Our Lord, J.C.

[InsaneApache]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k4tWt41ujM

:smile:

So Jezza is to be the Leader of Her Majesties' Opposition, what do you guys think?

Me? I can hardly wait! Gets popcorn. :mad:

[rory_20_uk]

Risks are too great for my liking - IF he were ever to become PM, he could cause so much damage within 5 years.

The future would be interesting - the other scenario is that Labour get so clobbered that the Tories without an opposition to worry about instantly fracture into 2 or more parties since the only thing that keeps them together is the hatred of Labour.

Labour might of course be wracked by significant internal strife as the whip is withdrawn from people who are not Left wing enough.

Interesting times.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, he's described the death of Bin Laden as a tragedy, refused to condemn the IRA during the troubles (but happy to openly condemn the British Army), advocated a closer relationship with Russia and most recently he has asked for the effective removal of the Royal Prerogative and Orders in Council be making them subject to parliamentary veto.

I think that, in reality, he's less likely to get elected than Michael Foot.

This may cause Labour to fracture, it may cause the Tories to fracture as a knock on, if Labour fractures then the more Centrist section may swallow the Lib-Dems - again.

Interesting times, indeed.

Ironically I think that this shows the corruption of the Unions - they supported "electable" candidates during the 90's which pushed Labour from the Left to the Centre, then they got fed up and supported Ed Milliband, and that was a train wreck, now the voting system has changed and they no longer have control - even had they not supported Corbyn I expect the grass roots would have. The point is, this exposes the gulf between the Labour "establishment" and the actual party en masse.

At least Tory politicians are honest about being a social elite.

[Crandar]

The whole hysteria about Corbyn reminds me the panick of the rednecks over the election of a socialist muslim named Husein, back in 2008.
Relax, Corbyn is not a communist and he isn't going to make your railway company public again.
The future of your train wrecks is safe.

He's very lucky that Blair denounced him, that statement will probably grant him the leadership of the party.

[rory_20_uk]

There isn't the money to nationalise the industries and return to the heyday of the 1970's where british manufacturing was an international joke due to the dire quality and productivity. Unless he were to just print more and buy it up that way.

Markets are very temperamental. If he decides he'll print loadsa money to finance projects that the private sector doesn't want to the Bank of England is therefore under Political control. We could have the rating of the pound falling rather quickly. And given the country mainly does services and has little intrinsic true value creation that is a problem.

If he were to spook the financial sector - which love or hate them brings in a large amount of GDP and are pretty easy to move abroad unlike manufacturing - London's looses critical mass to elsewhere and they might decide they'd rather not return back as now there is critical mass elsewhere.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Well, where would they move it? China? America? (Actually... :clown:)

Regardless of leadership, it is certainly the case that the UK needs to diversify sharply from financial services...

By sharply, I of course mean in the sense of forcefully and coherently, not merely "quickly".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The whole hysteria about Corbyn reminds me the panick of the rednecks over the election of a socialist muslim named Husein, back in 2008.
Relax, Corbyn is not a communist and he isn't going to make your railway company public again.
The future of your train wrecks is safe.

He's very lucky that Blair denounced him, that statement will probably grant him the leadership of the party.

No, he's definitely a communist and like many communist Labour Party members I suspect he was on Russia's payroll in the 1980's. He's also an atheist and a republican - which makes the idea of him leading Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition a bit of a joke.

All the things I indicated in my last post, he said - including refusing to say "I condemn the IRA", he was happy to say the troubles were terrible and everyone was to blame, and to condemn the British Army for Bloody Sunday but he wouldn't say "and I also condemn the IRA".

[Crandar]

No, he's definitely a communist and like many communist Labour Party members I suspect he was on Russia's payroll in the 1980's. He's also an atheist and a republican - which makes the idea of him leading Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition a bit of a joke.

All the things I indicated in my last post, he said - including refusing to say "I condemn the IRA", he was happy to say the troubles were terrible and everyone was to blame, and to condemn the British Army for Bloody Sunday but he wouldn't say "and I also condemn the IRA".
Tsipras was also supposed to belong to the far-left, being the idol of many delluded hippies from Spain to Italy, but he made quite a u-turn, when he grabbed the power. I have a feeling that the same is going to happen with his British version, too.

There isn't the money to nationalise the industries
Proper nationalisations don't warrant compensations.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Tsipras was also supposed to belong to the far-left, being the idol of many delluded hippies from Spain to Italy, but he made quite a u-turn, when he grabbed the power. I have a feeling that the same is going to happen with his British version, too.

Proper nationalisations don't warrant compensations.

Except that Corbyn has never been a popular or influential politician, a minister, or even someone who follows the party whip.

"Between 1997 and 2010, during the most recent Labour Government, Corbyn was the most rebellious of all Labour MPs, regularly defying three-line whips. In the 2005–2010 Parliament alone he defied the whip 238 times, approximately 25% of all votes"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Corbyn

[rory_20_uk]

Nationalising in the "take it all" when one still has a large fiscal deficit and mainly has a service industry is suicide for the country.

~:smoking:

[Kralizec]

British politics went downhill after Lord Sutch left us.

[InsaneApache]

That's it then. He's been endorsed by Hamas. Should be a shoe-in for P.M.

[Husar]

That's it then. He's been endorsed by Hamas. Should be a shoe-in for P.M.

Context: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11840793/jeremy-corbyn-hamas-praise-israel-palestine-conflict.html


"According to his statements, I feel that he could be very close to the Palestinians, the Arabs and to the Muslims. He supports all the right things in the world regarding freedom, justice, dignity, the right of people under occupation to get their national rights.

"If he really became the head of the Labour party, he can make a big change to the image of Britain because people here in Palestine feel that Britain has a historical responsibility, in giving Israel the golden chance of establishing their state on the account of the Palestinian people."

[...]

"In order to be careful. I don't want this word to be used against him," he said. "But we expect him to translate what he said before into actions - to move from words to deeds.

"We expect Mr Corbyn and Britain to change the policy and to understand that the struggle of the Palestinian people against the occupation is fair. And that Hamas is not a terrorist organisation.

[InsaneApache]

Context: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11840793/jeremy-corbyn-hamas-praise-israel-palestine-conflict.html

:laugh4:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hopefully this will cause Labour to split, followed by a major split in the Tories for the reasons that rory says.

Maybe then Britain can get the sort of PR system that will make us feel like we actually have some sort of say in politics.

[Beskar]

There seems to be a drive in British politics for something different, yet at the same time, the establishment wants to maintain a status quo.

Love or hate it, JC as a candidate is better than the cardboard cut-outs he is competing against. Whilst he will most likely lose the next election, him becoming opposition leader will cause a massive shakeup in politics, with either causing a split within the Labour party, and the outcomes of this affecting the other parties. One of them could even be the SNP taking a hard hit as a Corbyn Labour would steal their mandate essentially other than 'independence'.

Also a Corbyn Labour would mean we could realistically see Tim Farron for Prime Minister as he gains the support of the 'Moderates' after those years people laughed at the coalition then think "Oh sh-, they were stopping the Tories from screwing us with these policies".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I do not like Tim Farron, he seems weasley to me and he may be even more of a homophobe than Rhy and I put together*

Beyond that though, the Lib Dems were virtually wiped out in the election and all the credible politicians like David Laws, Vince Cable, and Danny Alexander are out, so they can't really capitalise on past experience unless they all manage to get elected again.

I think that the Lib Dems were hammered because, as a credible party of govvernment they lost the protest vote. The fact that much of the protest vote went to UKIP suggests that people were more interested in the Lib Dems being "different" than in what they actually stood for.


*All Christians are evil, baby eating, child molesting, racist, homophobic sexual deviants.

[Beskar]

I do not like Tim Farron.

I live near enough to his area, and there is seems to be a good reason they all love him (I admit, the Kendal lot are almost spooky in their love for him), even increasing his electoral share last election. He does a lot of involvement in a lot of community.

I am willing to give benefit of the doubt and his views are very palatable. He doesn't fall into the leftist trap of 'lets nationalise everything', nor does he think rampant capitalism is everything.

Also yes, he is a Christian!

[Greyblades]

I dont suppose you know if his area is running a deficit?

[Papewaio]

Well, where would they move it? China? America? (Actually... :clown:)

Regardless of leadership, it is certainly the case that the UK needs to diversify sharply from financial services...

By sharply, I of course mean in the sense of forcefully and coherently, not merely "quickly".

The majority of stock brokers work for multinational companies with desks around the world. So London or Zurich or Hong Kong or Tokyo or Singapore, all destinations that they could be relocated as fast as they could get a business class airfare there and a couple of turrets setup.

[Montmorency]

But in that case, they wouldn't haven't really moved anything other than the commercial premises and contribution toward local sales tax from coffee purchases and the like.

What's really at stake is political leverage, and simply moving an exchange or branch from one city to another reduces that leverage in both the first country and the next.

Financiers can't afford to be too flighty, or the political classes will lose all compunctions against extracting from them. So then what, they all end up crammed on a few islands?

[rory_20_uk]

But in that case, they wouldn't haven't really moved anything other than the commercial premises and contribution toward local sales tax from coffee purchases and the like.

What's really at stake is political leverage, and simply moving an exchange or branch from one city to another reduces that leverage in both the first country and the next.

Financiers can't afford to be too flighty, or the political classes will lose all compunctions against extracting from them. So then what, they all end up crammed on a few islands?

They all have houses. Big houses that often need expensive work done to them to please their trophy wives . And their children go to private schools in the main. And private healthcare. Private gym membership. Expensive restaurants...

They might live pampered lives BUT they tend to use little of the NHS, the school system etc so give loads of money and the crimes they commit they'll continue to do elsewhere.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

What makes it amusing is that one of the driving factors for British focus on its financial sector in the '70s and '80s was that it wanted to benefit from the EEC, but its agricultural and industrial sectors were just too weak...

[Rhyfelwyr]

I would never vote for him because of his baggage but it is true that Britain has to sort its economy out in a much more fundamental way than adjusting spending. We have a fake smoke and mirrors economy, what do we actually make? No wonder we're constantly running a balance of trade deficit. Time to bring back some real industry.

[Greyblades]

We have a fake smoke and mirrors economy

What do you mean fake? It's been workiing for the better part of three decades and it seems to me that a service economy is about as prone to disaster as an industrial one.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What do you mean fake? It's been workiing for the better part of three decades and it seems to me that a service economy is about as prone to disaster as an industrial one.

We basically launder Europe's money - we don't make anything of value.

[rory_20_uk]

We basically launder Europe's money - we don't make anything of value.

Not just Europe's money - we also help launder Russian, Middle Eastern and Far Eastern money in our Financial sector and housing sector - the house prices in the London are a great place to land large amounts of money that won't be frozen if the USA freezes assets as who owns them is so often unclear.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Not just Europe's money - we also help launder Russian, Middle Eastern and Far Eastern money in our Financial sector and housing sector - the house prices in the London are a great place to land large amounts of money that won't be frozen if the USA freezes assets as who owns them is so often unclear.

~:smoking:

The English Premier League: the world's biggest money laundering operation.

[Greyblades]

We basically launder Europe's money - we don't make anything of value.

I get the feeling you are over-simplifying, as one look at wikipedia tells me that we do. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_Kingdom)

Ignoring that, why is this a problem? Finances, services, industry, all these economic sectors are only as valuable as their consumers deem it and when it comes to exports the prosperity they bring are equally vulnerable to outside competetion and uncontrolable forces, so why do you consider industry any more secure?

Or are you arguing that we are over reliant on one sector? That makes much more sense as without diversity we'd be completely gutted should that one dominant sector fail or become obsolete; we'd have nothing subsantial to fall back on and thus collapse.

[Beskar]

JC elected for our sins.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34237564

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, he got over 59% of the vote, and the only people who don't like him are his fellow MP's. This raises the question of who has been selecting these MP's - my understanding is that Labour constituency parties still have the ability to select their own candidates.

So if Corbyn is so awesome how come there aren't more of him in Parliament already?

[InsaneApache]

His shadow cabinet is a wonder to behold!

*gets popcorn*

For the first time in a lifetime of political analysis, I find myself lost for words. Nothing I write can do justice to the calamity that Britain's Labour Party has just inflicted on itself. The best I can do, to give you a sense of the man newly elected as Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, is to summarize some of his opinions.

Jeremy Corbyn is happy to talk to Irish Republican Army men, avowed anti-Semites and Hezbollah militants; but he refuses "out of principle" to talk to the Sun newspaper, a right-wing tabloid.

He campaigns for the national rights of Venezuelans and Palestinians; but he opposes self-determination in Northern Ireland and the Falkland Islands.

He'd like to admit as many Syrian refugees as possible, but is curiously ambivalent about why they became refugees in the first place, telling RT that Assad's chemical attacks may have been a Western hoax.

He is relaxed about Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, but he can't stand the idea of Britain having one.

He says taxpayers should be able to opt out of funding the military, but not out of funding trade unions.

He wants to re-open coal mines that have been uneconomical since the 1960s; yet, oddly, he wants to wean us off fossil fuels.

He can't even unequivocally condemn the Islamic State without adding a "but…" to the effect that America shouldn't have been in Iraq.

He is, in short, happy to ally with any cause, however vile, provided it is sufficiently anti-British and anti-American.

Jeremy Corbyn, whose steady and surprising march to victory runs parallel to Sen. Bernie Sanders' unexpected success in the Democratic presidential race, is a shambling, self-righteous repository of every second-rate, lazy, 1960s Marxist nostrum. And Labour's activists can't get enough of him. They haven't just picked the lowest card in the deck; they have slammed it belligerently on the table, giving Corbyn 59.5 percent of the votes in a four-candidate race. Fifty-nine point five percent for a man who has never held any office, who has spent 30 years rebelling against his party, and whose speaking style makes Ron Paul look like a mesmerising demagogue.

Corbyn's victory speech was a precursor of what is to come. He might have tried to reach out, to be emollient, to reassure voters that not everything they read about him was true. Instead, he ran through some Leftist boilerplate about inequality punctuated by repeated attacks on the media.

His supporters lapped it up, but Labour moderates are in despair. Many of the party's senior figures have already declared that they won't serve under Corbyn, and there is a real chance that they will break away, forming a rival Center-Left party and thus, under Britain's first-past-the-post system, giving the Conservative Party a decade of easy election wins.

The Conservatives, for their part, are understandably jubilant. Too jubilant, indeed. All governing parties need a credible opposition. Without one, they become cocky, complacent and often corrupt.

This may seem a strange thing to say, coming from a Conservative politician, but I feel a real pang of sorrow at the passing of Labour, which has been our chief rival for office these past 90 years.

In truth, we were luckier than many countries in the temper of our leftist party. Across most of Europe, the radical tradition was bloodthirsty and destructive. Leftist parties wanted a revolution which would be complete, as one slogan had it, "only when the last king has been strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

Labour, by contrast, was more concerned with building up the poor than with tearing down the rich. As one of its senior figures put it, the party "owes more to Methodism than to Marxism." It was an astute observation. The Labour Party came out of a broader movement concerned with encouraging self-help among the poor. It had its roots in colliery brass bands, in the temperance movement, in working men's libraries. At its best, it constituted a genuine national movement, and was able, with justice, to refer to itself as "the People's Party."

That story is over now. The People's Party has given up on the People. It lost the last election because most voters, at least outside Scotland, saw it as way too far to the left. Instead of trying to accommodate the concerns of the electorate, it has doubled down, veering completely away from the mainstream and, in effect, inviting voters to like it or lump it.

Here's a sobering statistic. There have been seven Labour leaders since 1976. Six of the seven failed to win a single general election. As for the seventh, Tony Blair, he is now so loathed in his own party that his advice not to back Corbyn contributed, as even Blair admits, to Corbyn's landslide.

Don't worry about Corbyn. The honest, narrow-minded, pious old duffer won't be around long. But spare a thought for the party of Keir Hardie and Clement Attlee. What a wretched way to end.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/u.k.s-left-wing-takes-hard-anti-u.s.-turn/article/2571919

[Beskar]

Apparently an old one-time university friend and one of the local MPs was one of the MPs who backed JC and is jubilant in his success. They didn't get in the cabinet though... Related article pre-result (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/24/cat-smith-jeremy-corbyn-jesus_n_8030630.html)

[rory_20_uk]

Well, he got over 59% of the vote, and the only people who don't like him are his fellow MP's. This raises the question of who has been selecting these MP's - my understanding is that Labour constituency parties still have the ability to select their own candidates.

So if Corbyn is so awesome how come there aren't more of him in Parliament already?

They didn't get chosen by the existing Labour party - the lovely party list system helps throttle democracy.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

As for more of Corbyn in Parliament, there is a number like Diane Abbott, Cat Smith (stealing from conversative incumbent), new shadow chancellor...there is a fair few.
Then there is the left wing SNP just dominating Scotland.

I think as a whole, Media Moguls are definitely gnashing their teeth to paint an alternative picture to reality, and this has contributed in the rise of UKIP, SNP, Corbyn and others not within the circle jerk. Culiminating in different spheres of Politics,"Real Politics "and Street Politics.

[InsaneApache]

Tom and Jerry have been caught stealing war veterans butties. Very council house I'm sure.

That's all folks!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV3u6WOlVIk

[Idaho]

Corbyn regularly has the lowest expense claims of any MP. He votes with his conscience and is not a careerist Blairite. He never sought high office, but it was thrust upon him. He doesn't go in for easy soundbites.

In his first PMQs he raised issues about sky high rents and the desperate state of our mental health services - two issues that politicians of the careerist, one-eye-on-the-focus-groups couldn't give a toss about.

He's up against an incredibly hostile, perhaps even shrill and desperate, press. They are combing over every detail, looking at everything he's ever done and said (the current Tory front bench wouldn't survive 5% of that scrutiny before the coke, whores and tax havens came out). They are extrapolating policy from nothing. Demonising policies like the renationalisation of the railways and getting rid of PPIs in the NHS - both of which are broadly popular among the public.

The usual tricks are at play. Trying to paint him as some pro-Hamas anti-semite, which is nonsense as even cursory research beyond the Murdoch headlines would show. He did indeed publicly champion a negotiated settlement with the IRA about 5 years before the Tory party did just that (in secret of course). Hilariously the Telegraph had a front page story calling him a hypocrite for having no women in the top shadow jobs - while the Telegraph has no women at all on it's 15 strong boardroom.

Good luck to him. He's going to need it. The knives aren't just out, they are being repeated plunged in.

[InsaneApache]

Why should a private company have a quota for women in the boardroom?

That's probably the most misogynist statement I've heard in some time.

[Idaho]

Why should a private company have a quota for women in the boardroom?

That's probably the most misogynist statement I've heard in some time.

They shouldn't have a quota. They also shouldn't have a headline calling Corbyn a hypocrite when they are being monumentally hypocritical.

I won't try and understand how my statement can be misogynist. I suspect you don't know what the word means.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They shouldn't have a quota. They also shouldn't have a headline calling Corbyn a hypocrite when they are being monumentally hypocritical.

I won't try and understand how my statement can be misogynist. I suspect you don't know what the word means.

Let me explain - a quote for the number of women in a given role implies that:

A: Women can't get there on merit.

B: Women are discriminated against and therefore can't get there on merit.

C: Both of the above (surprising what some believe).

Corbyn shouldn't even have defended his pics, he should have just told the media to bog off.

BTW, I don't think the media are being any harsher on him than any other new leader - the Torygraph is obviously trying to knife him but other than that I think he's getting fairly generous coverage.

You point to his expenses, where he has nothing to hide, as rightly being a badge of merit but I can equally point to his links to the IRA or Hamas, or his support for contemporary Russia, and those do raise questions, and possibly more serious ones than billing the taxpayer to have your moat cleaned.

[Pannonian]

Let me explain - a quote for the number of women in a given role implies that:

A: Women can't get there on merit.

B: Women are discriminated against and therefore can't get there on merit.

C: Both of the above (surprising what some believe).

Corbyn shouldn't even have defended his pics, he should have just told the media to bog off.

BTW, I don't think the media are being any harsher on him than any other new leader - the Torygraph is obviously trying to knife him but other than that I think he's getting fairly generous coverage.

You point to his expenses, where he has nothing to hide, as rightly being a badge of merit but I can equally point to his links to the IRA or Hamas, or his support for contemporary Russia, and those do raise questions, and possibly more serious ones than billing the taxpayer to have your moat cleaned.

Doesn't it just say that he's an MP for a constituency close to Westminster? Depending on personal wealth, the further away you are from London, the higher the expenses.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Doesn't it just say that he's an MP for a constituency close to Westminster? Depending on personal wealth, the further away you are from London, the higher the expenses.

He does appear to live a genuinely frugal life, with an allotment and everything.

Mind you, I recall that the Ayatollah was a pious man - who subsequently suppressed democracy in Iran.

One can be simultaneously pious and a monster.

[Idaho]

Nonsense. The press have been screaming from the front pages about him.

Links to the IRA and Hamas? That's nonsense. He has met with numerous groups over decades. He believes in engagement and discussion. According to loony zionist, rabid unionists and right wing media that might count as a "link", but to anyone with a brain it just shows that he's had a long political career.

Like the claim that he said Bin Laden's death was a tragedy. If you actually watch the programme in question, he is talking about the extra judicial killing which he thinks is wrong, that he should have stood trial, saying that the whole situation was tragedy after tragedy. Again, propaganda and smear.

[Brenus]

"BTW, I don't think the media are being any harsher on him than any other new leader - the Torygraph is obviously trying to knife him but other than that I think he's getting fairly generous coverage." :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Really: Less than 24 hours after elections:
16436
and is a Hamas friend as you now twice notice (ignoring btw his explanations), a menace to the state security, IRA sympathiser (?), and ate two sandwiches reserved to the veterans.

[rory_20_uk]

I think that we really need to give him some space to settle in and sort out what it is that he's doing. The muck raking is pathetic - yes he probably should have sun the National Anthem as he must realise he is a figurehead as well as an individual and sometimes that does mean one's own personal views have to come second.

I personally disagree with most of what he believes in but that is no reason to not give him the same fair hearing he allows others - politicians who serve the Polis as opposed to a group of braying children who serve themselves is not the worst thing in the world.

~:smoking:

[Brenus]

Agree. I personally agree with most of what he say, but I want a real possibility to heard him, to know what he want to lead Labour Party. I don't want a new Alexis Tsipras

[Greyblades]

No one's going to answer my previous post?

Ok then.

He campaigns for the national rights of Venezuelans and Palestinians; but he opposes self-determination in Northern Ireland and the Falkland Islands can we get a confirmation on this one?

[Pannonian]

I think that we really need to give him some space to settle in and sort out what it is that he's doing. The muck raking is pathetic - yes he probably should have sun the National Anthem as he must realise he is a figurehead as well as an individual and sometimes that does mean one's own personal views have to come second.

I personally disagree with most of what he believes in but that is no reason to not give him the same fair hearing he allows others - politicians who serve the Polis as opposed to a group of braying children who serve themselves is not the worst thing in the world.

~:smoking:

Politicians who serve the Polis is exactly what a lot of the country dislike.

[Greyblades]

Polis means body of citizens... so some of the people don't like politicians that serve the people?

[Husar]

Polis means body of citizens... so some of the people don't like politicians that serve the people?

Doesn't private TV serve the people? Just look at the results...

[Greyblades]

You're gonna have to explain that one; I don't watch enough TV to know the difference between public and private.

For that matter Britain doesn't technically have public any more. We stopped broadcasting analogue 5 years ago; everything's digital now. Even then some of the best stuff was on the 5 main channels.

[Idaho]

No one's going to answer my previous post?

Ok then.
can we get a confirmation on this one?

I don't imagine I agree with with Corbyn on many topics, however he at least talks like an adult. That all situations are complex and that compromise and dialogue are important. That you can't just have a single soundbite that then applies to every situation.

I think, fundamentally, he is in favour of peace, engagement, dialogue and compromise. He is not strident, he is not dogmatic. That doesn't really fit with the politics by soundbite/headline approach of our age. I am supportive of him just for that alone. It's time politics grew up. That it wasn't defined by the vested interests of media barons, who's desires are then badly implemented and expressed by tabloid headline writers.

[Idaho]

Tom and Jerry have been caught stealing war veterans butties. Very council house I'm sure.

That's all folks!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV3u6WOlVIk

Jeez - a Guido Fawkes link from Sky News? Like fascism sponsored by Coca Cola.

[Greyblades]

I don't imagine I agree with with Corbyn on many topics, however he at least talks like an adult. That all situations are complex and that compromise and dialogue are important. That you can't just have a single soundbite that then applies to every situation.

I think, fundamentally, he is in favour of peace, engagement, dialogue and compromise. He is not strident, he is not dogmatic. That doesn't really fit with the politics by soundbite/headline approach of our age. I am supportive of him just for that alone. It's time politics grew up. That it wasn't defined by the vested interests of media barons, who's desires are then badly implemented and expressed by tabloid headline writers.

Given the choice I would rather have a duplicitous, lying media slave politician who might do what I think is the right thing over an independent straight talking and honest one that definitely wont.

I'm hoping he'll be a good opposition leader and try to keep the Tories worse proclivities in check, however if he's really such an idiot as to want to impose foreign rule over British citizens out of some delusion of fair compromise, let alone give up the ultimate defense of the realm over some hippy ideal, then I don't want him anywhere near a majority government.

But of course I am not so eager to take a biased source at face value, so I'll wait on that confirmation.

[Pannonian]

Polis means body of citizens... so some of the people don't like politicians that serve the people?

Mea culpa, I thought it meant city.

[Pannonian]

In the grand scheme of things I would rather have a duplicitous, lying media slave politician who might do what I think is the right thing over an independent straight talking and honest one that definitely wont.

In the mean time I'll wait on that confirmation.

If I had to choose between a principled government and a clever government, and the two were mutually exclusive, I'd choose the clever government every time. Politicians aren't there to be good and noble. They're there to (attempt to) govern the country well.

[Greyblades]

Mea culpa, I thought it meant city.

You are also correct.

Polis (/ˈpɒlɨs/; Greek: πόλις [pólis]), plural poleis (/ˈpɒleɪz/, πόλεις [póleːs]) literally means city in Greek. It can also mean citizenship and body of citizens.

My understanding of polis came from it's use in "policeman" which as the late Terry Pratchett often emphasized had an intended meaning of "man of the people"

[Husar]

You're gonna have to explain that one; I don't watch enough TV to know the difference between public and private.

For that matter Britain doesn't technically have public any more. We stopped broadcasting analogue 5 years ago; everything's digital now. Even then some of the best stuff was on the 5 main channels.

Isn't the BBC public? I thought they locked me out of their app based on the argument that only British taxpayers pay for the program.
As for the content, at least in Germany the public ones show mostly reality tv shows during the day, which apparently represent the best relation between low production costs and what the public wants to see. I would personally not classify that as quality entertainment for enlightened individuals, but maybe I'm elitist. I do however wish that our school system would produce only enlightened individuals.

[Gilrandir]

Isn't the BBC public?
AFAIK, it is headed by the board of trustees appointed by the British government.

[Husar]

AFAIK, it is headed by the board of trustees appointed by the British government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

It says the owner is the British public, so there we go.

[InsaneApache]

I own it? News to me. If I refuse to pay the BBC 'tax' then they will send me to prison. Doesn't sound like I own it at all!

[Greyblades]

...let's just ignore that I forgot the status of the BBC and get to the part where I point out that the BBC produces a lot of quality entertainment that makes the stereotype of shit public TV unfamiliar to me.

[Pannonian]

...let's just ignore that I forgot the status of the BBC and get to the part where I point out that the BBC produces a lot of quality entertainment that makes the stereotype of shit public TV unfamiliar to me.

The best overseas documentaries are the ones that remind me of the BBC. I'm not an atheist only because I worship at the church of David Attenborough.

[Gilrandir]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

It says the owner is the British public, so there we go.

Where I read that



The BBC is a corporation, independent from direct government intervention, with its activities being overseen by the BBC Trust (formerly the Board of Governors).

The Trust sets the strategy for the corporation, assesses the performance of the BBC Executive Board in delivering the BBC's services, and appoints the Director-General.

and that



The Royal Charter establishes that the Trust should have twelve trustees, including a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman and a member for each of the Home Nations of the United Kingdom. Appointments to the BBC Trust are made by Queen in Council, on the recommendation of UK government ministers.


Whoever might own it, the government has a say in determining its politics and appointing its management.

[Husar]

I own it? News to me. If I refuse to pay the BBC 'tax' then they will send me to prison. Doesn't sound like I own it at all!

What if you don't pay the tax for your car? Does that mean you don't own your car or your house either?
You own it because you pay for it, you could even say that the state guarantees your ownership BECAUSE you pay your taxes.
If the state does not get sufficient taxes, it cannot guarantee any ownership and guaranteeing ownership is one of the major functions of a working government as it allows business to happen. So unless you do not want to be a British citizen anymore because you do not like the common policies you and the other citizens and the ancestors you are probably proud of voted for, there is no reason to complain. ~;)


...let's just ignore that I forgot the status of the BBC and get to the part where I point out that the BBC produces a lot of quality entertainment that makes the stereotype of shit public TV unfamiliar to me.

That was my point somewhere, that I think it is just a stereotype. Yes, public TV in Germany does not produce great TV in general, but I find they do produce at least higher quality news. The private channels may have the higher quality TV series but their news often seem more sensational and in between they also show a lot of low quality reality TV. PBS in the US also seems to produce high quality documentaries etc. while the same can apparently not be said about national geographic or the history channel anymore unless you count men getting eaten by snakes and pulled out again or samurai vs. pirate analyses as high quality documentaries.
That's not to say that there aren't some good private shows, but apparently there is also a lot of money in cheap sensational shows, especially when it comes to "infotainment".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Point - in Colonial America slaves paid for their food and lodging - they never got any wages at the end of the month.

So, while you point may not be entirely wrong you example is invalid.

-1o Internets.

[Husar]

Point - in Colonial America slaves paid for their food and lodging - they never got any wages at the end of the month.

So, while you point may not be entirely wrong you example is invalid.

-1o Internets.

¿Qué?

¿What do slaves have to do with people voting for politicians?

[Idaho]

Corbyn is attacked for not going to the rugby world cup opening ceremony along with a host of tory freeloaders as he had a prior engagement.

And his prior engagement was....? Meeting constituents and helping to sort out problems..ie his job.

[Montmorency]

What, he couldn't meet his constituents at the rugby match? And he calls himself an ENGLISHMAN?

[Idaho]

Corbyn also is much less likely to have ****** a *** than Cameron.

[InsaneApache]

Now we know why Milliband struggled with his bacon butty........eeewwwww

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

¿Qué?

¿What do slaves have to do with people voting for politicians?

Simply payinf for something doesn't mean you own it - even in a democracy.

[Greyblades]

Corbyn also is much less likely to have ****** a *** than Cameron.

Greased a pig?
Milked a cow?
Partook a fig?
Owned a pit?
Watered a Yew?
Eaten a rib?
Pleased a fan?

The suspense is killing me.

[Montmorency]

Simply payinf for something doesn't mean you own it - even in a democracy.

Well, do we have to?

It's another conceptual or even metaphysical question - what sort of ownership is he referring to, and what is the nature of ownership in general?

:hide:

[Gilrandir]

Greased a pig?
Milked a cow?
Partook a fig?
Owned a pit?
Watered a Yew?
Eaten a rib?
Pleased a fan?

The suspense is killing me.

Pleased a cow it is.

[Slyspy]

Greased a pig?


So close!

[Greyblades]

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/020/251/6cb.jpg

[Beskar]

Corbyn is attacked for not going to the rugby world cup opening ceremony along with a host of tory freeloaders as he had a prior engagement.

And his prior engagement was....? Meeting constituents and helping to sort out problems..ie his job.

Will Corbyn encourage you to vote in the next election?

[Idaho]

Will Corbyn encourage you to vote in the next election?

I probably would vote for Corbyn. He has talked about greater democratisation.

[rory_20_uk]

Oh Good! More Power To The People!

When has that concept ever failed...? Let's hope we are not the next Greece or Venezuela which such great ideas as raising everyone's wage, purchasing loads of land and then building houses on them and then loosing money on the whole project

I would like to see greater democratisation at a local level where what people want is frankly less dangerous and more relevant - removing party affiliation from all local councils so there is more chance they are chosen on what they do not which party they are from.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

Oh Good! More Power To The People!

When has that concept ever failed...? Let's hope we are not the next Greece or Venezuela which such great ideas as raising everyone's wage, purchasing loads of land and then building houses on them and then loosing money on the whole project

I would like to see greater democratisation at a local level where what people want is frankly less dangerous and more relevant - removing party affiliation from all local councils so there is more chance they are chosen on what they do not which party they are from.

~:smoking:
I am not saying that Corbyn couldn't make catastrophic mistakes. Of course he could. But I think randomly making up what those mistakes could be is nonsense.

I am very much in favour of local democracy and the removal of formal party structure at that level.

[rory_20_uk]

I'm not choosing things at random. These are areas that he has already indicated he'd like to change. Of course he might well "clarify" what he meant as time passes - especially if his MPs are not prepared to remain the party of opposition for ever as he might in fact not mind in the least. He might be an idealistic humble individual who puts being right above power - but I imagine that the vast majority of MPs are there for the power and all the trappings that go along with it.

He's talked of nationalising the trains. That either directly or indirectly costs a lot
He has talked about nationalising the other "key" services such as water / electricity / gas. Doing this is probably impossible so we might get more oversight.
He has already frequently talked about the inadequacy of housing and especially social housing (apparently poor people need to live in London - although better off people such as myself couldn't afford to do so). So this again would require some sort of public works programme. Assuming the at the workers want to be paid this too would cost.

I would like local politicians to be focused on local issues ,with the lower house linked to a degree to them since of course they bridge the local issues with National issues. I would rather the upper house was more of a grouping of specialist technocrats drawn from the best in all the fields with prior membership of the lower house or significant donation to a political party being almost an absolute exclusion criteria.

I would also like to win the Euro millions and to have a hareem of perpetually beautiful women.

Frankly the second wish list has more chance of happening.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

Nationalising the railways is a good idea. The privatisation experiment hasn't worked. I was speaking to a railtrack middle manager last weekend. The train companies get payments when their services can't be run due to track and schedule issues. Sounds fair yes? Ok, can you guess what the rail companies do? They calculate parts of the schedule where it would be impossible to run a train so they can schedule one one and claim the money. They are called ghost trains and all the train companies schedule them. Consequently there is a lively (and naturally lucrative) trade for lawyers. Market efficiency!

[InsaneApache]

They calculate parts of the schedule where it would be impossible to run a train so they can schedule one one and claim the money. They are called ghost trains

Nope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_train

An act of Parliament from the 19th century.

[Idaho]

I think that is a separate phenomenon with the same name.

[rory_20_uk]

I don't care who owns things - private or state - I just want them to work British Rail was not a fantastic system either.

The main issue is that unlike the companies that formed in the first place before nationalisation were geographic entities that owned everything. Splitting into different ones that own different bits is madness.

Private companies are bad as they have to make profits. Public companies are bad since they don't (and hence stagnation, lack of innovation and cronyism is often the problems) and how for example a private hospital can make money from doing an operation whereas a NHS hospital can not.

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/020/532/659.jpg

[Idaho]

Strange how Cameron the student pot head is resolutely in favour of locking up young people caught with cannabis, yet Corbyn, who has never done any drugs, is against ruining the lives of the same young people.

[Beskar]

Private companies are bad as they have to make profits. Public companies are bad since they don't (and hence stagnation, lack of innovation and cronyism is often the problems) and how for example a private hospital can make money from doing an operation whereas a NHS hospital can not.

~:smoking:

Sorry Rory, I got to cut in here what you just said is a misnomer. The reason the NHS cannot make 'a profit' is not because the private is better, it frankly isn't, as the NHS does it for significantly cheaper, but because money for NHS is paid upfront from taxes, and is providing a service, whilst the private will charge an individual for a service at above the cost of service. The profit in this regard 'cannot make a profit' but we as members of society do get our 'profit' in terms of having good quality healthcare which is essentially 'free' at use and don't need to worry about getting slapped with £50000 bill for a couple of days in A&E after an accident like in the USA.

[Husar]

What stops one from rewarding innovation in a non-profit system? The reward for the doctor is just another expense and not a profit. Research costs are not profit. The only thing that won't happen is that the system needs to cater to investors (sometimes perhaps even the pension funds of the patients...) who have their own ROI in mind instead of what's best for the patients.

[rory_20_uk]

Sorry Rory, I got to cut in here what you just said is a misnomer. The reason the NHS cannot make 'a profit' is not because the private is better, it frankly isn't, as the NHS does it for significantly cheaper, but because money for NHS is paid upfront from taxes, and is providing a service, whilst the private will charge an individual for a service at above the cost of service. The profit in this regard 'cannot make a profit' but we as members of society do get our 'profit' in terms of having good quality healthcare which is essentially 'free' at use and don't need to worry about getting slapped with £50000 bill for a couple of days in A&E after an accident like in the USA.

Never said the private sector is better. Private hospitals are doing many operations on NHS patients for NHS tarrifs. Is that because they suddenly have a change of heart and are doing work pro bono? That this is some clever PR ruse? No - they can make a profit on the elective surgery by doing things more efficiently than the NHS does.

How?

Depends on the hospital . But some things I have seen

NHS in an NHS hospital the entire theatre staff bieng paid until 8.30pm at night when all elective surgery finished at 5.30 - yes of course there needs to be facilities for emergency surgery - but identical numbers of staff as during the day? No one had noticed that this was happening for years. No one cared.

The theatre stopped working for several hours since they were short of a porter to get the next patient down - so about 10 people twiddle their thumbs for a few hours.

Get this level of wastage happening on a regular basis and guess what? The cost per completed operation goes up. Others who manage to employ enough porters to ensure the extremely expensive theatres are working to capacity get through more work.

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

What stops one from rewarding innovation in a non-profit system? The reward for the doctor is just another expense and not a profit. Research costs are not profit. The only thing that won't happen is that the system needs to cater to investors (sometimes perhaps even the pension funds of the patients...) who have their own ROI in mind instead of what's best for the patients.

From experience - the ethos of the system. Everyone has nice big final salary pensions. There isn't anything to gain from thinking outside the structure and there is a risk of not getting one's statutory promotion for time served.

Who in a hospital has what is best for the patient in mind? Everyone wants to get paid and get home with as little grief as possible. Whistle blowers can have their career wrecked for decades. Reporting a mistake is an admission of guilt. Keep one's head down and take the pay.

There's no need to attract patients - they have no choice but to go to the hospital regardless of what state it is in - many areas there is no other hospital and the good ones often have no ability or desire to expand. If you go bust the central government will wave a magic wand all all the debts disappear and things continue as before.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

Never said the private sector is better. Private hospitals are doing many operations on NHS patients for NHS tarrifs. Is that because they suddenly have a change of heart and are doing work pro bono? That this is some clever PR ruse? No - they can make a profit on the elective surgery by doing things more efficiently than the NHS does.
This is to cover the demand needed to run private surgeries, so they take work at cut-price because they can get something for it and as you said yourself, the solve private sector thumb twiddling by having people to operate on during a lull. There is even the reverse happening where BUPA rents out NHS surgeries at higher than NHS costs to get their clients seen during said lull periods.

The same even happens in Nursing Homes, private homes charge twice the rate for private funded, but they take on council funded clients to make up numbers because having lower paid in beds is better than having 5 empty beds. It is the same line of thought.

It is economics. They only accept the work because they have to and it isn't simply for massive profits.

[rory_20_uk]

They have to??!? An operating theatre is a room with some equipment in it. The main costs are the staff. If they have no work they'll not have the staff. NHS contracts going to private hospitals is relatively recent. The private hospitals were profitable before this ever started.

The private hospitals are good at finding ways of making more profit such as taking contracts for NHS work as opposed to doing nothing and idly sit around which is what the NHS is good at doing since no one can be bothered to try and do anything better. But if there was no money in it they'd just not have operations being performed.

The money nursing homes get from the council is decreasing in real terms for years. Many would go to the wall without fleecing private residents - and only by doing so do they manage to keep going. Their business model assumed higher levels of funding and that is why some are increasingly cutting corners or folding altogether.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think the NHS suffers from a lack of goodwill. Look at Rory - he's the kind of guy they have working for them, and he's so disillusioned.

I reckon Corbyn can't fix that.

[Montmorency]

I think the NHS suffers from a lack of goodwill. Look at Rory - he's the kind of guy they have working for them, and he's so disillusioned.

I reckon Corbyn can't fix that.

Maybe we need more of him.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Maybe we need more of him.

I know what you mean, and I agree, but I don't think Corbyn is quite what people think he is. Or, to be more precise I DO think he's a genuinely principles man but I suspect his principles are subtly different than what people imagine they are.

I'm alluding to Michael Foot here - there was quite a bit of fuss a few years ago:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/7377111/Was-Foot-a-national-treasure-or-the-KGBs-useful-idiot.html

Consider - Corbyn is friendly towards Russia and in favour of unilateral Nuclear Disarmment despite what happened to Ukraine, at the instigation of Russia. That thought process is not entirely logical.

[Montmorency]

I, uh, was referring to (more of) Rory. So, like, kind of the opposite, maybe.

/awkward/

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I, uh, was referring to (more of) Rory. So, like, kind of the opposite, maybe.

/awkward/

Rory is a cynic, like most people - and he freely said several years ago that he gave the NHS the minimum number of years after training, then went private to earn some real money and not have to deal with the red tape.

Fair enough but that's no help to my Nan next time she's sick.

[Idaho]

Thatcher and subsequent governments shifted our national culture. It became perfectly correct to think entirely in terms of ones own benefit.

Cameron talked about the Big Society - but it was hot air. Meaningless. Especially in the context of falling wages, steady levels of unemployment, demonisation of the sick and the blaming of all society's ills on the poorest.

[rory_20_uk]

Rory is a cynic, like most people - and he freely said several years ago that he gave the NHS the minimum number of years after training, then went private to earn some real money and not have to deal with the red tape.

Fair enough but that's no help to my Nan next time she's sick.

You do realise that GPs and indeed all hospital doctors get a Final Salary pension and retire at 60? I will get less for what I currently do - but I like doing it.

I am involved in the process of getting new drugs to patients. Unless your Nan would rather there were no treatments I suggest I am as much a part of the care as the people who made the beds, made the surgical equipment etc.

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

Thatcher and subsequent governments shifted our national culture. It became perfectly correct to think entirely in terms of ones own benefit.

Cameron talked about the Big Society - but it was hot air. Meaningless. Especially in the context of falling wages, steady levels of unemployment, demonisation of the sick and the blaming of all society's ills on the poorest.

As was often said, Thatcher moved the unemployed out of the factories given the inefficiency of British Industry.

Before Thatcher we had the Social Solidarity of a decade of strikes, 3 day week and having to go to the IMF for a bailout. Yeah, everything was fine before Thatcher ruined it...

The world is more connected. Machines can do more and more things that previously we needed people to do. The internet is allowing more and more jobs to be moved abroad - I don't care whether the call centre / finance department / procurement is in the UK or elsewhere as long as it works. Increasingly things can be created abroad and brought over by ever more efficient ships. People don't buy local, they generally buy the best value - and that is often abroad.

Blair gave us the multicultural mix we have. Hardly surprising we do not have one Big Society, but several Small Societies often living seperate lives with seperate cultures next to each other.


Calling me a cynic is nice and simple, isn't it? Ignore what I say since what I say is what happens.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

It is ever popular for Thatcherites to compare the very worst elements/moments of what came before, with cherry picked highlights of what came after. There were numerous issues with British economy and society in the 70s, but to claim the only medicine was what in the end happened is to fall into a common heuristic - hindsight bias.

She removed the industrial base and sold the country to the city. 95% of the financial exchanges in the city are of no consequence to anyone but city funds. It's a giant game of poker among the richest companies in the world.

As for efficiency, I don't care that much about that. We live on a planet, alone in space. We need to find a way of existing equitably. The current system benefits those with the most power and loudest voices. It reminds me of the words of Douglas Adams on the golden era of the Galaxy - "no-one was poor, at least no-one that mattered".

I'm not a big one for memes, but this sums up my view on it all. There is a mind shift that needs to occur dramatically. We have gone from being a species that tried to achieve things, to one that justifies self enrichment at the cost of all else, and somehow feels morally right for doing so.

16531

[rory_20_uk]

You are equally guilty of hindsight bias.

The Industry was clearly not working - the industry was bieng out-competed by those abroad in terms of both cost but especially quality. On the times where the strikes weren't occurring of course. And the rampant inflation since it was a game where Unions in turn demanded more money to do their jobs.

The concept of the City was a good idea initially - being able to raise money for real businesses, hedge losses against others or future costs. But in the last 200 years things have "blossomed" to more and more weird things that are in essence

"Poverty" in the UK is defined as the family income bieng 60% of the UK average which means the insanity that if one billionaire were to reside in the UK the number in "poverty" would increase!!! It has nothing to do with the true need of anyone.

Most people in the world still live on less that £10 a day. EVERYONE in the UK has MASSIVELY more than average - not even the most Left Wing government has truly tried to be fair to all. We still have Union bosses on salaries over £100k who feel justified in living in council houses with subsidised rent.

Yes, that is an example of the best altruism and the worst avarice. The number of billionaires giving away vast amounts of their wealth are also occurring and there are many examples of abuse in the past as a species we are not getting better or worse.

~:smoking:

[therother]

Y"Poverty" in the UK is defined as the family income bieng 60% of the UK average which means the insanity that if one billionaire were to reside in the UK the number in "poverty" would increase!!! It has nothing to do with the true need of anyone.Which is why people use median income rather than arithmetic mean...

[Idaho]

The bizzare logic of "you can't be bad if someone is worse"

[InsaneApache]

Meanwhile, back in the jungle!

Better start stocking up on yer burgers and bangers lads.....

[rory_20_uk]

The bizzare logic of "you can't be bad if someone is worse"

Your logic - not mine.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

... not even the most Left Wing government has truly tried to be fair to all. We still have Union bosses on salaries over £100k who feel justified in living in council houses with subsidised rent.
This is bizzare on a number of fronts. I have a glut of possible responses, so much so that I don't know where to start with unpicking.

How many union bosses both live in subsidised accommodation and have 6 figure salaries? Probably about 3 in the whole country. And why are we even talking about union bosses? What is this, 1978? There are city men by the thousand who earn millions and hold their money offshore with no comment from you. But a union boss on a good salary, paying income tax, is beyond the pale. I think this is classic English class snobbery. How dare the oiks get so uppish.

The biggest recipient of discounted housing are the wealthy. How many ex council houses in Chelsea or Camden are now owned by rich people? How about those developments specifically for key workers that are now all owned by private landlords making fat profits?

[Idaho]

Your logic - not mine.

~:smoking:


Most people in the world still live on less that £10 a day. EVERYONE in the UK has MASSIVELY more than average

6000th post slap down!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

6000th post slap down!


Congrats

But how about this - some people in "poverty" have more than one TV that they can afford to replace every few years, multiple games consoles and computers.

As usual you're both right - but you're wrong about Thatcher, she was the symptom not the cause and Cameron tried various community level initiatives to jump start local businesses etc., they were ignored and then shelved.

[InsaneApache]

"Are you refusing to condemn the I.R.A?"

*click*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02z3x45

[Brenus]

He is saying that he condemns both side for the use of violence.
Listing to your link... It is useful.
Even if the questioner tries to show him as a IRA supporter, try to listen to the answer, not the question...
After 4 times, I understand the click.

Do you condemn the the use of force by the British Arm Forces? Do you condemn the Protestants terrorism? Funny that these question are never asked to rightist politicians.

Remember what was to be a Catholic in Northern Ireland?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21959048

http://www.irlandinit-hd.de/main_chap/need.htm

"Why else would the catholics be so inflexible and insist on using the front door to their school?" If you would bar my children to go to school by the front door, I would put bombs in the Country helping the ones doing so. The they don't care of my children, why should I care of their and them?
So, Corbyn is condemning both sides, rightly, as it should have been resolved politically, before any violence became the only way to communicate.

[Idaho]

It is a sign of how completely the right have controlled and defined the political narrative that reasonable views are vilified as extreme, and extreme views are considered orthodoxy.

The hypocrisy is so frustrating. The Thatcher government negotiated a ceasefire with the IRA while claiming such a thing was unthinkable. And long after it has happened they pretend to hold some moral high ground to maintain their unionist parliamentary support (while they accuse labour and the SNP of the same thing.. More tedious hypocrisy).

[Greyblades]

If you would bar my children to go to school by the front door, I would put bombs in the Country helping the ones doing so. The they don't care of my children, why should I care of their and them?.

Bit of a disproprtionate response to refusal of entry there.

[Pannonian]

It is a sign of how completely the right have controlled and defined the political narrative that reasonable views are vilified as extreme, and extreme views are considered orthodoxy.

The hypocrisy is so frustrating. The Thatcher government negotiated a ceasefire with the IRA while claiming such a thing was unthinkable. And long after it has happened they pretend to hold some moral high ground to maintain their unionist parliamentary support (while they accuse labour and the SNP of the same thing.. More tedious hypocrisy).

The government of a country has a right, and indeed responsibility, to do the unpleasant and distasteful for the interests of the country. Why was a backbench MP getting up to what Corbyn was getting up to? What's his excuse?

[Beskar]

I think the NHS suffers from a lack of goodwill. Look at Rory - he's the kind of guy they have working for them, and he's so disillusioned.

I am also working for the NHS, but I know you already consider me disillusioned too. :laugh4:

[Idaho]

The government of a country has a right, and indeed responsibility, to do the unpleasant and distasteful for the interests of the country. Why was a backbench MP getting up to what Corbyn was getting up to? What's his excuse?

Honesty?

[Pannonian]

Honesty?

Why was a backbench MP getting involved with so many matters outside his constituency, and even outside the country? What has Islington North to do with Northern Ireland, Palestine, Iran, Russia, and all the other things that Corbyn has got involved with?

[Idaho]

Why was a backbench MP getting involved with so many matters outside his constituency, and even outside the country? What has Islington North to do with Northern Ireland, Palestine, Iran, Russia, and all the other things that Corbyn has got involved with?
MPs are supposed to blend local advocacy with an active involvement and interest in wider foreign, international and domestic policy.

Surely you know that?

[Idaho]

That same year, he said in Socialist Campaign Group News: “The aim of the war machine of the United States is to maintain a world order dominated by the banks and multinational companies of Europe and North America.”

The Telegraph posts this as proof Corbyn is crazy. Lol.

[Greyblades]

He thinks america gives a shit about european companies and banks, how can you not say he's crazy?!

[Idaho]

He thinks america give's a shit about european companies and banks, how can you not say he's crazy?!
America's what doesn't care about what? I don't follow.

[Greyblades]

Bloody autocorrect. Fixd

[InsaneApache]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESIJ_C9mUBI

LOL

[Beskar]

https://i.imgur.com/S4CDbwh.jpg

[Greyblades]

Wow, I cant believe how little I care about political mud slinging, It's almost as little as the amount of answers my questions on this thread have garnered.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Point undermined by title - everything Cameron said can be supported by other Corbyn quotes.

Security-threatening: Wants to cancel Trident, believes Russia is largely benign.

Terrorist-Sympathising: Refuses to condemn the IRA, willing to share a platform with anti-Jewish Middle Eastern Activists with links to terrorism.

British-Hating: For a given value of "British" there is an orgy of evidence but generally Corbyn is very much a "white apologiser" the sort of person who would use tax-payer money to make reparations to Caribbean and African countries.

Nor did Cameron say that Corbyn doesn't think 9/11 was a tragedy, he merely said that the killing of Bin Laden was not.

Frankly, I agree, arrest may have been preferable (I'm in two minds on it) but the man was a monster and he's dead - his killing is far from tragic.

[Beskar]

Point undermined by title - everything Cameron said can be supported by other Corbyn quotes.

Those are basically media spin and further political mud-slinging. (Other than removing Trident, because he does support that.)

But lets look at your two main points:

IRA: He has condemned the use of violence by the IRA, saying that this should be done peacefully but he hasn't condemned the group themselves because without the violence part, is Irish nationalism really such a terrible thing to condemn? Only important thing has been discussed.

He has said that the Peace process should involve Hamas because it wouldn't work without their participation in the talks, because if they agree to them, then they will stop their violence. This is common sense stuff. I put it this way: I am going to do an arrangement with Greyblades where we use your house for Gaming on Saturday nights, lets see how successful we are without your involvement.

[Idaho]

Point undermined by title - everything Cameron said can be supported by other Corbyn quotes.

Security-threatening: Wants to cancel Trident, believes Russia is largely benign.

Terrorist-Sympathising: Refuses to condemn the IRA, willing to share a platform with anti-Jewish Middle Eastern Activists with links to terrorism.

British-Hating: For a given value of "British" there is an orgy of evidence but generally Corbyn is very much a "white apologiser" the sort of person who would use tax-payer money to make reparations to Caribbean and African countries.

Nor did Cameron say that Corbyn doesn't think 9/11 was a tragedy, he merely said that the killing of Bin Laden was not.

Frankly, I agree, arrest may have been preferable (I'm in two minds on it) but the man was a monster and he's dead - his killing is far from tragic.

I find it amazing how we share the same planet and species... Yet I find your mindset so alien and repugnant. You perpetuate untruths because they fit in with your prior beliefs.

Calling Corbyn anti British is just so... So... Tory. It presupposes a static and wholey owned notion of Britishness. It flies in the face of the fact that Corbyn has been a tireless and hardworking champion of British people. It fails to see detail and subtleties with regard to Corbyn's view on Russia and ignores his work with a variety of groups and people over a lifetime.

[Beskar]

I think this article is rather apt.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/of-course-it-doesnt-matter-what-words-corbyn-actually-says-a6686901.html

At least JC hasn't gone to extremes to secure the rural vote like David Cameron did.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I find it amazing how we share the same planet and species... Yet I find your mindset so alien and repugnant. You perpetuate untruths because they fit in with your prior beliefs.

Calling Corbyn anti British is just so... So... Tory. It presupposes a static and wholey owned notion of Britishness. It flies in the face of the fact that Corbyn has been a tireless and hardworking champion of British people. It fails to see detail and subtleties with regard to Corbyn's view on Russia and ignores his work with a variety of groups and people over a lifetime.

You completely missed the bit where I said "for a certain value of British", or perhaps it just doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions of who I am.

Corbyn is a Republican who joined the Privy Council but failed to actually meet the Queen because he was "busy" - just another example of how he is "British-hating", from a certain perspective. This is, at his core, a man who openly despises parts of the British political settlement and British traditions, you are entitled to think those particular traditions are unimportant but others are equally entitled to be offended.

Cameron's speech can be miss-interpreted, yes, it is even written to be misinterpreted, which betrays a certain cynicism, but at the same time Cameron's opponents have misinterpreted it in exactly the same way as some of the people in that conference hall did - and were likely meant to.

What Cameron ACTUALLY said was that Bin Laden's death was not a tragedy and it was not comparable to 9/11 - Corbyn has said it was a tragedy and made the direct comparison to 9/11.

Beskar then posted something titled "Lies vs Laws" when, in fact, Cameron never lied.

So - how dare you call me "repugnant" for seeing Corbyn as anti-British, given that you have so little regard for our institutions that you refuse to vote OR run for office. Presumably you agree with the Shadow Chancellor and "Insurrection" otherwise known as "direct action" is a legitimate alternative to the ballot box in this country.

I surely hope not.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Those are basically media spin and further political mud-slinging. (Other than removing Trident, because he does support that.)

But lets look at your two main points:

IRA: He has condemned the use of violence by the IRA, saying that this should be done peacefully but he hasn't condemned the group themselves because without the violence part, is Irish nationalism really such a terrible thing to condemn? Only important thing has been discussed.

He has said that the Peace process should involve Hamas because it wouldn't work without their participation in the talks, because if they agree to them, then they will stop their violence. This is common sense stuff. I put it this way: I am going to do an arrangement with Greyblades where we use your house for Gaming on Saturday nights, lets see how successful we are without your involvement.

We should talk about Cameron's statement being "lies" first. At the end of the day it's not actually relevant in what context Corbyn called Bin Laden's death a "tragedy" because for many people, including myself, his death was necessary, even assuming his capture had been possible and we'd actually had evidence that would stand up in a Court of Law his final circumstances would have seen him living much as he had in Pakistan, doubtless after the Hague had convicted him he would have been sent to a European prison where he would have had exercise, been well fed, had access to reading material and at least written correspondence with the outside world, and his incarceration might actually have driven his followers to new terrors in an effort to secure his release.

Now lets talk about Hamas: - they have vowed to destroy Israel, and therefore cannot be negotiated with. I was, however, referring to that one anti-Semitic activist who described Corbyn as a "political friend" or some such after having shared a platform with him. Corbyn said he did not know the man, did not support his views and had not shared a platform with him - only to subsequently admit he HAD shared a platform with him but had completely forgotten about it until reminded by his campaign team.

Now, I ask you, if David Cameron had said that would ANYONE accept it? No, they would not. Jeremy is just a well meaning old duffer though - so it's ok if he forgot.

the IRA: Prior to his election he refused to say that he condemned the actions of the IRA, he just said that violence was wrong - he then went on to condemn the actions of the BRITISH ARMY but still would not condemn the actions of the IRA - then the line cut. Again, he was allowed to get away with that when anyone else would be tarred and feathered. Also - this is another episode that can go in the "British-hating" bag, and I'm inclined to think it should - because he's happier to condemn British soldiers than Irish terrorists.

Now, the question is do you know me well enough to know these things were said, or are you going to make me actually pull the quotes?

P.S. The IRA are NOT Irish nationalism and to suggest such is to spit on the peaceful protesters who were being hounded by Protestants back in the 1970's. People forget that Operation Banner began as an effort to protect Catholics, but then the IRA called it an "invasion" and declared war.

[Beskar]

We should talk about Cameron's statement being "lies" first.
David Camerons speech is a complete misrepresentation of what JC said. You could argue it is not technically a lie, but it is taking a snippet completely out of context and misrepresenting the fact JC was on about the Rule of Law and stooped ourselves into state-sanctioned murder and the opportunity of trial wasn't even considered. Not going to go into a debate about how luxurious you find prison life to be, no matter how malleable your view of the ten commandments are in this circumstance.


Now, I ask you, if David Cameron had said that would ANYONE accept it? No, they would not. Jeremy is just a well meaning old duffer though - so it's ok if he forgot.
Jeremy makes an honest mistake of not remembering sharing a platform with a bunch of people who are most likely strangers, and it is brought up repeatedly. In his circumstances, is understandable, unlike certain Prime Minister and Miss Piggy (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/21/david-cameron-piers-gaveston-society-what-we-know-oxford-secret). (Funnily enough, not heard you bring that up)


Again, he was allowed to get away with that when anyone else would be tarred and feathered.
He was tarred and feathered. Saw the headlines? He is constantly attacked by the media and it reeks of desperation, worse than how it is Farage and that is saying something.

[Montmorency]

Now lets talk about Hamas: - they have vowed to destroy Israel, and therefore cannot be negotiated with.

Aside from all the times that various Western and Israeli governments have found it useful to negotiate with them...

[Brenus]

@ PVC: Cameron said in his conference that the Death of Bin Laden was a tragedy. Yes he did. Shame on him, as he support terrorism in saying this… Ohh, I forget the context, well so do you.

“he then went on to condemn the actions of the BRITISH ARMY but still would not condemn the actions of the IRA” Nope.He refused to follow the line of the interviewer singling out the IRA violence without speaking of the Provost and British Army violence, tactic always used by the British media, forgetting that the institutional violence was from the Protestant Irish as UVF (created in 1966, so before The Troubles -1969-, when the UVF started the killing of Catholic in 1966) and EDA, both organisations used violence. Shouldered then by the British Army when the UK decided to send the troops, which in my opinion, was a mistake as Army is not trained for this kind of things so Bloody Friday (1972) was just at the corner to happen.

“People forget that Operation Banner began as an effort to protect Catholics, but then the IRA called it an "invasion" and declared war.” That can be your point, not the one from the Catholic Irish who think that, after having been and treated as a British Colony, saw it as you describe it in your comment. Then, you admit that the Catholics needed protection: in a country ruled by UK?

From a buyer site (I suspect if not pro IRA, pro-independance): “Between 1968 and 1998, loyalist paramilitaries killed an estimated 864 civilians (most of them Catholic), compared with an estimated 728 civilians (most of them Protestant) killed by the IRA. Experts say loyalist groups have often acted out of religious hatred, while the IRA has more often targeted British security officers—killing more than 1,000 of them—in an effort to further its political goal of ejecting the British from Northern Ireland .”

So, next time, perhaps a independent journalist can perhaps ask the question: Do you condemn the violence in Ireland from IRA, UDA. UVF and the British Army, including SAS operations? Well Corbin did answer this one. BTW, Cameron never.

[Greyblades]

Now, the question is do you know me well enough to know these things were said, or are you going to make me actually pull the quotes?
I wish all of you would pull quotes as I am getting the impression everyone is just parroting biased sources at eachother.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

my point was, simply, that Corbyn's supports appear to believe he is beyond moral reproach yet even loyal Conservatives would look askance if Cameron cut the line after refusing to condemn the IRA or "forgot" he had shared a platform with an anti-Semitic Middle Eastern activist.

Plenty of people take the view that Bin Laden's death was no sort of tragedy and he got what he justly deserved. Corbyn would have preferred to see him on trial, fair enough, but he apparently doesn't want to see IRA commanders on trial.

Beskar's tone makes me think he's drunk the Corbynaid, as the Americans would say, and it seems many others have too.

[Montmorency]

Piecing together what I've read about his past statements and actions compared to his current (sometimes-evasive) statements, I think I understand where Corbyn is coming from.

There are many who would call the US bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc. a "tragedy", but who would nevertheless affirm their importance and refuse to condemn the United States for carrying them out.

Moreover, they would maintain that, while "regrettable" in some abstract sense, the bombings were legitimate and tolerable given the wider circumstances. perhaps in a typical rhetorical move they would deflect toward the 'unsavory' actions of the Nazi and Imperial governments.

Now here I get more speculative, but I suspect such an individual would elaborate that similar events (e.g. carpet bombing) in the present or future day would by default be outright-bad, unjustifiable, a "bad idea", and so on.


At any rate, I think this is analogous to the thrust of his position and accords well with his given ideology. On the other hand, the evasiveness is annoying, but not really anything exceptional when we consider that a centrist or center-right politician with large ambitions would skip around the point I made by analogy above.

:shrug:

[Idaho]

my point was, simply, that Corbyn's supports appear to believe he is beyond moral reproach yet even loyal Conservatives would look askance if Cameron cut the line after refusing to condemn the IRA or "forgot" he had shared a platform with an anti-Semitic Middle Eastern activist.

Plenty of people take the view that Bin Laden's death was no sort of tragedy and he got what he justly deserved. Corbyn would have preferred to see him on trial, fair enough, but he apparently doesn't want to see IRA commanders on trial.

Beskar's tone makes me think he's drunk the Corbynaid, as the Americans would say, and it seems many others have too.
You are contriving scandal by wilfully misinterpreting statements that Corbyn has made, and by taking an aggressive and partisan line on political positions that are both reasonable and adult. Whilst simultaneously ignoring great hypocrisy and injustice perpetrated by the Tories because it isn't championed by the right wing press.

Britain's actions in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq have been incompetent, murderous and disastrous. The only lettuce leaf of a defence is that it "could have been worse".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are contriving scandal by wilfully misinterpreting statements that Corbyn has made, and by taking an aggressive and partisan line on political positions that are both reasonable and adult. Whilst simultaneously ignoring great hypocrisy and injustice perpetrated by the Tories because it isn't championed by the right wing press.

Britain's actions in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq have been incompetent, murderous and disastrous. The only lettuce leaf of a defence is that it "could have been worse".

Well, you are willfully ignoring the balance of probabilities and treating Corbyn like he is "the only honest man in British politics" whilst simultaneously treating the Tories like they are cartoon villains. Refusing to condemn the IRA for its actions during the Troubles, of which it was the primary instigator, is inexplicable - but the interview Corbyn very clearly gave the impression that he was more sympathetic to the IRA than the British soldiers. Likewise, his choice to call Bin Laden's killing a "tragedy" was a poor one and could be said to be deeply insensitive to Bin Laden's victims.

As I said, British soldiers were initially deployed to protect Catholics from marauding Protestants, the fact is the IRA used this as a pretext to launch a 30-year terrorist campaign to try to overturn the result of an historic plebiscite which separated Ireland into Republican and Loyalist parts. Recently the IRA has woken up and as a result the NI Executive has fallen apart. It is in this context that Corbyn refuses to condemn them - and that is wrong.

Of the four wars you mentioned only Libya can be said to be substantially the responsibility of the Conservatives, having been inherited, whilst the House of Commons voted for Operations in Libya and initially voted against operation in Syria which, in fact, remain limited. Further, I would argue that "incompetent" and "murderous" are mutually exclusive in this context.

[Montmorency]

Refusing to condemn the IRA for its actions during the Troubles, of which it was the primary instigator, is inexplicable - but the interview Corbyn very clearly gave the impression that he was more sympathetic to the IRA than the British soldiers. Likewise, his choice to call Bin Laden's killing a "tragedy" was a poor one and could be said to be deeply insensitive to Bin Laden's victims.

Is it more explicable if placed in the context I juxtaposed?

[Brenus]

Clearly your political choice.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is it more explicable if placed in the context I juxtaposed?

No, I don't think sympathy for the IRA, or rather the PIRA, is at all explicable unless you're a Republican who hates the British - which comes back to Cameron's "Britain-hating" jibe.

Bear in mind this is the terrorist group who tried to assassinate Margaret Thatcher and actually did assassinate Lord Mountbatton.

To be clear, the Roman Catholics do have valid gripes with the Parliament of Northern Ireland and over Bloody Sunday that does not justify the PIRA campaign to unite Ireland by force, something which in the late 1960's I don't think the majority of Northern Irish wanted, and something they don't want today.

There were, and still are, peaceful Nationalist groups agitating for Catholic rights as well as political reform, they deverse sympathy for the way they were treated by the "loyalists" and the PIRA.

Anyway, we've gone massively off point -

Beskar posted something headed "lies vs laws" and all I sought to do was demonstrate that Cameron had not lied, at worst his speach was deliberately ambiguous but if you know Corbyn's actual remarks then I would say that Cameron's words gain extra rhetorical force because he makes the point of distinguishing 9/11 as a tragedy in opposition to Bin Laden death which was not.

Later people cut Cameron's speech to make it sound like he said Bin Laden's death was a tragedy, when in fact that is not what he meant - but it is what Corbyn meant. Corbyn meant that we should not be carrying out assassinations and his argument that we should have attempted to arrest Bin Laden prepossesses him not being executed.

Now, if Corbyn takes the position that all deaths, even the deaths of terrorists, are tragedies than, in theory, that is laudable but it is, per-definition, sympathy with terrorists, as is sympathy with the PIRA. As to the other points, I would not say Corbyn "hates Britain" exactly but I would say he is ashamed of Britain, possibly ashamed to be British because in his mind we are not a democracy and he has made numerous complaints about things our society does at home and our government does overseas.

The issue of security is, I think, indisputable - Corbyn is opposed to the UK retaining strategic weapons even as countries like Iran strive to acquire them and he has a dangerously naive view of Putin's Russia.

So Cameron was unfair to Corbyn, but that's politics and he certainly didn't lie - it's not as though he could have believed everyone wouldn't dig up the actual clip and provide the context for he attack on his opponent - this is the age of the internet.

Despite this someone made a poster headed "Lies vs Laws" and ended it with "nobody ever needs to know just one thing" when that is exactly what they were pushing - the uncomplicated idea that Cameron lies and Corbyn follows the law.

That's political spin, plain and simple, and it should not be allowed to pass without comment - I commented that Cameron's views can be defended and you all jump on me and Idaho calls me repugnant.

So, here's the thing - Corbyn's views can also be defended - I personally lean more towards Cameron's viewpoint but I'm not besotted with either.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Clearly your political choice.

I know you can type proper English, start using it instead of making yourself harder to understand with all these non-sequiters.

[Idaho]

You completely missed the bit where I said "for a certain value of British", or perhaps it just doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions of who I am.

Corbyn is a Republican who joined the Privy Council but failed to actually meet the Queen because he was "busy" - just another example of how he is "British-hating", from a certain perspective. This is, at his core, a man who openly despises parts of the British political settlement and British traditions, you are entitled to think those particular traditions are unimportant but others are equally entitled to be offended.

Cameron's speech can be miss-interpreted, yes, it is even written to be misinterpreted, which betrays a certain cynicism, but at the same time Cameron's opponents have misinterpreted it in exactly the same way as some of the people in that conference hall did - and were likely meant to.

What Cameron ACTUALLY said was that Bin Laden's death was not a tragedy and it was not comparable to 9/11 - Corbyn has said it was a tragedy and made the direct comparison to 9/11.

Beskar then posted something titled "Lies vs Laws" when, in fact, Cameron never lied.

So - how dare you call me "repugnant" for seeing Corbyn as anti-British, given that you have so little regard for our institutions that you refuse to vote OR run for office. Presumably you agree with the Shadow Chancellor and "Insurrection" otherwise known as "direct action" is a legitimate alternative to the ballot box in this country.

I surely hope not.

This country is a work in progress. It is a different place to what it was 10, 25, 50, 100 or 500 years ago. It will be different again in another 50 years. Conservatives believe that the country should be stuck in some half remembered/half made up past. I hope that it is totally different in 50 years. Unrecognisable even.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This country is a work in progress. It is a different place to what it was 10, 25, 50, 100 or 500 years ago. It will be different again in another 50 years. Conservatives believe that the country should be stuck in some half remembered/half made up past. I hope that it is totally different in 50 years. Unrecognisable even.

No, Conservative believe in the natural development of society, and sometimes in applying the breaks when change is traumatic - this has been the case since at least Disraeli. What Conservatives do not believe in is change for the sake of change. It's not quite fair to say that this is what the Left believes but I think it is fair to say they believe the country MUST ALWAYS change.

That's rather what you said.

I grew up in a small hamlet and went to school in a small town called Torrington, you may have been there. On balance it's a nice place but since the glove-making industry collapsed it's had very little going for it and this has got worse since the dairy closed and the meat-packing plant burned down. Even so, I don't think the down needs to change - it doesn't need 50 Muslim immigrant families transplanted in to upset the 99.9% white and nominally Christian population, for example, that would just make everyone unhappy - including the transplanted. What it could do with is some money pumped into the hospital and some form of local industry to give people jobs.

To suggest the country is unrecognisable in 50 years is to say that you want me to have no recognisable country to live in - I'll be 78 and if I can't still go to the pub for a decent pint of ale or go to the Cathedral for carols at Christmas what am I going to do as I slip into my dotage?

[Brenus]

"I know you can type proper English, start using it instead of making yourself harder to understand with all these non-sequiters." :laugh4: What did you fail to understand?

[Idaho]

No, Conservative believe in the natural development of society, and sometimes in applying the breaks when change is traumatic - this has been the case since at least Disraeli. What Conservatives do not believe in is change for the sake of change. It's not quite fair to say that this is what the Left believes but I think it is fair to say they believe the country MUST ALWAYS change.

That's rather what you said.

I grew up in a small hamlet and went to school in a small town called Torrington, you may have been there. On balance it's a nice place but since the glove-making industry collapsed it's had very little going for it and this has got worse since the dairy closed and the meat-packing plant burned down. Even so, I don't think the down needs to change - it doesn't need 50 Muslim immigrant families transplanted in to upset the 99.9% white and nominally Christian population, for example, that would just make everyone unhappy - including the transplanted. What it could do with is some money pumped into the hospital and some form of local industry to give people jobs.

To suggest the country is unrecognisable in 50 years is to say that you want me to have no recognisable country to live in - I'll be 78 and if I can't still go to the pub for a decent pint of ale or go to the Cathedral for carols at Christmas what am I going to do as I slip into my dotage?

It MUST always change. It is in the very nature of society to do so. Perhaps there have been times where a government had tried to hold society in stasis - Tokugawa shogunate maybe - but even that created a society vastly different to the one it started with. And societies held in stasis tend to have great pent up stresses that can produce catastrophic results - Iraq is a good example.

There is no reason why there would be an Islamic ghetto in Torrington (yes I do know it). As with all ukip support, the greatest anxiety about the influx of foreigners are in areas with the least incidence of such influxes. Places where new immigrants frequently come are largely relaxed about such things. Why is that?

[rory_20_uk]

It MUST always change. It is in the very nature of society to do so. Perhaps there have been times where a government had tried to hold society in stasis - Tokugawa shogunate maybe - but even that created a society vastly different to the one it started with. And societies held in stasis tend to have great pent up stresses that can produce catastrophic results - Iraq is a good example.

There is no reason why there would be an Islamic ghetto in Torrington (yes I do know it). As with all ukip support, the greatest anxiety about the influx of foreigners are in areas with the least incidence of such influxes. Places where new immigrants frequently come are largely relaxed about such things. Why is that?

Using Iraq as an example is inherently flawed as we do not know without the stasis the problems would not have occurred earlier - is it that the stasis that made them hate each other or their hatred was only kept in check by the stasis? I don't know, but given that Sunnis refer to Shi'ia as apostates doesn't bode well.

I have no problem with a system similar to Australia in place where the numbers and the quality are both assessed. I have no problem with economic migrants as long as we are clear when they are no longer required they return to origin - similar to expats elsewhere in the world.

I do have a problem when we have families in the UK who are British who view the UK as "the enemy" (heard described on the Right Wing BBC Radio 4).

The last case is when people don't want to integrate - a key part of change that both the hosts as well as the immigrants change and meld together and generally this occurs over time, and yes generally quite well.

Are we alone in thinking a massive influx of persons is not desirable? Erm, no - almost all countries on the planet share this outlook.

~:smoking:

[Gilrandir]

I know you can type proper English, start using it instead of making yourself harder to understand with all these non-sequiters.
C'mon, this is a part of fun - reading riddles and getting scorned for not interpreting the message accurately.

[Gilrandir]

I do have a problem when we have families in the UK who are British who view the UK as "the enemy" (heard described on the Right Wing BBC Radio 4).


This is not a problem. The problem will start (as it did in Ukraine) when they will call for a foreign leader to bring in his army.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It MUST always change. It is in the very nature of society to do so. Perhaps there have been times where a government had tried to hold society in stasis - Tokugawa shogunate maybe - but even that created a society vastly different to the one it started with. And societies held in stasis tend to have great pent up stresses that can produce catastrophic results - Iraq is a good example.

There's a difference between holding something in stasis and forcing change - one example of forcing a change would be Iraq. We not only removed Saddam we completely obliterated the State and tried to rebuild it.


There is no reason why there would be an Islamic ghetto in Torrington (yes I do know it). As with all ukip support, the greatest anxiety about the influx of foreigners are in areas with the least incidence of such influxes. Places where new immigrants frequently come are largely relaxed about such things. Why is that?

Funny, my sister's English teacher - from Portsmouth - once told her class it was easier to be racist in Torrington because everybody is white and English. I don't think there's really anyone who is anti-immigrant in Torrington, though the one Muslim family we had that moved in left after a year because they couldn't fit in. Torrington hasn't really change much in the last fifty years vs how much it has changed in the last five since they opened a Lidl.

The perspective that society "must" change is a modern one, something that has been true for the last two hundred years but prior to that change was so slow it usually could not be measured in one lifetime.

[Idaho]

As you know, in Exeter, lots of the taxi drivers are Afghans. I asked one why he liked living in Exeter. "Nice schools, near the seaside, a good place for families" was his answer. Exactly the same reason I moved here. He didn't do it to initiate global jihad any more than I moved here to convert the populous to humanist anarcho-syndicalism.

The issue I have with stating that people need to conform and fit in - is that *I* don't want to conform and fit in. I want to exist with my own culture and values. Not those of the Tory, curtain twitching majority in this country.

[rory_20_uk]

Bless! You do fit in. You really do.

I know you think your views are oh so extreme and edgy but I view you as completely fitting in.

You speak English, you follow the laws of the country, your dress is within the wide social norms - I'm sure I could go on for some time.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As you know, in Exeter, lots of the taxi drivers are Afghans. I asked one why he liked living in Exeter. "Nice schools, near the seaside, a good place for families" was his answer. Exactly the same reason I moved here. He didn't do it to initiate global jihad any more than I moved here to convert the populous to humanist anarcho-syndicalism.

The issue I have with stating that people need to conform and fit in - is that *I* don't want to conform and fit in. I want to exist with my own culture and values. Not those of the Tory, curtain twitching majority in this country.

And yet, you moved here for the same reason as any anyone else would - and so did the Afghan taxi driver. So he's well integrated and so are you.

[Idaho]

I'm not edgy or extreme. Never have been. I just reject a standardised concept of Englishness.

[Beskar]

I think there is a valid point, I think the lack of Britishness is a concept that politicians should not aspire to. There are many reasons why Jeremy Corbyn falls short of these values*.

- Jeremy like all good statesmen, did not attend Eton.
- He prefers coffee to tea.
- He calls his meal times 'lunch' in the afternoon and 'dinner' in the evening, opposed to 'dinner' and 'tea'.
- He doesn't know the full lyrics of Auld Lang Syne.
- He doesn't support his local football team on a Saturday.
- He doesn't patiently wait in a queue or a line, and simply ignores them.
- He doesn't greet the ladies as "Alreet, love?" or call them "Darling" or "Sweet cheeks".
- He doesn't experience a love-hate relationship with America where he pretends to dislike them, but want to sits to Uncle Sam's lap. He just flat-out hates them.
- He doesn't take leisurely walks in the countryside.
- He shops at Lidl and not a true British brand like Waitrose.
- I think you get the point.


*I honestly have no clue whether or not he does these things nor do I care.

[InsaneApache]

I'm not edgy or extreme. Never have been. I just reject a standardised concept of Englishness.

Define a 'standardised concept of Englishness.'

I'm intrigued.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Define a 'standardised concept of Englishness.'

I'm intrigued.

I learned from you there's no such thing.

I'm a West Saxon and you're either a Northumbrian or a Dane.

All that unites us is our oppression under the Norman yoke.

[Idaho]

Define a 'standardised concept of Englishness.'

I'm intrigued.

I won't define one - as it's a nonsense. But the Tory party wage an ideological war every so often on who they determine to be culturally acceptable, and who are not.

[InsaneApache]

Dianne Abbot was on Today this morning, I thought I'd heard/seen some car crash interviews but this one takes the biscuit!

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/shambolic-diane-abbott-laughs-off-labours-fiscal-charter-u-turn-in-bizarre-interview/

[Idaho]

She's a total dingbat.

The media have been jumping on everything and anything the new Labour leadership do or say - and for the first time they actually have something moderately important to pick on. Although, personally, I don't see what the big deal is with changing policy. Things changes, strategies adapt.

[Brenus]

"All that unites us is our oppression under the Norman yoke" That would be me.:sweatdrop:

[Greyblades]

I learned from you there's no such thing.

I'm a West Saxon and you're either a Northumbrian or a Dane.

All that unites us is our oppression under the Norman yoke.

Technically it is a Combo Norman/French/English/Scottish/Dutch/German Yoke, British for short.

[Gilrandir]

Technically it is a Combo Norman/French/English/Scottish/Dutch/German Yoke, British for short.

Let's not forget about the Saxon yoke oppressing the poor Celts.

[Idaho]

What about the Celtic displacement of the indigenous Beaker people?

[rory_20_uk]

I heard that the "Celts" never referred to themselves in such a way and probably never thought of themselves as a homogeneous culture.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

I heard that the "Celts" never referred to themselves in such a way and probably never thought of themselves as a homogeneous culture.

~:smoking:

Fearsome wars were fought between different Celtic tribes. Some Celts in Northumbria worshipped the blue sky, and they hated those of their neighbours who worshipped the red fires of hell. Some of the Celts in the midlands threw in their lot with the Romans, naming themselves after their luxurious Roman houses. They were constantly at war with those who preferred to live outside, who were identifiable by their frequently frostbitten faces. The fiercest inter-tribal wars though were fought between those who identified their lineage through the Celts and Germans. They called themselves the Celtics and the Gers, respectively.

[InsaneApache]

Some of the Celts in the midlands threw in their lot with the Romans, naming themselves after their luxurious Roman houses.

:laugh4: I suspect that our international friends will not get this!

[Idaho]

Concepts of nation, tribe and ethnicity are very different now to antiquity. Add to that, archaeologists are want to create broad themes and narratives from scant evidence. These often override the small subtleties and contradictions that are always the condition of real groups of humans.

[Gilrandir]

I heard that the "Celts" never referred to themselves in such a way.

~:smoking:

Neither do Finns now. And?

[Idaho]

On a similar topic - Another left winger speaking in 1992. How much of this was considered loony left fringe nonsense? And how much of it is clearly obvious to us now?

https://www.facebook.com/cloakedtruth/videos/501139246726445/?fref=nf

[Greyblades]

A fair bit, though I do note that we have also learned that in pracice toppling dictators becomes even more detrimental to all involved than propping them up.

I also find him somewhat naiive, the notion that great minds working on weapons development would be better spent elsewhere is idealistic and impractical. Even without the illegal arms trade there is still a need for weapons development on the part of nation states.