BS: Politics: UK Labour leadership election

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 The French encouraged the Prince because they wanted British troops to be withdrawn from the main conflict so it was in fact a new front in the main conflict.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: 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,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: 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
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: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Aug 15 - 04:43 PM

Why not?

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 - 03:44 PM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:30 AM

Well said Mr Mc.

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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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.