would be like now if Mr Attlee hadn't been elected.
Hmmmm. Would you say the recent neo liberal governments have worked?
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Just out of interest and being not too far removed in time, how would you describe the political leanings of the current Greek government and how it has fared in keeping the pre-election promises it made with regard to the original hard-line stance it took over the country's debt repayment.
I I'm afraid the Eurozone will be embarking on its ever closer union with even more fervour than previously. It will be a disaster for this country if a proper separation of powers and responsibilities isn't established and we just get dragged along with whatever the Eurozone decides to do.
Secondly, setting aside the flaws in key EU policies for a moment (such as the single currency, Schengen, enforced privatisation etc) if you're inclined towards EU membership, but are negotiating for change, you don't start from a negotiating position of saying it doesn't matter what the outcome is, you'll stay in regardless.
dcsprior
Member
Surely that's only if you think the way to get other countries to agree to changes is by threatening to leave - as opposed to convincing them that the changes will benefit them too.
Well, ideally I think you need a bit of carrot and stick, but really the changes that I believe are needed, from an ever closer union in which every country is expected to fall into line, to one in which there are different levels of union according to different countries needs, is so fundamental and such a departure from what has gone before, that we have to be prepared to consider our own position if a suitable agreement can't be reached.
Another set of opt-outs isn't the answer to this. There needs to be a change of ethos that encompasses for example, all countries which are not part of the Eurozone, for whom it should be a fundamental right for them to decide whether they want to join the single currency or not, rather than just the UK and Denmark who have an opt-out.
backontrack
Established Member
So? How is this relevant?
It very much annoys me how people describe 'socialism' as something that's the same everywhere. It's not. And it also annoys me (not accusing you of this) when people say that socialism is equivalent to communism. It's not, they're two distinct things.
Just because Greece has been a disaster doesn't mean that the same will happen to other socialist countries. Do you want to be ruled for the rich, or do you want a change that will be better for the UK?
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Read my posting once again. I made no mention whatsoever of communism. I think that the knowledge of matters political gained in my 70 years upon this planet has given me the understanding to differentiate between socialism and communism.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
You are welcome to your views upon this specific matter, but I totally disagree with the assumption made in the final part of your posting as being one that seems to hark back to the days of 1649 (England), 1797 (France) or 1917 (Russia) when "the rich" certainly found matters not to be in their favour.
backontrack
Established Member
I'm aware of this, hence my 'I'm not accusing you of this' comment. It was a case of getting two birds with one stone.
Ah well Paul, at least you've got your Range-Rover and Valuable house (+ land) to help you hide from those Bolsheviks!
NB - this post is a joke. Don't take seriously!
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Have no fear. Rural Prestbury will see a reincarnation of the Battle of Grunwald in 1410, when my ancestors gave the Teutonic Order Allies a "good smack-bottom and an ever bigger talking-to"
My sense of humour remains forever undiminished..
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I notice you've sidestepped backontrack's question about how the following comment was relevant to the current discussion:
I'd quite like to know how you thought this was relevent too - since, so far as I can tell, it's completely irrelevant.
backontrack
Established Member
Indeed, you instead chose to talk about an element of my post that I had admitted was not aimed at you. Please explain why your comment was relevant.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I did not sidestep it, as you chose to say. I made the comparison of the aims of the claimed "socialist" government of Greece and the self-professed "socialism" of Jeremy Corbyn and of his expressed vision of Britain under his leadership.
In that, you will see the relevance. I do despair at times when the wood cannot be seen for the trees.
Last edited:
backontrack
Established Member
They're socialist governments. That's it. The only link.
I believe that you are trying to suggest that what will happen in Greece will happen here. Why? They're both 'socialist'. So that automatically means the situation there will be replicated.
Making a garbled kind of scaremongering remark and then accusing your challengers of stupidity is certainly hypocritical to say the least...
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
No, I do not see the relevance. The name 'socialist' in this context is more than a label. As I'm sure you're aware, across the world, many different groups apply political labels such as 'socialist' to refer to vastly different policies or approaches. So the fact that both Jeremy Corbyn and Syriza choose to label themselves 'socialist' tells us very little by itself. What is important is what they choose to do.
As far as what they chose to do is concerned - the main failing of Syriza appears to be that they attempted to negotiate cancellation of part of Greece's debt. We all know that policy failed. However, since Corbyn's approach does not contain any remotely comparable policy, there would appear to be no relevance to bringing Syriza into this discussion. If you believe otherwise, perhaps you could clarify why?
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Your belief in what you say that I was trying to say is one that I must inform you is totally and utterly wrong. I am quite capable of saying what I do without any assistance from anyone else. The only correct connection that you make is where you state "They're both "socialist" and on that point I agree with you. But then you spoil your argument by making a silly assumption about "automatically meaning the situation there will be replicated" On this thread, I invite you to show how you arrive at that supposition. It is wording of your own making, not of mine.
I shall therefore make no comment upon the wording of your final paragraph, as that is unsubstantiated supposition based upon further unsubstantiated supposition and something that you are far too intelligent to really mean.
- Status