• 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 (so long and thanks for all the fish)

"Corbyn was a soviet spy." "No he's a Nazi." "He is a dangerous revolutionary." No he is to blame for Brexit." No you're all wrong, he's unelectable." These are the media memes, and people say that this is not a 'thing.' I'll tell you what he really is... he is a threat to vested interests in this country, hence the establishment's desperation to cut his legs out from underneath him. What they want is a nice unthreatening Blair type, who can be elected every 15 years or so and who poses absolutely no threat.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
"Corbyn was a soviet spy." "No he's a Nazi." "He is a dangerous revolutionary." No he is to blame for Brexit." No you're all wrong, he's unelectable." These are the media memes, and people say that this is not a 'thing.' I'll tell you what he really is... he is a threat to vested interests in this country, hence the establishment's desperation to cut his legs out from underneath him. What they want is a nice unthreatening Blair type, who can be elected every 15 years or so and who poses absolutely no threat.
Click to expand...

Personally I don't like Corbyn. I was a huge fan of Tony Benn, but Corbyn is just the survivor, rather than a leading light, of his protégés.

I think he lacks courage and integrity. He's slippery and ducks controversy, rather than tackling it. The anti-Semitism and past links to Hamas and the IRA are real too. You can be pro the 1967 line and pro Irish reunification, without associating with terrorists.

Corbyn's heir will be key. It needs to be someone untarnished by the battles of the past. But they also need to be more forward thinking about post-capitalism, as opposed to harking back to twentieth century socialism.
 
Ha, ha that video is a great example of ordinary people voting against their own interests. Love the guy who said he was voting Tory even though they were cutting services that he relied on. When asked why he wouldn't vote Labour he said because Corbyn can't win. But Corbyn is going to stop the cuts, that's balmy, yeah who said British politics made sense. Oh well Stephen H, there is someone who agrees with you. People need to have a fudging good look at themselves in the mirror.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Personally I don't like Corbyn. I was a huge fan of Tony Benn, but Corbyn is just the survivor, rather than a leading light, of his protégés.

I think he lacks courage and integrity. He's slippery and ducks controversy, rather than tackling it. The anti-Semitism and past links to Hamas and the IRA are real too. You can be pro the 1967 line and pro Irish reunification, without associating with terrorists.

Corbyn's heir will be key. It needs to be someone untarnished by the battles of the past. But they also need to be more forward thinking about post-capitalism, as opposed to harking back to twentieth century socialism.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but do you like May, do you like Rees - Mogg, do you like Boris Johnson and more importantly do you like what this shower of brick are doing to the country?
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
Yeah, but do you like May, do you like Rees - Mogg, do you like Boris Johnson and more importantly do you like what this shower of brick are doing to the country?
Click to expand...

Of course not. Although I'm happy to temporarily lend them my support until Brexit is delivered, because I think they are more capable of delivering it (even though Corbyn personally is ideologically is the more committed leaver)

But I'd love the 2022 GE to be won by Labour on an Atlee-esque nationalisation and reform agenda
 
Gutter Boy said:
Of course not. Although I'm happy to temporarily lend them my support until Brexit is delivered, because I think they are more capable of delivering it (even though Corbyn personally is ideologically is the more committed leaver)

But I'd love the 2022 GE to be won by Labour on an Atlee-esque nationalisation and reform agenda
Click to expand...

Well if you do the former, there is very little chance of the latter is there? Attlee is my political hero BTW.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
Well if you do the former, there is very little chance of the latter is there? Attlee is my political hero BTW.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The further the Tories take us away from the market police of the EU, the easier it will be to drive through all the radical stuff the state aid and competition laws make impossible in the SM and CU.

I think the likely outcome will be a Heseltine's law case of the assassin never carrying the crown. The Tories will kill off the EU, but they won't end up shaping the post-EU world. Similar to 1945 too even - the Tory-led coalition won the war, but Labour created the peace.
 
Grays_1890 said:
So in order for Brexit to be classed as a success you want everything to have happened yesterday?

I don't think we are goign to agree on anything, your ability to read between the lines on issues such as Honda far outweigh my little human powers so we will leave it all there.
Click to expand...

I would like some idea of what the possible wins of Brexit are yes. To not be able to outline any is...alarming...especially when there are defined drawbacks/losses. You could flip the question and ask: are you comfortable stepping into an economic reality where you don't know if there will be any posistives?

Not being able to outline the "major oppotunies" of Brexit that you mentioned previously, is not anything to do with my reading or my fault. It's not your fault either. We were told Brexit was something. It'd do this and that for the NHS and save us x million etc. All sounded peachy. Could controll immigration. Winning. That these things are not looking true, doesn't mean we should cease our ability to reason, and follow the movement for the sake of it, does it? If there are positives to Brexit why are they so hidden? There has to be more than - we can't describe the benifits yet, but trust me they'll be there! That is called blind faith.
 
Last edited:
Grays_1890 said:
Spot on, he is no real leader of people let alone the country. Sorry its a no from me
Click to expand...

Agreed. I had high hopes for The Ditherer-in-Chief but he has been a total disappointment. Incredibly slow to make decisions, unable to deal in any way with a media that was always going to be set against him, and his handling of Brexit has been as bad as May’s.

I’d spoil my paper if there was an election tomorrow.
 
All this stuff about anti-Semitism in the Labour party...

Does anyone actually buy it?

All I have seen that suggests that there is an institutionalised 'anti-Semitic' culture is that for some reason it's considered a problem to be critical of Israel in anyway what so ever, and when someone says 'Zionist' or 'Israel' for some reason it doesn't mean 'Zionist' or 'Israel' but instead actually means 'All Jews'.

It is ludicrous that the right have lapped this up when they're the ones traditionally speaking of political correctness gone made, and it's crazy to think that any state or religious fundamentalists should in any way be exempt from free speech and due criticism.

I would compare this attack on free speech to a 1930's/40's party from a central European bratwurst eating nation - but I know that is forbidden. So I will compare it to North Korea instead.

Are we honestly supposed to believe that this new group of Blairites have defected because someone said 'Israel are sometimes bad' and they also want to form a party that's sole existence is to attempt to force a remain vote - and which won't last beyond the year?
 
Craig_J said:
All this stuff about anti-Semitism in the Labour party...

Does anyone actually buy it?

Are we honestly supposed to believe that this new group of Blairites have defected because someone said 'Israel are sometimes bad' and they also want to form a party that's sole existence is to attempt to force a remain vote - and which won't last beyond the year?
Click to expand...

Tom Watson is in the party and is still saying it is, now I don't know enough about the guy and maybe he has an agenda however there must be some issue if he still maintains there is? No?

I'm Jewish and I don't feel there is anything overly AS, but there anti Israel stuff and Palastine flag waving at their conference is over the top in my opinion, its just all abit cringing.
 
Craig_J said:
All this stuff about anti-Semitism in the Labour party...

Does anyone actually buy it?
Click to expand...

There is prejudice in every group. The Labour Party are no different. It has probably been exaggerated for convenience in the media to help with an agenda.
 
Craig_J said:
All this stuff about anti-Semitism in the Labour party...

Does anyone actually buy it?

All I have seen that suggests that there is an institutionalised 'anti-Semitic' culture is that for some reason it's considered a problem to be critical of Israel in anyway what so ever, and when someone says 'Zionist' or 'Israel' for some reason it doesn't mean 'Zionist' or 'Israel' but instead actually means 'All Jews'.

It is ludicrous that the right have lapped this up when they're the ones traditionally speaking of political correctness gone made, and it's crazy to think that any state or religious fundamentalists should in any way be exempt from free speech and due criticism.

I would compare this attack on free speech to a 1930's/40's party from a central European bratwurst eating nation - but I know that is forbidden. So I will compare it to North Korea instead.

Are we honestly supposed to believe that this new group of Blairites have defected because someone said 'Israel are sometimes bad' and they also want to form a party that's sole existence is to attempt to force a remain vote - and which won't last beyond the year?
Click to expand...

My thoughts as well.
 
Craig_J said:
All this stuff about anti-Semitism in the Labour party...

Does anyone actually buy it?

All I have seen that suggests that there is an institutionalised 'anti-Semitic' culture is that for some reason it's considered a problem to be critical of Israel in anyway what so ever, and when someone says 'Zionist' or 'Israel' for some reason it doesn't mean 'Zionist' or 'Israel' but instead actually means 'All Jews'.

It is ludicrous that the right have lapped this up when they're the ones traditionally speaking of political correctness gone made, and it's crazy to think that any state or religious fundamentalists should in any way be exempt from free speech and due criticism.

I would compare this attack on free speech to a 1930's/40's party from a central European bratwurst eating nation - but I know that is forbidden. So I will compare it to North Korea instead.

Are we honestly supposed to believe that this new group of Blairites have defected because someone said 'Israel are sometimes bad' and they also want to form a party that's sole existence is to attempt to force a remain vote - and which won't last beyond the year?
Click to expand...
I think there obviously is a problem. Look at how the party, Corbyn included, repeatedly tried to add to the party definition of anti-Semitism to specifically allow criticism of Israel. Imagine a similar equality clause where they agreed not to be racist but insisted on being able to criticise the level of crime committed by black people, or an anti-sexism clause where they insisted women couldn't logic.

Large chunks of the Labour party (including its "leader") consider it more important for their own party to criticise the actions of Israel than to protect the rights of an oppressed people. Not only that, but they continually conflate the two issues, something which has some very concerning outcomes IMO.
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
I think there obviously is a problem. Look at how the party, Corbyn included, repeatedly tried to add to the party definition of anti-Semitism to specifically allow criticism of Israel. Imagine a similar equality clause where they agreed not to be racist but insisted on being able to criticise the level of crime committed by black people, or an anti-sexism clause where they insisted women couldn't logic.

Large chunks of the Labour party (including its "leader") consider it more important for their own party to criticise the actions of Israel than to protect the rights of an oppressed people. Not only that, but they continually conflate the two issues, something which has some very concerning outcomes IMO.
Click to expand...

this is the most telling thing imo
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back