The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[darrenm]

2 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

that's true enough (in terms of Corbyn )  , but it became quite clear that wasn't quite how it was being interpreted by many people (by which I don't just mean on VT  ) 

i.e use of the words " I appreciate that and we will look into that effect ......  I’m entirely sympathetic to it'" and   "I'll deal with it "  in regards to student debt   .. meant that a lot of people took to social media  spouting that Corbyn was going to remove all student debt , indeed I saw a few people posting exactly that on my Facebook feed along with the words "he's getting my vote"  ... now I don't know if he was already getting that vote , or if that was the deal clincher but either way  there didn't appear to be any clarification on this point until after the election , and I can't help but think that was probably intentional , not unique to Corbyn it should be said , it's kinda what Politicians do

So , on the grounds he never promised it , Darren is quite correct  but somehow I can't help but think had the exact same words been used by May , we'd now have labour supporters accusing her of a U-turn

Very probably. 

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

I am not outraged by this Stefan, for me I find it very sly and underhanded. Should have been honest about his position with regards to student loan debt. 

I'd agree with both of the above had Labour won the election and now been saying 'that wasn't what we said'. Even if you think that..

Quote

NME: You’ve pledged to scrap tuition fees, which has gone down well. But it’s also kicked up a question for people who already have that debt, or people who are currently in university. What does it mean for people who’ve already been paying £9,000 a year? JC: “First of all, we want to get rid of student fees altogether. We’ll do it as soon as we get in, and we’ll then introduce legislation to ensure that any student going from the 2017-18 academic year will not pay fees. They will pay them, but we’ll rebate them when we’ve got the legislation through – that’s fundamentally the principle behind it. Yes, there is a block of those that currently have a massive debt, and I’m looking at ways that we could reduce that, ameliorate that, lengthen the period of paying it off, or some other means of reducing that debt burden. I don’t have the simple answer for it at this stage – I don’t think anybody would expect me to, because this election was called unexpectedly; we had two weeks to prepare all of this – but I’m very well aware of that problem. And I don’t see why those that had the historical misfortune to be at university during the £9,000 period should be burdened excessively compared to those that went before or those that come after. I will deal with it.”

..is misleading, which I can't see at all, then as Labour are still the opposition, there's nothing for them to have misled about is there?  The only fuss was just from a standard Tory narrative attacking anything they can (which of course is what they are entitled to do, however ridiculous it makes them look to anyone with half a brain).

[colhint]

On 8/4/2017 at 06:32, HanoiVillan said:

I mean, where to start with this? 

Firstly, we are to believe that your daughter and her friends, forces of nature though they no doubt are, merely have to click their fingers and 2000 other children/sheep say 'how high'. That's before we note that this is a school and your daughter isn't actually of voting age. Indeed, all but a tiny percentage of these furious students are teenagers. 

Secondly, we have the idea that all of this tween- and teenagers are massively upset at Labour deciding not to simply cancel the historic student debt of people significantly older than themselves. Because, as @darrenm keeps pointing out, the removal of tuition fees for current and future students (which is what 17 and 18 year-olds are) still stands, and is still party policy (rightly or wrongly). I mean, it's absolutely wonderful that your daughter and 1,999 of her friends and acquaintances are so selfless about the loan repayments of people much older than themselves, it's just, you know, a little hard to believe. 

I have to respond this. First why the need to be so condescending toward my daughter, she has done nothing to you.  Secondly no way was she the leader of the group and there were over 100 of them. Third they don't just click their fingers . Forth the overwhelming majority were all for voting to end school fees and historic debt. You could argue that's not was said, but as I mentioned it earlier, two front benchers were going along these lines. Fifth loads of these 17 and 18 year olds have siblings two or three  years older than themselves who have debt, so its not selfless its personal within the family. Sixth These 17 and 18 year old school leavers about 350 ish all think Corbyn is a liar,  so it maybe a small percentage to you but well over 90% of the school leavers  at her school this year don't trust him. Seventh I couldn't care less what you believe, I showed her the post and all she said is " he needs to speak with more students then"

Edited August 5, 2017 by colhint

[markavfc40]

46 minutes ago, colhint said:

Sixth These 17 and 18 year old school leavers about 350 ish all think Corbyn is a liar,  

I'd be very surprised if that is the case, given that he actually hasn't lied, but if it is I blame the parents.

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, colhint said:

I have to respond this. First why the need to be so condescending toward my daughter, she has done nothing to you.  Secondly no way was she the leader of the group and there were over 100 of them. Third they don't just click their fingers . Forth the overwhelming majority were all for voting to end school fees and historic debt. You could argue that's not was said, but as I mentioned it earlier, two front benchers were going along these lines. Fifth loads of these 17 and 18 year olds have siblings two or three  years older than themselves who have debt, so its not selfless its personal within the family. Sixth These 17 and 18 year old school leavers about 350 ish all think Corbyn is a liar,  so it maybe a small percentage to you but well over 90% of the school leavers  at her school this year don't trust him. Seventh I couldn't care less what you believe, I showed her the post and all she said is " he needs to speak with more students then"

To be honest, when someone says they know how 350 teenagers at a school feel about politics, I can't think of another response apart from derision, so it's probably best to leave it there. 

[darrenm]

2 hours ago, colhint said:

I have to respond this. First why the need to be so condescending toward my daughter, she has done nothing to you.  Secondly no way was she the leader of the group and there were over 100 of them. Third they don't just click their fingers . Forth the overwhelming majority were all for voting to end school fees and historic debt. You could argue that's not was said, but as I mentioned it earlier, two front benchers were going along these lines. Fifth loads of these 17 and 18 year olds have siblings two or three  years older than themselves who have debt, so its not selfless its personal within the family. Sixth These 17 and 18 year old school leavers about 350 ish all think Corbyn is a liar,  so it maybe a small percentage to you but well over 90% of the school leavers  at her school this year don't trust him. Seventh I couldn't care less what you believe, I showed her the post and all she said is " he needs to speak with more students then"

So, firstly, let's just confirm that what Corbyn said was " I’m looking at ways that we could reduce that, ameliorate that, lengthen the period of paying it off, or some other means of reducing that debt burden.(..)I don’t see why those that had the historical misfortune to be at university during the £9,000 period should be burdened excessively compared to those that went before or those that come after. I will deal with it."

And you're saying all of these 350 17 or 18 year olds don't have the mental capacity to read that above and deduce that it means exactly what he said - he's looking at ways to deal with it? You're saying they all read that and took it to mean that he would spend £80bn to wipe out all historic student debt, which he doesn't say at any point? That they all think Corbyn specifically is a liar even though the policies are Labour's?

I'll be honest, I'm struggling to believe that. If what you say is true, I think Ofsted need to pay that school a visit because it seems that the kids (apparently well over 90% of leavers) lack basic understanding of English.

[blandy]

On 04/08/2017 at 13:18, darrenm said:

as Labour are still the opposition, there's nothing for them to have misled about is there? 

!!!! - It's tangential to this press Corbyn shaming thing, but the argument you're making is "uncomfortable" because it's essentially saying that if you lose, anything you said during the campaign, any promises you made, however unrealistic can't have been misleading.

To take something a bell end said, George Osborne claimed that if we don't stay in the EU every family would lose 4000 quid. Now he and remain lost the referendum, so he wasn't lying, by your logic?

I like the notion of politicians being totally honest and clear. I wouldn't want arguments like "he couldn't have mislead anyone becuase he lost" to be acceptable, frankly.

Anyway, back to this thing about Venezuela and the press, or the right wing pres "demanding" Corbyn condemns what's happened. It's just them playing a game - if he does, then they say "Loony Left Corbyn admits loony left government is immoral and doesn't work" and if he refuses they say "loony left Corbyn in denial over the abuses and corruption of his venezuelan comrades". They are out to slag him off whatever, so he won't win with them.

I don't rate him at all, but I sympathise with his predicament on this occasion.

[darrenm]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

!!!! - It's tangential to this press Corbyn shaming thing, but the argument you're making is "uncomfortable" because it's essentially saying that if you lose, anything you said during the campaign, any promises you made, however unrealistic can't have been misleading.

To take something a bell end said, George Osborne claimed that if we don't stay in the EU every family would lose 4000 quid. Now he and remain lost the referendum, so he wasn't lying, by your logic?

I think you're taking the logical jump a bit far. It's a bit binary to say that _anything_ you say during a campaign, however unrealistic can't be misleading. Given that Corbyn never actually made that promise it's a bit pointless but to debate the point in general - if he had said 'yes we'll write off all historic student debt' and they don't get in, then there's no way to know he wouldn't have, and perhaps he would have done. It would have had huge economic consequences obviously.

But if he said 'we'll give every person £20,000 if we get in' then you can be a bit more dubious about it. All immaterial though as he didn't promise anything he's gone back on.

About the Osborne thing, no he wasn't lying. He's probably not far from the truth in my opinion.

 

[magnkarl]

In other news I've just heard a bit on BBC news of Diane Abbott praising the democratic process in Venezuela.. How long will JC keep this woman in his party? What does she have to do?

She said something along the lines of "Their elections are much fairer than ours", does that mean that we're less fair because we don't kill 100's of people who are protesting against a dictatorship? For the sake of Labour to come I hope someone finds a way for this woman to be confined to the back benches, because right now she's 'out-borising' Boris.

Though I guess in the grander scale of things Corbyn will find it hard to criticise one of the last "pure" socialist countries left in the world. It's fallen on its arse once again and rather than trying to help the situation he's making it worse by not actively trying to pressure Maduro. The country was held together by Chaves, and much like Yugoslavia with Tito it hasn't managed to continue without his iron hand.

Edited August 6, 2017 by magnkarl

[darrenm]

12 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

In other news I've just heard a bit on BBC news of Diane Abbott praising the democratic process in Venezuela.. How long will JC keep this woman in his party? What does she have to do?

She said something along the lines of "Their elections are much fairer than ours", does that mean that we're less fair because we don't kill 100's of people who are protesting against a dictatorship? For the sake of Labour to come I hope someone finds a way for this woman to be confined to the back benches, because right now she's 'out-borising' Boris.

Though I guess in the grander scale of things Corbyn will find it hard to criticise one of the last "pure" socialist countries left in the world. It's fallen on its arse once again and rather than trying to help the situation he's making it worse by not actively trying to pressure Maduro. The country was held together by Chaves, and much like Yugoslavia with Tito it hasn't managed to continue without his iron hand.

Speaking in 2012?

[chrisp65]

I really don't understand this need to get Corbyn to say negative things about Venezuela.

I guess it's a game of proving you're a loyal red white and blue Brit or something? I don't know, it's lost on me.

Perhaps asking Theresa May to stop selling software that enables Saudi Arabia to monitor and murder opposition is the equivalent stance.

Except she's the PM and Corbyn isn't and she's knowingly selling stuff for profit to help murder people. But it's the closest equivalent I can think of. 

[darrenm]

24 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I really don't understand this need to get Corbyn to say negative things about Venezuela

Latest Tory attack narrative. Only truly dumb people take it in.

[magnkarl]

25 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Speaking in 2012?

It could possibly have been, however I don't think 2012 was better than today, if anything it was worse because people were oppressed silently without much getting out. Chavez won a rigged election to continue his very long and unconstitutional dictatorship. I'd put Chavez as a populist ahead of a socialist but for some reason a lot of socialists took him to heart.

Maduro on the other hand seems to have lost the plot. His speeches are Hoxha-esque and if he's not stopped it'll turn into a Nicaragua style bloodbath. 

If anything Venezuela is just more proof that you can prop up any political leaning with oil income. I doubt Chavez would have stayed in power long if he didn't have black gold propping up his social system and state.

[magnkarl]

35 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I really don't understand this need to get Corbyn to say negative things about Venezuela.

I guess it's a game of proving you're a loyal red white and blue Brit or something? I don't know, it's lost on me.

Perhaps asking Theresa May to stop selling software that enables Saudi Arabia to monitor and murder opposition is the equivalent stance.

Except she's the PM and Corbyn isn't and she's knowingly selling stuff for profit to help murder people. But it's the closest equivalent I can think of. 

I'm loving the fact that when people who support Tories on this board try to say "yeah but Corbyn" they get instantly taken down by saying they are avoiding the subject. What is the above, if not avoiding the subject?

May and her cronies are bad for not dealing with Saudia Arabia in a better way just as Corbyn needs to make his voice heard to a person he calls friend in Maduro. Lastly Abbott clearly had no idea what "fair politics" meant in 2012, just like she is clueless now.

Edited August 6, 2017 by magnkarl

[darrenm]

1 minute ago, magnkarl said:

It could possibly have been

It was. It was a video on YouTube taken from her addressing The Venezuela Solidarity Campaign.

The papers seem to have picked up one sentence where she said that Venezuelan elections were "less liable to fraud and impersonation" and taken that as though she's saying that Venezuelan elections are better than Britain's, which is quite obviously a huge jump in logic.

I'll be honest, I don't know anything about Venezuela or their elections. They haven't really been on my radar compared to all the social problems we have in this country. So could you educate me on why what Abbott said in 2012 was so wrong at the time?

[magnkarl]

16 minutes ago, darrenm said:

It was. It was a video on YouTube taken from her addressing The Venezuela Solidarity Campaign.

The papers seem to have picked up one sentence where she said that Venezuelan elections were "less liable to fraud and impersonation" and taken that as though she's saying that Venezuelan elections are better than Britain's, which is quite obviously a huge jump in logic.

I'll be honest, I don't know anything about Venezuela or their elections. They haven't really been on my radar compared to all the social problems we have in this country. So could you educate me on why what Abbott said in 2012 was so wrong at the time?

Just like most of the elections before it where Chavez won he had removed any opposition and laws preventing him from almost automatically claiming victory. If Abbott means that they were fair because people were allowed to vote, albeit with the result already decided, she is right. 

To quote HRW:

Quote

“By his second full term in office,” Human Rights Watch concludes, “the concentration of power and erosion of human rights protections had given the government free rein to intimidate, censor, and prosecute Venezuelans who criticized the president or thwarted his political agenda.”

For DA to even get close to saying that those elections were fair and balanced is nothing short of the words of an imbecile. Chavez would send his cronies into areas where he'd have opposition and beat, intimidate and persecute people into voting for him. Tito is probably the person that is closest to what Chavez was, he played both sides, raked his cronies and his own pockets full by ruining the oil industry in the country and would probably be put in Hague if he were still alive for breaking humanitarian law.

The only result to ever go against Chavez which he conceded was a referendum in which people voted against him gaining more power. He lost and changed the laws through the high courts instead. 

At the end of the day both our PM (Gulf states, DUP) and Corbyn (Maduro, PLF++) have some really dodgy relationships. No one is holding them to account because we're too busy quibbling between ourselves about which party is better. We aren't scrutinising our leaders because "they are bad too!" which is a disease of modern politics. 

Edited August 6, 2017 by magnkarl

[darrenm]

7 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Just like most of the elections before it where Chavez won he had removed any opposition and laws preventing him from almost automatically claiming victory. If Abbott means that they were fair because people were allowed to vote, albeit with the result already decided, she is right. 

To quote HRW:

For DA to even get close to saying that those elections were fair and balanced is nothing short of the words of an imbecile. Chavez would send his cronies into areas where he'd have opposition and beat, intimidate and persecute people into voting for him. Tito is probably the person that is closest to what Chavez was, he played both sides, raked his cronies and his own pockets full by ruining the oil industry in the country and would probably be put in Hague if he were still alive for breaking humanitarian law.

The only result to ever go against Chavez which he conceded was a referendum in which people voted against him gaining more power. He lost and changed the laws through the high courts instead. 

Thanks 

[chrisp65]

51 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I'm loving the fact that when people who support Tories on this board try to say "yeah but Corbyn" they get instantly taken down by saying they are avoiding the subject. What is the above, if not avoiding the subject?

May and her cronies are bad for not dealing with Saudia Arabia in a better way just as Corbyn needs to make his voice heard to a person he calls friend in Maduro. Lastly Abbott clearly had no idea what "fair politics" meant in 2012, just like she is clueless now.

Are you suggesting I should take on some sort of collective responsibility for the etiquette of Labour supporting posters on here?

Of which, I should add, I am not currently one.

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Are you suggesting I should take on some sort of collective responsibility for the etiquette of Labour supporting posters on here?

Of which, I should add, I am not currently one.

I feel your pain

[Dr_Pangloss]

Chavez was pure scum. The people who defend him are reminiscent of the British Communists who used to adore Stalin.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Dr_Pangloss

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Chavez was pure scum. The people who defend him are reminiscent of the British Communists who used to adore Stalin.

Indeed. A lecturer I once saw in Mexico city called him a Hitler hiding in Lenin's clothing. The lecturer was in the opposition when Chavez started intimidating universities, clamping down on free speech, forcing sale of successful companies etc. I don't get how someone who calls themselves socialists in Corbyn and Abbott could even associate with someone like him and his followers. Maduro is even worse, and if left unchained will turn this into a real bloodbath if he hasn't already. If I was Corbyn's PR adviser I'd get him to record a statement aimed at Maduro to denounce violence and stop hurting protesters. That would win him a hell of a lot more support than being silent right now. Venezuela can offer Corbyn and Labour nothing anyway, so it's not like it will be a trade off. 

Secondly I'd get rid of Abbott from all TV and press appearances, if Hackney likes her they can keep her as a back bench MP - but right now she's causing so much damage to something that went really well in the election. Why on earth was she at a solidarity conference with Venezuela's government when Chavez was condemned internationally for breaches against humanity by HRW, Red Cross, UN etc? 

After hearing it again tonight she said the elections in 2012 were "honest" and "robust". At the same time everyone else was condemning Chavez's dictatorship. You can't make it up.

Edited August 6, 2017 by magnkarl