Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Leaving aside the now stock "look over there" reply, do you actually think this is a fair comparison? 

 

I almost get the feeling we're going to be having Labour members, MP's etc doing things in 2050 and people still trying to deflect from it positing links about Thatcher from before their lifetime.

Yeah, the whataboutery is largely facetious here, but tbh I'm sick and tired of folks on here referencing Venezuela and then overlooking the support their own "side" has given in the past for Chile, white South Africa and Saudi, amongst others (though that last one is defo more of a group effort). I could also mention the present support the current Tory government has expressed for the Chinese, who seem to enjoy a good healthy dose of repressing human rights too.

 

Verbal (and indeed material) support for brutal authoritarian regimes is a party-political neutral issue and so point-scoring on it is well...pointless. There are plenty of areas folks could go after Corbyn, Livingstone et al on...this ain't really one of them.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

How about May sitting on the report which is alleged to name the country she rushed to visit (saudi arabia) as a funder of terrorism against the west? Amber Rudd also defended the sale of arms to them despite this issue as well as human rights issues as good for British industry. Morals have never exactly been the tory's strong point have they?

She released the report to the Privvy council that includes Corbyn and McDonnell.

 

But again "look over there" - "Tories, Tories, Tories"

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, the whataboutery is largely facetious here, but tbh I'm sick and tired of folks on here referencing Venezuela and then overlooking the support their own "side" has given in the past for Chile, white South Africa and Saudi, amongst others (though that last one is defo more of a group effort). I could also mention the present support the current Tory government has expressed for the Chinese, who seem to enjoy a good healthy dose of repressing human rights too.

 

Verbal (and indeed material) support for brutal authoritarian regimes is a party-political neutral issue and so point-scoring on it is well...pointless. There are plenty of areas folks could go after Corbyn, Livingstone et al on...this ain't really one of them.

Would you be so morally prepared to cut ties with all these countries even if it meant the loss of business was so great it meant we couldn't afford pensions or a publicly funded health service?

 

Genuine question, I'd be impressed if you were.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Would you be so morally prepared to cut ties with all these countries even if it meant the loss of business was so great it meant we couldn't afford pensions or a publicly funded health service?

 

Genuine question, I'd be impressed if you were.

Any business we have with those countries is much smaller than that we have with the EU that you are quite happy to ruin our relationship with. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

Would you be so morally prepared to cut ties with all these countries even if it meant the loss of business was so great it meant we couldn't afford pensions or a publicly funded health service?

 

Genuine question, I'd be impressed if you were.

I might ask you the same question, and I rather think our answers would in fact be reasonably similar as I think we share similar views on repressive regimes of various types.

 

My point is, yet again, that neither side can point fingers regarding this and cosying up to dubious regimes is something the vast majority of UK leaders regardless of party affiliation or ideology have done. There's way too many beams in eyes to be asking to cast the mote out of others eyes here, so I think the discussion is moot.

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Any business we have with those countries is much smaller than that we have with the EU that you are quite happy to ruin our relationship with. 

Eh? I want a free trade deal with the EU.

 

I just won't accept one if it means we can't do our own trade deals with other nations or have our courts under the jurisdiction of a political union I have no interest in being in. Exactly the same position as the two leaders of our biggest political parties.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I might ask you the same question, and I rather think our answers would in fact be reasonably similar as I think we share similar views on repressive regimes of various types.

 

My point is, yet again, that neither side can point fingers regarding this and cosying up to dubious regimes is something the vast majority of UK leaders regardless of party affiliation or ideology have done. There's way too many beams in eyes to be asking to cast the mote out of others eyes here, so I think the discussion is moot.

What's the answer to the question?

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

What's the answer to the question?

With the world the way it is now, especially the Chinese...of course not - given the amount of countries ran by arseholes right now, isolationism simply cannot work from a practical perspective. Hopefully one day the number of arseholes running the show will lessen, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Now a question in return - why exactly is dealing with/supporting one repressive regime somehow worse than doing it with another, so long as their ideology is different? From over here it seems to be a hugely distasteful necessity no matter which party is in power at any one time.

[Guest MattP]

Just now, leicsmac said:

With the world the way it is now, especially the Chinese...of course not - given the amount of countries ran by arseholes right now, isolationism simply cannot work from a practical perspective. Hopefully one day the number of arseholes running the show will lessen, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Now a question in return - why exactly is dealing with/supporting one repressive regime somehow worse than doing it with another, so long as their ideology is different? From over here it seems to be a hugely distasteful necessity no matter which party is in power at any one time.

Appreciate the honesty. Our answer is the same. 

 

In answer to your question it's because the good things we have come about because we are open for business, am. I concerned about Chinese human rights abuses? Yes. Enough to put a million people on the dole? No. Am I upset about Saudi bombs dropping on Yemen? Yes. Salafism? Yes. Would I cut ties with them? Probably would whatever the cost, all about weighing it up.

 

The Venezuela thing is just weird though because it seems to be a crush developed by the left because they had and have a President that hates America, no logic behind it.

 

Let's be honest, if we had that much of a moral backbone as City fans we would have walked away from football as soon as our club was procured by an Asian family given a monopoly on a business backed by a royal family who have had people opposed to them imprisoned and tortured, but we didn't. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

Appreciate the honesty. Our answer is the same. 

 

In answer to your question it's because the good things we have come about because we are open for business, am. I concerned about Chinese human rights abuses? Yes. Enough to put a million people on the dole? No. Am I upset about Saudi bombs dropping on Yemen? Yes. Salafism? Yes. Would I cut ties with them? Probably would whatever the cost, all about weighing it up.

 

The Venezuela thing is just weird though because it seems to be a crush developed by the left because they had and have a President that hates America, no logic behind it.

 

Let's be honest, if we had that much of a moral backbone as City fans we would have walked away from football as soon as our club was procured by an Asian family given a monopoly on a business backed by a royal family who have had people opposed to them imprisoned and tortured, but we didn't. 

Tbh I'm not sure anybody other than the leadership gives a monkeys about Venezuela on the labour side. The country did appear to be doing well a few years back but drugs and corruption have taken hold and the while thing has turned bad. It's one of those situations where i don't think it has failed because of it being socialist but i know that the right will obviously want to paint it that way. There's an article in the guardian today about labour's concern that the leadership need to confront this by saying something against the current regime. Tbh I'm not sure why they ever felt the need to talk about venuezuela in any capacity as there are with economic ills affecting ordinary people here that you could sell their manifesto without needing foreign countries to point at. It's given the right the opportunity to point at the failure of a socialist state (see the posts of fox) and try to link that to labour and the uk. It's a ridiculous notion for a myriad reasons but, let's be honest, you try to use that link as will others. 

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Tbh I'm not sure anybody other than the leadership gives a monkeys about Venezuela on the labour side. The country did appear to be doing well a few years back but drugs and corruption have taken hold and the while thing has turned bad. It's one of those situations where i don't think it has failed because of it being socialist but i know that the right will obviously want to paint it that way. There's an article in the guardian today about labour's concern that the leadership need to confront this by saying something against the current regime. Tbh I'm not sure why they ever felt the need to talk about venuezuela in any capacity as there are with economic ills affecting ordinary people here that you could sell their manifesto without needing foreign countries to point at. It's given the right the opportunity to point at the failure of a socialist state (see the posts of fox) and try to link that to labour and the uk. It's a ridiculous notion for a myriad reasons but, let's be honest, you try to use that link as will others. 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/02/labour-concerns-on-venezuela-raise-pressure-on-jeremy-corbyn-to-speak-out

 

It's Labour MP's calling on him to say something, it's not just the leadership either, the shadow justice secretary even called the election of Maduro a victory for the Labour movement.

 

I think you need to get a grip of this, the millenials might not care about the IRA etc but if Venezuela does erupt into civil war, which is more than possible Jeremy Corbyn is going to have a seriously tough time defending his support for the regime. 

 

He's needs to come out here, the last thing I need another leadership contest and the Labour leadership becoming a anti-Brexit one.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/02/labour-concerns-on-venezuela-raise-pressure-on-jeremy-corbyn-to-speak-out

 

It's Labour MP's calling on him to say something, it's not just the leadership either, the shadow justice secretary even called the election of Maduro a victory for the Labour movement.

 

I think you need to get a grip of this, the millenials might not care about the IRA etc but if Venezuela does erupt into civil war, which is more than possible Jeremy Corbyn is going to have a seriously tough time defending his support for the regime. 

 

He's needs to come out here, the last thing I need another leadership contest and the Labour leadership becoming a anti-Brexit one.

Lol. They do need to say something but I'm relatively relaxed over timing. I'd rather they took their time and both castigated that is happening as well as defending their previous position taking into account the various nuances of the issue. I don't really believe that 24 hr news coverage and the media's insistence on immediate reactions to issues affecting far flung places really matters as much as is made out. If they treat it seriously through a serious discussion i think it will look better for them than rushing out some denouncement that leaves open lots of unanswered questions. 

[Sharpe's Fox]

Venezuela is one of the right wing grandad hate memes which they'll bitch about on Mail Online article comments along with "biased lefty BBC" and "student bribes". Another one of the newer ones I've seen is some unexplained anger towards transgender people even though they're not hurting anyone. Complete weirdos.

[Guest MattP]

27 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Lol. They do need to say something but I'm relatively relaxed over timing. I'd rather they took their time and both castigated that is happening as well as defending their previous position taking into account the various nuances of the issue. I don't really believe that 24 hr news coverage and the media's insistence on immediate reactions to issues affecting far flung places really matters as much as is made out. If they treat it seriously through a serious discussion i think it will look better for them than rushing out some denouncement that leaves open lots of unanswered questions. 

They do need to say something but you are relaxed on the timing? I admire the principled stance  a new politics, maybe we should wait and see who wins?

 

A bit of entertainment, has an article ever been more Guardian than this??

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/aug/03/seinfeld-simpsons-sex-and-the-city-favourite-tv-show-problematic?CMP=fb_gu

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

They do need to say something but you are relaxed on the timing? I admire the principled stance  a new politics, maybe we should wait and see who wins?

 

A bit of entertainment, has an article ever been more Guardian than this??

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/aug/03/seinfeld-simpsons-sex-and-the-city-favourite-tv-show-problematic?CMP=fb_gu

It's not about who wins it's about the fact the leadership need to give a full and serious response and not just rush something out to try and appease those that cannot be appeased. 

 

I only got into reading the guardian because i find it to be the best and most useable news app. Back in the days of Alan Coren it was more the Times that I read. Whilst i do find many interesting articles, i must admit that probably 75% of the guardian - particularly its opinion pieces - drive me nuts. Never in all of history have so many spent so much time debating such minor issues (apart possibly from us in this thread).

Edited 3 August 2017 by Guest

[leicsmac]

28 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Venezuela is one of the right wing grandad hate memes which they'll bitch about on Mail Online article comments along with "biased lefty BBC" and "student bribes". Another one of the newer ones I've seen is some unexplained anger towards transgender people even though they're not hurting anyone. Complete weirdos.

 

TBF, some of the most virulent and targetted anger and opposition towards trans folks comes from women who definitely consider themselves left-wing. Are you familiar with TERFs?

[Charl91]

34 minutes ago, MattP said:

They do need to say something but you are relaxed on the timing? I admire the principled stance  a new politics, maybe we should wait and see who wins?

 

A bit of entertainment, has an article ever been more Guardian than this??

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/aug/03/seinfeld-simpsons-sex-and-the-city-favourite-tv-show-problematic?CMP=fb_gu

 

Yeah, that Guardian piece is absolutely ridiculous, and whoever wrote it should probably be taken out and shot.

 

Still not "Mail Online" bad. But pretty bad.

[Guest MattP]

24 minutes ago, toddybad said:

It's not about who wins it's about the fact the leadership need to give a full and serious response and not just rush something out to try and appease those that cannot be appeased. 

 

I only got into reading the guardian because i find it to be the best and most useable news app. Back in the days of Alan Coren it was more the Times that I read. Whilst i do find many interesting articles, i must admit that probably 75% of the guardian - particularly its opinion pieces - drive me nuts. Never in all of history have so many spent so much time debating such minor issues (apart possibly from us in this thread).

You should still read The Times, well worth the subscription, as is stuff like Private Eye.

 

No surprise to me the paywall publications are now going up in circulation, informed and educated people will pay for quality journalism. 

 

Only downside is the free stuff that often peddles fake news like the Canary, Breitbart etc becomes mainstream on social media.

 

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

TBF, some of the most virulent and targetted anger and opposition towards trans folks comes from women who definitely consider themselves left-wing. Are you familiar with TERFs?

Hardly surprising, the suffragettes didn't die for Mick from Wigan to all of a sudden decide he's a real lady. I'm going to claim myself soon, I'm faster than any women bowler I've seen (I clocked 81mph once), I could go from a moron on an internet forum to a World Cup winner soon.

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

Yeah, that Guardian piece is absolutely ridiculous, and whoever wrote it should probably be taken out and shot.

 

Still not "Mail Online" bad. But pretty bad.

Mail online is clickbait though.

 

The problem I have is the Guardian still claims to be a respected publication

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

You should still read The Times, well worth the subscription, as is stuff like Private Eye.

 

No surprise to me the paywall publications are now going up in circulation, informed and educated people will pay for quality journalism. 

 

Only downside is the free stuff that often peddles fake news like the Canary, Breitbart etc becomes mainstream on social media.

 

Hardly surprising, the suffragettes didn't die for Mick from Wigan to all of a sudden decide he's a real lady. I'm going to claim myself soon, I'm faster than any women bowler I've seen (I clocked 81mph once), I could go from a moron on an internet forum to a World Cup winner soon.

You'll always be a moron on an internet forum to us matty 

[Charl91]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Mail online is clickbait though.

 

The problem I have is the Guardian still claims to be a respected publication

 

I can't profess to being a big Guardian reader, but like most newspapers, it has its good points (some of  its 'actual' news stories), and it also has its trashy-opinion-piece garbage. I mean, it's in their "television" section, it's hardly meant to be taken as a serious news story.

 

I'm sure we could go round all day posting the bollocks we find in pretty much every newspaper!

Edited 3 August 2017 by Charl91

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

You'll always be a moron on an internet forum to us matty 

It was always what I wanted to be anyway ?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Mail online is clickbait though.

 

The problem I have is the Guardian still claims to be a respected publication

 

Trying to be fair....if you take away the 100 feminist/trans/LGBT/whatever else articles it churns out every day, there is some decent stuff in there too. Just because it takes a different view to you on current affairs doesn't make it bad journalism. You would have quite liked most of its headlines for the two years prior to the election as it castigated Corbyn the whole time. Like most of the PLP, it's gone strangely quiet since! I personally thought the work it did on the Snowdon revelations was brilliant (I can imagine tour view of that though!) and during last year it ran a series of long pieces on climate change etc which were really very, very good. It is one of the few papers left that actually try to do some investigative journalism. It most definitely is not a left wing version of the Mail/Express. It certainly doesn't fail to criticise Labour - it even had a piece promoting a particular Tory policy the other day (can't remember which one though) but obviously does side that way. 

[Kopfkino]

Actually yeah some of the stuff in the The Guardian is alright, shame it exists just to bash everything and gave Owen Jones a platform. The Times is top class, the comment section is always a good read and has a good mix of commentators on both sides (Shame Tim Montgomerie has nothing to do with it these days and personally think his new venture is pretty shit at the moment). Business section is decent too. The FT is good when you've waded through the constant Brexit bashing, even if you are anti-Brexit, the apocalyptic tone must get tiresome. I enjoy The Spectator and The Economist is alright, if a little too much effort to read. 

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

Hardly surprising, the suffragettes didn't die for Mick from Wigan to all of a sudden decide he's a real lady. I'm going to claim myself soon, I'm faster than any women bowler I've seen (I clocked 81mph once), I could go from a moron on an internet forum to a World Cup winner soon.

 

Nah, still don't get the justification for going after a community that's already marginalised and (like has been mentioned already) aren't harming anyone. (Seeing as the whole bathroom assaults thing is statistically proven bollocks, anyway.)