The Next UK PM everybody... - Page 22 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15026286
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-pompeo-s-promise-to-protect-uk-jews-from-corbyn-was-shocking-and-morally-perfect-1.7361921


As for the context of the Pompeo statement, it’s far from clear that he was warning of a plan to intervene in a British election.
What he did do was to answer a question from an anonymous American Jewish leader who posed a frightening hypothetical to the secretary of state. The person who asked the question referenced the Labour Party’s troubling recent history of tolerance for anti-Semitism and Corbyn’s record of indifference to the problem, as well as his actions and gestures that expressed support for Islamist terrorists who work for Israel’s destruction.
This question was posed: "If Corbyn is elected, would you be willing to work with us to take on actions if life becomes very difficult for Jews in the U.K.?"
According to the Washington Post, Pompeo’s response was to say: "It could be that Mr. Corbyn manages to run the gantlet and get elected. It’s possible. You should know, we won’t wait for him to do those things to begin to push back. We will do our level best," he said to fervent applause from attendees. "It’s too risky and too important and too hard once it’s already happened," he said.
Read in context, it’s just as easy to see it as a pledge to warn Corbyn to avoid anti-Semitic actions and statements, and not to act in such a way as to make life difficult for British Jews, rather than a threat to intervene in an election.


Surely anti-semetism should be challenged?
#15026352
It's not called traveling "second class" unless maybe you're rich; it's just called getting a train. The only time it's called something different is when you're riding first class.


It's called travelling second class when there are separate carriages on a train called first and second class , and you have a second class ticket and therefore must travel in a second class carriage.

Your posts are getting more and more bizarre; who are the "nobody" people who are packing up this train?


People who can't afford a first class ticket, I suppose.

What on earth is bizarre about that? Have you never made a train journey?


Anyway, a link from the mainstream British media: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... sh-leaders


Pompeo’s comments emerged after Trump turned down Corbyn’s request for a meeting during his state visit to the UK last week, saying the leader was “somewhat of a negative force”. Corbyn joined protests outside Trump’s press conference with Theresa May, where he pledged to oppose the US president’s drive for greater access for US health companies to NHS contracts.


I'm not sure what he thinks he could do. It's probably just more crap from the Trump administration.

Who exactly were the Jewish leaders he was talking to?

Shadow cabinet sources said the leadership was preparing to take on Tom Watson and his supporters after his vocal campaign to soften Corbyn’s Brexit position, with moves under way to generate momentum in favour of a new deputy leadership election.
There is growing talk about the possibility of the party’s rules being changed to create a second deputy leader, alongside Watson, but also the possibility of a new deputy leadership contest altogether. Some Corbyn supporters are circulating motions against Watson around local constituency Labour parties and a grassroots petition against the deputy leader has got about 26,000 signatures so far.
One shadow cabinet minister said they believed the leadership wanted to make the shadow cabinet less in favour of a second referendum. As part of this, Corbyn’s team considered swapping Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, with Diane Abbott, the home secretary, over her support for a second referendum and wider foreign policy issues.



I don't know if any of that's true, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

However, it is understood that Thornberry has more recently been assured that she will not be moved and that Abbott was opposed to such a plan anyway, which would make the move difficult to carry out without a public battle.

Well, we shall see.
#15026354
I'm not sure what he thinks he could do. It's probably just more crap from the Trump administration.



Well, I suppose there would be a range of policy options, from individual sanctions through to regime change.

I want to take the opportunity to reassure all of you tea totaling English people that the free world won’t stand idly by should a genocidal manic take control of your country. You need not fear that the RN’s nukes will hold the forces of freedom at bay since the US has final control over their use. Furthermore, the Royal Navy and RAF are so small these days that only token resistance would be possible. We will have your country liberated in a jiffy.

There is nothing for you to worry about.
#15026365
This is a well used Jewish supremacist tactic. They say something outrageous and insulting, hoping to provoke a reaction and when they get it, they cry "anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism!". Of course we saw with the Lavon Affair that sometimes provocation is not enough and ultra Zionists have had to resort to trying to murder their own men, women and child, so as they can then blame Gentiles for pathological Jew hatred.

Its like in the Middle Ages Jews considered Gentiles to be filth, too dirty to even share a meal with. Even going into a Gentile house was considered polluting, although Jews were allowed to do this, for business purposes. The fact that Gentiles in the middle Ages resented these vile racist attitudes and behaviours from Jews has been twisted by Jewish Suprmacists and Cultural Marxists into something that we should be ashamed of.
#15026470
snapdragon wrote:It's called travelling second class when there are separate carriages on a train called first and second class , and you have a second class ticket and therefore must travel in a second class carriage.


I didn't know people who bought tickets for trains called them anything but tickets and first class tickets. Do people really call normal tickets 'second class tickets'? #AskingForAMe

People who can't afford a first class ticket, I suppose.

What on earth is bizarre about that? Have you never made a train journey?


Since you said:

Even I don't travel second class in a packed train if I don't have to. Nobody does.


I guess when you said "Nobody", you just meant you. :D

foxdemon wrote:https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-pompeo-s-promise-to-protect-uk-jews-from-corbyn-was-shocking-and-morally-perfect-1.7361921

Surely anti-semetism should be challenged?


1. The antisemitism accusations directed at Corbyn are Zionist propaganda.
2. You're giving the benefit of the doubt to this guy who is OK about meddling in U.K. elections:
#15026561
skinster wrote:I didn't know people who bought tickets for trains called them anything but tickets and first class tickets. Do people really call normal tickets 'second class tickets'? #AskingForAMe


Of course they do. They're not called normal tickets.

You specify first or second class.



Since you said:



I guess when you said "Nobody", you just meant you. :D


No, of course not. You don't think normal, everyday people actually choose to travel second class on a packed train, do you?
It's murder.

It's unlikely Jeremy Corbyn will get his wish to become PM. At least for a while.

He suggested he could become temporary PM after Bojo is kicked out, but he's more or less been told to bog off.

A caretaker government, yes - but not led by him.
#15026570


snapdragon wrote:Of course they do. They're not called normal tickets.

You specify first or second class.


Never specified 'second class' and I've got a ton of trains.

No, of course not. You don't think normal, everyday people actually choose to travel second class on a packed train, do you?
It's murder.


:eh:
Well clearly they do, since the trains are packed. Also, a lot of people aren't as privileged as those that have a choice of buying first class tickets, esp during busy times when they're usually even more expensive.
#15026596
skinster wrote:https://twitter.com/IwantJC4PM/status/1161300867552874496?s=20

Never specified 'second class' and I've got a ton of trains.


Then you've either never travelled cross country or long distance, or the train company you've used use the term standard class.

Same difference. It's second class.

:eh:
Well clearly they do, since the trains are packed. Also, a lot of people aren't as privileged as those that have a choice of buying first class tickets, esp during busy times when they're usually even more expensive.


It's not a choice for most of us, is it? It's a case of have to.
Jeremy Corbyn had a choice. He chose to sit on the floor in a second class carriage.

Anyway, I'm not sure who David might be. I don't have a twitter account.

https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corby ... d-11785768

It's to be noted that other party leaders are interested in meeting with Corbyn to discuss setting up a caretaker government, but not with him in charge.

First thing to do is win a vote of no confidence, of course.
#15026621
snapdragon wrote:Then you've either never travelled cross country or long distance, or the train company you've used use the term standard class.

Same difference. It's second class.



It's not a choice for most of us, is it? It's a case of have to.
Jeremy Corbyn had a choice. He chose to sit on the floor in a second class carriage.

Anyway, I'm not sure who David might be. I don't have a twitter account.

https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corby ... d-11785768

It's to be noted that other party leaders are interested in meeting with Corbyn to discuss setting up a caretaker government, but not with him in charge.

First thing to do is win a vote of no confidence, of course.


Honestly, it is hard to say. "Caretaker" government is not a working solution long term but it might be doable actually. This might be enough to form an anti-Brexit coalition that hasn't existed before.

So although Corbyn is not the ideal solution but can be workable. He can become a PM that way but the problem with that is:
1) This coalition is for Brexit only. (To prevent no deal and he must promise a 2nd referendum to the participants) The 2nd referendum is probably a must but i am not 100% sure. For example Tory rebels will not support a 2nd referendum.
2) This coalition will not vote for anything else as a group besides Brexit. (No deal, 2nd referendum etc) So topics such as taxation, social issues, cultural issues will still be voted on party basis.
3) I have no clue who will take what jobs but it will be a mess. This needs to be sorted out somehow.

Under those conditions Corbyn can become PM in name basically. This will probably be acceptable to all parties involved. All retain their independence while uniting on 1 issue that is the most important right now.
#15026728
As he's the leader of the opposition, it's difficult to argue against him being the caretaker PM, but it's not ideal.
Jo Swinson makes no bones about it and although she's taking a lot of flak for her view, I think she has a point.
Is Jeremy Corbyn trustworthy? I don't think so, but it's not up to me or anyone posting on here.
It's not intended to be a long term solution, but so much can go wrong.

Anyone has to be better than Boris Johnson and his boss Dominic Cummings - and anything has to be better than crashing out.
#15026788
snapdragon wrote:As he's the leader of the opposition, it's difficult to argue against him being the caretaker PM, but it's not ideal.
Jo Swinson makes no bones about it and although she's taking a lot of flak for her view, I think she has a point.
Is Jeremy Corbyn trustworthy? I don't think so, but it's not up to me or anyone posting on here.
It's not intended to be a long term solution, but so much can go wrong.

Anyone has to be better than Boris Johnson and his boss Dominic Cummings - and anything has to be better than crashing out.


Jo Swinson is wrong honestly. I understand why she is doing it(The same reason Corbyn is doing it). Political gain for both Corbyn and Jo Swinson seem to be important. Is it more important than crashing with a no deal? Time will tell. But she is clearly in the wrong right now, the caretaker PM position should go to Corbyn because he is the leader of the largest opposition party right now. As i said this position is in name only and serves 1 purpose: to stop no deal.

I mean i might be wrong here if the coalition manages to still stop no deal by forcing labours hand BUT this doesn't change the fact that Swinson is in the wrong here.
#15026903
JohnRawls wrote:First of all, i am not really talking about the UK. I am talking overall. Secondly i never said that welfare systems are bad or should be destroyed. Actually i think that they should exist and should be expanded to have free education and free healthcare in every country. If free healthcare is not possible for some reason then partial free healthcare but free education is a must.


Well, the USA doesn't have universal health care for all. And the Betsy De Voss lady is making an absolute mess of public education in the USA. In my home island they have closed hundreds of public schools. They want to destroy the University of Puerto Rico system. It was the only place you can get a medical degree recognized by the East Coast USA universities in tropical medicine. They would produce trilingual doctors who practiced medicine in all fifty states. They want to cut the funds drastically to the point of destroying it. Why? To pay off the bankers. I don't want to hear about something 'general' John Rawls. I want to see how these 'people who are on welfare'are getting things they don't deserve. Here are the statistics:

It is basically a tiny percentage. And the actual subsidy for the program was cut by about $10 billion dollars JohnRawls. Most people who get SNAP benefits are legit.

Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconst ... 81cceef880


I also put in a link JohnRawls for a welfare application and what kinds of income you either earn or don't earn to qualify for cash assistance. Most big cities in the USA? You can't even pay low income rent on that kind of income John. This is the average rent for a one bedroom one bath apartment in Denver, Colorado USA where I am located currently.

https://govthub.com/welfare-program.asp ... ation+Year

Apartments are expensive in that city. You really need to make about $52k a year to survive in any regular apartment in that city. You do the math? Doesn't look good for people making $11-$19 an hour. Got to make in the mid $20's to $40 an hour and up to make it in that city. Many cities are like that. If you are making about $13k a year before taxes? You are going to be homeless. Guaranteed. And low income housing lists are about two to three years long. Temporary housing is three to six months long.

Now having said that i will not stand when the systems are abused because ultimately it means that those who need help the most are not getting it. Show me the studies please, i will read on them because i am interested actually. I want to know the methodology and things like deviations and P etc. This would be useful data and analysis actually.


Abused are war machines costing BILLIONS and TRILLIONS in wasted lives, funds and trying to control other nations from afar in failed nation states because some powerful industry wants to control the world and use the public funds that belong to some hard working people John. That is the truth of it.

At least one trillion dollars spent on Iraqi war alone.



That is where the real investigation of gov't waste should start. You won't get that money back. At least with some gov't money spent on cash assistance for needy families is not a bottomless hole. You see growing kids and housed people on low incomes.
Last edited by Tainari88 on 17 Aug 2019 01:41, edited 1 time in total.
#15026916
JohnRawls wrote:I am pretty sure Potemkin is against Brexit even in his quoted statement. (Correct me if i am wrong)

May be it is not Corbyns fault and snapdragon is taking things a bit too far with that label but there is some validity to it. Its a complicated question in my opinion because one way or the other a rich from birth person advocating for socialism inspires negative emotions from some people. (And mistrust i guess?)

For me, a person has to show to some degree a lack of sincerity about socialism for that label to be applied. Corbyn also doesn't lead a lifestyle that would warrant the term.

JohnRawls wrote:There is no way around it. People will always throw an argument that his basically advocating to give up money to give it to somebody else while he has the money and some other not-so-rich people might not. (Not to mention throw that money away to people who don't deserve it) As snapdragon mentioned there are people who are really in need and there are people who abuse the system. It is just a matter of fact anywhere in the developed world. This phenomenon is not exclusive to Europe nor to our modern times.

I agree and people can still make that argument.

As for welfare abuse, a narrower safety net will usually also lead to more abuse of the system. The question is how many vulnerable people we are willing to let fall through the net in order to prevent undeserving people from getting money. If the answer is 0 then we are going to end up with something akin to universal basic income.

Tainari88 wrote:You are distorting my meaning and inferring things in an invalid way Kaiser. I said I prefer a state of anarchy over living under some kind of dictatorship, run by a bunch of horrible conservatives-- in the classic sense of the state being controlled and having all power residing in a bunch of conservative, greedy, corrupt, lying and detrimental politicians who only favor the plutocracy, and who's leadership is ineffective and exploitative, as well as wasteful. Anarchy is not about tribalism and kinships and I doubt you ever studied anarchy well Kaiser if you wrote what you just did above? Anarchists are great intellectuals like Noam Chomsky or also very great activists like Emma Goldman for example. Since you seem to think anarchists are these tribal primitives organizing society like some 'tribes'? Let me see what these anarchists say about why they are anarchists and not conservatives? Are you ready?

Your original post didn't mention dictatorship, so you cannot blame me for distortion in that respect. If I had to choose between anarchy and a dictatorship run by horrible people I would regard this as a lose lose situation.

I've made no judgement about the people who espouse anarchy as a desirable way to organise society, and I don't believe it's primitive to rely on kinship or tribal affiliation in the absence of state authority. Rather, people do it because it is more likely to ensure the groups safety and posterity. Having a state with a power monopoly takes away the necessity to organise in this way and down the line often moderates tribal instincts in humans.

Tainari88 wrote:No Kaiser, you resort to trying to demean or belittle someone's opinion because she is a woman. Really classy I must say.

I just think it's a curious thing for a woman to advocate anarchy. Aren't you an anthropologist? If so, it's even more curious.

Tainari88 wrote:I don't know about the UK Left. But most of the Latin American Left are very much traditional values. Family oriented, community loving, and very social in every aspect with a lot of traditional values. I would never equate UK Leftists with lack of tradition or traditional values. What are they missing? Lack of what? Yes, in a democracy they appeal to the voters. But do they work for the majority of the voters. In terms of raw numbers how many people make more than a middle class income in the UK? That is what they need to assess? And see if they are serving the majority. The Conservatives don't serve the majority of people of modest incomes. They don't care because they serve the well off. Well off people in the vast majority of all nations are never the majority. So in a true democracy, they should be serving the statistically most common group in their nation. They don't do that effectively? They are frauds about being democratic. That is the truth of it.

I reject the idea that the only meaningful way to group people is by income, and I regard this as one of the left's major weaknesses. The left is certainly closer to low and middle income people's preferences in their spending policies, but the right is closer in terms of values. And while spending money on a particular group is part of serving that group, it's by no means the whole story. At any rate, the Tories spend plenty on people on lower and middle incomes. Every party does. The difference is that the left usually proposes to spend a little more whereas the right tends to say let's spend a little less. Compared to the overall spending the increase/decrease is fairly small.

The whole point of a previous post of mine was that the Tories could gain a lot of votes by moving somewhat to the left on the economic scale. I also think that it's far easier to move on that scale than on the value scale as the latter is more strongly tied to identity and emotions.

Tainari88 wrote:What a hard job it is to find decent Tories. I rest my case.

You have now turned this into the impossible task of me finding Tories that appeal to you.

Tainari88 wrote:I think international politics is about learning about all governments in every nation and finding common ground and seeing the advantages of studying all the political histories of as many nations as you can. I can name a whole lot of people from my political column doing excellent work right now. I can tell you why they have good records and who they are, what education they got and who they represent and fight for everyday. No hesitation or worrying about that one no longer is in there, and this one is likable but hee and haw, might not be good for long or do this or is gone. It shows a big problem about just how effective that political column is in the present.

One of the upsides of being a radical or idealist is that one is not restricted by boring things like political reality. Gove learned in education how difficult it is to bring about meaningful change even if your party is in power. That said, putting my balanced hat on for a minute and looking past your partisanship, the political system does have many weaknesses in terms of incentives and accountability. That's why the Brexit referendum and subsequent developments are such significant events and have lead me to reassess some people, as it touches on the fundamental aspects of our societies such as how serious MPs actually take democracy and how they deal with a situation that upends their basic assumptions and goes against their own wishes. The question whether Labour or the Tories redistribute more money to people on a lower income for the next couple of years or whether I find an MP likeable rather pales in comparison.
#15026933
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:For me, a person has to show to some degree a lack of sincerity about socialism for that label to be applied. Corbyn also doesn't lead a lifestyle that would warrant the term.


I agree and people can still make that argument.

As for welfare abuse, a narrower safety net will usually also lead to more abuse of the system. The question is how many vulnerable people we are willing to let fall through the net in order to prevent undeserving people from getting money. If the answer is 0 then we are going to end up with something akin to universal basic income.


Why all this great concern about keeping some lower-income bracket people who are struggling in society from receiving small incomes from the state purse? That they then apply to food, shelter and staying afloat in expensive cities---and no real thought going into 1 trillion dollars worth of war spending. 1 trillion dollars is not a small amount by any measure of the imagination. And what is the final result of Iraq's invasion? Peace and harmony and everyone doing well? No. But instead, let us concentrate on the money being spent on some abusers who might want to get $100 more a month than what they are entitled to because they are fraudsters. It is ridiculous what the conservatives do. It is.


Your original post didn't mention dictatorship, so you cannot blame me for distortion in that respect. If I had to choose between anarchy and a dictatorship run by horrible people I would regard this as a lose-lose situation.

I've made no judgement about the people who espouse anarchy as a desirable way to organise society, and I don't believe it's primitive to rely on kinship or tribal affiliation in the absence of state authority. Rather, people do it because it is more likely to ensure the groups safety and posterity. Having a state with a power monopoly takes away the necessity to organise in this way and down the line often moderates tribal instincts in humans.


It is lose all around with the Tories Kaiser. They are not doing much for the people in the UK terrified of Brexit because they will lose economic opportunities and trade relationships. They are glaringly incompetent and looking out for their own best interests. I did not say it is a desirable way. I am again an international socialist. Not an anarchist. My point being it is better to have anarchists who want to get rid of state power and have an absence of power than deal with a bunch of rotten conservatives who are serving a plutocracy and ignore the vast majority of the average income citizens in a nation. That was my point. Do I have to point that out for you now? Who do people identify with? Humans all are members of various groups. They could be organized around the fact that they are parents, or they belong to a golf club, or they are Irish, or they are graduates from a private school, or they are this or that. Tribalism and anarchy for you are synonyms and they should not be that way Kaiser. Anarchists are not believers in the authority of the state. Because power corrupts people. For them, it corrupts absolutely and as such they think people should not be organised around authoritarian structures related to a state. The last stages of communism also wants statelessness if you are talking about Communist theories.
Didn't you study your political philosophies Kaiser? Anyway, I am not advocating for anarchy. If I was I would have put 'anarchist' under my political category. I did not.
What I don't like are conservatives creating all this crap about serving people and they don't serve anyone but themselves. And anarchist who dissolves a state that sucks and is incompetent, and oppressive is being less detrimental to a hard-working tax-paying citizen than some Tory incompetent of the worst sort. That was my point!

I just think it's a curious thing for a woman to advocate anarchy. Aren't you an anthropologist? If so, it's even more curious.


Who said I advocated anarchy. I have been on here for 10 years and I have never written a post advocating anarchy. That you interpret is as advocating for it? It is about your fear of lack of law and order and government structures. Government structure and authorities should be legitimized by how well they serve the majority of the citizens Kaiser, not about how well they keep the money in the hands of the well off and the conservative. No, I don't think the conservatives as in the Tories in the UK are the moral superiors of anyone in current politics. A mess and gag-worthy folk.

Yes, I am an anthropologist. And have political opinions. As well as scientific ones. And English is not the only language I write in. My opinion about the Next UK PM everybody...? Don't elect any Tories. They are horrible. :lol:

Who knows who the conservative elements are in Kiwi land over there? All that predictable lack of wanting to spend on needs that regular folk has to seem to be the uniting horror theme for them. :D

I reject the idea that the only meaningful way to group people is by income, and I regard this as one of the left's major weaknesses. The left is certainly closer to low and middle-income people's preferences in their spending policies, but the right is closer in terms of values. And while spending money on a particular group is part of serving that group, it's by no means the whole story. At any rate, the Tories spend plenty on people on lower and middle incomes. Every party does. The difference is that the left usually proposes to spend a little more whereas the right tends to say let's spend a little less. Compared to the overall spending the increase/decrease is fairly small.


Well, Kaiser Karl Marx and his Das Kapital is very persuasive, the reason why there are wage earners and non-wage earners is how the economy is structured in society. The entire premise of it rests on what a capitalist economy needs to run. Things change over time. But the basic tenets continue. Haven't you ever been curious about why feudalism died off? And then slavery and then wage-earning in capitalism? Why does that happen? How all those economic structures affect power relationships between humans? Haven't you ever been curious Kaiser how in almost every aspect of human society and human relationship there is a power structure built into it? Between priest and nun, between banker and customer, between parent and child, between teacher and student, between owner and employees? Almost all commercial relationships are about economic exchange? The weakness of the left you say is that we recognize that economic relationships are set up under capitalism to shape every aspect of the social and economic hierarchy and with it how people fight and gain or lose power. Do you think that is a figment of the Left's imagination? So what are those relationships based on then? Spiritual guidance? Lol. Even in those televangelist churches, they ask for money from the flock. Even there in the supposedly spiritual relationship money comes into the equation dictating how people are organized. Or you argue differently? What do you believe all that activity is about? God giving the pounds sterling or 'quid' away for free? :D

The whole point of a previous post of mine was that the Tories could gain a lot of votes by moving somewhat to the left on the economic scale. I also think that it's far easier to move on that scale than on the value scale as the latter is more strongly tied to identity and emotions.


You have now turned this into the impossible task of me finding Tories that appeal to you.


One of the upsides of being a radical or idealist is that one is not restricted by boring things like political reality. Gove learned in education how difficult it is to bring about meaningful change even if your party is in power. That said, putting my balanced hat on for a minute and looking past your partisanship, the political system does have many weaknesses in terms of incentives and accountability. That's why the Brexit referendum and subsequent developments are such significant events and have to lead me to reassess some people, as it touches on the fundamental aspects of our societies such as how serious MPs take democracy and how they deal with a situation that upends their basic assumptions and goes against their wishes. The question of whether Labour or the Tories redistribute more money to people on a lower income for the next couple of years or whether I find an MP likable rather pales in comparison.


The impossible task of finding Tories that appeal to me? Lol. Tories have rotten values, Kaiser. They demonstrate it every day by not solving incredibly important issues in political life. Why do they do this? Because their value system is making sure they keep the money in the hands of the people who support them. it is not about some wider good. It is not about practical considerations about one must invest in projects that generate jobs that are well paid or pay enough to sustain UK families. They gave up on that goal. IF you are not doing the job of dealing with creating stability, jobs, and making things happen for most people in the UK who have bread and butter political concerns? Then just get out of the way.

That is the MY point in all this.

It boils down to who are you going to serve in this life? Selfish petty crap agendas? Or are you going to get things done for people who are left out of the wealth distribution because power is only relevant if it is in the hands of those who benefit the most from keeping things the same? You know....the moniker of conservative--keeping things the same.

For me? Life doesn't stay the same ever. Change is part of life. And progress is imperative for the improvement of all living conditions, technology, economy, social well being. So for me? Conservatives are the opposite of life-giving.

Draw your conclusions on that one. :D 8)
#15026976
Oh Tainari, why can't you see? Corbyn is a radical and unrealistic uber-communist because he wants to nationalise the railways (like the socialist dictatorships of France, Spain and pre-1994 Britain), make universities free (much like the Stalinist countries of Germany, France, Scandinavia, and Argentina), and introduce rent controls (as occurs in Maoist Germany, France, Spain, and Ireland). This entirely unrealistic and unrealisable plan of socialist destitution was introduced in a costed manifesto in 2017, while the realist and fiscally prudent Tories sensibly provided a non-costed manifesto for their healthy plan of not taxing mega corporations, slashing security for the poorest, privatising as many public services as they can get their hands on, and generally maximising economic inequality.

I mean, just take railway nationalisation as an example of how unrealistic and silly Labour are. Sure, British railways are one of the most expensive and least efficient in Europe! Sure, the British railway traveller essentially pays twice for the railway, once through tickets and the second time through subsidies! Sure, the rail companies act as a quasi-monopoly, jointly and consistently raising their ticket prices above the rate of inflation! Sure, said companies barely invest any of their profits back into the railways, preferring to send everything to their shareholders! Sure, some private railway companies have been so magnificently incompetent that even the Conservative government has had to nationalise some parts of the network in the south-east (the UK's core economic area) because of the sheer damage those companies were doing to national productivity! Sure, the thousands of pounds that an annual rail ticket between England's biggest cities costs eats up a huge proportion of even a middle-class income! Sure, even quite a few (heretical) Tories now recognise that privatisation was a mistake! But why can't you see, Tainari, WHY CAN'T YOU SEE, that to nationalise the railways would be to introduce the grossest unfreedom seen since Stalin collectivised agriculture? Why can't you see, my dear Tainari, that to render a utility that massive numbers of the population rely on to work affordable will directly lead to the Gulag!?

That damned radical Corbyn! I mean, he even suggested putting the absolving of student debt under review (not promising to pay it off, not promising to absolve it, but simply placing it under review - such unadulterated radicalism!). It's not like student debt is a ticking time bomb, a bubble waiting to burst, because the Tories jacked up student fees to £9000 a year at the same time as the financial crisis made graduate jobs ever harder to come by. He'll drag us back to that dark time in Britain's history when it was a communist dystopia - 1945 to 1998, when universities were affordable to most and even free to some!

Remember, Labour believe in the magic money tree: to them, money comes from the air! Not like our wonderfully realist and fiscally prudent Conservative government, who've decided to hand out money by the shovel load in corporate tax cuts, upper income tax cuts, and prison development (along with nice big backhanders to their fundamentalist Protestant allies in Northern Ireland, who just love to contribute to the stability of that famously peaceful part of the world by backing the marches of the Orange Order through Catholic areas in acts of evident provocation)! After a decade of saying that Britain can't afford social security payments, disability benefits, libraries, a well-funded police force, well-funded local councils, or well-funded healthcare, this same beautifully prudent government has decided that Britain can well afford the multi-billion divorce bill to the EU and the annual multi-billion hit to the British economy that even the most optimistic Brexiteer knows will be inevitable in the short term!

I mean, Corbyn is just so radical! Not like those humble moderates currently in office. You know the ones I mean. The ones insisting on no-deal Brexit, the most radical and damaging form of Brexit, because they believe in shock-doctrine neo-liberalism, whereby they'll use the inevitable recession after leaving the EU to justify an even harsher form of austerity and economic inequality, one that result in the NHS being pawned off to the Americans and the introduction of a US-style healthcare system where a broken bone can bankrupt even quite stable middle-class households. The same form of Brexit which will permanently alienate Scotland and Northern Ireland, at best creating two Catalonias in the UK, at worst leading directly to the dissolution of the country altogether!

Oh, those saintly moderates! Oh, those supporters of all things moderate, like reintroducing the death penalty, chucking out the Human Rights Act, and doubting in/completely ignoring climate change and environmental protection! Silly Corbyn, silly socialists, wanting clean air, safe water, economically affordable renewable energy!

And he calls himself a socialist! How dare he?! He doesn't live in a bin, chewing on rinds of thrown-away pizza, the only true metric of socialism! He's not like those real men of the people Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg, who definitely haven't spent their lives luxuriating in unearned privilege! Oh, why won't he listen to real socialists like Tony Blair, who made the Labour Party almost indistinguishable from the Tories!
#15026998
JohnRawls wrote:Jo Swinson is wrong honestly. I understand why she is doing it(The same reason Corbyn is doing it). Political gain for both Corbyn and Jo Swinson seem to be important. Is it more important than crashing with a no deal? Time will tell. But she is clearly in the wrong right now, the caretaker PM position should go to Corbyn because he is the leader of the largest opposition party right now. As i said this position is in name only and serves 1 purpose: to stop no deal.


I agree she was wrong to go shooting her mouth off at this point. Cautious acceptance of the idea would have been much better at this stage.

mean i might be wrong here if the coalition manages to still stop no deal by forcing labours hand BUT this doesn't change the fact that Swinson is in the wrong here.


No, I don't think you're wrong exactly, but I don't think Corbyn is the man to do it.

Jo Swinson is right that it would be far better for somebody neutral to head the temporary government, but she should have been more circumspect at this point. There's a long way to go yet.
#15027003
The bottom line is that the Tories and their donors are scared stiff of Corbyn. That explains the extraordinary character assassination campaign against the man. What's funny is that all the anti-establishment conspiracy theorists seem to have bought into the anti-Corbyn narrative as a dangerous radical.

I'm not a great fan of Corbyn myself, but there is no denying that he is one of a very few British politicians with integrity. Anyways, he won't govern on his own. The Labor of Tony Blair will reemerge once in power and prove to be far more moderate than most would suspect now. Tory deregulation and privatization have gone too far already. There needs to be a re-balancing and only a man like Corbyn can do it.
#15027193
Tainari88 wrote:Why all this great concern about keeping some lower-income bracket people who are struggling in society from receiving small incomes from the state purse? That they then apply to food, shelter and staying afloat in expensive cities---and no real thought going into 1 trillion dollars worth of war spending. 1 trillion dollars is not a small amount by any measure of the imagination. And what is the final result of Iraq's invasion? Peace and harmony and everyone doing well? No. But instead, let us concentrate on the money being spent on some abusers who might want to get $100 more a month than what they are entitled to because they are fraudsters. It is ridiculous what the conservatives do. It is.

I'd have hoped that it's not controversial to say that there is a trade-off, but at any rate the welfare state is a permanent feature which makes it qualitatively different to something like the Iraq war and other one-off expenditures. If 5% of the UK population claims $100 more per month than they are entitled to for a few years, it would cover what the Iraq war cost the UK. That also doesn't take into account that the middle class and consumption taxes pay for the lion's share of welfare and the left is often dishonest by giving the impression that it will be only the rich who will bear the burden of increased spending. The debate in the US seems to be particularly distorted in that respect.

Tainari88 wrote:It is lose all around with the Tories Kaiser. They are not doing much for the people in the UK terrified of Brexit because they will lose economic opportunities and trade relationships. They are glaringly incompetent and looking out for their own best interests. I did not say it is a desirable way. I am again an international socialist. Not an anarchist. My point being it is better to have anarchists who want to get rid of state power and have an absence of power than deal with a bunch of rotten conservatives who are serving a plutocracy and ignore the vast majority of the average income citizens in a nation. That was my point. Do I have to point that out for you now? Who do people identify with? Humans all are members of various groups. They could be organized around the fact that they are parents, or they belong to a golf club, or they are Irish, or they are graduates from a private school, or they are this or that. Tribalism and anarchy for you are synonyms and they should not be that way Kaiser. Anarchists are not believers in the authority of the state. Because power corrupts people. For them, it corrupts absolutely and as such they think people should not be organised around authoritarian structures related to a state. The last stages of communism also wants statelessness if you are talking about Communist theories.
Didn't you study your political philosophies Kaiser? Anyway, I am not advocating for anarchy. If I was I would have put 'anarchist' under my political category. I did not.
What I don't like are conservatives creating all this crap about serving people and they don't serve anyone but themselves. And anarchist who dissolves a state that sucks and is incompetent, and oppressive is being less detrimental to a hard-working tax-paying citizen than some Tory incompetent of the worst sort. That was my point!

Tribalism and anarchy are not synonyms for me, but anarchy encourages tribalism and women are on average more vulnerable than men in the absence of state authority. Just as with the above, this shouldn't be controversial.

I maintain that it is exceedingly stupid to prefer anarchy over a Tory government. Even taking into account the welfare cuts under Cameron, the UK has an expansive welfare state which makes your rhetoric above and in prior posts seem ridiculous. Where do you believe the money for a surgery or welfare for a single mother and her children would come from if we didn't have a state that forces people to pay taxes and provides the necessary services? Before we continue, you might want to look up UK expenditure under Tory and Labour governments in modern UK history where you will see that compared to overall spending the differences are quite small. All parties in the UK fundamentally agree that welfare is required for those who cannot help themselves or have temporarily fallen on hard times.

As for the Brexit vote, I'm getting the impression that you are not aware of which income brackets and social classes actually voted to leave the EU. Here is what it looks like:
Image
If anything, it's the rich and professional classes that are enarmoured with the EU. The working classes have never liked it.

Tainari88 wrote:Well, Kaiser Karl Marx and his Das Kapital is very persuasive, the reason why there are wage earners and non-wage earners is how the economy is structured in society. The entire premise of it rests on what a capitalist economy needs to run. Things change over time. But the basic tenets continue. Haven't you ever been curious about why feudalism died off? And then slavery and then wage-earning in capitalism? Why does that happen? How all those economic structures affect power relationships between humans? Haven't you ever been curious Kaiser how in almost every aspect of human society and human relationship there is a power structure built into it? Between priest and nun, between banker and customer, between parent and child, between teacher and student, between owner and employees? Almost all commercial relationships are about economic exchange? The weakness of the left you say is that we recognize that economic relationships are set up under capitalism to shape every aspect of the social and economic hierarchy and with it how people fight and gain or lose power. Do you think that is a figment of the Left's imagination? So what are those relationships based on then? Spiritual guidance? Lol. Even in those televangelist churches, they ask for money from the flock. Even there in the supposedly spiritual relationship money comes into the equation dictating how people are organized. Or you argue differently? What do you believe all that activity is about? God giving the pounds sterling or 'quid' away for free? :D

The point is that people do not group themselves solely by their income, especially if they are not utterly destitute but overall quite well off which is the case for the vast majority of people in the western world today and a fundamental change to how people lived 100 years ago. If you look at models that predict voting behaviour, income is one of several explanatory variables, yet specifically in a UK context a wage earner with the same demographic characteristics, including the same good income, is more likely to vote Labour if he lives in the north of England and Tory in the south. From a conservative perspective the red wall in the north and the red heartlands in Wales, with plenty of people with social conservative values who also voted for Brexit, are an opening that could (and should in my opinion) be exploited.

Tainari88 wrote:The impossible task of finding Tories that appeal to me? Lol. Tories have rotten values, Kaiser. They demonstrate it every day by not solving incredibly important issues in political life. Why do they do this? Because their value system is making sure they keep the money in the hands of the people who support them. it is not about some wider good. It is not about practical considerations about one must invest in projects that generate jobs that are well paid or pay enough to sustain UK families. They gave up on that goal. IF you are not doing the job of dealing with creating stability, jobs, and making things happen for most people in the UK who have bread and butter political concerns? Then just get out of the way.

That is the MY point in all this.

It boils down to who are you going to serve in this life? Selfish petty crap agendas? Or are you going to get things done for people who are left out of the wealth distribution because power is only relevant if it is in the hands of those who benefit the most from keeping things the same? You know....the moniker of conservative--keeping things the same.

For me? Life doesn't stay the same ever. Change is part of life. And progress is imperative for the improvement of all living conditions, technology, economy, social well being. So for me? Conservatives are the opposite of life-giving.

Draw your conclusions on that one. :D 8)

Again, all this is a caricature and not really worth responding to.
  • 1
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23

The autopsy showed some broken bones in Epstein's […]

Trump's Dumb Economics

A study from researchers at Harvard, the Universit[…]

You obviously still haven't taken a look at my 'l[…]

@Verv , do you fancy editing your post so that y[…]