When you think about it, it's not that surprising. Single payer healthcare is standard across the spectrum here, gay marriage passed with cross spectrum support, voting rights are broadly protected, a welfare safety net isn't controversial with anyone, there is (for the most part) respect for and freedom of religion but it's kept well out of politics and gun control doesn't even have an opposition. But stuff standard in America like not pulling down the successful, growing the middle class and not turning welfare into a duvet to wrap up warm in is on the right here. Also apparently knowing what tax avoidance means and being responsible about public debt to survive the bust cycle are tory ideas and not universal. Somehow.

It gets fuzzier in stuff like immigration (I guess I'm left but libertarian left, I'm way left of labour let alone the conservatives), I'm pro European membership which I think is a left wing idea nowadays, pro foreign aid (I'm pretty far left on that) and war (I'm centre right but it's too situational to sum up briefly).

Surprised this didn't get more comments

Len Mclusky is an utter ****
What an complete wanker.

For those not familiar with politics this side of the pond I would like to make clear that this is bollocks.

I just saw on my fb that Labour have voted for full renewal of Trident. No debate. Same old ****. Corbyn should resign immediately.

sigh. what a joke

I don't believe this if the case. True, I don't subscribe to your facebook friends so I don't know if I can be considered an authority.

There's nothing about it on the BBC website or on the radio. Change your friends?

Meanwhile back in reality:

"The new Labour leader notes the papers have taken rather an interest in him - quoting one headline saying he welcomed the prospect of an asteroid wiping out humanity. He jokes:

"That's not the kind of policy I'd want this party to adopt without a full debate at conference."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-34388814

FB wrong again, who knew...

Not a great speech so far.

The vote was yesterday. The wording in the 'Britain in the world' report is exactly as this article says.

Not voting to debate something and the old policy de facto continuing is not the same as voting for the renewal of trident. JC has a lot of time before the vote to impose his argument about it.

SNP's (or should that be ex SNP?) Business, Innovation and Skills spokesperson could possibly be going down for mortgage fraud at some point.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-34395392

Right so I watched the conference from yesterday morning (here on the iPlayer) and the 'Britain in the World' debate. What they voted on was a Europe motion and the annual report of the Britain's Global Role Policy Commission, which was unanimously accepted.

The report, which you can find here, contains a section on defence, and in particular this passage: "The manifesto outlined Labour’s commitment to a minimum, credible, independent nuclear capability, delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent."

But does everything you have just said go against the "bottom up" politics encouraged by JC?

That's where the test of his leadership will come - if there is a strong pull from party activists to ditch trident, which as I understand it, is a vote loser.

IIRC JC doesn't write the party manifesto that he will campaign on let alone he doesn't have dictatorial power over what happens at the conferences.

Its great that Diego is having a toddler tantrum, by which I mean it's hilarious, but yeah Corbyn is there to follow as much as lead.

Corbyn isn't our savious - Tyson Fury is.

I see your point, but the rhetoric around potential job losses is rubbish. \this should have been debated. It's a big issue.

Either way, JC said this on the today programme:

"I do not think we should be renewing Trident"

and he went on to day it will be debated by the party.

Changing the subject, on the whole I have to say he comes across as a thoroughly nice and decent man.

As expected isn't it? JC has always been about the party deciding policy and he's keen on getting those decisions into the hands of ordinary party supporters.

Whether its a good idea to extend democracy that way and whether people will vote for it sufficiently are debatable. Personally I like to see disagreement within a political party but then I hated the approach of people like Thatcher and Blair. The only way you don't have disagreements is to silence/force out those who disagree with you - I've no idea why that's considered anything but very bad.

Not sure you should be so cynical about this, the trade unions and JC are genuinely concerned about the jobs. It's never going to stop JC being against trident.

I don't see why the money spent on nukes couldn't be spent elsewhere, ensuring at least the same number of jobs are available. It's pretty funny how some use this argument about job losses for nukes but when it's about a steelworks or pit closing or the like it's just a necessary evil.

Plus, I now doubt I'll ever see JC as credible since his barefaced lies about the SNP on Sunday, and his shadow chancellor's contribution the following day.

Lol at Corbyn ****ting the bed saying he would never ever use the nuclear deterrent. Time for a new leader, no one saying that ever gets elected.

Like a third of his shadow cabinet are speaking out against him publicly with some including 2016 leader Andy Burnham tipped to resign over it.

They would use the same argument re steelworkers or miners if for some reason they had to shut those industries down.

piling some comedy on top of comedy

^^hahaha quality

Leader of the UK 'must be prepared to kill everyone'

Regardless of whether or not you're for or against Trident, what Corbyn said was stupid. The fact that the fallout is just stupid people stupidly overreacting to what he stupidly said doesn't make what that stupid socialist said any less stupid.

Mayoral election will be interesting, Goldsmith and Khan are two of the more interesting young politicians active today.

Goldsmith is posh as hell and obviously so, which will hurt him more than it hurt Boris as he doesn't have that top lad brand of common touch Boris has (had?). That said, he's photogenic and has a beautiful voice - the man is a dreamboat. Policy wise he's lucky in that his perceived image is far more centrist than he actually is - he's pretty much a dyed in the wool Tory on most things, although he's slightly more conscious of environmental and direct democracy issues than most of his party.

Khan is also interesting, genuinely intelligent - I've seen him give talks and he just seems quite a bit sharper than Goldsmith - and with an impressive pre-politics story (the son of a bus driver who forged an impressive legal career). His biggest drawback is probably, unfortunately, the fact that he's a Muslim in a city where Muslims represent only 15% of the population. He arguably hasn't helped himself though, and has put forward some fairly divisive views - over bme quotas in top jobs especially. I can see many of the white working class, when push comes to shove, voting for an Old Etonian over a Muslim.

I think a white man with Khan's working class credentials would pretty much be a shoe in, and demographics are still broadly in Labour's favour, so Khan should win, which is reflected by the Betfair market making him a slight favourite. Of course, Tory money and strategy will ensure the race is closer than maybe it should be.