Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I am very much in favour of local democracy and the removal of formal party structure at that level.
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:
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!
Nope.Quote:
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_train
An act of Parliament from the 19th century.
I think that is a separate phenomenon with the same name.
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:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
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.
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I'm alluding to Michael Foot here - there was quite a bit of fuss a few years ago:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...ful-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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Fair enough but that's no help to my Nan next time she's sick.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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:
As was often said, Thatcher moved the unemployed out of the factories given the inefficiency of British Industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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:
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.
Attachment 16531
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:
Which is why people use median income rather than arithmetic mean...Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The bizzare logic of "you can't be bad if someone is worse"
Meanwhile, back in the jungle!
Better start stocking up on yer burgers and bangers lads.....
Your logic - not mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
~:smoking:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
6000th post slap down!Quote:
Most people in the world still live on less that £10 a day. EVERYONE in the UK has MASSIVELY more than average
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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.
"Are you refusing to condemn the I.R.A?"
*click*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02z3x45
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.
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).
Bit of a disproprtionate response to refusal of entry there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I am also working for the NHS, but I know you already consider me disillusioned too. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Honesty?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
MPs are supposed to blend local advocacy with an active involvement and interest in wider foreign, international and domestic policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Surely you know that?
The Telegraph posts this as proof Corbyn is crazy. Lol.Quote:
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.”
He thinks america gives 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Bloody autocorrect. Fixd
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.
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.
Those are basically media spin and further political mud-slinging. (Other than removing Trident, because he does support that.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.
I think this article is rather apt.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a6686901.html
At least JC hasn't gone to extremes to secure the rural vote like David Cameron did.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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. (Funnily enough, not heard you bring that up)Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Again, he was allowed to get away with that when anyone else would be tarred and feathered.
Aside from all the times that various Western and Israeli governments have found it useful to negotiate with them...Quote:
Now lets talk about Hamas: - they have vowed to destroy Israel, and therefore cannot be negotiated with.
@ 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.
I wish all of you would pull quotes as I am getting the impression everyone is just parroting biased sources at eachother.Quote:
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?
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.
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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.
Is it more explicable if placed in the context I juxtaposed?Quote:
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.
Clearly your political choice.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
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.
I know you can type proper English, start using it instead of making yourself harder to understand with all these non-sequiters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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?
"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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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:
C'mon, this is a part of fun - reading riddles and getting scorned for not interpreting the message accurately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
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.Quote:
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?
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.
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.
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I'm not edgy or extreme. Never have been. I just reject a standardised concept of Englishness.
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.
Define a 'standardised concept of Englishness.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I'm intrigued.
I learned from you there's no such thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
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.