Baleforce
Ron Henry
It should all be about logical action and the economy should be protected above all else as it’s the foundation for everything.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
It should all be about logical action and the economy should be protected above all else as it’s the foundation for everything.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Hmmm. A number of things:
I chucked out random conspiracy theories about Robert Mercer. Partisan Remainers wouldn't call me up on that?
We don't know the full facts. This poll has been published by the pro-remain press. Who paid for it? Did Soros commit funding to his Remain cause? It's not wrong to ask questions...
ShipOfTheseus
Clint Dempsey
It was paid for by Best for Britain and Hope not Hate. Article says so.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Good names. Why didn't Remain have the right branding from the get go? Could have saved a lot of time!
Who funded these organisations? All too easy to dismiss someone for questioning things. When it's your side, who cares, when it's against you its a conspiracy
Baleforce
Ron Henry
Tricky line for the press to walk, seeing as the economic facts are pro remain too.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
I'm with you on this stuff (if not the rest!). I was trying to explain this concept to my uncle, who is a farmer, in the pub one evening and he was looking at me as if I had two heads. And he is no yokel either. He is a full-time biochemist and runs a farm with his kids as a side project
I think we need a tree hugger thread.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Not meaning to do Leave's bidding, but Soros has been deeply involved in Best for Britain http://fortune.com/2018/05/30/george-soros-best-for-britain-brexit-campaign/ so Danish has your bacon?
@Danishfurniturelover where will you get your furniture from post exit? Isn't Denmark in the EU.
ShipOfTheseus
Clint Dempsey
Soros is one donor to B for B among many: he chipped in £400k and the fighting fund is around £7m. And most of its work is done at a local level by grassroots groups without central funding. Hope not Hate is funded by unions and donors, no Soros involvement. The polling company is MRS compliant and scrupulous; it’s reporting what people said when questioned. The Guardian, meanwhile, is funded from some lucky bets it made on Autotrader and the Manchester Evening News a while ago.
So the path from a Graun story about the change in perceptions at a constituency level to ranting about remainers doing Soros’s bidding is pretty tenuous.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Or you could hold your hands up, and say it wasn't "tripe" and your post was biased. Oh here you go:
The Soros trope is exclusive to the creepiest, alt-rightiest Brexit factions. It doesn’t reflect well on you.
Soros helped launch Best for Britain's manifesto and according to that Forbes article donated £0.5m. Danish was more or less spot on to be fair. Apologies for being a pedant.
Last edited:
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
I will continue to buy Italian shirts. Just pay a little more if they do not want to do a free trade agreement. I will not veto European products I like Italian clothes. The is a detective show on bbc4 set in Sicily I am dressing like the lead character.
If things get to expensive I will look at products from elsewhere. Not trying to be sarky but that is how commerce should work in my opinion and is why most developed countries would want to be in a free trade agreement.
The wife despite being Irish by birth also voted out, we are similar in our views maybe why it works. She loves French make-up won't ever wear anything else, she will continue to buy it.
I assume we will pay a little more as a country but also put more tax on products to the EU but as exports to non EU countries is growing and that part of the world is getting richer, long term I think we will be fine.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
I don't mind people voting remain. If you believe in democracy then you have to respect different opinions. But the has been a narrative recently that leave was funded by sinister rich individuals. Think as you point out we have to be aware remain is the same as leave in this regard.
You do not want to get me started on the war criminal Blair's role in all this.
I maintain we probably won't leave. I would blame Cameron for how he framed the question.
If we don't leave, it will be because the politicians who want to leave haven't come up with a plan that has support both in parliament and amongst the wider public. They lied about how easy it would all be -- Davis and Fox to name two off the top of my head.
Osborne's punishment budget and immediate Armageddon was also a lie, both he and Cameron have a lot to answer for. But Leave won and now they are like the dog who caught the car. "Just get out and everything will be fine" isn't a plan when the public are becoming more informed about the potential problems facing us in the event of a hard brexit.
I think we will leave (so as to adhere to the referendum) but it will be on terms that many Leavers won't like. Remainers won't like it either, so it will be the perfect, British compromise, where we can all moan about it.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
To be honest before the referendum I would have accepted a Norway style agreement with less money going in and the right to set our own trade deals.
The problem with the referendum was that people like me who absolutely hate the EU see we voted to leave and want out to mean all the way out.
When actually it was such a complex issue if the had been more options I doubt a full exit would have won, probably a Norway type agreement would have though.
Which for me would have been an acceptable first step in distancing ourselves from the disgusting EU.
As it is I think the will be slightly less money going into the EU. Some more control over immigration all under the name of some treaty but nothing will really change.
The problem with the referendum was that people like me who absolutely hate the EU see we voted to leave and want out to mean all the way out.
When actually it was such a complex issue if the had been more options I doubt a full exit would have won, probably a Norway type agreement would have though.
Which for me would have been an acceptable first step in distancing ourselves from the disgusting EU.
As it is I think the will be slightly less money going into the EU. Some more control over immigration all under the name of some treaty but nothing will really change.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Montelbarno? Not watched it but it looks full of atmosphere and Sicilian charm (my old man was into in). Recommend Sicily for a winter break, it’s practically Africa so hot, but with beautiful faded European architecture. Decent value too and only a couple of hours flight.
You’re quite the Eurofile! And why not? As well as stylish wares EU nations have deep and rich cultures. Why distance ourselves? Personally don’t see many draw backs to the EU, but see lots of positives.
Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Grays_1890
Colin Calderwood
And I think Corbyn has huge issues here with the Palastine versus Isreal thing going on. Having denied then admitting he attended a tribute to Black September he is losing alot of credit.
It's an upside down world when Corbyn, who has never ordered the death of anybody, is condemned by Netanyahu, a guy who has no problem with his troops shooting medics, journalists and children with sniper rifles.
It's also an upside down world when The Labour Party is the racist party, particularly the left of the party, when those people have actively campaigned against racism. When it's The Tory Party who have overseen an immigration policy that disproportionately hurt Black British citizens (and by hurt, I mean detained, deported and denied healthcare), and who have at least 3 sitting MPs that have made racist remarks towards black people. You hear mutterings about "Islamophobia" but I haven't heard many asking "do The Tories have a problem with black people?"
The bile aimed at Corbyn, from day 1, is like something I have never seen. It's probably most insidious from the pretend left like The Guardian. They (especially the pretend left) shut up for a minute just after the last election, when it turned out that they really knew the square root of phuck all when it came to what people were prepared and not prepared to vote for. The Tories were supposed to increase their majority to over 100 seats according to the pundits, and Labour took away their majority in Parliament. And at that moment, I actually thought that maybe some of them, the Chuka's of the world, would actually be able to come back into the fold.
It didn't last. The same people who brought you the 'controls on immigration' mugs as merchandise for the Labour Party (they were a real thing), the same people (Chuka himself) who said straight after Brexit that “If continuation of the free movement we have is the price of Single Market membership then clearly we couldn’t remain in the Single Market" would then attack Corbyn over Brexit. Imagine if Corbyn said this, these same people would use it as something to attack him with, continuously, and it would be amplified by the likes of The Guardian.
At the last local elections "Corbyn hates Jews" went into overdrive in the news cycle. And just lately, when Chequers went down badly and Labour jumped back ahead by 5 points across various polls, the latest "Corbyn hates Jews" business started up again -- also coinciding with Labour's internal NEC elections where the right are scared of not holding sway when the next conference is held. Funny that.
I only ever really expected Corbyn to be a place-holder, to drag the party to the left in terms of policy until a new leader emerged. He's done better than I expected and he is stronger than many give him credit for. It must take a lot of resilience to withstand personal attacks, day after day, not just from those who are supposed to be opposed to you, but those who claim to be on your side. He never really wanted to be leader, he stepped forward for the left because nobody else wanted to. He's stayed in charge on behalf of the Labour Party membership who elected him (twice) to lead the party, because let's face it, who needs this headache? The old boy would rather be on his allotment imo. But he is (again imo) staying on out of a sense of responsibility to those who really wanted change and voted for him to lead Labour, and also the many people who wanted change and voted for Labour and their policies at the last GE.
I hope his rebuttal to Netanyahu is the first of many. The people against him can not be placated, they will be against him no matter what. So phuck them. Attack them back. For all the sh1t he has had to eat, it's the least he should do. And if sensible Chucka et al don't like it, then maybe they'll find the balls to be who they really are and form a new centrist bloc with Soubry and friends, plus the Lib Dems. The Centrist, Corporate, Conservative Party.
Or, if you like, the CCCP.
The Labour Party has a problem with anti-Semitism. This is a party with just under 600,000 members. I don't think there has even been 600 members accused of anti-Semitism. That's 0.1 percent. But let's say that there is an army of hidden anti-Semites embedded in the party, 6,000 of them. That's still only 1 percent. Yet the media story isn't "Less than 1 percent of Labour members are cranks and racist" instead the story is "Labour poses an existential threat to Jews in the UK" -- and 3 Jewish newspapers led with roughly that headline very recently. What a crock of sh1t. Enough is indeed enough.
It's also an upside down world when The Labour Party is the racist party, particularly the left of the party, when those people have actively campaigned against racism. When it's The Tory Party who have overseen an immigration policy that disproportionately hurt Black British citizens (and by hurt, I mean detained, deported and denied healthcare), and who have at least 3 sitting MPs that have made racist remarks towards black people. You hear mutterings about "Islamophobia" but I haven't heard many asking "do The Tories have a problem with black people?"
The bile aimed at Corbyn, from day 1, is like something I have never seen. It's probably most insidious from the pretend left like The Guardian. They (especially the pretend left) shut up for a minute just after the last election, when it turned out that they really knew the square root of phuck all when it came to what people were prepared and not prepared to vote for. The Tories were supposed to increase their majority to over 100 seats according to the pundits, and Labour took away their majority in Parliament. And at that moment, I actually thought that maybe some of them, the Chuka's of the world, would actually be able to come back into the fold.
It didn't last. The same people who brought you the 'controls on immigration' mugs as merchandise for the Labour Party (they were a real thing), the same people (Chuka himself) who said straight after Brexit that “If continuation of the free movement we have is the price of Single Market membership then clearly we couldn’t remain in the Single Market" would then attack Corbyn over Brexit. Imagine if Corbyn said this, these same people would use it as something to attack him with, continuously, and it would be amplified by the likes of The Guardian.
At the last local elections "Corbyn hates Jews" went into overdrive in the news cycle. And just lately, when Chequers went down badly and Labour jumped back ahead by 5 points across various polls, the latest "Corbyn hates Jews" business started up again -- also coinciding with Labour's internal NEC elections where the right are scared of not holding sway when the next conference is held. Funny that.
I only ever really expected Corbyn to be a place-holder, to drag the party to the left in terms of policy until a new leader emerged. He's done better than I expected and he is stronger than many give him credit for. It must take a lot of resilience to withstand personal attacks, day after day, not just from those who are supposed to be opposed to you, but those who claim to be on your side. He never really wanted to be leader, he stepped forward for the left because nobody else wanted to. He's stayed in charge on behalf of the Labour Party membership who elected him (twice) to lead the party, because let's face it, who needs this headache? The old boy would rather be on his allotment imo. But he is (again imo) staying on out of a sense of responsibility to those who really wanted change and voted for him to lead Labour, and also the many people who wanted change and voted for Labour and their policies at the last GE.
I hope his rebuttal to Netanyahu is the first of many. The people against him can not be placated, they will be against him no matter what. So phuck them. Attack them back. For all the sh1t he has had to eat, it's the least he should do. And if sensible Chucka et al don't like it, then maybe they'll find the balls to be who they really are and form a new centrist bloc with Soubry and friends, plus the Lib Dems. The Centrist, Corporate, Conservative Party.
Or, if you like, the CCCP.
The Labour Party has a problem with anti-Semitism. This is a party with just under 600,000 members. I don't think there has even been 600 members accused of anti-Semitism. That's 0.1 percent. But let's say that there is an army of hidden anti-Semites embedded in the party, 6,000 of them. That's still only 1 percent. Yet the media story isn't "Less than 1 percent of Labour members are cranks and racist" instead the story is "Labour poses an existential threat to Jews in the UK" -- and 3 Jewish newspapers led with roughly that headline very recently. What a crock of sh1t. Enough is indeed enough.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
It's not the detail. As you outline he's not so bad. Its the way he handles things (badly) and fails to build consensus that is. The establishment won't let him get anywhere near No 10. And that's a shame because it is his presentation and way of dealing with crisis that is off, rather than his underlying policies. But if he can't handle basic political communication or build support across different sectors of society, then ultimately, he's not good enough. He needs a Alastair Campbell and a more open mainstream approach. Otherwise his reasonable policies just get dismissed as radical and quirky, and won't see the light of day.
Between elections, that's true. But election coverage (on television at least) has to be more balanced. Which imo is a big part of why Labour came from 20 points behind last time out, and why The Tories are in no hurry to have another General Election, with the polls basically level.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Corbyn is up against one of the weakest governments we've ever seen. Its held together by sticky tape. The Conservatives are a blip away from civil war.... Corbyn to the rescue as the strength and consensus building answer? Corbyn is just the default other option. He's not good enough. To take control Labour need more. Someone who can play the game.
If there's someone who can come through and lead the party with a left-wing platform (as in the last manifesto), who will sincerely try to implement it when in power, then that's fine. In that case, I think Corbyn would happily step aside too. If the alternative is Mrs Balls, then no thanks. Like I said, for me he's a placeholder -- but it's turned out he might actually win.