Alf Bentley Posted 23 October 2015 Posted 23 October 2015 Good to see UK Government commit £9m to help those affected by the steel industry decline. That's empathy and compassion right there. "I see skies of blue....."
Rincewind Posted 24 October 2015 Posted 24 October 2015 £13.3 billion in benefits going unclaimed each year. http://money.aol.co.uk/2015/10/20/why-are-13-23-billion-benefits-unclaimed-every-year/
The Doctor Posted 24 October 2015 Posted 24 October 2015 Some very soothing news for the Tories last night, only a small sample obviously but right in the middle of a "swing seat" and huge drop in support for Labour with a big swing to the Tories. Corbyn is poison outside the heartlands. Interesting to see the greens making gains when the general idea was Corbyn would eradicate the greens, socialist workers etc.
Rincewind Posted 24 October 2015 Posted 24 October 2015 Interesting to see the greens making gains when the general idea was Corbyn would eradicate the greens, socialist workers etc. If the Tory's keep attempting to shoot themselves in the foot eventually they will score a hit.
The Doctor Posted 24 October 2015 Posted 24 October 2015 If the Tory's keep attempting to shoot themselves in the foot eventually they will score a hit. Sorry Ken but that makes no sense, particularly in relation to what I said. Corbyn was supposed to essentially hoover up the green votes, quite the opposite looking at that.
Alf Bentley Posted 24 October 2015 Posted 24 October 2015 Interesting to see the greens making gains when the general idea was Corbyn would eradicate the greens, socialist workers etc. If the Greens are up 2.7% to 2.7%, that rather suggests that they didn't run a candidate in this election last time. Achieving 2.7% of the vote isn't going to get them very far - and I say that as someone who'd like to see the Greens doing well. Only 1 ward of 1 council, though, so not an election from which you can draw any important conclusions.
Rincewind Posted 24 October 2015 Posted 24 October 2015 Sorry Ken but that makes no sense, particularly in relation to what I said. Corbyn was supposed to essentially hoover up the green votes, quite the opposite looking at that. How I worded it doesn't make sense. It does seem like that. Time will tell. I was really referring to the country. As Alf said it is only one seat. Before the election Cameron said there would be no cuts in child or low paid tax credits. This week he said that he was 'delighted' that the bill has been passed. Will every low paid worker be praising that statement?
Claridge Posted 25 October 2015 Posted 25 October 2015 Great article in the times by Martin Amis. Describes Corbyn to a tee http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1624204.ece
Thracian Posted 25 October 2015 Posted 25 October 2015 If the Tory's keep attempting to shoot themselves in the foot eventually they will score a hit. If the Tory's keep attempting to shoot themselves in the foot eventually they will score a hit. http://www.internethawaiishellnews.org/new.asp?news/article-3287982/I-m-sorry-Blair-takes-blame-Iraq-War-admits-conflict-caused-rise-ISIS-astonishing-apology-TV-show.html Give over Ricey. With this bloke being significantly responsible for so much death and despair in the world over so many years - as some of us knew and said at the time and have repeated ever since - I'm surprised there an Englishman left who'd still vote Labour. If I had what he and some of his cronies should have on his conscience, I hope I'd have the courage to finish my life and be done with the shame of it. I've never had the words to express my loathing of Blair and the way he somehow persuaded so many seemingly decent people to give him power. Blair made an art form of deceiving people whether it be about Iraq's so-called weapons of mass destruction, unmandated open-door immigration or various other things. Sadly and disgracefully, the damage he's done to this country - and so many others - will not be fully mended or forgotten in my lifetime if ever it could be. He's utterly beneath contempt and no, his words mean nothing to me. I coined the phrase "Grin and Blair It" decades ago and it fully expressed my opinion of his bullshit. What irks even more is his having the audacity to refer to "we" in the West as if I and so many others would ever wish to be associated with him in any way. If "ordinary" people were proved responsible for a fraction of the things he should be answering for at the very least, they'd spend the rest of their life doing penance of some sort, or worse. Yet "Good Christian Blair" continues to live the life of a celebrity having mocked the very concept of sincere Christian or spiritual guidance in his desire for power, fame and fortune. Some still find reason to talk of him with respect and to support the Party that so willingly held his hand. For me it is so ironic that so-called working people should still stand behind a man who helped effectively cost so many people their lives, jobs, homes, towns, cities, villages, their relatively peaceful way of life and saw so much of their tangible infrastructure reduced to dust, so many historical monuments destroyed and so much rabid hatred as I doubt will ever be calmed. Like Stalin, Chairman Mao, Hitler and so many more, we'll be reading about Blair in our history books and about the part he played in the escalating destruction of entire countries and communities. And doubtless the subtitles will be littered with excuses. And yet there are people in every neighbourhood who do so many positive things without ever being heard of and without ever being offered a penny to explain the example they set. To talk about values is easy. Why we make heroes of those who mock such values escapes me. I actually wish the Labour Party would wind itself up in favour of a new party which can forgot about class war and really stand for giving opportunity to, and doing justice on behalf of, the working people of this land. And no, Mr Corbyn would in no way qualify to lead such a party. Nor someone like the slippery Sturgeon. This is supposed to be a United Kingdom.
Thracian Posted 25 October 2015 Posted 25 October 2015 Great article in the times by Martin Amis. Describes Corbyn to a tee http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1624204.ece I'm not sure I'd be flying the flag which says university education necessarily equates to intelligence, quite so highly. Widespread experience, sound logic and an open mind would be my standard bearers but Amis still hits the nail pretty solidly.
bovril Posted 25 October 2015 Posted 25 October 2015 Great article in the times by Martin Amis. Describes Corbyn to a tee http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1624204.ece Well if Amis hates him he can't be all bad.
Rincewind Posted 25 October 2015 Posted 25 October 2015 The same working people are standing behind Cameron now. Blair was a red Tory.
Strokes Posted 25 October 2015 Posted 25 October 2015 The same working people are standing behind Cameron now. Blair was a red Tory. He couldn't have done it without the core labour support though, which he got in three elections. My hands are clean, how about yours?
leicsmac Posted 25 October 2015 Posted 25 October 2015 He couldn't have done it without the core labour support though, which he got in three elections. My hands are clean, how about yours? Can you honestly, hand-on-heart say that you thought Iraq was a grotesquely bad idea at the time? I'm pretty sure you're in the minority of right wingers if that's the case.
Strokes Posted 25 October 2015 Posted 25 October 2015 Can you honestly, hand-on-heart say that you thought Iraq was a grotesquely bad idea at the time? I'm pretty sure you're in the minority of right wingers if that's the case.Not at the time no but we weren't being told the truth though were we? I'm not a blood thirsty person, and i don't believe in over throwing regimes because they don't behave to our standards.
leicsmac Posted 25 October 2015 Posted 25 October 2015 Not at the time no but we weren't being told the truth though were we? I'm not a blood thirsty person, and i don't believe in over throwing regimes because they don't behave to our standards. Then surely as we were deceived everyones hands are clean apart from those involved in the deception, right? So I don't understand the question to Ken.
Rincewind Posted 25 October 2015 Posted 25 October 2015 As far as I remember it was reports coming out of Iraq that the government were going on. I know a few people I worked with agreed with and I argued against it but I am a pacifist anyway, always have been. WOMD were reported to be seen or were thought to be hidden by the military intellegence. These turned out to be false. Was it mainly American intelligence so they may have had an agender of their own and GB and Blair were their puppets. Labour tend to be pacifist leaning so if there was a lot of Labour MP's supporting it the evidence they were receiving must have been strong but I would still have preferred a peaceful solution.
Webbo Posted 25 October 2015 Posted 25 October 2015 As far as I remember it was reports coming out of Iraq that the government were going on. I know a few people I worked with agreed with and I argued against it but I am a pacifist anyway, always have been. WOMD were reported to be seen or were thought to be hidden by the military intellegence. These turned out to be false. Was it mainly American intelligence so they may have had an agender of their own and GB and Blair were their puppets. Labour tend to be pacifist leaning so if there was a lot of Labour MP's supporting it the evidence they were receiving must have been strong but I would still have preferred a peaceful solution. Such as? There was already sanctions on Saddam's regime which the left were campaigning to remove.
Rincewind Posted 25 October 2015 Posted 25 October 2015 I'm not a diplomat and I do not have all the information in order to have brought it to the negotiating table. Do or did you? I am not claiming to know the answers just that peace is preferable to war.In a debate there has to be give and take. Removing sanctions would be a concession from the West then it would be up to Sadam to offer a concession. Whether he would we we never know and any suggestion that we would know is speculation.
Webbo Posted 25 October 2015 Posted 25 October 2015 I'm not a diplomat and I do not have all the information in order to have brought it to the negotiating table. Do or did you? I am not claiming to know the answers just that peace is preferable to war.In a debate there has to be give and take. Removing sanctions would be a concession from the West then it would be up to Sadam to offer a concession. Whether he would we we never know and any suggestion that we would know is speculation. Just saying" I'd prefer peace" or "I believe in fairness" is just bland platitudes, anyone could say the same. Unless you can come up with a viable alternative such statements are meaningless posturing and make no contribution to the debate.
Rincewind Posted 25 October 2015 Posted 25 October 2015 Fair enough. At least I admit I am not an expert to comment.As I said without the full facts I am not qualified to add anything. I am a nobody. Anyway I said there has to be give and take in a debate. What it is will not be known until the contributors are around the table. If a club came in for Vardy City would not sell at the first offer. Then there would be the contract compensation etc. It is possible the talks would break down with no deal early or late on. It cannot be predicted accurately.
Rincewind Posted 25 October 2015 Posted 25 October 2015 Victim? I am being logical and honest. If I had diplomacy skills I would not be sitting in a HA flat posting on FoxesTalk.
Strokes Posted 25 October 2015 Posted 25 October 2015 Then surely as we were deceived everyones hands are clean apart from those involved in the deception, right? So I don't understand the question to Ken.Plenty of people voted for Blair in subsequent elections, the lie was obvious only months later. Does that clear things up?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.