General Election 2017

[blandy]

25 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Perhaps your personal appraisal is a bit off?

Of course. That's completely possible. He might win, he might turn out to be a great PM, and the change we all want. I can only say how I see things. I think he's having a good election, I think half of his policies are good and half are bad (which is a better hit rate than for the tories, where I don't like almost any of what they're saying, really).

Could yours also be "a bit off" do you think? Any doubts at all? Any concerns that perhaps some aspects of his past, some aspects of his conduct might mean he's not quite as wonderful as people might think? Any worry that maybe his inability to unite his party might be a problem, now or in the future? any worries over his "friends" and his judgement in having them as friends? Any worries about his voting record on measures to curb terrorism, while acknowledging that he's also been more in the right on things like cuts to the police? Any worries that maybe the Army and other forces might not be that well supported by the pacifist that he is?

Trident, like I've said many times before - there are clear and reasonable arguments to make for keeping it or getting rid. I'm troubled really by anyone who doesn't recognise that this is the case. The uninvention of nuclear weapons, the putting the genie back in the bottle is not going to happen. while we have a world in which North Korea, Iran, Israel, the US, Russia, china and France have nukes, a concerted effort to disarm multilaterally is needed, and though recently Corbyn has been more canny about mentioning disarmament in those terms, he's previously and clearly been a unilateral disarm sort of chap. Which is at odds with his own party (again).

I do recognise his strong points, but I think there are many many more suitable people in the Labour party who would be better, wiser, more capable leaders.

 

[peterms]

8 hours ago, blandy said:

the massive problem I have with Corbin is nothing to do with the media, it's to do with my perception that amongst many other flaws he essentially sets his policies and views around how he wants the world to be, not around how it is...

He's an idealist, who because, or maybe in spite of, these strong ideals makes some serious misjudgements...

im somewhat surprised that quite a few people are prepared to overlook or fail to acknowledge corbyns serious weaknesses. He's a wrong 'un.

He's certainly an idealist, perhaps you could call him a romantic.  He also gets uncomfortable at having to compromise on things that he regards as fundamental matters of principle, like having nuclear weapons.

He's also enough of a realist to recognise that he has to accommodate other views with which he disagrees - that's politics.  So the way it plays out is a compromise policy which clearly leaves him feeling, and showing, discomfort, which interviewers will hone in on.

But taking the world as it is, he is the only Labour leader available in the current election, as hanoivillan points out and as you agree.  In that context, there's not much point emphasising his weaknesses, especially since at least until this week, the vast majority of the media seemed determined to do so to the exclusion of any serious challenging of tories.

I think "wrong un" is a bit much, as well.   

[peterms]

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Of course. That's completely possible. He might win, he might turn out to be a great PM, and the change we all want. I can only say how I see things. I think he's having a good election, I think half of his policies are good and half are bad (which is a better hit rate than for the tories, where I don't like almost any of what they're saying, really).

Could yours also be "a bit off" do you think? Any doubts at all? Any concerns that perhaps some aspects of his past, some aspects of his conduct might mean he's not quite as wonderful as people might think? Any worry that maybe his inability to unite his party might be a problem, now or in the future? any worries over his "friends" and his judgement in having them as friends? Any worries about his voting record on measures to curb terrorism, while acknowledging that he's also been more in the right on things like cuts to the police? Any worries that maybe the Army and other forces might not be that well supported by the pacifist that he is?

Trident, like I've said many times before - there are clear and reasonable arguments to make for keeping it or getting rid. I'm troubled really by anyone who doesn't recognise that this is the case. The uninvention of nuclear weapons, the putting the genie back in the bottle is not going to happen. while we have a world in which North Korea, Iran, Israel, the US, Russia, china and France have nukes, a concerted effort to disarm multilaterally is needed, and though recently Corbyn has been more canny about mentioning disarmament in those terms, he's previously and clearly been a unilateral disarm sort of chap. Which is at odds with his own party (again).

I do recognise his strong points, but I think there are many many more suitable people in the Labour party who would be better, wiser, more capable leaders.

 

A very balanced post indeed. Thanks Blandy. I feel much the same about both parties too. Either we get the furthest right we've been in a long time or the furthest left. Romanticism about both right leaning and left leaning ideology without a pinch of realism (which I think May and Corbyn both lack) is bound for failure.

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Of course. That's completely possible. He might win, he might turn out to be a great PM, and the change we all want. I can only say how I see things. I think he's having a good election, I think half of his policies are good and half are bad (which is a better hit rate than for the tories, where I don't like almost any of what they're saying, really).

Could yours also be "a bit off" do you think? Any doubts at all? Any concerns that perhaps some aspects of his past, some aspects of his conduct might mean he's not quite as wonderful as people might think? Any worry that maybe his inability to unite his party might be a problem, now or in the future? any worries over his "friends" and his judgement in having them as friends? Any worries about his voting record on measures to curb terrorism, while acknowledging that he's also been more in the right on things like cuts to the police? Any worries that maybe the Army and other forces might not be that well supported by the pacifist that he is?

Trident, like I've said many times before - there are clear and reasonable arguments to make for keeping it or getting rid. I'm troubled really by anyone who doesn't recognise that this is the case. The uninvention of nuclear weapons, the putting the genie back in the bottle is not going to happen. while we have a world in which North Korea, Iran, Israel, the US, Russia, china and France have nukes, a concerted effort to disarm multilaterally is needed, and though recently Corbyn has been more canny about mentioning disarmament in those terms, he's previously and clearly been a unilateral disarm sort of chap. Which is at odds with his own party (again).

I do recognise his strong points, but I think there are many many more suitable people in the Labour party who would be better, wiser, more capable leaders.

 

I'm on the phone so excuse the brevity. The things I would be concerned about I don't know enough about and haven't really got the time to do so to a level where I could decide if it was against what I wanted in the future PM. But for example Hamas, Hezbollah, IRA, perhaps him keeping that kind of company would be concerning if there was any sniff of evidence of him doing for any reasons other than a (perhaps) overly romantic desire to unite the world in peace. If that's the end goal I'm on board. I don't think there's any indication he loves terrorists or wants them to carry on what they're doing. I think he genuinely wants to fight for the underdog to pull things together.

Thanks for the reasoned reply, appreciate it.

[magnkarl]

12 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I'm on the phone so excuse the brevity. The things I would be concerned about I don't know enough about and haven't really got the time to do so to a level where I could decide if it was against what I wanted in the future PM. But for example Hamas, Hezbollah, IRA, perhaps him keeping that kind of company would be concerning if there was any sniff of evidence of him doing for any reasons other than a (perhaps) overly romantic desire to unite the world in peace. If that's the end goal I'm on board. I don't think there's any indication he loves terrorists or wants them to carry on what they're doing. I think he genuinely wants to fight for the underdog to pull things together.

Thanks for the reasoned reply, appreciate it.

I think the problems Blandy is trying to describe is that he isn't uniting anyone. He chooses a side (as quoted by several central IRA figures), and focuses so hard on it that others get left behind. You don't see the guy calling Israel his friends, because he's fervently against them. He has a complex for trying to fight for certain people and organisations which at the end of the day puts him in a bad light. Ruth Smeeth walked out of a Labour meeting because Corbyn allowed blatant antisemitism to happen. You can say that he wants to unite people, while other people see him picking sides and not doing enough to unite his own party based on the fact that he makes some really dubious choices.

Edited May 27, 2017 by magnkarl

[blandy]

59 minutes ago, peterms said:

taking the world as it is, he is the only Labour leader available in the current election, as hanoivillan points out and as you agree.  In that context, there's not much point emphasising his weaknesses, especially since at least until this week, the vast majority of the media seemed determined to do so to the exclusion of any serious challenging of tories.

I think "wrong un" is a bit much, as well.

Yeah, I know. And credit to him for going with a manifesto which is (as much as these things ever do) enthusing people to vote and register to vote and have something that isn't just a tory lite choice.

In pointing out what I see as his weaknesses, all I'm doing is having a chat - I'm not trying to persuade anyone, just voicing an opinion. Ignoring the Heil/Sun/Torygraph/Express quartet, the rest of the media seems to be giving him a fair hearing, and also commenting on the flaws in T.May's "efforts". I don't think they're nearly as partisan as is often made out.

I stand by my wrong 'un view, but respect yours.

[blandy]

15 minutes ago, darrenm said:

if there was any sniff of evidence of him doing for any reasons other than a (perhaps) overly romantic desire to unite the world in peace

There is.

[darrenm]

50 minutes ago, blandy said:

There is.

Got a link etc?

[blandy]

16 minutes ago, darrenm said:

IRA, perhaps him keeping that kind of company would be concerning if there was any sniff of evidence of him doing for any reasons other than a (perhaps) overly romantic desire to unite the world in peace....[ ] ....Got a link etc?

If you want to seek a solution to a dispute, taking one side or the other wouldn't be the way to go about it. There are numerous records of Corbyn's support for a United Ireland, numerous records of him meeting the IRA (which he denied yesterday). There is plenty out there from Irish politicians, IRA members, Special Branch and others documenting Corbyn's support for the IRA, of his sharing a platform with an IRA killer who was on the run. There's stuff out there on his support for jailed IRA killers and bomb makers. These things are not "romantic desire to unite the world in peace" they are "supporting IRA members and supporting their cause (peacefully)". They were huge misjudgements.

Just to be clear, if, IF, Corbyn had been talking to Sinn Fein and the IRA to genuinely seek peace and an end to violence, crime, terror and all that, then I'd be fine with it. But he wasn't. He might have wanted peace, but he was supporting the aims of the IRA and Sinn Fein. So were his chums.

Corbyn (The SDLP’s Seamus Mallon, former deputy first minister of Northern Ireland and one of the architects of the peace process, says: ‘I never heard anyone mention Corbyn at all. He very clearly took the side of the IRA and that was incompatible, in my opinion, with working for peace.’ Ex-IRA terrorist Sean O’Callaghan says Corbyn ‘played no part ever, at any time, in promoting peace in Northern Ireland’ and any suggestion otherwise is ‘a cowardly, self-serving lie’.)

Abbott (“Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.”), MacDonell (“It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA”  & “The deaths of innocent civilians in IRA attacks is a real tragedy, but it was as a result of British occupation in Ireland. Because of the bravery of the IRA and people like Bobby Sands we now have a peace process.”)

There's loads of stuff out there, Darren. It's up to you what you view as partisan/mudslinging/fake news/whatever, though the photographic evidence of him meeting various IRA figures rather contradicts his claims never to have met them.

I suppose the past is the past and all that, though I'm concerned that the approach these people have to "revolutionaries" whether Hamas, the IRA, or anyone else is not altogether the right one. I think they self identified with these outsiders wanting to overthrow through revolution and violence.

 

[magnkarl]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

Abbott (“Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.”), MacDonell (“It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA”  & “The deaths of innocent civilians in IRA attacks is a real tragedy, but it was as a result of British occupation in Ireland. Because of the bravery of the IRA and people like Bobby Sands we now have a peace process.”)

The fact that McDonnel and Abbot said those things is even more frightening. They'd both have front running positions if Labour were to win. One is a self proclaimed Marxist (McDonnel) and another said it wasn't that bad that Mao killed millions people as he achieved great things (Abbott). How can anyone even have a shred of respect for someone that says such things? Beats me.

Why is Abbott even running for a political party in a democratic Britain when she clearly hates Britain as a concept?

Edited May 27, 2017 by magnkarl

[peterms]

Tories are bricking it on Conservative Home.

I haven't read the article, just some of the comments.  Example:

Quote

To think that we are now concerned that we may not get a large majority against JC is absolutely astounding. It just shows how far the party has declined under May in just under a year. However, for the first time in my (long) life I won't be voting Conservative. On an emotional level I can't stand the thought of being ruled by May and her cronies. Policy wise, I think the Conservatives have totally lost the plot. What has happened to the party of free enterprise, personal liberty, defence of the realm and standing up for democratic values? The party is so obsessed with Brexit that it has totally lost sight of its long standing principles. The party was always best as a broad church with lots of competing ideas within the broad principles I've outlined. Sadly now its run by an intolerant clique who appear extremely hostile to any view which doesn't coincide with theirs, with policies driven by personal prejudice rather than evidence-based analysis.

 

[snowychap]

33 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

One is a self proclaimed Marxist (McDonnel) and another said it wasn't that bad that Mao killed millions people as he achieved great things (Abbott).

Why are you drawing a parallel between those things?

[magnkarl]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Why are you drawing a parallel between those things?

Without being too sweeping in my statement, the people who have led states with the principles of Karl Marx as their foundation have generally gone down the drain, bringing millions of lives with them. I don't think I need to elaborate much on why Mao wasn't a good leader.

Edited May 27, 2017 by magnkarl

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, magnkarl said:

Without being too sweeping in my statement, the people who have led states with the principles of Karl Marx as their foundation have generally gone down the drain, bringing millions of lives with them. 

So it's the same crap that you came out with before, then?

Edited May 27, 2017 by snowychap

[snowychap]

On 26/05/2017 at 19:04, Awol said:

28 Egyptian Coptic Christian school kids were murdered on a bus by Islamic terrorists today.

That's not correct, is it?

Edited May 27, 2017 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

[snowychap]

[magnkarl]

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

So it's the same crap that you came out with before, then?

Not engaging with you, thanks.

However, I leave you with a thought: Venezuela.

Edited May 27, 2017 by magnkarl

[snowychap]

15 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Not engaging with you, thanks.

However, I leave you with a thought: Venezuela.

So, you're not 'engaging with' me or you are?