General Election 2017

[markavfc40]

1 hour ago, DK82 said:

Poor?

People killing themselves rather than cope with restrictions they are put under because they missed an appointment?

People killing themselves because mental health care needs investment but it isn't there?

People struggling to cope because social care is not available. Mums being told they are not getting extra help for their autistic child because the funding isn't there?

People going to collect food parcels weekly because their zero hour contract means they can only just cover rent?

POOR? Jesus wept.

My reaction to someone describing this government as poor was very similar to this one. What they are doing is absolutely disgraceful and abhorrent and I dread to think what they will try to get away with off the back of hiding behind Brexit certainly if they feel they have been given a mandate to with an increased majority.

The choice is a simple one really. More of the same and some under May and co or a complete change of direction under Corbyn and co. One we know will be a complete disaster for those already with the least, those who are disabled, or reliant on state help and continued demonetization of them whilst giving them a good kicking, one we know will mean the continued wilful destruction of our NHS, social care and other public services, one we know will mean the continued removal of a decent welfare safety net, one we know will further enhance a two tier education system, one we know that will continue to do f all to address the housing crisis, that won't properly regulate the private rental market, that won't provide the social housing the country desperately needs, one we know that will prioritise those at the top over the needs of those with the least and one we know will mean the gap between the haves and the have not's will widen. The other will come with a decent amount of incompetence attached, a questionable leader and senior ministers but it at least comes with the promise of hope and a desire to make things better for the masses. I'll take my chances with the latter.

Edited May 29, 2017 by markavfc40

[peterms]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

The guy killed in Paris by Mossad was Atef Bseiso, the PLO head of intelligence who participated in the Munich massacre. That's one of the people Corbyn was honouring.

I must say I find it bizarre that so many people are buying the manufactured outrage that Corbyn supports the Palestinian cause, when the Israeli state, founded by terrorists who killed British troops, a racist and apartheid state run by war criminals, seems beyond reproach.  He takes the side of the underdog in this matter.  How is it that supporting the deeply unpleasant oppressors has come to be regarded as quite ok, and supporting those who fight them appears to be a mark of utter depravity?

[peterms]

11 minutes ago, peterms said:

I must say I find it bizarre that so many people are buying the manufactured outrage that Corbyn supports the Palestinian cause, when the Israeli state, founded by terrorists who killed British troops, a racist and apartheid state run by war criminals, seems beyond reproach.  He takes the side of the underdog in this matter.  How is it that supporting the deeply unpleasant oppressors has come to be regarded as quite ok, and supporting those who fight them appears to be a mark of utter depravity?

I mean, obviously this is why the tories are doing it:

Quote

Recent opinion polls have shown the Tory lead over Labour slipping to as little as five points, with party chiefs privately voicing concern they may even be overtaken. 

Theresa May will today attempt to relaunch the Tory election campaign amid fears Labour could be about to take the lead in opinion polls

Last night a Tory source told the Daily Mail: ‘We fully expect to fall behind Labour in a poll in the coming days. It will happen.’

But why are people going along with this transparent attempt to reframe the debate away from the economy, healthcare, social care, the dementia tax, foodbanks and all the current issues affecting people in this country, right now?

[Risso]

The polls have shown the gap going back up, between 7 and 10 points just about everywhere now.

[dAVe80]

1 minute ago, Risso said:

The polls have shown the gap going back up, between 7 and 10 points just about everywhere now.

That was before this game changer though. Labour landslide on the cards now...

[wazzap24]

48 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

My reaction to someone describing this government as poor was very similar to this one. What they are doing is absolutely disgraceful and abhorrent and I dread to think what they will try to get away with off the back of hiding behind Brexit certainly if they feel they have been given a mandate to with an increased majority.

The choice is a simple one really. More of the same and some under May and co or a complete change of direction under Corbyn and co. One we know will be a complete disaster for those already with the least, those who are disabled, or reliant on state help and continued demonetization of them whilst giving them a good kicking, one we know will mean the continued wilful destruction of our NHS, social care and other public services, one we know will mean the continued removal of a decent welfare safety net, one we know will further enhance a two tier education system, one we know that will continue to do f all to address the housing crisis, that won't properly regulate the private rental market, that won't provide the social housing the country desperately needs, one we know that will prioritise those at the top over the needs of those with the least and one we know will mean the gap between the haves and the have not's will widen. The other will come with a decent amount of incompetence attached, a questionable leader and senior ministers but it at least comes with the promise of hope and a desire to make things better for the masses. I'll take my chances with the latter.

Cracking summary that. 

People need to get away from the personalities and look at the policies. 

For every Abbott there's a Falllon, for every McDonnell there's a Johnson. 

It's raining incompetence, but there's still a choice to make on the issues. Labour will give people an umbrella, the Tories will put their foot on your neck whilst you drown in the puddles. 

[Xela]

23 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

That was before this game changer though. Labour landslide on the cards now...

I can forgive his love of Hamas, Hezbollah, the IRA and the PLO in light of this new snippet of information.

However, I can't overlook his love of Diane Abbott. That is one step too far.

 

[blandy]

42 minutes ago, peterms said:

I must say I find it bizarre that so many people are buying the manufactured outrage that Corbyn supports the Palestinian cause, when the Israeli state, founded by terrorists who killed British troops, a racist and apartheid state run by war criminals, seems beyond reproach.  He takes the side of the underdog in this matter.  How is it that supporting the deeply unpleasant oppressors has come to be regarded as quite ok, and supporting those who fight them appears to be a mark of utter depravity?

I don't think that's the case (at least it isn't for me). Like I said I have no problem with his support for a United Ireland (though I think the people should decide, rather than politicians decide, but that's by the by), Same goes for the Palestinians, nuclear free world etc. It's not his views on these things that are a problem, it's his framing the world and his actions around those, clearly very firmly held, views. So that he is blinded to alternative viewpoints, blinded to the complexities of the world as it is, prepared to turn a blind eye and worse to people who share his views, but might be rather more violent and terroristy or criminal. I don't think I've seen people on here supporting the oppression or oppressors.

28 minutes ago, peterms said:

I mean, obviously this is why the tories are doing it:

But why are people going along with this transparent attempt to reframe the debate away from the economy, healthcare, social care, the dementia tax, foodbanks and all the current issues affecting people in this country, right now?

All those things matter, and maybe to a lot of people matter more than Palestine, Ireland, etc. Yet I find it hard to argue or believe that the character and judgement of someone who might conceivable be PM isn't also important. It is. May's character and judgement and blind spots are terrible. Liam Fox is a whopper, Diane Abbott likewise. Boris Johnson is a bell, likewise McDonnell. It matters that these tubes are or might be in charge of things. They're awful.

Credit to JC for not personalising things, btw.

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Much like Blandy has just posted I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, but to understand what is in their mind.

Regarding whether it's true that Corbyn attended the wreath laying ceremony for the mastermind of the Munich murders, he himself wrote about it afterwards in Oct 2014 for the Morning Star (a slightly quirky newspaper that supported Soviet totalitarianism).

JC's fun in the sun

 

 

The guy killed in Paris by Mossad was Atef Bseiso, the PLO head of intelligence who participated in the Munich massacre. That's one of the people Corbyn was honouring.

An accident, maybe?

JC then went on to a conference with speeches made by Hamas and the PFLP and mentions: 

 

 

Ramsay Clark defended Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadic at The Hague, they were the genocidal leaders of Serbia and the Serbian enclave in Bosnia during the Balkan wars. They are the definition of evil men, butchers responsible for the only genocide in Europe since WW2. 

At Milosevic's funeral Clarke said:

 

 

This is insane, but also indicative of the type of people Corbyn both associates himself with and admires.

These aren't invented right wing lies, misrepresentations taken out of context or otherwise inaccurate statements. They are matters of recent historical record, and they are damning.

 

 

I don't know enough about the Israel - Palestine conflict to form sound judgements. My understanding is that Israel is particularly the bad guy in that one. As far as I was aware, the British told the Jews at the end of WW2 that they could settle in parts of Israel that Muslims were already settled in. The Muslims were forced out and then the Jewish Israeli government annexed Gaza and the West Bank and basically treat the people there like prisoners, causing militant action from the Muslims there such as bombing in Israel etc. A bit like the British Government with NI. I have no idea how near or far away from the truth that is, but it's to demonstrate my understanding.

I read Corbyn's piece in the Morning Star and couldn't find a lot to disagree with. There's no mention of one of the people killed being someone involved in Munich, or that one of the people at the funeral was in any way supportive of Milosevic. Still not sure the beef with Milosevic though, he did miss a few sitters but he worked hard (  )

I also don't know a lot about what actually happened with (Slobodan) Milosevic. But Ramsey Clark seems to have quite a history of being on the right side of everything, a bit like Corbyn. 

 administration of President George H. W. Bush, J. Danforth Quayle, James Baker, Richard Cheney, William Webster, Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf and "others to be named" of "crimes against peace, war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" for its conduct of the Gulf War against Iraq and the ensuing sanctions;^[10] in 1996, he added the charges of genocide and the "use of a weapon of mass destruction".^[11] Similarly, after the 1999 NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Ramsey charged and "tried" NATO on 19 counts and issued calls for its dissolution.

 

That's Ramsey Clark. Again, I can't disagree with a lot of that. The Gulf war was about getting rid of Hussein and then causing 20 years of conflict in the Middle East since. Dubyah and Blair had no right to go in. About the Saddam trial

Clark was not alone in criticizing the Iraqi Special Tribunal's trial of Saddam Hussein, which drew intense criticism from international human rights organizations. Human Rights Watch called Saddam's trial a "missed opportunity" and a "deeply flawed trial"^[19],[20] and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found the trial to be unfair and to violate basic international human rights law.^[21] Among the irregularities cited by HRW, were that proceedings were marked by frequent outbursts by both judges and defendants, that three defense lawyers were murdered, that the original chief judge was replaced, that important documents were not given to defense lawyers in advance, that paperwork was lost, and that the judges made asides that pre-judged Saddam Hussein

It's not all black and white. If he was a human rights lawyer, previously Attorney General for Johnson who played a part in the civil rights movement, anti-Vietnam war, protesting against bombing of Hanoi, like Corbyn, a recipient of the Gandhi peace award. It's a hell of a CV for a pacifist. If someone like that is saying the Milosevic trial was botched, I'd seriously question my own government and media's version of events.

It's interesting that you seem to really dislike anyone who fights for peace while (in previous posts) you campaign for war. And then assume they are the dodgy ones (pacifists who love people who blow people up??) while the version of events you think you know to be correct is immutable. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not saying you're wrong to believe everything you read. I'm not saying there's conspiracies going on. I am saying I'm most disturbed by anyone who doesn't have a healthy degree of scepticism of what they think they know. 

[darrenm]

26 minutes ago, blandy said:

it's his framing the world and his actions around those, clearly very firmly held, views. So that he is blinded to alternative viewpoints, blinded to the complexities of the world as it is

Irony FTW

[markavfc40]

3 hours ago, darrenm said:

I'd like Paxman to call him out on all of it tonight. Hamas, PLO leader funeral, tea with a holocaust denier. Here's your stage Jeremy, justify yourself.

I am sure he will. I just hope his whole 40 odd minute interview doesn't get bogged down in all that though. They need to cover a wide range of issues and we need to hear what both Corbyn and May intend to do in regard to security, the NHS, social care, education, welfare, housing, taxes and on these issues the Tories of course have a record that they need to defend and appear to be unwilling to. Of course we also need to hear about Brexit and for them to pushed to give answers that go a little further than strong and stable and no deal is better than a bad deal.

[PompeyVillan]

If I'm being candid, the very circus being played out in the press is why I didn't support Corbyn as leader. It's what makes him in the eyes of many 'unelectable'. 

It's easy to spin and probably quite difficult to justify in simple terms that will cut through.

But only Corbyn can really justify his actions. I see it as him firstly never considering himself as a potential leader and therefore positioning himself in a way he feels necessary to promote his aims, regardless of how it looks.

Paxman won't miss the chance to quiz him on it and only Corbyn himself can make the case that minimises the damage. 

Personally, and I know it is hyperbolic but I believe that Conservative policies are literally killing people. Ideological cuts to services have led to decline, poverty and death for the poorest and increased profits for the rich. They're trying to distract people from their horrendous record in government, contemptuous campaign and their disaster of a manifesto with all this.

I'm not surprised with the tactics of the Conservatives nor the response of the media. All we need now is a picture of Corbyn eating a bacon sandwich and it'll be mission complete.

 

 

[peterms]

27 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's not his views on these things that are a problem, it's his framing the world and his actions around those, clearly very firmly held, views. So that he is blinded to alternative viewpoints, blinded to the complexities of the world as it is, prepared to turn a blind eye and worse to people who share his views, but might be rather more violent and terroristy or criminal. I don't think I've seen people on here supporting the oppression or oppressors.

I don't think it's true that he's blind to alternative views.  If anything, the criticism he's been receiving is about supporting dialogue with people who some regard as beyond the pale.  But he recognises that political solutions require dialogue.  It's his detractors, who think there shouldn't be dialogue with people they disapprove of, who you could more appropriately criticise for ignoring complexities.  I see it reported that Ian Paisley liked Corbyn on a personal level:

Quote

Ian Paisley's oldest friend in Parliament wasn't a Right-wing Tory, as might have been expected, but the Left-wing MP Tony Benn,

Eileen said: "They were very close even though Ian said he was a bit of a republican. I remember watching them embrace once and there was such warmth between them. Ian knew Jeremy Corbyn too, and he liked him.

"He didn't share his politics and he didn't approve of Jeremy Corbyn meeting Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein people when the IRA campaign was still going on. But he always found him very courteous and polite. He said Jeremy was a gentleman."

There's no doubt Corbyn's and Paisley's political views were very much opposed, but I think that snippet shows that Corbyn recognises you need to be able to at least get on with people you oppose, if you are involved in politics, because you need to try to find some common ground in resolving intractable problems.  That, to me, is appreciating the complexities of the world, rather than retreating into a cocoon of like-minded sympathisers.

On the thing about supporting oppression, my point is that if one of our politicians supports selling arms to Israel, or says that we should abstain on yet another UN resolution criticising their latest land theft, there is seldom a peep about it.  Even the thing about actively pursuing the sale of arms to the Saudi butchers tends to get raised more by audiences on eg this week's Victoria Derbyshire show, rather than the media calling May to account.  It's as though the support of oppression is normalised.

[Jon]

8 hours ago, Risso said:

That's the weakness in the Labour system Pete was talking about.

And who do you think chose May in the leadership election? Lib Dems?

The 1922 ctte? It wasn't the party membership. 

Edited May 29, 2017 by Jon

[darrenm]

22 minutes ago, peterms said:

There's no doubt Corbyn's and Paisley's political views were very much opposed, but I think that snippet shows that Corbyn recognises you need to be able to at least get on with people you oppose, if you are involved in politics, because you need to try to find some common ground in resolving intractable problems. 

Exactly this. Which is why I can't fathom people thinking May would have any hope of negotiating anything more complicated than a reverse park.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/05/the-art-of-negotiation/

Quote

In fact she would be an appalling negotiator. She becomes completely closed off when contradicted. She is incapable of thinking on her feet. She is undoubtedly the worst performer at Prime Minister’s Questions, either for government or opposition, since they were first broadcast. Why on earth would anybody think she would be a good negotiator? As soon as Michel Barnier made a point she was not expecting across the table, she would switch off and revert to cliché, and probably give off a great deal of hostility too.

The delusion she would negotiate well has been fed by the media employing all kinds of completely inappropriate metaphors for the Brexit negotiations. From metaphors of waging war to metaphors of playing poker, they all characterise the process as binary and aggressive.

In fact – and I speak as somebody who has undertaken very serious international negotiations, including of the UK maritime boundaries and as the Head of UK Delegation to the Sierra Leone Peace Talks – intenational negotiation is the opposite. It is a cooperative process and not a confrontational process. Almost all negotiations cover a range of points, and they work on the basis of you give a bit there, and I give a bit here. Each side has its bottom lines, subjects on which it cannot move at all or move but to a limited degree. Sometimes on a single subject two “bottom lines” can be in direct conflict. Across the whole range of thousands of subjects, you are trying to find a solution all can live with.

So empathy with your opposite number is a key requirement in a skilled negotiator, and everything I have ever seen about Theresa May marks her out as perhaps having less emotional intelligence than anybody I have ever observed. Bonhommie is also important. Genuine friendship can be a vital factor in reaching agreement, and it can happen in unexpected ways. But May has never been able to strike up friendships outside of a social circle limited to a very particular segment of English society, excluding the vast majority of the English, let alone Scots and heaven forfend continentals. The best negotiators have affability, or at least the ability to switch it on. It is a vital tool.

That is not to say occasionally you do not have to speak and stare hard to make plain that one of your bottom lines is real. But that is by no means the norm. And you need the intelligence and sharpness to carry it off, which May does not. That is one of the many differences between May and Thatcher.

Frankly, if I had the choice between sending in Jeremy Corbyn, with his politeness and reasonableness, or Theresa May, into a negotiation I would not hesitate for a second in choosing Corbyn. I am quite sure there is not another diplomat in the World who would make a different choice. May’s flakiness and intolerance of disagreement represent a disaster waiting to happen.

She has form on this as well. This is a pretty scary read http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/my-brawl-over-brexit-with-prime-minister-theresa-may-1-4807899

Quote

She emphasised, not just strongly but crossly, that “the British people have voted for Brexit and the government is committed to making it happen”. Then she started pointing at my face across the narrow desk.

I moved backwards slightly and to be honest, I was shocked. I had set out to tackle the Prime Minister but I hadn’t expected she would lose her temper and jab her finger at me.

Although taken aback I calmly asked her to stop pointing at my face because I considered it rude. I didn’t feel threatened. I was just astonished that she got so rattled, so quickly. She was very defensive.

I just can't imagine the mess she would make of any talks with EU negotiators 

Edited May 29, 2017 by darrenm
formatting

[Jon]

I honestly believe if this campaign lasted for another 4 weeks Jez would win it.  As it is, it's going to be relatively close.  This campaigning business is Jezs forte. And Mays kryptonite.  

[peterms]

10 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I can't fathom people thinking May would have any hope of negotiating anything more complicated than a reverse park

I gather quite a lot of tories are very unimpressed with her, and with her little team of advisers.

When you hit the rocks, as she has this week, it helps if you have a lot of political support to draw on.  She is reported not to have very much.

[darrenm]

7 minutes ago, Jon said:

I honestly believe if this campaign lasted for another 4 weeks Jez would win it.  As it is, it's going to be relatively close.  This campaigning business is Jezs forte. And Mays kryptonite.  

It was going to be close. But Dacre, Murdoch and Barclays have stopped a lot of Labour's momentum with the smears. The televised stuff over the next week will be a bit of a wildcard.

[darrenm]

9 minutes ago, peterms said:

I gather quite a lot of tories are very unimpressed with her, and with her little team of advisers.

When you hit the rocks, as she has this week, it helps if you have a lot of political support to draw on.  She is reported not to have very much.

That's why they won't let her have anything non-vetted. She almost lost in at the U-turn presser. I think any significant probing and she'd lose it JN style

[colhint]

10 minutes ago, peterms said:

I gather quite a lot of tories are very unimpressed with her, and with her little team of advisers.

When you hit the rocks, as she has this week, it helps if you have a lot of political support to draw on.  She is reported not to have very much.

I don't think this is a wise move, she has much more support than JC. There are loads of reports out there from Labour about them wanting him gone