BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 08:05 AM

I heard on the radio a report that YouGov has said Restoring something like clause 4 - like it, not necessarily the removed phrasing - risked being a vote loser.

Clearly they still haven't got the idea that is all about having a principle not just focusing on what gets most votes

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 09:30 AM

Well said Mr Mc.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Musket
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 10:30 AM

Nothing complex at all Fred.

We live in a democracy. Not a perfect version granted, but nearer to perfect than any alternative.

Therefore terrorism isn't justified, necessary or anything other than simple criminal acts that society roundly rejects.

Further up the thread, it was mentioned that he stuttered on Irish republican terrorism in an interview. Absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything. Corbyn feels the same way as I do about seeing grieving families in cemeteries.

There is enough reality with which to dismiss him and his unfitness for high office without resorting to dragging up any past comments misconstrued.

Funny how right wing Tory voters are paying their money and waiting for ballot papers. I'm not a member of any political party but if the aim is to serve your country to the best of your ability, Alan Johnson wants fucking for not putting himself forward. There would be none of this distracting sideshow and the clowns can be back in their tent rehearsing throwing custard pies.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 10:55 AM

"Democracy's better than all the alternatives".....what alternatives?

Would Mr Johnstone or Mr Umunna have been an "alternative"?

The only alternative is Jeremy, and the weird media will make bloody sure we get no democracy in this bloody country.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Stanron
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 01:22 PM

Are the people who complain that the electorate are all week willed puppets who can be led by the nose by newspaper proprietors, not the same as those who publish links to newspaper articles to prove their points?

These days I doubt if anyone sells enough papers to reach a majority. My guess is the papers back whoever looks like winning so they can claim credit.

TV now, the number of people who watch TV is probably greater than the number of people who read papers but there are lots of TV channels today.

Murdoch controls both kinds of media but does he reach a majority of the electorate? Also how many people who watch Sky Sports do so for the political content? Nah, he just wants to sell papers and subscriptions.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 02:06 PM

Stanron, although those who watch Sky Sports do not sign up for the political content, the fact that they do means that they are fed a diet of a really fairly extreme political viewpoint. So its a bit like subliminal advertising, Murdoch through his media interests exerts thoroughly disproportionate influence. Indeed any influence at all would be disproportionate seeing as he is not a UK citizen.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Selby
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 02:31 PM

Are there any other candidates in this contest the only one I hear about is JC having meetings up and down the country. We don't seem to hear any of the others speaking about what they stand for.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 03:07 PM

Andy Burnham released a manifesto which was quite widely reported and I read it earlier today. I went to give a link to it and it is no longer on his website; and indeed the links to it from, for example, the Telegraph no longer work.

Of course, it might be his site is being updated....

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 03:10 PM

"Murdoch through his media interests exerts thoroughly disproportionate influence. Indeed any influence at all would be disproportionate seeing as he is not a UK citizen."

Bingo!!

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 10 Aug 15 - 05:53 AM

Musket. I wasn't trying to justify terrorism, merely pointing out that one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. Also, that terrorism when practiced by the state is not necessarily any less brutal, or any more justifiable than any other form of terrorism.

Personally, I wouldn't have said that we do live in a democracy. To me it feels more like an elective dictatorship.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Aug 15 - 06:26 AM

Find it rather touching and delightfully naive that there are some here he seek re-nationalisation of certain entities. Cannot think where those who do have been living for the past few decades - our "governments cannot even run the country, for the benefit of the country, as they are supposed to do - they tend to run it for the benefit of the "Party". How on earth they think a bunch of "professional politicians" who have never worked in the real world are fit and capable of running and directing the course of major industries absolutely astounds me.

"terrorism when practiced by the state"

Examples please?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 10 Aug 15 - 06:54 AM

Terrorism when practiced by the state?

Hungary 1956. Czechoslovakia 1968. South Africa up to the abolition of apartheid. Britain in Northern Ireland up to the peace process. Britain all over the rest of Ireland until 1921. The Iraq war 2003, complete with terrorist (sorry, shock and awe) tactics. Afghanistan, Vietnam, any colonial war the British ever engaged in, The Duke of Cumberland's campaign of genocide following the 2nd Stuart rebellion. Shall I go on?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Aug 15 - 07:32 AM

Find it touching and naive if you like, Teribus but also take the recent history of the East coast train line into account. I certainly don't assume politicians would do a good job. But I don't automatically assume the private sector will do better either.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Aug 15 - 07:47 AM

Yes you are correct Mr T, all alternatives to capitalism do seem naïve, but I don't see political naivety as a bad thing.
We have become so cynical about politics and politicians, that they believe they can do and say exactly as they like and the paucity of capitalism in an economy in decline was shown clearly in the financial crash.
The guilty were not punished and the situation is being temporarily retrieved by squeezing the weakest part of society, while opening the door to financial aspiration among the fortunate few.

There is absolutely no reason why the big monopolies like the railways cannot work efficiently under state control.

Socialism requires the willingness of all the people to change from aspiration to inspiration.....it will be hard and many of us will be worse off financially, but if change is not effected society will be in ruins within a couple of decades.

As you have probably guessed, I have no time for Utopian "liberal" bullshit, which says that we can all be socialists and richer and "more equal".....its all nonsense, we will need many conservative social values to make a viable society.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Aug 15 - 01:27 PM

i agree with Ake.

i'm a liberal fascist.
be nice and tolerant, or you'll get a belt round the earhole with me light sabre.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Aug 15 - 01:33 PM

There is absolutely no reason why the big monopolies like the railways cannot work efficiently under state control.

Yes there is - socialist governments letting the rail unions hold the nation to ransom. That's why we have motorways rather than a decent rail network.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Aug 15 - 02:18 PM

Terrorism when practiced by the state?

Hungary 1956. Czechoslovakia 1968. South Africa up to the abolition of apartheid. Britain in Northern Ireland up to the peace process. Britain all over the rest of Ireland until 1921. The Iraq war 2003, complete with terrorist (sorry, shock and awe) tactics. Afghanistan, Vietnam, any colonial war the British ever engaged in, The Duke of Cumberland's campaign of genocide following the 2nd Stuart rebellion. Shall I go on?

Sorry Fred not pulling on a hair shirt for any of that lot.

Hungary and Czechoslovakia were Soviet invasions of foreign countries all part and parcel of living in Soviet Russia's idea of a "Workers Paradise" where all are equal but God help you if you don't do exactly as you are told. In what way did the Hungarian or Czechoslovakian governments terrorise their people?

South Africa - perhaps you should read up on its history and find out what inspired the Boers First Great Trek -Apartheid only came in in South Africa around 1956, IIRC The Union of South Africa was kicked out of the Commonwealth for introducing apartheid.

British in Northern Ireland hardly as I recall it it was the emergency services and the security services who were trying their level best to stop one bunch of "Irishmen" killing another bunch of "Irishmen" neither of these bunches of "Irishmen" seemed to have any qualms whatsoever about killing completely innocent "Irish" people (3,600 killed and around 36,000 injured and maimed) they claimed to be "protecting" (I personally would have told them to F-Off and protect somebody else - which is basically what the all Ireland referendum held after the GFA told all paramilitaries in Ireland)
Gerry Adams "The PIRA does not target innocent civilians" - Yet "Bloody Friday" was an operation he planned (22 bombs set in Belfast City Centre all timed to go off in under 80 minutes - testament to the fantastic effort put in by the emergency and security services that so few died). I will give Adams his due though he did later admit that when he made that statement he was lying through his teeth when the official PIRA apology for civilian deaths was made much later.

Britain in the rest of Ireland until 1921?? Do you mean from 1707 or back to the days of Henry II? Doesn't matter either way those who ruled in those days treated everybody in the British Isles just as badly - again you need to check up on your history.

"The Iraq war 2003, complete with terrorist (sorry, shock and awe) tactics."

Nope don't buy that one either, now Saddam murdering on average somewhere between 154 and 282 of his people daily over a period of 24 years - now that is what I would call State Terrorism. Reason for the Iraq War failure on the part of Iraq to comply with the terms and conditions of the Safwan Ceasefire Agreement. Oh and wrong war "Shock and Awe" was employed as a prelude to Desert Storm in 1991 not the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003 - There was a very good reason "shock and awe" was NOT used in 2003, the US knew that they would have to rebuild everything they destroyed in 2003 in 1991 they didn't.

Afghanistan? Naw we just helped end a civil war that had been running for about 12 years.

Colonial wars? Again brush up on your history and stop trying to fit the ethics and morals prevalent today on situations and events that happened long in the past.

Cumberland's campaign of genocide?? And there were only TWO Stuart (Jacobite) Rebellions?? Both news to me. Right then Fred take the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 as your start point and find out exactly how many Jacobite Uprisings that were planned and carried out - give you a hint - more than two. Even after the 1715 rebellion the British Government showed extreme tolerance - the '45 however saw a rebel army about 100 miles from London, banks failing a utter panic gripping the capital. Only a massive campaign of deception and misinformation saved the day and prompted Charles Edward Stuart to turn round. British Government then quite rightly said "Never Again, we will break this "Clan system" that the French play so well so that they can never pose the same threat again". Quite sensible really when you come to think about it and you are in charge of looking after the best interests of the nation - don't you agree, or would you have let them have another crack a few years later?

No campaign of genocide either, I am sorry to say Fred, more Scots and more Scottish Highlanders fought in Cumberland's Army than fought against it. The way of life in the Highlands had been changing since the late seventeenth century. In the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars there were over 40 Scottish Line and Militia Regiments - hardly possible if Cumberland had had a campaign of genocide don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Aug 15 - 03:44 PM

Interesting take on public ownership. But can he do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Selby
Date: 10 Aug 15 - 04:23 PM

No

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Aug 15 - 04:43 PM

Why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Aug 15 - 04:47 PM

This model should replace both the old Labour model of top-down operation by central diktat and Tories favoured model of unaccountable privatised operators running our public services for their own ends Jeremy Corbin (from link given by Dave the Gnome)

What does he say about the NHS? Governments of either flavour seem incapable of running it top-down. One could view the Tories wanting the private sector in as an admission of defeat. I suspect railways are easy, and less important, by comparison

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Aug 15 - 04:54 PM

Germany, for example, has had worker representation on boards for decades (and seems to do ok!).

I'd take that as an indicator that it is possible. Whether the parties wanting to prevent it are too powerful to be overcome is a separate question.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Selby
Date: 10 Aug 15 - 06:13 PM

Because of the kick back from the EU, all our utilities are owned by EU partners.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Aug 15 - 07:36 PM

Public ownership can take various forms. The BBC, Channel 4, the Post Office, the roads, and of course in most of our neighbour countries, the railways.

There's absolutely nothing magic about private corporate ownership, typically owned by foreign companies, in some cass by nationalised foreign companies, or in creaming of sizeable dividends to private shareholders and massive salaries and other payments to executives, while starving the enteprises of longterm investment in order to make such payments.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 11 Aug 15 - 02:52 AM

Teribus is right in that Fred's assertion that there was only two Jacobite Rebellions is simply wrong. These were the two rebellions where fighting took place on any scale on English soil but there were more than that. As well as the 1715 and 1745 rebellions there was the first Jacobite Rebellion of 1689 which as well as the conflict in Ireland included in Scotland the Battles of Killiecrankie, Dunkeld and Cromdale. Then there was the attempted French backed Jacobite invasion of Edinburgh in 1708 when the fleet was stopped in the Firth of Forth. Plus the Spanish attempted Jacobite invasion of 1719 which culminated in Battle of Glenshiel. So three big insurrections and two smaller ones which involved more foreign troops and didn't get so much of the ground but were all the same serious threats.

Teribus is correct in that the gvt was relatively lenient after the 1715 which was the largest of the rebellions so you can imagine how exasperated they were when the 45 broke out! Especially when you look at it in context. The rebellion didn't happen in peacetime. Britain was at war with France on the continent. The French encouraged the Prince because they wanted British troops to be withdrawn from the main conflict so it was in fact a new front in the main conflict. So one can kind of understand their frustrations but by modern standards the retribution after the conflict was unacceptable and would be regarded as serious war crimes - but whether they were so unusual for the time in question in the context I'm not so sure!

You do often see claims that the Highland Clearances etc were the direct consequence of this battle which doesn't stand up. Some of the people in charge on the ground in the weeks after Culloden acted in a genocidal manner but there was no actual carried out plan of genocide of the people as a whole! Or at least if there was then they weren't very good at it. In the decades after Culloden the population of the Gaelic speaking Highland areas went through the roof and there were, despite much emigration, far more people there by the early 19thC than there was in the mid 18thC. The population about doubled with no downturn until the famine of the 1840s. That is a whole century after the last Jacobite Rebellion.

What the gvt did was strip the chiefs of their heritable rights of jurisdiction etc but again as Teribus says these changes were already afoot. The idea that one person could have such power over his subservients couldn't sit with the modern Scotland (or wider UK) that was emerging. Other changes like seasonal migrations to the Lowlands had already become more common and one reason that a smallish Jacobite army was able to saunter into Edinburgh in the first place was because the Clan system as it had been had already started to break down in the peripheries. Arguably there was no Clan Campbell in the mid 18thC in the sense that were was 50 or a 100 years earlier and of course the Lowlands were no longer a militarised population.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Aug 15 - 04:23 AM

I am late to make this point, but it is wrong to say that terrorism never works. It worked for Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 11 Aug 15 - 07:16 AM

Teribus. "Hungary and Czechoslovakia were Soviet invasions of foreign countries"

Does that mean they weren't acts of state terrorism? What's the invasion of one country's sovereign territory by another, if it isn't state terrorism.

"South Africa - perhaps you should read up on its history and find out what inspired the Boers First Great Trek".

Ok, so the British were guilty of state terrorism, to say nothing of inventing concentration camps. In any event, it's you who needs to read up on your history. Apartheid was introduced by the ruling National Party shortly after it came to power in 1948. What's more the South Africans weren't "kicked out of the Commonwealth". SA left in 1961, following a referendum. That in itself, although the official reason was that SA wanted to become a republic and not have to recognise the queen as head of state, was prompted by international condemnation over the state terrorist Sharpeville massacre. Sounds to me like you're the one who needs to read up on history.

"British in Northern Ireland".

Perhaps you wouldn't call Bloody Sunday an act of state terrorism, but I certainly would. Yes, I agree that the IRA was a bunch of murdering hypocrites. The point of my argument however is that there is fundamentally no difference between terrorism when it is perpetrated by a bunch of armed bandits and terrorism when it's perpetrated by the state.

"Britain in the rest of Ireland until 1921?? Do you mean from 1707 or back to the days of Henry II?"

Sorry, you've lost me. I cannot recall 1707 as having any significant dates as far as Ireland was concerned. Perhaps you are thinking of the Act of Union of that year, which applied to the Scots, but not the Irish.

"Doesn't matter either way those who ruled in those days treated everybody in the British Isles just as badly".

And......?

"Saddam murdering on average somewhere between 154 and 282 of his people daily over a period of 24 years".

Well, ain't that hunky dory. Did I say that Saddam wasn't a state terrorist? I merely asserted that the 2003 war was both unnecessary and an act of state terrorism. And contrary to what you say, shock and awe tactics were most definitely used by the Allies in Iraq in 2003.

"Colonial wars? Again brush up on your history and stop trying to fit the ethics and morals prevalent today on situations and events that happened long in the past."

Absolute rubbish. How else can we describe the spread of British Empire, and the subjugation of Indigenous native peoples, other than as state terrorism? In any event, imperialists have always had plenty of buzz words to justify the shortfall between imperial exploitation and their own moral and ethical standards; buzz words like civilisation and Christianity, when the real motivations were booty and profit.

"only TWO Stuart (Jacobite) Rebellions?? Both news to me".

Come off it. I didn't say there were only two Stuart rebellions. I was merely differentiating between the 1715 and the 1745.

"No campaign of genocide............more Scots and more Scottish Highlanders fought in Cumberland's Army than fought against it."

Cumberland's campaign of genocide is a proven fact. (See any number of Scots histories for confirmation.) IAE., whether or not Cumberland deployed Scots soldiers in his campaign is entirely irrelevant. It was still an act of genocide and it was still state terrorism.

"you need to check up on your history." Sorry T, you're the one who needs to check up on your history.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Aug 15 - 08:30 AM

Do we really need to turn a discussion about the next labour leader into an argument about who knows history better?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Aug 15 - 09:26 AM

Teribus. "Hungary and Czechoslovakia were Soviet invasions of foreign countries"

Does that mean they weren't acts of state terrorism? What's the invasion of one country's sovereign territory by another, if it isn't state terrorism."

I think it is called an act of war Fred.

What inspired the Boers First Great Trek during the 1830s Fred?

Historians have identified various factors that contributed to the migration of an estimated 12,000 Voortrekkers to the future Natal, Orange Free State and Transvaal regions. The primary motivations included discontent with the British rule:

- Anglicisation policies (especially in official circles, at the expense of the taal.)
- Restrictive laws on slavery and its eventual abolition
- Arrangements to compensate former slave owners (which were considerate inadequate and during harvest season.)
- The perceived indifference of British authorities to border conflicts along the Cape Colony's eastern frontier.
- The Boers had been blamed by the Government for provoking an unjust war.
- Land was becoming scarce and expensive owing to the natural increase in the Afrikaans-speaking population and the advent of 5,000 British settlers during 1820.
- Droughts
- The chronic mortifications at the way the Boers' actions were so freely criticised by the missionaries.
- The official recognition of the equality between coloured men and whites. - GET THAT FRED
- The British authorities had stopped ammunition being traded across the Orange, and someone like Jan PRETORIUS, the sub leader of the TREGARDT trek, wanted to buy gunpowder from the Portuguese in Lourenco Marques, and he thought that joining TREGARDT's caravan was the safest way of getting there."

"so the British were guilty of state terrorism, to say nothing of inventing concentration camps."

Nope and it is a complete and utter myth that the British invented concentration camps - that "honour" goes to the Spaniards in Cuba, closely followed by the Americans in the Philippines - all before the British employed the practice against the Boers. Take a look at the deaths in the other camps compared to those in the British camps in South Africa (The difference is staggering 100,000s compared to tens of thousands). Take a look at the number of British and Commonwealth soldiers who died in their camps in South Africa - roughly comparable to those of the Boer prisoners.

Apartheid was introduced by the ruling National Party in stages after it came to power in 1948, the first step being taken in 1950 it was fully implemented by 1956.

What referendum? - South Africa withdrew in 1961 when it became clear that its reapplication for membership on becoming a republic would be rejected. So strictly speaking it left before it was pushed.

"British in Northern Ireland".

No comments on Bloody Friday then Fred?

No I would not call Bloody Sunday an act of State terrorism - a tragedy yes, a terrible miscalculation by those in command on the scene, but there was no deliberate intention for anybody to go out and kill anybody that day - if you have proof that that was otherwise please submit it to the correct authorities.

"Yes, I agree that the IRA was a bunch of murdering hypocrites."

The PIRA certainly, the "Official" IRA most certainly NOT, they took a look at how things were headed in 1972 and stood apart from direct action completely as they saw the only thing they would be doing was pouring fuel on the fire. The IRA saw that the entire population of mainland Britain was on the side of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Movement and that left to peaceful protest their aims would have all been achieved.

"Sorry, you've lost me. I cannot recall 1707 as having any significant dates as far as Ireland was concerned. Perhaps you are thinking of the Act of Union of that year, which applied to the Scots, but not the Irish."

You did state what BRITAIN had done in the rest of Ireland until 1921 didn't you - That you little historical genius you pegs it to the period 1707 until 1921 as prior to that date BRITAIN did not exist.

AND......?

Ireland was treated no differently than any other part of the British Isles - i.e. that was the norm for those times.

"Saddam murdering on average somewhere between 154 and 282 of his people daily over a period of 24 years".

"Did I say that Saddam wasn't a state terrorist?" You certainly in mentioning the Iraq War of 2003 didn't state that he was!

"I merely asserted that the 2003 war was both unnecessary and an act of state terrorism."

You can assert all you like, in the wake of the attacks of 11.09.2001 and the re-evaluation of what constituted the greatest threat to the United States of America all 19 of the intelligence and security agencies of the USA and the conclusions of the Joint House Security Committee with all the information and intelligence at their disposal totally disagree with your assertions. And guess what Fred - they were right.

"And contrary to what you say, shock and awe tactics were most definitely used by the Allies in Iraq in 2003."

Not if you compare target assignments, aircraft sorties flown and weapons payloads dropped. Not if you compare the area over which missions were flown. Not if you compare the numbers of missiles fired. As I said there was a very good reason "shock and awe" was not used in 2003 - the Americans would subsequently have to repair all the damage and destruction that they wrought - it was simply not good economic sense to blow everything to bits.

"How else can we describe the spread of British Empire, and the subjugation of Indigenous native peoples, other than as state terrorism?"

Nail Ferguson in his book "Empire" describes exactly how it was done by the British - primarily through trade - NOT conquest. Here's a bit of useless trivia for you to ponder when you are considering the reality of your view of the British Empire, which you say was created by the subjugation of indigenous peoples and by force of arms. The British Army at the height of the British Empire during the reign of Queen Victoria numbered ~120,000 men - take a look at the map on the British Empire at that time and think up some sort of reasonable explanation how only 120,000 men could have conquered and then controlled that huge land mass. Oh and Fred another piece of trivia for you, towards the end of Victoria's reign the Empire was starting to cost the British money - no profit in it - Ferguson deals with that as well.

"I didn't say there were only two Stuart rebellions. I was merely differentiating between the 1715 and the 1745."

Just in case you have forgotten what you said - "The Duke of Cumberland's campaign of genocide following the 2nd Stuart rebellion."

You did say you were referring to the rebellion of 1745 - which was the FIFTH Stuart Rebellion - TRUE? So you coming the "I didn't say there were only two Stuart rebellions" is a load of complete and utter codswallop - you were just caught out and haven't the guts to own up to the error.

"Cumberland's campaign of genocide is a proven fact."

Sorry Fred it is far from being a proven fact as Allan Conn has more than adequately explained in his post. Purpose of a campaign of "genocide" is to achieve what exactly? If subsequent to this deliberate campaign designed to wipe out and eradicate a specific group results in that group doubling in number and living on the same land in the course of 100 years then the campaign of genocide must have been a particularly fuckin poor one - don't you think?

"you need to check up on your history." Sorry T, you're the one who needs to check up on your history" - Don't think so somehow Fred.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Aug 15 - 09:28 AM

Apparently we do (see my last post)

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Aug 15 - 11:37 AM

Oh I don't know DMcG, Keith and Mr T know their stuff and it is often interesting to hear the proper version after so much revisionism.

Sometimes Teribus takes liberties when expressing his view on the data, but we all do that, and the "liberals" more than anyone.:0)

In general they are both pretty accurate on facts, but Mr T does lack a little imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 11 Aug 15 - 11:50 AM

i was just wondering if jeremy corbyn might ask caroline lucas to be shadow environment spokeswoman if he were elected labour leader. has anyone read anything about his willingness -or not-to work with other progressive parties? or am i getting too hopeful?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Aug 15 - 12:19 PM

Achmelvich....These folk live in neverland, there will be no progression through "liberalism",   these are the people who are sticking the knife in Jeremy in his own Party.

They have no interest in changing the economic system.

The road that Jeremy is pointing down will be hard and rocky, there will be no time for frivolous side tracks or smoke screens.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Aug 15 - 02:29 PM

there will be no time for frivolous side tracks or smoke screens

What, like Jeremy Corbyn's equality policy?

Idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Aug 15 - 03:17 PM

Most people understand that to implement a change in the socioeconomic system of this country many fond myths will have to take a back seat.....people's value will be weighed in their contribution to society.
There will be no room for playing the system, everyone will be called to account.
The obstacles are many, I really don't think that there is yet the will for meaningful change....livings standards will need to get much worse before the majority risk what they have squirreled away.

All public services have to be paid for, and make no mistake the public will pay, either through lower wages, or higher taxes....this is a fact of life....."liberals" believe that we can have a wonderful education, health and housing services if we just think the "right" things and elect a "Labour"govt......I have no such illusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Aug 15 - 04:43 PM

99 people each earn £100 and each pay 25% tax on it. 1 Person earns £1,000,000 and pays sweet FA. End result, 9 people are comfortable. 1 person has more money than he knows what to do with. The government has £2475 in it's coffers.

99 people each earn £100 and each pay 10% tax on it. 1 Person earns £1,000,000 and pays 10% tax on it. End result, 9 people are much better off. 1 person still has more money than he knows what to do with. The government has £100,990 in it's coffers.

Who lowers their living standards? No-one. Who benefits? Everyone. There is a lot of shite talked about capitalism but there is nothing wrong with everyone aspiring to earn more provided they are willing to pay more into society as well. That does not currently happen because the media have got most people fooled into thinking that if the rich do not continually get richer they will leave the country, a plague of frogs will befall us and it will be the end of the world as we know it. Bollocks. True equality is about everyone being able to live decently and have a safety net in case of difficulties. What is so difficult about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Aug 15 - 04:58 PM

You know DtG, you may just have made that simple enough for con-servative voters to understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Aug 15 - 05:00 PM

Maybe, Richard, but I doubt if certain parties on here would understand anything if you beat it into their heads with a mallet.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Aug 15 - 05:41 PM

Interesting that Teribus denigrates the killing of innocent civilians by the IRA yet excuses the killing of innocents in another thread, on a far more massive scale, in the cases of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I can't help suspecting that he thinks that large-scale killing by big states equals killings excused.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Aug 15 - 08:40 PM

I wam late to make this point, but it is wrong to say that terrorism never works. It worked for Ireland.

Guerrilla warfare worked for Ireland back in the Twenties, but I'd dispute the presumption that that is the same thing as terrorism. There were incidents which can be termed terrorist, but they detracted from the effectiveness of the armed struggle. But most of the actions carried out by the IRA in that time cannot justifiably be termed terrorist, for example ambushing forces of an occupying army, or attacking police stations.

It could be argued that destroying the gentry's Country Houses falls within the definition of terrorism, but this was generally carried out in such a way as to avoid any direct harm to the occupants.

The most significant acts of terrorism in the conflict were carried out by the other side, in what is generally recognised as an intentional tactic.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 06:03 AM

Well I've never voted Conservative, but I don't understand that.

Are you saying that people who earn £100.000 are not paying tax? I can assure you they are. Of course I am against tax avoidance by large companies if that is what you are alluding to, but tax avoidance for the rich is built into the system.......it aids the aspiration syndrome!
Under this system everything is founded on financial aspiration....(clue...it's called the Capitalist System)

Your theory depends on everyone behaving fairly under an economic system founded on greed, inequality and exploitation.

I don't think it will work! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 06:13 AM

Steve Shaw. "Interesting that Teribus denigrates the killing of innocent civilians by the IRA".

As far as Teribus is concerned, he appears to believe that state terrorism (of which Hiroshima and Nagasaki are prime examples) isn't terrorism if it's practiced by the state.

I've had no dealings with Teribus until now, although I am naturally suspicious of 'catters who post below the line far more than they post above it.

However, his outbursts over what happened in 1707 etc., have convinced me that we have someone who is far more interested in scoring points and splitting hairs than he is in entering serious, constructive debate.

That, plus his distorted view of history ("what referendum? God almighty!), plus the fact that he needs to brush up on his literacy skills have convinced me that he is not worth dealing with.

Ignore him and he'll go away.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 08:01 AM

but tax avoidance for the rich is built into the system

I will try to put this as simply as possible.

IT FUCKING WELL SHOULDN'T BE!

That is the point that you so obviously are trying to avoid. Absolutely nothing to do with how people behave, financial aspirations, or any of the bollocks you usually spout and everything to do with how the government should ensure equality of everything INCLUDING TAXATION.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 08:02 AM

Richard Bridge - 11 Aug 15 - 04:58 PM

Unfortunately DtG's example bears absolutely no resemblance to reality does it Bridge?

99 people earning £100 would pay S.F.A: in tax - more likely they would be claiming far more in benefits

The 1 person earning £1,000,000 is already paying a disproportionate amount of the income tax collected in this country. The top 1% of earners paying something like 40% of all INCOME TAX collected.

The usual "socialist" mantra of tax the rich is a bit of a red herring anyway - Income tax accounts for a tiny proportion of the taxes collected by the treasury IIRC it is somewhere between 6% and 10% of the total. Now VAT there's an earned and guess what Bridge everybody pays it on damn near everything you buy rich'n'poor alike the rate doesn't vary.

akenaton - Date: 11 Aug 15 - 03:17 PM"

Well said very very true.

For the benefit of Fred and Steve - and just to score a point:

Fred: "Yes, I agree that the IRA was a bunch of murdering hypocrites."

Teribus: The PIRA certainly, the "Official" IRA most certainly NOT, they took a look at how things were headed in 1972 and stood apart from direct action completely as they saw the only thing they would be doing was pouring fuel on the fire. The IRA saw that the entire population of mainland Britain was on the side of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Movement and that left to peaceful protest their aims would have all been achieved.

Nice to see that attention to detail is up to its usual poor standard Shaw:

"Interesting that Teribus denigrates the killing of innocent civilians by the IRA "

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 08:53 AM

Unfortunately DtG's example bears absolutely no resemblance to reality does it Bridge?

99 people earning £100 would pay S.F.A: in tax - more likely they would be claiming far more in benefits

Oh, FFS, Teribus. That is exactly what it was, an example. Do you think for one minute if I gave an example of 20 Million people earning an average of £25,000 etc. etc. that it would have made any difference?

But if it makes you any happier, let us say if 99 people earned £100 per day and one earns £1,000,000 per day. It still works, would probably be nearer the mark and the figures look even more disparate being increase by a factor of 250 or so.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 09:16 AM

I earned BIG money as an tradesman and was always walloped for Tax.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 10:29 AM

Dave the Gnome - 12 Aug 15 - 08:53 AM

Completely missed the point again haven't you Dave. INCOME TAX is a RED HERRING dragged up to push the buttons of those who do not have the vaguest clue as to where the Treasury DOES get it's revenue from.

Have a look at the numbers in the UK who work.
Then have a look at the numbers who pay tax.
Have a look at the numbers who are net contributors, i.e. they pay more in income tax than they receive in allowances and benefits
Take a good look at the people and earning bracket who pay the bulk of the money received by HMRC in income tax.
Look at what percentage of the Treasury's money comes from Income Tax.
Look at what percentage of the Treasury's money comes from VAT

Now go take a look at the population of Great Britain and get your head round the fact that ALL in some way or other pay VAT.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 02:06 PM

True. We have to pay the same rate of VAT whether we are rich or poor. I can't see any justification for it, except as a way of making poor people pay a fat chunk of tax. It ought to be abolished, and the income tax rate raised to make up the difference.

The clever trick is that when the tax-free level is raised, or the standard tax rate is lowered, that is presented as all about helping the poor - but in fact everyone, including the richest tax payers, benefit from that just as much, and that's where most of the loss to the public purse goes. And the very poorest, who don't earn enough to pay income tax, don,t get a penny. But of course when VAT goes up to make up for that, they have to pay that.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 02:33 PM

WTF are you on about Teribus. Do you still not understand what 'example' means? The whole point of the example was that income tax SHOULD be used more fairly. The diatribe you just dribbled onto the screen only underlines that point. As Kevin says, scrap VAT. Tax income more.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 02:38 PM

Personally I think we should tax assets more, not income or spending. Holding assets is entirely non-productive. Land Value tax has the additional advantage that it is difficult to move land offshore.