Thread: Cameron on Corbyn Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029902

---

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Just after Jeremy Corbyn was elected, David Cameron sent a message out:

"The Labour party is now a threat to out national security, our economic security, and your families security"

You total and utter, immoral pile of foetid shit.

1. Corbyn opposes nuclear weapons. Apparently that is a threat to our national security - more than your continual aggression towards the middle east.

Nuclear weapons are an irrelevance today. They are a way of you syphoning off more money to your cronies, and not to those who need it - the poor in our society. We are not going to nuke Syria, or Afghanistan, or Calais. Scrapping them is NOT a threat to our national security.

In truth, I believe Corbyn would improve our national security, because he is prepared to talk to people he opposes. A far better way.

2. The biggest threat to our economic security as a nation is you, Mr Cameron. Corbyn is a real threat to the economic security of the very rich, including yourself and a number of members of your cabinet. He is a threat to the bankers, the people - in case you have forgotten - who caused the economic crisis in the first place. He is a huge threat to the economic security of the 1%.

But for the country, for the 99%, he is no threat. I am SICK of the constant talk that a socialist approach to economics is a threat. It is different, it has a different set of success indicators, but it can work. Unless you happen to be in the 1%.

And if you happen to be a corrupt, manipulative, lying bastard, then yes, Corbyn is a threat. The sooner you and your cronies get the fucking you deserve, the better.

3. My families security is under severe threat from your policies. It is your austerity measures, your damaging of our economy that threatens my families security. Having to change job, not being able to retire or be declared disabled. It is your policies that mean my children struggle to find good jobs.

Cameron, you suck. You are desperately scared of someone with principles, morals, ideas, someone who is not scared of you, because Corbyn will show up your utter lack of these. Your only response is, once again, to try to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Rot in hell, you loathsome, vile prick. And when you have rotted there, rot some more.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Amen Schroedinger's cat - your words seem mild to me, there are no expletives strong enough to describe Cam-moron's attitudes and actions
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
It's going to be a long five years for you guys.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Doesn't he know? The English don't do melodramatic overreacting. Only when there is a joke in the end.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Just after Jeremy Corbyn was elected, David Cameron sent a message out:

"The Labour party is now a threat to our national security, our economic security, and your families security"

---

quote:

---

In truth, I believe Corbyn would improve our national security, because he is prepared to talk to people he opposes. A far better way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
It's going to be a long five years for you guys.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
It's going to be a long five years for you guys.

---

Five years? Even that could be optimistic.

The Cameron years aren't the same as the the thatcher years but the reason Labour couldn't break through then is because it made itself unelectable on defence.
If Middle England is ready to lay down it arms come the next election JC might be in with a sniff. Don't hold the breath on that one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Would this be a good time to remind ourselves that Jeremy Corbyn chaired (in fact, continues to chair) an organisation that effectively called for the killing of British soldiers?

“The Stop the War Coalition reaffirms its call for an end to the occupation, the return of all British troops in Iraq to this country and recognises once more the legitimacy of the struggle of Iraqis, by whatever means they find necessary, to secure such ends.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, I know training accidents happen, but can you explain the logic that says bringing troops out of a barely legal occupation of another country is going to kill them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Cameron simply isn't very bright.

---

quote:

---

Ariel: The world may look very different in five years' time. I think whether we like it or not or agree to it or not, we are probably on the brink of war.

The jihadists will push for it anyway - it's part of an ancient prophecy that their "Armageddon" will start in one of two named places, either in Syria or Turkey, where the forces of "Rome" will be utterly defeated and after that the Islamic caliphate will reign supreme with Jesus returning to help them. They aren't going to settle for any dialogue with the evil West while they think there's still a chance of that happening.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Whoa, you believe this shit?

---

quote:

---

Ariel: I personally don't, but I believe that many of them believe it.

---

quote:

---

Ariel: The world may look very different in five years' time. I think whether we like it or not or agree to it or not, we are probably on the brink of war.

The jihadists will push for it anyway - it's part of an ancient prophecy that their "Armageddon" will start in one of two named places, either in Syria or Turkey, where the forces of "Rome" will be utterly defeated and after that the Islamic caliphate will reign supreme with Jesus returning to help them. They aren't going to settle for any dialogue with the evil West while they think there's still a chance of that happening.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
That wasn't what I was talking about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Reminds me of the Falklands factor - I always wondered if Blair thought he might get the same with Iraq, but no. Does Cameron fancy a Damascus factor? He would get it if there was a breakthrough and a deal over Syria. Corbyn would be dead meat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I don't think it will work IRRC both Iraq and Afghanistan were supported by all main parties. Basically, no politician is prepared to be seen not supporting "our boys" once push comes to shove.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I don't think it will work IRRC both Iraq and Afghanistan were supported by all main parties. Basically, no politician is prepared to be seen not supporting "our boys" once push comes to shove.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Cameron simply isn't very bright. He thinks in stereotypes.

I am very pleased that Corbyn was elected.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, I know training accidents happen, but can you explain the logic that says bringing troops out of a barely legal occupation of another country is going to kill them?

---

To clarify, the statement was made in 2004 when an insurgency was taking place in Iraq. I don't think the second-half of the quote is calling only for a return to barracks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, I know training accidents happen, but can you explain the logic that says bringing troops out of a barely legal occupation of another country is going to kill them?

---

To clarify, the statement was made in 2004 when an insurgency was taking place in Iraq. I don't think the second-half of the quote is calling only for a return to barracks.

---

It's like you don't know what the words "such ends" mean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, I know training accidents happen, but can you explain the logic that says bringing troops out of a barely legal occupation of another country is going to kill them?

---

To clarify, the statement was made in 2004 when an insurgency was taking place in Iraq. I don't think the second-half of the quote is calling only for a return to barracks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Just after Jeremy Corbyn was elected, David Cameron sent a message out:

"The Labour party is now a threat to out national security, our economic security, and your families security"

You total and utter, immoral pile of foetid shit.

1. Corbyn opposes nuclear weapons. Apparently that is a threat to our national security - more than your continual aggression towards the middle east.

Nuclear weapons are an irrelevance today. They are a way of you syphoning off more money to your cronies, and not to those who need it - the poor in our society. We are not going to nuke Syria, or Afghanistan, or Calais. Scrapping them is NOT a threat to our national security.

In truth, I believe Corbyn would improve our national security, because he is prepared to talk to people he opposes. A far better way.

2. The biggest threat to our economic security as a nation is you, Mr Cameron. Corbyn is a real threat to the economic security of the very rich, including yourself and a number of members of your cabinet. He is a threat to the bankers, the people - in case you have forgotten - who caused the economic crisis in the first place. He is a huge threat to the economic security of the 1%.

But for the country, for the 99%, he is no threat. I am SICK of the constant talk that a socialist approach to economics is a threat. It is different, it has a different set of success indicators, but it can work. Unless you happen to be in the 1%.

And if you happen to be a corrupt, manipulative, lying bastard, then yes, Corbyn is a threat. The sooner you and your cronies get the fucking you deserve, the better.

3. My families security is under severe threat from your policies. It is your austerity measures, your damaging of our economy that threatens my families security. Having to change job, not being able to retire or be declared disabled. It is your policies that mean my children struggle to find good jobs.

Cameron, you suck. You are desperately scared of someone with principles, morals, ideas, someone who is not scared of you, because Corbyn will show up your utter lack of these. Your only response is, once again, to try to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Rot in hell, you loathsome, vile prick. And when you have rotted there, rot some more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
... Corbyn did quite plainly say that he cannot think of any scenarios where he would back external deployment of British troops...

---

quote:

---

from The Guardian: Asked by Kendall whether there were any circumstances in which he would deploy military forces, Corbyn said: “Any? I am sure there are some. But I can’t think of them at the moment.”

In a Guardian interview last month, Corbyn suggested that the threshold for sanctioning armed intervention by Britain would have to involve a conflict on the scale of the second world war. Asked if he was a pacifist, Corbyn said: “It is hard to define. I am person that has a very high threshold of saying I would not wish to be involved in armed conflict. The question always comes back to the second world war.”

In the Sky News hustings, Corbyn suggested the UN should approve any British military deployment as he explained how he had opposed the Nato campaign in Kosovo on the grounds that it lacked UN approval.

He said: “We should have stuck with the UN and given far more support to the UN. Surely we want to live in a world that is based on the rule of international law. The UN is quintessentially part of international law.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:
I'd see a more cautious approach to military adventures like the invasion of Iraq as 'encouraging' rather than 'frightening'. YMMV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
AFZ

I go to church with Sierra Leonians, who seem to regard UK intervention there as a good thing.

So what was it about SL and Kosovo which worked, whereas all those other cases didn't and don't? Perhaps another thread?

cheers
Mark

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alienfromzog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:
I'd see a more cautious approach to military adventures like the invasion of Iraq as 'encouraging' rather than 'frightening'. YMMV.

---

Ah Alwyn, I see where you're going wrong there: you're interested in facts.

You're forgetting that Corbyn is a threat to national security because he is.
You're forgetting that Corbyn is a threat to our economic security because he is.

Do you not see the power of the Prime Minister's argument there?

AFZ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That he chooses to do this by a continuation of Project Fear, rather than explain why he thinks the policies of the other parties are wrong or convince us Conservative policies are right is despicable. But, no different than most other leading politicians of recent time.

---

Do you genuinely think he's no different?

I have significant bias in this and thus don't trust my own judgment at all but my perception is that Cameron is particularly poor in this regard. When challenged he gets snippy and he seems incapable of constructing an actual argument. To my mind he is notably worse than most other leading politicians of recent times. Accepting that I am biased. (I am one of the sad people who watches PMQs by choice so I know of what I speak... )

As a slight tangent - earlier this year one of anaesthetists I worked with was at Oxford with DC and a close personal friend. He told me that Cameron is genuinely very intelligent. I suspect he's much better placed to judge than I. I don't think that intelligence translates to wisdom (how often is that true?) and I think his inability to construct arguments or defences when challenged is not a sign of intelligence so I don't know how square that particular circle.

More to the point, I profoundly disagree with Cameron on policy and his ability to win elections by scaring rather than actually constructing an evidence-based argument is depressing but that's our democracy.

AFZ
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I'm not sure if arguments are used much in British politics now, although I must admit that I don't watch long speeches in the House of Commons. For example, I suspect that there were some sustained arguments in the debate over assisted dying.

But Cameron does seem snippy. It will be interesting to see if Corbyn will be able to mount arguments, although PMQs seems a bit of a bun fight.

I suppose Cameron and Osborne have realized that frightening people, and presenting cartoon images of their opponent, works well enough. It's the lingua franca today, I guess.

Interesting point made by alienfromzog that some kind of economic crisis is inevitable, but will Labour be able to take advantage? Dunno. I lost faith in Labour a long time ago, and although there are glimmers of hope, as John Cleese said, hope is the worst thing of all.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by alienfromzog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That he chooses to do this by a continuation of Project Fear, rather than explain why he thinks the policies of the other parties are wrong or convince us Conservative policies are right is despicable. But, no different than most other leading politicians of recent time.

---

Do you genuinely think he's no different?

I have significant bias in this and thus don't trust my own judgment at all but my perception is that Cameron is particularly poor in this regard. When challenged he gets snippy and he seems incapable of constructing an actual argument. To my mind he is notably worse than most other leading politicians of recent times. Accepting that I am biased. (I am one of the sad people who watches PMQs by choice so I know of what I speak... )

---

Well, it's a matter of degree. The whole of British political discourse has gone into sound bites, personal attacks and non-arguments. Cameron is no different, just "better" at that style of politics. As you say, it's a sad indictment against the British electorate that it's a style of politics that seems to win elections.

PMQs is a disgrace IMO. It's nothing to do with politics, it's school yard antics, a circus of the worst kind. Perhaps we need to reintroduce a feature of Roman circuses and let a few lions loose in the Commons. But, again it's a manifestation of the rest of the Commons. The Scottish Parliament has largely avoided the school ground practices, and made the chamber a place for (reasonably) civil discussion of issues. It says something that the Speaker in the Commons told off the SNP MPs for politely applauding points well made
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It will be interesting to see if 'expansionary contraction' leads to some kind of crisis, but I suppose that the Tories will in any event, mount a fierce propaganda campaign to convince people that contraction is actually expansion, or something like that. Whether Labour can reveal the nakedness of the emperor, in such a situation, who knows, or will anyone believe them.
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I have thought there is a mismatch between what is reported of Cameron's intelligence at Oxford (a tutor was reported as saying he was the most intelligent student he had had) and how he presents himself politically, and a-from-z has now added to that.

It has occurred to me that he does resemble, in some degree, two men I have met who were good at intelligence tests (both made well-known their membership of a group which makes that ability the criterion for membership), but who did not present as intelligent in everyday life. Both tried to take advantage of others, without paying attention to what those others were like. (The assumption that because those others aren't in your group they aren't up to your level enables the others to run rings around them if necessary.) They were able to impress some people. They weren't good at dealing with people who played by different rules. People aren't supposed to answer back to Cameron.

I've only just thought of this comparison, so it needs more examination.
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It says something that the Speaker in the Commons told off the SNP MPs for politely applauding points well made

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The whole of British political discourse has gone into sound bites, personal attacks and non-arguments. Cameron is no different, just "better" at that style of politics. As you say, it's a sad indictment against the British electorate that it's a style of politics that seems to win elections.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In the House, polite takes second seat to jeering, shouting and other behaviour we teach our children is the total opposite to polite and civilised behaviour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It says something that the Speaker in the Commons told off the SNP MPs for politely applauding points well made

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:

quote:

---

from The Guardian: In a Guardian interview last month, Corbyn suggested that the threshold for sanctioning armed intervention by Britain would have to involve a conflict on the scale of the second world war. Asked if he was a pacifist, Corbyn said: “It is hard to define. I am person that has a very high threshold of saying I would not wish to be involved in armed conflict. The question always comes back to the second world war.”

In the Sky News hustings, Corbyn suggested the UN should approve any British military deployment as he explained how he had opposed the Nato campaign in Kosovo on the grounds that it lacked UN approval.

He said: “We should have stuck with the UN and given far more support to the UN. Surely we want to live in a world that is based on the rule of international law. The UN is quintessentially part of international law.”

---

Corbyn said that any British overseas military action would require UN approval. If someone talks, as he did, about military action requiring UN approval, then it seems hard to argue that he would never support it. I'd see a more cautious approach to military adventures like the invasion of Iraq as 'encouraging' rather than 'frightening'. YMMV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In the House, polite takes second seat to jeering, shouting and other behaviour we teach our children is the total opposite to polite and civilised behaviour.

---

There is serious debate in the Commons, as well as jeering. Considering our Purg and Hell boards, perhaps the place isn't so different to this site...?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It says something that the Speaker in the Commons told off the SNP MPs for politely applauding points well made

---

My memory of it was it came across as a bit intrusive and too frequent, and also done in a bit of a point-scoring way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Cameron simply isn't very bright. He thinks in stereotypes.

I am very pleased that Corbyn was elected.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:


There are any number of ministers who are thicker than Cameron: I'm struggling to find one who isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Cameron's smart enough. Osborne OTOH is pretty dim, and he's in the job where intelligence really is needed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:
...To him, this job was a right, and he gets very very angry when someone points out that he is far from the best person for it.

---

Therein lies the problem. Cameron comes over as the sort of person who applied for the promotion because they thought they should and it was the logical next step. Having got the promotion and realised the job is shit and the employees are ackward, he doesn't seem to know quite what to do with himself. He never looks like he's having any fun. (Thatcher and Blair always looked like they were having a whale of a time).

And now the opposition has appointed someone who can give as good he gets. And doesn't care Who Cameron Is. PMQs might be worth a watch again.

And, next time someone points out that Corbyn didn't sing the national anthem at an event, point out that Cameron took a selfie at Mandela's funeral. Like, well, classy!

Tubbs

[ 16. September 2015, 15:02: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 

---

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am waiting to see if Corbyn starts to dissect neo-liberalism, as nobody in Labour has been prepared to do that, which has been a huge lacuna in British politics. If he does, (and surely he will), I will be interested to see Cameron's response. We might actually get a more deep-rooted debate about political philosophies than we normally do. Well, on the other hand, maybe not, if Cameron is involved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Dark Knight - great post. I think people here are still in a state of shock over Corbyn. Nobody really expected that there could be a serious challenge to neo-liberalism, and probably, in the Labour Party, least of all. The Blairites probably don't know whether to stick or twist - strong rumours now of defections to the Tories.

Of course, Corbyn may fail miserably in electoral terms, but I think he has already opened up a debate, which Labour had so signally failed to do before. Helping the rich had become a kind of natural law, unquestioned.

Of course, this is not isolated - we see similar movements around the world.

Part of me is hopeful, that the debate can be prosecuted, part of me fearing the worst - that the right-wing media will drown us all in their excrement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Cameron puzzles me. I now think he's potentially a clever man- they don't just bring round firsts in PPE at Oxford with the rations, even to Etonians- who doesn't really use his brain because he's actually pretty comfortable with how things are and deep down he's frightened of what might happen if he started to ask questions. (This explains his anger when questions are asked, and is IME quite common among people on the right.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
clearly, on one level, highly intelligent, but whose whole worldview is shaped by sets of comforting (to them) assumptaions that they are never, ever going to question or, if they can help it, to allow anyone to question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I agree though that to describe Cameron as not very bright is at best inaccurate and at worst wishful thinking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
clearly, on one level, highly intelligent, but whose whole worldview is shaped by sets of comforting (to them) assumptaions that they are never, ever going to question or, if they can help it, to allow anyone to question.

---

"Exclusive to ALL media outlets 2015"

I mean, quite apart from anything else I could re-write your sentence substituting the Guardian for the Times, and the New Statesman for the Spectator and it would still be true. It's a people problem, not a right/establishment problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I agree though that to describe Cameron as not very bright is at best inaccurate and at worst wishful thinking.

---

Wishful thinking is right. It's all part of a certain mindset on the left that says anyone of any intelligence would obviously support their side, so anyone on the right must either be stupid or mired in a selfishness-inspired form of denial.

You can see that attitude repeated several times on this page alone. The thought that an intelligent person could honestly think right-wing solutions are better than left-wing ones never even occurs to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
You're probably correct about intelligence although Osborne* definitely isn't intelligent enough for the job he's in, but it's a guinea to a gooseberry that the Conservatives, and more especially UKIP, appeal more to those who are selfish than do those who support most of the other parties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alienfromzog:
When you look at the economics, almost everything Osborne says is completely ridiculous. If he believes what he's saying, he's deluded. If he doesn't then he's deeply dishonest. ( Some thoughts on Osborne's chancellorship) - so maybe we'll running out of language. Stupid is as stupid does - not really - very smart people are often very stupid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My memory of left-wing arguments over the Falklands was that they were often geographical. In other words, Hong Kong is Chinese because of geography. Of course, the same argument is used vis a vis N. Ireland.

There were also arguments about colonialism, and I suppose today, it has all been sharpened by the presence of oil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
if ever anyone gives you the opportunity to get down there then do go - the Falklands (sic) are one of the most lovely places on earth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
if ever anyone gives you the opportunity to get down there then do go - the Falklands (sic) are one of the most lovely places on earth.

---

Very windy, though. Friend of mine worked in the Malvinas for a while and the 4x4 she was driving was toppled and rolled over several times by a single gust.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alienfromzog:
My problem is that supposedly intelligent people* say and do some quite stupid things. That means either they've turned their brains off or that they know what they're doing and they don't care. Which is far more worrying.

To contextualize that: there is strong evidence that the benefit sanctions so widespread in IDS's DWP 1) Don't achieve what they claim they do (see other thread) and 2) are really dangerous and damaging (a leading cause of needing to use a foodbank).

So it's a stupid policy. Either those insisting on it don't know this or do and have decided to do it anyway.

When you look at the economics, almost everything Osborne says is completely ridiculous. If he believes what he's saying, he's deluded. If he doesn't then he's deeply dishonest. ( Some thoughts on Osborne's chancellorship) - so maybe we'll running out of language. Stupid is as stupid does - not really - very smart people are often very stupid.

AFZ

*see my comments up thread that I know someone who knows Cameron well who described him as very smart.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
if ever anyone gives you the opportunity to get down there then do go - the Falklands (sic) are one of the most lovely places on earth.

---

Very windy, though. Friend of mine worked in the Malvinas for a while and the 4x4 she was driving was toppled and rolled over several times by a single gust.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Quickest way to start a fight with/ostracise yourself from the locals is to mention the M word by the way (just to keep things hellish). They want peaceful co-existence with Argentina, and nothing else. The last referendum, in 2013, had a grand total of 3 people voting to leave Britain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
if ever anyone gives you the opportunity to get down there then do go - the Falklands (sic) are one of the most lovely places on earth.

---

Very windy, though. Friend of mine worked in the Malvinas for a while and the 4x4 she was driving was toppled and rolled over several times by a single gust.

---

Actually, I've just clocked the (sic) on Falklands in your edit of my post. Are there many countries where you go out of your way to reject the name preferred by the people that live there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Quickest way to start a fight with/ostracise yourself from the locals is to mention the M word by the way (just to keep things hellish). They want peaceful co-existence with Argentina, and nothing else. The last referendum, in 2013, had a grand total of 3 people voting to leave Britain.

---

It would be very interesting if Argentina decided to set up a colony on a previously uninhabited Scottish island and then hold a vote of self-determination on the island's inhabitants.

I remember those 3 people serving me very well in a pub quiz!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
If it's a Scottish island isn't it by definition part of Scotland...?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
If it's a Scottish island isn't it by definition part of Scotland...?

---

At the moment, yes.

But that's the issue with the Malvinas. They were Argentinian islands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
If it's a Scottish island isn't it by definition part of Scotland...?

---

At the moment, yes.

But that's the issue with the Malvinas. They were Argentinian islands.

---

When? Because it certainly wasn't first....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Xian, Al-Misr, Al-Liban, Deutschland, Espana. Any more for any more?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My memory of left-wing arguments over the Falklands was that they were often geographical. In other words, Hong Kong is Chinese because of geography. Of course, the same argument is used vis a vis N. Ireland.

There were also arguments about colonialism, and I suppose today, it has all been sharpened by the presence of oil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
If it's a Scottish island isn't it by definition part of Scotland...?

---

At the moment, yes.

But that's the issue with the Malvinas. They were Argentinian islands. They were colonised by the British who then redesignated them as the Falklands and stated that the population, planted there by the the British, are the only ones who should determine which country the islands belong to.

It's an international case of squatters' rights.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Even if it is, so what? I think you only establish your claim to land if you do something with it- but then of course I'm bit of a lefty. And it ill-behoves Argentina, a country founded on the appropriation of other people's land by a settler population, to get on this pseudo-legalistic high horse. So, as this is Hell, I feel perfectly free to say fuck off, Argies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Alright: let's reserve 'pretentious' for English people who talk about Firenze and Livorno and Savoie and Munchen, and go with wilfully perverse and pro-fascist or at least pro-militaristic-nationalistic posturing instead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
at the very least we take responsibility for navigation and surveying and so forth around them.

---

Having spent 6 months crashing around the British Antarctic Territory on an icebreaker (among other things rescuing idiot yachtsmen), I can certainly vouch for that.
 

---

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Course, if a multinational needed a reservoir, or business wanted a railway *cough* HS2 *cough*, and it involved the compulsory purchase of a few thousand homes - we'd just give people grants and move them.

One wonders exactly where the differences lie. Though there is definitely something different about the two situations.
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Well, for a start, moving people off land to make way for stuff is governed by a legislative framework in a way that putting a landing craft in Port Stanley harbour isn't.
 

---

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Clearly, but the dispute over the sovereignty of the Falklands both pre and post dates the Falklands war.
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
There's no dispute as far as I'm concerned.
 

---

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
We could always sell it off to cut the deficit ...
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
You need to find some wealthy chum to value it at £Xbillion first, then sell it off do said chum can buy it for £X/2 billion before making a fortune selling it on, oh and giving a nice little donation to party funds in the process.
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:

But that's the issue with the Malvinas. They were Argentinian islands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Well, if you want to be precise, the British control of the Falklands predates the existence of anything called "Argentina".

In other news, the beaker people want their island back.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

It seems to me that Argentina was entitled to try to annex the islands by Conquest, and the British were entitled to defend their claim by war.

Again, I could be completely wrong, but it bothers me that we always get the British version of events without any challenge to the view that Argentina had no rights to make a claim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais: Galtieri, the Argentinian dictator at the time, tried to use the invasion to bolster the failing military regime. When the Falklands venture failed, the military regime failed and Galtieri with it. Meanwhile Margaret Thatcher gained hugely from the British military success in personal terms and it laid the foundation for nearly fifteen years further Conservative government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais: Galtieri, the Argentinian dictator at the time, tried to use the invasion to bolster the failing military regime. When the Falklands venture failed, the military regime failed and Galtieri with it. Meanwhile Margaret Thatcher gained hugely from the British military success in personal terms and it laid the foundation for nearly fifteen years further Conservative government.

---

Everyone's a winner!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais: Galtieri, the Argentinian dictator at the time, tried to use the invasion to bolster the failing military regime. When the Falklands venture failed, the military regime failed and Galtieri with it. Meanwhile Margaret Thatcher gained hugely from the British military success in personal terms and it laid the foundation for nearly fifteen years further Conservative government.

---

Everyone's a winner!

---

Except all those dead people, of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais: Galtieri, the Argentinian dictator at the time, tried to use the invasion to bolster the failing military regime. When the Falklands venture failed, the military regime failed and Galtieri with it. Meanwhile Margaret Thatcher gained hugely from the British military success in personal terms and it laid the foundation for nearly fifteen years further Conservative government.

---

Everyone's a winner!

---

Except all those dead people, of course.

---

And Galtieri.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well, for a start, moving people off land to make way for stuff is governed by a legislative framework in a way that putting a landing craft in Port Stanley harbour isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Just after Jeremy Corbyn was elected, David Cameron sent a message out:

"The Labour party is now a threat to out national security, our economic security, and your families security"

You total and utter, immoral pile of foetid shit.

1. Corbyn opposes nuclear weapons. Apparently that is a threat to our national security - more than your continual aggression towards the middle east.

Nuclear weapons are an irrelevance today. They are a way of you syphoning off more money to your cronies, and not to those who need it - the poor in our society. We are not going to nuke Syria, or Afghanistan, or Calais. Scrapping them is NOT a threat to our national security.

In truth, I believe Corbyn would improve our national security, because he is prepared to talk to people he opposes. A far better way.

2. The biggest threat to our economic security as a nation is you, Mr Cameron. Corbyn is a real threat to the economic security of the very rich, including yourself and a number of members of your cabinet. He is a threat to the bankers, the people - in case you have forgotten - who caused the economic crisis in the first place. He is a huge threat to the economic security of the 1%.

But for the country, for the 99%, he is no threat. I am SICK of the constant talk that a socialist approach to economics is a threat. It is different, it has a different set of success indicators, but it can work. Unless you happen to be in the 1%.

And if you happen to be a corrupt, manipulative, lying bastard, then yes, Corbyn is a threat. The sooner you and your cronies get the fucking you deserve, the better.

3. My families security is under severe threat from your policies. It is your austerity measures, your damaging of our economy that threatens my families security. Having to change job, not being able to retire or be declared disabled. It is your policies that mean my children struggle to find good jobs.

Cameron, you suck. You are desperately scared of someone with principles, morals, ideas, someone who is not scared of you, because Corbyn will show up your utter lack of these. Your only response is, once again, to try to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Rot in hell, you loathsome, vile prick. And when you have rotted there, rot some more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well, for a start, moving people off land to make way for stuff is governed by a legislative framework in a way that putting a landing craft in Port Stanley harbour isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais: Galtieri, the Argentinian dictator at the time, tried to use the invasion to bolster the failing military regime. When the Falklands venture failed, the military regime failed and Galtieri with it. Meanwhile Margaret Thatcher gained hugely from the British military success in personal terms and it laid the foundation for nearly fifteen years further Conservative government.

---

Everyone's a winner!

---

Except all those dead people, of course.

---

And Galtieri.

---

quote:

---

a lot of people who before March 1982 probably thought that the Falklands were somewhere in the region of the Hebrides

---

quote:

---

The Prime Minister's Conference Speech:
You only really need to know one thing: he thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a “tragedy”.

No. A tragedy is nearly 3,000 people murdered one morning in New York. A tragedy is the mums and dads who never came home from work that day. A tragedy is people jumping from the towers after the planes hit.

My friends – we cannot let that man inflict his security-threatening, terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating ideology on the country we love.

---

Wow, is that what Mr Corbyn said? Ok, let's have a look:

quote:

---

Jeremy Corbyn,
There was no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him, to put him on trial, to go through that process.

‘This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy.’

The World Trade Centre was a tradegy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died. Torture has come back on to the world stage, been canonised virtually into law by Guantanamo and Bagram.

Can’t we learn some lessons over this?

---

In the same conversation he said that the solution to terrorism was 'law not war'

Now, Mr Prime Minister, I have three problems with this:

1. That's not what tragedy means. A tragedy has something of the unfortunate to it or the unavoidable. Accidents may be tragic or natural disasters. 9/11 wasn't a tragedy it was horrific. It was cold-blooded murder. I know this is semantics but words really matter here.

2. You are implying that Corbyn was making an equivalence argument. He wasn't. His point was more subtle that that. He was arguing that the only proper way to deal with a criminal like Bin Laden is by not stooping to his level. Not least because he believes to do so is to create a spiral of violence. Corbyn was saying (as is made clear elsewhere in the conversation) that death is a tragedy and he felt very strongly that an assassination was the wrong choice. There are lots of factors which I suspect lead to the US policy of capture/kill rather than put on trial and one could argue that it is tragic that we didn't rise above this. That we lowered ourselves to such a level. Furthermore if the use of violence creates the spiral of more terror and more unrest and violence that is clearly a tragedy upon a tragedy.

You may not agree with his analysis but to characterise his position as sympathy with terrorism is blatantly dishonest.

3. Corbyn has a point. This is an area where well-thought-through policy and approach is vital for the security of us all. To indulge in such a sound-bite slur is deeply irresponsible as well as a blatant lie.

So, Mr Prime Minister:

Sadly, I expected nothing less from you.

AFZ
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
This is a man who despite "being against the death penalty in any form, where ever", just ordered - and boasted about - assassinating two British citizens abroad.

I bet Putin's relieved the heat's off regarding Litvinenko...
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It's not surprising that Cameron is lying about Corbyn, it's a matter of constructing a narrative, and hoping that it sticks. Its connection with truth is irrelevant.

No doubt the tabloids will support Cameron's lies, but I suspect that Corbyn still has an appeal under the radar, well, I mean, despite these lies. Also, hopefully, he will begin to challenge them.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Corbyn might well do a simple reiteration of what be actually said, then retaliate with an assessment of how many more people are now living below subsistence level as a consequence of benefit cuts, and the additional early deaths and child mortality that will cause.

As for talking to terrorists, we enthusiastically chum up to China and Saudi Arabia, two of the most violent and oppressive regimes on the planet who routinely kill and mutilate their own citizens. Osborne was out there just a couple of weeks ago and was praised by the Chinese regime for "not stressing human rights issues". What can you say?

If North Korea had the same resources and economic muscle, I'm sure we would suck up to Kim Jong Un too.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I had to laugh at Hunt praising the Chinese for working hard!

It strikes me that Corbyn hasn't got a rebuttal unit in place yet, but that may be deliberate, as he may not want a slick Blairite PR machine in place. But he has to have some kind of rebuttal staff.
 

---

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I had to laugh at Hunt praising the Chinese for working hard!

It strikes me that Corbyn hasn't got a rebuttal unit in place yet, but that may be deliberate, as he may not want a slick Blairite PR machine in place. But he has to have some kind of rebuttal staff.

---

It could be part of a cunning strategy. Alot of people I know are geniunely excited about the Corbyn alternative and are engaged in the political process for the first time in ages. Not responding to "Project Fear" could actually work in Corbyn's favour in some circlees. That said, he probably needs to counter some of the more outrageous stuff as some of it's just plain lies. (The fact that this is the best that Cameron can come up with says loads about him and the current state of the Tory party).

The Tories could also be geniuely worried. They sneaked in this time around because the centre Left / Left vote was split between the Greens and Labour. If Corbyn continues to convince them, comes up with some appealing policies AND the Greens still can't find a decent leader, it could be interesting next election.

Tubbs

[ 08. October 2015, 13:10: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Good points, Tubbs. Part of me feels in despair at times at the amount of lying going on - what kind of example is this to young people? That to govern the country, you need a Ph. D. in mendacity?

Of course, they reckon that you need to fix the image of an opponent early on, and it sticks, thus Corbyn 'refuses to see the Queen' and so on.

But maybe also, it's a sign of worry. Hey boss, shall I smear this guy?
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
The Tories could also be geniuely worried.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
The Tories could also be geniuely worried.

---

I'm just back from the Conservative Party Conference. The Tories aren't worried about Corbyn. Not at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
The Tories could also be geniuely worried.

---

I'm just back from the Conservative Party Conference. The Tories aren't worried about Corbyn. Not at all.

---

Good. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
The Tories could also be geniuely worried.

---

I'm just back from the Conservative Party Conference. The Tories aren't worried about Corbyn. Not at all.

---

Good. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

---

That's right, which is how Ed Miliband swept to victory. Oh, hang on...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Ed Miliband was indistinguishable from Cameron and Clegg in too many ways so he didn't have anything like the support Corbyn has within the party and without.

---

quote:

---

Moreover Corbyn won't have to resort to telling a pack of lies to get the party faithful and the country behind him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
The Tories could also be geniuely worried.

---

I'm just back from the Conservative Party Conference. The Tories aren't worried about Corbyn. Not at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
How is the Conservative Party going to destroy itself?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
8

I have seen in the last month or so more social media exposing the basic Tory lies. I know my social media profile is very left wing, and has always had some of that, but it has got more. Some people believe in truth, so the fact that Tories lie every time they open their mouth will make a difference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alienfromzog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
How is the Conservative Party going to destroy itself?

---

Because they believe their own propaganda

Our economy is in a very perilous state due to Osborne's idiocy. This is gonna bite them in the next couple of years.

---

On reflection, I suppose I do have to allow for the other possibilities...

1) They're right


Sorry just put this in for completeness... (Where's the Killing Me emoticon when you need it: here's a short list

Left-wing firebrand Martin Wolf describes current economic policy as 'insane'
By all important measures, our economy is fundamentally weaker than in 2010
There was never any danger of the UK becoming like Greece. That was a big fat lie.
At at time of record-low borrowing costs for the government they have squandered it by killing growth and having to borrow vastly more for day to day spending when investment was needed and cheap.

The Health & Social Care Act has made the NHS deeply vulnerable at a time when it faces massive demographic and other demand challenges. It's gonna be a bad winter and the government are worried.

Councils have born a huge part of the burden of cuts... have you noticed the state of repair or our roads? And silently behind closed doors, the most vulnerable have had their vital care taken away. BTW, this is the government who cut benefits for disabled children (2011, look it up!).

The 'spare-room subsidy' or 'bedroom tax' whichever term you prefer is a really stupid policy - even if you agree with the principal it was so badly done its actually likely to cost money and leaves so many of the poorest struggling to pay the rent

Housing policy. Where to begin?

Foreign policy. Oh well, yeah, um, don't get me started...

I'll stop now.

or yeah 2) They are deeply cynical and know exactly what they're doing.

To be fair, that's less dangerous than a government who believes its own propaganda but it is also deeply iniquitous.

As, I said, I tend to the conclusion that they believe their own propaganda. Which is fine but the truth has a nasty habit of coming back to bite you. At the very least, our economy will slow next year; I suspect a recession will be narrowly avoided, personally. But what I'm looking forward to, is the creative excuses Mr Osborne will come up with.

But remember [B} Jeremy Corbyn is a threat to our economic security [/b]

AFZ
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
A lot of it is just posturing. Any party in government has to say "We are great and the opposition is rubbish" and the opposition are equally obliged to say "The government is rubbish and we could do it better." They have to, it's in their job description.

Their supporters tend to be tinged with the same tendency. If you take some of the less overtly identifiable party utterances out of context, rephrase them slightly and offer them to people who would otherwise disagree on principle with anything coming out of Labour/Green/Conservative camps, people do sometimes find themselves agreeing with some of the anonymized utterances which normally, if an attribution had been provided, they wouldn't have done on principle. Spin and the presentation of ideas count for quite a lot more than is generally given credit for.
 

---

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
And anyone on the left who points out the significance of spin and propaganda gets sneered at and accused of thinking the public are stupid.
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
And anyone on the left who points out the significance of spin and propaganda gets sneered at and accused of thinking the public are stupid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
That does rather create the impression that many on the left think the public are stupid.

---

I take your point, but don't think it's particularly limited to those on the left. The utter contempt for truth and accuracy displayed by politicians and the media across the spectrum would tend to indicate that a large majority (or maybe just the loudest voices) either think we're too thick to work it out, or they're too arrogant to care.

And, in a lot of ways, we are stupid. On a lot of hot button issues people believe what resonates with them emotionally, apply enough confirmation bias to bend the truth backwards up its own but, and resolutely shout "la la la la" in the face of actual research, evidence or facts (even if you allow some wiggle room on the lies, damned lies and statistics basis).

When the power game is just that, a game of keeping power, it's in nobody's interests to try to raise the bar or up the level of discourse. Far better to manipulate the ignorant bastards (self included) on their knee-jerk reactions. And thus we get the race to the bottom politics we deserve
 

---

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Damn. I got out for the afternoon and early evening, drink a load of beer and too much sake, and I still can't post something in Hell that gets an irate response ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
And anyone on the left who points out the significance of spin and propaganda gets sneered at and accused of thinking the public are stupid.

---

Well, the view on here amongst left-leaning folk seems to be that if a left-wing party fails it's either because the leader or policy platform isn't left-wing enough or because the public has been brainwashed by the media, as if they're empty vessels waiting to be told what to think by that morning's tabloids. That does rather create the impression that many on the left think the public are stupid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, clearly large numbers of members of the public are stupid. 35% of them voted Tory last time round. QED.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Damn. I got out for the afternoon and early evening, drink a load of beer and too much sake, and I still can't post something in Hell that gets an irate response ...

---

Hope the above helps. Have a nice day.

 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
And anyone on the left who points out the significance of spin and propaganda gets sneered at and accused of thinking the public are stupid.

---

Well, the view on here amongst left-leaning folk seems to be that if a left-wing party fails it's either because the leader or policy platform isn't left-wing enough or because the public has been brainwashed by the media, as if they're empty vessels waiting to be told what to think by that morning's tabloids. That does rather create the impression that many on the left think the public are stupid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
OTOH the papers definitely matter. Scare stories work well, especially if they are half-truths consistent with speeches by politicians. Why after all have so many newspaper owners become "Press barons"?

---

quote:

---

From their research:
3. Job-seekers allowance: 29% of people think we spend more on JSA than pensions, when in fact we spend 15 times more on pensions (£4.9bn vs £74.2bn).

4. Benefit fraud: people estimate that 34 times more benefit money is claimed fraudulently than official estimates: the public think that £24 out of every £100 spent on benefits is claimed fraudulently, compared with official estimates of £0.70 per £100.

7. Immigration and ethnicity: the public think that 31% of the population are immigrants, when the official figures are 13%. Even estimates that attempt to account for illegal immigration suggest a figure closer to 15%.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0