A place to chunter about anything that isn't Womad

[digitalmonkey]

May 7, 2016 23:31:48 GMT olirow said:

I am surprised to have to read right wing bullshit on here.

??!??

I can only see some balanced arguments and interpretation of the election results here

[digitalmonkey]

May 6, 2016 13:37:51 GMT calndel said:

interesting state of affairs north of the border

the leading party loses it majority and the Scottish media hail it as a success

ah well 5 more year of cut and austerity before we get ot do it all again

Just picking up on this point which amused me a little (it doesn't take much). Davidson said it was great for politics that there is no longer a majority in Government in Scotland, funny that. I guess there is not much chance of Cameron saying the same thing for the UK as a whole

Not sure how the Maths add up but could not the SNP do a deal with the Greens to push things through? The Greens will no doubt have less to lose over such an arrangement than Labour

[olirow]

Just to be clear, the Daily Mail headline following the 2012 results, which were essentially replicated last week, was 'Tory humiliation as Labour win 823 seats'. On a net basis, they took none of those seats back. 'Tory humiliation continues' would have been an appropriate headline this time round.

All this stuff about Corbyn bring unelectable and needing to pander to the middle ground is self-fulfilling bullshit trotted out by a desperate media, and I wouldn't expect you guys to fall for it, and even repeat it. These results alone are good enough to prove that is not the case. Of course, you are entitled to your own opinions as long as they are actually yours not parroted media soundbites.

[sc]

May 9, 2016 22:57:13 GMT olirow said:

All this stuff about Corbyn bring unelectable and needing to pander to the middle ground is self-fulfilling bullshit trotted out by a desperate media, and I wouldn't expect you guys to fall for it, and even repeat it. These results alone are good enough to prove that is not the case. Of course, you are entitled to your own opinions as long as they are actually yours not parroted media soundbites.

I am assuming therefore that your comments about "Right wing Bullshit" where directed at me.  I have for your information never voted Tory or unlike a lot of others from the left moved to BNP or UKIP. I have moved from Communist, Left, to Centre Left, but hopefully I have NEVER been blinkered by the labels of parties.

I do not read the papers as they do not report the truth but rather their version that supports their readers views.  I used to read The Independent but stopped because of their non biased reporting of the war (being a Liberal Paper they were anti the war and so had a distorted view)..  At work I did read the Financial Times it was accurate but very late, anything useful was already known to be of any use. 

If you look back at my post, I think you should find that both Jeremy and Sadiq have both since agreed with me except for doing a deal with the Liberals.

 

[olirow]

I'm sorry to come on a bit strong but media bias is such a pernicious influence, particularly at the current time, it needs to be exposed for what it is at every opportunity. Thankfully a lot more people are seeing through it.

I'd expect Corbyn to be modest about the results in any event.

Your post could be read as suggesting that Corbyn thinks he is unelectable or needs to move more towards the centre, but that is so ridiculous it can't be what you had in mind.

[sc]

May 10, 2016 20:04:58 GMT olirow said:

I'm sorry to come on a bit strong but media bias is such a pernicious influence, particularly at the current time, it needs to be exposed for what it is at every opportunity. Thankfully a lot more people are seeing through it.

I'd expect Corbyn to be modest about the results in any event.

Your post could be read as suggesting that Corbyn thinks he is unelectable or needs to move more towards the centre, but that is so ridiculous it can't be what you had in mind.

That's cool

[Purpledawn]

Totally agree with olirow. Whilst on the subject of socialism, I thought I'd share this with you posted on Facebook by a guy called Jack Monroe a couple of days ago. It's written in a similar vein to Pastor Martin Niemöller's piece about the cowardice of German intellectuals ...

First they came for the socialists
But you did not speak out
Because you were definitely not a socialist
Those mad bastards campaigning for decent wages and universal healthcare
Waving their hand painted placards through the streets of Westminster
You were definitely not a socialist

Then they came for the Trade Unionists
And you did not speak out
Because Unions are awful
The Daily Mail said so
Those people representing ordinary workers
And fighting for decent pay
And human working conditions
And maternity and paternity leave
And adequate rest between shifts
And making sure people have a voice
They’re definitely terrible self-aggrandising egotists
And they get paid to represent people
And you had to get a bus to work once because of a strike you didn't bother to research beyond a screaming scheming headline
So you are not a Trade Unionist

Then they came for the Muslims
and the refugees
And you did not speak out
Because they are not your people
Coming over here
Why can’t they integrate?
Religion causes all the problems right
All the wars
Leave them to it
Close the borders
We’re full up
Can’t take any more
Of this PC multicultural bullshit
Who do they think they are?
You spoke over
And you spat and you raged
in hatred and fear
But you did not speak out
Because you were not a Muslim
nor a refugee

And then they came for the poor
and the unemployed
the single parents on benefits
the workless
And you did not speak out
Because you thought they were lazy
Loads of jobs out there innit
Easy to eat cheaply on the dole, you claim
Having never had to make £71 last a week
with a broken refrigerator
or holes in the bottom of a pair of school shoes
Bet they’ve all got Sky TV and iPhones
and how did she pay for her tattoos?
And you saw someone smoking outside a food bank once
So you did not speak out

Then they came for the disabled
Shame, you thought, but you did not speak out
Most of them could probably work, you thought
You saw that chronically depressed woman smile once
And the guy in the disabled parking space
looks young and healthy to you
We all get down sometimes, you shout
What's wrong with you anyway?
Bunch of fucking scroungers, you thought
So you did not speak out

Then they came for the teachers

And the doctors

And the nurses

And the firefighters

And the domestic abuse workers

And the rubbish collections

And the rape crisis centres

And the social workers

And the childrens centres

And the education funding

And by the time they come for you

By the time they fucking come for you

There will be nobody left to speak out for you

Nobody left at all.

Jack Monroe.

[sc]

Well, that's the first time i have heard Hitler and the National Socialists being referred to as "German Intellectuals", I am sure that was simply a typing error.

Re the poem, the original versions, (by Niemoller) that I first saw back in the the late '70s were very powerful messages against extremism and it's message has stayed with me since. Particularly, for me, against political systems that utilised Concentration Camps, Gulag, GUPVI or terror systems to control and suppress their people and enemies of the state.

The originals still sends a clear and relevant message 70 years on, that, yes, when you feel something is wrong you may be afraid but, speak out.

[jimhxn]

The poem wasn't about the Nazis it was about the German intellectuals. That's probably why PD used the term 'German Intellectuals'.

[sc]

ah I see, what you mean! it was directed at those that did not oppose the Nazi's when they could have. That makes sense.

[calndel]

we see that the tories, ukip and Plaid Cymru have joined forces in the Welsh assembly

sadly nationalism make strange bed fellows

[sc]

As this is the "Political" Thread, thought would be the best place to post this.

Just watched Question Time from Aberdeen, as probably everyone knows I am totally in love with Scotland, but have no burning feelings as to whether they should or should not stay part of the UK, it's their choice, it would save the UK a bit of money if they left, and I am sure the borders would stay open, we would still get whisky and we can still enjoy their awesome country and hospitality.

This Question Time I thought was the fastest hour I have experienced in a while and very entertaining, however, I was quite appauled by the poor quality of politicians from all sides...... how could these guys run a Country???

I was also shocked to learn about the "Named Person" policy that has been implemented, where the Scottish Government allocates Children and young people from birth to 18, or beyond if still in school, (note EVERY child whether at risk or not) a "Named Person" to help support their wellbeing. These "Named Persons" will be either a Social Worker, Teacher, a Promoted Teacher (no I don't know what "a promoted teacher" is either), a Head Teacher or someone similar.

NOTE THE NEXT PARAGRAPH IS NOT MY NECESSARILY MY BELIEF BUT PUT IN FOR EFFECT IN THE EXPRESS/MAIL STANCE IN HUMOUR

Like, a couple of points here, the UK is already subsidising these guys so they can have free University places (my kids are now about £45k in debt for Uni fees), free prescriptions, and now it appears that their public service has enough free time to look after and give advice to every child or person from birth to 18 or later if in education.

NOW I AM FLICKING BACK TO SERIOUS

But how can the UK Government allow Scotland to introduce a system that potentially reduces parental responsibility and could very easily by the sounds of it move a little further to state control over children? Sounds more like a Stalin/Hitler system. I am sure it isn't but surely public sector resources are under pressure in Scotland already so why add all this to it rather than focusing those resources where the need is? As in the children at risk?

Thought I would post about this, I am sure the intentions of the policy are honourable but it just sounds so dreadful, spies in every family......

[digitalmonkey]

May 9, 2016 22:57:13 GMT olirow said:

Just to be clear, the Daily Mail headline following the 2012 results, which were essentially replicated last week, was 'Tory humiliation as Labour win 823 seats'. On a net basis, they took none of those seats back. 'Tory humiliation continues' would have been an appropriate headline this time round.

All this stuff about Corbyn bring unelectable and needing to pander to the middle ground is self-fulfilling bullshit trotted out by a desperate media, and I wouldn't expect you guys to fall for it, and even repeat it. These results alone are good enough to prove that is not the case. Of course, you are entitled to your own opinions as long as they are actually yours not parroted media soundbites.

You read the Daily Mail? You are no doubt right that the media chose to be selective in the reporting.

I'm by no means supporting the Tories but for an incumbent Government not to lose any councils and very few seats during a local election must surely be very satisfying for them. Historically, Governments do badly in these elections. Please correct me if wrong. The only real disappointment for them was London when, and they should be ashamed of themselves, for running such a negative campaign. I congratulate Sadiq Khan who could turn out to be an excellent choice.

I am no student of politics but how exactly are Labour going to win the next general election from the current position that they are in? Did they lose that many to UKIP or are there enough stay away voters last time around to be sufficient to recover? I'm assuming you are Labour voter based on your comments, do you not agree with Corbyn himself that more work needs to be done? Even die hard Labour voters would be disappointed with the results in Scotland. They did okay in Wales but really I don't think it is good sign in England as they didn't get control of many (any) councils.

 If the results mirror, to a certain extent of 2012 and they appear to have done so - no real changes to speak of - then that lead to a Tory win in 2015.

We may agree or disagree with Blair but he gave a stark warning to the Labour Party about leaning left following an election where the electorate leaned right. Lets not forget the facts, Blair is the only person to win an a General Election for Labour since the 1970's. I'd be more than happy for another Labour win

Regarding the media, I watch the news daily (BBC) and no printed press whatsoever. It is my opinion that Labour under Corbyn will lose the next general election. We perhaps should revisit this thread in 4 years time

[sc]

I totally agree DM but would add that Corbyn could win in 2020 if he strikes a deal with the Liberals (sorry I am repeating myself here) so the electorate only have one anti-Tory party to vote for in each constituency and he revamps his image and persona to that of a World Leader. The two parties then could capitalise on anti-Tory sentiment and form a Lib/Lab Government. But that won't happen.....

[calndel]

May 13, 2016 14:28:59 GMT sc said:

I totally agree DM but would add that Corbyn could win in 2020 if he strikes a deal with the Liberals (sorry I am repeating myself here) so the electorate only have one anti-Tory party to vote for in each constituency and he revamps his image and persona to that of a World Leader. The two parties then could capitalise on anti-Tory sentiment and form a Lib/Lab Government. But that won't happen.....

and it won't happen because the SNP work with the tories and murdock to keep both parties in power

so the uk and scotland have right wing parties in power and murdock well get channel 4 when it is privatised