View Full Version : Labour leadership.
Clive197
12-09-2015, 10:48
Well would you guess it? Tom & Jerry now running the Labour Party! LOL
It won't last long. But will be interesting while it does.
A Socialist running the Labour Party?
God forbid; whatever next ... the Tories openly supporting capitalist enterprise and entrenched privilege :lol:
Yeah. That epitome of a good socialist Mr McCluskey with his six figure salary will be pleased
Indeed Gary. If he believes what he says then half his salary should be donated to the homeless or food charities.
Yeah. That epitome of a good socialist Mr McCluskey with his six figure salary will be pleased
Quite right, you can only have socialist values if you're poor.:doh:
walpurgis
12-09-2015, 12:47
That's blown Labour's chances of ever winning a General Election.
Probably just as well. Corbyn would likely tear down British border controls and actively seek out every migrant that wishes to be here.
SteveTheShadow
12-09-2015, 14:06
A fantastic result.
Somebody who will stand up to the ugly, racist bunch of selfish, self serving bastards that make up a substantial number of the people of this country.
The knives will be out and the more they slash, the stronger Jezza will get.
I can see it all starting right now, cue the Sun, Mail and the imbeciles they pander to.
"Vote Labour and we will be overrun with commies, IS militants, idle benefit scroungers and migrants"
A bigger pile of utter shite sentiments I've yet to see. But there you go.
Go Tom and Jerry
POWER TO THE PEOPLE !
I recall Labour supporters expressing similar sentiments when Blair was elected PM back in '97. Prepare to find out that your idol has feet of clay. Again.
SteveTheShadow
12-09-2015, 14:20
I never could stand that mealy mouthed twat Bliar. The day he took leadership of Labour that was the day I stopped voting for them.
Now Labour has returned to its roots and not a minute too soon
I recall Labour supporters expressing similar sentiments when Blair was elected PM back in '97. Prepare to find out that your idol has feet of clay. Again.
Aye, you have to concede the Tories that.
They are consistently 2 faced if nothing else.
Solrighal
12-09-2015, 14:25
A fantastic result.
Somebody who will stand up to the ugly, racist bunch of selfish, self serving bastards that make up a substantial number of the people of this country.
The knives will be out and the more they slash, the stronger Jezza will get.
I can see it all starting right now, cue the Sun, Mail and the imbeciles they pander to.
"Vote Labour and we will be overrun with commies, IS militants, idle benefit scroungers and migrants"
A bigger pile of utter shite sentiments I've yet to see. But there you go.
Go Tom and Jerry
POWER TO THE PEOPLE !
Absolutely! Were I not Scottish he'd have my vote. And Labour WILL win the next GE with Corbyn at the helm, mark my words. The right-wing agenda of the government & the media who control them has made the debate about chasing 1.5million voters who Labour have been convinced into believing they lost at the last GE to the Tories. All the time ignoring the 12.5million in England who didn't vote at all! Corbyn only needs to appeal to 10% of those disaffected and he's won.
Aye, you have to concede the Tories that.
They are consistently 2 faced if nothing else.
Exactly.
Nothing worse than some saviour coming along to announce that he will lead us all to the promised land. That never ends well.
SteveTheShadow
12-09-2015, 14:43
Oh what a world weary dissillusioned bunch we are.
Jezza is the shot in the arm the Labour party needed.
Interesting times ahead methinks.
It'll certainly be a laugh watching the mighty right wing press Empire Death Star lumber into action.
"This is a serious day for Britain. The Labour party is a serious treat to the security of this country, the security of your families and the security of our economy" Priti Patel trotting out the same bollocks that Mr Secretary of State for Defence had uttered only half an hour previously.
Believe me the Cons are scared.
Tactic 1 try to frighten the elecorate
Tactic 2 try to smear Jez any way possible
Tactic 3 try to make him out a joke.
Not funny is it Tory tw*ts!
Exactly.
Nothing worse than some saviour coming along to announce that he will lead us all to the promised land. That never ends well.
To be fair I think JC (no pun intended) has ever presented himself as a saviour or has publicly talked about bringing around some kind of socialist revolution in the Labour party. That's what his detractors will try to pin on him so they can tear him down.
His tone in the whole leadership race has been conciliatory and as a seasoned peace campaigner he will understand that in a world of divide and conquer he has to create unity in order to be effective.
The only left that Tories will fear is a united one and his job is to bring that about.
The only left that Tories will fear is a united one and his job is to bring that about.
True. But the left ranges from those who think things should pretty much carry on as they are now but with a bit more spending on Welfare, to those who want to drag the rich out of their mansions and shoot them in the street. It's a very broad church. You think he is the man for the job? I am not at all sure about that. I think he will find he is out of his depth, his popularity with the party and the electorate will wane, and he will resign as leader and return to obscurity. Probably within 12 months.
If I am wrong it will be a much more interesting story. But I don't think he has what it takes.
talisman2
12-09-2015, 14:54
good lad steve !!!
rubber duck
12-09-2015, 15:21
Well would you guess it? Tom & Jerry now running the Labour Party! LOL
Yep, saw that in the Daily Mail a while back. Enough reason to vote Corbyn.
walpurgis
12-09-2015, 15:34
Funny whiff of agenda around here.
Oldpinkman
12-09-2015, 15:34
Oh what a world weary dissillusioned bunch we are.
Jezza is the shot in the arm the Labour party needed.
Interesting times ahead methinks.
It'll certainly be a laugh watching the mighty right wing press Empire Death Star lumber into action.
"This is a serious day for Britain. The Labour party is a serious treat to the security of this country, the security of your families and the security of our economy" Priti Patel trotting out the same bollocks that Mr Secretary of State for Defence had uttered only half an hour previously.
Believe me the Cons are scared.
Tactic 1 try to frighten the elecorate
Tactic 2 try to smear Jez any way possible
Tactic 3 try to make him out a joke.
Not funny is it Tory tw*ts!
Can I have a packet of whatever it is you are smoking? The tories aren't scared, they are whooping it up. Every Conservative supporter wanted Corbyn to get in. With Scotland turned into a British Parliament irrelevance - and assured to vote SNP, a Labour party of the extreme left (well any sort of left) will be a marginal irrelevance in what remains of the voting territory.
He will have the impact for Labour electoral success of that other fine left winger - Michael Foot.
walpurgis
12-09-2015, 15:38
I detest the Tories as much as the duffle coated 'do gooders' of the left (or is that Loony Left?).
walpurgis
12-09-2015, 15:45
Labour WILL win the next GE with Corbyn at the helm, mark my words.
Maybe in a parallel universe. Not in this reality.
I've always thought the best thing to do would be to scrap party-politics altogether and just employ people who actually know what they are doing to run the country. Have a written constitution drawn up so they have a framework and boundaries, and pay them by results. Zero hour contract ;) If someone isn't working out you get rid and hire another.
walpurgis
12-09-2015, 15:48
employ people who actually know what they are doing to run the country.
That should read 'honest people' Martin.
Fat chance of finding any of those! :eek:
Solrighal
12-09-2015, 15:53
Can I have a packet of whatever it is you are smoking? The tories aren't scared, they are whooping it up. Every Conservative supporter wanted Corbyn to get in. With Scotland turned into a British Parliament irrelevance - and assured to vote SNP, a Labour party of the extreme left (well any sort of left) will be a marginal irrelevance in what remains of the voting territory.
He will have the impact for Labour electoral success of that other fine left winger - Michael Foot.
Not true! See my earlier post. You're being conned. The Tories are all too aware of the 12.5million who didn't vote and the last thing they want is for those people to be inspired. Trust me, those people will never vote Tory.
Solrighal
12-09-2015, 15:54
Having said all that I should point out I wanted Liz Kendall to win. :ner:
That should read 'honest people' Martin.
Fat chance of finding any of those! :eek:
You have a second set of people whose job it is to uncover corruption in the group who run the country. They also get paid by results. Then you have a third set....etc etc ;)
Returning to Corbyn I think it is an interesting theory that there is an army of people out there who will be inspired by his policies. He is in favour of nationalising rail and power, which I agree with, and he has an idea about merging the NHS and Social Care, which is in principle a sensible move. The rest of it, particularly the economic side, is bat shit crazy, though. Perhaps there are now enough voters who did not live through it all in the 1970s to whom it will sound convincing?
Firebottle
12-09-2015, 16:03
I've always thought the best thing to do would be to scrap party-politics altogether and just employ people who actually know what they are doing to run the country. Have a written constitution drawn up so they have a framework and boundaries, and pay them by results. Zero hour contract ;) If someone isn't working out you get rid and hire another.
...utopia. Will never happen 'cause it smacks of too much common sense. Oh if only............
SteveTheShadow
12-09-2015, 16:11
Can I have a packet of whatever it is you are smoking? The tories aren't scared, they are whooping it up. Every Conservative supporter wanted Corbyn to get in. With Scotland turned into a British Parliament irrelevance - and assured to vote SNP, a Labour party of the extreme left (well any sort of left) will be a marginal irrelevance in what remains of the voting territory.
He will have the impact for Labour electoral success of that other fine left winger - Michael Foot.
Whatever Pinky.....whatever. :lol:
Solrighal
12-09-2015, 16:12
I've always thought the best thing to do would be to scrap party-politics altogether and just employ people who actually know what they are doing to run the country. Have a written constitution drawn up so they have a framework and boundaries, and pay them by results. Zero hour contract ;) If someone isn't working out you get rid and hire another.
I agree. It's always amazed me thapeople get elected as MP's and then perhaps become the Minister in charge of, say, Health. Based on what? We could all start a party tomoroow and possibly get elected. What do I know about running a Health Service? Fuck all! Instead, why not look around the world and find the country with the best health sevice, isolate the guy behind it and pay them shitloads to come here and fix ours. It's not rocket science. The problem is not how much MP's are paid, rather, it's that an MP's pay is too low to attract the right peole to the job in the first place. Therefore we get lunatics in charge of the asylum.
Well in theory it is the Civil Service who are supposed to be the 'experts' running the show behind the scenes. But that has just become another expensive gravy-train, and they can't be held accountable to the public or sacked if they are rubbish.
It seems to me that if you know what your objective is then it is simply a matter of taking pragmatic steps to overcome the problems and get there. We manage it allright in war but as soon as peace breaks out everything becomes a disaster and we blunder along aimlessly, leaking money like a sieve, making bad move after bad move as everything deteriorates around us.
Solrighal
12-09-2015, 16:23
Only as long as foreign countries host our wars. The day it actually comes to our shore will be the end of the UK.
It's come to our shores before and we've managed okay.
Solrighal
12-09-2015, 16:30
It's come to our shores before and we've managed okay.
Really? I must have missed that. When did that happen?
walpurgis
12-09-2015, 16:40
It's already within our shores. The enemy has invaded and waits to strike (again). As within America.
Solrighal
12-09-2015, 16:53
It's already within our shores. The enemy has invaded and waits to strike (again). As in America.
Ridiculous! The UK's foreign policy is the enemy.
It's already within our shores. The enemy has invaded and waits to strike (again). As in America.
Eh - since when was 'America' the enemy within?
(apart from the corporate tax dodgers draining our resources :lol:)
walpurgis
12-09-2015, 17:07
Eh - since when was 'America' the enemy within?
(apart from the corporate tax dodgers draining our resources :lol:)
Edited. Happy now? :)
Perhaps there are now enough voters who did not live through it all in the 1970s to whom it will sound convincing?
I remember it well - a catastrophe fed by decades of completely incompetent and inept management whose lack of foresight and imagination finally nailed the coffin in what was left of British industry; can't see how that applies now though.... it's all but gone or owned by international conglomerates.
walpurgis
12-09-2015, 17:11
Ridiculous! The UK's foreign policy is the enemy.
Are you sure you meant to say that?
Calling somebody else's point of view "ridiculous"?
Really? I must have missed that. When did that happen?
The French and the Spanish for almost the last thousand years. The Germans (twice) in the last 100 years. Our entire history since the Conquest has been about keeping invaders at bay.
Solrighal
12-09-2015, 17:25
Are you sure you meant to say that?
Calling somebody else's point of view "ridiculous"?
I always mean what I say. How far back do you want to go?
Solrighal
12-09-2015, 17:26
The French and the Spanish for almost the last thousand years. The Germans (twice) in the last 100 years. Our entire history since the Conquest has been about keeping invaders at bay.
Again, utter nonsense.
Solrighal
12-09-2015, 17:30
The "Germans" have never once tried to invade the UK. You're living in a fantasy world. I suggest you stick to hi-fi.
Why is it nonsense? Since 1066 there have been literally hundreds of attempted invasions of the UK and thousands of planned attempts.
The "Germans" have never once tried to invade the UK. You're living in a fantasy world. I suggest you stick to hi-fi.
You are right the Battle of Britain was just a movie, none of that happened for real.
Spectral Morn
12-09-2015, 18:41
The French and the Spanish for almost the last thousand years. The Germans (twice) in the last 100 years. Our entire history since the Conquest has been about keeping invaders at bay.
You forgot the successful Dutch invasion and yes some locals invited William but it was an invasion, the Glorious Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution
Regards Neil
Spectral Morn
12-09-2015, 18:45
The "Germans" have never once tried to invade the UK. You're living in a fantasy world. I suggest you stick to hi-fi.
Operation Sealion was the name, and the massed air attacks on southern UK military targets August 1940 - know as the Battle of Britain - was the opening salvo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion
Regards Neil
The "Germans" have never once tried to invade the UK. You're living in a fantasy world. I suggest you stick to hi-fi.
So what about the German invasion of the Channel Islands in WWII? They were, and are, still part of the UK.
Solrighal
12-09-2015, 18:51
So what about the German invasion of the Channel Islands in WWII? They were, and are, still part of the UK.
Aye, more fool them. Really, the best you can come up with was 70 years ago in a small archipeligo and which the invading hordes were successful? Laughable.
Disagree, the Dutch incident was a raid not an invasion and William of Orange was invited and came in unopposed.
Why is it nonsense? Since 1066 there have been literally hundreds of attempted invasions of the UK and thousands of planned attempts.
A slight exaggeration, surely? If there had been 'literally hundreds' of attempted invasions since 1066, that would mean one every five years or so on average. AFAIK, there were none at all between the fall of Napoleon in 1815 and the start of WWI, so that's one whole century ruled out.
Aye, more fool them. Really, the best you can come up with was 70 years ago in a small archipeligo and which the invading hordes were successful? Laughable.
The invasion of the Channel Islands was intended to be a stepping stone to an invasion of mainland Britain. The Germans had plans as to what they would do once they had conquered Britain. The demolition of Nelson's column was one of the things they would have done to demonstrate their dominance.
Aye, more fool them. Really, the best you can come up with was 70 years ago in a small archipeligo and which the invading hordes were successful? Laughable.
It wasnt laughable to the folk of the Channel Islands.
Aye, more fool them. Really, the best you can come up with was 70 years ago in a small archipeligo and which the invading hordes were successful? Laughable.
So what sort of invasion are you suggesting could pitch up at our shores? You can't mean the mad mullahs? They are a joke.
Spectral Morn
12-09-2015, 19:06
Disagree, the Dutch incident was a raid not an invasion and William of Orange was invited and came in unopposed.
I am afraid many notable historians, including the Dutch education system would disagree. And it is a myth it was a bloodless invasion, a number of people did die and there were several small battles on the march to London.
Regards Neil
Are you sure you meant to say that?
Calling somebody else's point of view "ridiculous"?
But some points of view are ridiculous. I don't see any problem in someone expressing that opinion.
But some points of view are ridiculous. I don't see any problem in someone expressing that opinion.
I do if they are unable to point out why it is ridiculous. Failure to do so makes it look like they haven't really thought about their own viewpoint sufficiently.
'You are talking nonsense' isn't acceptable.
'You are talking nonsense and this is why: x y z' is fine. Although the 'you are talking nonsense' bit is ultimately redundant in either case.
But some ideas are self-evidently ridiculous; e.g. that the Earth is hollow, or that the Royal Family are shape-shifting lizards.
Solrighal
12-09-2015, 19:21
The invasion of the Channel Islands was intended to be a stepping stone to an invasion of mainland Britain. The Germans had plans as to what they would do once they had conquered Britain. The demolition of Nelson's column was one of the things they would have done to demonstrate their dominance.
Aye, you're right. And if the German politicians hadn't interfered with the military we'd be speaking German right now. The only thing that saved the UK was political interference which turned German attention to their northern boundaries and led to their eventual destruction by the Russians.
See when you do research, I strongly suggest you bodysweve the BBC, or PravdaUK, as I like to call it.
Nevertheless, if the topic for debate is 'are the royal family alien lizards?' - and you wish to participate - it is not sufficient contribution to simply dismiss the proposition as ridiculous without stating your reasons.
It is sort of how it works if you don't want to descend into a series of pantomime responses.
Nevertheless, if the topic for debate is 'are the royal family alien lizards?' - and you wish to participate - it is not sufficient contribution to simply dismiss the proposition as ridiculous without stating your reasons.
It is sort of how it works if you don't want to descend into a series of pantomime responses.
I wouldn't be engaging in a debate on that topic, because there's no point in engaging in debate with people who are clearly deluded. I'd be sidling away, tapping the side of my head and avoiding eye contact.
Solrighal
12-09-2015, 19:30
One might suggest that the Royal Family still exist because they are supported by ill-educated knuckle-draggers & the fortunate few (?) who are favoured by their existence. Largest unelected policy-making beareau in the world!
Aye, you're right. And if the German politicians hadn't interfered with the military we'd be speaking German right now. The only thing that saved the UK was political interference which turned German attention to their northern boundaries and led to their eventual destruction by the Russians.
.
I'd broadly agree with that summation. If the Nazi air assault had been better co=ordinated and not been distracted by attacking civilian targets it is possible that they could have achieved total air superiority and got across the Channel under cover of it. Thing is, Hitler was always going to have a go at the Russians and they would still have beaten him and rolled right across Europe in the process. So more likely we would be speaking Russian.
I wouldn't be engaging in a debate on that topic, because there's no point in engaging in debate with people who are clearly deluded. I'd be sidling away, tapping the side of my head and avoiding eye contact.
Yes I know but you appreciate these things only work if there are some rules. The topic is irrelevant.
Solrighal
12-09-2015, 19:37
I'd broadly agree with that summation. If the Nazi air assault had been better co=ordinated and not been distracted by attacking civilian targets it is possible that they could have achieved total air superiority and got across the Channel under cover of it. Thing is, Hitler was always going to have a go at the Russians and they would still have beaten him and rolled right across Europe in the process. So more likely we would be speaking Russian.
Yes, agreed. The important part being that the UK's existence is not down to our superiority but rather, the mistakes of our enemies.
SteveTheShadow
12-09-2015, 19:41
"No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin"
Aneurin Bevan
However different Corbyn might be, he beats the Tory elite every time.
These people are total scum and the section of the electorate who vote for them are brainless drones for following them.
I was never suggesting that it was down to any innate superiority. But at least I see now where your argument was going. :)
I agree we have been fortunate on a number of occasions. But fortune favours the brave. We could have done a deal with Hitler and avoided the whole nasty issue. He was very keen to make such an arrangement.
I agree that our international interventions in recent years have not worked out well. But I don't see that as a reason for us to withdraw into a shell, militarily speaking. I'm guessing that you agree with Corbyn's view about leaving NATO?
Solrighal
12-09-2015, 19:55
I was never suggesting that it was down to any innate superiority. But at least I see now where your argument was going. :)
I agree we have been fortunate on a number of occasions. But fortune favours the brave. We could have done a deal with Hitler and avoided the whole nasty issue. He was very keen to make such an arrangement.
I agree that our international interventions in recent years have not worked out well. But I don't see that as a reason for us to withdraw into a shell, militarily speaking. I'm guessing that you agree with Corbyn's view about leaving NATO?
There were a great many within the British [sic] establishment who favoured a deal with the Nazi's. All that stopped it happening was the unfotunate involvment of the US free press. But yes, I agree with your basic premise.
As far as NATO is concerned I would say this.. I want the UN to have some teeth. Many years ago Blue Helmets in the warzone meant something. Tony Bliar took that principle & tore it up. If the UN is granted the powers it should have then there should be no need for NATO.
Just as an aside, the Russians are not the aggressors. At least not on a global scale. They are merely reacting to the expansion of the EU, which they see as Western Expansionism. Another topic altogether I accept. Not altogether unconnected though. Big picture & all that.
Agree about the Russians but I have my doubts about the effectiveness of a UN based solution. In theory it is a good idea, in practice you have many complications.
Most countries will back resolutions but will be unwilling to commit troops, even those who do will only commit small numbers and for short periods of time. Then you have the problems of co-ordinating a multi-national force. Language, tactics, weapons are all different and incompatible. Individual national commanders are under no compunction to obey orders they don't like. The rules of engagement put the troops at additional risk.
This is why America has really been the world policeman for so long. The trouble with that is that they started out after WW2 making terrible mistake after mistake and they've never really broken that run to date.
Ninanina
12-09-2015, 20:25
One might suggest that the Royal Family still exist because they are supported by ill-educated knuckle-draggers & the fortunate few (?) who are favoured by their existence. Largest unelected policy-making beareau in the world!
+1
And as far as Corbyn is concerned... well I've listened a bit to him speaking and while I don't support Labour I do think he may well be a good leader.. I think he is a great, and honest sounding, speaker
He won't get my support, especially about his views on refugees, but I do think he will be good for Labour. However as he is now 66 and will be 71 at the next general election I think he is a bit old to be honest... ;)
Solrighal
12-09-2015, 20:29
Again, I agree. I'm not saying it will be easy but there are people prospering from this conflict & they must be held to account. I'm a (relatively) humble van driver so it's never going to be my call but someone has to start holding people responsible.
Solrighal
12-09-2015, 20:30
+1
And as far as Corbyn is concerned... well I've listened a bit to him speaking and while I don't support Labour I do think he may well be a good leader.. I think he is a great, and honest sounding, speaker
He won't get my support, especially about his views on refugees, but I do think he will be good for Labour. However as he is now 66 and will be 71 at the next general election I think he is a bit old to be honest... ;)
See that Union Jack shit below your posts? WTF is that about?
walpurgis
12-09-2015, 20:38
See that Union Jack shit below your posts? WTF is that about?
Is that a friendly enquiry?
Ninanina
12-09-2015, 20:41
Is that a friendly enquiry?
It doesn't sound friendly.... but luckily I also don't give a s**t .... It represents me and that's all that counts to me... :D
See that Union Jack shit below your posts? WTF is that about?
Aye, far better if it was a Saltire, eh? ;)
Seriously though, I guess she's proud to be British. I suppose someone's got to be! :D
Marco.
Spectral Morn
12-09-2015, 20:46
See that Union Jack shit below your posts? WTF is that about?
That's a totally unacceptable comment.
Spectral Morn
12-09-2015, 20:48
Aye, far better if it was a Saltire, eh? ;)
Seriously though, I guess she's proud to be British. I suppose someone's got to be! :D
Marco.
And Scotland is a Northern Irish colony ;)
and then briefly part of Scotland, an invasion many seem to have forgot about.
Regards Neil
That's a totally unacceptable comment.
+1
Solrighal
12-09-2015, 20:50
That's a totally unacceptable comment.
Isn't that a fascistic way to think?
I think Gordon meant it as tongue-in-cheek, at least that's how I took it. He can confirm that or not.
Marco.
Ninanina
12-09-2015, 20:53
That's a totally unacceptable comment.
Thanks Neil.... and yes I am proud to be British..... :D
And Scotland is a Northern Irish colony ;)
and then briefly part of Scotland, an invasion many seem to have forgot about.
Regards Neil
:lolsign:
Marco.
Spectral Morn
12-09-2015, 20:54
Isn't that a fascistic way to think?
Certainly not but to refer to the flag of the UK as 'shite' is very rude.
It's a 'Scottish banter' thing, Neil - at least I hope it is. Gordon? :)
Marco.
Ninanina
12-09-2015, 20:58
Certainly not but to refer to the flag of the UK as 'shite' is very rude.
What on earth has fascism thinking got to do with it ? and yes to refer the OUR UK FLAG as 's**t' is rude and just crazy... I am VERY proud to be British and I don't see a problem with that at all... :)
Nothing further from me....
Spectral Morn
12-09-2015, 21:01
It's a 'Scottish banter' thing, Neil - at least I hope it is. Gordon? :)
Marco.
Thing is Marco the flag Bev has in her signature is an amalgamation of the flags of Wales, Scotland, Ulster and England. The Union Jack isn't an English flag alone.
I am not particularly nationalistic in any sense but to be disrespectful in this way just isn't on - its just rude imho.
Regards Neil
I don't disagree - *if* he was serious.
However, like it or not, up in Scotland, there are many folk who would no sooner fly a union jack flag, than an English one. Unfortunately, up there, it's seen as representing England, not really Britain.
The only flag most Scots would ever be seen dead flying, is a Saltire. I'm not saying it's right, but I'm afraid that's just the way it is.
Marco.
Solrighal
12-09-2015, 21:16
What on earth has fascism thinking got to do with it ? and yes to refer the OUR UK FLAG as 's**t' is rude and just crazy... I am VERY proud to be British and I don't see a problem with that at all... :)
Nothing further from me....
I expect you've never had a problem with Uk foreign policy ever. Most who wave your flag don't.
Thing is Marco the flag Bev has in her signature is an amalgamation of the flags of Wales, Scotland, Ulster and England. The Union Jack isn't an English flag alone.
I am not particularly nationalistic in any sense but to be disrespectful in this way just isn't on - its just rude imho.
Regards Neil
Disrespectful? You're joking, surely?
You know, I had a long reply typed out stating the historical significance of this flag but what's the point? Do your own research. Or wallow in your ignorance, who cares?
Spectral Morn
12-09-2015, 21:18
I don't disagree - *if* he was serious.
However, like it or not, up in Scotland, there are many folk who would no sooner fly a union jack flag, than an English one. Unfortunately, up there, it's seen as representing England, not really Britain.
The only flag most Scots would ever be seen dead flying, is a Saltire. I'm afraid that's just the way it is.
Marco.
I am aware of the dislike, a dislike that also exists in Ulster too but the way Gordon addressed Bev was in my view rude and I think the slur on the flag serious.
Anyway I have always though that Scotland and Ulster should unite, it would be great to have our colony back in the fold ;) :)
Regards Neil
Solrighal
12-09-2015, 21:19
I don't disagree - *if* he was serious.
However, like it or not, up in Scotland, there are many folk who would no sooner fly a union jack flag, than an English one. Unfortunately, up there, it's seen as representing England, not really Britain.
The only flag most Scots would ever be seen dead flying, is a Saltire. I'm not saying it's right, but I'm afraid that's just the way it is.
Marco.
And with that one statement, I'm out of here. Traitor.
Gordon, regardless of your political persuasions, I think you need to lose the aggressive tone in your posts.
Marco.
And with that one statement, I'm out of here. Traitor.
Eh?? :scratch:
Gordon, I was born in Scotland (Glasgow). However, my family and bloodline, through many centuries, is Italian. Therefore, I don't consider myself British (or Scottish, really, although I love Scotland).
That is why I wouldn't fly the union jack, as I have little affinity with what it stands for - not for any other reason. Others who do (and who feel British), are perfectly within their rights to fly the union jack with pride.
Marco.
Spectral Morn
12-09-2015, 21:23
I expect you've never had a problem with Uk foreign policy ever. Most who wave your flag don't.
Disrespectful? You're joking, surely?
You know, I had a long reply typed out stating the historical significance of this flag but what's the point? Do your own research. Or wallow in your ignorance, who cares?
I am well aware of the history, the blood, the suffering but those were barbaric times and the blood shed was on all sides, no one walks pure, not Scot, not Ulsterman, not English or Welsh.
Solrighal
12-09-2015, 21:30
Gordon, regardless of your political persuasions, I think you need to lose the aggressive tone in your posts.
Marco.I sent you a PM months ago regarding what was acceptable and what was not. You chose (apparently) to ignore it. I make no apologies for my beliefs. That anyone here could think the UK is a force for good in this world is truly deluded. We are part of the problem. Since my country's say is out-voted 10-to-one you people don't care but you might want to take a closer look at your 'United Kingdom' because those who want to tear it down are many, and we exist within your borders.
Spectral Morn
12-09-2015, 21:30
Eh?? :scratch:
Gordon, I was born in Scotland (Glasgow). However, my family and bloodline, through many centuries, is Italian. Therefore, I don't consider myself British (or Scottish, really, although I love Scotland).
That is why I wouldn't fly the union jack, as I have little affinity with what it stands for - not for any other reason. Others who do (and who feel British), are perfectly within their rights to fly the union jack with pride.
Marco.
I think it was this 'The only flag most Scots would ever be seen dead flying, is a Saltire. I'm not saying it's right, but I'm afraid that's just the way it is.'
Regards Neil
Well, some might think it's not right, and that as Scotland is part of Britain, the Scots should be 'proud to be British'. Gordon should accept that is what some folk will feel.
Thing is, most Scots I know aren't proud to be British; they're proud to be SCOTTISH, hence why the vote for independence! ;)
They couldn't give a damn about union jacks.
Marco.
Why is it when people say 'I'm out of here', they stick around?
I think it was this 'The only flag most Scots would ever be seen dead flying, is a Saltire. I'm not saying it's right, but I'm afraid that's just the way it is.'
Regards Neil
Being half Scottish and a quarter English and a quarter Irish, the Union Jack's probably the only flag I could reasonably fly, if I ever felt the need to fly a flag, but since I'm neither a ship nor a Government building, I don't suppose I ever will.
Being half Scottish and a quarter English and a quarter Irish, the Union Jack's probably the only flag I could reasonably fly, if I ever felt the need to fly a flag, but since I'm neither a ship nor a Government building, I don't suppose I ever will.
Too true
walpurgis
12-09-2015, 22:03
Why is it when people say 'I'm out of here', they stick around?
Yeah. The wife does that. Such a let down! :D
Yeah it's a big drawback... You're now supposed to say 'What is...........?'
Marco.
walpurgis
12-09-2015, 22:21
What is..........? :)
Although I don't feel especially "British" now, I used to. I also share a heritage of the rest of British people. My family fought in wars for Britain, even though they all felt themselves Scottish as much as British. To denigrate the British flag is to spit on all those brave men and women who secured our future. I for one will never do that. I may or may not feel it is time for change re nationality etc, but if those that want that change, require me to spit on the flag that raised me then I am sorry, but I will not!
To be fair, my father left Scotland as soon as he was able to, and only went back there for weddings and funerals. I'm not sure what he would have made of all this nationalist hoo-hah. Probably poured himself another whisky and shook his head doubtfully.
What is..........? :)
An elephant's foreskin! :D
Marco.
An elephant's foreskin! :D
Marco.
Someone call?:eyebrows:
Aye, get yur shoodir under it, wee man, so ah kin aim straight... :D
Marco.
walpurgis
12-09-2015, 22:42
An elephant's foreskin! :D
Marco.
:rolleyes:
;)
To be fair, my father left Scotland as soon as he was able to, and only went back there for weddings and funerals.
Then he didn't know what he was missing. Scotland's a great place, especially up north in the sticks. The scenery there is stunningly beautiful. I'd rather live in Scotland than in most other parts of the UK, especially London! :spew:
Marco [Not a city person].
Scotland's a great place, especially up north in the sticks. The scenery there is stunningly beautiful. I'd rather live in Scotland than in most other parts of the UK, especially London! :spew:
Marco [Not a city person].
He was from Edinburgh, and I don't think he ventured much beyond the city while he lived up there. I think (but can't say for sure) that it was the religious bigotry that drove him out; various family feuds over the 'right' Prod church to belong to. Then he married a Catholic and that was that as far as his family were concerned!
Oh gawd, if he was involved in all that pish, then I can well understand. I have no time whatsoever for sectarianism. That's one thing I don't miss living in North Wales! And being 35 mins from stunning Snowdonia, I don't feel that I'm missing out on any hills either :)
Marco.
I sent you a PM months ago regarding what was acceptable and what was not. You chose (apparently) to ignore it. I make no apologies for my beliefs. That anyone here could think the UK is a force for good in this world is truly deluded. We are part of the problem. Since my country's say is out-voted 10-to-one you people don't care but you might want to take a closer look at your 'United Kingdom' because those who want to tear it down are many, and we exist within your borders.
Unfortunately, I missed the above post last night. First of all, Gordon, I didn't ignore your PM. I must've just missed it (or seen it and forgotten to reply to it), as I never deliberately ignore PMs. I can often receive up 40 PMs a day, so between replying to those and emails, and then posting on threads here, things can easily get missed or forgotten about, so my apologies for that.
As for the rest, I'm afraid you've got the wrong person. In reality, I don't give much of a toss about politics, and what you're referring to about 'my United Kingdom', comes into that. I really don't care, mate. I'm certainly no Unionist, and nor do I consider myself as British. I'm an Italian/Scottish guy living in Wales, so anything outside of that 'world', which doesn't affect me, doesn't really interest me.
Returning to the thread topic, although I'm no Labour supporter (or supporter of any political party, really, although I admire and agree with much of what Nicola Sturgeon has to say about politics), this new guy, Jeremy Corbyn, is a damn sight more interesting and 'switched on' than that balloon, Ed Miliband. Some of his policies appear to align with those of the SNP [I like how he wants to tax the rich properly, is anti-nuclear, and seeks to 'get it up' the chinless wonders in Westminster], and so I suspect that he'll be big a success.
Marco.
Oldpinkman
14-09-2015, 07:23
Whatever Pinky.....whatever. :lol:
"Nowhere is the plunge in the (European) left's electability more stunning than in Britain" - headline in a Bloomberg article about Corbyn
"My left wing friends and I have probably just voted for 10 years of uninterrupted Conservative government" - facebook post by Sue's NUT rep
Take a look at Blunketts interview this weekend. To paraphrase "Fine ideals, and great policies, but if he is unelectable its all just hot air"
It's a bit like Sturgeons resounding victory in Scotland at the general election. I bet it made her Mum proud, but it renders the SNP a large irrelevance at Westminster, and helped to ensure that Labour have no influence - not even as an effective opposition. And chances are it will repeat - a protest vote for Scottish Nationalism, misplaced in a general election, dividing the left and assuring a Conservative majority.
Like I say - it's reminiscent of Michael Foot. Another fine gentleman with strong ideals which amounted to a means of securing a large Conservative majority and rendering his party an irrelevance in mainstream politics.
Take a look at Blunketts interview this weekend. To paraphrase "Fine ideals, and great policies, but if he is unelectable its all just hot air"
Though I mostly agree with your comments, the fact that the slimy get Blunkett slags Corbyn off makes me warm considerably towards the latter.
Oldpinkman
14-09-2015, 10:03
Just to keep us in touch with reality on planet earth, another Bloomberg quote
Britain's Labour Party Chooses Death With Honor
"In short, it's prehistoric leftism. As you'd expect, the ruling Tories are struggling to contain their joy. They now face an opposition in the mold of Labour before Tony Blair -- an outfit so out of touch with the broader electorate, it kept the Conservatives in power for the better part of two decades."
The spelling tells you it is from the USA Bloomberg site.
..... from the USA Bloomberg site.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
- try The Sun for your quotes ...much more cred
The theory is that Labour is not winning elections because it is too Socialist, it is not winning because it is not Socialist enough.
Now we know Foot lost in 1983 because he was too Socialist. The question is, have times and the electoral demographic changed so much that enough people now want Socialism? That is the theory and this appointment sets out to test it.
Who did all the socialists disenchanted with Labour vote for the last two rimes? In Scotland they had the SNP option but in the UK the only other socialist party standing in any numbers was the BNP. And they didn't do well either. They wouldn't vote for Tory or UKIP so you have to assume that - if they exist - that they didn't vote at all. So it is possible, if Corbyn is capable of being personally inspiring over time, that these non-voters will come out in their droves to support him.
Clive197
14-09-2015, 10:56
As I said TOM Watson & JERRY Corbyn now running the Labour Party, You couldn't make it up.
Whatever your politics I think that takes away a lot of Labour credibility as far as the general public are concerned.
I don't think that joke is likely to decide an election, not even in these shallow times. Anyway Corbyn is a posh kid so he is 'Jeremy' so it doesn't really work.
walpurgis
14-09-2015, 11:00
Our new (New Labour?) Labour must be OK. Billy Bragg said so! :rolleyes:
As I said TOM Watson & JERRY Corbyn now running the Labour Party, You couldn't make it up.
Whatever your politics I think that takes away a lot of Labour credibility as far as the general public are concerned.
I know the public is shallow, but if you mean that Labour loses credibility simply because of their leaders' first names, you are probably underestimating them. If you mean because of who they are rather than their names, I doubt that many of the electorate know much if anything about either of them. And the Press slagging off Corbyn is a double-edged sword; the British love an underdog.
The theory is that Labour is not winning elections because it is too Socialist, it is not winning because it is not Socialist enough.
Now we know Foot lost in 1983 because he was too Socialist. The question is, have times and the electoral demographic changed so much that enough people now want Socialism? That is the theory and this appointment sets out to test it.
Who did all the socialists disenchanted with Labour vote for the last two rimes? In Scotland they had the SNP option but in the UK the only other socialist party standing in any numbers was the BNP. And they didn't do well either. They wouldn't vote for Tory or UKIP so you have to assume that - if they exist - that they didn't vote at all. So it is possible, if Corbyn is capable of being personally inspiring over time, that these non-voters will come out in their droves to support him.
I think the 'he's not like other politicians' approach will serve Corbyn well; the problem with Cooper. Kendall and Turnham was that they didn't seem to have a single original idea between them. The problem for Corbyn will be the same as that faced by IDS when he became Tory leader; how does a serial rebel command loyalty when the going gets rough? The 'moderates' who have refused to join his Shadow Cabinet effectively form an alternative opposition-in-waiting whose position on many issues, but particularly the economy, is diametrically opposed to Corbyn's.
Oldpinkman
14-09-2015, 12:36
I think the main issue the "moderates" resigning their front bench postions have is that they appreciate the distinction between appealing to the labour party membership, and appealing to the general public in an election. Labour MP's serious about government understand they have to sell something to the electorate - not to the parties left wing. People are keen on underdogs, flirt with originality, and make protest votes - away from the general election. Hence the opinion poll results and by-election upsets you get.
When it comes to voting in a general election, the results suggest most people are more cautious - and extreme parties fail to command majority support.
The idea that all of the 12m non-voters are hard core socialists waiting for a left wing labour party to vote for, is one that I think Ladbrookes would give you long odds on.
Arkless Electronics
14-09-2015, 13:01
The best news I've seen in years! I'm now going to join the Labour party.
The best news I've seen in years! I'm now going to join the Labour party.
+1 I've decided to do the same. In fact I've just joined up, never been a party member before, but he deserves a chance.
Arkless Electronics
14-09-2015, 13:42
I listened to a phone in debate on the Jeremy Vine show today about this and an anti Corbyn Tory phoned in and said "we Tories care about ourselves and our family and couldn't care less what happens to someone in the next street"..... I thought yep, that's one of the main reasons I detest your kind... "I'm all right Jack, F*** you". I'd prefer to live in a country where neighbours do look out for each other, next street or not! "Society is dead" said the evil witch.... well it's about to get resuscitated.... hopefully!
That really is the crux of it. To anyone with a socialist mindset anyone who is not socialist must be a selfish, I'm all right Jack, and probably a racist and a little Englander to boot.
Now they don't think that most people are like that - they think most people are the yearning masses struggling to be free, they just need a liberator to vote for and they will cast off their disenchantment with politics and come out and vote.
The problem as I see it is that the vast majority of people who don't want socialism don't want it for very rational and historical reasons, not because they are greedy and selfish. This is the point that the Corbyn supporters just don't get, and why they will ultimately end up disappointed.
The problem as I see it is that the vast majority of people who don't want socialism don't want it for very rational and historical reasons, not because they are greedy and selfish. This is the point that the Corbyn supporters just don't get, and why they will ultimately end up disappointed.
I think the point that you and others are failing to grasp is that there are an awful lot of people who do want what you call 'socialism' - or in fact a fairer and more democratic society a bit less dominated by ex-Eton, ex-Oxford elitists whose only pursuit in politics is to make sure the status-quo they want remains firmly in place. This is as much the case for the Tories as also their 'New Labour' cronies, who many have come to despise and who were already distrusted by those with traditional 'old-skool' Labour sentiments even when they came to power. Since the Brown fiasco, the foul taint that was Blairite legacy has taken a long time to be washed out ... the dismal failure of the other leadership candidates being the final proof (if ever one was needed) of how low their esteem has sunk in the view of those voters who still believe in the basic principles of the Labour movement.
To me it matters not a toss whether they are 'electable' if that means straying so far from these principles that the party is pretty much blue with a vague red tinge. If Corbyn can muster a real socialist opposition and fight for what really is worthwhile (a strong NHS and free education for all for instance) before the Tories slide in their Victorian regime unopposed, then they have my vote - and I suspect a lot more people than they are being given credit for (not for nothing the Tories and their lapdog press instantly resorted to scare tactics the moment he was elected)
Arkless Electronics
14-09-2015, 15:22
That really is the crux of it. To anyone with a socialist mindset anyone who is not socialist must be a selfish, I'm all right Jack, and probably a racist and a little Englander to boot.
Now they don't think that most people are like that - they think most people are the yearning masses struggling to be free, they just need a liberator to vote for and they will cast off their disenchantment with politics and come out and vote.
The problem as I see it is that the vast majority of people who don't want socialism don't want it for very rational and historical reasons, not because they are greedy and selfish. This is the point that the Corbyn supporters just don't get, and why they will ultimately end up disappointed.
The bit I've highlighted I obviously agree with ;) I think it is generally down to greed with those on the right. Or maybe another angle on is is that they hate to see anything being shared with others that they believe is theirs. The rightwhingers believe that if you happen to be born with intelligence, drive, strong willpower and probably plenty of help from rich parents then you deserve wealth and power.... the big problem is conversely they believe that if you were born into poverty and happen to be nothing special in the IQ and drive league then you deserve a life of poverty, misery, poor health, bad diet, no holidays etc and that's your natural lot in life. As a socialist I believe the first person with the wealth and high IQ etc should have to part with some of their more than adequate wealth so the latter person can at least live like a dignified human being. That obviously is socialism....
The bit I've highlighted I obviously agree with ;) I think it is generally down to greed with those on the right. Or maybe another angle on is is that they hate to see anything being shared with others that they believe is theirs. ...
Or maybe they just agree that a prudent fiscal policy and a reluctance to tamper with things that are not broken is the way to run a country and ultimately make everyone better off?
Note I'm not suggesting that the current government are doing this or are going to do this, but Labour never do. And the irony is that when the country is left bankrupt it is the poorest who suffer most - the rich, by the very virtue of being rich - are insulated from the consequences. There are a lot of wealthy socialists who are socialists because they can afford to be.
Oldpinkman
14-09-2015, 16:48
Or maybe they just agree that a prudent fiscal policy and a reluctance to tamper with things that are not broken is the way to run a country and ultimately make everyone better off?
Note I'm not suggesting that the current government are doing this or are going to do this, but Labour never do. And the irony is that when the country is left bankrupt it is the poorest who suffer most - the rich, by the very virtue of being rich - are insulated from the consequences. There are a lot of wealthy socialists who are socialists because they can afford to be.
Its a point that isn't understood by those who fail to grasp the concept of how wealth is generated. If you can't bake a cake - you have no cake to share. Regarding "fiscal prudence" we are talking about Greece as the classic example. If Corbyn had been elected to pursue his proposed policies on the back of the last labour government (ie without the respite of the coalition government) I think the UK would have been in Greece's position - but, being outside the euro, without an anxious euro-block to bail us out. So we would have been in need of IMF support - but the misery would have been the same as that suffered by the Greeks. I think it was Abe Lincoln who is (questionably) quoted as saying "you can't help the poor by becoming one of them"
An IMF bailout for the UK? No - surely not. Well the last one was 1976 under, you guessed it, a socialist Labour government. Harold Wilson resigned - James Callaghan took over, and thereafter the conservatives under Thatcher governed for 4 terms back to back.
So I think it is trite to suggest politics divides into "sod you jack" or "I care for others". And of course, outside this forum, the country as a whole know that. As for Tory concerns, they have 4 and a half years before they need to worry seriously. The fact that the conservatives are scare-mongering about Corbyn doesn't mean they are scared of him and not delighted he is leading labour. They are delighted he is leading labour, because it makes it so easy to have something to scaremonger about. The last thing the want is someone credible and reassuring who might actually get elected.
As for the affluent, educated and successful supporting the poor - they already do. A typical "city boy" will be paying 45% of his income in tax, and a further 14% in employers national insurance. Thats on top of the VAT he pays on things he spends money on, rates and other local taxes. Significantly more than half of what he owes. And whilst "Giles" might not up sticks and move to Frankfurt if the climate in London is hostile - his job will. This is the problem in France at the moment - they've taxed the rich, who have all relocated to Belgium
It is popular for "socialists" to knock the city - but the real nail-chewing worry is that our economy is excessively reliant on it, and it is the most readily relocatable element. If the city moves to Frankfurt it will add a bit "cream on the top" to the German economy. Unfortunately we dont have Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Volkswagen, Bosch and the rest of an impressive manufacturing sector to fall back on once the city goes. Our cream is on the top of a thin layer of dry biscuit.
Not that I care - I'm moving to France!
StanleyB
14-09-2015, 17:38
Its a point that isn't understood by those who fail to grasp the concept of how wealth is generated. If you can't bake a cake - you have no cake to share.
On the contrary! The man in the street knows exactly how wealth is created, and what happens to the cake. The bosses get the big pay raises, private health insurance, shares options, golden handshakes, and generous redundancy provisions. The workers who actually bake the cake don't even get a share of the crumbs. Except of course the likes of John Lewis, where everyone gets a slice of the cake to take home.
sq225917
14-09-2015, 17:50
I'm looking forward to seeing him in opposition, it should be fun the first time 'call me dave' starts his PM's questions...
The headlines have been interesting the past couple of days, running scared?
and here's a premonition for you; Tom is there to stab him in the back and see that it dissolves into farce the first chance he gets. He's a mealy mouth, slimebag, pure Blair material.
walpurgis
14-09-2015, 18:07
I'm looking forward to seeing him in opposition, it should be fun the first time 'call me dave' starts his PM's questions...
The headlines have been interesting the past couple of days, running scared?
and here's a premonition for you; Tom is there to stab him in the back and see that it dissolves into farce the first chance he gets. He's a mealy mouth, slimebag, pure Blair material.
It'll make a change from that rubber faced drip Milliband.
I agree about Tom. Everything about him is rehearsed. He oozes a falseness.
. The workers who actually bake the cake don't even get a share of the crumbs. Except of course the likes of John Lewis, where everyone gets a slice of the cake to take home.
Well we do get paid at the end of the month - it isn't like we are slaves, the property of the mill owner or something. So we don't get paid enough. Well ask the bosses if they think they get paid enough. Most will say no.
Some wealthy people have a social conscience. Some don't. Some people who start poor and become rich don't have a social conscience. In other words being rich doesn't automatically make you a bastard and being poor doesn't automatically make you a saint. Getting rid of the ridiculous 'them and us' culture in this country would be one of the best things we could do to make it a better place. And that cuts both ways.
“There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people...religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin.” - Charles Schulz
:)
“There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people...religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin.” - Charles Schulz
:)
should have been 4... audio cables;)
your forgot
5. analogue vs digital
6. valve vs transistor
7 Fanatical devotion to the Pope
Clive197
15-09-2015, 00:18
I know the public is shallow, but if you mean that Labour loses credibility simply because of their leaders' first names, you are probably underestimating them. If you mean because of who they are rather than their names, I doubt that many of the electorate know much if anything about either of them. And the Press slagging off Corbyn is a double-edged sword; the British love an underdog.
Tom & Jerry. The cartoon from the 50's & 60's. It was a JOKE. Most people of a certain age would probably just smile ( or grimace).
Oh and Martin, even people called Jeremy and come from the upper echelons get called Jerry.
It should be fun watching Corbyn and Sturgeon combine to 'get it right up' chinless wonder Cameron, in Westmonster (and yes, the typo was deliberate). A bit more 'socialist militancy' down there is exactly what's needed to kick a few 'fat cat' Tory asses into line! :clap:
Marco.
Spectral Morn
15-09-2015, 10:25
ummmm Labour, not welcome in my books. This says it all, and how quickly folks seem to forget this sort of thing ' Dear Chief Secretary, I'm sorry to tell you there is no money... kind regards and good luck' Liam Byrne. Disgusting.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279242/Liam-Byrnes-note-new-Treasury-Im-sorry-tell-money.html#ixzz3lnl5bHeF
and this doesn't help re the Northern Irish
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/09/what-did-jeremy-corbyn-s-new-shadow-chancellor-really-say-about-ira - I can assure you if thats the calibre of this new Labour lot then they are not welcome here.
Regards Neil
“It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA.”
“The deaths of innocent civilians in IRA attacks is a real tragedy, but it was as a result of British occupation in Ireland.
What a shame he wasn't one of the innocent civilians who got murdered by those retards.
StanleyB
15-09-2015, 12:56
“It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA.”
“The deaths of innocent civilians in IRA attacks is a real tragedy, but it was as a result of British occupation in Ireland.
What a shame he wasn't one of the innocent civilians who got murdered by those retards.
What about the innocent victims murdered by the loyalists and the security forces?
What about them? Does that make planting bombs in the litter bins of shoping centres and blowing up children somehow acceptable?
What about the innocent victims murdered by the loyalists and the security forces?
I'm guessing that John McConnell won't be paying tribute to either of those groups, so in this context, the point is moot.
Spectral Morn
15-09-2015, 13:15
I'm guessing that John McConnell won't be paying tribute to either of those groups, so in this context, the point is moot.
Not if these clowns get into power and the institutions of Stormont collapse, which is looking very likely, so a direct rule government is looking more likely and if its labour........ :( with an a hole like that in that government - well that isn't going to go down well.
Regards Neil
Spectral Morn
15-09-2015, 13:17
What about the innocent victims murdered by the loyalists and the security forces?
Toally unaceptable on both counts.
Regards Neil
Us-&-Them
15-09-2015, 22:25
Politics and Politicians - devisive, incendiary, and, as usual, creating hatred, disagreement, vitriol and all the other 5h1t that it creates. If it were left to me, I'd fu<k it and them all off. I absolutely despise it and them. I could (but I will not, as it is totally pointless) rant on about it all forever and a day. All I would say is that while those lot sit in Westminster, they've got us all hating eachother, shafting eachother, fighting and arguing with eachother............................... for what, the (stupid) need to buy into their 5h1t ?????
They dont give a flying fu<k about me or you !!! They're scum, the lot of em!!!!!!
walpurgis
15-09-2015, 22:35
To a fair extent I agree. It would be marvelous to not need a government of some sort and even do without those necessary evils, the police and armed forces. Trouble is who'd run the bloody place and who'd ensure decent people were not robbed, butchered or enslaved by ruthless scumbags (and there are plenty of those about).
Us-&-Them
15-09-2015, 23:16
To a fair extent I agree. It would be marvelous to not need a government of some sort and even do without those necessary evils, the police and armed forces. Trouble is who'd run the bloody place and who'd ensure decent people were not robbed, butchered or enslaved by ruthless scumbags (and there are plenty of those about).
I cant disagree but, in replying, it starts another can of worms again. All I would say is the biggest crooks, scumbags and ROBBERS dont always reside out in the streets (and there are plenty of them) !!!
There is no answer to anything because there's too many ifs, when's, why's, why nots, conflicts and contradictions; then there's religion and then there's money. You cant win no matter what.
1984 is a good book and there's another one that is evading my memory that covers the need (or no need) for government. Its all impossible to reach a conclusion - its just too big of a subject............ but I still hate em all !!!!
Well they mostly didnt get rich by being nice ................;)
Us-&-Them
15-09-2015, 23:30
Well they mostly didnt get rich by being nice ................;)
The empire and wealth of the royals - accumulated all in the name of the "Crown." HHHHMMMMMMM ????
walpurgis
15-09-2015, 23:32
1984 is a good book and there's another one that is evading my memory that covers the need (or no need) for government.
Just read 'The Diceman' by Luke Rheinhart. It won't cure the world's problems, but it may make you take another look at yourself. Great fun book anyway. Get it!
Just read 'The Diceman' by Luke Rheinhart. It won't cure the world's problems, but it may make you take another look at yourself. Great fun book anyway. Get it!
Thats funny. I just aquired an E copy of "The Dark Diceman " by Walter Schanck lol.
walpurgis
15-09-2015, 23:59
Thats funny. I just aquired an E copy of "The Dark Diceman " by Walter Schanck lol.
If you've not done so Grant, you simply have to read the Rhinehart 'Diceman'. It's a great story and would I know appeal to your sense of humour. It's one of my all time favourites. Clever and funny too.
It tickles me that the main character of the book is the bloke who wrote it. Luke Rhinehart the clinical psychologist who experiments on life in a really loony, but smart way. You ask yourself, did he actually do all this. My guess is he did a lot of it!!
Ive read a bit of it and reviews but not got it yet. There's a deal on with it on amazon where the price varies. Waiting on it being near free lol. I get the unlimited where you get as many as you want for a fee per month. Not sure if its worth it tbh and may cancel
So what?? I support his right not to, if that reflects his beliefs, and respect him for it. Perhaps he's just not an obsessive flag-waving nationalist or royalist?
I wouldn't dream of singing it either! :nono:
This is my national anthem:
zWuejWyk4Ts
Or this:
7vkYiCdn834
Marco.
Spectral Morn
16-09-2015, 11:48
A lot more coming out of the woodwork re this new labour leader and it ain't good :( in my opinion. I am not going to repeat what is being reported in the press, but if I was able to vote labour, and I am not, I certainly would not vote for this character or his party as he has a number of red flag beliefs (as in unpleasant, nasty) making an appearance.
Frankly not singing the national anthem at an event honouring the fallen of The Battle of Britain is a slur on many levels.
Regards Neil
Spectral Morn
16-09-2015, 11:51
So what?? I support his right not to, if that reflects his beliefs, and respect him for it. Perhaps he's just not an obsessive flag-waving nationalist or royalist?
I wouldn't dream of singing it either! :nono:
Marco.
Maybe he might go the full hog then and not swear allegiance to the crown and not take his seat in parliament, as those in Sinn Fein do - happy to take the Queens shilling but not swear allegiance or take their seats in parliament.
Regards Neil
Just confirms what I thought to begin with: He hasn't got beyond the Sixth Form in terms of political maturity.
Plus, like pretty much all the leading politicians nowadays, he has never had a proper job:
School - union rep - councillor - MP
Us-&-Them
16-09-2015, 16:19
Isnt it amazing how the media can, by picking up on the slightest thing (be it big or small (depending on your point of view) manage to "spin" opinions in the blink of an eye and (because of their ability to influence people due to everybody's obsession with watching TV) totally make JC out to be the devil incarnate!!!! You know, I'm not a bible basher/preacher but, the phrase from the good book that says "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" certainly comes to mind !!! I'm quite sure there are good things to focus on with regard to JC other than the bad things that the manipulative, brainwashing government controlled press would have you concentrate on.
I hate politics/politicians but unfortunately we have them in our lives whether we like it or not and, for crying out loud, wake up and smell the coffee here - we are all pawns for the politicians and their use of character assassination by any type of manipulation possible via any means. It wouldnt matter who was in government, in opposition or whatever, we'd all be bickering and squabbling like stupid kids in the playground because we're all (for some stupid reason) unable to reason with the fact that propaganda is used for a purpose!!!!! If the politicians, media and the whole circus that surrounds it had actually told the truth from the word go, we wouldnt all be doing what we're doing. OK, he didn't sing the anthem - so what!! If he had of done, a lot of you would be saying he was a hypocrite!!! YOU CANT WIN NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY OR DO - THE PRESS/MEDIA CAN MAKE LIES LOOK LIKE TRUTH AND TRUTH LOOK LIKE LIES.
Take the fuel strike - I totally agreed with the (reasons for) fuel strike !!!! We are totally ripped off with the price we pay for fuel at the pumps. People (especially the truckers and haulage companys) went on strike because the high price of fuel (due to the greedy high taxes put upon it by the government) and the whole country got behind it - excellent!!! What did the government spin doctors do; (just like they're doing now to JC) the government, via use of every type of media available to them said, that the strike was stopping fuel from getting to hospitals and people were dying because of it. What happened then - everybody turned against the strike, the fuel prices stayed high, the government won because we're all fu<king stupid enough to buy into the government controlled "SPIN" via media manipulation!! Look at fuel now - its still at rediculous prices - the cost of crude oil is at the lowest its been for years - has the price come down - NO!!! The reason for that now - if we lower the price, there will be no money for education, schools and hospitals - WAKE UP EVERYONE!!!! These politicians/partys just fill us full of 5h1t for there own agenda - they dont represent us, (who supposedly elect them to do so) they represent themselves and there own ideals and we just have to hang on for the ride no matter what crap gets dished out to us!!!!
ITS JUST A WASTE OF TIME EVEN TALKING/ARGUING/DEBATING/DISCUSSING/CONVERSING OR ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT IT - YOU JUST END UP FALLING OUT WITH PEOPLE, CREATING ANIMOSITY WHILST THOSE ARROGANT 845T4RD5 SIT BACK AND WATCH US FIGHT/HATE EACHOTHER FOR THEM AND THEIR CAUSE WHILST THEY HAVE CAVIAR, CREAM COFFEES AND RED CARPET SERVICE ALL AT OUR EXPENSE - WHAT DO THEY DO FOR YOU??????? DIVIDE AND CONQUER THE PEOPLE IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY'VE DONE SO WE ARE NOT ONE AND, AS SUCH, WE ARE NOT A MASSIVE ENEMY. WE ARE ALL PRE-OCCUPIED WITH I'M ALRIGHT JACK - FU<K YOU!!!!!
Nice rant, Loz.
Isnt it amazing how the media can, by picking up on the slightest thing (be it big or small (depending on your point of view) manage to "spin" opinions in the blink of an eye and (because of their ability to influence people due to everybody's obsession with watching TV) totally make JC out to be the devil incarnate!!!! You know, I'm not a bible basher/preacher but, the phrase from the good book that says "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" certainly comes to mind !!! I'm quite sure there are good things to focus on with regard to JC other than the bad things that the manipulative, brainwashing government controlled press would have you concentrate on.
Hear, hear - ain't that the truth! :clap:
I also wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments contained in the remainder of your post. Only the weak and gullible allow themselves to be so easily influenced and controlled! Try and create your own 'little island', if you can, and divorce yourself as much as possible from the effects of government brainwashing (and the policies designed to help facilitate it) - that's what we do.
Marco.
.
Take the fuel strike - I totally agreed with the (reasons for) fuel strike !!!! We are totally ripped off with the price we pay for fuel at the pumps. People (especially the truckers and haulage companys) went on strike because the high price of fuel (due to the greedy high taxes put upon it by the government)
So you cut tax on fuel you have to put tax on somewhere else to make up the shortfall. The Government is running a debt not a surplus. Plus they can justify taxing fuel due to the global warming nonsense.
I think most people interested in politics are also able to read between the lines with regard to the media. They also tend to be able to discuss politics without getting emotional about it, so I wouldn't call it squabbling. Indeed I think the government, indeed all politicians, would be quite happy to see ordinary people ignore politics and not talk about it amongst themselves. Discussing it raises awareness of their failings. They don't want that.
Arkless Electronics
16-09-2015, 17:19
It never ceases to amaze me how thick the general public taken as a generic whole actually are.... there seems to be a herd mentality among many which creates a need to agree or rally around/against something as a gullible mass of sheeple. An example, the poor drowned Syrian toddler a week or so ago. Could people not imagine what it is like to be in a sinking boat with people screaming and dying etc until the sight of the toddlers body brought it to them as an epiphany? It seems so... Were air shows perfectly safe until the Hunter crashed a few weeks back? NO! The law of averages says eventually one will crash and people will be killed... But no this comes as a surprise and all of a sudden new safety laws have to be enacted....
People do have a tendancy to assume that things are actually safer than they really are. The more so if they know very little about that thing. It's the reason Marie Curie didn't live to a ripe old age.
StanleyB
16-09-2015, 17:44
Marie Curie was 67 when she passed away. Considering that she handled loads of radioactive material without any protective gear it is a ripe old age to me. Especially for the period in which she lived.
ITS JUST A WASTE OF TIME EVEN TALKING/ARGUING/DEBATING/DISCUSSING/CONVERSING OR ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT IT - YOU JUST END UP FALLING OUT WITH PEOPLE, CREATING ANIMOSITY WHILST THOSE ARROGANT 845T4RD5 SIT BACK AND WATCH US FIGHT/HATE EACHOTHER FOR THEM AND THEIR CAUSE WHILST THEY HAVE CAVIAR, CREAM COFFEES AND RED CARPET SERVICE ALL AT OUR EXPENSE - WHAT DO THEY DO FOR YOU??????? DIVIDE AND CONQUER THE PEOPLE IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY'VE DONE SO WE ARE NOT ONE AND, AS SUCH, WE ARE NOT A MASSIVE ENEMY. WE ARE ALL PRE-OCCUPIED WITH I'M ALRIGHT JACK - FU<K YOU!!!!!
Get off the fence mate, tell us what you really think.
People do have a tendancy to assume that things are actually safer than they really are. The more so if they know very little about that thing. It's the reason Marie Curie didn't live to a ripe old age.
Risk assessment was one of the many tedious things with which I had to grapple at work. Nutshelling it, basically it's about likelihood of risk combined with impact of risk. You don't worry too much about the unlikely risks, however serious the impact (asteroid hitting your building for example) or about reasonably likely risks that are low impact. You focus on the highly likely risks which would have a major impact (and then find you haven't taken account of an unknown known risk that makes all your plans moot).
walpurgis
16-09-2015, 17:57
I agree with Jez. The 'unwashed masses' are ignorant and easily led, even if they are too stupid to realise this. All those mind numbingly crass TV commercials would be a waste of time otherwise. Sentimental reaction spurred by the images of the unfortunate drowned child for instance. There are kids dying and in terrible situations all the time around the world, but this would probably not occur to the thickos. The death of one poor child does not validate the acceptance of the mass migration that is occurring. And not just from Syria, migrants are coming from every 'third world' (and it still is the third world, not 'developing nations') country, just for a slice of The West!
I agree with Jez. The 'unwashed masses' are ignorant and easily led, even if they are too stupid to realise this. All those mind numbingly crass TV commercials would be a waste of time otherwise. Sentimental reaction spurred by the images of the unfortunate drowned child for instance. There are kids dying and in terrible situations all the time around the world, but this would probably not occur to the thickos. The death of one poor child does not validate the acceptance of the mass migration that is occurring. And not just from Syria, migrants are coming from every 'third world' (and it still is the third world, not 'developing nations') country, just for a slice of The West!
It's great that everyone here on AoS is well-educated and not easily led.
Us-&-Them
16-09-2015, 18:04
So you cut tax on fuel you have to put tax on somewhere else to make up the shortfall. The Government is running a debt not a surplus. Plus they can justify taxing fuel due to the global warming nonsense.
I think most people interested in politics are also able to read between the lines with regard to the media. They also tend to be able to discuss politics without getting emotional about it, so I wouldn't call it squabbling. Indeed I think the government, indeed all politicians, would be quite happy to see ordinary people ignore politics and not talk about it amongst themselves. Discussing it raises awareness of their failings. They don't want that.
"So you cut tax on fuel you have to put tax on somewhere else to make up the shortfall. The Government is running a debt not a surplus. Plus they can justify taxing fuel due to the global warming nonsense."
You are correct :) Yes, if they give in one hand, they take with the other - that is the usual strategy, that's why everything becomes pointless because everything is always in their favour and at our expense due to the fact that they make the law/accounts regarding monetary policy, how things are funded etc and, unfortunately we're the stool pigeons who are (due to law) forced cough up for it. It doesn't explain why the price of fuel hasn't come down considering that the crude oil cost has plummeted - hows about passing some of the savings (doesnt have to be huge percentages) on to our own people (like supermarkets and airlines are forced to when they are controlling prices with use of their buying power). I guess the government cant really be challenged strongly except at the ballot box every 4/5 years.
The bankers were running a debt and making hay whilst the sun shone but instead of being forced to close down due to their greed, the bill for the debt they created was passed on to us (by the government) to pay off.............. no matter what the cost!! The government can justify anything (even the passing of the bill to us for the bankers reckless capitalist driven greed) and I get the feeling that they wont balance it out by cutting some tax off the cost of fuel or by making the banks pay off the debt that they created!!!
"I think most people interested in politics are also able to read between the lines with regard to the media. They also tend to be able to discuss politics without getting emotional about it, so I wouldn't call it squabbling."
I think if you look at some of the replies in this thread - I dont think you can deny that emotion has crept into them and I can also see that people have, instead of reading between the lines, gone off on tangents about subjects way off the initial topic (me included) and it has become quite a bit of a squabble (country of origin/traitor/england v scotland v ireland/the inclusion of a union jack on somebodys page) !!!!!
Indeed I think the government, indeed all politicians, would be quite happy to see ordinary people ignore politics and not talk about it amongst themselves. Discussing it raises awareness of their failings. They don't want that."
I totally agree with you :)
walpurgis
16-09-2015, 18:08
Risk assessment was one of the many tedious things with which I had to grapple at work.
In my last office, even the office 'canteen' (kitchen) had a risk assessment pasted up for tea and coffee making. Another pain in the arse was putting together 'method statements', just for the benefit of clients who simply filed them away without a glance.
Us-&-Them
16-09-2015, 18:09
Get off the fence mate, tell us what you really think.
If you cared to read my post - you'd see I have told you what I think quite clearly!! Look at a few posts back from here and I say it - if you cant work out what I think from what I have said and you seriously believe I'm sitting on a fence, then I suggest you better not post on here as you seem to have a problem understanding clearly written concise english. I couldnt have said it any clearer if I tried :(
Think irony, my boy, irony! ;)
Marco.
walpurgis
16-09-2015, 18:15
I couldnt have said it any clearer if I tried :(
You could have used 'bold'. :)
Us-&-Them
16-09-2015, 18:18
You could have used 'bold'. :)
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ......................... BRILLIANT !!!!!!!!!!
Nice one :)
I just give in :scratch:
Us-&-Them
16-09-2015, 18:25
Think irony, my boy, irony! ;)
Marco.
I'm thinking, I'm thinking !! :scratch:
Spectral Morn
16-09-2015, 19:16
So this new labour guy wants to abolish the army :scratch: He wants to put our nuclear weapons away :scratch:
I wonder has he read this http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8845913/russia-war
This is theory, an educated guess, but solid facts under-girds it. A very worrying read.
Regards Neil
Audio Advent
16-09-2015, 19:17
Sentimental reaction spurred by the images of the unfortunate drowned child for instance. There are kids dying and in terrible situations all the time around the world, but this would probably not occur to the thickos. The death of one poor child does not validate the acceptance of the mass migration that is occurring.
You are absolutely right. The death of one poor child does not validate the acceptance of refugees on mass (the image has NOTHING to do with "migration" in the benign sense that the words you use suggest).
To anyone intelligent and curious enough to understand what is happening in Syria, validation for the acceptance of people seeking refuge from that bloodbath will jump out at you from all angles and does not require the photos of a drowned children on the beach.
(Interesting to note that the drowned body of that child's brother is being used to claim that the first image was faked - how sick is that!)
Audio Advent
16-09-2015, 19:35
So this new labour guy wants to abolish the army :scratch: He wants to put our nuclear weapons away :scratch:
I wonder has he read this http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8845913/russia-war
This is theory, an educated guess, but solid facts under-girds it. A very worrying read.
Regards Neil
If you wanted to promote peace in an area dominated by gang violence, wouldn't the first step be to get rid of the weapons in circulation and so lessen the fear, threats, death and resulting retaliation, intimidation and aggression?
Corbyn's reasoning is far deeper than I believe you would be bothered to discover and imagine you're probably comfortable with it that way. A lot of what he has to say is about the absolute promotion of war and violence as nothing more than a money making exercise for what is probably the largest industry in the world. As a result of that promotion and membership requirements to war/arms trade promotion groups (e.g. NATO) we are obliged to spend money on arms and our armies whether the world situation requires it or not. As a result we have an effective Cold War arms race still in place as others then react to our military spending.
What a goddam waste of money - the money we spend on defence actively encourages others to arm and therefore increases the threats to our nation in return (think what a walk-over the the wars we've entered into recently would have been had we not gone crazy promoting military sales in those areas in the preceding decades!) . It's a vicious cycle which, just like the gang violence analogy, has spun out of control. Someone somewhere has to break the cycle ("Oh, but it shouldn't be us who breaks the cycle first! " ) but simply talking about is the first step. Well done to Corbyn for simply getting people talking about it rather than everyone assuming that the status quo is how it should be (for effectively no other reason than it is the status quo..)
walpurgis
16-09-2015, 19:39
I try to avoid a patronising tone myself.
StanleyB
16-09-2015, 19:45
I was under the impression that the government had scrapped most of our air force and large parts of our infantry battalions, left us without an operational aircraft carrier, gave away all of our Harrier jump jets to the US, and scrapped our long range bombers. Did I miss anything? The government is talking about bombing Syria. Well if trident is so important and good as the government makes out, why don't they use a trident missile on Syria? What's the purpose of that weapon and its cost if it can't be used in instances like this?
Now, how is what JC is talking about more fearful than what the government has already been doing?
If you wanted to promote peace in an area dominated by gang violence, wouldn't the first step be to get rid of the weapons in circulation and so lessen the fear, threats, death and resulting retaliation, intimidation and aggression?
Corbyn's reasoning is far deeper than I believe you would be bothered to discover and imagine you're probably comfortable with it that way. A lot of what he has to say is about the absolute promotion of war and violence as nothing more than a money making exercise for what is probably the largest industry in the world. As a result of that promotion and membership requirements to war/arms trade promotion groups (e.g. NATO) we are obliged to spend money on arms and our armies whether the world situation requires it or not. As a result we have an effective Cold War arms race still in place as others then react to our military spending.
What a goddam waste of money - the money we spend on defence actively encourages others to arm and therefore increases the threats to our nation in return (think what a walk-over the the wars we've entered into recently would have been had we not gone crazy promoting military sales in those areas in the preceding decades!) . It's a vicious cycle which, just like the gang violence analogy, has spun out of control. Someone somewhere has to break the cycle ("Oh, but it shouldn't be us who breaks the cycle first! " ) but simply talking about is the first step. Well done to Corbyn for simply getting people talking about it rather than everyone assuming that the status quo is how it should be (for effectively no other reason than it is the status quo..)
Great post, Sam! :thumbsup:
Marco.
Audio Advent
16-09-2015, 19:54
So you cut tax on fuel you have to put tax on somewhere else to make up the shortfall. The Government is running a debt not a surplus. Plus they can justify taxing fuel due to the global warming nonsense.
Where's the evidence that reducing tax on fuel would require making up the shortfall elsewhere? That's linear thinking..
Life and economics are a LOT more complex. The price of fuel increases the cost of doing business, the cost of commerce, the amount of household income taken away from other spending including education investment or life opportunities which would enrich the nation. Those of us who drive pay for fuel many many times over, directly and via the added costs to everything else we buy.
Arguably lowering tax on fuel could help boost the economy and therefore the government would see an INCREASE in revenue over time.
Thats the problem with economics - there are no certainties at all. Most assertions are based entirely on ideology because there is no real proof either way of what will effect what but of course people's confirmation bias kicks in to selectively see the results they believe in.
And so we have austerity too to consider - it is very easy for austerity to end up INCREASING the deficit/total debt of an economy by stunting economic growth which would otherwise have occured had austerity measures not been introduced.
Seriously, all the political posturing and arguments around economics is almost laughable... it's like people drifting on a raft on a stormy sea arguing whether their economic policy is bringing them closer to land or not (i.e. they are not having any effect, no matter what "proof" they pull out of the bag). I guess therefore it's better to work on the basis of general sentiment : nasty versus caring.
One exception to that, I believe, is the banking/finance industry and how the free-market system works - controlling that would be like switching off the storm element of my raft analogy at least and perhaps those people could then begin to paddle on calm waters.
Audio Advent
16-09-2015, 20:01
I try to avoid a patronising tone myself.
I admit my "than I belive you would be bothered to discover" line comes across that way but it was resignation that so many people just stick to the their guns regardless. So hopefully my pessimism is misplaced in Neil's case.
Oldpinkman
17-09-2015, 06:17
Where's the evidence that reducing tax on fuel would require making up the shortfall elsewhere? That's linear thinking..
Life and economics are a LOT more complex. The price of fuel increases the cost of doing business, the cost of commerce, the amount of household income taken away from other spending including education investment or life opportunities which would enrich the nation. Those of us who drive pay for fuel many many times over, directly and via the added costs to everything else we buy.
Arguably lowering tax on fuel could help boost the economy and therefore the government would see an INCREASE in revenue over time.
Life and economics are more complex. But not that complex. And the electorate as a whole understand that. The price of fuel has fallen since the strike by far more than the tax being argued over thanks to the falling (collapsing) price of crude. Diesel locally is now about £1.11 a litre instead of £1.56 then. Where is your evidence of the swelling state coffers on the back of this economic stimulus?
Don't bother. Like I say. Most voters woudlnt be fooled regardless of the extent to which you believe your own propaganda.
Spending without earning enough is fun - run up the mortgage, revalue the house, have another Caribbean holiday. Until the option to re-mortgage disappears, and borrowing costs go from 2% discount for 2 years to 1600% on Wonga. Then you become Greece. Who for all they elected a radical left-wing anti-austerity hard-liner, the minute they actually gave him the keys to the toy cupboard, he found out he needed austerity after all.
Having allowed a left wing labour party to require an IMF bailout once in living memory (for half the electorate) the result of the last election suggests, however frustrated people are in a cyclical (minor) depression, they are not keen to repeat the mistake and emulate Greece this time round.
Spectral Morn
17-09-2015, 07:16
I admit my "than I belive you would be bothered to discover" line comes across that way but it was resignation that so many people just stick to the their guns regardless. So hopefully my pessimism is misplaced in Neil's case.
Presumptuous and rude, but there you go.
I'm intrgued by the proposition that just having an army causes wars. If there were no armies then there would be no wars?
All dogs have four legs. My cat has four legs therefore it is a dog. That is the sort of logic being employed there.
Militarily:
We don't need an aircraft carrier to bomb Syria, we can do it from Cyprus. Will bombing Syria help? Probabaly not.
Trident - the whole point of having a strategic nuclear weapon is deterrant. If you have to commit it then it has failed in its purpose. This is basic strategy that applies to all armed forces not just nuclear - you can achieve your aims without having to commit, just the threat of commitment can be enough to stay the enemy's hand. Give up your army you have no threat of commitment, your enemy then has a free hand to do as he pleases.
We live in the real world, not rainbow lah-lah land and people will come and take what you've got if you are not able/prepared to defend it.
I think some folk get lulled into a false sense of security by the fact that they have lived all their lives in a peaceful, civilised country with Costa Coffee and Waitrose. Most of the rest of the world isn't like that.
I thought Corbyn came across well in PMQ's and in his BBC interview. He clearly has a brain - what a massive contrast compared to Milliband who was, and lets be honest here, a bit of a dunce. One of my brothers met him once when he visited his workplace. An aid came to him before hand and said 'look don't worry if he doesn't appear to understand what you are saying or looks distracted, he has an attention span of about ten seconds.'
Presumptuous and rude, but there you go.
Indeed. If Sam can curb that trait sometimes in his posting style, along with resisting the temptation sometimes to have the last word, then (the IMO) often good points he makes, would not only be better received, but also more effective.
Marco.
Presumptuous and rude, but there you go.
'Oh, well, nobody's perfect'.
Trident - the whole point of having a strategic nuclear weapon is deterrant. If you have to commit it then it has failed in its purpose. This is basic strategy that applies to all armed forces not just nuclear - you can achieve your aims without having to commit, just the threat of commitment can be enough to stay the enemy's hand. Give up your army you have no threat of commitment, your enemy then has a free hand to do as he pleases.
That may be the case, but we've been here before, Martin. If the Tories want Trident so badly, for the very reasons you've just outlined, then why does the submarine base have to reside at Faslane?
The majority of Scots people don't want nuclear arms on their shores, which is partly why they overwhelmingly voted SNP at the last election, nor do they want any part in the increasing number of wars being created by America, which Cameron and the Tories align themselves with, so dump the bloody submarines somewhere on the Thames instead, and have your 'deterrent' there, where it belongs!
The fact is, you don't need to employ a deterrent against attacks, if there is no reason for anyone to attack you.
That's why the sooner that Scotland gains its independence, the better, so that they can leave the warmongering Tories and Yanks to it, divorce themselves completely from UK defence policies (without being lumped in with London, and thus seen as a threat by the ever-growing enemies of the UK and America), and live in peace with themselves and the rest of the world.
Then the "lah-lah land" you cite will very much be the real world for Scotland, once they break away from the UK (and London in particular), and rightfully become a separate (and peaceful) nation.
Marco.
Faslane is used as the base for geographical reasons:
Faslane itself was chosen to host these vessels at the height of the Cold War because of its geographic position, which forms a bastion on the relatively secluded but deep and easily navigable Gare Loch and Firth of Clyde on the west coast of Scotland. This position provides for rapid and stealthy access through the North Channel to the submarine patrolling areas in the North Atlantic, through the GIUK gap to the Norwegian Sea
They are not sited in Scotland in order to piss off the Scots.
I'm interested in what you think might have happened in WW2 if Scotland had been an independant neutral with no defences. Would they have been left alone? Or would they have been invaded anyway like the other 'we just want to live in peace' neutrals (the Benelux countries and Norway) and had to live under the Nazis for 5 years until the 'warmongering' English and Americans came along to liberate them?
walpurgis
17-09-2015, 11:18
Popular or not. Although it is much scaled down these days. I'd assume Faslane is of some economic benefit to the region.
There were substantial US and UK military establishments in this area years ago and they certainly boosted local business.
Naturally it is, but they seem to be prepared to sacrifice that in order to implement their 'hide under a big pile of coats and hope the nasty men go away' defensive strategy
Faslane is used as the base for geographical reasons:
Faslane itself was chosen to host these vessels at the height of the Cold War because of its geographic position, which forms a bastion on the relatively secluded but deep and easily navigable Gare Loch and Firth of Clyde on the west coast of Scotland. This position provides for rapid and stealthy access through the North Channel to the submarine patrolling areas in the North Atlantic, through the GIUK gap to the Norwegian Sea
Yeah, if you believe that guff, you're dafter than I thought! ;) What were we just talking about, in terms of government/media brainwashing, and them making us think what they *want* us to think?
The reality is that Faslane was chosen by a self-serving Westminster-controlled government (as it is now, and always has been) to host Trident because of its geographical position, 100s of miles from London, so as not to be an unacceptable and inconvenient burden on the establishment/chinless wonders, who inhabit the south of England.
The attitude of the 'powers that be' at the time was along the lines of: 'Let the Scots have it. They deserve it'. If you don't think there was an element of that in the decision made of where to host Trident (and the establishment protecting their best interests at all costs), then I'm afraid you're allowing your political sensibilities to cloud the reality.
I'm interested in what you think might have happened in WW2 if Scotland had been an independant neutral with no defences. Would they have been left alone? Or would they have been invaded anyway like the other 'we just want to live in peace' neutrals (the Benelux countries and Norway) and had to live under the Nazis for 5 years until the 'warmongering' English and Americans came along to liberate them?
Well, we'll never know, will we? What's gone is gone.
However, these days, I'd rather give any potential enemies the least amount of possible reasons to attack, and as far as Scotland is concerned, removing Trident from Faslane would be a step in that direction. Like I said, let London have it instead, as the warmongering Tories obviously consider it necessary to facilitate their political position, and keep Scotland well out of it.
In general, the Scots seek to make friends with the rest of the world, not enemies [as is evidenced these days whenever they travel abroad], and so when their independence is granted, as one day it surely will, and the country is released from Westminster rule, England's (and America's) enemies will no longer also be Scotland's!
The seemingly insatiable desire of England to rule others (as historically has been the case), and these days side with aggressors, such as America, will eventually be their undoing, which is why Scotland seeks to politically distance itself from them as much as possible.
Marco.
Faslane is used as the base for geographical reasons:
Faslane itself was chosen to host these vessels at the height of the Cold War because of its geographic position, which forms a bastion on the relatively secluded but deep and easily navigable Gare Loch and Firth of Clyde on the west coast of Scotland. This position provides for rapid and stealthy access through the North Channel to the submarine patrolling areas in the North Atlantic, through the GIUK gap to the Norwegian Sea
They are not sited in Scotland in order to piss off the Scots.
I'm interested in what you think might have happened in WW2 if Scotland had been an independant neutral with no defences. Would they have been left alone? Or would they have been invaded anyway like the other 'we just want to live in peace' neutrals (the Benelux countries and Norway) and had to live under the Nazis for 5 years until the 'warmongering' English and Americans came along to liberate them?
Hey your not getting away with that...!!!!... We Scots are as war mongering as anyone :eyebrows:
Ali Tait
17-09-2015, 12:01
Awanboilyerheid.
The reality is that Faslane was chosen by a self-serving Westminster-controlled government (as it is now, and always has been) to host Trident because of its geographical position, 100s of miles from London, so as not to be an unacceptable and inconvenient burden on the establishment/chinless wonders, who inhabit the south of England.
.
That would be why those same establishment/chinless wonders allowed the US to base nuclear weapons at Greenham Common, a mere 50 miles from London.
Well, I guess that they have to make an effort now and then not to be complete bastards! ;)
Marco.
Yeah, if you believe that guff, you're dafter than I thought! ;) What were we just talking about, in terms of government/media brainwashing, and them making us think what they *want* us to think?
The reality is that Faslane was chosen by a self-serving Westminster-controlled government (as it is now, and always has been) to host Trident because of its geographical position, 100s of miles from London, so as not to be an unacceptable and inconvenient burden on the establishment/chinless wonders, who inhabit the south of England.
.
Read up on how Submarine and Anti-submarine warfare works and then come back and tell me if that is still what you think.
And how is it a burden on Scotland? Yes it would be/was a first strike target for the Soviets. But so was Crewe in Cheshire (major railway junction), Burtonwood AFB and Seaforth container base (on Merseyside) since it was a major entry point for Amercain reinforcements under the REFORGER plan. That's four nukes coming down in a 200 mile square chunk of NW England alone.
They should have moved them to Scotland too. Probably they were planning to do that when the Berlin Wall came down, the bastards.
I'd like to know who all these enemies of the English are that you don't want any part in fighting. At the moment I can only think of radical Islam. And they have no serious military capability. Who else is there?
Where i stay it wouldnt matter as Grangemouth is not far as the crow flies and would be a first strike target anyways. I still dont see why we need to update them at such a cost ...its as said just a bit of stick shaking and of course if the French have them then we have to. As for getting invaded if we dont have them....Irrellevent of upsetting the Americans by not having them they wont let a foreign power take control of the UK...Far too strategic.
Sure their vast cost could be better used
Read up on how Submarine and Anti-submarine warfare works and then come back and tell me if that is still what you think.
I read up on many things in relation to how 'the establishment' seeks to influence and control us, usually where the information is unlikely to have been designed to brainwash or manipulate the reader.
The reason why governments create and prolong warfare is because it makes vast sums of money (in sales of arms, etc) for 'the establishment', who in reality control the world. The rest of us are simply disposable pawns in their desire to obtain evermore wealth and power. *That* is how it is. And how you choose to deal with that fact, is up to you.
Anyway, Martin, our views on these types of subjects (as we've discovered before) are diametrically opposed, so I have no wish to enter a circular (and ultimately fruitless) debate with you here. I simply popped in to offer some thoughts.
Therefore, unless I have anything further that I feel I should add, I shall return to talking about hi-fi! ;)
Marco.
Where i stay it wouldnt matter as Grangemouth is not far as the crow flies and would be a first strike target anyways. I still dont see why we need to update them at such a cost ...its as said just a bit of stick shaking and of course if the French have them then we have to. .
Sure their vast cost could be better used
The Sir Humphrey school of thinking which is that we need nuclear weapons to protect us from the French, not the Russians... ;)
Yes, it is expensive for something that will never get used, or would only be used at the 'End of the world.' Would we be better of scrapping it and spending the money elsewhere (or not spending it at all since technically it is all borrowed at the moment)?
I'm in two minds about that, always have been.
Spectral Morn
17-09-2015, 13:53
Those who feel that we are not on the brink go read this and then come back and comment about the validity of disarmament http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8845913/russia-war
It would be wonderful if we could all take our swords and beat them into ploughshares but that is fantasy land - at least until the Lord comes back.
Regards Neil
walpurgis
17-09-2015, 14:37
As for getting invaded if we dont have them....Irrellevent of upsetting the Americans by not having them they wont let a foreign power take control of the UK...Far too strategic.
Sure their vast cost could be better used
Some may consider invasion by the US a possibilty. Just supposing for one daft moment, that Corbyn's Labour got elected and the result of radical leftist policies was that all US military interests were ousted from here and anywhere else in UK held territory. That would certainly prompt a serious reaction.
Furthermore. There is a hell of a lot going on in Russia that we seem to be carefully not told about. Putin and his thugs are a threat to all of The West.
walpurgis
17-09-2015, 14:48
I see Neil has referred to something similar.
Spectral Morn
17-09-2015, 15:41
I see Neil has referred to something similar.
Indeed and it makes a very worrying read.
Regards Neil
We take 4,000 [p/a] Germany take 800,000 - wonder if their threat level of a terrorist attack is now 200 times higher than ours -and getting bigger
Those who feel that we are not on the brink go read this and then come back and comment about the validity of disarmament http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8845913/russia-war
It would be wonderful if we could all take our swords and beat them into ploughshares but that is fantasy land - at least until the Lord comes back.
Regards Neil
Well, strictly speaking, we should beat them into ploughshares any way, and all become pacifists, as the Lord recommended. That was partly what got the early Christians into hot water with the Romans; they refused to do their military service. But AFAIK it's only the Quakers who still follow the 'turn the other cheek' advice these days.
walpurgis
17-09-2015, 16:32
We take 4,000 [p/a] Germany take 800,000 - wonder if their threat level of a terrorist attack is now 200 times higher than ours -and getting bigger
Probably.
I predict that that there will be more terrorist attacks and more often and no doubt they will become more sophisticated and aimed at possibly more strategically worthwhile (from their point of view) targets and probably with higher body counts. An increasing number of terrorist attacks of severe nature across Europe and of course here, will produce a backlash. There will undoubtedly be a rise of the right in politics and social/national standpoints, resulting in the singling out of ethnic groups seen as responsible, or unpopular or just unwanted and undesirable. It will be troubled times, but the way things are going, inevitable. Shades of pre WW2 Europe.
The Sir Humphrey school of thinking which is that we need nuclear weapons to protect us from the French, not the Russians... ;)
Yes, it is expensive for something that will never get used, or would only be used at the 'End of the world.' Would we be better of scrapping it and spending the money elsewhere (or not spending it at all since technically it is all borrowed at the moment)?
I'm in two minds about that, always have been.
Didnt say scrap it as such. Just dont think its valid to replace it. There is a fair amount of doubt as to wherer it is the deterrant it was for a nation su h as Britain, if it ever was. Pretty unlikely that a PM is going to "push the button" as its called. Even if a country invaded whould he start what was going to be the end of us. Most of the nuclear nations would probably all follow suit just in case something was heading there way. Its a big and mute point.
Perhaps if Britain kept itself from being envolved in policing and in some cases plain invasion of countries that we know little about we would be less likely to be in a state of terror as well.
So no disarmenent but once the newks are past there use then perhaps we should just have a convensional force and try to get on with the countries we dont now.
Think it was touched on b4 that we just dont understand the way they think .
Well if it is not renewed then you might as well scrap it. It is the cost of replacing the boats that is the biggest portion and they don't last forever. They are built in the UK so that would mean the likely closure of Barrow and the loss of the ability to make our own nuclear powered subs.
Really you might as well get rid of everything and just have a token force if we are going down the 'if we don't bother anyone no-one will bother us' route. I'm guessing that will be the meat of Corbyn's vision if not his declared policy.
But can we just drop out of world politics like that? Become like Denmark or Norway? There would surely be unintended consequences.
Perhaps if Britain kept itself from being envolved in policing and in some cases plain invasion of countries that we know little about we would be less likely to be in a state of terror as well.
Quite!
Marco.
and ,God forbid ,the worst did happen ,and I was in a position too, I would help the best I could.At this moment in time I am not at Defcon 3 ,nor am I Chicken Licken .
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9637452/why-ive-finally-given-up-on-the-left/
When you've run out of redtop guff to (re)post about Corbyn you can always try this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/15/anti-jeremy-corbyn-headline-generator_n_8139768.html
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That is funny.
But I wouldn't worry too much about the media as much, not at this stage. Look at Brown. The media didn't kill him he did it himself. Cameron has hardly been anyone's darling. He is like soft porn. People who don't like porn don't like it. People who do like porn don't like it. But, nevertheless, it persists. As with Cameron, left wingers don't like him and right wingers don't like him. And he has never had a good headline. But he got elected.
"Jeremy Corbin will kidnap your savings"
"Jeremy Corbin will defecate on William and Kate"
:):):)
"Jeremy Corbin will defecate on William and Kate"
Wish he would - and from a great height... Or more specifically, the brainless idiots who fawn all over them!
Marco.
What's the problem with William and Kate?
I wouldn't say I would fawn ove rthem but I think the younger royals are pretty good on the whole.
walpurgis
18-09-2015, 15:05
They are a pampered waste of space.
Spectral Morn
18-09-2015, 15:06
"Jeremy Corbin will kidnap your savings"
"Jeremy Corbin will defecate on William and Kate"
:):):)
Will steal the Dr's Tardis and go back and kill Maggie Thatcher :eek:
These characters past unterances and associations are very much haunting them now and apologies with qualifications ring very hollow.
Regards Neil
What's the problem with William and Kate?
I wouldn't say I would fawn ove rthem but I think the younger royals are pretty good on the whole.
They're better than most elected heads of state, that's for sure.
They are a pampered waste of space.
Active service in Afghanistan? Hardly what I would call pampered. They all come over as well-balanced with a good outlook - much preferable to Charles, I don't have much time for him at all.
walpurgis
18-09-2015, 15:22
Well you'd hardly expect me to change my 'anti everything' stance, now would you? ;) :)
walpurgis
18-09-2015, 15:24
They're better than most elected heads of state, that's for sure.
Better at what? :scratch:
Not being total bastards?
They're better than most elected heads of state, that's for sure.
Not when you're anti the whole outdated nonsense of 'royals' in the first place - and the ridiculous 'hoo-hah' created every time one of them pops out a sprog! ;)
Marco.
Better at what? :scratch:
Better at not being Berlusconi, for a kick-off.
walpurgis
18-09-2015, 16:46
Better at not being Berlusconi, for a kick-off.
He's a better comedy act!
Indeed - especially his lovely brown hair, at the ripe old age of 78! :D
Total knob :wanker:
Marco.
Oldpinkman
18-09-2015, 21:35
Did anyone watch the rugby world cup opening ceremony and first game. I wouldn't want to intrude on anybodies festival of self pity or whining but it was good to see some aspiration, self belief and achievement. Happily most of the country believes in that.
Nope;) I take it Angleterre won
I wouldn't want to intrude on anybodies festival of self pity or whining but it was good to see some aspiration, self belief and achievement.
Lol! :eyebrows:
Missed the rugby, unfortunately. However, I'll all for (healthy) aspiration, for the right reasons, and championing self-belief and achievement. I've also always believed in celebrating success and (legally/morally earned) wealth, and praising winners.
However, I also seek fairness and equality too, when appropriate, and I see way too much selfishness and greed in this world, with everyone looking after 'No1' (especially the fat cats and 'the establishment'), regardless of how it affects others living outside of their 'little bubble' - and *something* needs to be done about it.
Marco.
Did anyone watch the rugby world cup opening ceremony and first game. I wouldn't want to intrude on anybodies festival of self pity or whining but it was good to see some aspiration, self belief and achievement. Happily most of the country believes in that.
No, but I just watched three episodes of Malcolm in the Middle, and now everything sounds as if it should have, like, a rising inflexion?
walpurgis
19-09-2015, 09:20
No, but I just watched three episodes of Malcolm in the Middle, and now everything sounds as if it should have, like, a rising inflexion?
That was a great series, with some seriously loony moments. One of America's better efforts at slightly off the wall humour. The mum was formidable!
Audio Advent
22-09-2015, 18:36
Probably.
I predict that that there will be more terrorist attacks and more often and no doubt they will become more sophisticated and aimed at possibly more strategically worthwhile (from their point of view) targets and probably with higher body counts. An increasing number of terrorist attacks of severe nature across Europe and of course here, will produce a backlash. There will undoubtedly be a rise of the right in politics and social/national standpoints, resulting in the singling out of ethnic groups seen as responsible, or unpopular or just unwanted and undesirable. It will be troubled times, but the way things are going, inevitable. Shades of pre WW2 Europe.
Other way around - right wing politics comes about due to the economic crisis (which was in effect caused by right-wing neo-liberal economic ideologies). In response to right wing politics and right wing and imperialist foreign policy (which we've endured for the last 30 years) we have and will have increased terrorist threats.
Your first point is a truism - of course there will be more terrorist attacks. For there not to be would require the ending of all terrorism everywhere forever!
That they will become more frequent is an effective truism too in the West seeing as we have had hardly any at all - one in the UK in 10 years if not more than 10. But I really don't think we will have more than we had in the IRA era. Lee Rigby murder was not a terrorist attack - it was a hate crime murder. Breivik in Norway WAS intended to be a terrorist attackas stated by him - yet somehow it is considered to be just a mass murder, perhaps because he was christian and white?
So again the actual numbers are nothing but semantics and what people want to classify as terrorism to justify their own ideological motives and actions, including those of war mongering for economic gains.
Audio Advent
22-09-2015, 19:55
Here's a good article in the Guardian about the housing bubble and it applies to the UK (is about the Australian housing bubble and crisis). Debunks the idea that it is simply about supply and demand (therefore you increase supply) but more about right wing neo-liberal economics and the proping up of the banking industry. Governments pushing for more house ownership and encouraging yet more private household debt (and therefore banking profits) to stop the bubble popping is just feeding a massive crisis in the future.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/22/turnbull-and-morrison-must-fix-the-housing-crisis-before-the-bubble-bursts
Audio Advent
22-09-2015, 21:13
Here's a good article from an economics professor at Cambridge from 2014 but which in fact comes to the similar conclusions to Corbyn's general economic policies (which are yet to be finalised as Labour policy).
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/19/britain-political-class-tories-economic-fairytale
....
More importantly, this rise in the deficit between 2003 and 2007 was not due to increased welfare spending. According to data from the Office for National Statistics, social benefit spending as a proportion of GDP was more or less constant at about 9.5% of GDP a year during this period. The dramatic climb in budget deficit from there to the average of 10.7% in 2009-2010 was mostly a consequence of the recession caused by the financial crisis.
First, the recession reduced government revenue by the equivalent of 2.4% of GDP – from 42.1% to 39.7% – between 2008 and 2009-10. Second, it raised social spending (social benefit plus health spending). Economic downturn automatically increases spending on many social benefits, such as unemployment benefit and income support, but it also increases spending on things like disability benefit and healthcare, as increased unemployment and poverty lead to more physical and mental health problems. In 2009-10, at the height of the recession, UK public social spending rose by the equivalent of 3.2% of GDP compared with its 2008 level (from 21.8% to 24%).
When you add together the recession-triggered fall in tax revenue and rise in social spending, they amount to 5.6% of GDP – almost the same as the rise in the deficit between 2008 and 2009-10 (5.7% of GDP). Even though some of the rise in social spending was due to factors other than the recession, such as an ageing population, it would be safe to say that much of the rise in deficit can be explained by the recession itself, rather than Labour’s economic mismanagement.
When faced with this, supporters of the Tory narrative would say, “OK, but however it was caused, we had to control the deficit because we can’t live beyond our means and accumulate debt”. This is a pre-modern, quasi-religious view of debt. Whether debt is a bad thing or not depends on what the money is used for. After all, the coalition has made students run up huge debts for their university education on the grounds that their heightened earning power will make them better off even after they pay back their loans.
The same reasoning should be applied to government debt. For example, when private sector demand collapses, as in the 2008 crisis, the government “living beyond its means” in the short run may actually reduce public debt faster in the long run, by speeding up economic recovery and thereby more quickly raising tax revenues and lowering social spending. If the increased government debt is accounted for by spending on projects that raise productivity – infrastructure, R&D, training and early learning programmes for disadvantaged children – the reduction in public debt in the long run will be even larger.
It's the "quasi-religious view of public debt" - a view taken up by the mostly econonically ignorant populace - which gets repeated by parrots who have no understanding of what they are saying. And so people believe what they are told and that austerity and driving down the deficit at all costs is the only thing we should consider doing, despite the reality of the negative effect it will have on the whole of society AND the economy.
It's not much different to keeping the bible in Latin so that normal people couldn't read it and therefore just have to swallow what they're told by the religious powers that be - economic illiteracy is rife, making everyone completely gullible.
Audio Advent
22-09-2015, 21:33
Just in case people don't read the article itself, it concludes:
The country is in desperate need of a counter narrative that shifts the terms of debate. A government budget should be understood not just in terms of bookkeeping but also of demand management, national cohesion and productivity growth. Jobs and wages should not be seen simply as a matter of people being “worth” (or not) what they get, but of better utilising human potential and of providing decent and dignified livelihoods. Ways have to be found to generate economic growth based on rising productivity rather than the continuous blowing of asset bubbles.
Without a new economic vision incorporating these dimensions, Britain will continue on its path of stagnation, financial instability and social conflict.
Exactly what Corbynomics sets out to and in fact is rather sensible whilst Tory economic policy is extremist. The last line ties in nicely with the idea of social conflict as was brought up earlier and how to help avoid it.
Audio Advent
23-10-2015, 15:30
Its a point that isn't understood by those who fail to grasp the concept of how wealth is generated. If you can't bake a cake - you have no cake to share. Regarding "fiscal prudence" we are talking about Greece as the classic example. If Corbyn had been elected to pursue his proposed policies on the back of the last labour government (ie without the respite of the coalition government) I think the UK would have been in Greece's position - but, being outside the euro, without an anxious euro-block to bail us out. So we would have been in need of IMF support - but the misery would have been the same as that suffered by the Greeks. I think it was Abe Lincoln who is (questionably) quoted as saying "you can't help the poor by becoming one of them"
I know this was posted a long time ago.. but I'd like to point out that Greece's problems weren't too bad but made a big deal by being encumbered by the Euro and their inability to manage their own economy by the use of the measures that we in Britain are free to do - currency devaluation to be simplistic about it. Had they been outside the Euro zone and had their own currency, they would have had a recession and be on their way to recovery.
Want to go back further and joining their Eurozone and the natural flow of funds in any fiscal union from manufacturing economies to tourism economies (Northern Europe to Southern Europe) via interest bearing loans from which both sides benefit in the short term and you see a storing up of problems when an external global crisis comes along - the debters can't pay and the lenders can't allow them to default or they'll go under.
From thereon in the dire dire trouble Greece got into after that has been ENTIRELY down to the conditions imposed by the bailouts and the willingness of successive Greek governments to go along with it.
A phrase which will now have resonance in UK politics and was a large factor in the Greek crisis is "Primary Budget Surplus" . Greece was forced to run a budget surplus as Osbourne says he wants to do (but I'm sure it's all hot air and lies) but this very holding on to cash prevents further investment in the economy and actually STUNTS growth. In Greece's case it absolutely destroyed the very fragile recovery they were undergoing yet the troika insisted on higher and higher budgetary surplus causing a collapse in their recovery and the economy got worse and worse.
How you can equate that complex and specific string of events to Britain and it's simple deficit and debt (which is growing faster under the Tory and Coalition governments) is a mystery to me.
Ok, it's not much of a mystery, I have to resign myself to realising that 99% of people don't care to take any interest in the real workings of economies but still manage to have very strong opinions! :rolleyes:
Audio Advent
23-10-2015, 15:34
Oops, I should really look to the end of a thread to see that it's only me left ranting on! :lol:
Damn this forum, taking me back to the last place I looked....
Audio Advent
23-10-2015, 15:49
ummmm Labour, not welcome in my books. This says it all, and how quickly folks seem to forget this sort of thing ' Dear Chief Secretary, I'm sorry to tell you there is no money... kind regards and good luck' Liam Byrne. Disgusting.
Haha... How DARE people have an in-joke, give each other a ribbing!
What WAS disgusting was to deliberately turn that joke around and lie that it was serious and true ! It's the vile kind of tactics that the Tory PR machine uses regularly and I'm constantly surprised by the people who are so easily taken in by it, used and treated like chumps!
Thing is it was true.
I take issue with the basis of the 'borrow to get out of debt' argument. The government is very poor at investing money. It gets poor vslue and wastes money. Their track record is extremely poor. What is required is private investment that doesn't saddle us with more debt. Don't forget we have to pay interest on borrowings. If you chuck 50 billion at various projects you have to be damn sure it will work otherrwise you just made a bad situation worse. In the past this is exactly what has happened.
Haha... How DARE people have an in-joke, give each other a ribbing!
What WAS disgusting was to deliberately turn that joke around and lie that it was serious and true ! It's the vile kind of tactics that the Tory PR machine uses regularly and I'm constantly surprised by the people who are so easily taken in by it, used and treated like chumps!
Trouble is, whether it was intended humorously or not it was substantially true!
Been enjoying Corbyn's approach to PMQ's....
Starting off with introducing public questions into the Chamber, reminding everyone why they are there in the first place...
With Mockery from across the aisle of course...
Then after the nice guy approach....with the recent House of Lords overturn of Tax Credits legislation, going for the Jugular.
"Can the PM guarantee no-one will be worse off after Tax Credit changes next April"?
FIVE TIMES he asked he question, Porky Dave could only return with ever increasingly frustrated sound bites...
After a timely reminder that the Government said pre election they would NOT cut tax credits, Corbyn asked his final question.
Put across as a question from the Public (with much laughter from across the room) he asked AGAIN about Tax Credit changes in April and would one be worse off.
Another non-answer from Cameron.
Honestly, this "quiet man" Corbyn is playing the PM like a fiddle, and he's calmly showing up the Tories for all to see.
I haven't seen anyone do such a masterly rope-a-dope on anyone since the Ali/Foreman fight. :)
Politics is getting interesting again.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.