Anyway PSBR numbers for January today. Will we have a debt repayment in excess of £10bn? I hope so. No doubt the polls would swing, well not at all, in relation to such a development.
I’m glad someone is excited about this release
If the numbers are excellent, perhaps the Tories should go for broke and deliver a budget surplus by 2022. It would do wonders for their rating on economic competence.
I suspect what we will see is that the PSBR for this year coming in about £8-9bn less than last year which is progress. I also suspect that we will see a fair chunk of that "windfall" spent in the mini-budget next month, probably on the NHS.
He has made a direct threat to the press and tonight the Sun has gone on full attack.
Why did he not just laugh it off - he hasn't a clue
Because quite clearly the Corbyn as spy story is fake news. It depends entirely on the testimony of a very unreliable handler who contradicts what he himself recorded in the records at the time. Real spies are plentiful and easy to find, but Corbyn wasn't one of them.
This article makes an interesting point. Although Corbyn had, and still has, a reputation for being hard left, his sympathy wasn't with the Czech state. It was with the dissidents of that state
I think that is all a bit advanced for the Dan Hodges crew, it doesn't play into the good vs evil narrative they have constructed in their mind. I think some of the right wing press in America have a similar approach, they'll happily share or promote stories that they know are false in order to push the narrative. I think a lot of people enjoy the simplicity of it.
I think that's correct, and we see it here too - Tories don't actually believe the spy stuff, but they enjoy it anyway, a bit like Labour people enjoying Tory sex scandals.
But the article is good. Like most people on the left I'm aware of the different strands more than those who think we're all Trots, and Corbyn and McDonnell were never in the pro-Soviet camp, which they found way too centralist and authoritarian: McDonnell's speech on renationalisation giving power to local groups of staff is typical (and frankly I wonder how it would work).
He has made a direct threat to the press and tonight the Sun has gone on full attack.
Why did he not just laugh it off - he hasn't a clue
Because quite clearly the Corbyn as spy story is fake news. It depends entirely on the testimony of a very unreliable handler who contradicts what he himself recorded in the records at the time. Real spies are plentiful and easy to find, but Corbyn wasn't one of them.
This article makes an interesting point. Although Corbyn had, and still has, a reputation for being hard left, his sympathy wasn't with the Czech state. It was with the dissidents of that state
I think that is all a bit advanced for the Dan Hodges crew, it doesn't play into the good vs evil narrative they have constructed in their mind. I think some of the right wing press in America have a similar approach, they'll happily share or promote stories that they know are false in order to push the narrative. I think a lot of people enjoy the simplicity of it.
I think that's correct, and we see it here too - Tories don't actually believe the spy stuff, but they enjoy it anyway, a bit like Labour people enjoying Tory sex scandals.
But the article is good. Like most people on the left I'm aware of the different strands more than those who think we're all Trots, and Corbyn and McDonnell were never in the pro-Soviet camp, which they found way too centralist and authoritarian: McDonnell's speech on renationalisation giving power to local groups of staff is typical (and frankly I wonder how it would work).
The USSR was too central and authoritarian, but the Islamic Republic of Iran, post the brutal crackdown on the pro-democracy Green Movement, is fine?
BBC reporting Trump pushing for ban on bump stocks and even open to an age limit on assault rifles. Both would be broadly popular but I think very unpopular with his base? They’ll forgive a lot but would the forgive this?
Would be very awkward for Dems if they have to give gun control credit to Trump.
Very good politics from Trump. 95% of the population are going to support banning turning regular guns into automatics and the other 5% are solid Republicans anyway.
He was going to ban bump stocks after Las Vegas but the NRA lobbied hard and killed it.
He has made a direct threat to the press and tonight the Sun has gone on full attack.
Why did he not just laugh it off - he hasn't a clue
Because quite clearly the Corbyn as spy story is fake news. It depends entirely on the testimony of a very unreliable handler who contradicts what he himself recorded in the records at the time. Real spies are plentiful and easy to find, but Corbyn wasn't one of them.
This article makes an interesting point. Although Corbyn had, and still has, a reputation for being hard left, his sympathy wasn't with the Czech state. It was with the dissidents of that state
I think that is all a bit advanced for the Dan Hodges crew, it doesn't play into the good vs evil narrative they have constructed in their mind. I think some of the right wing press in America have a similar approach, they'll happily share or promote stories that they know are false in order to push the narrative. I think a lot of people enjoy the simplicity of it.
I think that's correct, and we see it here too - Tories don't actually believe the spy stuff, but they enjoy it anyway, a bit like Labour people enjoying Tory sex scandals.
But the article is good. Like most people on the left I'm aware of the different strands more than those who think we're all Trots, and Corbyn and McDonnell were never in the pro-Soviet camp, which they found way too centralist and authoritarian: McDonnell's speech on renationalisation giving power to local groups of staff is typical (and frankly I wonder how it would work).
The USSR was too central and authoritarian, but the Islamic Republic of Iran, post the brutal crackdown on the pro-democracy Green Movement, is fine?
Corbyn and McDonnell may not be in the Stalin camp, but what about Milne?
Bollocks. Corbyn was happy to consort with anyone who hated Britain, America and Israel. His record is utterly consistent. It's not "one source", it is a repeated pattern of behaviour, from an early age, in a fairly unintelligent man, known for never changing his mind.
Did he sell valuable secrets to the Warsaw Pact? Of course not. He didn't have any. Did he meet with Warsaw Pact spies, flattered by their attention, and sympathetic to their cause? Of course he did.
Corbyn has his fair share of skeletons, but I think he's on firm ground with the spy claims. Which, I believe, is why he is standing it.
One of the best things about a Cotbyn premiership will be the end of the press barons.
Let them dig salt.
You want change (fair enough), but seem unconcerned about what that change might lead to.
That's worrying, as change can always lead to worse outcomes. In this case, we have some good pointers. The Leveson recommendations - supported and encouraged by Labour - are not going to lead to a freer press. Worse, I don't even hear Corbyn going on about the need for a free press.
But you also have to look closer. Corbyn is complaining about smears. His deputy is Tom Watson. An evil man - and I use that word purposefully - who willingly uses that same media to smear people with sexual abuse allegations whilst wearing a tinfoil-hat - though only about the opposition, not his own side. A man who also wants to mould the media to his party's own advantage.
You may want a media shorn of 'media barons'. I'm unsure that you have fully considered whether this Labour team would replace those owners with something better for the country, or worse.
Corbyn and his ilk oppose "media barons" but is fine working for Russia Today and the Kremlin. That is the real scandal and the Tories are missing an open goal.
He has made a direct threat to the press and tonight the Sun has gone on full attack.
Why did he not just laugh it off - he hasn't a clue
Because quite clearly the Corbyn as spy story is fake news. It depends entirely on the testimony of a very unreliable handler who contradicts what he himself recorded in the records at the time. Real spies are plentiful and easy to find, but Corbyn wasn't one of them.
This article makes an interesting point. Although Corbyn had, and still has, a reputation for being hard left, his sympathy wasn't with the Czech state. It was with the dissidents of that state
I think that is all a bit advanced for the Dan Hodges crew, it doesn't play into the good vs evil narrative they have constructed in their mind. I think some of the right wing press in America have a similar approach, they'll happily share or promote stories that they know are false in order to push the narrative. I think a lot of people enjoy the simplicity of it.
I think that's correct, and we see it here too - Tories don't actually believe the spy stuff, but they enjoy it anyway, a bit like Labour people enjoying Tory sex scandals.
But the article is good. Like most people on the left I'm aware of the different strands more than those who think we're all Trots, and Corbyn and McDonnell were never in the pro-Soviet camp, which they found way too centralist and authoritarian: McDonnell's speech on renationalisation giving power to local groups of staff is typical (and frankly I wonder how it would work).
The USSR was too central and authoritarian, but the Islamic Republic of Iran, post the brutal crackdown on the pro-democracy Green Movement, is fine?
And Hamas and the IRA. Exemplars of democracy both. Basically he would spend time with anyone who hated us. But he is too stupid to be an actual spy.
The problem for the press and the Tories, is that the public is not too bothered about freedom of the press stuff after the hacking scandal and other stuff. I keep hearing comments like, 'I don't bother with news papers anymore - its all fake isn't?' or 'you read one thing in one, and the opposite in another' etc etc.
BBC reporting Trump pushing for ban on bump stocks and even open to an age limit on assault rifles. Both would be broadly popular but I think very unpopular with his base? They’ll forgive a lot but would the forgive this?
Would be very awkward for Dems if they have to give gun control credit to Trump.
Very good politics from Trump. 95% of the population are going to support banning turning regular guns into automatics and the other 5% are solid Republicans anyway.
He was going to ban bump stocks after Las Vegas but the NRA lobbied hard and killed it.
And now it appears that even those who most defend guns are coming round to banning them. Well done Trump.
One of the best things about a Cotbyn premiership will be the end of the press barons.
Let them dig salt.
You want change (fair enough), but seem unconcerned about what that change might lead to.
That's worrying, as change can always lead to worse outcomes. In this case, we have some good pointers. The Leveson recommendations - supported and encouraged by Labour - are not going to lead to a freer press. Worse, I don't even hear Corbyn going on about the need for a free press.
But you also have to look closer. Corbyn is complaining about smears. His deputy is Tom Watson. An evil man - and I use that word purposefully - who willingly uses that same media to smear people with sexual abuse allegations whilst wearing a tinfoil-hat - though only about the opposition, not his own side. A man who also wants to mould the media to his party's own advantage.
You may want a media shorn of 'media barons'. I'm unsure that you have fully considered whether this Labour team would replace those owners with something better for the country, or worse.
Corbyn mentioned the need for a free press in the video posted on here.
Watson was someone who wanted Corbyn removed and was not put in place by Corbyn, there is talk of him being replaced or his role weakened but the media is usually full of talk about Corbyn or his supporters up to various deeds to steal power so hard to know how much to read into it.
That said even if Corbyn was a fan of Watson and he was considered the main man the idea that Watson is going to be able to mould the media as he see's fit, even if Labour win a massive majority comes off a bit conspiratorial.
Corbyn said "A free press is important, but..."
Corbyn and Watson both want to give the impression of a free press, while preferring the proposals of Max Moseley and Hugh Grant that prevent rich and powerful people from having the truth about them exposed.
If this Czech stuff is a pack of lies made up by the rightwing owners of newspapers, then why doesn't Corbyn sue?
Libel is one way of keeping the press on their toes.
BBC reporting Trump pushing for ban on bump stocks and even open to an age limit on assault rifles. Both would be broadly popular but I think very unpopular with his base? They’ll forgive a lot but would the forgive this?
Would be very awkward for Dems if they have to give gun control credit to Trump.
Very good politics from Trump. 95% of the population are going to support banning turning regular guns into automatics and the other 5% are solid Republicans anyway.
He was going to ban bump stocks after Las Vegas but the NRA lobbied hard and killed it.
And now it appears that even those who most defend guns are coming round to banning them. Well done Trump.
Where is the evidence that the NRA are supportive? Isn't this based on them supporting a bill that included a ban within it (in return for concealed carry rights to cross state borders)?
He has made a direct threat to the press and tonight the Sun has gone on full attack.
Why did he not just laugh it off - he hasn't a clue
Because quite clearly the Corbyn as spy story is fake news. It depends entirely on the testimony of a very unreliable handler who contradicts what he himself recorded in the records at the time. Real spies are plentiful and easy to find, but Corbyn wasn't one of them.
This article makes an interesting point. Although Corbyn had, and still has, a reputation for being hard left, his sympathy wasn't with the Czech state. It was with the dissidents of that state
I think that is all a bit advanced for the Dan Hodges crew, it doesn't play into the good vs evil narrative they have constructed in their mind. I think some of the right wing press in America have a similar approach, they'll happily share or promote stories that they know are false in order to push the narrative. I think a lot of people enjoy the simplicity of it.
I think that's correct, and we see it here too - Tories don't actually believe the spy stuff, but they enjoy it anyway, a bit like Labour people enjoying Tory sex scandals.
But the article is good. Like most people on the left I'm aware of the different strands more than those who think we're all Trots, and Corbyn and McDonnell were never in the pro-Soviet camp, which they found way too centralist and authoritarian: McDonnell's speech on renationalisation giving power to local groups of staff is typical (and frankly I wonder how it would work).
It wouldn't? With the inevitable consequence that central government will "have" to step in to ensure consistency of service and pricing across the country.
Anyway PSBR numbers for January today. Will we have a debt repayment in excess of £10bn? I hope so. No doubt the polls would swing, well not at all, in relation to such a development.
I’m glad someone is excited about this release
If the numbers are excellent, perhaps the Tories should go for broke and deliver a budget surplus by 2022. It would do wonders for their rating on economic competence.
It would though the danger is that if there is a budget surplus then people would think they can afford to vote for Corbyn. When the reality is we need many years of surplus to bring the debt-to-GDP ratio back down to Earth before the next crash.
It reminds me of the 1999 Victoria (Australia) State election which in many respects was similar to our 2017 General Election. Back then the Liberal/National Coalition (Aus's equivalent of the Tories) had gone into the election with a healthy majority and all polls were forecasting an increased majority. The State Premier Jeff Kennett ran a very Presidential election campaign but ended up losing his majority coming one seat short of 50%. The three independents elected backed the opposition Labor leader who became the new Premier.
Afterwards it was reported in the media that when Labor looked at the books that the financial situation was better than what had been reported before the election. Allegedly Kennett hadn't wanted the books to look too good because then people might think they could afford to vote Labor (though they did anyway after his disastrous campaign).
BBC reporting Trump pushing for ban on bump stocks and even open to an age limit on assault rifles. Both would be broadly popular but I think very unpopular with his base? They’ll forgive a lot but would the forgive this?
Would be very awkward for Dems if they have to give gun control credit to Trump.
Very good politics from Trump. 95% of the population are going to support banning turning regular guns into automatics and the other 5% are solid Republicans anyway.
A step in the right direction, even if only a small step
The USSR was too central and authoritarian, but the Islamic Republic of Iran, post the brutal crackdown on the pro-democracy Green Movement, is fine?
You won't find him endorsing the Iranian government either, but Iran really is a case where it's a good idea to talk to everyone - unlike, say, Saudi Arabia, there are umpteen varieties of opinion (I know quite a few myself among exiles and have put the case for sanctions against Iran - to ward off talk of military intervention - on Press TV) which are more or less tolerated in an extremely unstable political environment.
People on the left during the Cold War were generally happy to talk with critics of Western policy, without necessarily endorsing them, partly to show that we weren't all cold warriors. People on the right felt it was vaguely treasonable and gave aid and comfort to enemies. Both views were probably understandable depending on how far you accepted the Cold War logic, but it's an argument that used to feel important, and now just seems an awfully long time ago.
If Trump actually does something positive about US gun laws then he deserves loads of credit. He is probably in a pretty unique position to be able to do something about it being a Republican but one with a different sort of support base.
For all his negatives it would be really impressive if he actually makes progress on it.
It wasn’t by accident that both of the president’s moves — authorizing a crackdown on “bump stocks” and signaling support for a stronger background checks system — are backed by the National Rifle Association.
That these moves are backed by the NRA tells you all you need to know.
That finding quick cross-party agreement on things that can prevent people getting killed is a bloody good idea?
It's token effort. Bump stocks are easy to make and plenty of guns can be bumpfired without them.
Anyway PSBR numbers for January today. Will we have a debt repayment in excess of £10bn? I hope so. No doubt the polls would swing, well not at all, in relation to such a development.
Because quite clearly the Corbyn as spy story is fake news. It depends entirely on the testimony of a very unreliable handler who contradicts what he himself recorded in the records at the time. Real spies are plentiful and easy to find, but Corbyn wasn't one of them.
This article makes an interesting point. Although Corbyn had, and still has, a reputation for being hard left, his sympathy wasn't with the Czech state. It was with the dissidents of that state
I think that is all a bit advanced for the Dan Hodges crew, it doesn't play into the good vs evil narrative they have constructed in their mind. I think some of the right wing press in America have a similar approach, they'll happily share or promote stories that they know are false in order to push the narrative. I think a lot of people enjoy the simplicity of it.
I think that's correct, and we see it here too - Tories don't actually believe the spy stuff, but they enjoy it anyway, a bit like Labour people enjoying Tory sex scandals.
But the article is good. Like most people on the left I'm aware of the different strands more than those who think we're all Trots, and Corbyn and McDonnell were never in the pro-Soviet camp, which they found way too centralist and authoritarian: McDonnell's speech on renationalisation giving power to local groups of staff is typical (and frankly I wonder how it would work).
The irony being (at least from my limited understanding) that any actual trots would also not be fans of the Soviet Union either. I read a spiked article, usually find them a bit crap but this one was quite interesting arguing that both sides left and right were enjoying this phony revolutionary war. Lefties getting a kick out of being 'radical communists' as much as the right were fighting the communists.
Saw similar comments regarding the Labour internal conflict of last few years involving many in Labour either reliving the fights they had in the 80's or living their imagined version of them now.
I think some people like the idea of an ideological battle, guilty of this myself of course!
If Trump actually does something positive about US gun laws then he deserves loads of credit. He is probably in a pretty unique position to be able to do something about it being a Republican but one with a different sort of support base.
For all his negatives it would be really impressive if he actually makes progress on it.
It wasn’t by accident that both of the president’s moves — authorizing a crackdown on “bump stocks” and signaling support for a stronger background checks system — are backed by the National Rifle Association.
That these moves are backed by the NRA tells you all you need to know.
That finding quick cross-party agreement on things that can prevent people getting killed is a bloody good idea?
It's token effort. Bump stocks are easy to make and plenty of guns can be bumpfired without them.
Yes, but if making them is a felony then most gun shops and machine shops are going to stop making them - meaning that the loony shooter either has to make them himself or have someone else risk a long stretch on his behalf. It's not a massive step, but it's better than nothing.
The USSR was too central and authoritarian, but the Islamic Republic of Iran, post the brutal crackdown on the pro-democracy Green Movement, is fine?
You won't find him endorsing the Iranian government either, but Iran really is a case where it's a good idea to talk to everyone - unlike, say, Saudi Arabia, there are umpteen varieties of opinion (I know quite a few myself among exiles and have put the case for sanctions against Iran - to ward off talk of military intervention - on Press TV) which are more or less tolerated in an extremely unstable political environment.
People on the left during the Cold War were generally happy to talk with critics of Western policy, without necessarily endorsing them, partly to show that we weren't all cold warriors. People on the right felt it was vaguely treasonable and gave aid and comfort to enemies. Both views were probably understandable depending on how far you accepted the Cold War logic, but it's an argument that used to feel important, and now just seems an awfully long time ago.
He wasn't just talking to them. He was paid by them as part of its propaganda efforts against the West. He also went on Russia Today to help the propaganda of a regime that in Chechnya, Ukraine and Syria has done far worse human rights violations than anything the "imperialist" West has done in the Iraq and Libya interventions he hates so much.
Why don't you just be honest? Corbyn is very happy to overlook human rights violations to support regimes that are opposed to the West, and you are so tribal you will support any Labour leader, regardless of their history.
He has made a direct threat to the press and tonight the Sun has gone on full attack.
Why did he not just laugh it off - he hasn't a clue
Because quite clearly the Corbyn as spy story is fake news. It depends entirely on the testimony of a very unreliable handler who contradicts what he himself recorded in the records at the time. Real spies are plentiful and easy to find, but Corbyn wasn't one of them.
This article makes an interesting point. Although Corbyn had, and still has, a reputation for being hard left, his sympathy wasn't with the Czech state. It was with the dissidents of that state
I think that is all a bit advanced for the Dan Hodges crew, it doesn't play into the good vs evil narrative they have constructed in their mind. I think some of the right wing press in America have a similar approach, they'll happily share or promote stories that they know are false in order to push the narrative. I think a lot of people enjoy the simplicity of it.
I think that's correct, and we see it here too - Tories don't actually believe the spy stuff, but they enjoy it anyway, a bit like Labour people enjoying Tory sex scandals.
But the article is good. Like most people on the left I'm aware of the different strands more than those who think we're all Trots, and Corbyn and McDonnell were never in the pro-Soviet camp, which they found way too centralist and authoritarian: McDonnell's speech on renationalisation giving power to local groups of staff is typical (and frankly I wonder how it would work).
The USSR was too central and authoritarian, but the Islamic Republic of Iran, post the brutal crackdown on the pro-democracy Green Movement, is fine?
Corbyn and McDonnell may not be in the Stalin camp, but what about Milne?
Exactly. The fine British Labour movement, with its long history of support for human rights and democracy has been captured by a bunch of goons who coddle up to the most despicable regimes and terrorist groups, as long as they sufficiently hate the IRA. And the truly tragic aspect is that the bulk of the PLP has been willing to be complicit in this so long as there is an electoral advantage.
The USSR was too central and authoritarian, but the Islamic Republic of Iran, post the brutal crackdown on the pro-democracy Green Movement, is fine?
You won't find him endorsing the Iranian government either, but Iran really is a case where it's a good idea to talk to everyone - unlike, say, Saudi Arabia, there are umpteen varieties of opinion (I know quite a few myself among exiles and have put the case for sanctions against Iran - to ward off talk of military intervention - on Press TV) which are more or less tolerated in an extremely unstable political environment.
People on the left during the Cold War were generally happy to talk with critics of Western policy, without necessarily endorsing them, partly to show that we weren't all cold warriors. People on the right felt it was vaguely treasonable and gave aid and comfort to enemies. Both views were probably understandable depending on how far you accepted the Cold War logic, but it's an argument that used to feel important, and now just seems an awfully long time ago.
Jeremy doesn’t speak to both sides, though. That is the problem. He picks sides. And the ones he picks are the ones that are anti-UK, anti-US and/or anti-Israel. The brutality of the cause, the tyranny of the government is irrelevant - as long as you stand against the West, Jeremy is, was and always will be on your side. That’s why you’ll never hear him condemn the IRA, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime, Cuba, Venezuela or even North Korea. The enemy of his enemy is his friend.
If Trump actually does something positive about US gun laws then he deserves loads of credit. He is probably in a pretty unique position to be able to do something about it being a Republican but one with a different sort of support base.
For all his negatives it would be really impressive if he actually makes progress on it.
The USSR was too central and authoritarian, but the Islamic Republic of Iran, post the brutal crackdown on the pro-democracy Green Movement, is fine?
You won't find him endorsing the Iranian government either, but Iran really is a case where it's a good idea to talk to everyone - unlike, say, Saudi Arabia, there are umpteen varieties of opinion (I know quite a few myself among exiles and have put the case for sanctions against Iran - to ward off talk of military intervention - on Press TV) which are more or less tolerated in an extremely unstable political environment.
People on the left during the Cold War were generally happy to talk with critics of Western policy, without necessarily endorsing them, partly to show that we weren't all cold warriors. People on the right felt it was vaguely treasonable and gave aid and comfort to enemies. Both views were probably understandable depending on how far you accepted the Cold War logic, but it's an argument that used to feel important, and now just seems an awfully long time ago.
Jeremy doesn’t speak to both sides, though. That is the problem. He picks sides. And the ones he picks are the ones that are anti-UK, anti-US and/or anti-Israel. The brutality of the cause, the tyranny of the government is irrelevant - as long as you stand against the West, Jeremy is, was and always will be on your side. That’s why you’ll never hear him condemn the IRA, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime, Cuba, Venezuela or even North Korea. The enemy of his enemy is his friend.
The USSR was too central and authoritarian, but the Islamic Republic of Iran, post the brutal crackdown on the pro-democracy Green Movement, is fine?
You won't find him endorsing the Iranian government either, but Iran really is a case where it's a good idea to talk to everyone - unlike, say, Saudi Arabia, there are umpteen varieties of opinion (I know quite a few myself among exiles and have put the case for sanctions against Iran - to ward off talk of military intervention - on Press TV) which are more or less tolerated in an extremely unstable political environment.
People on the left during the Cold War were generally happy to talk with critics of Western policy, without necessarily endorsing them, partly to show that we weren't all cold warriors. People on the right felt it was vaguely treasonable and gave aid and comfort to enemies. Both views were probably understandable depending on how far you accepted the Cold War logic, but it's an argument that used to feel important, and now just seems an awfully long time ago.
Jeremy doesn’t speak to both sides, though. That is the problem. He picks sides. And the ones he picks are the ones that are anti-UK, anti-US and/or anti-Israel. The brutality of the cause, the tyranny of the government is irrelevant - as long as you stand against the West, Jeremy is, was and always will be on your side. That’s why you’ll never hear him condemn the IRA, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime, Cuba, Venezuela or even North Korea. The enemy of his enemy is his friend.
Good morning all.
I like Nick Palmer very much, and admire his work on animal welfare. However, there is a whiff of the vicar of Bray about his serial support for what I think most of us would find wildly different Labour leaders. Perhaps I don't understand because I'm not tribal. I've only voted Labour twice, but I would never, never contemplate voting for them now.
The USSR was too central and authoritarian, but the Islamic Republic of Iran, post the brutal crackdown on the pro-democracy Green Movement, is fine?
You won't find him endorsing the Iranian government either, but Iran really is a case where it's a good idea to talk to everyone - unlike, say, Saudi Arabia, there are umpteen varieties of opinion (I know quite a few myself among exiles and have put the case for sanctions against Iran - to ward off talk of military intervention - on Press TV) which are more or less tolerated in an extremely unstable political environment.
People on the left during the Cold War were generally happy to talk with critics of Western policy, without necessarily endorsing them, partly to show that we weren't all cold warriors. People on the right felt it was vaguely treasonable and gave aid and comfort to enemies. Both views were probably understandable depending on how far you accepted the Cold War logic, but it's an argument that used to feel important, and now just seems an awfully long time ago.
He wasn't just talking to them. He was paid by them as part of its propaganda efforts against the West. He also went on Russia Today to help the propaganda of a regime that in Chechnya, Ukraine and Syria has done far worse human rights violations than anything the "imperialist" West has done in the Iraq and Libya interventions he hates so much.
Why don't you just be honest? Corbyn is very happy to overlook human rights violations to support regimes that are opposed to the West, and you are so tribal you will support any Labour leader, regardless of their history.
Nick likes Jeremy on a personal level. I am not sure he would be so indulgent of other Labour leaders. This is the big problem in my book: so many Labour members identify with what Corbyn says about domestic policy and how he conducts himself that they are happy to overlook everything he has said about foreign affairs for the last 40 years. It’s Jeremy very specifically who is giving the hard left the opportunity to take Labour over. It’s also why Corbyn is going nowhere for a long time: there is no-one else on the hard left who could appeal to Labour members in the way Jeremy does.
I see the wide spectrum of elderly right-wing nutters (in attitude, if not age) that frequent this site, from centre-right but in denial SO, to frothing extremist Mortimer, are working up into a lather because their crazed smear tactics (that they seem to have bent over backwards to believe themselves) are backfiring yet again. Why oh why can't the general population wind themselves up into a bonkers frenzy about a load of rubbish like we can? they scream to themselves.
I see the wide spectrum of elderly right-wing nutters (in attitude, if not age) that frequent this site, from centre-right but in denial SO, to frothing extremist Mortimer, are working up into a lather because their crazed smear tactics (that they seem to have bent over backwards to believe themselves) are backfiring yet again. Why oh why can't the general population wind themselves up into a bonkers frenzy about a load of rubbish like we can? they scream to themselves.
LOL @Southamobserver being on the centre-right. Heard it all now
I see the wide spectrum of elderly right-wing nutters (in attitude, if not age) that frequent this site, from centre-right but in denial SO, to frothing extremist Mortimer, are working up into a lather because their crazed smear tactics (that they seem to have bent over backwards to believe themselves) are backfiring yet again. Why oh why can't the general population wind themselves up into a bonkers frenzy about a load of rubbish like we can? they scream to themselves.
Believing Jeremy Corbyn to have spent 40 years backing every cause or regime as long as it is anti-UK, anti-US and/or anti-Israel does not make me centre-right. It just means I am capable of looking dispassionately at the evidence. If you can provide links to any unequivocal condemnations of such causes and regimes made by Corbyn at any stage, please feel free to do so. But you won’t. Because you can’t. That’s not my fault, I’m afraid.
Jeremy doesn’t speak to both sides, though. That is the problem. He picks sides. And the ones he picks are the ones that are anti-UK, anti-US and/or anti-Israel. The brutality of the cause, the tyranny of the government is irrelevant - as long as you stand against the West, Jeremy is, was and always will be on your side. That’s why you’ll never hear him condemn the IRA, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime, Cuba, Venezuela or even North Korea. The enemy of his enemy is his friend.
Good morning all.
I like Nick Palmer very much, and admire his work on animal welfare. However, there is a whiff of the vicar of Bray about his serial support for what I think most of us would find wildly different Labour leaders. Perhaps I don't understand because I'm not tribal. I've only voted Labour twice, but I would never, never contemplate voting for them now.
My personal views are a bit irrelevant these days, but FWIW they've evolved. I've always been on the left - a "Eurocommunist" (forgotten concept, but basically it meant communism plus democracy) in my teens, and I've never apologised for it - "from each according to ability, to each according to means" is the basic way I try to live and to argue, though I recoginse lots of practical problems and the possibility that it actually can't work. I thought Labour was the cloest realistc option so I joined in 1971. In 1997, I felt there was so much that the whole centre and left agreed needed doing that I was fine with Tony Blair.
I think we did a lot of good domestically from Northern Ireland to minimum wage but by 2010 I thought the Blair well was dry and we needed to move back to a more left-wing position. Then Corbyn came along who I really like personally, and I felt enthusiastic in a way I haven't for many years.
Everyone's different and we all have our personal histories, but that's how I ended up supporting both Blair and Corbyn (where I was always lukewarm about Brown and Miliband).
JW If I learnt anything from watching people attack Corbyn its that going over the top in insulting people only reinforces viewpoints... admittedly changing minds is almost certainly not your aim!
Also Mortimer just gave me a +1, one of the good guys for the moment
I see the wide spectrum of elderly right-wing nutters (in attitude, if not age) that frequent this site, from centre-right but in denial SO, to frothing extremist Mortimer, are working up into a lather because their crazed smear tactics (that they seem to have bent over backwards to believe themselves) are backfiring yet again. Why oh why can't the general population wind themselves up into a bonkers frenzy about a load of rubbish like we can? they scream to themselves.
The idea that SO is right wing is .....odd.
As it happens, I think that Corbyn's past record does put off a number of potential voters.
As a former communist as a lad, you'll be aware that the Trots at that time disliked the mainstream communist party, declaring them to be 'State Capitalists'.
Jezza doesn't seem to be a man who changes his mind very much. But he obviously works with people who share some of his beliefs. At best, we can say he's pragmatic, accepting he can only do what's possible, and putting up with democratic institutions. At worst, that can look like low cunning.
Do you know him well enough to distinguish?
Edit: I've just seen your latest reply. A Euro-communist? I admit I'm not familiar with that variety. International Socialists were very popular in the late 1960s and they had some interesting newspapers.
Jeremy doesn’t speak to both sides, though. That is the problem. He picks sides. And the ones he picks are the ones that are anti-UK, anti-US and/or anti-Israel. The brutality of the cause, the tyranny of the government is irrelevant - as long as you stand against the West, Jeremy is, was and always will be on your side. That’s why you’ll never hear him condemn the IRA, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime, Cuba, Venezuela or even North Korea. The enemy of his enemy is his friend.
Good morning all.
I like Nick Palmer very much, and admire his work on animal welfare. However, there is a whiff of the vicar of Bray about his serial support for what I think most of us would find wildly different Labour leaders. Perhaps I don't understand because I'm not tribal. I've only voted Labour twice, but I would never, never contemplate voting for them now.
My personal views are a bit irrelevant these days, but FWIW they've evolved. I've always been on the left - a "Eurocommunist" (forgotten concept, but basically it meant communism plus democracy) in my teens, and I've never apologised for it - "from each according to ability, to each according to means" is the basic way I try to live and to argue, though I recoginse lots of practical problems and the possibility that it actually can't work. I thought Labour was the cloest realistc option so I joined in 1971. In 1997, I felt there was so much that the whole centre and left agreed needed doing that I was fine with Tony Blair.
I think we did a lot of good domestically from Northern Ireland to minimum wage but by 2010 I thought the Blair well was dry and we needed to move back to a more left-wing position. Then Corbyn came along who I really like personally, and I felt enthusiastic in a way I haven't for many years.
Everyone's different and we all have our personal histories, but that's how I ended up supporting both Blair and Corbyn (where I was always lukewarm about Brown and Miliband).
I recoginse lots of practical problems and the possibility that it actually can't work...
Now that's something you don't see in very many manifestos.....
I see the wide spectrum of elderly right-wing nutters (in attitude, if not age) that frequent this site, from centre-right but in denial SO, to frothing extremist Mortimer, are working up into a lather because their crazed smear tactics (that they seem to have bent over backwards to believe themselves) are backfiring yet again. Why oh why can't the general population wind themselves up into a bonkers frenzy about a load of rubbish like we can? they scream to themselves.
Yawn.
'Extreme' one nation Toryism? Heard it all now....
I see the wide spectrum of elderly right-wing nutters (in attitude, if not age) that frequent this site, from centre-right but in denial SO, to frothing extremist Mortimer, are working up into a lather because their crazed smear tactics (that they seem to have bent over backwards to believe themselves) are backfiring yet again. Why oh why can't the general population wind themselves up into a bonkers frenzy about a load of rubbish like we can? they scream to themselves.
LOL @Southamobserver being on the centre-right. Heard it all now
Yeah, that makes me somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. Well, fair enough, off to eat some babies and find a poor person to oppress.
I see the wide spectrum of elderly right-wing nutters (in attitude, if not age) that frequent this site, from centre-right but in denial SO, to frothing extremist Mortimer, are working up into a lather because their crazed smear tactics (that they seem to have bent over backwards to believe themselves) are backfiring yet again. Why oh why can't the general population wind themselves up into a bonkers frenzy about a load of rubbish like we can? they scream to themselves.
A timely post from agent WIM, fully in accordance with the tenets of orthodox Marxist-Leninism.
O/T but I was intrigued that Electoral Calculus now let's you play around with results from 1955 onwards. One can see that in the fifties, the system worked fantastically in the Conservatives' favour. A result of Con 43.5%, Lab 41% would have given a Conservative majority of 60-70. By 1970, this has fallen to 30. By 1979, the Conservatives fall just short on those numbers, which remains the case up to 1992. After that, the system shifts massively in favour of Labour. These figures actually produce Labour majorities from 1997-2005. After that, the system reverts to roughly the position of 1992.
Labour's ability to win votes exactly where it needed them, in the Blair years, was astonishing.
Jeremy doesn’t speak to both sides, though. That is the problem. He picks sides. And the ones he picks are the ones that are anti-UK, anti-US and/or anti-Israel. The brutality of the cause, the tyranny of the government is irrelevant - as long as you stand against the West, Jeremy is, was and always will be on your side. That’s why you’ll never hear him condemn the IRA, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime, Cuba, Venezuela or even North Korea. The enemy of his enemy is his friend.
Good morning all.
I like Nick Palmer very much, and admire his work on animal welfare. However, there is a whiff of the vicar of Bray about his serial support for what I think most of us would find wildly different Labour leaders. Perhaps I don't understand because I'm not tribal. I've only voted Labour twice, but I would never, never contemplate voting for them now.
My personal views are a bit irrelevant these days, but FWIW they've evolved. I've always been on the left - a "Eurocommunist" (forgotten concept, but basically it meant communism plus democracy) in my teens, and I've never apologised for it - "from each according to ability, to each according to means" is the basic way I try to live and to argue, though I recoginse lots of practical problems and the possibility that it actually can't work. I thought Labour was the cloest realistc option so I joined in 1971. In 1997, I felt there was so much that the whole centre and left agreed needed doing that I was fine with Tony Blair.
I think we did a lot of good domestically from Northern Ireland to minimum wage but by 2010 I thought the Blair well was dry and we needed to move back to a more left-wing position. Then Corbyn came along who I really like personally, and I felt enthusiastic in a way I haven't for many years.
Everyone's different and we all have our personal histories, but that's how I ended up supporting both Blair and Corbyn (where I was always lukewarm about Brown and Miliband).
What a fortuitous sequence of events for you, Nick.
I see the wide spectrum of elderly right-wing nutters (in attitude, if not age) that frequent this site, from centre-right but in denial SO, to frothing extremist Mortimer, are working up into a lather because their crazed smear tactics (that they seem to have bent over backwards to believe themselves) are backfiring yet again. Why oh why can't the general population wind themselves up into a bonkers frenzy about a load of rubbish like we can? they scream to themselves.
The idea that SO is right wing is .....odd.
As it happens, I think that Corbyn's past record does put off a number of potential voters.
We're back in 'I'm a reasonable centrist, you're a frothing extremist' territory.
There was an amusing twitter spat yesterday with Tories being defended against the vile slur of being called right wing.
I see the wide spectrum of elderly right-wing nutters (in attitude, if not age) that frequent this site, from centre-right but in denial SO, to frothing extremist Mortimer, are working up into a lather because their crazed smear tactics (that they seem to have bent over backwards to believe themselves) are backfiring yet again. Why oh why can't the general population wind themselves up into a bonkers frenzy about a load of rubbish like we can? they scream to themselves.
Believing Jeremy Corbyn to have spent 40 years backing every cause or regime as long as it is anti-UK, anti-US and/or anti-Israel does not make me centre-right. It just means I am capable of looking dispassionately at the evidence. If you can provide links to any unequivocal condemnations of such causes and regimes made by Corbyn at any stage, please feel free to do so. But you won’t. Because you can’t. That’s not my fault, I’m afraid.
Except that reads like a complete Daily Mail caricature and a reason for you not to be taken in the least bit seriously. You claim to have vaguely left-wing sympathies but I don't think I have ever seen you express anything but a firmly centre-right, pro-establishment view here.
BBC reporting Trump pushing for ban on bump stocks and even open to an age limit on assault rifles. Both would be broadly popular but I think very unpopular with his base? They’ll forgive a lot but would the forgive this?
Would be very awkward for Dems if they have to give gun control credit to Trump.
Very good politics from Trump. 95% of the population are going to support banning turning regular guns into automatics and the other 5% are solid Republicans anyway.
A step in the right direction, even if only a small step
And then we can perhaps take a step in the direction of working out why despite US citizens having a second amendment and the right to bear arms for over 240 years these mass school and other public shootings only seem to have started occurring on any scale in the last 10-15 years?
If guns were solely the issue why didn't such incidents happen for the previous 220 years?
I see the wide spectrum of elderly right-wing nutters (in attitude, if not age) that frequent this site, from centre-right but in denial SO, to frothing extremist Mortimer, are working up into a lather because their crazed smear tactics (that they seem to have bent over backwards to believe themselves) are backfiring yet again. Why oh why can't the general population wind themselves up into a bonkers frenzy about a load of rubbish like we can? they scream to themselves.
LOL @Southamobserver being on the centre-right. Heard it all now
Well he left the Labour party because it wasnt right wing enough. Couldn't bring himself to vote for the centre left Labour Manifesto in 2017. He wasn't on the side of the many rather than the few,
You wouldnt describe yourself as centre left either your views aren't far from away SOs apart from you cheerlead Jeremy Hunts destruction of the NHS he doesn't
Comments
But the article is good. Like most people on the left I'm aware of the different strands more than those who think we're all Trots, and Corbyn and McDonnell were never in the pro-Soviet camp, which they found way too centralist and authoritarian: McDonnell's speech on renationalisation giving power to local groups of staff is typical (and frankly I wonder how it would work).
Libel is one way of keeping the press on their toes.
It reminds me of the 1999 Victoria (Australia) State election which in many respects was similar to our 2017 General Election. Back then the Liberal/National Coalition (Aus's equivalent of the Tories) had gone into the election with a healthy majority and all polls were forecasting an increased majority. The State Premier Jeff Kennett ran a very Presidential election campaign but ended up losing his majority coming one seat short of 50%. The three independents elected backed the opposition Labor leader who became the new Premier.
Afterwards it was reported in the media that when Labor looked at the books that the financial situation was better than what had been reported before the election. Allegedly Kennett hadn't wanted the books to look too good because then people might think they could afford to vote Labor (though they did anyway after his disastrous campaign).
People on the left during the Cold War were generally happy to talk with critics of Western policy, without necessarily endorsing them, partly to show that we weren't all cold warriors. People on the right felt it was vaguely treasonable and gave aid and comfort to enemies. Both views were probably understandable depending on how far you accepted the Cold War logic, but it's an argument that used to feel important, and now just seems an awfully long time ago.
Saw similar comments regarding the Labour internal conflict of last few years involving many in Labour either reliving the fights they had in the 80's or living their imagined version of them now.
I think some people like the idea of an ideological battle, guilty of this myself of course!
Why don't you just be honest? Corbyn is very happy to overlook human rights violations to support regimes that are opposed to the West, and you are so tribal you will support any Labour leader, regardless of their history.
I like Nick Palmer very much, and admire his work on animal welfare. However, there is a whiff of the vicar of Bray about his serial support for what I think most of us would find wildly different Labour leaders. Perhaps I don't understand because I'm not tribal. I've only voted Labour twice, but I would never, never contemplate voting for them now.
I think we did a lot of good domestically from Northern Ireland to minimum wage but by 2010 I thought the Blair well was dry and we needed to move back to a more left-wing position. Then Corbyn came along who I really like personally, and I felt enthusiastic in a way I haven't for many years.
Everyone's different and we all have our personal histories, but that's how I ended up supporting both Blair and Corbyn (where I was always lukewarm about Brown and Miliband).
Also Mortimer just gave me a +1, one of the good guys for the moment
As it happens, I think that Corbyn's past record does put off a number of potential voters.
As a former communist as a lad, you'll be aware that the Trots at that time disliked the mainstream communist party, declaring them to be 'State Capitalists'.
Jezza doesn't seem to be a man who changes his mind very much. But he obviously works with people who share some of his beliefs. At best, we can say he's pragmatic, accepting he can only do what's possible, and putting up with democratic institutions. At worst, that can look like low cunning.
Do you know him well enough to distinguish?
Edit: I've just seen your latest reply. A Euro-communist? I admit I'm not familiar with that variety. International Socialists were very popular in the late 1960s and they had some interesting newspapers.
Now that's something you don't see in very many manifestos.....
'Extreme' one nation Toryism? Heard it all now....
Labour's ability to win votes exactly where it needed them, in the Blair years, was astonishing.
There was an amusing twitter spat yesterday with Tories being defended against the vile slur of being called right wing.
https://twitter.com/NimkoAli/status/965577671076917248
If guns were solely the issue why didn't such incidents happen for the previous 220 years?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-raises-human-rights-record-with-chinese-president-xi-jinping-a6701921.html?amp
https://mobile.twitter.com/toryfibs/status/965184174280904704
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/632026.stm
You wouldnt describe yourself as centre left either your views aren't far from away SOs apart from you cheerlead Jeremy Hunts destruction of the NHS he doesn't