General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

rossie1977

rossie1977 wrote: »

Corbyn spent the 1980s fighting injustice and for the civil rights of black South Africans and Catholics in Northern Ireland but the media managed to convince millions he was a gigantic racist and the next Stalin.

"Fighting injustice" is often misused -- and often in the eye of the beholder.

For example, ISIS believe they are "fighting injustice". Hamas believe that, by killing Jews, they are "fighting injustice". Corbyn appears alongside Hamas and Hezbollah and refers to these Jew-hating terrorist organizations as "his friends". We quite clearly know which side he is on, and what form of "injustice" / or what side he takes / he decides to support.

So whilst "fighting injustice" always sounds flowery and upbeat, it's often used as a propaganda term to cover up injustices that you are prepared to overlook as they do not align with your political perspective.

rossie1977

So now not willing to launch nuclear misses that could potentially kill tens of millions makes someone a bad guy..

prawnsambo wrote: »

Just waving away that idea of getting the number one suspects for the Skripal poisonings to investigate themselves then?

Corbyn said they shouldn't jump to any quick conclusions before a proper investigation took place which is fair enough. Evidence pointed to Russia but you still shouldn't accuse someone without proper work undertaken.

Trump told May he thought Russia were not behind it https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/05/trump-told-theresa-may-he-doubted-russia-was-behind-skripal-poisoning

I am confused though if Corbyn is pro Russia and pro Putin's right wing government where does that put him politically?

sid waddell

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Corbyn and Labour fans are constantly talking about smears on Corbyn. What are the "smears" ?

He engages and allows Anti-Semitism?
He constantly attends events with extreme islamic groups. It's no secret that the likes of Hezbollah dont take too kindly to Jewish folk. He knows exactly who they are and what they believe in.

He is a danger to national security?
He would have appointed Diane Abbott as home secretary, that's bad enough but he was also happy to stand aside and allow ISIS attempt to take Syria and Iraq. He also refused to say he would allow the shot to be taken on Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi.

With him and Abbot at the helm the British would have been at their unsafest since WW2. No same person can argue that the UK were safer under Corbyn and Abbot. Whether it be terrorism, other nations, mass 3rd world migration or from Gangs, they would have been in an awful state.

Corbyn being painted as a Russian agent
Cobyn being painted as a terrorist
Corbyn being painted as an anti-Semite

These were all grotesque smears.

All while the biggest liar British politics has ever seen, somebody suppressing the actual Russia report, who misused £126k of public money for somebody he was ****ing, who has a long history of racism, and whose party has a massive problem with racis, including anti-Semitism, and somebody who is a genuine danger to democracy in Britain, was allowed away scot free.

People can either wake up to the reality that we are living in a 1930s propaganda style world or they can make excuses for it, like you've done here.

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

His default position is suspect of the UK/US, and "understanding" of the reasons the enemies of the UK -- Russia, ISIS, Iran etc. -- give when a scandal erupts.

With an attitude like that, the enemies of the UK would clearly benefit if Corbyn became Prime Minister. They would have carte blanche to do as they wish as they know Corbyn will be sympathetic to their "explanations".

Add to that the fact that Corbyn claims he would never use the nuclear deterrant, and what you have is a clear and present national security threat to the UK.

It's totally and utterly shameful that many Labour MPs were prepared to allow that eventuality to take hold.

You support Donald Trump, whose default position is that of Russian foreign policy.

We're through the looking glass when somebody saying they won't use nuclear weapons is cited as a "negative".

10000maniacs

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

poor Jeremy he never stood a chance.
probably the most vilified politician in history. once he challenged the media moguls and the tax-dodging billionaires he was dead-man walking. it's been a right-wing coup UK style. they did their homework and executed their dastardly plan with chilling efficiency.

i hope he stays on and makes sure his successor carries on the good work of socialism.

Corbyn was never the issue in the labour heartland. The voters were lying through their teeth when they said so. The real issue for Labour was the word never to be spoken for fear of being branded a racist, immigration.
The new Labour leader would do well not to have any opinion on immigration going forward, sadly.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

You support Donald Trump, whose default position is that of Russian foreign policy.

We're through the looking glass when somebody saying they won't use nuclear weapons is cited as a "negative".

If you are opting to become Prime Minister, one of the job descriptions is being prepared to use the nuclear deterrant.

Nobody supports killing millions of people, but in the realm of international politics, you must be prepared to defend the nation-state to whom you are sworn to defend.

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

If you are opting to become Prime Minister, one of the job descriptions is being prepared to use the nuclear deterrant.

Nobody supports killing millions of people, but in the realm of international politics, you must be prepared to defend the nation-state to whom you are sworn to defend.

It isn't.

If you're a warmongering zealot prepared to kill millions of people, then you might think it is.

hotmail.com

sid waddell wrote: »

What basis do the Tories have for boycotting the Today programme on BBC, the national broadcaster?

It would be like Fine Gael boycotting Morning Ireland.

If Fine Gael boycotted Morning Ireland, what do we think the reaction would be?

And what does it say about Johnson and the Tories in terms of being subject to scrutiny?

You're just making excuses for them.

I don't know why some people have a tendency to make excuses for such behaviour but I think it says a lot about the people who do, none of it good.

I wasn't excusing the behaviour. I was disagreeing with the link with Trump.

Politics didn't start with Trump.

prawnsambo

rossie1977 wrote: »

So now not willing to launch nuclear misses that could potentially kill tens of millions makes someone a bad guy..

You what now?

rossie1977 wrote: »

Corbyn said they shouldn't jump to any quick conclusions before a proper investigation took place which is fair enough. Evidence pointed to Russia but you still shouldn't accuse someone without proper work undertaken.

He said that the Russians should be given all the evidence including samples of the substance so that they could investigate it. That was laughable.

rossie1977 wrote: »

Trump told May he thought Russia were not behind it https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/05/trump-told-theresa-may-he-doubted-russia-was-behind-skripal-poisoning

Oh, Trump said this? Well that's confirmed it then. If Trump says it, it must be so.

rossie1977 wrote: »

I am confused though if Corbyn is pro Russia and pro Putin's right wing government where does that put him politically?

You think Putin cares one way or another about ideology when the opportunity to settle a score comes up? As for Corbyn's motives, who knows? I said he was naive. But he could also be just stupid or maybe he harks back to the good old days of the USSR.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

If you are opting to become Prime Minister, one of the job descriptions is being prepared to use the nuclear deterrant.

Nobody supports killing millions of people, but in the realm of international politics, you must be prepared to defend the nation-state to whom you are sworn to defend.

sid waddell wrote: »

It isn't.

If you're a warmongering zealot prepared to kill millions of people, then you might think it is.

Im Sorry but Eskimohunt is correct - The basics is called Deterrence Theory -

If you have Nuclear weapons you must always be prepared to use them. The idea being to deter your opposition from using theirs. The premise is

1. Actor A fires his Nuclear weapons at Actor B. - a First Strike
2. Actor A inflicts massive damage on B, but is not capable of entirely wiping out B's Nuclear arsenal - this is due to most big Nuclear actors having missiles, an airforce, and submarines as the delivery method for its Nuclear weapons. They cannot all be wiped out - Therefore Actor A's attack is an Insufficient First Strike
3. Actor B, now crippled responds with enough remaining force, possibly submarines, possible ICBM's fired before being wiped out - a Second Strike - sometimes referred to as Extreme Retribution
4. Despite having been potentially wiped out, Actor B's second strike is sufficiently damaging as to cripple Actor A - therefore neither side has won - rendering the entire exercise pointless - and potentially catastrophic globally

Point is - if you declare to the world 'I WILL NEVER USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS' - you are potentially saying to your opposition - your first strike will be sufficient as i wont respond with a second strike.

If a leader, whos country is a nuclear power, wishes to be peaceful - the most they should say is 'I will not use Nuclear Weapons FIRST'

BonnieSituation

liamtech wrote: »

Im Sorry but Eskimohunt is correct - The basics is called Deterrence Theory -

If you have Nuclear weapons you must always be prepared to use them. The idea being to deter your opposition from using theirs. The premise is

1. Actor A fires his Nuclear weapons at Actor B. - a First Strike
2. Actor A inflicts massive damage on B, but is not capable of entirely wiping out B's Nuclear arsenal - this is due to most big Nuclear actors having missiles, an airforce, and submarines as the delivery method for its Nuclear weapons. They cannot all be wiped out - Therefore Actor A's attack is an Insufficient First Strike
3. Actor B, now crippled responds with enough remaining force, possibly submarines, possible ICBM's fired before being wiped out - a Second Strike - sometimes referred to as Extreme Retribution
4. Despite having been potentially wiped out, Actor B's second strike is sufficiently damaging as to cripple Actor A - therefore neither side has won - rendering the entire exercise pointless - and potentially catastrophic globally

Point is - if you declare to the world 'I WILL NEVER USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS' - you are potentially saying to your opposition - your first strike will be sufficient as i wont respond with a second strike.

If a leader, whos country is a nuclear power, wishes to be peaceful - the most they should say is 'I will not use Nuclear Weapons FIRST'

So what?

I think anyone yammering on about the deterrent should get their asses to Hiroshima and then see how quick they are to consider it a valid option.

prawnsambo

liamtech wrote: »

Im Sorry but Eskimohunt is correct - The basics is called Deterrence Theory -

If you have Nuclear weapons you must always be prepared to use them. The idea being to deter your opposition from using theirs. The premise is

1. Actor A fires his Nuclear weapons at Actor B. - a First Strike
2. Actor A inflicts massive damage on B, but is not capable of entirely wiping out B's Nuclear arsenal - this is due to most big Nuclear actors having missiles, an airforce, and submarines as the delivery method for its Nuclear weapons. They cannot all be wiped out - Therefore Actor A's attack is an Insufficient First Strike
3. Actor B, now crippled responds with enough remaining force, possibly submarines, possible ICBM's fired before being wiped out - a Second Strike - sometimes referred to as Extreme Retribution
4. Despite having been potentially wiped out, Actor B's second strike is sufficiently damaging as to cripple Actor A - therefore neither side has won - rendering the entire exercise pointless - and potentially catastrophic globally

Point is - if you declare to the world 'I WILL NEVER USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS' - you are potentially saying to your opposition - your first strike will be sufficient as i wont respond with a second strike.

If a leader, whos country is a nuclear power, wishes to be peaceful - the most they should say is 'I will not use Nuclear Weapons FIRST'

Otherwise known as MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).

Another peaceful approach is reduction. I'll deactivate one of mine for every one of yours you deactivate.

McGiver

sid waddell wrote:

It has to find a compromise between Corbynism and Blairism. I envisage that it wouldn't be a million miles away from the 2017 manifesto, but it has to make allowances to the spirit of Blairism, particularly in how it is presented.

Exactly. Both Blairism and Corbynism (whatever that is) are gone, move on, try something else. It is has to be something new. And energetic. As you say messianic. And simple. Presented by either a young northern man or preferably a woman but the latter could be hard to find, it has to be a strong personality but positive (not a Swinson type).

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Off topic posts deleted.

beggars_bush

McGiver wrote: »

Exactly. Both Blairism and Corbynism (whatever that is) are gone, move on, try something else. It is has to be something new. And energetic. As you say messianic. And simple. Presented by either a young northern man or preferably a woman but the latter could be hard to find, it has to be a strong personality but positive (not a Swinson type).

All these 'isms'
Or maybe just the leader implementing party policy?

prawnsambo

McGiver wrote: »

Exactly. Both Blairism and Corbynism (whatever that is) are gone, move on, try something else. It is has to be something new. And energetic. As you say messianic. And simple. Presented by either a young northern man or preferably a woman but the latter could be hard to find, it has to be a strong personality but positive (not a Swinson type).

You can't do that without getting rid of all the people who represent (or are perceived to represent) those factions. And that's not going to happen.

NIMAN

There was a very interesting stat today on the Marion Finucane radio show by one of the contributors. Not sure if it's been discussed yet in this thread.

The media is making a big thing about Labour voters defecting to the Tories, especially in the old Labour heartlands.

But apparently it's all nonsense. Most Labour voters who changed voted for the Lib Dems, and due to the first past the post system, this helped the Tories top the polls.

But this isn't how it's being reported in the media.

Sam Russell

prawnsambo wrote: »

You can't do that without getting rid of all the people who represent (or are perceived to represent) those factions. And that's not going to happen.

Another approach is to get a few worthwhile policies that all (most) members agree on - say NHS, workers rights, and minimum wage/social inclusion. Then get a few short slogans that explain those ideas without confusion.

Then stay on message. It helps to have a leader that can give detail when required. Do not confuse or lie.

Simples.

Strazdas

NIMAN wrote: »

There was a very interesting stat today on the Marion Finucane radio show by one of the contributors. Not sure if it's been discussed yet in this thread.

The media is making a big thing about Labour voters defecting to the Tories, especially in the old Labour heartlands.

But apparently it's all nonsense. Most Labour voters who changed voted for the Lib Dems, and due to the first past the post system, this helped the Tories top the polls.

But this isn't how it's being reported in the media.

Yes, the overall Tory vote hardly rose at all on 2017.

It was the Labour vote falling away that gave the Tories extra seats.

sid waddell

NIMAN wrote: »

There was a very interesting stat today on the Marion Finucane radio show by one of the contributors. Not sure if it's been discussed yet in this thread.

The media is making a big thing about Labour voters defecting to the Tories, especially in the old Labour heartlands.

But apparently it's all nonsense. Most Labour voters who changed voted for the Lib Dems, and due to the first past the post system, this helped the Tories top the polls.

But this isn't how it's being reported in the media.

Lib Dems didn't gain much themselves though in "red wall" constitituencies.

A common theme in the "red wall" was Labour dropping by around 6-8k, Tories gaining 1-3k, and the Lib Dems gaining about 1k.

In some places like Ashfield, Don Valley and Wrexham the Tory vote didn't rise at all.

I do think it's overestimated how "solid Labour" a lot of these constituencies are or were.

A lot of them have had a very significant Tory vote for years and/or have had Tory MPs in the not too distant past.

McGiver

Sam Russell wrote:

Another approach is to get a few worthwhile policies that all (most) members agree on - say NHS, workers rights, and minimum wage/social inclusion. Then get a few short slogans that explain those ideas without confusion.

Yes. And also makes the marketing simpler. When you have only a couple of policies to explain. You can prepare much better in detail to respond to criticism.

Joe_ Public

sid waddell wrote: »

Lib Dems didn't gain much themselves though in "red wall" constitituencies.

A common theme in the "red wall" was Labour dropping by around 6-8k, Tories gaining 1-3k, and the Lib Dems gaining about 1k.

In some places like Ashfield, Don Valley and Wrexham the Tory vote didn't rise at all.

I do think it's overestimated how "solid Labour" a lot of these constituencies are or were.

A lot of them have had a very significant Tory vote for years and/or have had Tory MPs in the not too distant past.

Those constituencies have had a declining labour vote since the 90s. Its an old trend now. I posted stats i saw about blairs old constituency which was 71% labour in 97 and has gone steadily down 7-8% each election since. Cant blame brexit for all of that.

ilkhanid

rossie1977 wrote: »

Corbyn spent the 1980s fighting injustice and for the civil rights of black South Africans and Catholics in Northern Ireland but the media managed to convince millions he was a gigantic racist and the next Stalin.

...and to him this was synonomous with the interests of Sinn Fein, even when the SDLP represented the vast majority of Northern Catholics. As I pointed out above he voted against the Anglo-Irish agreement:in good company with Sinn Fein and Charlie Haughey.

rossie1977 wrote: »

Corbyn said they shouldn't jump to any quick conclusions before a proper investigation took place which is fair enough. Evidence pointed to Russia but you still shouldn't accuse someone without proper work undertaken.

It was more than that:it showed an astonishing degree of credulity towards a murderous thug. You'd imagine he was counsel for the defence struggling to find reasons to point away from Russia.

rossie1977 wrote: »

Trump told May he thought Russia were not behind it

Wow! Trump. One should take the word of that liar as meaning anything? If Trump says something I'd take that as evidence to the opposite. Especially since Trumps history with Russia is highly dubious.

Letwin_Larry

it looks like Boris is rediscovering his Liberal credentials.
if this is true, and he prioritizes the NHS, investment in Northern areas, border controls AND gets Brexit done, then Lab as a power in UK politics is goosed imo.

i dont see them getting back into power anytime soon if ever tbh. The Tories will have effectively stolen their clothes, and Lab will be left with nothing, other than outdated, unpopular, backward looking marxist philosophy.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7795239/Prime-Minister-Boris-Johnson-puts-border-control-NHS-Northern-investment-heart-plans.html

10000maniacs

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

it looks like Boris is rediscovering his Liberal credentials.
if this is true, and he prioritizes the NHS, investment in Northern areas, border controls AND gets Brexit done, then Lab as a power in UK politics is goosed imo.

i dont see them getting back into power anytime soon if ever tbh. The Tories will have effectively stolen their clothes, and Lab will be left with nothing, other than outdated, unpopular, backward looking marxist philosophy.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7795239/Prime-Minister-Boris-Johnson-puts-border-control-NHS-Northern-investment-heart-plans.html

I don't agree. The Tories will have auto combusted long before their 5 year term is up. If the previous 4 years has thought us anything, they are a group of opportunistic bozos with very little substance. For example, have you ever heard Johnson have a serious and technical discussion about anything in the last 20 years? It's all sound bites, sloganeering and whimsy. He reminds me of Peter Seller's character in "Being There".

rossie1977

10000maniacs wrote: »

I don't agree. The Tories will have auto combusted long before their 5 year term is up. If the previous 4 years has thought us anything, they are a group of opportunistic bozos with very little substance. For example, have you ever heard Johnson have a serious and technical discussion about anything in the last 20 years? It's all sound bites, sloganeering and whimsy. He reminds me of Peter Seller's character in "Being There".

Yeah there is only so long Johnson can get away with blaming the EU for every ill and playing the bumbling goof all before people get tired.

Johnson remember was in same class as Cameron in Eton so politically they aren't all that different so expect another 5 years of austerity.

As said in previous post people are eventually going to get angry, very angry. We have seen it in France and Macron is not as conservative as Johnson and Frances wealth inequality is not as bad as the UKs.

In the 1990s my uncle walked me all over Manchester showing the sheer devastation left after 15 years of Tory and Thatcher government.

Letwin_Larry

10000maniacs wrote: »

I don't agree. The Tories will have auto combusted long before their 5 year term is up. If the previous 4 years has thought us anything, they are a group of opportunistic bozos with very little substance. For example, have you ever heard Johnson have a serious and technical discussion about anything in the last 20 years? It's all sound bites, sloganeering and whimsy. He reminds me of Peter Seller's character in "Being There".

the only people who are self-combusting appear to be the Lab party, or whzt's left of them.
and bear in mind they are still coming to terms with the scale of their defeat. just wait until they get down 'n dirty, as the corbynistas and the more centrists tussle for control of their beleagured party.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-contest-corbyn-rebecca-long-bailey-emily-thornberry-a9247966.html

10000maniacs

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

the only people who are self-combusting appear to be the Lab party, or whzt's left of them.
and bear in mind they are still coming to terms with the scale of their defeat. just wait until they get down 'n dirty, as the corbynistas and the more centrists tussle for control of their beleagured party.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-contest-corbyn-rebecca-long-bailey-emily-thornberry-a9247966.html

But in the meantime, the spending power of Sterling is half of what it was 10 years ago on world markets and throw in the tinder of a hard Brexit and Scottish independence and we have the perfect fire-storm.

LuckyLloyd

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

it looks like Boris is rediscovering his Liberal credentials.
if this is true, and he prioritizes the NHS, investment in Northern areas, border controls AND gets Brexit done, then Lab as a power in UK politics is goosed imo.

i dont see them getting back into power anytime soon if ever tbh. The Tories will have effectively stolen their clothes, and Lab will be left with nothing, other than outdated, unpopular, backward looking marxist philosophy.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7795239/Prime-Minister-Boris-Johnson-puts-border-control-NHS-Northern-investment-heart-plans.html

Again, he’ll need quite the cabinet reshuffle for that (well, not the immigration bit - that will come very easily to the current front bench!)

Tired Gardener

rossie1977 wrote: »

As said in previous post people are eventually going to get angry, very angry. We have seen it in France and Macron is not as conservative as Johnson and Frances wealth inequality is not as bad as the UKs.

In the 1990s my uncle walked me all over Manchester showing the sheer devastation left after 15 years of Tory and Thatcher government.

Trouble is, Brits aren't really into uprisings.. more into having a good grumble. Where as the French have uprisings perfected.

An estimated 4 million kids living below the poverty line, roughly 151 Billionaires living in the UK, cuts to important services have them on their knees, a huge increase in food banks, etc. All that happens are a few peaceful marches, and some witty comedy. If the above hasn't already got people uprising, I'm not sure what it will take... selling off the NHS is the only thing that I can think of.