UK General Election/Politics

by Roller_Coaster Thu May 04, 2017 2:22 am

First topic message reminder :

Here's a possible thread for it all, despite the lack of political input from me to start it!

Mods if you want to/can cut and paste the recent obviously political "discussions" from the Anything Goes, here might serve?

by MontysMerkin Tue May 23, 2017 8:30 pm

Really? Ok.
You have issues that Corbyn has been portrayed as a supporter of the IRA. He has consistently denied this (despite the medias best efforts to suggest otherwise) and has only said that reconciliation can only happen when 2 sides come together and talk.
The tories have a councillor that served in the IRA, was booted out of the party when the media found out, then returned to the fold when the furore died down. I would say that if 1 concerned you, then it's possible that the other should too.

by **navyblueshorts** Tue May 23, 2017 8:51 pm

MontysMerkin wrote:Really? Ok.
You have issues that Corbyn has been portrayed as a supporter of the IRA. He has consistently denied this (despite the medias best efforts to suggest otherwise) and has only said that reconciliation can only happen when 2 sides come together and talk.
The tories have a councillor that served in the IRA, was booted out of the party when the media found out, then returned to the fold when the furore died down. I would say that if 1 concerned you, then it's possible that the other should too.

Ah, OK. See? You can be constructive when you put your mind to it. Of course; sorry, I should have seen that connection. TBH, I'm not overly bothered about Corbyn's previous IRA sympathies (or not), given Jerry Adams and McGuinness etc. The point's well enough made, but I'm still a little unsure about his position on things like this, given his historical utterances have all, basically, been anti-State. Now he says he abhors violence on both sides etc etc - maybe he does and always did.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue May 23, 2017 8:57 pm

MontysMerkin wrote:Really? Ok.
You have issues that Corbyn has been portrayed as a supporter of the IRA. He has consistently denied this (despite the medias best efforts to suggest otherwise) and has only said that reconciliation can only happen when 2 sides come together and talk.
The tories have a councillor that served in the IRA, was booted out of the party when the media found out, then returned to the fold when the furore died down. I would say that if 1 concerned you, then it's possible that the other should too.

One of them isn't in the running to be prime minister so it's not as relevant.

by MontysMerkin Tue May 23, 2017 9:09 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote:Really? Ok.
You have issues that Corbyn has been portrayed as a supporter of the IRA. He has consistently denied this (despite the medias best efforts to suggest otherwise) and has only said that reconciliation can only happen when 2 sides come together and talk.
The tories have a councillor that served in the IRA, was booted out of the party when the media found out, then returned to the fold when the furore died down. I would say that if 1 concerned you, then it's possible that the other should too.

One of them isn't in the running to be prime minister so it's not as relevant.

To you maybe, but a lot of people think that it's a case of double standards.
I would suggest that there is less to the corbyn story about links to terrorism than the papers would like, because their attempts so far have been pitiful. I would imagine that if there was something tangible to crucify him with then it would have been used by now. He worked on behalf of the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six, who were eventually found to be have been wrongly convicted of IRA bombings in England in the mid-1970s
Actually having a previously paid up member of a terrorist group in your party is a bit more severe in my eyes, irrespective of the politics involved.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue May 23, 2017 9:20 pm

Like I said one of them isn't a party leader who's seen as a weak IRA sympathiser, personally I don't want someone like him leading this country. A councillor is an irrelevant level when it comes to a general election.

by MontysMerkin Tue May 23, 2017 9:27 pm

That's your call. I don't see him as a weak IRA sympathiser, so personally I don't mind him leading this country (in fact I would prefer someone with an established track record for reconciliation and peace before conflict, but thats because I enjoy knitting with lentils or something hilarious along those lines Laugh

)

by Hammersmith harrier Tue May 23, 2017 9:42 pm

Corbyn- Misplaced idealism
May- Harsh reality

by MontysMerkin Tue May 23, 2017 9:50 pm

Why is campaigning for peace misplaced idealism?

by Hammersmith harrier Tue May 23, 2017 10:11 pm

It's an impossibility that's why.

by MontysMerkin Tue May 23, 2017 10:13 pm

Peace is an impossiblity?

by Hammersmith harrier Tue May 23, 2017 10:17 pm

Yes it is and I find it quite foolish to think otherwise, the human race is a non conforming rabble built on Millennia of war.

by MontysMerkin Tue May 23, 2017 10:19 pm

Fair enough, that's a shame though.

by McLaren Tue May 23, 2017 11:17 pm

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Corbyn- Misplaced idealism
May- Harsh reality

Not sure May and reality have much cross over.

by pedro Tue May 23, 2017 11:21 pm

McLaren wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:Corbyn- Misplaced idealism
May- Harsh reality

Not sure May and reality have much cross over.

Only this month..

by puligny Tue May 23, 2017 11:44 pm

Well she has now clearly shown herself to be a little fibber! Naughty Theresa - what would your god think?
Totally untrustworthy, and in the pocket of Dacre and the rest. Stayed in her bunker during Brexit, and jumped out just in time to capture a role for which she is completely unsuited.
Still my favourite story of her duplicitous and mendacious handling of her brief was the occasion a few years ago when she claimed it had been impossible to deport someone because he had a cat! 2011 Tory Comference - look it up! Total fabrication, but an example of manipulation by extreme propaganda. It's an example only, but fits a trend. Hope this time she has tripped herself up before the line!

by beninho Wed May 24, 2017 12:00 am

Peace in the world probably is a bit of a pipe dream. But its a good pipe dream to have, and surely negotiations are better then bombing countries, which has gone so much for causing the very problems we have now. May voted for the war in Iraq, i very much doubt Corbyn did.

by JAS Wed May 24, 2017 12:01 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Yes it is and I find it quite foolish to think otherwise, the human race is a non conforming rabble built on Millennia of war.

Well wtf are we pussyfooting about for then? Why don't we all get our nukes out and have a pissing up the wall contest (or a melting the wall along with most other Poopie on the planet)?? or should we try and avoid that for now?? Here's a tip why don't you try and let reality shape your politics instead of letting politics shape "your reality"??

by JAS Wed May 24, 2017 12:07 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Like I said one of them isn't a party leader who's seen as a weak IRA sympathiser, personally I don't want someone like him leading this country. A councillor is an irrelevant level when it comes to a general election.

I would also suggest who spoke to who circa 30 years ago is an irrelevance in the 2017 General Election unless you're from the Daily Mail in which case it's clearly effing vital!!

by Hammersmith harrier Wed May 24, 2017 12:18 am

JAS wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:Like I said one of them isn't a party leader who's seen as a weak IRA sympathiser, personally I don't want someone like him leading this country. A councillor is an irrelevant level when it comes to a general election.

I would also suggest who spoke to who circa 30 years ago is an irrelevance in the 2017 General Election unless you're from the Daily Mail in which case it's clearly effing vital!!

Unless you've had family killed by the IRA go and do one.

by JAS Wed May 24, 2017 12:23 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
JAS wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:Like I said one of them isn't a party leader who's seen as a weak IRA sympathiser, personally I don't want someone like him leading this country. A councillor is an irrelevant level when it comes to a general election.

I would also suggest who spoke to who circa 30 years ago is an irrelevance in the 2017 General Election unless you're from the Daily Mail in which case it's clearly effing vital!!

Unless you've had family killed by the IRA go and do one.

If only said conversations could have happened 10-15-20 years before then. Or would you have preferred peace not to have been brokered so that many others could suffer too??

by Hammersmith harrier Wed May 24, 2017 12:33 am

Corbyn had nothing to do with brokering peace, it was nothing more than self actualisation.

by MontysMerkin Wed May 24, 2017 12:36 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Corbyn had nothing to do with brokering peace, it was nothing more than self actualisation.

Is that a documented fact or are you articulating your thoughts? I've never seen or heard a factual account that could fairly accuse corbyn of not wanting to broker peace. Are you sure of this and could you point me at more information because this could change the way I vote.

by kwinigolfer Wed May 24, 2017 12:43 am

Hammers,
Don't know if you lived through the 1969 onwards era but, if you did, you'll hopefully have enough perspective to recognize there was more than enough blame for the Troubles on every possible side of the political and social spectrum.
Not condoning or applauding anything Corbyn may or may not have done, just don't know.

by super_realist Wed May 24, 2017 12:53 am

Corbyn was probably on strike back then.

by Diggers Wed May 24, 2017 1:17 am

super_realist wrote:Well that's the figure which is being quoted, but even if it doubled to 60bn, it's still only £88 a year per person for 10 years.

Doesn't seem a lot to protect thousands of jobs.

Compare that to the thousands you pay in other taxes.

I don't really think that whether or not the UK keeps a nuclear deterrent should be measured in terms of job creation/retention. I'd say there are more fundamental questions to answer than that personally.

by JAS Wed May 24, 2017 1:23 am

super_realist wrote:Corbyn was probably on strike back then.

Touché ;-)

Serious point though, whilst industrial strife in all honesty got out of hand in the 70s. That was the period when income inequality reached its low tide mark. Does anybody think it's a coincidence that since the early 80s when unions were demonised and their rights were systematically stripped away and outlawed there has been a flood tide of income inequality. Corporations have run amok pissing all over pay bargaining, shedding jobs and or moving vast swathes to slave labour parts of the world. As much as union power was out of control in the 70s corporate power is out of control now and has been for some time.

by MontysMerkin Wed May 24, 2017 1:25 am

JAS wrote:
super_realist wrote:Corbyn was probably on strike back then.

Touché ;-)

Serious point though, whilst industrial strife in all honesty got out of hand in the 70s. That was the period when income inequality reached its low tide mark. Does anybody think it's a coincidence that since the early 80s when unions were demonised and their rights were systematically stripped away and outlawed there has been a flood tide of income inequality. Corporations have run amok pissing all over pay bargaining, shedding jobs and or moving vast swathes to slave labour parts of the world. As much as union owner was out of control in the 70s corporate power is out of control now and has been for some time.

That does not fit the narrative, please discontinue this course of discussion, you beardy, sandal knitting, tin hat wearing, conspiracy inspired, marxist snowflake.

by super_realist Wed May 24, 2017 1:34 am

JAS wrote:
super_realist wrote:Corbyn was probably on strike back then.

Touché ;-)

Serious point though, whilst industrial strife in all honesty got out of hand in the 70s. That was the period when income inequality reached its low tide mark. Does anybody think it's a coincidence that since the early 80s when unions were demonised and their rights were systematically stripped away and outlawed there has been a flood tide of income inequality. Corporations have run amok pissing all over pay bargaining, shedding jobs and or moving vast swathes to slave labour parts of the world. As much as union owner was out of control in the 70s corporate power is out of control now and has been for some time.

Yeah, of course there was no Chinese or sub Asian industry back in the good old British Leyland 80's was there?

by puligny Wed May 24, 2017 1:38 am

JAS - I'm having let reality shape your politics etc. Got a good use for it over the next few days. Hope that's ok!

by puligny Wed May 24, 2017 1:40 am

BL was a lot more to do with p.ss poor management than barmy unions. You reap what you sow! There's a prayer for Theresa!

by MontysMerkin Wed May 24, 2017 2:00 am

puligny wrote:BL was a lot more to do with p.ss poor management than barmy unions. You reap what you sow! There's a prayer for Theresa!

Not how the press present the story and how the gullible suck it up though.

by super_realist Wed May 24, 2017 2:01 am

Unions will always blame management, management will always blame unions. Most likely both were terrible.

by puligny Wed May 24, 2017 2:09 am

P.ss poor management! A clue - they were in charge!

by **navyblueshorts** Wed May 24, 2017 2:15 am

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's an impossibility that's why.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Yes it is and I find it quite foolish to think otherwise, the human race is a non conforming rabble built on Millennia of war.

So, one shouldn't try to engender peace then? I have to say, I find that a really strange position to take. So what if human history is riven with conflict? Wouldn't aiming to have a peaceful future be a sign of humanity growing a bit? Maybe you aren't interested in that then?

by **navyblueshorts** Wed May 24, 2017 2:18 am

JAS wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:Yes it is and I find it quite foolish to think otherwise, the human race is a non conforming rabble built on Millennia of war.
Well wtf are we pussyfooting about for then? Why don't we all get our nukes out and have a pissing up the wall contest (or a melting the wall along with most other Poopie on the planet)?? or should we try and avoid that for now?? Here's a tip why don't you try and let reality shape your politics instead of letting politics shape "your reality"??

by **navyblueshorts** Wed May 24, 2017 2:21 am

puligny wrote:BL was a lot more to do with p.ss poor management than barmy unions. You reap what you sow! There's a prayer for Theresa!

Management may have been poor, but the Unions were terrible.

by **navyblueshorts** Wed May 24, 2017 2:23 am

puligny wrote:P.ss poor management! A clue - they were in charge!

Oh, I see. It was management who downed tools at the slightest provocation at, say, Wapping then was it? When someone attempted to use a piece of machinery to do a job that Unions said they weren't allowed to do, it was management who cried 'Everybody out!' was it? It takes two to tango, so stop implying it was all the fault of 'Management'.

by JAS Wed May 24, 2017 2:58 am

navyblueshorts wrote:
puligny wrote:P.ss poor management! A clue - they were in charge!
Oh, I see. It was management who downed tools at the slightest provocation at, say, Wapping then was it? When someone attempted to use a piece of machinery to do a job that Unions said they weren't allowed to do, it was management who cried 'Everybody out!' was it? It takes two to tango, so stop implying it was all the fault of 'Management'.

Well if it takes 2 to tango Navy then can we not assume that on average 50% of the time Management were so inept as to cause the problem?

These days poor management now serves as another justification/excuse for offshoring jobs (i.e. If lower/middle management is Poopie it might as well be cheap and Poopie). Stupid upper management thinking but they have so much freedom to do wtf they want. Who suffers?? The British public that's who, multinationals have had free reign to asset strip, drive down wages to poverty levels then take them away and all the fault of the unions who have been neutered for the past 30 odd years

by **navyblueshorts** Wed May 24, 2017 3:05 am

JAS wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
puligny wrote:P.ss poor management! A clue - they were in charge!
Oh, I see. It was management who downed tools at the slightest provocation at, say, Wapping then was it? When someone attempted to use a piece of machinery to do a job that Unions said they weren't allowed to do, it was management who cried 'Everybody out!' was it? It takes two to tango, so stop implying it was all the fault of 'Management'.

Well if it takes 2 to tango Navy then can we not assume that on average 50% of the time Management were so inept as to cause the problem?

These days poor management now serves as another justification/excuse for offshoring jobs (i.e. If lower/middle management is Poopie it might as well be cheap and Poopie). Stupid upper management thinking but they have so much freedom to do wtf they want. Who suffers?? The British public that's who, multinationals have had free reign to asset strip, drive down wages to poverty levels then take them away and all the fault of the unions who have been neutered for the past 30 odd years

Oh, I agree with you JAS. Management often couldn't manage a p!ss up in the proverbial brewery. I'm just suggesting that it wasn't all management that was the problem in the 70s etc.

by puligny Wed May 24, 2017 3:20 am

Navy - when tools are downed it is normally because an agreement has been breached. Some agreements may incorporate restrictive practices e.g. Hospital Consultants and Lawyers (ahem!). 2 parties to any agreement and many of those with poor restrictive practices came about because management(s) were lazy, poorly organised, incapable of looking forward to see the potential impacts. There is one difference between excellent and poor organisations - the quality of management.

by pedro Wed May 24, 2017 6:22 am

JAS wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:Like I said one of them isn't a party leader who's seen as a weak IRA sympathiser, personally I don't want someone like him leading this country. A councillor is an irrelevant level when it comes to a general election.

I would also suggest who spoke to who circa 30 years ago is an irrelevance in the 2017 General Election unless you're from the Daily Mail in which case it's clearly effing vital!!

How long ago would it've been ok to grab someone by the p*ssy then?

by JAS Wed May 24, 2017 8:03 am

pedro wrote:
JAS wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:Like I said one of them isn't a party leader who's seen as a weak IRA sympathiser, personally I don't want someone like him leading this country. A councillor is an irrelevant level when it comes to a general election.

I would also suggest who spoke to who circa 30 years ago is an irrelevance in the 2017 General Election unless you're from the Daily Mail in which case it's clearly effing vital!!
How long ago would it've been ok to grab someone by the p*ssy then?

Depends who you ask Pedro, can't imagine 1970s BBC DJs seeing anything wrong with it

by SmithersJones Wed May 24, 2017 8:54 am

super_realist wrote:
JAS wrote:
super_realist wrote:Corbyn was probably on strike back then.

Touché ;-)

Serious point though, whilst industrial strife in all honesty got out of hand in the 70s. That was the period when income inequality reached its low tide mark. Does anybody think it's a coincidence that since the early 80s when unions were demonised and their rights were systematically stripped away and outlawed there has been a flood tide of income inequality. Corporations have run amok pissing all over pay bargaining, shedding jobs and or moving vast swathes to slave labour parts of the world. As much as union owner was out of control in the 70s corporate power is out of control now and has been for some time.

Yeah, of course there was no Chinese or sub Asian industry back in the good old British Leyland 80's was there?

Japan was the main source of Far Eastern competition back then, China certainly wasn't in anything like the position it is now. Likewise India hadn't really got its act together yet. And Japanese cars targeted a different part of the market, being more advanced and higher specced, much like German cars are now. So no, there wasn't really, you're right.

by JAS Wed May 24, 2017 4:25 pm

super_realist wrote:
JAS wrote:
super_realist wrote:Corbyn was probably on strike back then.

Touché ;-)

Serious point though, whilst industrial strife in all honesty got out of hand in the 70s. That was the period when income inequality reached its low tide mark. Does anybody think it's a coincidence that since the early 80s when unions were demonised and their rights were systematically stripped away and outlawed there has been a flood tide of income inequality. Corporations have run amok pissing all over pay bargaining, shedding jobs and or moving vast swathes to slave labour parts of the world. As much as union owner was out of control in the 70s corporate power is out of control now and has been for some time.

Yeah, of course there was no Chinese or sub Asian industry back in the good old British Leyland 80's was there?

Correct, not as we know it today, nor was there the communications infrastructure that now facilitates the offshoring of service sector jobs. Globalisation was always inevitable and of course multinational corporate management have seized the opportunities presented by it far better than organised Labour which has been pretty much outflanked consistently over the years. Where has that left us?
The real question now is where do we go from here? Multinationals will continue to squeeze for ever greater profits by continuing to drive down wage costs but at some point wages will be driven so low that there won't be enough spending power in the economy to drive the sales side of the profit equation. An economy won't be able to rely on our elite billionaires buying hundreds of goods and services for themselves. Once income inequality goes past a certain point an economy becomes unsustainable, unless the billionaires are taxed until the pips squeak - at which point of course they'll leave. So maybe the answer is the globalisation of taxation i.e. the harmonisation of tax rates around the world...dont see that happening in our lifetime though.

Do you seriously think our country will be a decent place to live in 10 years time if we have another 10 years of Tory rule? How many people will be below the breadline?

by super_realist Wed May 24, 2017 5:31 pm

I'm sick of hearing about "wages being driven lower" and it being blamed on any particular party.

Things under Labour weren't exactly rosy either with 33% tax, high inflation, winter of discontent and constant strikes. Fortunately I just missed the tuition fees that they introduced saving me 10's of thousands.

There has always been income equality, those who work harder, those who don't, those who have education, those who don't. What do you expect and why would you begrudge those who have become billionaires through their own intelligence and skill? These people take the risks.

I've retrained a couple of times to cope with the changes in the job scene, why don't others?
Sometimes we have to stop blaming "the system" and get off our arses and improve our own prospects instead of waiting for the government to hand us it on a plate. You don't need to go through your life earning 20k like Mac, you can do something about it.

by Diggers Wed May 24, 2017 5:33 pm

What a lot of fuss Jas, those breadline people can always pop along to a food bank if they need anything!

by Diggers Wed May 24, 2017 6:21 pm

super_realist wrote:I'm sick of hearing about "wages being driven lower" and it being blamed on any particular party.

Things under Labour weren't exactly rosy either with 33% tax, high inflation, winter of discontent and constant strikes. Fortunately I just missed the tuition fees that they introduced saving me 10's of thousands.

There has always been income equality, those who work harder, those who don't, those who have education, those who don't. What do you expect and why would you begrudge those who have become billionaires through their own intelligence and skill? These people take the risks.

I've retrained a couple of times to cope with the changes in the job scene, why don't others?
Sometimes we have to stop blaming "the system" and get off our arses and improve our own prospects instead of waiting for the government to hand us it on a plate. You don't need to go through your life earning 20k like Mac, you can do something about it.

Yeah I retrained - cost me 10k plus no earnings for a year. Why doesn't everyone do that?
Your reality is not the same as everyone else's SR, everyone does not have the same life chances.
In some cases it would make sense for the government to help - we need more nurses, that would help cut long term immigration figures and actually save money.
Tory solution- cut nursing bursaries. Genius.

by beninho Wed May 24, 2017 6:30 pm

So we have the army to patrol the streets, covering for the police due to the cut backs on the police force, now who was the previous home secretary involved in that?

by JAS Wed May 24, 2017 6:37 pm

beninho wrote:So we have the army to patrol the streets, covering for the police due to the cut backs on the police force, now who was the previous home secretary involved in that?

How dare you suggest that Teresa would be anything other than strong and stable!!

by beninho Wed May 24, 2017 6:45 pm

I should not criticise the Great Leader, the secret police may be monitoring my computers.

by Sponsored content