|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: UK General Election June 8th 2017
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
Just got our leaflet from the Tories.
I don't think they knew what was in the manifesto as there's literally nothing. Just a brief description of each area in the constituency.
(I think he's taking lessons from the Nicolai Capathia school of presentation.)
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
My Tory leaflet is a postcard sized double-sided glossy. The front has 9 photos of the sitting MP posing in various situations locally (well known for only being seen for photo opportunities in the run up to elections), five along the top half, central strap line on blue, four photos underneath. One has her wearing a food bank tabard.
The other side mentions her 20 years in office and has 7 bullet points, see below. The smaller right hand column is topped with a photo of MP with Theresa May and contact information. Apparently the Tories are for:
- Strong and stable leadership in the national interest;
- A fairer society where success is based on merit, not privilege;
- Affordable homes while protecting our precious Green Belt;
- Opportunity in education and confidence in the NHS;
- Effective policing and immigration control;
- A strong economy where everyone plays by the same rules;
- A global outward-looking, united country that we are all proud to call home
It doesn't help that this is a solid Tory constituency, has been for a very long time. Any vote against is a protest vote.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
So what they basically stand for is rainbow statements then ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Apparently the Tories are for:
- Strong and stable leadership in the national interest;
- A fairer society where success is based on merit, not privilege;
- Affordable homes while protecting our precious Green Belt;
- Opportunity in education and confidence in the NHS;
- Effective policing and immigration control;
- A strong economy where everyone plays by the same rules;
- A global outward-looking, united country that we are all proud to call home
Did any politician or party ever describe themselves as weak and unstable?
Did any ever campaign for a less fair society where success is based on nepotism?
If someone put this sort of stuff on a job application I would consider it generic guff, and write "NOT EVIDENCED" through it in red.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I wondered quite how those bullet points could be justified
- There are legitimate questions current policies, not sure this government can necessarily point to all their actions being in the national interest
- The fairer society bit rings hollow when the gap between the richest and poorest is getting wider and this Government rejects suggestions to address this. No mention of the changes to pensioners.
- The Green Belt is under threat because of Tory policies and this area has had a huge amount of building imposed by the Tory run county council.
- Education and the NHS are both suffering under the current regime.
- Including policing and immigration in one bullet point is *interesting*. The local police station and magistrates court have been closed. There is a nearly completed block of flats on the site of the magistrates court.
- I blinked at the assertion that the Tories wanted everyone to play by the same rules
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I'm sure the tories do want everyone to play by the same rules - the rules may be more favourable to the rich but they're still the same rules for everyone e.g. if you're too poor to look after yourself you'll need to go into the workhouse as God intended. Same rule for everyone.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm sure the tories do want everyone to play by the same rules - the rules may be more favourable to the rich but they're still the same rules for everyone e.g. if you're too poor to look after yourself you'll need to go into the workhouse as God intended. Same rule for everyone.
Or as Anatole France put it, the majesty of the law, which impartially forbids both rich and poor to sleep under bridges.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
The point about 'strong and stable' is that it is a contrast with Labour who clearly aren't 'strong and stable'. So far Emily Thornberry is the only member of the shadow cabinet who strikes me as being even remotely competent to be in a real cabinet. Diane Abbott is obviously the weak, weak link but the others only look better in comparison with her.
Having said that the main reasons that I won't be voting Labour are:
1. I don't want a big bossy state.
2. Even less do I want a big, bossy state with this shadow cabinet at the helm.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Makepiece quote:
So far Emily Thornberry is the only member of the shadow cabinet who strikes me as being even remotely competent to be in a real cabinet.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
This would be the same Emily Thornberry I've heard on newscasts this morning tying herself in knots over Trident - officially Labour policy to keep, and renew, but ET now saying there is to be a review, notwithstanding the LP has already had a review which decided to keep Trident and which has informed the relevant bit of the Manifesto. On being told that Nia Griffith said she was wrong, ET held to the same line about a review.
Obviously Ms Thornberry is more than competent to be Foreign Secretary with such a fine grasp of the nuances of policy, etc.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
I did use the word 'remotely'
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
The point about 'strong and stable' is that it is a contrast with Labour who clearly aren't 'strong and stable'. So far Emily Thornberry is the only member of the shadow cabinet who strikes me as being even remotely competent to be in a real cabinet. Diane Abbott is obviously the weak, weak link but the others only look better in comparison with her.
Having said that the main reasons that I won't be voting Labour are:
1. I don't want a big bossy state.
2. Even less do I want a big, bossy state with this shadow cabinet at the helm.
You don't want a big bossy state but are (presumably) supporting a woman who wants the state to be able to separate couples who are insufficiently wealthy, wants the state to decide what is an appropriate number of children, wants the state to intervene to create a new market for the finance industry to fund social care, wants the state to force people to carry identity cards in order to exercise their democratic rights etc etc.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Obviously Ms Thornberry is more than competent to be Foreign Secretary with such a fine grasp of the nuances of policy, etc.
Someone seems to have forgotten that Boris Johnson is our current Foreign Secretary.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Boris may be many things but one thing he isn't is nasty: Ms Thornberry's tweet commenting on a house with English flags and a white van (remember that) show just how unpleasant Lady Nugee can be.
Other than that, she fits into the Shadow Cabinet a treat, following the lead of Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott in not using the nearest 'sink comp' for her children but sending them 14 miles north to something rather better. And her protests about the lack of affordable housing ring rather hollow, bearing in mind she owns three properties herself (she lives in Barnsbury, one of north London's least affordable districts).
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
The point about 'strong and stable' is that it is a contrast with Labour who clearly aren't 'strong and stable'. So far Emily Thornberry is the only member of the shadow cabinet who strikes me as being even remotely competent to be in a real cabinet. Diane Abbott is obviously the weak, weak link but the others only look better in comparison with her.
Having said that the main reasons that I won't be voting Labour are:
1. I don't want a big bossy state.
2. Even less do I want a big, bossy state with this shadow cabinet at the helm.
You don't want a big bossy state but are (presumably) supporting a woman who wants the state to be able to separate couples who are insufficiently wealthy, wants the state to decide what is an appropriate number of children, wants the state to intervene to create a new market for the finance industry to fund social care, wants the state to force people to carry identity cards in order to exercise their democratic rights etc etc.
In response to your points:
1. "the state to be able to separate couples who are insufficiently wealthy"
That would obviously be a draconian policy and I would never support a prospective government who was proposing to forcibly separate couples based on income. However I am not aware that either the Conservatives or any other political party is proposing this and admit to being somewhat baffled. Could you please elaborate?
2. "wants the state to decide what is an appropriate number of children"
As above setting a policy on the minimum number of children would be akin to communist China and is not a policy that I would remotely support however as above I am not aware that either the Conservatives or any other political party is proposing this and admit to being somewhat baffled. Could you please elaborate?
3. "wants the state to intervene to create a new market for the finance industry to fund social care"
Again baffled. Of what are you speaking?
4. "wants the state to force people to carry identity cards in order to exercise their democratic rights etc etc."
is this a Conservative policy? I'd be grateful for a reference if it is as I've been unable to find one.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by l'Organist:
quote:
Boris may be many things but one thing he isn't is nasty:
He agreed to give a Darius Guppy the address of another journalist, so that Guppy could send a couple of goons round to duff him up. On the scale of nastiness, I think this trumps an injudicious tweet.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
That would obviously be a draconian policy and I would never support a prospective government who was proposing to forcibly separate couples based on income. However I am not aware that either the Conservatives or any other political party is proposing this and admit to being somewhat baffled. Could you please elaborate?
Is this related to the income requirements for immigrant spouses?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
The point about 'strong and stable' is that it is a contrast with Labour who clearly aren't 'strong and stable'. So far Emily Thornberry is the only member of the shadow cabinet who strikes me as being even remotely competent to be in a real cabinet. Diane Abbott is obviously the weak, weak link but the others only look better in comparison with her.
Having said that the main reasons that I won't be voting Labour are:
1. I don't want a big bossy state.
2. Even less do I want a big, bossy state with this shadow cabinet at the helm.
You don't want a big bossy state but are (presumably) supporting a woman who wants the state to be able to separate couples who are insufficiently wealthy, wants the state to decide what is an appropriate number of children, wants the state to intervene to create a new market for the finance industry to fund social care, wants the state to force people to carry identity cards in order to exercise their democratic rights etc etc.
In response to your points:
1. "the state to be able to separate couples who are insufficiently wealthy"
That would obviously be a draconian policy and I would never support a prospective government who was proposing to forcibly separate couples based on income. However I am not aware that either the Conservatives or any other political party is proposing this and admit to being somewhat baffled. Could you please elaborate?
2. "wants the state to decide what is an appropriate number of children"
As above setting a policy on the minimum number of children would be akin to communist China and is not a policy that I would remotely support however as above I am not aware that either the Conservatives or any other political party is proposing this and admit to being somewhat baffled. Could you please elaborate?
3. "wants the state to intervene to create a new market for the finance industry to fund social care"
Again baffled. Of what are you speaking?
4. "wants the state to force people to carry identity cards in order to exercise their democratic rights etc etc."
is this a Conservative policy? I'd be grateful for a reference if it is as I've been unable to find one.
1. The increase in income needed to bring a non-British spouse to the UK.
2. The ending of child benefit for a third and subsequent child.
3. The changes to social care are likely to create a new insurance industry so that if you get dementia - as opposed to, say, cancer you don't lose your house.
4. ID requirements for voters
This is all in the Conservative manifesto. Number 2 strikes me as being particularly perverse. If the government wishes to discourage immigration then I would have thought that encouraging the natives to have more sprogs was desirable.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
That would obviously be a draconian policy and I would never support a prospective government who was proposing to forcibly separate couples based on income. However I am not aware that either the Conservatives or any other political party is proposing this and admit to being somewhat baffled. Could you please elaborate?
Is this related to the income requirements for immigrant spouses?
Yep. A friend of mine can't live in the UK with his American wife because his income isn't high enough (the fact that she is in work and can work from anywhere in the world doesn't seem to matter).
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
Callan
In response to your points:
1. "The increase in income needed to bring a non-British spouse to the UK."
I agree that restrictions on freedom of movement are an undue encroachment by the state. I disagree with the immigration tatget etc. I would not vote for this if the Labour Party was committed to a smaller state but it isn't its committed to a humongous state and on balance the state will be smaller under the Conservatives.
2. "The ending of child benefit for a third and subsequent child."
This clearly does not increase the size of the state it decreases it.
3. "The changes to social care are likely to create a new insurance industry so that if you get dementia - as opposed to, say, cancer you don't lose your house."
Again this clearly does not increase the size of the state it decreases it.
4. "ID requirements for voters"
I agree that this would be an undue encroachment by the state. I would not vote for this if the Labour Party was committed to a smaller state but it isn't its committed to a humongous state and on balance the state will be smaller under the Conservatives.
Nothing thats been said so far changes my view that the size and power of the state would grow under a Labour government. I agree that the stuff about immigration and ID is too 'statist' but I can't begin to imagine the sorts of capricious and arbitrary encroachments we would see under the present shadow cabinet if they were in government.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
If you can't begin to imagine then that rather suggests they don't exist.
Theresa May, let's recall, voted to retain Section 28. She's also the one who wants to control access to the internet. Big Sister is watching you.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Yup, the state will be smaller, the poor will be poorer, the sick will be sicker, the children will be hungrier, but that will be alright because the state will leave the people that aren't affected to manage their money themselves and feel they are alright, Jack.
Of course, that management could include giving to alleviate the hardships of those Jesus said we should care for, but when that was not done by the state, not everyone was helped. Individuals were historically very picky about who got helped. And the people who wanted to opt out of giving could do so.
As you want.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Yup, the state will be smaller, the poor will be poorer, the sick will be sicker, the children will be hungrier, but that will be alright because the state will leave the people that aren't affected to manage their money themselves and feel they are alright, Jack.
Of course, that management could include giving to alleviate the hardships of those Jesus said we should care for, but when that was not done by the state, not everyone was helped. Individuals were historically very picky about who got helped. And the people who wanted to opt out of giving could do so.
As you want.
The three main reasons why I disagree with this:
1. I don't believe that the poor do get poorer when the state is smaller- I believe that the poor get richer. Look at the poverty of pretty much any communist country. The reality is that high living standards are created by society not the state. I do not believe that a bigger state will reduce poverty as I think it would lead to higher unemployment, higher inflation and slower wage growth.
2. Alot of the 'giving' that the state does is not in accordance with my values. For example I don't see why anyone should be 'given' a free abortion on the NHS. I don't see why my five year old should be 'given' sex education in the virtually compulsory eduction run by the state. Moreover alot of state giving encourages dependence instead of independence. At least if society has more scope to do the giving I can choose the values of welfare being provided. This point is weaker of course where there is a moral consensus in society.
3. Notwithstanding my dubts about the merits of high welfare I'm not suggesting that the welfare state ought to be abolished I'm simply suggesting that the state is already very large and doesn't need to get any bigger. I appreciate that it was even larger in the past but I think we've achieved a balance now where the welfare provided doesn't have the adverse economic impact that it had in the past.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If you can't begin to imagine then that rather suggests they don't exist.
No it doesn't because I've observed what other countries have experienced with a big state. Take Norway's problems with its draconian child social services. The state forcibly removed five children from Romanian immigrants because they had smacked their children (the Bodnariu case). As Romanians they did not know how strict the Norwegians were on smacking (it is illegal). I know what you are thinking- the parents were probably actually abusive, but no if you look at the case properly there is no evidence of abuse. The reality is that if the state became too big here we would have looney left wingers telling us that how to parent, advocating hormone suppressants to children confused about their gender (probably suggesting that the state pay for it) and strengthening the already draconian hate speech laws.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
3. "The changes to social care are likely to create a new insurance industry so that if you get dementia - as opposed to, say, cancer you don't lose your house."
Again this clearly does not increase the size of the state it decreases it.
4. "ID requirements for voters"
I agree that this would be an undue encroachment by the state. I would not vote for this if the Labour Party was committed to a smaller state but it isn't its committed to a humongous state and on balance the state will be smaller under the Conservatives.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
3. "The changes to social care are likely to create a new insurance industry so that if you get dementia - as opposed to, say, cancer you don't lose your house."
Again this clearly does not increase the size of the state it decreases it.
4. "ID requirements for voters"
I agree that this would be an undue encroachment by the state. I would not vote for this if the Labour Party was committed to a smaller state but it isn't its committed to a humongous state and on balance the state will be smaller under the Conservatives.
If a state spends £5 billion on the secret police and nothing on a health service then it is smaller than a state that spends £10 billion on a health service and £10 million on internal security. if however you want to retain freedom from the state then the larger state of those two is preferable.
Just looking at the amount the state spends is a ridiculously crude measure. A state that refuses to pay child benefit to third or later children is claiming a much greater right to judge its citizens' lives than a state that doesn't discriminate even if the latter state spends more.
Requiring ID cards to vote is a much greater exertion of state power than anything in the Labour manifesto.
[ 20. May 2017, 23:03: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
The reality is that if the state became too big here we would have looney left wingers telling us that how to parent, advocating hormone suppressants to children confused about their gender (probably suggesting that the state pay for it) and strengthening the already draconian hate speech laws.
Meanwhile, in the real world, there were over a million visits to Trussell Trust foodbanks in the last 12 months.
But poverty is something that communist states have, right? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
I don't believe that the poor do get poorer when the state is smaller- I believe that the poor get richer. Look at the poverty of pretty much any communist country. The reality is that high living standards are created by society not the state. I do not believe that a bigger state will reduce poverty as I think it would lead to higher unemployment, higher inflation and slower wage growth.
If you're trying to decide whether to grow or shrink the state within a liberal social democracy non-liberal authoritarian societies are a false reference. You can't compare apples outside a basic liberal democratic framework with oranges within such a framework.
If you compare social democratic states those with more state intervention in the economy are generally richer per capita than those that don't. Norway is richer per capita than the US. The poor in Norway are certainly better off than those in the US.
The UK enjoyed higher living standards post war after Labour expanded the size of the state than it did beforehand.
The current Conservative government have been trying to shrink the size of the state for the past seven years. The rise in living standards has slowed down or almost stopped in that time.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
1. I don't believe that the poor do get poorer when the state is smaller- I believe that the poor get richer.
Empirically the period since 2010 will prove you wrong, government spending has shrunk and the poor have got poorer (precisely because the programs that they normally benefit from have been cut).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
A strange week-end in the campaign really, with Labour moving up a few points in the polls, and some Tory disquiet over the dementia tax issue.
I am guessing that Corbyn is doing better than people thought he would, and the Tory campaign is as flat as a pancake. Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.
Of course, the Tories are going to win, but I suppose Corbyn is hoping for 35%, about 5% more than Brown and Miliband. You have to laaf.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.
Which is very much the gist of a post appearing on Theresa May's official page on facebook, excerpts:
"If I lose just six seats I will lose this election, and Jeremy Corbyn will be sitting down to negotiate with the presidents, prime ministers and chancellors of Europe."
"The prospect of him walking through the door of Number 10, flanked by John McDonnell and Diane Abbott and propped up by the Liberal Democrat and nationalist parties, should scare us all."
Of course, if she genuinely believed this, then calling an election at this point would be both criminally stupid and a hideous waste of time.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.
If the Breton Cap fits...
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.
If the Breton Cap fits...
He might be a friend of some in the PIRA but he never actually killed anyone, unlike this government which has killed thousands through reassessment of the ability of disabled people to work.
[ 21. May 2017, 12:19: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.
If the Breton Cap fits...
If she believed this, why would she call for an election at a time when there was a small chance such a person would get into power?
Answer, she doesn't and it's all a cynical ploy.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Ah, I do like your post. And I have just listened to Ken Clark on radio 4, - another person I very much like to listen to. He said, and I agree, that amounts of money above £100,000 being used for the care of a person needing long-term dementia care is right. There was a caller (on Five Live) last night with property worth a million and he thought that if he needed long-term care the Gov should pay, even when he was reminded that that would need tax-payers to pay more and have less of a chance of buying their own homes.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Boris may be many things but one thing he isn't is nasty: Ms Thornberry's tweet commenting on a house with English flags and a white van (remember that) show just how unpleasant Lady Nugee can be.
Other than that, she fits into the Shadow Cabinet a treat, following the lead of Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott in not using the nearest 'sink comp' for her children but sending them 14 miles north to something rather better. And her protests about the lack of affordable housing ring rather hollow, bearing in mind she owns three properties herself (she lives in Barnsbury, one of north London's least affordable districts).
I feel slightly more cheerful now! I shall be listening to the Now Show this evening too.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
So if you are 70, bought your house decades ago and now live on state pension + small occupational pension - and your house is now worth 350,000 - once you've burned through your 10,000 savings in 1yr, are you not going to end up living on the guaranteed minimum income for the rest of your life ? Because you'll take 25 years to reach the guaranteed 100,000 value in your house ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.
If the Breton Cap fits...
Meanwhile Fallon/Assad, Johnson/King Salman, May/President Xi.
Who are all implicated in either genocide or ethnic cleansing.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.
If the Breton Cap fits...
It doesn't, or at least not in the sense implied. By the logic used to accuse Corbyn of supporting the IRA, you could just as easily accuse Ian Paisley, or indeed Blair or Thatcher.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Corbyn is having a much better campaign than Mrs May, isn't he? Every time I see him, he looks energized, in contact with people, articulate, and enjoying himself. Mrs May looks like a zombie, utters routine phrases, and then she starts gurning, and I have to look away.
I don't think this means that Labour will win. I wonder if right wing Labourites are hoping that Labour sinks in the polls again?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I agree that Corbyn is just beginning to acquire that underdog status, an enigma. Meanwhile his contender is definitely lumbered with something of a caretaker PM look. He is also starting to intrigue some folk with the chant of things not having to be the way they are, or indeed continuing the way they are.
If the Electorate is still in that strange mood of seeking something radical then something equally strange may yet happen come Polling Day.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.
If the Breton Cap fits...
You may also consider that the Tories have a serving councillor in Croydon who used to be an active IRA member.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.
If the Breton Cap fits...
It doesn't, or at least not in the sense implied. By the logic used to accuse Corbyn of supporting the IRA, you could just as easily accuse Ian Paisley, or indeed Blair or Thatcher.
No, I disagree. Paisley, Blair and Thatcher may indeed have engaged with Sinn Fein/IRA and indeed sometimes compromised with them, but they did so out of necessity given the roles they held to achieve specific aims (peace in Northern Ireland, good governance in the province, etc.) There's no suggestion that Paisley, Blair or Thatcher were sympathetic to the aims of the IRA. The opposite is the case with Corbyn: he had no reason to deal with the IRA and yet did, giving sympathetic statements about their cause.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.
If the Breton Cap fits...
Meanwhile Fallon/Assad, Johnson/King Salman, May/President Xi.
Who all met those people in some kind of official capacity as part of the government's (or Parliament's) role in dealing with other countries. There's no suggestion that Michael Fallon is Ba'athist, Boris Johnson is a Wahabbist or Theresa May is a Maoist or that any of them are sympathetic to those sets of beliefs. That's not the case with Jeremy Corbyn and armed Irish republicanism.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Probably, they will get out their 'IRA supporter/friend of terrorists' posters.
If the Breton Cap fits...
You may also consider that the Tories have a serving councillor in Croydon who used to be an active IRA member.
Who has, as I understand it, renounced and now deeply regrets her links with the IRA. I'm not aware that Jeremy Corbyn has apologised for his pro-IRA statements/actions.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
There's no suggestion that Michael Fallon is Ba'athist, Boris Johnson is a Wahabbist or Theresa May is a Maoist or that any of them are sympathetic to those sets of beliefs.
Certainly not sympathetic enough with their regimes' victims to stop selling them weapons or taking their money. Or allowing them to buy UK infrastructure. Or calling them 'friends' and 'valued trading partners'.
Or are you okay with all of that? Because otherwise your objections to Comrade Corbyn's past associations are a touch hypocritical.
[ 21. May 2017, 20:57: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
There's no suggestion that Michael Fallon is Ba'athist, Boris Johnson is a Wahabbist or Theresa May is a Maoist or that any of them are sympathetic to those sets of beliefs.
Given that they have each offered those regimes material support, such distinctions are splitting hairs.
Then there is Liam Fox who doesn't understand the difference between state secrets and personal information.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
http://irishpost.co.uk/what-does-a-jeremy-corbyn-led-labour-opposition-mean-for-ireland/
I don't think support for the ideal of a united Ireland is equivalent to support for the IRA. Nor do I think Corbyn has ever supported terrorist bombing campaigns.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
There is a perfectly coherent argument that if we want to stop nasty people from being nasty, then we need to be prepared to dialogue with them and that might include standing on a platform with them.
There is also a perfectly coherent argument that standing on a platform with nasty people legitimises their nastiness and makes it easier for them to continue to be nasty, so we shouldn't do it.
What is not coherent, and shows muddled thinking at best, is to be chummy with Sinn Féin and then be finicky about sharing a platform with Mr Cameron in order to prevent Brexit.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What is not coherent, and shows muddled thinking at best, is to be chummy with Sinn Féin and then be finicky about sharing a platform with Mr Cameron in order to prevent Brexit.
Not really, it's a matter of tactics. In the former case Sinn Fein needed to be shown that there were peaceful ways to pursue their goals. Labour people needed a different message from tories about Brexit, and the lesson Labour rightly took from the referendum in Scotland is that singing from the same hymn sheet as the tories does no-one any good and the singer potentially mortal harm.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Though now you can say anything sensible, even mildly eccentric, and there's no chance of singing from the same hymn sheet as the Tories, since the Tories are singing a song that's so bat-shit crazy.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
