BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election

Subject: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 02:05 AM

Dear Other candidate:

If you win but Jeremy gets over 40% of the votes in the first round, in what specific ways would this affect how you lead?


====

The question arose in my mind because I keep hearing the news say that if Jeremy wins he will face an almighty battle to unite the party. I'm not sure that is true, though he will certainly face a battle to unit the Labour MPs. However, if anyone else wins, they may unite the MPs relatively easily, but the battle to unite the party seems as difficult.

My answers: Liz Kendall would answer "Not at all". The others would make soothing noises but would not include anything specific even though the question asks for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Mr Red
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 04:46 AM

methinks we are heading into Michael Foot territory. Or a Neil Kinnock era.
Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 05:01 AM

It seems to me that the assertion that the election of Jeremy Corbyn, as Labour Party leader, would damage Labour's unity, credibility and electability became a self-fulfilling prophecy almost as soon as his candidacy was announced! Oh, how we have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed by the neo-liberals on the right!!

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Acorn4
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 10:25 AM

Things polarise during a recession and a left wing candidate might do better than expected.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 11:47 AM

Anyone other than the totally blinkered knows that neoliberalism has failed and led to greater oppression of the poor by the rich. Creating a New Labour party in the image of the con-servatives will only lead to more of the same. Corbyn is the only person offering anything other than neo-liberalism and oppression and austerity. Already he is speaking to packed rooms. Already he has brought back many many of the young (and some who joined extremist parties in despair stupidity and ignorance) into political activity.

When Corbyn wins, the quislings will rejoin the fold, to save their political careers.

The next battle is to circumnavigate the right-wing media who daily pour out propaganda by the rich for the rich. That will involve the new media and maybe even the dark web. If IS can do it for evil, we can do it for good.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 12:58 PM

We need to ask if he is particularly left wing. OK, compared to the present government, yes he is, but if we compare him to the leaders between 1945 and Tory B Liar, how does he measure up? As I said on another thread, the refreshing thing is that he seems honest. Hope he stays that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Stanron
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 02:25 PM

I had this idea about politics just the other day. I'd never heard any one else talk about it so I thought it was all my own. Just today on the Parliament channel an interviewer on a book program came up with the same idea so I guess it's going round. A bit like a disease. It goes like this.

Several hundred years ago there were two political parties. The Tories and the Whigs. The Tories represented the establishment, the powers that be. The Whigs stood for constitutional Monarchy, in it's day a radical position, particularly after the Stuarts. Well the Whigs won that one and kept the Tories out of office for something like 45 years. Of course politics then then was not as democratic as it is now. Political will was the will of land owners and not the common man. By the 19th century Whig radicalism had extended to expanding the electorate. Their reform act of 1832 expanded the franchise and got rid of the 'rotten boroughs', the seats that were owned by landed gentry. Just after that they abolished slavery in the empire and secured Catholic emancipation. All very radical stuff.

After this the Whigs kind of declined and eventually morphed into the Liberal party. By the end of the 19th century the Liberals had formed four governments under Gladstone. They were another radical party and in 1906 they introduced the first measures of what would eventually become the Welfare State. By the end of the 1920s they had more or less been replaced by the Labour party as the radical force in British politics. Labour represented, they said, the working man.

So the Whigs were replaced by the Liberals and the Liberals were replaced by Labour. Each time the Tories were the anti radical party, they wished to 'conserve' the status quo, and each time the status quo changed the Tories were the party who wished to keep things as they were, or rather as they had become, rather than as they were.

So now the unpopular bit. It seems to me that Labour have achieved pretty much all they were expected to achieve. The work place is regulated, safe and fair. The safety net of the Wefare State is pretty firmly established and the National Health Sevice is, despite Labour's scare stories, unlikely to be disassembled any time soon.

Are we about to see the rise of a new radicalism, the like of which we cannot imagine? I suspect that if we are, then it wont be the Labour Party that does it. I'm not sure that UKIP fits the bill either. Any offers?

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 03:41 PM

except in recent years the tories have become the new radical party, selling up state assets and challenging the existence of many essential and valued institutions of our society. labour are doing their bit to hang on to the NHS, welfare state, bbc, affordable housing, trade unions and an insistence on equality before the law - but seem to lack the conviction to do so effectively.

if labour do ever form a government they will have a hell of a job to retain a sense of confidence and even security in a much degraded society. i reckon this is partly what is driving the desire to support jeremy corbyn and his desire to a state of affairs that most people are happier with. oddly, his appeal is conservative - but in a good way.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 05:42 PM

Stanron, the "new radicalism" has to be environmentally based. The old parties have, essentially, 19th century ideologies now deeply corrupted by neo-liberalism. A 21st century party MUST (it has no choice given the state that the earth-system is currently in) put the environment first. The anthropocentrism of the old political ideologies must be ditched in favour of a philosophy that encapsulates the idea that our species can only survive as part of a healthy biosphere. Unfortunately, I don't believe that there's enough time to achieve such a radical shift. The species Homo sapiens is extinct already - we just don't know it yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 06:56 PM

achmelvich, I think you mean "reactionary and backward looking" not "radical". As the remarkable Harry Smith keeps reminding us, the con-servatives are trying to undo the welfare state, dismantle the NHS, and abolish workers' rights. I would ass that they have already dismantled any pretence of equal access to civil or criminal justice.

And they have devalued the word "reform" to make it mean "wreck".

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Jul 15 - 06:57 PM

Rats. Not "ass" but "add".

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jul 15 - 05:57 AM

Some pundits have suggested that to elect Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party would consign the party to another "20 years in the wilderness".
Where do I sign up to vote?

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 15 - 06:39 AM

In the words of a friend of mine -

Whatever you think of the guy's politics, you have to admit it's kind of amusing that the man most hated by the British conservative right (who generally claim to adhere to Christian values) just now is a bearded anti-war activist whose main stated aim is to help the poor and disenfranchised, has a definite downer on bankers and the ultra-wealthy, and whose initials are JC.

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Jul 15 - 06:42 AM

Richard -- Purely as a matter of curiosity, and in no truculent spirit [for once] -- what may be the semiotic or emblemological connotation of your insistence in hyphenating the perfectly common and universally comprehensible word "conservative" (and its derivatives) after the first three letters, please? You clearly wish to make some cogent point by it -- but what?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 15 - 06:47 AM

I am pretty sure that it is a reference to to them conning us Michael. You seem to have misplaced your punny bone... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Jul 15 - 06:50 AM

Oh.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jul 15 - 11:56 AM

Nurse! He's out of bed again!

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 Jul 15 - 02:56 PM

"In the words of a friend of mine -
Whatever you think of the guy's politics, you have to admit it's kind of amusing that the man most hated by the British conservative right (who generally claim to adhere to Christian values) just now is a bearded anti-war activist whose main stated aim is to help the poor and disenfranchised, has a definite downer on bankers and the ultra-wealthy, and whose initials are JC. :-D "

I don't believe he is hated by the Conservative right, he seems the person most likely to ruin the chances of the Labour party at future elections. As such I can imagine that some of the people paying their £3 to get a say in the Labour leadership elections may well be Conservatives hoping to see him win.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Jul 15 - 03:22 PM

I'm told even the entire Telegraph readership did this the effect would be tiny. But even so, I suspect there are some Tories who might. Which would be a mistake from their point of view, because things would be much more predictable with any of the other three. It's quite possible Labour disappears under Corbyn. But if so, there will be some other party emerges else since a single party system is problematic for the UK. Or there again, there could be an SNP effect: there's a lot who voted Tory who are not died-in-the-wool Conservatives but thought it the best of poor choices. Given a clear image of an alternative could hurt the Conservative party badly.

No, the Conservative party is much safer with one of the others.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Aug 15 - 07:54 AM

Labour is disintegrating, soon they will be a minority party...like the Greens.
They cannot win the next election, so none of the "electable" people want to stand and be associated with failure.

The Labour Party and it's supporters are to blame for losing their vision and their principles.

The electorate has been hoodwinked for years, with   pretend equality and pretend democracy. Now we are ruled by "liberal" fascists.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Aug 15 - 08:39 AM

I have said it before but can never say it often enough. You don't half talk shite, ake. I suspect you will be dead long before that happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 01 Aug 15 - 08:58 AM

Mr Red, if you're the sort who cheers our soldiers off to war and who "just rejoices" when they knock off a few Argies - this being jingoistic mood that took Michael Foot to crushing defeat in 1983 - you will indeed find Corbyn a great disappointment. Crazy as it is, he would rather talk and negotiate than send troops into battle!

On most of his specifics - Trident, rail ownership, progressive taxation etc - public opinion is on Corbyn's side. But he will have to endure much vilification before he wins the leadership race. In part it comes from the Westminster opportunists who have had Labour in its grip since John Smith died in 1974. And just as damaging, it will come from power-at-any-price "leftish" commentators like John Rentoul and Andrew Rawnsley, who would rather their contacts and buddies were chauffeur-driven ministers than footslogging backbenchers.

Even his fiercest critics can't deny that Corbyn will bring sobriety and maturity to the dispatch box. Puerile grandstanding is just not his style. In the unlikely event that he loses, one thing is certain: the anti-Trident, anti-austerity Greens will see a huge rise in their membership.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 15 - 12:59 PM

Corbyn is principled, yes.

He stands for many things Kier Hardy would have approved of, yes.

His ideas were relevant back when a few million of us were employed in manufacturing industry and the "middle class" was smaller sized.

The "middle class" is very large, very aspirational and very cautious when it comes to someone who doesn't understand that red rosettes and donkeys are from a time when people believed what they were told to believe.

Religion is dying for the same reason. Dogma doesn't cut it with a sophisticated electorate. If anyone hadn't noticed, becoming leader of a party isn't an end in itself, it is a means to getting your hands on the keys to No.10. Considering how many people couldn't trust Miliband, and to be fair, none of the other candidates are even any better than he was, Corbyn could win the party but lose the country.

Labour under Corbyn could well be a long term good thing and put a focus on real issues, but at the expense of not getting power till he steps down for a leader who people could trust with commerce, finance, defence, diplomacy, business.......

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Aug 15 - 02:48 PM

Correct GUEST, but there is another alternative.
Change the system......it will have to be done sometime.

The aspirational middle class will further divide society.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Aug 15 - 02:38 AM

Change the system

What system do you know of that has worked, ake? Churchill's quip that Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" has some truth in it.

The most natural form of government seems to be a dictator or tiny elite with everyone else having to do what they are told: after all, that's how just about every company in the world runs, and many countries. And almost every 'parish council' or its equivalent.

It is very easy to campaign for change and almost every contender for every election uses the 'time for change' slogan in some form. Saying exactly what the change should be, though, is a lot more difficult. For example, one might propose in the Internet age everyone is able to vote on every issue. It doesn't take long to see the drawbacks to that, such as the massive influence it would give to some in the media, or how we could find ourselves governed by emotional waves rather than any sort of coherent plan.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Aug 15 - 03:18 AM

There's an awful lot of truth in what you say, DMcG. I would also add that, the older I get, the more I realise that a huge percentage of the electorate don't deserve democracy!

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Aug 15 - 04:30 AM

If Corbyn was elected and gained respect as leader of the opposition the Lib Dems would probably have to take on those of his policies that have support in the centre (see article linked above). By 2020 a lot of Lib Dem supporters will have forgotten about the coalition but the party will know not to risk it again. It may be the best way of getting the Tories out and also have a socialist party with some integrity, even if only getting a share of power through a coalition.

I am probably wrong but would like to hear why.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Aug 15 - 04:31 AM

I meant forgotten about the coalition with the Tories.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Aug 15 - 05:00 AM

Yes I agree 100% with what you say DmG, there is such a thing as too much "freedom", and "equality" is a myth which even if it was attainable would be little benefit to society.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Aug 15 - 05:25 AM

Until we learn that aspiration for personal wealth and personal "freedoms" is a curse, society will continue to disintegrate.

Other countries have managed to build proper public services, though personally poor financially....They do not abuse what they themselves have created.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Aug 15 - 12:55 PM

Ake - you seem repeatedly to contradict yourself. I still see no coherent vision for progress from you.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Aug 15 - 02:12 PM

Richard, you claim to be some sort of armchair socialist, have you ever been out on the march for a decent wage....when we got £8 per week, or had your head split open by people who though we had no right to protest US involvement in Vietnam?

40 years in the CP and you say I have no credibility regarding politics?
I have said that constantly changing parties to make sure the cursed machine keeps running is madness.....the problem is the fucking machine itself, it has run out of fuel.....you know what it runs on? Exploitation, theft and aspiration. I have a vision but you wouldn't like it, for you would be out in the fields losing your belly.

Lets hear your views on how we build a better society instead of your constant whinging and nit picking

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Aug 15 - 05:21 PM

Once again, shite.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Aug 15 - 07:43 AM

Like so many of these things, that list is more problematic than it seems. Freedom and equality are not good bedfellows since effective equality usually needs some regulation which is a limitation on freedom. Bringing the thread back to the Labour candidates the impression given is that Corbyn is more inclined to balance things towards equality whereas the others are more towards the freedom side in the tradeoff.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: pdq
Date: 03 Aug 15 - 08:54 AM

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                ~ Benjamin Franklin

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Selby
Date: 03 Aug 15 - 09:53 AM

Politics in this country has run out of steam. We and I suspect many others do not see our MP until an election is due. We all bumble along slagging each other of because we are red blue yellow or any other colour that does not fit with our individuality. The world has changed and a better approach is required but it suits ALL career politicians to keep the same same old

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 15 - 10:23 AM

If Jeremy Corbyn ran your local pub

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Aug 15 - 11:37 AM

There's no doubt in my mind that Jeremy Corbyn is a damn fine Human Being (deliberate capital letters) and that he eschews policies and ambitions that demonstrate the very best 0f human qualities.

But, sadly, I believe that his election to the leadership of the Labour Party will result in the party becoming completely unelectable - not because there's anything wrong with Corbyn or his policies, but simply because the vile, disgraceful lies and shit-slinging by the Tories and the Tory Press have brainwashed floating- and MOR-voters into believing that the Labour Party, and particularly those very policies that Corbyn espouses, are the root cause of all that's been wrong in the UK since before the financial crash of 2008.

The Labour Party and its supporters in the Press need to get their act together, stop attacking one another, and get hold of the Tories by the balls and squeeze until their arrogant, self-serving eyes are out on stalks. Metaphorically speaking, of course! :-)

They are the opposition. Time to bloody well OPPOSE!

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Aug 15 - 12:09 PM

BWM....what do you wish to oppose?
The Conservative govt are in the business of getting the economy into some sort of shape, they are attacking the benefits system, using Eastern European labour to produce a little growth, encouraging wealth differentials, all policies which will be effective in the short term.
Within a few years they will be turfed out and a "liberal" govt of some description elected .....it will keep itself in power by giving handouts and borrowing money just like they always do....and the wealth gap will continue to widen..... so the circus goes on.    There is only one thing to be opposed and that is the machine itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 03 Aug 15 - 12:30 PM

Dave. If Jeremy Corbyn ran my local you'd never get me out of the place. I've heard him speak at two rallies since he announced his candidacy (the one in Liverpool last Saturday attracted over a thousand people). What impressed me wasn't just his candour, or the fact that he reiterated virtually everything I believe in. It was that his speech took in such a huge field. He didn't just talk about the things which most people would consider mainstream socialism, although they were certainly in there. He brought in women's rights, gay rights, the torture regime in Eritrea, children having to go hungry during school holidays (yes, folks, this is 2015) because the school meals kitchens were closed, climate change, fracking, the disgusting mess we are making of the planet, and much, much, more.

Two things impressed me more than anything else though. The first was the way that capitalism stifles the artistic endeavours of ordinary people, and the role which art will fulfill in the new society. "Everyone has a genius inside them", he said. And by God he was right.

The second came right at the close when he said we have to forge an end to this dog-eat-dog/rat-race/competition-led-ethos which currently surrounds all of human existence, and let us instead build a society where everyone cares for everyone else worldwide. "You can call it Humanism or Christianity, or Humanitarianism", he said. "I call it Socialism".

Is Jeremy Corbyn the man to lead Labour to victory at the next general election? Personally I don't think he is, and I don't think he is because if ever he came within breathing space of victory, the media and the establishment would bury him just like they buried Jesus Christ and the Diggers and the Tolpuddle martyrs and the Chartists and Joe Hill, and everyone else who had the brass neck to stand up and shout for a fair and equal world.

But let's look beyond 2020. For more decades than I care to remember, the left in Britain has been wandering round like a lost dog, alienated, thwarted, and totally demoralised. That is partly the result of Thatcher and the lengths she went to to crush the unions, and it is also the result of Tony Blair's efforts to sell us his ersatz version of toryism.

What I saw at those two rallies was a left wing which has been galvanised back into action. At long last, it has picked itself up off the floor and it is fighting back. Let a million red banners be unfurled. The people are on the march again.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/jeremy-corbyn-tells-echo-i-9774468

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Aug 15 - 01:45 PM

I agree with Fred. And with Jeremy.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Aug 15 - 05:14 PM

I think you are right about the media, BWM, but what worries me is how and why has it happened? You and I can see it. I don't know about you but I am not particularly cynical and tend to take people on trust. I know when someone is trying to manipulate me though. Why can others not see it? Why are those MOR and floating voters so easily fooled? Why are some people on Mudcat so under the spell of the media barons? I can only shake my head at some of the comments made here at times, particularly by those who espouse that things must be true because they read it in the paper or saw it on TV!

Still, what a boring world it would be if we were all the same. Safer, fairer, cleaner and greener, But boring... :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Aug 15 - 10:08 PM

Yes, BWM.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 02:19 AM

I can't believe how both TV presenters and Labour speaker after Labour speaker let Tory speakers away with the "historically we are the fiscally responsible ones" argument in the run up to the election. The stats just don't seem to show that. Since Thatcher came to power there have only been 6 years when there was a surplus and 4 of them have been under Labour with only 2 under the Tories! If you discount the figures since the 2008 credit crunch (a massive and rare world event) then yes Labour may have had a big deficit but it was no worse than John Major's was and they average out almost exactly the same with Labour's figures only being slightly better than the Tories.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#img-1

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 03:34 AM

You're right, of course, Allan. Just before the election a letter, from 100 or so 'business leaders', was published, and widely publicised in the media, stating that they only trusted the Tories with the economy. But I read in the Independent business section that 50 or so leading economists wrote another letter stating that austerity wasn't working and that the rate of recovery from the recession, under the coalition government, was much slower than it should have been; this letter received almost no publicity (who reads the business section of the Independent?).

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 04:10 AM

What you seem to be saying Allan, is that Labour and Conservative are equally ineffective in making the UK economically viable and constructing a society which gives everyone a chance of a fulfilling life?

Does that not bear out my point?.....for change to be effected, the source of the problem has to be addressed, we are simply uncompetitive globally and no amount of smoke and mirrors will make us so.

A smaller unit like an Independent Scotland could survive economically..... with the will on the part of the population, but it will require sacrifices.
In Scotland, the Labour Party is gone for good and with it the UK main office.   They represent no major group in the political spectrum any longer.
I expect to see in an independent Scotland, a real battle between the traditional conservative elements and some proper socialism.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 07:06 AM

One really has to wonder about the news coverage in the UK. On the same theme I noticed this story today. Woman (who is now a sitting Labour MP in the Liverpool area) up working for Better Together during the referendum was charged with assault on a Yes campaigner at the polling station. The case has been dropped on a legality though the Crown Prosecution say they are going to represent it today!

Now I know that everyone is innocent until found guilty so it is not so much what did and what didn't actually happen! But I just couldn't believe the fact that this is the first time I'd even heard of this story! You can rest assured that had it be a Yes Campaign worker, who was now an SNP MP, who was accused of the assault then it would have been splashed on the front page of all the tabloids.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-33765416

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 09:54 AM

here's some interesting comment from the 'national' newspaper. please note how welcoming the scottish independence movement is (and has been throughout) to positive ideas from england.



http://www.thenational.scot/comment/cat-boyd-jeremy-corbyn-could-be-best-thing-to-happen-to-english-democracy-in-generations.5936


come on comrades - allow yourself a bit of hope - it's been a long time coming

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 10:34 AM

Very astute comment :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Stanron
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 11:39 AM

Fancy some cold water being poured over rosy dreams?

Remember Greece.

A strongly left wing party sold the hope of an end to austerity to an electorate who bought it hook, line and sinker. What was the result? A near bankrupt country and even more austerity. Oh yes and a referendum that then got ignored. More hopes dashed.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 03:47 PM

as this topic looks set to drop off the live charts could i ask why there are usually 2/3 times as many threads on music etc than on general stuff. sorry if this question has been asked before.....

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 03:50 PM

There appears to have been a tightening of Moderation Controls.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 06:02 PM

Again, agreed BWM. And, NO, ake. Go away and read some statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 15 - 09:01 PM

I think you mean "reactionary and backward looking" not "radical".(Richard Bridge)

Surely "radical" can properly be used to refer to reactionary and backward looking political ideologies, provided they are drastic enough in destroying the status quo, more especially the good things that existed. As in the case of Isis or Thatcherism, or the present government.

If we had a decent society the important thing wouldn't be to try to change it, but to protect it from destructive changes. We could all be genuine conservatives with a good conscience...

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 03:23 AM

i agree, i used 'radical' to mean drastic -though right wing (fascist? or neo fascist?) change. political terminology has become very confusing - especially the 'liberal' term. i think republicans (as in trump and palin not mcguinness and adams) regard liberals as communists. american neo-liberal global capitalists are heavily indebted to chinese communists party who are, of course, the most currentlly successful capitalists on the planet. politically, 'liberal' has so many interpretations that perhaps all meaning is obscure or lost. is the new liberal leader more liberal than the previous neoconsevative enabler leader clegg? i think there still as a 'Liberal' party (presumably holding on to a traditional view of what liberal is - as opposed to 'liberal democrats'

of course it's all very confussing - i prefer to stick to the old marxist definitions of bosses and workers. or if i'm being really modern - banging on about the crimes of the 1%. in supporting JC in for the labour leadership am i being a conservative, or at least, traditional - conservative?

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 04:43 AM

It's even more complicated than that , one can be a social conservative, and also a political radical.

One cannot be a social conservative and a "liberal".

One cannot be a liberal and a "liberal"

This forum has a coterie of the most illiberal "liberals".

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 05:03 AM

Those like Fred who warm to Corbyn but accept the received wisdom that he can't win a general election might be interested in these thoughts from the senior Tory ex-minister Ken Clarke, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary, etc, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 07:36 AM

I believe Jeremy could win a GE Peter, and I would love to see it, but could he make the current economic system work to our satisfaction?.....He would have to make so many compromises that any inspirational movement would be disarmed.

I remember Miss Short a leftish politician who joined Blair's War Cabinet and sabotaged the huge grass roots movement against the war.

Had she joined Mr Cook in resigning everything may have been different, but she now says she thought she could fight better from "inside the Tent"....the famous cry of the hypocritical left.

The only way we will get change is through a popular movement, a charismatic leader, and a population which REALLY wants change

Still a long way off unfortunately.....or perhaps fortunately. :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 02:53 PM

What is ake on? And on about?

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 04:01 PM

Clare Short was in the band of opportunists who took over the Labour Party after John Smith died. Any suggestion that Corbyn's cast from that same mould would be far wide of the mark.

I agree with Ake that if Corbyn wins, he will face an onslaught from all manner of interests vested in the status quo. Wilson had to cope with MI5 scheming against him; Michael Foot was falsely exposed as a Soviet spy. Corbyn has all that crap ahead of him and worse. But where does the fight start, if not here?

I don't know if anyone remembers that disturbing telly drama, A Very British Coup (requires registration to view, probably UK only)? For some reason it's writer, Chris Mullins, has decided the time is right for a sequel....

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 04:21 PM

I didn't mean to compare Claire to Jeremy Peter. I was simply illustrating how the guts can be removed from an inspirational grass roots movement by compromise(which will be in Jeremy's case, unavoidable.)

The worst possible option, is to give the impression that the system can be managed.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 07:37 PM

Michael Foot was falsely exposed as a Soviet spy"
I thought that accusation was made against Wilson,
Harold Wilson conspiracy theories
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Harold Wilson in 1974

Since the mid-1970s, a variety of conspiracy theories have emerged centring on British Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson who served as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1964 to 1970 and 1974 to 1976, winning four general elections. These range from Wilson having been a Soviet agent (a claim which MI5 investigated and found to be false), to Wilson being the victim of treasonous plots by conservative-leaning elements in MI5 - the latter being claims which Wilson himself made.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Aug 15 - 09:31 PM

Here you go, GSS: Sunday Times pays Foot damages over KGB claim. Incidentally I had occasion to down many pints of Beamish in Vinnies, Rosie's, Levis' etc during a pleasant few days last week, and my pal bought a painting from a chap called Bruno. Alas you were not around.

Ake, if Corbyn is not the solution (or the start of it), what do you think is? Does it mean nothing that people are turning out in thousands for a guy who wants to ditch Trident, get us out of NATO and take the utilities back into public ownership? We can debate dialectic materialism as much as we like with the handful of folk still clinging to the remnants of CPG, SPGB, and the rest, but what's that going to achieve beyond giving you a warm glow? Someone needs to motivate the maases, and that's what Corbyn's trying to do. I hope he pulls it off.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 03:28 AM

The con-servatives are the rich making war on the poor (and TCs who believe their lies). You cannot oppose that by supporting the con-servatives, or accepting all or any of their poisonous core belief.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 03:35 AM

MI5 under Hollis and Furnival-Jones were right in the pockets of the Tories, and would be formenting rumours and distrust against any Labour leader. Ironically there were also rumours that Hollis was a Soviet agent, possibly started in revenge.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 04:21 AM

Richard Bridge....that is simplistic nonsense.
Many of my neighbours are what used to be known as "one nation Conservatives", they are not monetarists or fascists, just people with conservative social values, who believe that the Tory party are better at running a Capitalist economy than a Socialist party.
They are undeniably correct in that assumption, given the past record of successive administrations.
I would hope that you do not label the Blair government as in any way Socialist.
Peter is correct as usual, we need to make a start on a complete change in the system, but the point is that we need to take these good sensible people with us, not fight or demonise them.
Socialism will mean a fall in wasteful living standards for many, and hard work for generations who have become embedded into the benefits culture......we need to inspire everyone but the rulers of capitalism, that there is a better way for people to exist than the financial aspiration which drives folks at this time, and that the sacrifices will be worth making in social terms.

As a lifelong socialist, I fervently hope Jeremy can succeed in his leadership bit and in a GE, but I feel that to implement change, the UK electorate need a shock which goes right to the heart of their comfort zone, cuts through the chains of the benefit system and blunts financial aspiration.

The good Jeremy is , I'm afraid, not the person to provide such a shock.   He will be ritually crucified......Hope I'm wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 05:12 AM

"Embedded into the benefits culture..." Translator's note: thrown on to the scrapheap during Thatcher's determined drive to destroy our industrial base.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 06:44 AM

Moving away from these rather abstract ideas, how do you think each of the candidates would address the current tube strike (Hint: saying it's all up to the mayor will be recognised as just a cop-out and regarded with scorn)

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 07:04 AM

All four will profess to see some merit in the workers' cause until they are in power. Then three will say, regardless of any facts in the matter, that the bosses were right all along.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 07:11 AM

One thing that intrigues me is that for all the talk of "Maggie destroying the unions" I don't remember her trying this one, and if she did she didn't succeed, presumably because you can stockpile coal but not daily journeys

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 08:47 AM

I imagine Jeremy Corbyn would point out that there's only a strike because management are trying to impose major changes to work conditions, and have effectively refused to negotiate a deal.

People don't vote to strike and go on strike for fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 09:42 AM

What Kevin said

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 09:46 AM

Hateon - bullshit. The idea that the economic crisis was caused by labour overspending is a piece of the lying propaganda from the right wing press that TCs swallow.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207460470495934&set=gm.968800589809613&type=1&theater


http://www.rt.com/uk/311653-austerity-labour-poll-nonsense/



FFS if you are the communist you say that you are, take the fight to the capitalists instead of relaying their propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Polics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Aug 15 - 12:53 PM

Oh no Richard, the population overspent, but successive govts including "Labour" governments encouraged them to overspend.

The banking system was deregulated by the Tories and further deregulated by Blair and Brown, "plenty of credit, no need to worry about whether you can afford it or not".....can't blame them for trying to make capitalism work, can we.

Regarding govt spending, we can only spend what money is produced by the economy.....and we are producing little.

At present we are involved in a holding operation. Soon the dam will burst.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 02:59 AM

There was an interesting article in yesterday's Independent newspaper by one of their economics editors, Ben Chu. He made the point that if an organisation is to move forward, it has to invest for the future and such organisation's often need to borrow in order to invest. In the current business world, companies are not investing enough in R&D, new equipment etc. because shareholders are demanding short term gains. Governments are not investing enough either but, instead, are obsessed, like Osborne, in 'reducing their deficits'. Chu asserts that the failure of governments to borrow and invest - in things like infrastructure (and, I would add, education) - is storing up trouble for the future and reducing the ability of nation states to grow. Corbyn is proposing to borrow in order to invest (orthodox economics) and is labelled as an 'extremist'! In a sane world, Osborne should wear the extremist label. But the pernicious cult of neo-liberalism has taken us so far from sanity that we no longer recognise sanity when we see it!

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Stu
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 06:57 AM

There is a growing realisation that capitalism as it is practiced now is not working any better than communism was in Russia before the fall of the Berlin Wall. There are two routes opening up to us now, either the Chinese version of capitalism involving a totalitarian government basically using their workforce as indentured slaves and not allowing any dissent or criticism of the system and ruling elite (we're on the road to this already) whilst increasing inequality and attempting to keep the middle classes pacified by selling them 'stuff' they don't need. Zero hours contracts and the erosion of workers rights, the heavy-handed policing of virtually every sign of dissent and the propaganda machine of right-wing, oligarch-owned media are evidence of this nightmare becoming the norm. It's why the tories and their corporate masters hate the BBC so much; any attempt at telling the truth is seen as bias. Pretty much all our politicians are in hock to this model; science-denying lackey's of multinationals that operate outside of the law of any country because they are separate entities to any country.

The other route out of the present mess is a return the sort of state intervention Corbyn (and the SNP) are proposing. Here infrastructure is taken back into the hands of the people and things like energy, public transport, education and healthcare are run for the populace and not profit. Meanwhile, the worst excesses of capitalism are curbed by regulation; capitalism is incapable of self-regulation and needs to be reigned in and made to serve the people it employs. This doesn't mean an end to entrepreneurship or big business, earning profits or getting rich, it means people and businesses recognising they part of a society and economics will not compromise our ethics or morality for their own ends.

It's time for us to grow up and start taking some responsibility for our (in)actions. We can't address climate change and the coming mass movement of entire populations it will trigger, the conflicts across the globe and the need for a more equitable global society if we stick with our new outdated economic system. We have to change, and perhaps Corbyn is one of the small stones that starts the avalanche of change we need in the UK so we can join Scotland and forge a more progressive, caring and better educated society.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 07:49 AM

Well said, Stu. As I said sometime earlier though, it seems that we are crying in the wilderness. Most people seem to believe all the stuff the media are feeding them. Or is that in itself a myth propagated by the government and the press? Talking of which - In that unholy alliance, who is the organ grinder and who is the monkey? Blowed if I know :-(

Either way, you only have to look on this forum for examples of people quoting what the media have told them as if it is undoubted truth. There are times when I despair of my my fellow man!

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 08:43 AM

No system can work without a change in people's attitudes, as I said the promotion of personal financial aspiration is the poison, and the "chaser", enabler, is "liberalism" and all its falsehoods.

Smoke and mirrors my friends ...:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 10:19 AM

I'll have some of what ake is on. Not sure if I would be safe to drive a computer though.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 11:39 AM

I notice that our 'extremely economically competent' chancellor has just sold 'our' stake in the Royal Bank of Scotland for £1.1 bn less than 'we' paid for it! With economic competence like that we can't lose ... Oh, hang on ...?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 12:21 PM

Don't get excited chaps. Even if Jeremy wins on the first ballot, he is almost certain to lose on second choices.......none of the "liberal" candidates will have Jeremy down as "second choice", yet those who vote for Jeremy will have only the three "liberal" muppets as second choices.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 01:51 PM

Which gets us right back to the opening post! If Jeremy gets around 40% on the first round, but is then knocked out, should this have any bearing on how whoever is elected acts? They can always ignore it, but there will always be the knowledge that they are ignoring well over a third of the party faithful...

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 02:22 PM

It doesn't matter what the candidates have as their second choice, they only have one vote apiece. There'll be some Cooper voters who went for her because she's a woman who'll have put Corbyn as second choice, and some who went for Burnham because they think he's a more realistic leftish candidate who'd have Corbyn as second.

If Jeremy does get 40% of first preference votes, the chance of him picking up enough on the second choices to push him over 50% would be quite good. The thing is, even more than in normal elections, no one has a clue.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 02:29 PM

I'd guess Liz Kendall will come last, with most of her second preference votes going to Yvette Cooper. If that puts her ahead of Andy Burnham I'd think it very likely that when his second preference votes wee shared out, that could well put Corbyn over the line. If Burnham is in second place, snd cooper's second preferences come into play, that would be more likely to help Burnham win.

But of course that all dependent on Corbyn being well in the lead, which may not happen at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Aug 15 - 08:58 PM

Can't vote in British elections any more, even if I would want to as I live in Ireland now.
We get Murdoch's Times daily (for the Codeword), and am appalled at the crude, stomach-churning hate campaign that paper has launched against Corbyn - from grotesque, Punch-like cartoons depicting him as a deformed monster, to attempting to associate him with I.R.A. terrorism - not even skilfully done.
Confirms all my reservations about Parliamentary Democracy when a fascist cretin like Murdoch can use his media influence to attempt to sway the British electorate.
Many years ago, in the days when the Beeb gave us a decent mix of modern drama, they put on a wonderful four-part series entitled, 'A Very British Coup' (probably the best political drama ever presented by them).
It depicted a situation where a left-wing Government was elected in Britain which lived up to its promises and began to put into place genuine reforms, ( a sort of fantasy), only to be met with all kinds of opposition from the right-wing establishment.... obstruction by civil servants, M15 engineered fatal 'accidents', attempted blackmail..... all good, passionate political drama.
After all had failed, the final shot was of American marines being parachuted on London to 'restore democracy'
The present campaign by Murdoch's bum-wipe Times gives such creations a chilling credibility.
I have too say that, despite my cynicism towards politicians' promises, I would be very tempted to cast my vote for Corbyn - anybody who can rattle the Antipodean Arsehole's cage has my respect
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 03:36 AM

Jim, I heard an interview on BBC5 radio, in which Jeremy failed to condemn the use of terrorism by Irish republicans.
He was being badgered by the interviewer, and I feel that he simply didn't like the tone, but I'm sure it came across as being evasive.

The media can crucify people very easily, Jeremy was trying to show the bombing campaign in context....BUT   terrorism must be condemned no matter who does it.
Personally I think "terrorism" encompass many policies even economic sanctions, so it is a complicated point, but he made a serious mistake and there is no use in trying to deflect it.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 04:11 AM

I didn't hear the interview so can't comment specifically. But in general it is extremely difficult to handle questions that over simplify without sounding evasive.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 04:37 AM

Jim, I heard an interview on BBC5 radio, in which Jeremy failed to condemn the use of terrorism by Irish Republicans."
Didn't hear the interview, so I can't comment, but personally, I very much doubt if he supports terrorism of any sort
We're being treated to programmes here covering the Security Forces collusion with Unionist terrorism during the Troubles - it seems one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, to some people.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 04:44 AM

Yes I agree DMcG, I don't know what your politics are, but I'm sure you will agree that terrorism is always counter productive and should always be condemned. Jeremy seemed to terminate the interview while the interviewer was repeating the question.

We will never change anything by frightening people, at least not in the long term. We need to convince and inspire rather than kill and maim.....the idea of alienating people because of their voting history, as Richard is always suggesting, will always end in failure and recriminations.....People vote for all sorts of reasons and cannot be stereotyped.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 05:12 AM

"but I'm sure you will agree that terrorism is always counter productive"
Always?
The Maquis and the French Resistance veterans or the A.N.C. might disagree with you there.
I find any form of violence abhorrent, particularly that aimed at civilians, but it happens in all national and international conflicts to one degree or another.
Ireland has been in the process of a balancing act throughout the course of the Peace Process - it seems that, at long last it might be making some headway - this year's Loyalist marches have been the most violence-free ones that I can remember.
Sure, let the British politicians start condemning their particular bad-flavour of the month with meaningless mouthings of condemnation to suit some particular political campaign like a Labour Party leadership election - why not - that's what politics are about.
Let's dig out photos of the Brighton Bombing or the Drop-in Well to make sure a leftie isn't elected.
Parhaps Labout Left might consider digging out the footage of a miner's wife about to be batoned by a mounted boy-in-blue at Orgeave?
Is that the kind of politicking we need?
I have to admit that when the Apartheid regime fell in South Africa, I was extremely outraged at the idea of a 'Peace and Reconciliation Committee' letting those bastards off the hook for what they'd done to the Africa people down the years - on reflection. I was wrong and I let my brutish instinct for revenge get the better of me.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 06:39 AM

Anyway, how JC dealt with the interview looked bad and shifty and I'm sure will have done him some damage with the electorate if he fights a GE.

The issue will be raised again and every time it is avoided, makes it all the harder to deal with finally.

What he should have said, was that he did condemn the IRA bombing campaign and other acts of terrorism unconditionally.
He could then have brought up the issues of internment and Bloody Sunday as a balance.
Now he comes across as evasive on this issue, and it will haunt him for the rest of the campaign.

In his defence, he is obviously unused to dealing with the media, and the BBC are no more unbiased than the Murdoch papers.....he allowed himself to be trapped and rattled.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 08:31 AM

"looked bad and shifty"
Bit subjective, don't you think?
Sounds like every politician I've watched on the box
I think a tit-for-tat suggestion would have been a total disaster and would have given the rabid right exactly what they are looking for - a Republican sympathiser.
It probably will do him damage, but if it wasn't this. Im sure the media will find something else.
Let's face it, anybody who is handed Northern Ireland as a subject is handling an extremely hot potato.
It all boils down to (pun intended) whether you believe him to be a supporter of terrorism, personally, I don't.
Interesting letter in The Times this morning:
Jim Carroll
CORBYN'S SILENCE
Sir, David Aaronovitch writes that in 1987 Jeremy Corbyn took part in a minute's silence for the eight IRA men and one civilian killed by the British army in an ambush at Loughgall (Opinion, August 6). He describes Corbyn's action as an "utterly mistaken" and irrelevant "peace gesture" — "irrelevant" because it was the Loughgall ambush that "convinced the Provisional IRA that it could not force Britain out of Northern Ireland by military means".
The silence was largely a protest against the "shoot to kill" policy alleged to have been carried out against Republican targets by British troops. Furthermore, Loughgall was only one of many ambushes and shootings that led all sides to realise that a political solution must be found. It was the willingness of the pragmatists to take unpopular steps (such as meeting Gerry Adams) that led to the "peace process".
NEIL AUSTIN London W1

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 08:46 AM

I don't think anyone, even the media would consider Jeremy to be a "supporter of terrorism", but the IRA bombing campaign in Britain was totally wrong, and the question could easily have been defused by an admission of the fact.
As I say, lack of skill in handling the media was the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 10:58 AM

I'd distinguish between terrorism and irregular warfare. Terrorism is violence directed at civilians and noncombatants for political reasons. Planting a bomb to blow up enemy vehicles, for example, is not terrorism. Planting a bomb in a pub is terrorism.

Some of the actions of the Maquis, the IRA, the ANC etc did involve terrorism, but by no means all, or even most. Condemning such actions is not the same thing as denying out of hand the right of such groups to carry on a military campaign in certain circumstances. It's to condemn certain types of activity, whether carried out by guerrillas or government forces.

Of course making those kinds of distinctions in the course of an interview would be difficult or even impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 11:43 AM

"but the IRA bombing campaign in Britain was totally wrong, "
As was the 'Trick or Treat Massacre', or the Bloody Sunday Massacre, or the re-routing of Civil Rights Marches through hordes of stone-throwing Prods (which set the whole bloody ball rolling), or, for that matter, the partitioning of Ireland in order to create a 'Protestant Province'.
No side came out of The Troubles with clean hands - nobody!
Let's face it Ake; this has been raised because of the Labour leadership race, the victims are an incidental, as far as the politicians are concerned.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Aug 15 - 11:47 AM

Interviewer: Do you condemn terrorism?

response: That's a very superficial question and the short answer that yes, I condemn terrorist acts whoever carries them out. But if you want a proper response it will take all the time we have allocated for this interview. I am happy to do that. Are you?

_______



That's the shortest response I can come up with.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Musket
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 03:05 AM

Amazing. Supports terrorists?

Sounds as stupid and illogical as reckoning there has to be some revolution or other. If I were in Scotland, I'd possibly support SNP, especially now the Scots have roundly rejected the distracting independence nonsense. SNP are about the only liberal equality focussed party in politics now, and I salute their inclusive outlook.

There has been a revolution already, and we are now living in the post revolution ear. The two political parties offer slightly different flavours of the same thing and most people want, in one way or another, stability.

Not really the climate for a Corbyn or a Th*tcher.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 04:32 AM

The SNP have the opportunity to make SERIOUS changes to our economy and society......As an SNP member, I certainly hope so, but am not confident.
The inspirational nature of the Scottish Independence campaign contributed to the rout of Labour in Scotland. The Scottish "branch office" of the Labour Party never served the Scottish people, Labour in Scotland was often corrupt and self serving.....hardly in the mould of Mr Corbyn.

This inspiration can be used to form a new society. With the sacrifices which will be required it may be possible to make real changes which will beneficially affect the lives of millions of young and deprived people who live in poverty. Tackle drug addiction and crime.
People need to be given a purpose in life, if not, they will sink into the benefits swamp, generation by generation....and as we can see, what capitalism gives, it can easily take away.

The post above presents..."Amazing, supports terrorists".

The meaning is typically obscure, but if it is trying to infer that I think Mr Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser, it is just as typically wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 07:46 AM

The questions of when, if ever, it is right to support terrorism, and the form which that support should take are extremely complex.

It is made all the more so by a lack of anything approaching a workable definition of what exactly terrorism is.

EG., if it is right to condemn the brutal tactics of Islamic State, as it once called itself, is it not equally right to condemn the state terrorism of the West in starting the Iraq war and which was fundamental to the founding of IS? If it is right to celebrate movements of national liberation, and the European resistance movements of the 2nd world war, then how about we hear it for the IRA who, believe it or not, were merely trying to drive a foreign oppressor from their soil?

In any event, it says a lot that that this is about the nearest which Corbyn's enemies have come to digging any "dirt" up on the man. And that after 32 continuous years as an MP.

Oh, sorry, I nearly forgot. There are several closet Tory Labour donors saying they'll withdraw their support for Labour if Corbyn reinstates Clause Four.

Oh hell, the cheek of it. A "socialist" party which wants to reestablish one of its founding socialist principles. Good God. The membership will be demanding a fair and equal voting system next.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Aug 15 - 08:00 AM

Yes Fred, but we must remember that it was the most popular and "electable" Labour politician who was instrumental in the removal of clause 4......it must be said at the behest of the media.

I think it is time to re-nationalise, but the task would be almost impossible with huge obstacles to overcome, not least the composition of the present Labour party.

Does anyone think the "big beasts" like Umunna who ducked out of this contest are likely to endorse the return of clause 4? They are "liberal" career politicians, not socialists.
They always play by the (capitalist) rules.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 03:34 PM

Good point, Dave, but even more difficult I think. Someone could, for instance, be very asset rich and cash short. How would they be able to pay apart from by selling the asset? What type of assets do you mean anyway? Houses? Factories? Rare record collections? Surely it can only be the type of asset that generates income and then we are taxing the income rather than the asset are we not?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Stanron
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 04:14 PM

Assets are currently taxed on acquisition. Are you suggesting they should be taxed subsequently and repeatedly?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 05:11 PM

Property is not taxed on acquisition, apart from stamp duty which is a trivial amount.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 05:26 PM

VAT is regressive because the rich do not need to spend all of their income. It is not (repeat not) even-handed in effect.

Terrorism worked for Ireland not before partition, but after. The UK bottled.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Stanron
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 05:42 PM

OK, try this, assets are purchased with money that has already been taxed.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 06:28 PM

I'm not so sure that terrorism worked. Didn't it initially more than likely delay power sharing etc?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Aug 15 - 06:33 PM

Nope, Allan. Without it there would have been no such thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 01:49 AM

Well it is a "what if" that can't be proved one way or the other and I suppose you are right in that power sharing as such probably wouldn't have come about but peace and normal democracy may have come much sooner. The Civil Rights movement brought the issue of discrimination to the wider UK public as a whole - just as it had in the US with their black Civil Rights movement. There is at least an argument to say that the descent into violence hampered things rather than help things.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Musket shaking head
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 02:45 AM

So terrorism pays eh?

Coming from a solicitor, a mercenary paid to scare people, I see some weird logic.

The people of Northern Ireland, sick to the back teeth of gangster mentality, protection rackets, lack of inward investment and opportunity. That's what brought the agreements forward. Criminals never advance a cause, merely entrench positions.

Full fucking stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 02:49 AM

Face facts. The UK bottled it. The bombers won.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 03:24 AM

Rubbish, the objective of the Provos was a United Irish republic.

Did the bombing campaign achieve that objective, or even make it look more possible?
Power Sharing(in name only)was a device to allow the combatants to take a step back without losing face.

In Cuba The people who supported Castro were subjected to years of sanctions and repeated invasion and assassination attempts...did it work? Only to the extent that it kept the population poor, it never broke their will......If Fidel died today he would still be a hero.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 04:04 AM

Mr McGrath says......"
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.

That is very true, and is a perfect example of how the Capitalist system works to encourage financial aspiration.
If investors were taxed heavily or the profits from their investments capped. they would simply move on to countries with a more sympathetic economic regime.

There is no escaping the fact that under a socialist govt we shall all have to work harder and all be contributors in whatever way we can to the economy. We must stop whining about individual and minority rights and concentrate on constructing a better infrastructure in health, housing, education and culture.

We must stop working the system to our advantage as happens at present. The conservatives are correct in saying that no one should be better off on state benefits than they are when in work.
We unashamedly rip off the NHS and the service itself makes little attempt at educating people on dealing with the causes of ill health, and tackling the problems before they arise.

Why is this? because too many in the health service have their dirty snouts in the money trough......the amount of money wasted on advocacy services, "patients rights" tribunals etc is disgraceful.
Your local doctor has simply become a dispensing chemist.

We are being conned in every facet of life, but that will never change till we realise that we ourselves have to change first.
We have been led blindfolded down the "liberalist" path for too long, looks like the splitting of the Labour party into "liberals" and socialist could be the start of something important.
Maybe at last we are on the right road.. Is it to be universal personal rights, or a better healthier society?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 05:35 AM

We must stop whining about individual and minority rights and concentrate on constructing a better infrastructure in health, housing, education and culture.

So, to have better health, housing, education and culture we must scrap individual and minority right? Would you care to explain that, ake? How does stopping gay people marrying improve the education of my grandson? How does paying a woman less than a man make more hospital beds? How does denying entry to a builder from the EU create more housing?

You don't half come up with some tripe and this is a prime example. Ever noticed that even those who agree with you on some points astutely avoid discussing this stance?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 10:11 AM

The NHS is the health service not the illness service. Millions are spent on public health and health promotion work, trying to encourage healthier lifestyles and putting people into situations where they can take more responsibility for their lives.

I don't know which is worst Akenaton, when you spout bigotry or just ill informed bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 12:47 PM

Reading Tony Blair's letter in the Guardian today reminded of this paragraph from C.S.Lewies' "The Silver Chair", which I quote below without further comment:

One word, Ma'am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things - trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a playworld which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 06:17 PM

"Millions are spent on public health and health promotion work, trying to encourage healthier lifestyles and putting people into situations where they can take more responsibility for their lives"

Spoken like a true NHS pen pusher......you certainly should recognise "bollox", you people are experts.

I have just attended two separate tribunals each costing almost ten thousand pounds, to determine the rights and treatment of a patient who is unable and unwilling to address his/her medical problem.
Patients in this situation require guidance and confidence from their doctors, not to be presented with a questionnaire on which form of treatment they wish to have. I suppose that's what you mean about "taking responsibility for their lives"....you pompous balloon.
Two months have been wasted on this charade conducted by hugely overpaid "professionals" and a coterie of rights lawyers and advocacy advisors....."bollox"....indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 13 Aug 15 - 08:16 PM

Meanwhile Corbyn's home and dry. No need to lay off any of the £15 at 22/1 I put on him a few weeks ago. He'll easily clear 60 per cent on first preference. And yep, like someone speculated above, Caroline Lucas will make a great shadow environment secretary.

We can also be sure that Labour's party conference will be a lot of fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 02:07 AM

No idea what he is on about but having him sat at a tribunal can't be much of a comfort.

I must go and catch up with one of these "pen pushers" and see how many patient's lives we can bugger about with. 😂

Corbyn will give you a job as a pen pusher regardless of the industry if he gets any power. Nationalisation indeed....,,

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 03:05 AM

so, all the time that the right wing has been in charge of the Labour party, the left wing has stayed loyal, vocal but they stayed in the party.

Now that the right wing look as though they might lose control they are saying that if Mr Corbyn wins, there will be a split.

Hmmm, who are the true labour party supporters?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 03:18 AM

A split ? You mean could get another party like... what was it called ?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 07:56 AM

"As Kevin says, scrap VAT. Tax income more."

VAT is what pays for the EU.

Good heavens who is the troll taking Mr Shaw's name in vain posting as a GUEST?

Did the loyalists collide with the RUC? much damage done in that collision was there? What were they both driving?

Bridge - in what way did the British Government bottle it?

IIRC it was the present mob in Stormont that signed the Police Bill in Northern Ireland wasn't it? And Akenaton is perfectly correct in stating that the aim was for a United Ireland which they have failed to deliver. What has been achieved is that the likes of Gerry Adams and Martin Mcguinness have gained a sort of respectability and nice pensions. But after their 30 years blowing people up, running extortion rackets and drugs empires the PIRA now know how there will be a united Ireland:

1: The majority of those living in Northern Ireland have got to vote for it.

2: The people of the Republic of Ireland have then got to vote in a referendum to allow the union to take place.

The one thing that was stated loud and clear for the whole world to see in the all Ireland referendum held after the GFA became fact was that something like 92% of those who voted in that referendum agreed that guns and bombs have place in the politics of Ireland - that puts paid to anybody claiming that their brand of terrorism is being backed by a "mandate from the Irish people".

"Official" IRA ceasefire 30th May 1972 - Fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 10:34 AM

The post of 06.10am was not made by me and does not represent my views. Moderators, mischief is afoot.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 10:53 AM

For anyone who's not been drifted off-topic by the obsesssive Teribus, further evidence that the Labour leadership spat is over.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 11:14 AM

"further evidence that the Labour leadership spat is over."
It would be comforting to think that Britain was finally getting an opportunity to vote for a change rather than more of the same old, same old.
Fingers crossed.
Two stong reason#s in favour of Cobyn - undoubtedly Blair's and Torytoon's recommendations
G'luck
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 09:05 PM

One interesting aspect of this election is the way that both Cooper and Kendall, and supporters like the Guardian, have tried to argue that electing a woman as Labour leader is important in principle - and yet the evidence is that while a pretty small percentage of their support comes from women, a majority of Corbyn's support does.

See this breakdown of Yougov's polling

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Aug 15 - 09:48 PM

I see no mention of Corbyn's ties to holocaust deniers, terrorists and some outright antisemites by those extolling his virtues here, not that it surprises me.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 01:56 AM

I wouldn't spend your winnings quite yet, Peter. I won't be at all surprised if Andy Burnham won, and the bookies odds seem about right to me (not that I have placed a bet)

What JC has certainly shown is a pent-up demand for traditional values, and one undoubted impact of that, in line with my opening post, is that Andy Burnham is now making much stronger left-of-centre statements than he did initially. Corbyn always said he wanted to open the debate up, and no-one can deny that he has done that. By my reckoning something like 2% of all eligible voters in the whole UK have paid money to have a say and it would take quite an ego to say, ok, you've spoken. Now I'll completely ignore you. (Most politicians, are, of course, not lacking in egotistical qualities)

But the media and everyone else is going on about economic competence. That's code, of course, for following the current fashion in economics rather that actual competence, but I could imagine a lot of people with pen in hand saying maybe not Corbyn after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 02:22 AM

Just checked my figures: 30,607, 835 voted last election, and figures of 610,000 eligible to vote in the leadership are being bandied about, so that is 1.99% of people who voted, not those entitled to vote. And I realise while it is likely that those who were prepared to pay also actually voted, there will still be a good number who didn't.

But my point stands!

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Musket musing
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 02:35 AM

Corbyn and his version of economics might work, but only if you persuade the rest of the G20 countries to adopt a similar strategy.

Which you can't.

So it doesn't work.

This parochial attitude to how the world works and the interdependency needed in order to even begin to fund your social programme is something Tories and UKIP don't grasp. To hear Corbyn have a similar naive outlook is both unsettling and worrying.

Yes, his priority list with what we have to play with is laudable but you have to generate it first. Go for the bankers' bonuses? That'll fund Birmingham social services for 48 hours.

After that?

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 03:05 AM

Since neither you nor I are economists, Musket, I'm not sure it is valuable to debate it much further! I accept that there is a big problem with a different approach unless the G20 agree. But economics isn't science: it is opinion, based on a vastly simplified past history, with a dressing of maths in some cases to look better.   I've always liked the quotation from Galbraith, who was, as we know, an economist: "The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable."

So much of economics is no more than fashion, in my view. That's not to dismiss it by the way: fashion has a much more significant effect on life than we usually admit. But it is also the nature of fashion that it changes, often rapidly and unexpectedly. The orthodoxy that came in with Reagan and Thatcher was far from the standard view before then.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 04:06 AM

"I see no mention of Corbyn's ties to holocaust deniers, terrorists and some outright antisemites"
Is there evidence of such connections or have you been overdosing on the Daily Mail again Bruce?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 04:06 AM

I realise that still sounds like I am being dismissive of economists. That's unfair: while not an economist myself I worked for years in a team where everyone else was a professional economist, as was my father-in-law, so I've been talked to a lot about it.

But there are serious alternatives to the financial economics we are used to, and even Cameron played around with it a bit, though he got soundly ridiculed for it, a little unfairly. One is 'Happiness economics' (see Wiki), which says there are other things that matter:
"The economics of happiness or happiness economics is the quantitative and theoretical study of happiness, positive and negative affect, well-being, quality of life, life satisfaction and related concepts, typically combining economics with other fields such as psychology and sociology. It typically treats such happiness-related measures, rather than wealth, income or profit, as something to be maximized. The field has grown substantially since the late 20th century, for example by the development of methods, surveys and indices to measure happiness and related concepts. Its findings have been described as a challenge to the economics profession"

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 04:24 AM

There was also an article in The Guardian which made similar assertions of anti-sematism, but the copy editor decided to make the subtitle "Corbyn may not have an antisemitic bone in his body, but he does share platforms with people who do".

I've linked to the article, so form your own opinion. However I give you mine. It is not antisemetic to criticise Israel's policies. It is not antisemetic to speak to others who oppose Israel. Antisematism is racism, and like all other forms of racism it is no more and no less than attacking a person in some form because they are Jewish, or Indian, or African ... It is completely unrelated to whether Israel is or is not in breach of UN resolutions, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 04:58 AM

" It is not antisemetic to criticise Israel's policies"
It miost certainly is not, in fact, the European definition of antisemitism states clearly that it is Antisemitic to identify Ireal's actions to the Jewish people - making those who accuse critics of Israel of being Antisemitic - Antisemitic.
As the British Government not only friendly with States with Antisemitic policies such as Saudi Arabia, but sells weapons to them - the logic of this nonsense is that Briish people have nobody to vote for.
These twots simply don't think through their stupidly cowardly claims.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 05:28 AM

DMcG 15 August 4:06 am.......One of the best posts I've ever seen on this forum, and very, very important if we wish to change society.

Just what I've been trying to promote in my own clumsy way.

As a society over the last seventy years we have become, in general terms better off financially......but the "happiness quotient" has diminished as we gained self reliance through relative prosperity.

It's a case of "what we have been encouraged to want, is not always good for us.".....People require a purpose in life to be really happy.

There is talk this morning of Blair or his acolyte D Milliband returning to save the Labour Party, or rebrand it as the "gang of four" did to set up the SDP.

I don't think this will happen as an outright victory for any single Party in the next election, looks unlikely.
I think the party will split into smaller groupings and with proportional representation, socialism may gain a small voice.

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

"As a society over the last seventy years we have become, in general terms better off financially.."
Superficially - and even then, only some of of society.
After the war the Labour Government embarked on a programme of improvements for working people - largely opposed by the Tories - National Health, Social housing and a massive programme of slum clearance
In 1946, Social Security was developed to cover unemployment and old age pensions at a survival level
During that period, the Trades Union movement was able to win better conditions for working people and more security of employment.
The Thatcher regime put a stop to most of that - it silenced any say the worker had in his job, undermined security of employment, whittled away unemployment benefit and virtually destroyed social housing by turning homes into commodities, conning council tenants into believing that by owning their own homes meant that had a potential profit-making commodity - "we were all capitalists now".
During the Depression, 2 million people were unemployed, the Government has recently announced that unemployment in Britain has NOW DROPPED TO 1.9 MILLION, THE LOWEST IN SIX YEARS some "better off financially"!!
The choice of policies between the various political parties has virtually disappeared - not only are they different shades of the same, but Governments are now based on compromise rather than policies of improvement and genuine change, largely via coalitions.
The gap between rich and poor has widened enormously, homelessness has increased and workers no longer have any security of tenure - this is how prosperity should be judged - not by the superficiality of televisions or mobile phones or holidays abroad - whether you can feed, clothe and educate your family and keep them in reasonable health.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 12:24 PM

Very flattering, ake, but you know I wouldn't rate anything I posted as much above average, never mind that significant.

There is another branch of economics dealing with the rather oddly named hedonistic models, (because that's not people usually imagine hedonism to denote). These also attempt to include more quality of life factors, even though they remain at heart financial [I think: I am no expert].

But even if you only think about classical economics, there is a great deal of scope for getting different answers depending what you do and don't include. For example, when considering whether to close a local hospital you may well get a different answer if to take into account travelling time of patients and relatives to the next nearest hospital accounting for their additional travelling time at say, minimum wage; or adding the impact of any deterioration in the travel times on nearby motorways on the businesses that use them. Musket may well know how much such things are taken into account, I don't. But I can certainly see how what you choose to count and ignore could be very influential on the conclusion you come to, even with 'text book' economics.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 12:39 PM

I thought I did but using a mirror to see the scars down my back, I sometimes wonder.

Economists are of course the types of people who see something working in practice and wonder if it can work in theory.

I'll tell you what though, regarding the international picture. I used to find it easier to safeguard British jobs as Euro harmonisation increased. It isn't a level playing field but it is more level than when I became a director of a company in the '80s. The jobs we created came with confidence in our markets.

Conversely, when interfering in The NHS in more recent years, national politics have been a huge factor but my concern isn't MPs kissing babies, it's wondering where The NHS is going to meet demand in the light of promises successive governments have failed to deliver.

I genuinely see no answers in Corbyn. To be fair, Cooper isn't impressing me with her health plans either and she was the then junior minister who appointed me to chair a board spending half a billion of their cash..

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 04:27 PM

The essential difference with Corbyn is that he appears genuinely to believe in a more open and democratic way of shaping the policies of the Labour Party. The actual solutions he favours will have to make their way within that kind of process, not laid down on high and presented to the party as fixed dogma to which they are committed come what may.

It is likely enough that not all the things he'd like to see the party adopt will be adopted, but they will be argued, along with the other ideas and policies.

The same goes for his actual job as leader.. A democratised Labour Party would not feel obliged to stick to a leader set to lose, as the election approached, in the same way as last time. And it seems pretty likely that Jeremy Corbyn would be quite open to stepping aside if that was how it looked.

Concentrating all the attention on an election that is five years away is not too bright. There is important work to be done right now, to build a movement with the same kind of energy and confidence that the SNP has demonstrated in Scotland - and the indications are that Corbyn is the only candidate with any hope of enabling that to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 05:55 PM

The "Blairites" have nothing in common with Jeremy or socialism, no matter how electable they may be.
To progress, the party must split and the socialist wing start changing peoples minds.....it is perfectly possible, but will take time and patience and I don't suppose many of us will see it.

Under this system, Labour will always be a party of opposition no matter how many MP's they have.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 15 - 06:40 PM

Without electoral reform Labour's future is pretty dire. One way and another the Scots aren't going to avaiable to even the balance, wther as Labour or as SNP. Either Scotland will be independant, or the Tories will have pushed through changes which will neuter their effective. Influence in Westminster.

With electoral reform we'd see a realignment of politics, so that the coalitions would between smaller parties rather than within big parties.

I suspect a rerun of the referendum on the Alternative Vote might produce a very different result. People always talk about that as a massive vote of confidence in FPTP, but in fact the turnout was only 42%, which meant that only one in four people voted that way.

I can't see an SDP type split - but if Corbyn wins there probably will be an organised right-wing Labour group within parliament, an opposition within the opposition. And of course they'll accuse the left of being splitters...

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 01:18 AM

Being called Socialist or otherwise is irrelevant. Being electable is all. It means you have policies and a philosophy that appeals to voters.

We have a word for it. The word is democracy.

Corbyn and his ideas are a welcome shake up to the system in the same way SNP are with their "prosperity through equality" tag, but like SNP, he carries a political overview that would be disastrous if allowed to happen. Luckily, in Scotland, the majority of people clipped their wings in the referendum. Corbyn would have to wait for the next election to see how deluded he is.

And frankly, the Tories put ideology before pragmatism every single day. A further term of them at the next election? Under Boris or Osborn?

Support Corbyn and find out.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 01:45 AM

I also think a split is unlikely, but I can't say the reasons are especially cheering. Let's look at the position of deputy, for a start. They are all saying they will work with whoever the voters pick as leader. Now, democratically speaking that's all very laudable, but it does mean they are happy to make the case that privatising the power companies is essential or absolutely insane, depending who gets picked. Which rather smacks of an attitude that getting the job is more important than anything else.

And I suspect we will find the same in the lower ranks. To split, you need a set of principles that you think your party has turned against and that you believe the populous will support. If the vote turns out anything like the predictions - and it may not - I can't see how a potential splitter would think there was a groundswell for Blairism, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 02:08 AM

Being electable is all. It means you have policies and a philosophy that appeals to voters.

Yes and no, Musket. There are two ways you can do that; either trim your policies so that you are electable or convince the electorate that the policies you have are ones they should vote for. The Blairite approach was very much the former. Corbyn is attempting the latter, and while he very much wants to win in 2020, I suspect that when it comes down to it he would feel that convincing people of the rightness of his policies is more important, and if that took longer than five years, well, it does.

And we must not leave time out of the equation. There is always the pressure for a change just because the government is getting tired.

But I think McGrath makes an excellent point. The changes in Scotland probably do make it essential that Labour wins in England if it is to have any chance of future power, and the evidence for that is very scarce indeed, both recently and historically.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 02:23 AM

I mentioned elsewhere that Andy Burnham's promotional video disappeared for a while. It is back and can be seen at www.andy4labour.co.uk

While I think the actual manifesto is quite good, I am afraid the video he put with it will do him no favours. He does not come across well, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 04:09 AM

(The real me). Bloody shame that the fight isn't between Chuka Umunna and Stella Creasy. Now that would have call-me Dave sweating. Now where's me cookie...

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 04:15 AM

"Being electable is all. "
That has been the approach of the Liberal Democrats for years, and look what happened to them - no policies and no credibility.
Labour in Ireland has thrown in their lot with Fine Gael the dominant shower of shit, by forming a coalition with them, and guess what - they are now an enthusiastic part of the process of throwing water-tax protesters in jail - in doing go, they have lost all their traditional support and I doubt if they will ever win it back.
Blair became "electable" and turned into and international criminal with his "weapons of mass-destruction".
Being electable means S.F.A if you don't have the principles and policy to back it up and if you are prepared to water down your real intentions in order to fool the electorate into voting for you it is a pretty fair indication you have neither.
Politics has now become a game of win-at-all-costs by people who don't give a fuck, and the results on the country are to be seen in increasing poverty and homelessness and an employment figure approaching that of the Depression.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 05:08 AM

If the figures on this website are to believed, I'd better retract what I said about the lack of evidence of Labour being able to win in England without Scotland. It would take a little time to work through them so I haven't bothered, but they all claim to be based on published official data.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 05:23 AM

Jim as ever misses the point.

You offer your vision but you govern on behalf of all.

I notice Corbyn gave a pro business speech the other day, supporting enterprise and acknowledging the message CBI and others shout.

I suppose that alone shatters the vision for our armchair socialists whilst giving Corbyn a smatter of credibility with normal people.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 05:25 AM

Guessing games about what will happen in an election five years down the road are a bit pointless. Opinion polls, for what they are worth don't give Labour much chance, whoever is leader, but than they aren't really measuring anything real. In fact even on those Corbyn scores better than the others - only 21% predict him winning in 2020, but that's better than the predictions for the others, with 19% for Burnham, 15% for Cooper and 11% for KendLl.

And the truth is, nobody knows. When the Tories picked Margaret Thatcher as leader that was generally seen as disastrous for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 05:48 AM

"You offer your vision but you govern on behalf of all. "
As should all Governments in a democracy - nothing new there Muskie.
It is the vision that is important - not the act of getting elected, which has become meaningless to the electorate as things stand.
Unless you can persuade people to vote on genuine policies and not on vacuous promises that are never fulfilled, parliamentary 'democracy' will continue to earn its inverted commas.
I often wonder how many people who fling about 'armchair socialist' have ever participated in genuine, long-term political activity - it's a term that has become as insultingly meaningless to politics as has 'purist' and 'finger-in-ear' to folk song.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 06:51 AM

" Unless you can persuade people to vote on genuine policies and not on vacuous promises that are never fulfilled, parliamentary 'democracy' will continue to earn its inverted commas"

I'm with you there Jim.........The oft quoted slogan(by TM) "Prosperity through equality", is one of the most vacuous and misleading, that I have ever encountered, given the methodology of the capitalist system.

Although an SNP member, I dislike their blatant sloganizing, aimed at capturing the votes of the young and impressionable inhabitants of facebook.

In reality there are many more important issues to address than H "M".

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 08:49 AM

The Jewish Chronicle Online has some questions for Jeremy Corbyn: The JC.com

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 09:34 AM

The Palestinian Problem is an open sore which has been allowed to fester for over half a century, chiefly by Western nations, for purely political reasons.

The whole idea of a homeland for Jews was ill thought out and did not take into account the various races and tribes affected, but we are where we are and there is right on both sides.
Israel must have the right to protect its integrity and the Palestinians need to be compensated for the years of incarceration and ill treatment....the guilty people are those who cynically used a bad situation in their own interests.....on both sides, the Palestinian leaders have been just as self serving as the successive presidents of the US and Prime Ministers of the UK.

If Jeremy is taking the simplistic view on this issue then he is wrong.....but that should not stop socialist voting for him in this leadership election. I dislike some policies of the SNP, like remaining in the EU, but that does not stop me voting for them to secure the wider agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 10:00 AM

I suspect the Jewish Chronicle no more speaks for the British Jew than the Daily Mail, or the Guardian, or the Telegraph or the Sun speaks for other Britons. A section, certainly, and maybe even a substantial one but that's all.

I happen to be Catholic, but please don't assume the newpapers in the back of the Church represent my views!

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 01:09 PM

McGrath makes a crucial point: Corbyn will be arguing for his policies within a Labour Party that is much more democratic than it has been in years. He is disposed to listen, more so than any leading politician in recent times. He has not delivered a Burnham-style top-down "manifesto," he has floated options.

A large part of his appeal to Labour's constituency parties is that it is not in his nature to impose faceless candidates whose only credentials are that they are on-message. It cannot be wondered that New Labour's elite, and their paid apparatchiks, are alarmed by the winds of change now blowing.

[Diversion: Akenaton claims there is right on both sides on the Palestine-Israel question. Even if there is, it is not equally distributed. These maps show the extent to which parity is reflected on the ground.]

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 02:56 PM

Correction to the blatantly false and laughable propaganda maps linked to in the post of 16 Aug 15 - 01:09 PM CLICK

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 03:15 PM

Gosh. A so called member of SNP (he isn't really) is so embarrassed by telling us he is a member, he can't even name their policies and achievements. He has to use abbreviations.

By the way worm, it's HM. Not H"M". You disgusting creep. HM means HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE. Are you so scarred by experience you can't even acknowledge decent normal people and their right to happiness? (Are you reading Joe?)

Oy Jim. I lost my house and had a bailiff make us decide whether to keep the pram or cot through being on strike so a bit less of accusing me of not having done anything. I possibly did more politically in an hour than you did in your life but I have no evidence to prove it, as you can't substantiate your dig either. Anyway, I don't laugh at fingers in ears, I laugh at trousers up to yer tits.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 05:19 PM

Yes Peter, I am totally against the continuous expansion and building of settlements.
This issue should have been dealt with years ago, the US is primarily to blame today, but it was the British who oversaw the granting of land which constituted the borders.
I knew a man who was involved in this operation, a Major in the British Army. He told me that on granting many Israelis land, he would return a week later to discover that they had taken ten times the amount granted.

The Palestinian refugees are of course the real victims, but their leaders have let them down very badly to make political points...and line their own pockets.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 05:25 PM

Did anyone see Gordon (clunking fist) Brown attempt to connect with a right hook on oor Jeremy's chin?

The guy is beyond belief, apparently Jeremy wants to build alliances with, left wing regimes like Venezuela, Cuba and ......RUSSIA!!!

Oh my god.....not many "liberals" there....:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 06:44 PM

"but their leaders have let them down very badly to make political points.."
Sure they have - no mention of terrorist activity on the part of the Israeli regime, of course - which would make the right of the Labour Party (not to mention the British Government)Complicit in terrorism.
Why take this discussion there Ake - it really is far too complicated to sandwich in here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 07:11 PM

no mention of terrorist activity on the part of the Israeli regime

Of course not because there is no such thing except in the minds of those who wish to demonize Israel. The terrorism that is acknowledged by most democratic countries is that being perpetrated against Israel by such recognized terrorist groups as Hamas and Hezbollah which are funded and supplied with weapons by the terrorist regime of Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Aug 15 - 08:17 PM

"no such thing except in the minds of those who wish to demonize Israel."
Yeah sure Bruce 2000 plus dead Palestinians who died in Gaza last year, 1492 of them were civilians - 551 children and 259 women) last year will vouch for that.
It is somewhat disingenuous to bring up Corbyn's so called friendship with Hamas or the IRA.
At the present time, the British Air Force are carrying out bombing raids in support of a president who has been jailing, torturing and 'disappearing' his opponents, whose men were shooting down women and children on the streets of Homs (and offering prizes to any sniper who could kill a woman and child in arms with a single bullet) and who used chemicals (sold by Britain) on the Syrian people.
Any politician who refuses to negotiate with all sides in such a situation should leave politics and take up macrame
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 17 Aug 15 - 03:17 AM

A pity that a thread about UK politics is being polluted by a Canadian who has nothing in common with, has never visited and from his posts fails to understand The Middle East he keeps embarrassing himself by waffling on about.

Corbyn may rightly make reference to the terrorist atrocities inflicted by rogue Israeli governments but by not condemning Hamas and their intransigence cum philosophical aims, his credentials for the world stage are flaky to say the least.

I thought we did away with "my enemies enemy" after Churchill admitted that an alliance with Stalin was a way to end a war, not suck up to criminals.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 17 Aug 15 - 05:32 AM

Apologies correction "92% of those who voted in that referendum agreed that guns and bombs have place in the politics of Ireland"

SHOULD HAVE COURSE HAVE READ:

"92% of those who voted in that referendum agreed that guns and bombs have NO place in the politics of Ireland"

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Aug 15 - 05:50 AM

"I possibly did more politically in an hour than you did in your life but I have no evidence to prove it,"
And you have no basis for claiming it - you have no idea who I am or what I have been involved in - so why not just accept that fact instead of using fatuous phrases like 'armchair socialist'?
"Cardboard box" - you were lucky!! belongs with Monty Python, it serves only to detract from these discussions
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Aug 15 - 05:52 AM

Jim in 1929 - 1934 2 million out of work (It actually reached 2.5 million but never mind detail was never your strong point - 20% of the insured workorce were unemployed - it was 50% in Glasgow)

The population of the UK today is somewhere in the region of 63 million - So not the same thing at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Aug 15 - 06:34 AM

The important point, is that there are too many people in this country who are not making a contribution to society and this is because it is cheaper and easier to keep them on derisory benefits than to revamp the education system, encourage contribution through manual work( everyone is not academically minded), give everyone a stake in creating a better society.

Through the EU we have the availability of cheap labour from Eastern Europe, but no infrastructure to support the hundreds of thousands of economic migrants who are arriving. Meanwhile our own people are being squeezed by low wages, zero hours contracts, sky high rents and a shortage of jobs in construction etc.
The whole scenario points to a short term rat race, the economic system is in decline and the time is right to make a change in our values. Only an ignorant fool would think that the wealth differentials we see around us are right or moral.

Has everyone lost all sense of proportion. I have no real faith that Jeremy can defeat the media or convince the Facebook generation, but his real enemies are the "liberals", the myth promoters, the "freedom and democracy" bringers, the sad evolutionists who would preside over the "Decline and Fall".....Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Aug 15 - 06:36 AM

terrorist atrocities inflicted by rogue Israeli governments

The only ones who make such outrageous statements are those who wish to demonize and delegitimize the only truly open, free and democratic country in the Middle East. They are recognized for what they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Aug 15 - 06:49 AM

" 2 million out of work"
A little shgort of that today - and we're now sending them to Boot Camps
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 17 Aug 15 - 07:04 AM

All this just for a leader of ........what is it??? the opposition.......beaten in the general election!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Aug 15 - 07:45 AM

Not really Bonzo. It is about the future direction of the Labour party. Individual candidates are of little importance compared to that. And anyone who is interested in the good of the country should want to ensure the democratic system is healthy whoever they support.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Aug 15 - 08:31 AM

"Not really Bonzo. It is about the future direction of the Labour party."
Exactly - it's about giving the electorate the choice.
At present Britain has Conservative Conservatism, Labour Conservatism or Liberal Democrat Conservatism, which is why it has become the increasingly poverty-stricken shit-hole it has.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 17 Aug 15 - 08:48 AM

Like I said Jim. Armchair socialists.

I know of another poverty stricken shit hole Jim. Like us, it has the odd economic migrant sponging off it 🍀

It's a bit disturbing reading on here comments about the "danger" of "liberals." If I want to read that nonsense, I might pick up some Murdoch toilet paper or listen to the silly end of the American republican bun fight. Mind you, looking at the source of it, monkey read, monkey repeat.

Subject: RE: BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 17 Aug 15 - 08:49 AM

And that's the way WE want it to stay, if it's all the same to you!