By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Interesting again in his speech, about the need for the Liberals and Labour to form some form of Progressive Alliance, that the party needs rebooting from the top to bottom
Labour are missing a massive trick by totally ignoring him, as he is the only one that seems to cut straight through the rubbish and speak with such clarity on every issue - not hard to see why he was able to get elected and make real change to the country.
Religion should not be anywhere near power, it should not be indulged, it should be only just about tolerated, people should point and laugh at all of it.
Whilst I agree with the first part wholeheartedly, I don't think the pointing and laughing would do anyone any good.
# WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE #
You clearly don't care that civilians were murdered in their hundreds of thousands because of his decision to send us to war. Just admit it.
Come on, Joe was trying to stick to the core point of the OP rather than get dragged into another circular argument.
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
Well, I for one hope we continue to see this more socialist (i.e. balanced with capitalism) approach promoted, discussed and eventually implemented. Until then I guess we'll just keep scratching our heads and keeping our fingers crossed that the environment, poverty, equality, health, happiness, wellbeing, trade, international cooperation, peace, the shift to automation and increasing AI will all sort itself out.
I'd like to look my daughters in the eye a few years down the line and say we didn't just decide to play politics instead and lost track of everything.
I think in essence that is what Blair is saying, the 'progressives' need to play politics in order to get elected. Blair is saying you need to jump through all the hoops then you can implement whatever you want. That is the game.
Look at the last election, people saying the country would be bankrupt, illiquid government bonds, austerity would be necessary etc - this is a familiar attack from the cult of economics, who, of course, don't model banks, debt or money!
Labour's fiscal rules were written by two mainstream economists Prof Simon Wren-Lewis (Oxford) and Prof Jonathan Portes (Kings) but despite this, Labour were labelled as Marxist.
May be it is time to cosy up to the cultists in economics, and the media, get some credibility amongst these groups, then once in power, let rip with a totally different agenda to the one proposed (see the Tory Party). I trust the people in Labour to attempt to deal with all the things you stated, but we can't spend the next twenty years debating the most ethical way to be elected.
Whilst I agree with the first part wholeheartedly, I don't think the pointing and laughing would do anyone any good.
Why not?
Religion is at the core of everything evil in this world.
I give you Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennet, Harris.....the book? The Four Horseman.
It's a short audiobook and utterly amazing.
Religion? Pah. Flush the loo twice and use the brush for that turd
[Post edited 20 Feb 2020 16:36]
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
I think in essence that is what Blair is saying, the 'progressives' need to play politics in order to get elected. Blair is saying you need to jump through all the hoops then you can implement whatever you want. That is the game.
Look at the last election, people saying the country would be bankrupt, illiquid government bonds, austerity would be necessary etc - this is a familiar attack from the cult of economics, who, of course, don't model banks, debt or money!
Labour's fiscal rules were written by two mainstream economists Prof Simon Wren-Lewis (Oxford) and Prof Jonathan Portes (Kings) but despite this, Labour were labelled as Marxist.
May be it is time to cosy up to the cultists in economics, and the media, get some credibility amongst these groups, then once in power, let rip with a totally different agenda to the one proposed (see the Tory Party). I trust the people in Labour to attempt to deal with all the things you stated, but we can't spend the next twenty years debating the most ethical way to be elected.
[Post edited 20 Feb 2020 15:23]
I know what Blair is saying and I think he's wrong. That approach gets the politics he wants. And if he did implement whatever he wanted given three terms in power then that's a pretty weak return and rather proves that he wasn't that progressive at all.
Agreed re: Labour's economic thinking. It's mainstream and also up-to-date, influenced by the likes of Piketty and Stiglitz too. But let them do more work with the media and public on that score and keep campaigning on it.
I think as a straight-up political game they'll lose even more. And without shifting the political debate or challenging with an alternative. This pointless empty-suited posturing has been leading to Johnson all along.
It's purely practical for me. What's ideological is pretending that politicians have the right answers or even people's best interests at heart when they're looking to get elected.
Policies are the only currency. And we're just wasting time and opportunities pretending otherwise and putting our faith in the game instead.
By any objective measure the UK political system is ridiculously unrepresentative and out of date. And our media is much worse, more untrustworthy and yet more actively involved in our democracy than it should be. Playing by those rules and winning that game gives us politicians and parties who are ultimately not up to the real job of government.
Appealing to voters on policy and factual debate to create the demand for more serious, thoughtful and real politics has to be the way forward. Playing the game on other people's terms is the big mistake and leads nowhere.
I disagree.
Practicality would be getting elected and then implementing your policies in small steps thus getting the public on board with the endgame of getting all your policies implemented.
Focusing solely on policies without ever being elected and able to execute any of them is essentially the definition of ideology. I can't see why you can't see this.
Your "practical" approach will see you having exactly the same conversation in 10 years time.
Nobody has said don't promote factual debate, you're moving your argument quite a bit here.
Practicality would be getting elected and then implementing your policies in small steps thus getting the public on board with the endgame of getting all your policies implemented.
Focusing solely on policies without ever being elected and able to execute any of them is essentially the definition of ideology. I can't see why you can't see this.
Your "practical" approach will see you having exactly the same conversation in 10 years time.
Nobody has said don't promote factual debate, you're moving your argument quite a bit here.
SB
[Post edited 20 Feb 2020 15:56]
Never mind. We're back to where we just disagree.
FWIW I have said I like the look of Starmer on electability grounds and not being such an obvious target. So I'm prepared to play the game there. But it's Starmer's stated commitment to a similarly progressive policy programme that's the real clincher.
And yet you voted Tory, with all the needless death and misery that austerity has caused and will go on causing.
If the Tories policies of balancing the books have as much blood on their hands as Blair I will kneel before JC and unzip him!
I didn't want to get distracted from the OP but your post is very low and in poor taste.
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
where did you get the idea that people are "happy" to do that? no-one on thread has said it and I cant believe anyone is like that privatly
Happy as in with no problem. It comes up all the time whenever and wherever Blair is mentioned, with people waving away criticisms of his role in the Iraq War as though someone had brought up some misdemeanor like a parking ticket.
Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.
Blair shouldnt have a say on any british politics. The likes of him and Cameron royaly fckued up when they were running the country. They should disappear out of public life completely. Both should hang their heads in shame. They shouldnt be sticking their oars in on anything.
Genuine question:-
Do you think that because a person once "royaly fckued up" many years ago (and I agree that Blair did re the Iraq war) it should automatically follow that when they, many years afterwards, speak up with ideas and/or a plan of action which could actually be beneficial to millions of people, those ideas/plans should instantly be dismissed without even being considered, because of the previous one horrendous mistake? (which is what I was trying to say in my first post on p1).
Happy as in with no problem. It comes up all the time whenever and wherever Blair is mentioned, with people waving away criticisms of his role in the Iraq War as though someone had brought up some misdemeanor like a parking ticket.
I've not seen anyone one this thread do that but if you spot it do say.
It's not fair to confuse people trying to use all information they have available with someone trying to rewrite sh1t.
You can take on board something someone says without supporting something they once did at another time and place.
Committing mass murder tends to dent your reputation. In most people's eyes.
You say it like Blair killed people personally. Remember also a majority of MPs supported this, remember that we were not the only nation involved, and it's hard to predict the outcome of such an action.
I've not seen anyone one this thread do that but if you spot it do say.
It's not fair to confuse people trying to use all information they have available with someone trying to rewrite sh1t.
You can take on board something someone says without supporting something they once did at another time and place.
I don't really want to start picking out posts and potentially starting arguments but the line in the OP is pretty clear evidence of it - dismissing Iraq as if it's nothing and shouldn't be held against what Blair says.
I'm not sure if your 2nd para is aimed at me but if it is I don't really see how pointing out the horrid awfulness and consequences of Blair's decisions at that time is 'confusing people' and 'rewriting sh1t'.
You can, yes, if it's appropriate. You can also think some things are so wretched they should be hung around someone's neck to signify they should not be speaking with any sort of authority.
Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.
I don't really want to start picking out posts and potentially starting arguments but the line in the OP is pretty clear evidence of it - dismissing Iraq as if it's nothing and shouldn't be held against what Blair says.
I'm not sure if your 2nd para is aimed at me but if it is I don't really see how pointing out the horrid awfulness and consequences of Blair's decisions at that time is 'confusing people' and 'rewriting sh1t'.
You can, yes, if it's appropriate. You can also think some things are so wretched they should be hung around someone's neck to signify they should not be speaking with any sort of authority.
I'm not sure if your last para is aimed at me.
I jest.
No, I know what you mean. I just think it can be a bit too damaging to not take on board that typing away on here doesn't always give a complete and fair representation of what we're all about.
*No, my 2nd para wasn't aimed at you. It was supposed to be a bit of a generalisation.
I don't really want to start picking out posts and potentially starting arguments but the line in the OP is pretty clear evidence of it - dismissing Iraq as if it's nothing and shouldn't be held against what Blair says.
I'm not sure if your 2nd para is aimed at me but if it is I don't really see how pointing out the horrid awfulness and consequences of Blair's decisions at that time is 'confusing people' and 'rewriting sh1t'.
You can, yes, if it's appropriate. You can also think some things are so wretched they should be hung around someone's neck to signify they should not be speaking with any sort of authority.
That really highlights how different people can read the same words and interpret them completely differently!
I read the OP as saying that TB *now* has useful & potentially very beneficial idea/s for the UK, which are being wastefully discarded because of one horrendous mistake he made 17 years or so ago. Don't you think it'd be a good thing if people were able to at least partly atone for past grievous mistakes by positive contributions in later years?
I think it's worth paying heed to the Truth & Reconciiation process which played such a key part in the transition to democracy, peace & a flourishing "rainbow nation" in South Africa.
I don't really want to start picking out posts and potentially starting arguments but the line in the OP is pretty clear evidence of it - dismissing Iraq as if it's nothing and shouldn't be held against what Blair says.
I'm not sure if your 2nd para is aimed at me but if it is I don't really see how pointing out the horrid awfulness and consequences of Blair's decisions at that time is 'confusing people' and 'rewriting sh1t'.
You can, yes, if it's appropriate. You can also think some things are so wretched they should be hung around someone's neck to signify they should not be speaking with any sort of authority.
I think the OP was clumsily written however having read through I think it’s clear itfcjoe was just trying to make the point that Blair’s actions re Iraq don’t make his views on the current issues with the Labour Party invalid, rather than just brushing that under the carpet
Highlighting crass stupidity since sometime around 2010
And yet you voted Tory, with all the needless death and misery that austerity has caused and will go on causing.
In fact I voted Green, I have never voted tory in my life, my dear departed mum, ex Labour councillor and NUPE representative would never forgive me, I used to be a Labour party member, but like most was put off the identity politics party developed by JC.
Hope this helps, just why one has to do this is a little bizarre.
You say it like Blair killed people personally. Remember also a majority of MPs supported this, remember that we were not the only nation involved, and it's hard to predict the outcome of such an action.
It isn't really. He knew who he was shacking up with. The first action the US committed was civilian bombing of Baghdad. This is after we lied about Iraqs military capabilities to get to go to war in the first place.
We then stood beside the US while they committed atrocities. There are some pretty horrible stories about UK soldiers too.
We put war leaders on trial who haven't done anything personally. But because its a western leader we give him a high paid job instead and let him spout sh1t in the media.
That really highlights how different people can read the same words and interpret them completely differently!
I read the OP as saying that TB *now* has useful & potentially very beneficial idea/s for the UK, which are being wastefully discarded because of one horrendous mistake he made 17 years or so ago. Don't you think it'd be a good thing if people were able to at least partly atone for past grievous mistakes by positive contributions in later years?
I think it's worth paying heed to the Truth & Reconciiation process which played such a key part in the transition to democracy, peace & a flourishing "rainbow nation" in South Africa.
I don't really want to start picking out posts and potentially starting arguments but the line in the OP is pretty clear evidence of it - dismissing Iraq as if it's nothing and shouldn't be held against what Blair says.
I'm not sure if your 2nd para is aimed at me but if it is I don't really see how pointing out the horrid awfulness and consequences of Blair's decisions at that time is 'confusing people' and 'rewriting sh1t'.
You can, yes, if it's appropriate. You can also think some things are so wretched they should be hung around someone's neck to signify they should not be speaking with any sort of authority.
To be honest that is probably a fair comment, I'd spent too long on twitter where anything by Blair is bombarded by so much about him being a war criminal, or should be in The Hague, etc that it make sdialogue unreasonable
Yesterday someone stated he'd crossed a picket line to make that speech, which he hadn't, and on one story about of 150 comments at least 100 were calling him a Scab.
I personally find it frustrating, that someone who speaks with such clarity about the issues and seems to just get things is seen like that by so many on the left when I think that some of his involvement would be the way of getting a Government in place more suited to my beliefs of what is best for the country
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
