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.
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.
Do you have evidence that the first thing the Americans did was deliberately target civilians in Baghdad?
It's quite an accusation and one I've not heard before.
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
I get that Joe. But I think you're looking at someone who is promoting a centrist approach and that feels less scary and more logical.
But there's a misconception that the political spectrum is about extremes at both sides and the most balanced approach is to found in the middle. But that's not actually how it works. If you look at the balanced approaches of socialism and capitalism in the Nordic countries and elsewhere in Europe these are promoted by those on the left of the spectrum. Those who are in the centre or on the right tend to want to keep the status quo or accelerate towards a more liberal, market-led approach.
Blair is better than someone on the right IMO but he cemented that idea in our minds that the opposition and the alternative was in the centre. That only serves to keep us moving right and it was a wasted opportunity having a supposed left-wing and social democratic party in power that didn't do what it needed to do to actually redress the balance.
Rather than being seduced by the free-market (and imperialist world view) Blair and his followers needed to look at the countries where a genuine third way was established and follow their path. The key part there is not to let capitalism have free rein but regulate it to serve the country and its citizens. Slowly bringing us up from our ridiculously low levels of corporate and income tax would have been a start and showed they actually knew what they were doing.
I get that Joe. But I think you're looking at someone who is promoting a centrist approach and that feels less scary and more logical.
But there's a misconception that the political spectrum is about extremes at both sides and the most balanced approach is to found in the middle. But that's not actually how it works. If you look at the balanced approaches of socialism and capitalism in the Nordic countries and elsewhere in Europe these are promoted by those on the left of the spectrum. Those who are in the centre or on the right tend to want to keep the status quo or accelerate towards a more liberal, market-led approach.
Blair is better than someone on the right IMO but he cemented that idea in our minds that the opposition and the alternative was in the centre. That only serves to keep us moving right and it was a wasted opportunity having a supposed left-wing and social democratic party in power that didn't do what it needed to do to actually redress the balance.
Rather than being seduced by the free-market (and imperialist world view) Blair and his followers needed to look at the countries where a genuine third way was established and follow their path. The key part there is not to let capitalism have free rein but regulate it to serve the country and its citizens. Slowly bringing us up from our ridiculously low levels of corporate and income tax would have been a start and showed they actually knew what they were doing.
There's been a fairly clear statement in this country that the people don't want the policies from the left both in the 80s and today, there can be an insistence that the people were wrong but ultimately that doesn't matter.
There's been a fairly clear statement in this country that the people don't want the policies from the left both in the 80s and today, there can be an insistence that the people were wrong but ultimately that doesn't matter.
Do you have any evidence of that? The policies themselves were popular and polled well individually.
How the overall programme and who would be delivering it were repeatedly and unfairly characterised as unrealistic, uncosted Marxism from the 80s was not popular. I'll give you that.
But we're not talking actual content here, we're talking brand perception. A perception where despite evidence to the contrary the Tories are portrayed as a more solid, safer and less loony choice.
Hopefully someone like Starmer can continue to promote and deliver the content but his boring and earnest perception will actually help to deflect the way he and Labour are so casually and lazily portrayed as dangerous and out of touch.
Do you have any evidence of that? The policies themselves were popular and polled well individually.
How the overall programme and who would be delivering it were repeatedly and unfairly characterised as unrealistic, uncosted Marxism from the 80s was not popular. I'll give you that.
But we're not talking actual content here, we're talking brand perception. A perception where despite evidence to the contrary the Tories are portrayed as a more solid, safer and less loony choice.
Hopefully someone like Starmer can continue to promote and deliver the content but his boring and earnest perception will actually help to deflect the way he and Labour are so casually and lazily portrayed as dangerous and out of touch.
You can't poll individual policies, it tells you nothing - as proven over the last year or so.
Do you want free Broadband? Yes Do you want trains to be nationalised? yes Do you want cheaper services by nationalising them? Yes Do you want more money spent on healthcare? Yes
Of course individual policies are popular, why wouldn't they be?
But Labour's manifesto, with these policies in it was totally rejected by the electorate - therefore their policies weren't popular. If they were popular people would have voted for them
You can't poll individual policies, it tells you nothing - as proven over the last year or so.
Do you want free Broadband? Yes Do you want trains to be nationalised? yes Do you want cheaper services by nationalising them? Yes Do you want more money spent on healthcare? Yes
Of course individual policies are popular, why wouldn't they be?
But Labour's manifesto, with these policies in it was totally rejected by the electorate - therefore their policies weren't popular. If they were popular people would have voted for them
You don't appear to be reading what I write. I agree with you.
But it demonstrates a problem with perception rather than actual content.
And increasingly that's what our politics and political debate is demonstrating: a problem with perception rather than actual content.
You don't appear to be reading what I write. I agree with you.
But it demonstrates a problem with perception rather than actual content.
And increasingly that's what our politics and political debate is demonstrating: a problem with perception rather than actual content.
Perception is important, but it isn't just perception that makes people think that Boris is competent, they can see that he isn't this slick operator.
That Labour haven't been able to pin him down shows how poorly they have performed, this was an open goal for the Tories after the state of the country over the last few years.
The Tories do a good job of pretending they are more compentent, but the reality is we don't know that they are less competent because there is no-one to compare them to as they have been in Government for a decade now. We can think that someone else would do better but how can we prove that?
All I can see, is that under a New Labour Government, those around me had their lives improved by easily measurable standards - health, education, early years, minimum wage etc were big deals. Yes there were big compromises made with things like PFI and the continuation to a free market but for me they are necessary evils.
Under the Tory Government things have not got better, zero hours are badly misused, services get worse and worse but yet they still get voted in because the alternative isn't there.
I'vegone round in a circle here, and not really addressed your point, but I see the same mistakes being made by the Labour party already - their long period of reflection has been a joke and they think they were right and the people were wrong already - this seems a standard view on the left as opposed to the left of centre
Perception is important, but it isn't just perception that makes people think that Boris is competent, they can see that he isn't this slick operator.
That Labour haven't been able to pin him down shows how poorly they have performed, this was an open goal for the Tories after the state of the country over the last few years.
The Tories do a good job of pretending they are more compentent, but the reality is we don't know that they are less competent because there is no-one to compare them to as they have been in Government for a decade now. We can think that someone else would do better but how can we prove that?
All I can see, is that under a New Labour Government, those around me had their lives improved by easily measurable standards - health, education, early years, minimum wage etc were big deals. Yes there were big compromises made with things like PFI and the continuation to a free market but for me they are necessary evils.
Under the Tory Government things have not got better, zero hours are badly misused, services get worse and worse but yet they still get voted in because the alternative isn't there.
I'vegone round in a circle here, and not really addressed your point, but I see the same mistakes being made by the Labour party already - their long period of reflection has been a joke and they think they were right and the people were wrong already - this seems a standard view on the left as opposed to the left of centre
How should Labour have pinned Boris down? How have the media done that? How did the LibDems pin him down?
We agree on a lot of these things but not sure we agree on the context or the practical reality.
How should Labour have pinned Boris down? How have the media done that? How did the LibDems pin him down?
We agree on a lot of these things but not sure we agree on the context or the practical reality.
I guess the key would be to try and find an attack line that worked, and not be so easily switched around on to the Labour leader who was such an easy target.
I guess the key would be to try and find an attack line that worked, and not be so easily switched around on to the Labour leader who was such an easy target.
I think that's a bit naive. Every attack line on Corbyn was amplified almost as if it was designed to deflect from any criticism of the Conservatives. It certainly drowned out most of the criticism the other way and the attempts to hold the government to account on their record and their suitability for another term.
Case in point: Islamophobia that is an historically well-documented problem in the Tory party. 54% of Conservative Party members admit to anti-Muslim prejudice. The PM himself has used language that is proscribed. Hate crimes against Muslims are on the rise. Anti-immigration and anti-muslim sentiment infects our political debate and populist right-wing campaigns. And we have Baroness Warsi calling it out within the Conservative Party and being ignored to the point that an islamophobia inquiry can be promised and then just shelved as not necessary.
There wasn't even the semblance of an equivalence there despite a much lower and less compelling threshold of evidence for the claims surrounding Labour antisemitism. It was a quite insulting show of bias whether intentional or just revealing how flawed and stacked the political debate has become.
If nobody can pin down Johnson and the Tories on that and the factual evidence surrounding it, can't you see that there's a bigger and deeper problem here?
Do you have evidence that the first thing the Americans did was deliberately target civilians in Baghdad?
It's quite an accusation and one I've not heard before.
SB
Shock and awe. I'm sure there were some military targets, I'm sure they also inflicted huge civilian losses. How else did they kill so many in a 10 year occupation? Do you deny they did?
Shock and awe. I'm sure there were some military targets, I'm sure they also inflicted huge civilian losses. How else did they kill so many in a 10 year occupation? Do you deny they did?
You know full well that all those targets were military. I'm sure some civilians died which was horrible especially given the reasoning for the war but you said they were deliberately targeted by the US. That is totally incorrect and a rewriting of history. Your original post also said the first thing and now you've expanded it to ten years.
It's absolutely right to criticise and even dispise what happened but it's wrong to state things as fact with no evidence, especially when there is evidence to the contrary.
We don't want to follow the Blair evidence paradigm do we?
You know full well that all those targets were military. I'm sure some civilians died which was horrible especially given the reasoning for the war but you said they were deliberately targeted by the US. That is totally incorrect and a rewriting of history. Your original post also said the first thing and now you've expanded it to ten years.
It's absolutely right to criticise and even dispise what happened but it's wrong to state things as fact with no evidence, especially when there is evidence to the contrary.
We don't want to follow the Blair evidence paradigm do we?
SB
[Post edited 21 Feb 2020 18:48]
"I'm sure some civilians died"
The Americans claimed they were able to target the bombing in such a way as to ensure that the number of civilian casualties would be limited but during the 'shock and awe' phase (3 weeks) over 6,700 civilians were killed according to 'Iraq body count'.
I think that's a bit naive. Every attack line on Corbyn was amplified almost as if it was designed to deflect from any criticism of the Conservatives. It certainly drowned out most of the criticism the other way and the attempts to hold the government to account on their record and their suitability for another term.
Case in point: Islamophobia that is an historically well-documented problem in the Tory party. 54% of Conservative Party members admit to anti-Muslim prejudice. The PM himself has used language that is proscribed. Hate crimes against Muslims are on the rise. Anti-immigration and anti-muslim sentiment infects our political debate and populist right-wing campaigns. And we have Baroness Warsi calling it out within the Conservative Party and being ignored to the point that an islamophobia inquiry can be promised and then just shelved as not necessary.
There wasn't even the semblance of an equivalence there despite a much lower and less compelling threshold of evidence for the claims surrounding Labour antisemitism. It was a quite insulting show of bias whether intentional or just revealing how flawed and stacked the political debate has become.
If nobody can pin down Johnson and the Tories on that and the factual evidence surrounding it, can't you see that there's a bigger and deeper problem here?
The usual downvotes from the usual suspects.
But give me the context. Apart from being utterly scummy political fanboys.
But give me the context. Apart from being utterly scummy political fanboys.
Not me, and I was going to keep out of this one, but your own thread you’ve quoted raises some valid points. Never mind islamophobia, even on the issue of antisemitism, polls have been misrepresented and data cherry picked to imply the left has the bigger problem. Which goes against pretty much all studies; the harder left does have an issue, but the problem extends further towards the centre on the right.
I’m not denying there’s a problem in the Labour movement, but the issue has been polarised and weaponised for political gain. Undoubtedly.
You can't poll individual policies, it tells you nothing - as proven over the last year or so.
Do you want free Broadband? Yes Do you want trains to be nationalised? yes Do you want cheaper services by nationalising them? Yes Do you want more money spent on healthcare? Yes
Of course individual policies are popular, why wouldn't they be?
But Labour's manifesto, with these policies in it was totally rejected by the electorate - therefore their policies weren't popular. If they were popular people would have voted for them
They'd have been far more popular if proposed by the other party and pushed enough by the press.
The Americans claimed they were able to target the bombing in such a way as to ensure that the number of civilian casualties would be limited but during the 'shock and awe' phase (3 weeks) over 6,700 civilians were killed according to 'Iraq body count'.
That's not evidence of deliberately targeting civilians. If they were then the numbers would be clearly far, far higher. Let's see evidence of deliberate targeting on a large scale. That was the premise given on this thread.
The Americans were wrong in Iraq and killed many people they shouldn't have but to claim they were targeting civilians is ridiculous.
That's not evidence of deliberately targeting civilians. If they were then the numbers would be clearly far, far higher. Let's see evidence of deliberate targeting on a large scale. That was the premise given on this thread.
The Americans were wrong in Iraq and killed many people they shouldn't have but to claim they were targeting civilians is ridiculous.
SB
[Post edited 21 Feb 2020 23:38]
Calm down pal, where did i say it was?
Was merely trying to equate a figure to your "some" comment, that is all and that is why i quoted it, do you understand?
Then you start with the attacks, jeez, u really need to take a chill pill mate.
Edit - I see you've edited out your little attack, oh dear.
That's not evidence of deliberately targeting civilians. If they were then the numbers would be clearly far, far higher. Let's see evidence of deliberate targeting on a large scale. That was the premise given on this thread.
The Americans were wrong in Iraq and killed many people they shouldn't have but to claim they were targeting civilians is ridiculous.
SB
[Post edited 21 Feb 2020 23:38]
Mate, they killed 7000 civilians in one phase of bombings. That's like 2 9/11s. What on earth does it matter if they did it "deliberately"? What does that word even mean in this circumstance? You are being an apologist for mass murder.
They'd have been far more popular if proposed by the other party and pushed enough by the press.
The policies were [mostly] fine.
All the feedback I've seen showed people saying it wasn't any of the individual policies that were the problem, it was the fact that so many were proposed to be carryied out in one term of office - and without proper costings too - people were understandably taken a bit aback by the proposal for such big changes all at once, and sceptical of Labour's economic plans to accommodate them.
Mate, they killed 7000 civilians in one phase of bombings. That's like 2 9/11s. What on earth does it matter if they did it "deliberately"? What does that word even mean in this circumstance? You are being an apologist for mass murder.
No I'm not.
You said they deliberately targeted civilians, they didn't. It really does matter.
They messed up and killed many and I said that was very wrong. They are different things though and your post was wrong.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
