Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Introducing the new Confident Corbyn

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited March 3 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Introducing the new Confident Corbyn

Something has happened to Jeremy Corbyn; something which few would have thought possible, never mind expected a year ago: he has become comfortable doing the job expected of a party leader. Indeed, more than that: he has become confident in the role.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,732
    I think the Universe is hallucinating. Jeremy Corbyn is, and has always been, a backbench MP. The leader of the opposition is probably someone like Ed Balls, but nobody has yet discovered the correct method of perceiving reality as it really is, rather than the collective hallucination which has been accidentally conjured up by a random event which happened in about 2014.

    In 30 years' time, someone will make a science fiction film which will explain all about what happened, but it will all be true.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617
    Second! Like Corbyn.....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617
    If the Tories want to win properly next time, it’s him they’ll have to take on and defeat, not the echo from the 1980s.

    That was true in 2017 too.....so it is to be hoped they've learned that lesson....
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,857
    Ohhhhh Jeerreeemmmy Coooorrrbyn
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,252

    If the Tories want to win properly next time, it’s him they’ll have to take on and defeat, not the echo from the 1980s.

    That was true in 2017 too.....so it is to be hoped they've learned that lesson....

    They have if they are dumping Crosby.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5713733/theresa-may-wants-to-cut-ties-with-elections-guru-sir-lynton-crosby-after-poll-disaster/
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,252
    OP and Corbyn -- what is the Kremlinology of Corbyn's adopting more traditional LOTO tactics in parliament? Who is he taking advice from now, that he wasn't before?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617

    If the Tories want to win properly next time, it’s him they’ll have to take on and defeat, not the echo from the 1980s.

    That was true in 2017 too.....so it is to be hoped they've learned that lesson....

    They have if they are dumping Crosby.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5713733/theresa-may-wants-to-cut-ties-with-elections-guru-sir-lynton-crosby-after-poll-disaster/
    Crosby may not have helped - but he wasn’t the author of their misfortune in 2017 - Mrs May and the gruesome twosome own that.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617

    OP and Corbyn -- what is the Kremlinology of Corbyn's adopting more traditional LOTO tactics in parliament? Who is he taking advice from now, that he wasn't before?

    Interesting question! It does suggest less influence for Milne - but more for who?? Starmer?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,412
    An interesting piece on the presumptive Democrat Senate nominee in Texas

    How Beto O’Rourke Explains America

    https://www.theringer.com/2018/2/28/16898726/beto-orourke-ted-cruz-texas-senate-race-2018-midterm-elections

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,252

    If the Tories want to win properly next time, it’s him they’ll have to take on and defeat, not the echo from the 1980s.

    That was true in 2017 too.....so it is to be hoped they've learned that lesson....

    They have if they are dumping Crosby.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5713733/theresa-may-wants-to-cut-ties-with-elections-guru-sir-lynton-crosby-after-poll-disaster/
    Crosby may not have helped - but he wasn’t the author of their misfortune in 2017 - Mrs May and the gruesome twosome own that.
    It was Crosby's plan to feature only Theresa May parroting strong and stable; probably the press monstering of Corbyn, although they may well have done that anyway. Crosby's campaign was really tailored for Cameron, in the same way Labour had Gordon Brown ineptly copying Blair's mannerisms.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617
    rcs1000 said:

    An interesting piece on the presumptive Democrat Senate nominee in Texas

    How Beto O’Rourke Explains America

    https://www.theringer.com/2018/2/28/16898726/beto-orourke-ted-cruz-texas-senate-race-2018-midterm-elections

    Fascinating - thanks - but isn’t “Facebook for old people”?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,412

    rcs1000 said:

    An interesting piece on the presumptive Democrat Senate nominee in Texas

    How Beto O’Rourke Explains America

    https://www.theringer.com/2018/2/28/16898726/beto-orourke-ted-cruz-texas-senate-race-2018-midterm-elections

    Fascinating - thanks - but isn’t “Facebook for old people”?
    The stat I found most interesting was about Ted Cruz. To have unfavourables ahead of favourables as a Republican in Texas is staggering.

    Now, will it be enough to put Beto over the line? Probably not. But I do wonder if there are some ridiculous 50-1 odds out there that might be worth a punt.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    I hate to re-awaken the last thread's rather nasty-tempered topic, but we should remember that, whatever the faults of her policy, Merkel wanted to help the migrants (just as Cameron did): they only differed in the means.

    The real blame for the people dying in Syria should be placed at the door of one person: Assad.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    Off-topic:

    Remember the sound attack on the US Embassy in Cuba? Well, it might all have been an accident; possibly:

    https://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/devices/finally-a-likely-explanation-for-the-sonic-weapon-used-at-the-us-embassy-in-cuba
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617

    I hate to re-awaken the last thread's rather nasty-tempered topic, but we should remember that, whatever the faults of her policy, Merkel wanted to help the migrants (just as Cameron did): they only differed in the means.

    The real blame for the people dying in Syria should be placed at the door of one person: Assad.

    But the point is Cameron was helping refugees - Merkel’s “People Smugglers’ Charter” helped economic migrants.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974

    I hate to re-awaken the last thread's rather nasty-tempered topic, but we should remember that, whatever the faults of her policy, Merkel wanted to help the migrants (just as Cameron did): they only differed in the means.

    The real blame for the people dying in Syria should be placed at the door of one person: Assad.

    But the point is Cameron was helping refugees - Merkel’s “People Smugglers’ Charter” helped economic migrants.
    No. Her scheme undoubtedly helped some refugees; the issue is that lots of economic migrants took advantage of the chaos. Her intent was good;but her plan was undoubtedly flawed, and her implementation worse.

    However, Germany was in a very different situation to us given the geography, and the problem for them was much more immediate. Even if the had instituted something akin to Cameron's plan, they would still have had a major issue to deal with in the form of the people already arriving.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,412
    On the subject of American politics, here is the video from the presumptive Democratic nominee for the West Virginia 3rd Congressional district.



    This is a district where Trump got 80% of the vote, but where Ojeda is leading in the polling.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,645

    OP and Corbyn -- what is the Kremlinology of Corbyn's adopting more traditional LOTO tactics in parliament? Who is he taking advice from now, that he wasn't before?

    DH is right to spot the change. In part it is that the 2016 entry owe their seats to him, and a fair number of the older intake too, but it is foolish to neglect policy in this too. Jeremy has demonstrated that what was once seen as unelectable socialism can be electorally popular. It is not nessecary to always dress to the centre. Labour have their mojo back for the first time in a generation. In particular his opposition to the Iraq war and also domestically to PFI are now becoming commonplace wisdom.

    The other side of it is that Jezza is politically maturing, about 30 years later than usual. Most MPs get the feel of how things work in Westminster within a couple of years of first being elected, Jezza has been a little slower than most. He does need to be careful though. His political USP is being a voice of the people, representing the average Labour activist, and later the average Labour voter. In Populist times he is a sort of "Mr Smith goes to Washington" voice of common sense amongst venal or machine politicians. He never sought power for himself, he did it for the movement. It will be increasingly hard for him to keep his fanbase happy in party and country if he starts to look like just another machine politician.

    If he gets it right he will be PM. In the past, being an incompetent, lazy and disorganised administrator has been a substantial bar to high office. The current PM and trio of Fox, Johnson and Davis have shown however that being useless at the job in hand is no bar at all, indeed it frees up more time for playing to the gallery.


  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,645
    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of American politics, here is the video from the presumptive Democratic nominee for the West Virginia 3rd Congressional district.



    This is a district where Trump got 80% of the vote, but where Ojeda is leading in the polling.

    Interesting. I can see that playing well in Appalachia.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149

    OP and Corbyn -- what is the Kremlinology of Corbyn's adopting more traditional LOTO tactics in parliament? Who is he taking advice from now, that he wasn't before?

    Interesting question! It does suggest less influence for Milne - but more for who?? Starmer?
    Someone has certainly got to him in the last couple of weeks at PMQs. It’s a noticable change, rather like when he got dragged to the tailor a year or so ago. Starmer, is a very likely candidate, especially given the focus on Brexit.

    That said, he chose the one issue that the polling suggests people want the politicians to be adults about, rather than go out of their way to score partisan points, so maybe it was Watson behind it - before his own little local difficulties last week.

    Corbyn’s reaction to the PM’s speech yesterday made it quite obvious that neither he nor any of his 15 staff actually watched it in detail. A point that wasn’t actually raised yesterday but has been noted in the past, is that it would be much better to see these set piece speeches by senior ministers made in Parliament.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617

    I hate to re-awaken the last thread's rather nasty-tempered topic, but we should remember that, whatever the faults of her policy, Merkel wanted to help the migrants (just as Cameron did): they only differed in the means.

    The real blame for the people dying in Syria should be placed at the door of one person: Assad.

    But the point is Cameron was helping refugees - Merkel’s “People Smugglers’ Charter” helped economic migrants.
    No. Her scheme undoubtedly helped some refugees; the issue is that lots of economic migrants took advantage of the chaos. Her intent was good;but her plan was undoubtedly flawed, and her implementation worse.

    However, Germany was in a very different situation to us given the geography, and the problem for them was much more immediate. Even if the had instituted something akin to Cameron's plan, they would still have had a major issue to deal with in the form of the people already arriving.
    If Merkel and the rest of the EU had devoted as much effort to the refugees as the US and UK did in the first place a substantial part of the crisis could have been avoided. History will judge her harshly.
  • TomsToms Posts: 1,536
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of American politics, here is the video from the presumptive Democratic nominee for the West Virginia 3rd Congressional district.



    This is a district where Trump got 80% of the vote, but where Ojeda is leading in the polling.

    Interesting. I can see that playing well in Appalachia.
    You are right. I don't know who paid for that, but it's pretty darn good.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    edited March 3

    I hate to re-awaken the last thread's rather nasty-tempered topic, but we should remember that, whatever the faults of her policy, Merkel wanted to help the migrants (just as Cameron did): they only differed in the means.

    The real blame for the people dying in Syria should be placed at the door of one person: Assad.

    But the point is Cameron was helping refugees - Merkel’s “People Smugglers’ Charter” helped economic migrants.
    No. Her scheme undoubtedly helped some refugees; the issue is that lots of economic migrants took advantage of the chaos. Her intent was good;but her plan was undoubtedly flawed, and her implementation worse.

    However, Germany was in a very different situation to us given the geography, and the problem for them was much more immediate. Even if the had instituted something akin to Cameron's plan, they would still have had a major issue to deal with in the form of the people already arriving.
    If Merkel and the rest of the EU had devoted as much effort to the refugees as the US and UK did in the first place a substantial part of the crisis could have been avoided. History will judge her harshly.
    It was also the way her announcements and proclamations had a huge impact on other countries. If she’d have said the Syrian refugees were welcome in Germany and we are sending planes to pick them up, she’d have been hailed as a heroine - but the way she did it instead caused a humanitarian crisis around half of Europe and resulted in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974

    I hate to re-awaken the last thread's rather nasty-tempered topic, but we should remember that, whatever the faults of her policy, Merkel wanted to help the migrants (just as Cameron did): they only differed in the means.

    The real blame for the people dying in Syria should be placed at the door of one person: Assad.

    But the point is Cameron was helping refugees - Merkel’s “People Smugglers’ Charter” helped economic migrants.
    No. Her scheme undoubtedly helped some refugees; the issue is that lots of economic migrants took advantage of the chaos. Her intent was good;but her plan was undoubtedly flawed, and her implementation worse.

    However, Germany was in a very different situation to us given the geography, and the problem for them was much more immediate. Even if the had instituted something akin to Cameron's plan, they would still have had a major issue to deal with in the form of the people already arriving.
    If Merkel and the rest of the EU had devoted as much effort to the refugees as the US and UK did in the first place a substantial part of the crisis could have been avoided. History will judge her harshly.
    I agree. However Germany was facing a different and much more immediate issue than we did, or the US.

    Still, diverting the topic onto Merkel avoids the main point of my original post: the cause of all of this is Assad, and everyone's reaction to his evil.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799

    Off-topic:

    Remember the sound attack on the US Embassy in Cuba? Well, it might all have been an accident; possibly:

    https://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/devices/finally-a-likely-explanation-for-the-sonic-weapon-used-at-the-us-embassy-in-cuba

    TSE is gonna like that:

    "In a nod to the Internet meme “rickrolling,” Yan was even able to embed an ultrasonic version of the Rick Astley song “Never Gonna Give You Up,” which became audible at the point where the two signals crossed."
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,584

    I hate to re-awaken the last thread's rather nasty-tempered topic, but we should remember that, whatever the faults of her policy, Merkel wanted to help the migrants (just as Cameron did): they only differed in the means.

    The real blame for the people dying in Syria should be placed at the door of one person: Assad.

    But the point is Cameron was helping refugees - Merkel’s “People Smugglers’ Charter” helped economic migrants.
    No. Her scheme undoubtedly helped some refugees; the issue is that lots of economic migrants took advantage of the chaos. Her intent was good;but her plan was undoubtedly flawed, and her implementation worse.

    However, Germany was in a very different situation to us given the geography, and the problem for them was much more immediate. Even if the had instituted something akin to Cameron's plan, they would still have had a major issue to deal with in the form of the people already arriving.
    If Merkel and the rest of the EU had devoted as much effort to the refugees as the US and UK did in the first place a substantial part of the crisis could have been avoided. History will judge her harshly.
    I agree. However Germany was facing a different and much more immediate issue than we did, or the US.

    Still, diverting the topic onto Merkel avoids the main point of my original post: the cause of all of this is Assad, and everyone's reaction to his evil.
    As ever, the problem is that some - perhaps a lot - of his enemies are very much not our friends.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    Sandpit said:

    I hate to re-awaken the last thread's rather nasty-tempered topic, but we should remember that, whatever the faults of her policy, Merkel wanted to help the migrants (just as Cameron did): they only differed in the means.

    The real blame for the people dying in Syria should be placed at the door of one person: Assad.

    But the point is Cameron was helping refugees - Merkel’s “People Smugglers’ Charter” helped economic migrants.
    No. Her scheme undoubtedly helped some refugees; the issue is that lots of economic migrants took advantage of the chaos. Her intent was good;but her plan was undoubtedly flawed, and her implementation worse.

    However, Germany was in a very different situation to us given the geography, and the problem for them was much more immediate. Even if the had instituted something akin to Cameron's plan, they would still have had a major issue to deal with in the form of the people already arriving.
    If Merkel and the rest of the EU had devoted as much effort to the refugees as the US and UK did in the first place a substantial part of the crisis could have been avoided. History will judge her harshly.
    It was also the way her announcements and proclamations had a huge impact on other countries. If she’d have said the Syrian refugees were welcome in Germany and we are sending planes to pick them up, she’d have been hailed as a heroine - but the way she did it instead caused a humanitarian crisis around half of Europe and resulted in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
    Thousands were already heading towards Germany, and were in fellow EU countries to the east. Helping the refugees in camps bordering Syria would not have helped Germany and the EU cope with those who were already making their way over. Any German policy needed to deal with that problem as well.

    The biggest issue with her actions was that it actively encouraged others after that first wave - including both genuine refugees and economic migrants - to make the perilous journey.

    But I find it difficult to see a 'good' way Germany and the EU could have coped with the immediate problem that faced them - there was no good solution, only bad ones. Having said that, Merkel chose a terrible one, but for understandable reasons.

    However the blame for all of this lies not with Merkel, not with the EU, and not with the west in general, but with Assad and the people who supported him.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988

    I hate to re-awaken the last thread's rather nasty-tempered topic, but we should remember that, whatever the faults of her policy, Merkel wanted to help the migrants (just as Cameron did): they only differed in the means.

    The real blame for the people dying in Syria should be placed at the door of one person: Assad.

    But the point is Cameron was helping refugees - Merkel’s “People Smugglers’ Charter” helped economic migrants.
    No. Her scheme undoubtedly helped some refugees; the issue is that lots of economic migrants took advantage of the chaos. Her intent was good;but her plan was undoubtedly flawed, and her implementation worse.

    However, Germany was in a very different situation to us given the geography, and the problem for them was much more immediate. Even if the had instituted something akin to Cameron's plan, they would still have had a major issue to deal with in the form of the people already arriving.
    If Merkel and the rest of the EU had devoted as much effort to the refugees as the US and UK did in the first place a substantial part of the crisis could have been avoided. History will judge her harshly.
    I agree. However Germany was facing a different and much more immediate issue than we did, or the US.

    Still, diverting the topic onto Merkel avoids the main point of my original post: the cause of all of this is Assad, and everyone's reaction to his evil.
    How do you know it is Assad who is evil and not the rebels fighting the elected government. Why do people in the west always think they know what if going on in these countries. With the number we have wrecked with interfering you would think they would know by now that leaving what they count as a bad guy alone as he is a hundred times better than the gang of bad guys trying to take his place. We have no clue who are the bad guys in these countries but pontificate and try to put our snowflake viewpoints and tell them how to run their countries. You would think we could apply some energy to fixing the craphole that the UK has become and leave these countries to sort out their own problems.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    tlg86 said:

    I hate to re-awaken the last thread's rather nasty-tempered topic, but we should remember that, whatever the faults of her policy, Merkel wanted to help the migrants (just as Cameron did): they only differed in the means.

    The real blame for the people dying in Syria should be placed at the door of one person: Assad.

    But the point is Cameron was helping refugees - Merkel’s “People Smugglers’ Charter” helped economic migrants.
    No. Her scheme undoubtedly helped some refugees; the issue is that lots of economic migrants took advantage of the chaos. Her intent was good;but her plan was undoubtedly flawed, and her implementation worse.

    However, Germany was in a very different situation to us given the geography, and the problem for them was much more immediate. Even if the had instituted something akin to Cameron's plan, they would still have had a major issue to deal with in the form of the people already arriving.
    If Merkel and the rest of the EU had devoted as much effort to the refugees as the US and UK did in the first place a substantial part of the crisis could have been avoided. History will judge her harshly.
    I agree. However Germany was facing a different and much more immediate issue than we did, or the US.

    Still, diverting the topic onto Merkel avoids the main point of my original post: the cause of all of this is Assad, and everyone's reaction to his evil.
    As ever, the problem is that some - perhaps a lot - of his enemies are very much not our friends.
    That's the way it developed. It's not the way it started. In addition, a lot of his friends - e.g. the Iranians and Russians who are militarily supporting him - are not our friends either.

    It's a mess, but the fault fundamentally lies with Assad, who lost control of his own country because of his tyrannical ways.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799
    Sandpit said:

    OP and Corbyn -- what is the Kremlinology of Corbyn's adopting more traditional LOTO tactics in parliament? Who is he taking advice from now, that he wasn't before?

    Interesting question! It does suggest less influence for Milne - but more for who?? Starmer?
    Someone has certainly got to him in the last couple of weeks at PMQs. It’s a noticable change, rather like when he got dragged to the tailor a year or so ago. Starmer, is a very likely candidate, especially given the focus on Brexit.

    That said, he chose the one issue that the polling suggests people want the politicians to be adults about, rather than go out of their way to score partisan points, so maybe it was Watson behind it - before his own little local difficulties last week.

    Corbyn’s reaction to the PM’s speech yesterday made it quite obvious that neither he nor any of his 15 staff actually watched it in detail. A point that wasn’t actually raised yesterday but has been noted in the past, is that it would be much better to see these set piece speeches by senior ministers made in Parliament.
    If the polling yesterday is right, then any improvement in his "style" is seriously undermined by his "content". Colluding with the EU to come to a position that is unpopular with his target audience - Leave Labour, Remain Tories - is not going to endear to him the likes of Starmer, who have got him to move Labour's position on Brexit. He could just have said continued to nothing on Monday - and hold the loose alliance together. But now he has presented a benchmark by which to judge Theresa May's response to Brexit. And his effort does look woeful in comparison.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    malcolmg said:

    I hate to re-awaken the last thread's rather nasty-tempered topic, but we should remember that, whatever the faults of her policy, Merkel wanted to help the migrants (just as Cameron did): they only differed in the means.

    The real blame for the people dying in Syria should be placed at the door of one person: Assad.

    But the point is Cameron was helping refugees - Merkel’s “People Smugglers’ Charter” helped economic migrants.
    No. Her scheme undoubtedly helped some refugees; the issue is that lots of economic migrants took advantage of the chaos. Her intent was good;but her plan was undoubtedly flawed, and her implementation worse.

    However, Germany was in a very different situation to us given the geography, and the problem for them was much more immediate. Even if the had instituted something akin to Cameron's plan, they would still have had a major issue to deal with in the form of the people already arriving.
    If Merkel and the rest of the EU had devoted as much effort to the refugees as the US and UK did in the first place a substantial part of the crisis could have been avoided. History will judge her harshly.
    I agree. However Germany was facing a different and much more immediate issue than we did, or the US.

    Still, diverting the topic onto Merkel avoids the main point of my original post: the cause of all of this is Assad, and everyone's reaction to his evil.
    How do you know it is Assad who is evil and not the rebels fighting the elected government. Why do people in the west always think they know what if going on in these countries. With the number we have wrecked with interfering you would think they would know by now that leaving what they count as a bad guy alone as he is a hundred times better than the gang of bad guys trying to take his place. We have no clue who are the bad guys in these countries but pontificate and try to put our snowflake viewpoints and tell them how to run their countries. You would think we could apply some energy to fixing the craphole that the UK has become and leave these countries to sort out their own problems.
    Assad used chemical weapons on his own people.

    Yep, evil.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799

    Ohhhhh Jeerreeemmmy Coooorrrbyn

    A singalong brought to you by The Good Old Days.

    The Seventies.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,885
    I began with a quick glance to the bottom of the lead, just to make sure that it wasn't by Don Brind.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of American politics, here is the video from the presumptive Democratic nominee for the West Virginia 3rd Congressional district.



    This is a district where Trump got 80% of the vote, but where Ojeda is leading in the polling.

    Interesting. I can see that playing well in Appalachia.
    Campaigning as Ojeda, blink and you’d miss “Democrat”
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988

    malcolmg said:

    I hate to re-awaken the last thread's rather nasty-tempered topic, but we should remember that, whatever the faults of her policy, Merkel wanted to help the migrants (just as Cameron did): they only differed in the means.

    The real blame for the people dying in Syria should be placed at the door of one person: Assad.

    But the point is Cameron was helping refugees - Merkel’s “People Smugglers’ Charter” helped economic migrants.
    No. Her scheme undoubtedly helped some refugees; the issue is that lots of economic migrants took advantage of the chaos. Her intent was good;but her plan was undoubtedly flawed, and her implementation worse.

    However, Germany was in a very different situation to us given the geography, and the problem for them was much more immediate. Even if the had instituted something akin to Cameron's plan, they would still have had a major issue to deal with in the form of the people already arriving.
    If Merkel and the rest of the EU had devoted as much effort to the refugees as the US and UK did in the first place a substantial part of the crisis could have been avoided. History will judge her harshly.
    I agree. However Germany was facing a different and much more immediate issue than we did, or the US.

    Still, diverting the topic onto Merkel avoids the main point of my original post: the cause of all of this is Assad, and everyone's reaction to his evil.
    How do you know it is Assad who is evil and not the rebels fighting the elected government. Why do people in the west always think they know what if going on in these countries. With the number we have wrecked with interfering you would think they would know by now that leaving what they count as a bad guy alone as he is a hundred times better than the gang of bad guys trying to take his place. We have no clue who are the bad guys in these countries but pontificate and try to put our snowflake viewpoints and tell them how to run their countries. You would think we could apply some energy to fixing the craphole that the UK has become and leave these countries to sort out their own problems.
    Assad used chemical weapons on his own people.

    Yep, evil.
    Someone used them but who knows if him , the other players or all of them. We should keep our big noses out of other peoples business, it is why the UK is hated so much.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,197
    He was not my choice, I disagree with him on many things and I have big, big problems with some of his outriders and the way they operate. BUT...

    Corbyn himself has undoubtably grown into the role. He has developed gravitas to put alongside his unique appeal to left wing voters. He is confident, even witty these days - with clearly some decent brains behind him.

    Given his track record in defeating opponents and his achievement in inspiring a movement, people ought to stop underestimating him. Yet one of his strengths is that they continue to do so.

    They attack him in silliest, ineffectual terms. Reminds me of the way Labour used to attack Cameron as posh.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    malcolmg said:

    Someone used them but who knows if him , the other players or all of them. We should keep our big noses out of other peoples business, it is why the UK is hated so much.

    It's a shame that someone who wants self-determination and independence for his own country is so keen to see others live under a tyrant. For instance, I'd have thought you would have supported Kurdish calls for an independent state?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,584
    On topic. I think this was a mistake by Corbyn. Even now the press think the negotiation that matters is the one between leavers and remainers. It isn't. It doesn't matter what they think of May's speech, what matters is the final agreement May comes back with.

    It's quite likely that May will have to agree a substantial compromise or walk away. By saying he wants to be in a Customs Union, Corbyn has made it fair game to be asked about what he would do. I think his previous strategy of not saying very much at all on the specifics of Brexit was the right approach.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799


    However the blame for all of this lies not with Merkel, not with the EU, and not with the west in general, but with Assad and the people who supported him.

    We 100% own the reaction to the actions of Assad and the people who supported him.

    Cameron's instincts over Syria were the correct ones. For that at least, history will think his responses were sound.

    Ed Miliband's lasting contribution to history may well be blocking our part in the punishment beatings of that Assad regime for the inexcusable use of chemical weapons on his own citizens.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314
    malcolmg said:

    How do you know it is Assad who is evil and not the rebels fighting the elected government.

    Assad isn't elected. He succeeded his father as dictator, a la the Kim family.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149

    malcolmg said:

    I hate to re-awaken the last thread's rather nasty-tempered topic, but we should remember that, whatever the faults of her policy, Merkel wanted to help the migrants (just as Cameron did): they only differed in the means.

    The real blame for the people dying in Syria should be placed at the door of one person: Assad.

    But the point is Cameron was helping refugees - Merkel’s “People Smugglers’ Charter” helped economic migrants.
    No. Her scheme undoubtedly helped some refugees; the issue is that lots of economic migrants took advantage of the chaos. Her intent was good;but her plan was undoubtedly flawed, and her implementation worse.

    However, Germany was in a very different situation to us given the geography, and the problem for them was much more immediate. Even if the had instituted something akin to Cameron's plan, they would still have had a major issue to deal with in the form of the people already arriving.
    If Merkel and the rest of the EU had devoted as much effort to the refugees as the US and UK did in the first place a substantial part of the crisis could have been avoided. History will judge her harshly.
    I agree. However Germany was facing a different and much more immediate issue than we did, or the US.

    Still, diverting the topic onto Merkel avoids the main point of my original post: the cause of all of this is Assad, and everyone's reaction to his evil.
    How do you know it is Assad who is evil and not the rebels fighting the elected government. Why do people in the west always think they know what if going on in these countries. With the number we have wrecked with interfering you would think they would know by now that leaving what they count as a bad guy alone as he is a hundred times better than the gang of bad guys trying to take his place. We have no clue who are the bad guys in these countries but pontificate and try to put our snowflake viewpoints and tell them how to run their countries. You would think we could apply some energy to fixing the craphole that the UK has become and leave these countries to sort out their own problems.
    Assad used chemical weapons on his own people.

    Yep, evil.
    Indeed. There should really have been a serious response from the UN to that, instead every other dictator has been sent the message that gassing your own people is okay.

    Maybe Corbyn’s messing around this week was inspired by Ed Miliband, who tried to play politics with things that were too important for partisanship.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,412
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    How do you know it is Assad who is evil and not the rebels fighting the elected government.

    Assad isn't elected. He succeeded his father as dictator, a la the Kim family.
    If God hadn't wanted Assad to be President, he wouldn't have made his father President.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988

    malcolmg said:

    Someone used them but who knows if him , the other players or all of them. We should keep our big noses out of other peoples business, it is why the UK is hated so much.

    It's a shame that someone who wants self-determination and independence for his own country is so keen to see others live under a tyrant. For instance, I'd have thought you would have supported Kurdish calls for an independent state?
    Absolutely , I don't think anyone should live under tyrants , but these people vote for the tyrant's and if they don't they are replaced by another one. Why do UK like some tyrants but not others. Whey are UK , NATO , etc turning a blind eye when Turkey knocks the crap out of the Kurds but will happily bomb others who do similar. UK nearly always picks the wrong side, they prop up and support the tyrants and then fund other tyrants to topple them and continue the cycle. Our government has blood on its hands regarding tyrants in that whole region.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    How do you know it is Assad who is evil and not the rebels fighting the elected government.

    Assad isn't elected. He succeeded his father as dictator, a la the Kim family.
    We did not elect our leader either, some halfwitted Tory MP's picked her from the bottom of the barrel, so your point is............
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Someone used them but who knows if him , the other players or all of them. We should keep our big noses out of other peoples business, it is why the UK is hated so much.

    It's a shame that someone who wants self-determination and independence for his own country is so keen to see others live under a tyrant. For instance, I'd have thought you would have supported Kurdish calls for an independent state?
    Absolutely , I don't think anyone should live under tyrants , but these people vote for the tyrant's and if they don't they are replaced by another one. Why do UK like some tyrants but not others. Whey are UK , NATO , etc turning a blind eye when Turkey knocks the crap out of the Kurds but will happily bomb others who do similar. UK nearly always picks the wrong side, they prop up and support the tyrants and then fund other tyrants to topple them and continue the cycle. Our government has blood on its hands regarding tyrants in that whole region.
    "Why do UK like some tyrants but not others"

    Yes, and you'll have seen posts in the past lamenting (say) the way we did not castigate Sadaam when he used chemical weapons on his own people - a hideous decision that has helped lead to where we are today.

    But that does not mean we should continue making the same mistakes. (*)

    And the people do not vote for the tyrants, at least not in a free and fair way. Hence why they're tyrants.

    (*) Sadly this may mean we'll new, totally original mistakes.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,645

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of American politics, here is the video from the presumptive Democratic nominee for the West Virginia 3rd Congressional district.



    This is a district where Trump got 80% of the vote, but where Ojeda is leading in the polling.

    Interesting. I can see that playing well in Appalachia.
    Campaigning as Ojeda, blink and you’d miss “Democrat”
    He is overtly a blue collar trade unionist from Middle America, against the company bosses and their lobbyists. He doesn't stress social issues and clearly bleeds patriotism. He is in many ways a throwback to the Democratic parties roots. I suspect his appeal in other States would be less, but West Virginia has been screwed for years. I like his views on Trump (who he voted for!) in the politico article.

    "He regrets his vote for Trump.

    “Sure do,” he said.

    Because?

    “Because he hasn’t done shit,” he said. “It’s been a friggin’ circus for a solid year.” Nothing’s changed. So many people in southern West Virginia are still poor and need jobs. The opioid epidemic rages unabated. “All he’s done,” Ojeda said, “is shown that he’s taking care of the daggone people he’s supposed to be getting rid of.”

    One to watch, when the same penny drops with other Blue Collar Trump voters, change is gona come. I am not sure who his UK equivalent is.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Good morning, everyone.

    We must hope the far left devours itself before it can sink its fangs into the nation.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,436
    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    How do you know it is Assad who is evil and not the rebels fighting the elected government.

    Assad isn't elected. He succeeded his father as dictator, a la the Kim family.
    We did not elect our leader either, some halfwitted Tory MP's picked her from the bottom of the barrel, so your point is............
    That's elected. We elected a Tory-dominated Parliament.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,645
    edited March 3

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Someone used them but who knows if him , the other players or all of them. We should keep our big noses out of other peoples business, it is why the UK is hated so much.

    It's a shame that someone who wants self-determination and independence for his own country is so keen to see others live under a tyrant. For instance, I'd have thought you would have supported Kurdish calls for an independent state?
    Absolutely , I don't think anyone should live under tyrants , but these people vote for the tyrant's and if they don't they are replaced by another one. Why do UK like some tyrants but not others. Whey are UK , NATO , etc turning a blind eye when Turkey knocks the crap out of the Kurds but will happily bomb others who do similar. UK nearly always picks the wrong side, they prop up and support the tyrants and then fund other tyrants to topple them and continue the cycle. Our government has blood on its hands regarding tyrants in that whole region.
    "Why do UK like some tyrants but not others"

    Yes, and you'll have seen posts in the past lamenting (say) the way we did not castigate Sadaam when he used chemical weapons on his own people - a hideous decision that has helped lead to where we are today.

    But that does not mean we should continue making the same mistakes. (*)

    And the people do not vote for the tyrants, at least not in a free and fair way. Hence why they're tyrants.

    (*) Sadly this may mean we'll new, totally original mistakes.
    The problem of supporting tyrants, because they are keeping the lid on the real headcases such as ISIS, is that when they do fall, it leads to a failed state.

    We have seen this time and time again in our foreign interventions in developing countries over the last half century. It is the old colonial mentality of some peoples being treated as unsuitable to democracy and self government.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,517
    Morning all

    Interesting rumour doing the rounds in Scotland.

    They voted to proceed with a "Brexit bill" despite not having the legal competence to do so. The suggestion is that this is just a kite to test whether they can then launch another Indyref without approval from Westminster.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    edited March 3
    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    How do you know it is Assad who is evil and not the rebels fighting the elected government.

    Assad isn't elected. He succeeded his father as dictator, a la the Kim family.
    We did not elect our leader either, some halfwitted Tory MP's picked her from the bottom of the barrel, so your point is............
    As Ms Sturgeon was elected by who exactly? No leadership votes for the SNP, just hand over the party to the next in line...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799
    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    How do you know it is Assad who is evil and not the rebels fighting the elected government.

    Assad isn't elected. He succeeded his father as dictator, a la the Kim family.
    We did not elect our leader either, some halfwitted Tory MP's picked her from the bottom of the barrel, so your point is............
    Equating May and Assad is quite a stretch, even for you malcy! Put. Down. The. Stein. Of. Czech. Beer. Really not good as a breakfast food......
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    Foxy said:

    The problem of supporting tyrants, because they are keeping the lid on the real headcases such as ISIS, is that when they do fall, it leads to a failed state.

    We have seen this time and time again in our foreign interventions in developing countries over the last half century. It is the old colonial mentality of some peoples being treated as unsuitable to democracy and self government.

    I take the Kurds as a classic example. I have intense sympathy with them; a sympathy that is somewhat moderated by the war that some of them have been raging against Turkey and civilians (a war that makes the IRA's atrocities seem like a skirmish).

    Yet there is no way the problem is going away. A solution needs to be found. A political solution was very nearly found with the Solution Process before that broke down - perhaps another casualty of the Syrian civil war. It was a great missed opportunity.

    However self-determination also has massive downsides. It would lead to more mass migrations, in a country that had similar movements a century ago with the Greek population exchanges. But worse is the fact that the Kurds from the different countries: Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Iran - have some rather significant differences. They may be Kurds, but their cultural and political differences are large. A unified Kurdish state might rapidly fall into civil war itself.

    The problems are intractable, and it needs reasonable people on all sides : or at least people who can be made to see things reasonably. This is what we eventually got in Northern Ireland, and it led to the peace we have there now. Erdogan is not of that mould, and neither are the current Kurdish leadership.

    So what do we, in the west, do? The Kurdish situation is an aberration that threatens regional peace and cannot be sustained in the long term. Ignoring the suffering of the Kurds and others in the region is not a moral thing for the west to be doing, but neither is being seen to support their terrorists.

    About all we can do is try to relieve suffering, and prod both sides (in fact, all sides) towards a renewed Solution Process or similar. But we cannot do that without leverage and influence.

    The chances are whatever we do will be seen with hindsight as being wrong.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 44,329
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of American politics, here is the video from the presumptive Democratic nominee for the West Virginia 3rd Congressional district.



    This is a district where Trump got 80% of the vote, but where Ojeda is leading in the polling.

    Interesting. I can see that playing well in Appalachia.
    Campaigning as Ojeda, blink and you’d miss “Democrat”
    He is overtly a blue collar trade unionist from Middle America, against the company bosses and their lobbyists. He doesn't stress social issues and clearly bleeds patriotism. He is in many ways a throwback to the Democratic parties roots. I suspect his appeal in other States would be less, but West Virginia has been screwed for years. I like his views on Trump (who he voted for!) in the politico article.

    "He regrets his vote for Trump.

    “Sure do,” he said.

    Because?

    “Because he hasn’t done shit,” he said. “It’s been a friggin’ circus for a solid year.” Nothing’s changed. So many people in southern West Virginia are still poor and need jobs. The opioid epidemic rages unabated. “All he’s done,” Ojeda said, “is shown that he’s taking care of the daggone people he’s supposed to be getting rid of.”

    One to watch, when the same penny drops with other Blue Collar Trump voters, change is gona come. I am not sure who his UK equivalent is.
    David Miliband
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 583

    I hate to re-awaken the last thread's rather nasty-tempered topic, but we should remember that, whatever the faults of her policy, Merkel wanted to help the migrants (just as Cameron did): they only differed in the means.

    The real blame for the people dying in Syria should be placed at the door of one person: Assad.

    No - it is the criminal Saudi regime and its gulf acolytes, backed by Western powers, who have tried for 7 years to topple Assad, and promote fundamentalist Sunni Islam. There had been no mass violence in Syria for 25 years before 2011. The situation has improved significantly in the last 2 years, thanks to the Russian intervention, but there are still some vipers' nests that need to be wiped out, e.g. in Eastern Ghouta. War is brutal, and the Syrian government has undoubtedly caused mass civilian casualties in rebel-held areas, but it didn't start the insurrection. The UK has used similar brute force in the past, e.g. in the fire-bombing of German cities in WW2.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,412
    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of American politics, here is the video from the presumptive Democratic nominee for the West Virginia 3rd Congressional district.



    This is a district where Trump got 80% of the vote, but where Ojeda is leading in the polling.

    Interesting. I can see that playing well in Appalachia.
    Campaigning as Ojeda, blink and you’d miss “Democrat”
    He is overtly a blue collar trade unionist from Middle America, against the company bosses and their lobbyists. He doesn't stress social issues and clearly bleeds patriotism. He is in many ways a throwback to the Democratic parties roots. I suspect his appeal in other States would be less, but West Virginia has been screwed for years. I like his views on Trump (who he voted for!) in the politico article.

    "He regrets his vote for Trump.

    “Sure do,” he said.

    Because?

    “Because he hasn’t done shit,” he said. “It’s been a friggin’ circus for a solid year.” Nothing’s changed. So many people in southern West Virginia are still poor and need jobs. The opioid epidemic rages unabated. “All he’s done,” Ojeda said, “is shown that he’s taking care of the daggone people he’s supposed to be getting rid of.”

    One to watch, when the same penny drops with other Blue Collar Trump voters, change is gona come. I am not sure who his UK equivalent is.
    David Miliband
    With tattoos, and a military background.

    And a personality.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Mr. P, that is interesting. And colossally dickish. But perhaps intriguing from a betting perspective.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 857

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of American politics, here is the video from the presumptive Democratic nominee for the West Virginia 3rd Congressional district.



    This is a district where Trump got 80% of the vote, but where Ojeda is leading in the polling.

    Interesting. I can see that playing well in Appalachia.
    Campaigning as Ojeda, blink and you’d miss “Democrat”
    Wonder where he got the idea from?

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3546062/theresa-mays-name-plastered-across-tory-election-battle-bus-while-labour-dont-use-jeremy-corbyns-name-once/
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,848
    malcolmg said:

    I hate to re-awaken the last thread's rather nasty-tempered topic, but we should remember that, whatever the faults of her policy, Merkel wanted to help the migrants (just as Cameron did): they only differed in the means.

    The real blame for the people dying in Syria should be placed at the door of one person: Assad.

    But the point is Cameron was helping refugees - Merkel’s “People Smugglers’ Charter” helped economic migrants.
    No. Her scheme undoubtedly helped some refugees; the issue is that lots of economic migrants took advantage of the chaos. Her intent was good;but her plan was undoubtedly flawed, and her implementation worse.

    However, Germany was in a very different situation to us given the geography, and the problem for them was much more immediate. Even if the had instituted something akin to Cameron's plan, they would still have had a major issue to deal with in the form of the people already arriving.
    If Merkel and the rest of the EU had devoted as much effort to the refugees as the US and UK did in the first place a substantial part of the crisis could have been avoided. History will judge her harshly.
    I agree. However Germany was facing a different and much more immediate issue than we did, or the US.

    Still, diverting the topic onto Merkel avoids the main point of my original post: the cause of all of this is Assad, and everyone's reaction to his evil.
    How do you know it is Assad who is evil and not the rebels fighting the elected government...
    The history of torture and mass murder might be a clue ?
    As far as 'the rebels' are concerned, there are many groups, and it is a complicated mess. Given that the rebels included ISIS, it goes without saying that there's a fair share of evil on the rebel side.

    One could with some justification argue that our failure to intervene exacerbated the chaos. The early imposition of a no fly zone in the north (which was considered) might just have saved Aleppo, andy prevented a million or so refugees. In any event, i's hard to see how we could have made anything much worse in this particular case.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 1,042
    I think Corbyn has mistepped on the customs union issue. Now as it was mentioned below there is something for the Tories to unpick. The tactic seems to have been to force a commons defeat on a customs union membership - I am not sure that is going to work out in the aftermath of Mays speech. You will always get a die hard or two like Soubry who fundamentally disagrees with her governments strategy, but we have to remember that some of these votes could be painted as confidence issues - I.e we could have a Labour government if the votes go the other way. It is likely that May has done enough on regulatory alignment to keep most of the unhappy remainers in her party on side and holding their nose through the lobby.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Incidentally, I just posted this review about Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy: http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/review-discourses-on-livy-by-niccolo.html

    I imagine most here have read The Prince (if not, you really should give it a look). Discourses is pretty similar, the major shift being the preference for a republic over a principality. Worth a read, although not as slim as the other book.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,848
    Back on topic, an amusing story of how Chakrabarti was appointed a peer (apologies if it's already been posted):
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/28/front-bench-exclusive-day-tom-watson-almost-convinced-jeremy/
    Corbyn’s office failed to submit the list to Downing Street (who needed to submit it to the appointments commission) in time. This prompted the then PM David Cameron to phone up Corbyn and demand to hear his nominations. As Harris has it: “The only name Corbyn could remember off the top of his head was that of Chakrabarti...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,848

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Someone used them but who knows if him , the other players or all of them. We should keep our big noses out of other peoples business, it is why the UK is hated so much.

    It's a shame that someone who wants self-determination and independence for his own country is so keen to see others live under a tyrant. For instance, I'd have thought you would have supported Kurdish calls for an independent state?
    Absolutely , I don't think anyone should live under tyrants , but these people vote for the tyrant's and if they don't they are replaced by another one. Why do UK like some tyrants but not others. Whey are UK , NATO , etc turning a blind eye when Turkey knocks the crap out of the Kurds but will happily bomb others who do similar. UK nearly always picks the wrong side, they prop up and support the tyrants and then fund other tyrants to topple them and continue the cycle. Our government has blood on its hands regarding tyrants in that whole region.
    "Why do UK like some tyrants but not others"

    Yes, and you'll have seen posts in the past lamenting (say) the way we did not castigate Sadaam when he used chemical weapons on his own people - a hideous decision that has helped lead to where we are today...
    That's not entirely accurate. The Kurdish atrocity led to the imposition of a no fly zone in the Kurdish north, which for a time was a limited success, and might have continued to be so had Bush not decided to invade Iraq.
    It was that decision which directly led to much of the subsequent chaos in the region.

    Who knows what the counterfactual might have been ? It's hard to remember now, but there was substantial goodwill towards the US after the 9/11 bombing.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,804
    Morning all,

    Someone mentioned Trump's trade tweet and '1930s redux' the other day. This caught my eye:

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,645

    I think Corbyn has mistepped on the customs union issue. Now as it was mentioned below there is something for the Tories to unpick. The tactic seems to have been to force a commons defeat on a customs union membership - I am not sure that is going to work out in the aftermath of Mays speech. You will always get a die hard or two like Soubry who fundamentally disagrees with her governments strategy, but we have to remember that some of these votes could be painted as confidence issues - I.e we could have a Labour government if the votes go the other way. It is likely that May has done enough on regulatory alignment to keep most of the unhappy remainers in her party on side and holding their nose through the lobby.

    It sounds as if May is planning alignment so close to CU and SM that any distinction from Corbyns policy is rizla thin. Whether the headbangers would stand for such BrINO, we shall see.

    Enough Brexit for me today. Other areas of politics are mattering more, and I have a very cold Football match to get to. Today is a longjohns day.

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,521
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of American politics, here is the video from the presumptive Democratic nominee for the West Virginia 3rd Congressional district.



    This is a district where Trump got 80% of the vote, but where Ojeda is leading in the polling.

    Interesting. I can see that playing well in Appalachia.
    Campaigning as Ojeda, blink and you’d miss “Democrat”
    He is overtly a blue collar trade unionist from Middle America, against the company bosses and their lobbyists. He doesn't stress social issues and clearly bleeds patriotism. He is in many ways a throwback to the Democratic parties roots. I suspect his appeal in other States would be less, but West Virginia has been screwed for years. I like his views on Trump (who he voted for!) in the politico article.

    "He regrets his vote for Trump.

    “Sure do,” he said.

    Because?

    “Because he hasn’t done shit,” he said. “It’s been a friggin’ circus for a solid year.” Nothing’s changed. So many people in southern West Virginia are still poor and need jobs. The opioid epidemic rages unabated. “All he’s done,” Ojeda said, “is shown that he’s taking care of the daggone people he’s supposed to be getting rid of.”

    One to watch, when the same penny drops with other Blue Collar Trump voters, change is gona come. I am not sure who his UK equivalent is.
    David Miliband
    With tattoos, and a military background.

    And a personality.
    Miliband does have a personality, its just not one useful in politics.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,645
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of American politics, here is the video from the presumptive Democratic nominee for the West Virginia 3rd Congressional district.



    This is a district where Trump got 80% of the vote, but where Ojeda is leading in the polling.

    Interesting. I can see that playing well in Appalachia.
    Campaigning as Ojeda, blink and you’d miss “Democrat”
    He is overtly a blue collar trade unionist from Middle America, against the company bosses and their lobbyists. He doesn't stress social issues and clearly bleeds patriotism. He is in many ways a throwback to the Democratic parties roots. I suspect his appeal in other States would be less, but West Virginia has been screwed for years. I like his views on Trump (who he voted for!) in the politico article.

    "He regrets his vote for Trump.

    “Sure do,” he said.

    Because?

    “Because he hasn’t done shit,” he said. “It’s been a friggin’ circus for a solid year.” Nothing’s changed. So many people in southern West Virginia are still poor and need jobs. The opioid epidemic rages unabated. “All he’s done,” Ojeda said, “is shown that he’s taking care of the daggone people he’s supposed to be getting rid of.”

    One to watch, when the same penny drops with other Blue Collar Trump voters, change is gona come. I am not sure who his UK equivalent is.
    David Miliband
    With tattoos, and a military background.

    And a personality.
    Also a grandfather who was an undocumented Mexican migrant...
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,547
    Some Brexiters are getting a bit worried.

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,466
    rcs1000 said:

    An interesting piece on the presumptive Democrat Senate nominee in Texas

    How Beto O’Rourke Explains America

    https://www.theringer.com/2018/2/28/16898726/beto-orourke-ted-cruz-texas-senate-race-2018-midterm-elections

    He sounds a very long shot, bu I do really like this wuote:

    "“I may not be the right candidate for you, to be honest,” O’Rourke said. “You may prefer someone else, and that’s the way our democracy should work.”

    I'm a sucker for civilised politics and anyone who talks like that is halfway to winning me over.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,848
    daodao said:

    I hate to re-awaken the last thread's rather nasty-tempered topic, but we should remember that, whatever the faults of her policy, Merkel wanted to help the migrants (just as Cameron did): they only differed in the means.

    The real blame for the people dying in Syria should be placed at the door of one person: Assad.

    No - it is the criminal Saudi regime and its gulf acolytes, backed by Western powers, who have tried for 7 years to topple Assad, and promote fundamentalist Sunni Islam. There had been no mass violence in Syria for 25 years before 2011. The situation has improved significantly in the last 2 years, thanks to the Russian intervention, but there are still some vipers' nests that need to be wiped out, e.g. in Eastern Ghouta. War is brutal, and the Syrian government has undoubtedly caused mass civilian casualties in rebel-held areas, but it didn't start the insurrection...
    The torture and murder of pro democracy demonstrators had nothing to do with it ?

    The Syrian regime represents maybe a quarter if the Syrian population, and the war is not about national survival. Assad has destroyed much of his country to perpetuate his rule.




  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,645

    Foxy said:

    The problem of supporting tyrants, because they are keeping the lid on the real headcases such as ISIS, is that when they do fall, it leads to a failed state.

    We have seen this time and time again in our foreign interventions in developing countries over the last half century. It is the old colonial mentality of some peoples being treated as unsuitable to democracy and self government.

    I take the Kurds as a classic example. I have intense sympathy with them; a sympathy that is somewhat moderated by the war that some of them have been raging against Turkey and civilians (a war that makes the IRA's atrocities seem like a skirmish).

    Yet there is no way the problem is going away. A solution needs to be found. A political solution was very nearly found with the Solution Process before that broke down - perhaps another casualty of the Syrian civil war. It was a great missed opportunity.

    However self-determination also has massive downsides. It would lead to more mass migrations, in a country that had similar movements a century ago with the Greek population exchanges. But worse is the fact that the Kurds from the different countries: Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Iran - have some rather significant differences. They may be Kurds, but their cultural and political differences are large. A unified Kurdish state might rapidly fall into civil war itself.

    The problems are intractable, and it needs reasonable people on all sides : or at least people who can be made to see things reasonably. This is what we eventually got in Northern Ireland, and it led to the peace we have there now. Erdogan is not of that mould, and neither are the current Kurdish leadership.

    So what do we, in the west, do? The Kurdish situation is an aberration that threatens regional peace and cannot be sustained in the long term. Ignoring the suffering of the Kurds and others in the region is not a moral thing for the west to be doing, but neither is being seen to support their terrorists.

    About all we can do is try to relieve suffering, and prod both sides (in fact, all sides) towards a renewed Solution Process or similar. But we cannot do that without leverage and influence.

    The chances are whatever we do will be seen with hindsight as being wrong.
    I substantially agree, but I think our long history of ill-fated military and colonial adventures in the Middle East makes us particularly unsuited to the role of world policeman there. We cannot escape our history and legacy there, which taints everything we do in the region.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,158

    Morning all,

    Someone mentioned Trump's trade tweet and '1930s redux' the other day. This caught my eye:

    Much as I agree with the sentiment that protectionism is not welcome, doesn't that graph actually show the effects of the Wall Street Crash? Wasn't the drop in world trade a result rather than a cause of the Great Depression?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Mr. B, and yet, this is far from the worst plausible outcome.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,158

    I hate to re-awaken the last thread's rather nasty-tempered topic, but we should remember that, whatever the faults of her policy, Merkel wanted to help the migrants (just as Cameron did): they only differed in the means.

    The real blame for the people dying in Syria should be placed at the door of one person: Assad.

    But the point is Cameron was helping refugees - Merkel’s “People Smugglers’ Charter” helped economic migrants.
    No. Her scheme undoubtedly helped some refugees; the issue is that lots of economic migrants took advantage of the chaos. Her intent was good;but her plan was undoubtedly flawed, and her implementation worse.

    However, Germany was in a very different situation to us given the geography, and the problem for them was much more immediate. Even if the had instituted something akin to Cameron's plan, they would still have had a major issue to deal with in the form of the people already arriving.
    If Merkel and the rest of the EU had devoted as much effort to the refugees as the US and UK did in the first place a substantial part of the crisis could have been avoided. History will judge her harshly.
    +1
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,466
    rcs1000 said:
    A Democratic Trump! Well, maybe tha's what voters want - the opposite of my sor of candidate, but looks more likely to win than the Texas guy.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149

    Morning all,

    Someone mentioned Trump's trade tweet and '1930s redux' the other day. This caught my eye:

    Much as I agree with the sentiment that protectionism is not welcome, doesn't that graph actually show the effects of the Wall Street Crash? Wasn't the drop in world trade a result rather than a cause of the Great Depression?
    Yes, lots of various causes and effects around during the early ‘30s, the economic protectionism (which some would argue was politically necessary) poured fuel on the fire of international trade.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,804

    Morning all,

    Someone mentioned Trump's trade tweet and '1930s redux' the other day. This caught my eye:

    Much as I agree with the sentiment that protectionism is not welcome, doesn't that graph actually show the effects of the Wall Street Crash? Wasn't the drop in world trade a result rather than a cause of the Great Depression?
    I'll defer to any experts, but I believe the Smoot-Hawley protectionism act had a significant affect on keeping the depression going.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 1,992
    Mr Corbyn has saved Labour from the Pasokification of European social democracy which has affected the rest of the continent,not by reneging on the underlying redistributive basis of European social democracy,but by stressing the British characteristics needed to go with it.
    Traditional European social democracy with British characteristics has not only saved the Labour party but has energised it too.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    Nigelb said:

    That's not entirely accurate. The Kurdish atrocity led to the imposition of a no fly zone in the Kurdish north, which for a time was a limited success, and might have continued to be so had Bush not decided to invade Iraq.
    It was that decision which directly led to much of the subsequent chaos in the region.

    Who knows what the counterfactual might have been ? It's hard to remember now, but there was substantial goodwill towards the US after the 9/11 bombing.

    Sadaam used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war. The horror of Halabja was a later action in a long series of attacks, which the west knew about and, to our shame, essentially ignored.

    It led to where we are today, as there was no trust between Saddam's regime and the west - TimT's book details well the obstructions by the regime. He had had chemical weapons, had used them many times in the past, and was obstructing the inspectors.

    If the west and the UN had slapped Hussein down in 1986 for using chemical weapons, then much of the mess that has happened since could have been prevented. In 1986 the Security Council condemned Iraq for the chemical attacks, but the attacks continued, and we continued backing Saddam as he was 'better' than the Iranians. At that early stage, making it clear we would not support him if he continued their use would probably have been enough.

    It was an absolute disaster, and let the genie out of the chemical and biological weapons bottle. Our craven attitude towards Assad's use of them has done the same thing, and it's made the world much less secure for all of us.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,466



    The chances are whatever we do will be seen with hindsight as being wrong.

    That's a very good post about the Kurds (snipped for length), and that last point is especially right. I now regret the Iraq intervention, but I think it's perfectly possible that non-intervention would have led to things that would have made us think it, too, was a disaster. he Syrian decision wen the other way, and although I think that was correct, IMO none of us can honestly say that we're sure it was right or wrong.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    Foxy said:

    I substantially agree, but I think our long history of ill-fated military and colonial adventures in the Middle East makes us particularly unsuited to the role of world policeman there. We cannot escape our history and legacy there, which taints everything we do in the region.

    There may come times when acting as a policeman is required: the Kuwait invasion being a classic example. The use by a regime of chemical weapons or WMD should be another IMO, preferably with UN backing.

    But in situations like the Kurdish one, we have painful experience to share, and that might be useful. No-one is going to win if the conflict continues: it'll just see more deaths and pain.

    Yet we've managed to turn Northern Ireland around. There are useful lessons there that the Turks and Kurds could learn from - and they probably were during the Solution Process. We cannot make them start talking about peace, but we can encourage them. That's where we can play a role.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,280
    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of American politics, here is the video from the presumptive Democratic nominee for the West Virginia 3rd Congressional district.



    This is a district where Trump got 80% of the vote, but where Ojeda is leading in the polling.

    Slightly off topic

    There was a great book, can’t remember its name, wherein a journalist lived as a Walmart worker and showed how the poor managed, or rather didn't manage, and just slipped into further poverty, and couldn't just "live within their means".

    A bit like Adam Holloway's homeless programme over here some years ago.

    Very good.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149



    The chances are whatever we do will be seen with hindsight as being wrong.

    That's a very good post about the Kurds (snipped for length), and that last point is especially right. I now regret the Iraq intervention, but I think it's perfectly possible that non-intervention would have led to things that would have made us think it, too, was a disaster. he Syrian decision wen the other way, and although I think that was correct, IMO none of us can honestly say that we're sure it was right or wrong.
    That’s fair. These decisions are by their nature incredibly difficult, personally I’d like to see the UN come down much harder on clear breaches on international law with regard to genocide and chemical weapons.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,663
    rcs1000 said:


    With tattoos, and a military background.

    People get excited about ex-mil candidates (PB tories in particular get rock hard about any tory MP with a very average military career) but do any of them ever succeed at the highest level?

    The last major politician with a significant military record was Bush Snr. Are there any others?

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,645
    edited March 3

    rcs1000 said:
    A Democratic Trump! Well, maybe tha's what voters want - the opposite of my sor of candidate, but looks more likely to win than the Texas guy.
    One of the aspects of US politics is how Blue Collar Middle America has gone so strongly over to the Republicans, with so many voting against their economic interests. Thomas Frank has written several books on this theme, commencing with "What's the Matter with Kansas?

    Essentially, the problem is that from the nineties onwards Democrats stopped concentrating on economic issues, in order to curry favour with big business, in part because they needed corporate money for campaigns. That just left them talking about social issues alien to small town America.

    The parallels with New Labour are obvious, and it also explains why Corbynism appeals to places that voted Leave. Finally someone was taking the run down post industrial towns seriously. Interestingly the regional breakdown of the Yougov yesterday showed it was in the South outside London that Labours Brexit strategy was not appealing. It was doing relatively well in Wales, Midlands and North. I suspect Corbyn is right by instinct on these matters, rather than by cynical calculation.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,367
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    An interesting piece on the presumptive Democrat Senate nominee in Texas

    How Beto O’Rourke Explains America

    https://www.theringer.com/2018/2/28/16898726/beto-orourke-ted-cruz-texas-senate-race-2018-midterm-elections

    Fascinating - thanks - but isn’t “Facebook for old people”?
    The stat I found most interesting was about Ted Cruz. To have unfavourables ahead of favourables as a Republican in Texas is staggering.

    Now, will it be enough to put Beto over the line? Probably not. But I do wonder if there are some ridiculous 50-1 odds out there that might be worth a punt.
    Not forgetting that Texas just might be the seat that gave the Dems the Senate. Can't see them taking Texas and not having a majority. Mind you, can't see them taking Texas either.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    How do you know it is Assad who is evil and not the rebels fighting the elected government.

    Assad isn't elected. He succeeded his father as dictator, a la the Kim family.
    We did not elect our leader either, some halfwitted Tory MP's picked her from the bottom of the barrel, so your point is............
    That's elected. We elected a Tory-dominated Parliament.
    no they bought the majority, it is a minority dictatorship , boght by bribes to DUP. Banana republic style.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,436

    Morning all,

    Someone mentioned Trump's trade tweet and '1930s redux' the other day. This caught my eye:

    Much as I agree with the sentiment that protectionism is not welcome, doesn't that graph actually show the effects of the Wall Street Crash? Wasn't the drop in world trade a result rather than a cause of the Great Depression?
    In year one probably yes.

    However its what happened every year since that was the result of protectionism. Protectionism aggravated and prolonged the effects of the Wall Street Crash.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,637

    I hate to re-awaken the last thread's rather nasty-tempered topic, but we should remember that, whatever the faults of her policy, Merkel wanted to help the migrants (just as Cameron did): they only differed in the means.

    The real blame for the people dying in Syria should be placed at the door of one person: Assad.

    But the point is Cameron was helping refugees - Merkel’s “People Smugglers’ Charter” helped economic migrants.
    No. Her scheme undoubtedly helped some refugees; the issue is that lots of economic migrants took advantage of the chaos. Her intent was good;but her plan was undoubtedly flawed, and her implementation worse.

    However, Germany was in a very different situation to us given the geography, and the problem for them was much more immediate. Even if the had instituted something akin to Cameron's plan, they would still have had a major issue to deal with in the form of the people already arriving.
    You and I get to have good intentions and (sometimes) act on them

    The leader of a country doesn’t: they need to focus on outcomes. That’s why we hire them.

    I forget the exact quote but it is something like “the prime minister is the [man] appointed to do the things we don’t want to do, but know that we must”
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    How do you know it is Assad who is evil and not the rebels fighting the elected government.

    Assad isn't elected. He succeeded his father as dictator, a la the Kim family.
    We did not elect our leader either, some halfwitted Tory MP's picked her from the bottom of the barrel, so your point is............
    Equating May and Assad is quite a stretch, even for you malcy! Put. Down. The. Stein. Of. Czech. Beer. Really not good as a breakfast food......
    LOL
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,436
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    How do you know it is Assad who is evil and not the rebels fighting the elected government.

    Assad isn't elected. He succeeded his father as dictator, a la the Kim family.
    We did not elect our leader either, some halfwitted Tory MP's picked her from the bottom of the barrel, so your point is............
    That's elected. We elected a Tory-dominated Parliament.
    no they bought the majority, it is a minority dictatorship , boght by bribes to DUP. Banana republic style.
    How is that any different to Holyrood? You have a minority bought by payments going to Green causes.

    Its worth noting that not only do the Tories have a majority in England seats, they actually have a majority in Great Britain too including Scotland and Wales.

    What we have now is a government led by the party that got the majority in Great Britain backed by the party that got the majority in Northern Ireland.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,637
    Sandpit said:

    OP and Corbyn -- what is the Kremlinology of Corbyn's adopting more traditional LOTO tactics in parliament? Who is he taking advice from now, that he wasn't before?

    Interesting question! It does suggest less influence for Milne - but more for who?? Starmer?
    Someone has certainly got to him in the last couple of weeks at PMQs. It’s a noticable change, rather like when he got dragged to the tailor a year or so ago. Starmer, is a very likely candidate, especially given the focus on Brexit.

    That said, he chose the one issue that the polling suggests people want the politicians to be adults about, rather than go out of their way to score partisan points, so maybe it was Watson behind it - before his own little local difficulties last week.

    Corbyn’s reaction to the PM’s speech yesterday made it quite obvious that neither he nor any of his 15 staff actually watched it in detail. A point that wasn’t actually raised yesterday but has been noted in the past, is that it would be much better to see these set piece speeches by senior ministers made in Parliament.
    Not sure actually. The audience here is the 27 leaders of the EU countries and the Commission negotiators. A thoughtful and important foreign policy speech needs to be made on a considered way - the bear pit in the Commons is not conducive to that
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,367
    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of American politics, here is the video from the presumptive Democratic nominee for the West Virginia 3rd Congressional district.



    This is a district where Trump got 80% of the vote, but where Ojeda is leading in the polling.

    Fuck, I'd vote for him, in a heartbeat.

    And we pretend a tosser like Corbyn cares?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Mr. Charles, isn't that a definition of 'reasons of state'? Machiavelli wrote about similar.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    Either he’s upset a huge chunk of people or that poll is a massive outlier.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,466
    On topic, an ineresing header by David, as usual. The PS is thought-provoking. I think that the leadership have decided Labour has a real shot at winning and need to make the compromises and policy specifics to make that viable, while Lansman, who even more is the classic insurgent than Corbyn, has not got the memo.

    Whether putting down a concrete marker on Brecit was indeed the right thing to do tactically is interesting too (I agree with it in substance, but I'm looking at it tactically here). The polling isn't great, nor were the vox pops - Brexiteers are annoyed, and Remainers are meh. But I'm not sure that being indefinitely vague was an option for much longer, and given that the Brexit outcome is likely to be an uncomfortable fudge, it's necessary to have an answer to "But what would you do?" We're all clear that a customs union would mean "membership minus" rather than Canada plus, but if Canada plus isn't on offer (and I don't think it is) then the alternatives may be significantly worse.
This discussion has been closed.