To think Corbyn has been exposed as a liar

[JonathanDunn]

He lied about the train. Aibu to think this is a show of character

Oh and I hope you read the part where Richard Branson (handily!) hasn't mentioned how many seats were offered to Corbyn and his mrs? Not sure about the rest of you but I wouldn't take a seat if the people I was travelling with weren't offered one.

Astoria, he was lying about his particular circumstances. Regardless of what the service is often like, he said that there were no seats available on the train. That was untrue.

And the cctv footage shows him and his entourage taking off jackets etc in order to sit down, so presumably they were all offered seats.

I wouldn't take a seat if the people I was travelling with weren't offered one.

If I was an MP & leader of the official opposition, I wouldn't use a 3 hour train journey to chat to my DH - I'd ensure I could use that time productively and work. If that meant sitting separate from DH then so be it - and he'd understand.

It reminds me of the early conferences I used to attend for work - when i was a junior, I'd take a book or listen to music. As I became more senior, those journeys became an essential part of my working day.

He may have been able to take leisurely journeys on public transport reading comics and chatting to his wife when he was just an MP - but he doesn't have that luxury now.

He was working though - on his campaign to be leader. Sitting next to the toilets plays better with his target audience than being a boring suit and booking seats.

good point, merry.

How do JCs constituents feel about him using the recess - traditionally scheduled for MPs to spend time on constituency casework - to pursue a leadership campaign instead?

That's a daft point.

To be fair the leadership election is distracting all labour politicians from politics outside their own party.

However, everyone knows the train system could be improved. The question is how - it would make more sense to spend the time working on strategy than sitting by the toilets with private eye. Also maybe maintaining a working relationship with your shadow transport minister.

Solving the problem isn't easy - it's clear that most train lines are in the south east and used by many people who are already comparatively wealthy - it could be argued that it's more important to fund industry in port talbot than to help people commute from Henley. Of course you could massively increase the rail network, but isn't that just funnelling more people to London?

Nationalising the railways might be a popular idea, but it isn't clear why, how, or whether people who want to renationalise the railways know what they are talking about.

smallfox what is? That JC would rather sit in the lobby outside the train loo so he can talk to his wife than take a single seat (remember, he said that he ignored single free seats) and do some meaningful work on the journey?

You're right, it is daft - but I'm not sure my making the point is as daft as the action itself.

Full marks to JC's wife for apparently not getting caught on camera anywhere.

Merrymouse, although admittedly I am comparatively more wealthy than the average, I commute with doctors and nurses and police officers who aren't & who can't get local jobs because of cuts. They deserve better than to pay 400-500/mth for a train that doesn't run. Or thay makes you cram up like sardines so rich people can sit in virtually empty carriages!

Who is to say what anybody 'deserves'. We spend an eye watering amount on trains because we had to move to be near a school and DH commutes (SN - school in old borough only willing to educate part time - found a better option).

However, we put food on the table. We aren't more deserving than somebody who doesn't have the funds to make that choice or less deserving than somebody who never had to make it.

It would be great if schools were better and trains were cheaper but I don't think JC goes beyond slogans and rallies. The Labour Party conference is only going ahead by the skin of its teeth.

Caroldecker - it's a feature of Corbyn fans that they can't admit to being Jewish without a proviso, just as they can't say use the word "anti-semitism" without adding "and all other types of racism". Jewish support for JC is apparently running at 4% - I'm surprised it is that high.

sam. I don't actually describe myself as a 'self-hating Jew'; it's a term foisted upon me because of my opposition to the behaviour of the Israeli government. I am Jewish, but that doesn't mean I have to condone the ill-treatment of Palestinians, surely?

Many Jewish people do not support the actions of the Israeli government

But any discussion about antisemitism within the left of the party will always come back to Israel. Corbyn was happy to meet with his friends Hamas (who want to see the destruction of Israel) but hasn't made much effort meeting with Israeli parties that object to the occupied territories

I thought it merely demonstrated Branson's desperation to cling on to his profiteering racket.

I mean, if there were enough seats for Corbyn's group why did Virgin offer an upgrade and later make rearrangements so they could sit? That wouldn't make any sense.

so it's irrelevant that Corbyn was spinning an untruth

Perhaps they were moved so they could all sit together which they possibly could have done if whoever booked the seats also reserved them

Itshouldhavebeen - you can have whatever views you want on the Middle East, and on any other world or local conflict. I just thought it was interesting that you used the term "self-hating" like a badge of honour. Why not just say you're Jewish and leave it at that?

I'm loving the latest - companies should ban after work socialising because it discriminates against women who obv want to go home and look after their children says Corbyn.

Hmm, just can't put my finger on it but don't think he thought that through all the way...

I give him one more year

Good Lord, merry I just googled that and can't believe he actually said that. I thought surely it must have been taken out of context! Back in the days when I was in the corporate world, DH and I swapped about who was going for drinks after work (not every night!) as did everyone else I worked with. Surely most professional couples manage a balance and it's horribly sexist to image we females are so desperate to rush back home to take care of DC.

it's horribly sexist to image we females are so desperate to rush back home to take care of DC.

Of all the things JC has said, the quote merry has highlighted above is, so far, the most offensive to me.

I used to dread going home when DD was a toddler. What does that say about me? Clearly, I'm less of a woman in JC's eyes, because I don't fit his stereotype of what a women should "obviously" feel.

But it goes further than that. JC's stereotype of a father is clearly not of a man who values time with his DC's.

With those views about gender roles, I shudder to think what his policies will look like. I'm beginning to suspect that the Labour agenda mirrors that of the American Government in the 1950's. Policies to incentivise women to stay at home as homemakers, freeing up employment opportunities for men.

And just to be clear, JC did not actually mention the word 'ban'. He said:

"The behaviour of companies that encourage an ethic of early evening socialisation in order to promote themselves within the company which benefits men who don't feel the need to be at home looking after their children and it discriminates against women who will want to, obviously, look after the children that they have got".

"It's a lot of subtle discrimination as well as the overt discrimination that has to be dealt with."

Not sure how 'dealing with' is better than ban, however some people on Twitter etc. are complaining about misquoting by the MSM.

the word "ban" is not what bothers me. It is the words "obviously" and "don't feel the need" that piss me off.

If he wants to deal with subtle and overt discrimination, maybe he should begin a little closer to home.