The biggest loser in all this is the British people. For everyone who does not believe that the only value our society should hold is the right to promote your own position and that this greed is good creed it is important to have a credible opposition that will temper its aims in the knowledge that it will be able pass legislation that can carry the majority. We are in now for a prolonged period of ever worsening conditions for those who are industrious but at the lower end of the jobs market. We will also become increasingly intolerant of those who come from overseas to do the jobs that our unwashed think are beneath them. They will then have the cheek to blame them for taking our jobs.
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Here's one for BBH. We all know who the real enemy is in Syria? Right? Wrong! Putin got it right. Now that America and Russia are talking, we have a political divide between "Let's destroy ISIS together (why do all commentators keep on referring to them as "so-called") and Assad and install democracy/Western values" - the right to eat junk food, drink Starbucks, sell oil to the West and put up nuclear missiles against Russia. The Russian position is a lot simpler. Let's destroy ISIS. Full stop. When are we going to accept that imposing our democracy on countries that have never had it is pointless and silly.
Now before anyone jumps on me from a great height, Assad may be a dictator and a brute. But look at the refugees. They are well dressed, speak good English and I dare say a few other languages as well. They are educated and have skills that the West can use. They acquired those living under Assad. They may not have had power but they had the right to practice their own beliefs and to prosper. Opponents of the regime were dealt with but for the vast majority who are not interested in politics, life was good. That has now gone forever because we allowed it to happen through cowardice and by standing by while extremists destroyed their lives and their homes.
Now before anyone jumps on me from a great height, Assad may be a dictator and a brute. But look at the refugees. They are well dressed, speak good English and I dare say a few other languages as well. They are educated and have skills that the West can use. They acquired those living under Assad. They may not have had power but they had the right to practice their own beliefs and to prosper. Opponents of the regime were dealt with but for the vast majority who are not interested in politics, life was good. That has now gone forever because we allowed it to happen through cowardice and by standing by while extremists destroyed their lives and their homes.
Spot on Yorkie. My father lived in Beirut for a while between the wars and got to know the 'Arab psyche'. Their culture only thrives under strong leadership and they only respect strong leadership. Wishy-washy western democracy is pretty well the antithesis of this. Iraq was fairly stable under Saddam Hussein and Syria was under Assad.
We may abhor the type of rule they had but it kept order and a modicum of stability. The left lauded the 'Arab Spring' a few years ago, what you see now is the result of that much-heralded uprising which saw off Gaddafi and others and left the perfect power-vacuum for the rise of IS.
I actually jokingly mentioned on one of these threads why doesn't Putin's mighty Red Army roll into Syria to blow away IS and he'd become the Superhero overnight rather than the perpetual bad guy, he must be a QPR supporter...
We may abhor the type of rule they had but it kept order and a modicum of stability. The left lauded the 'Arab Spring' a few years ago, what you see now is the result of that much-heralded uprising which saw off Gaddafi and others and left the perfect power-vacuum for the rise of IS.
I actually jokingly mentioned on one of these threads why doesn't Putin's mighty Red Army roll into Syria to blow away IS and he'd become the Superhero overnight rather than the perpetual bad guy, he must be a QPR supporter...
Although the two most successful Arab nations, Tunisia and Morocco, are both democracies. Don't know how that fits into your gross generalisations. Democracy doesn't thrive in many of these countries because they don't have the infrastructure/institutions, and they are under attack from religious, political and military power hounds who hate democracy. It's also interesting how quickly these 'strong leaders' get kicked out when Western democracies stop supporting them/letting them get on with it for spurious 'national interest' reasons.Spot on Yorkie. My father lived in Beirut for a while between the wars and got to know the 'Arab psyche'. Their culture only thrives under strong leadership and they only respect strong leadership. Wishy-washy western democracy is pretty well the antithesis of this. Iraq was fairly stable under Saddam Hussein and Syria was under Assad.
We may abhor the type of rule they had but it kept order and a modicum of stability. The left lauded the 'Arab Spring' a few years ago, what you see now is the result of that much-heralded uprising which saw off Gaddafi and others and left the perfect power-vacuum for the rise of IS.
I actually jokingly mentioned on one of these threads why doesn't Putin's mighty Red Army roll into Syria to blow away IS and he'd become the Superhero overnight rather than the perpetual bad guy, he must be a QPR supporter...
Anyway, came on to comment on our very own 'strong leaders' (by the way, which country prefers 'weak leaders'? I suspect most of us, Arab or otherwise, just want the occassional chance to have a say in who our leader is) Messrs Cameron and Corbyn. Cameron facing demands for reparations for slavery in Jamaica. Are the Jamaicans also asking for reparations from the West Africans who sold their ancestors in the first place? Should we be demanding reparations from the Romans? Might be tricky for Dave, doubtless there is slave owning in his family history somewhere.
Meanwhile Corbyn and McDonnell, the bland leading the bland, trying to be all warm and cuddly in Brighton. Strategy becoming increasingly clear, capture the party machine, don't bother much with the parliamentary party, and avoid talking to the electorate until strictly necessary, which won't be for a long time yet. Is anyone else getting a bit creeped out by the references to Jezza's 'huge mandate'?
Why would we have to pay reparations for slavery 200 years later? Will money undo the damage of what some of our great-great-great-great grandfathers did? I don't demand money from Germany because 70 years ago they weren't very nice to the Jews. Perhaps I should.
I think Sooper's view on Middle East dictators (let's call them what they are - they're more than just strong leaders) was about right. As a light-hearted comment, Iraq, Libya and Syrian remind me of the Ghostbusters films. You have this obnoxious guy sitting on an elaborate vacuum cleaner, you push him off and the worst dregs of humanity break free and fly into the room to terrorise the populace. Someone fearsome like a Saddam or Gadaffi has to get the lid back on.
I think we have to do a deal with Assad. The problem of course is that the West can't be seen to be doing this, or be accused of hypocrisy for not taking Assad to an international criminal court. But if the deal is done (so all attention is focused on getting rid of ISIS) and undertakings are given by Assad as to future conduct, this might be the most effective and pragmatic solution.
As to Corbyn and McDonnell, the likelihood of them appealing to the public as a whole, as opposed to the hard Left, can be summed up by this - for better or worse, polls have shown the public's greatest concern at present, more even than the economy, is immigration. The public don't trust Labour on this issue after Blair presided over an open-border policy. Corbyn made no mention of immigration in his speech yesterday. When asked later, he said (paraphrasing) "immigration is not a problem, we get only benefits." He's not going to fly with the vast majority of the voting public. I give the bloke 6 months max before rebellion starts in the Labour Party. Mandelson and the Blairites will be plotting as we speak.
A bit lazy of you to describe Corbyn/McDonnell supporters as 'hard left' Goldie. A pejorative term I would suggest - Corbyn is the antithesis of hard.
Corbyn believes that the perceived 'problems' of immigration can be solved by investment in schools, hospitals and infrastructure - thereby refuting the 'we're full' argument. As you suggest, most of the electorate will not be convinced by this, but, if one accepts this premise, and the analysis that shows immigration to have a positive economic effect, all that's left for the 'hard right' is xenophobia and racism.
Corbyn 'boobed' again today by saying that if he should become PM, he would never press the nuclear button. Who would though? Even Thatcher admitted that she didn't know if she could have done it. Stop telling the truth, Jezza! Truth is, if Corbyn was by some miracle elected to number 10, there would be a military coup anyway.
Last edited:
When I said "hard left" Strolls, I didn't mean aggressive, I meant wedded to extreme left wing values, at times close to communism. I think Corbyn and McDonnell both fall within that camp. Sure, Corbyn's a regular bloke, if (in my opinion) misguided. I have McDonnell, with his closeness to the IRA at the height of the troubles and his oblique calls to take the struggle to the streets, down as a piece of work. It made me laugh when he tried to convince the BBC Question Time audience that the reason Jezza didn't sing at the services memorial was simply that he had a lump in the throat at the emotion of it all! Every time the guy talks of honesty and truth, you just know he's lying...
I can understand Labour supporters trying to move away from the control and spin of the Blair government, but I just can't help feel that the Corbyn experiment will end in disaster in some form or other.
RIP Denis Healey, died at the grand old age of 98. He makes the current generation of politicians look like pygmies. Was also the military landing officer at Anzio, deciding to leave the army at the end of the war despite being offered the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.
Last edited:
I am sure he lived on the best foods at the tax payers expense, otherwise would of gone years ago
Imo what you describe as hard or extreme left depends on your own place on the political spectrum - and anything left of that is 'left'. All of Corbyn's policies, whether nationalization of the railways or of power (electricity, coal etc.), rent controls, an end to nuclear weapons, Keynesian investment vs. austerity and monetarism etc. investment in 'alternative`Co2 friendlier technology, no fracking etc. all of these are practised somewhere by centrist states such as Germany, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Japan etc. It is the Tories who, together with their control over most of the press, have classed Corbyn as being 'hard left' to draw attention away from how far 'right' they are themselves.
So the Tories are far to the right, and Jeremy Corbyn occupies the central ground...
I wouldn't use Europe as a yardstick to determine how right-wing the Tories are. Some aspects of Europe are so liberal they are ludicrous. The current example is the criticism the UK will soon receive from the European Court of Human Rights for failing to give voting rights to prisoners. Batty.
You wonder whether Corbyn's 'collegiate' style of leadership will give McDonnell and the Union Leaders the real 'power behind the throne'. Whatever happens, barring a total meltdown of the economy, the Tories will be as entrenched in No.10 as Blair was in the late 90s which is no good thing for British politics...
I don't think that voting rights for prisoners has a place on the left vs. right spectrum but it's an interesting one anyway. Isn't it enough to simply deprive somebody of their liberty ? Why is it considered necessary (by some people) that they should be further deprived of their rights as citizens ? They are still citizens and are still protected by civil rights, which includes the right to vote, as they also have to live under the government of the day. Surely the goal is that these people can one day return to being active members of society, and so the more contact they can retain with the World outside, during their confinement, the better.So the Tories are far to the right, and Jeremy Corbyn occupies the central ground...
I wouldn't use Europe as a yardstick to determine how right-wing the Tories are. Some aspects of Europe are so liberal they are ludicrous. The current example is the criticism the UK will soon receive from the European Court of Human Rights for failing to give voting rights to prisoners. Batty.
You may say it's not a left or right issue, but I'm guessing you're not a paid-up member of the right wing, Cologne
Prisoners voting rights is an important issue for some liberals but few beyond that Mark Bridger, Rosemary West, Ian Huntley and Roy Whiting - would you give them a vote? How about Michael Adebolajo who murdered the British soldier Lee Rigby and will be out in 45 years? Should he have a vote like you and me?
For me, voting is a privilege, not a right. You lose the privilege in prison, and get it back upon release. The Human Rights Act should be redrafted into the Human Rights and Responsibilities Act. Individuals that aren't insane should take responsibility for their own actions, and if they don't, they lose privileges that can include their freedom and, yes, their right to vote for the government of their choice
Prisoners have lost their right to vote, I could not care if they ar in prison for 100 years or a week, If they have lost their freedom then they have lost their freedom to vote, They are not part of the civil world until they are released and should have no say like decent normal folk...