I really can't understand why people continue with this pointless charade. Britain is fully committed not only to a globalist, corporate-friendly future - but increasingly so.

Jeremy Corbyn (or any other socialist politician, for that matter) will NOT be allowed to interfere with this process.

It's not that I don't like the guy - or even (some of) his politics. He's just hopelessly over-matched by opponents who can and will crush him under their heels like an insect.

Right now he might just be the most favourable candidate to the majority of the nation. But this doesn't mean I'd bet on him even to win the leadership of the Labour Party - much less the nation.

My guess is he will either lose a "tight" election battle, withdraw due to "pressure" or "ill health" (also known as being nobbled by GCHQ) or find himself the victim of some lurid sex-expose.

Should he actually win the Labour leadership repeat the above for the general election - or become the victim of a plane/car crash, heart attack (no autopsy - of course) etc.

And should he achieve the impossible - expect him to renege on all his promises (see Obama) after he spends ten minutes in the company of the mob bosses who "set him straight" about where Britain's future really lies.

I don't understand what someone stealing some chocolate has to do with the Labour leadership thread?

You don't understand a lot about any of the subjects you post on and go cry when people drop to your standard of understanding to help you.

Ah well, even ignorance has a place somewhere, it's a pity you post it on here.

Sill bitter about the general election are you?

Nevermind one day a Government might be in office with an extremist left wing agenda and you will like that....one day.

Whilst I don't think he will be the subject of some kind of illimunati sytle conspiracy he will be 70+ at the time of the next general election - too old?

He was also come under scrutiny for his previous actions / views with regards to terrorist organisations.

His greatest legacy will be to make Labour unelectable for another general election.

That's a bit unfair on Corbyn, because whoever wins this leadership contest will stand no chance of winning the next election - This last few weeks of public self flagellation by the Labour Party will have made sure of that.

I agree Corbyn will do a better job of isolating Labour more than the other 3, but he certainly won't be wholly responsible for their demise.

The irony of all this, is that in trying to look democratic and all inclusive, Labour's own MP's will have been responsible for this whole debacle, because if they had abided by their own rules Corbyn would never have made the ballot paper - Instead, they carried out a bogus (potentially illegitimate) nomination process and gave the left its chance to weed itself back into the party... Now Corbyn is on the ballot paper, the lunatics have well and truly escaped the asylum and look well in place to turn Labour back into the laughing stock kit was during the 80's.

His previous actions/views?

1) no one knows what his views on "terrorist organisations" are because he's never made them public.

2) He has met with various leaders of what have variously been described as terrorist organisations over the years.

Corbyn realised a long time ago that even armed conflict can only be truly resolved through political dialogue, so why not cut out the middle-man of war and just start talking? He invited Gerry Adams to parliament long before the Good Friday Agreement was even mooted.

As for politicians smooching with despots, the subject of you avatar was a pass-master

There is no worse sight than watching ignorance in action!

Something you are exemplary at!

The Good Friday agreement was possible because the IRA had come to accept that they're were not going to win the war. They weren't going to get a united Ireland so reduced their demands to something more acceptable. If the UK government had tried to negotiate the Good Friday Agreement when Corbyn first met Adams, the price demanded by Adams would have beenso much greater. Being the first to arrive at a political position doesnt necessarily make you right.

Only an adherent to toeing the party political line of "Us good, them bad" could ever think through the logic in that statement and think that it makes sense.

You can't be the first to arrive at a political position that ultimately proves to be a successful one and yet at the same time be wrong to arrive at that political position - the ultimate agreement may be a million miles away from what you might have agreed yourself but the fact that you were there at the start to recognise that a dialogue needed to at least commence needs some credit, go on, say it, we know its choking you but do it.

The Good Friday Agreement was possible because the time was right for it. The IRA had accepted that they werent going to achieve a united Ireland. That meant the Unionists accepted that power sharing wouldnt lead to unification.

When Corbyn intervened the IRA were still set on unification. His intervention gave the IRA false hope that terrorism would be successful. It also created further mistrust among the Unionists. It was counter productive

When precisely did being "too old" suddenly disqualify candidates for leadership? If anything we should disqualify people who are too young! I don't know anyone who seriously believes he was smarter twenty years earlier (aside from maybe people afflicted with serious brain disorders).

There's a reason just about every pre-industrial civilization (from the ancient Greeks to the North American Indians) valued the wisdom of their "Elders".

It's only in the crazy world of contemporary Western society where being old is a negative attribute. I mean, how anyone can take guys like Cameron, Clegg & Osborne seriously? They look like those smug, tish school prefects who bar the corridors in schools up and down the country.

You'd have to be completely nuts to believe thirty years of additional experience in politics counts for nothing.

As for Illuminati - you seem to know more about them than I do. But before you close the door on the possibility that "problem" politicians are rubbed out - take a peek at the list of politicians killed in "air accidents" over the past sixty years I'm compiling for the Unmediated History thread in the next few days. I had hoped to finish it before I went on my holidays - unfortunately it went on ... and on .... and on .... and on.

To say I was gobsmacked by the fatality rate bearing in mind this is supposedly the "safest form of travel" would be a something of an understatement.

Not to mention 'problem' pop singers.
lol

So, just like Chicken Licken's sky, the Good Friday agreement just fell to earth?

Now that is funny

It came about after 5 years of behind the scenes discussions initiated by Major and the Dublin PM but involving both the IRA and the Unionists. Great care was taken to ensure that trust was built up between the two opposing factions. The British and Irish governments made sure that both sides' concerns were addressed. The IRA dropped its insistence on unification ensuring that the unionists were prepared to discuss power sharing. Common ground was found. During that period there was a reduction in the incidence of bombings and murders which both the catholic and protestant communities wanted to continue. By the time formal negotiations commenced the groundwork had been laid in a manner which both Sinn Fein and the Unionists believed to be trustworthy.

By contrast, when Corbyn intervened the IRA were firmly committed to unification, the unionists were convinced that the IRA could be defeated by force without them having to make any concessions on power sharing. Both sides believed they could win the wa and achieve their objectives without negotiations.

Even if it had been possible for peace negotiations to take place in the 80's, it would have needed to be done in the same even handed manner, obtaining the trust of both sides. If Corbyn had been seriously interested in acting as a mediator he would have ensured that both sides saw him as an honest broker, someone who could be trusted to act fairly. Corbyn did nothing of the sort. He clearly aligned himself to the republican cause, was part of the Troops Out movement, made clear his support for unification, invited Adams to parliament shortly after the Brighton bombing. He was openly committed to republicanism.

Corbyn was never interested in aiding a peace process. It was all about showing solidarity with an oppressed minority, in Northern Ireland and the Middle East. His supporters should try to justify his actions on that basis rather than trying to re-invent him as some sort of peace envoy.