|
Replies:
|
|
Steve K
|
Dec 1 2015, 12:39 PM
Post #161
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- ACH1967
- Dec 1 2015, 12:35 PM
Any chance we could tone down the name calling and concentrate on the debate please. seconded and posts will come under increased scrutiny
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Dec 1 2015, 02:59 PM
Post #162
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
Anyone else think the last few posts would be better in the Bomb or Not thread?
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Dec 1 2015, 03:21 PM
Post #163
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Dec 1 2015, 02:59 PM
Anyone else think the last few posts would be better in the Bomb or Not thread? No. The key question of this thread is surely Corbyn's fitness or otherwise to lead the Labour Party and subsequently a Labour Gov?
|
|
|
| |
|
ACH1967
|
Dec 1 2015, 03:22 PM
Post #164
|
- Posts:
- 4,225
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #56
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2014
|
the whole thread kind of slipped that way really.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Dec 1 2015, 04:02 PM
Post #165
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Nov 30 2015, 04:32 PM
- C-too
- Nov 30 2015, 03:54 PM
- RJD
- Nov 29 2015, 03:14 PM
C2: We probably have less social and industrial strife because; a). Unlike Pre- 1979, We have not just come through 20 odd years with a failing economy with a gloomy outlook for the future, while countries like France and Germany were doing well. Compounded by highly politicised trade union actions designed to frustrate Gov. and Employers. Guess whose reforms put paid to that nonesense. b). Today people do understand that there was a financial meltdown and the economy does need to be sorted. Yes they understand who exacerbated a very difficult situation and then went on to oppose each and every cut in public spending. They voted accordingly. c). Also we have a very different industrial base to the period you refer to. Tempus Fugit. d). Fewer police and yet crime is supposed to be falling ? Maybe. True or not let's see the situation when the future real cuts in social support begin to bite. Well thus far each and every forecast that the end was nigh have proved to be far off the mark. e). A classless society ? Are you kidding me ? The bedroom tax, the cuts in working tax credits, the proposed cuts in child benefits and goodness knows what else is in the pipeline. Yet there is still talk by the chancellor of cuts in income tax and lifting death duties to begin at £1million, and again what other helping hand to the rich and better off does he have up his sleeve ? Class is to do with the social group individuals believe represents them. Osborne calls all those that are employed as "The Striver Group". You are free to define your own groups as you will. But I believe the post war groupings now hardly exist, they broke down fully when the post war baby-boomers became the vast majority of managers of our industrial and commercial economy and that was decades ago. Me thinks C2 you still want to fight old battles, the ones that you saw lost on ancient turfs. Like it or not the great division is now being fashioned in front of our eyes of on one side the "strivers" and the other the "skivers" and this is crudely said for obvious reasons. Labour lost it's working class tribalists and their votes are up for grabs with both UKIP and the Tories out for a good slice. The claim of the demise of Labour may be premature, but the coffin is in construction.
Thanks for the laugh, all you have shown is that your prejudice controls your logic.  PS, the next few years will lay the foundations for the next "broken society".
Feeds you dogma does it not with Labour always the great social architects and the Tories the great demolishers. You live in a fantasy World that you find even difficult to justify to yourself. Your stilted view of the carnage brought by 1960s and 70s Trade Unions belies reference to anyone's reality. They were a very destructive force whose main objective was political and they made no bones about it. They would be shocked by the way latter day apologised spin reality. Truth is that Labour and Trade Unions were culpable for the decline in UKs industrial capability and the rapid loss of our post war advantage and have been on the wrong side of every debate on strategy since 1945. I suspect you recognise the mayhem they wrought but do not have the mental strength to accept you and your ilk were wrong. Now we just have to watch you attempts to white-wash over the truth. I would laugh but there is nothing funny in your position, it is just sad. Why do you attempt to circumvent points made more than once, with already discredited replies ? Take your answer to point, A.--"Compounded by", as you again ignore 13 years of Tory maladministration. An economic failure which damaged the UK economy and began to open the taps for worker discontent. You are prepared to disingenuously blame trade Union actions, or more accurately the actions of a discontent and disillusioned workforce that wanted better, expected better and deserved better, for the major damage done by weak Conservative policies 1951/1964.
You choose to ignore the very obvious point that "politicised" worker actions that began to rise in the late 1960s were a product of the long term economic failure of investment, plus poor management, government failures and so on. The actions of the workforce were a product of so many failings, not the cause.
|
|
|
| |
|
skwirked
|
Dec 1 2015, 04:08 PM
Post #166
|
- Posts:
- 5,905
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #149
- Joined:
- Sep 6, 2015
|
10/10 for that post C2
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Dec 1 2015, 06:58 PM
Post #167
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Dec 1 2015, 12:59 PM
If only we had a leader of the opposition
Classic, "it's all Labour's fault". Remember the day trip to the seaside, car park incident? It was a demonstration of how almost anything and everything can be said to be blamed on any specific choice. In that anecdote I told how Bro-in-law's car being damaged was all my fault because I told him where to park. This perversion is what allows the Tories to lay everything and anything they want on Labour - and convince idiots that it is true.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Dec 1 2015, 08:18 PM
Post #168
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Dec 1 2015, 04:02 PM
- RJD
- Nov 30 2015, 04:32 PM
- C-too
- Nov 30 2015, 03:54 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Feeds you dogma does it not with Labour always the great social architects and the Tories the great demolishers. You live in a fantasy World that you find even difficult to justify to yourself. Your stilted view of the carnage brought by 1960s and 70s Trade Unions belies reference to anyone's reality. They were a very destructive force whose main objective was political and they made no bones about it. They would be shocked by the way latter day apologised spin reality. Truth is that Labour and Trade Unions were culpable for the decline in UKs industrial capability and the rapid loss of our post war advantage and have been on the wrong side of every debate on strategy since 1945. I suspect you recognise the mayhem they wrought but do not have the mental strength to accept you and your ilk were wrong. Now we just have to watch you attempts to white-wash over the truth. I would laugh but there is nothing funny in your position, it is just sad.
Why do you attempt to circumvent points made more than once, with already discredited replies ? Take your answer to point, A.--"Compounded by", as you again ignore 13 years of Tory maladministration. An economic failure which damaged the UK economy and began to open the taps for worker discontent. You are prepared to disingenuously blame trade Union actions, or more accurately the actions of a discontent and disillusioned workforce that wanted better, expected better and deserved better, for the major damage done by weak Conservative policies 1951/1964. You choose to ignore the very obvious point that "politicised" worker actions that began to rise in the late 1960s were a product of the long term economic failure of investment, plus poor management, government failures and so on. The actions of the workforce were a product of so many failings, not the cause. Perhaps you should recall the likes of the Dockers strike in the mid 1960s. A turning point in industrial relations in the UK. After that everyone knew (incl the then Labour lead) that there was a very dangerous element in Trade Unionism determined to wreck the UK (as they very nearly did)
The result: the country turned against Trade Unions and they earned themselves a reputation they have found very hard to shake.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Dec 1 2015, 09:49 PM
Post #169
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Dec 1 2015, 08:18 PM
- C-too
- Dec 1 2015, 04:02 PM
- RJD
- Nov 30 2015, 04:32 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Why do you attempt to circumvent points made more than once, with already discredited replies ? Take your answer to point, A.--"Compounded by", as you again ignore 13 years of Tory maladministration. An economic failure which damaged the UK economy and began to open the taps for worker discontent. You are prepared to disingenuously blame trade Union actions, or more accurately the actions of a discontent and disillusioned workforce that wanted better, expected better and deserved better, for the major damage done by weak Conservative policies 1951/1964. You choose to ignore the very obvious point that "politicised" worker actions that began to rise in the late 1960s were a product of the long term economic failure of investment, plus poor management, government failures and so on. The actions of the workforce were a product of so many failings, not the cause.
Perhaps you should recall the likes of the Dockers strike in the mid 1960s. .......... The result: the country turned against Trade Unions and they earned themselves a reputation they have found very hard to shake.
A reputation partly deserved, of that there is no doubt. As for shedding it, well that is near impossible when the Tories refuse to let go of it ..... as here. It's twenty years and an whole new TU movement yet they will always be identified as wreckers and spoilers. We get the sort of TU leadership, militant or not, depending on how their membership are being treat - treat them fairly and he Unions are business allies, treat them badly and militantancy forms. So who is/was truly to blame for it?
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Dec 1 2015, 09:54 PM
Post #170
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Affa
- Dec 1 2015, 09:49 PM
- Steve K
- Dec 1 2015, 08:18 PM
- C-too
- Dec 1 2015, 04:02 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deepThe actions of the workforce were a product of so many failings, not the cause.
Perhaps you should recall the likes of the Dockers strike in the mid 1960s. .......... The result: the country turned against Trade Unions and they earned themselves a reputation they have found very hard to shake.
A reputation partly deserved, of that there is no doubt. As for shedding it, well that is near impossible when the Tories refuse to let go of it ..... as here. It's twenty years and an whole new TU movement yet they will always be identified as wreckers and spoilers. We get the sort of TU leadership, militant or not, depending on how their membership are being treat - treat them fairly and he Unions are business allies, treat them badly and militantancy forms. So who is/was truly to blame for it? Yes the Unions by and large have played it very fair for decades but C-Too was posting about the 1960s and seemingly not recalling that appalling strike that as you say ultimately played right into the hand of Thatcher.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Dec 1 2015, 10:42 PM
Post #171
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Dec 1 2015, 08:18 PM
- C-too
- Dec 1 2015, 04:02 PM
- RJD
- Nov 30 2015, 04:32 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Why do you attempt to circumvent points made more than once, with already discredited replies ? Take your answer to point, A.--"Compounded by", as you again ignore 13 years of Tory maladministration. An economic failure which damaged the UK economy and began to open the taps for worker discontent. You are prepared to disingenuously blame trade Union actions, or more accurately the actions of a discontent and disillusioned workforce that wanted better, expected better and deserved better, for the major damage done by weak Conservative policies 1951/1964. You choose to ignore the very obvious point that "politicised" worker actions that began to rise in the late 1960s were a product of the long term economic failure of investment, plus poor management, government failures and so on. The actions of the workforce were a product of so many failings, not the cause.
Perhaps you should recall the likes of the Dockers strike in the mid 1960s. A turning point in industrial relations in the UK. After that everyone knew (incl the then Labour lead) that there was a very dangerous element in Trade Unionism determined to wreck the UK (as they very nearly did) The result: the country turned against Trade Unions and they earned themselves a reputation they have found very hard to shake. From the National Archives. --- "In the late 1960s government and unions began to grow apart. Strikes increased, and in 1970 over 10 million working days were lost through strike action, including those of nurses and electricity workers. A number of these strikes were unofficial and not supported by unions".---
I believe that comment backs up much of my post.
I don't think anyone disputes the fact that strikes have taken place throughout the 20th century. And I doubt anyone denies the abuse of Dockers (casual labour) that took place for long enough. In the Dockers case, I do accept that the biter did get bitten for a while.
The weak UK economy was almost devastated by the recession of the early 1970s which was exacerbated by the oil crisis of 1973. The Trade Unions and as indicated in the above quote, dissatisfied workers in the 1970s in particular, did themselves no favours by making themselves the perfect whipping boys for the failures of others. They were never the real threat to the economy, they were a product of an almost failed economy. If the Unions were THE main problem then all Thatcher would have needed to do was to outlaw wild cat strikes and introduce some controls on voting ballots for strikes. Both of which she did, but she did a hell of a lot more as well, and still failed to produce a healthy economy.
Just as with the later meltdown, Tory propaganda in the 70s and 80s aided and abetted by much of the media, sold a lie to the people that so many people swallowed hook line and sinker.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Dec 1 2015, 11:16 PM
Post #172
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Dec 1 2015, 02:59 PM
Anyone else think the last few posts would be better in the Bomb or Not thread? A split has been made
|
|
|
| |
|
Rich
|
Dec 1 2015, 11:25 PM
Post #173
|
- Posts:
- 14,458
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Dec 1 2015, 11:16 PM
- Steve K
- Dec 1 2015, 02:59 PM
Anyone else think the last few posts would be better in the Bomb or Not thread?
A split has been made In which case it should be under a separate Labour party problems section then the two would marry up nicely.
|
|
|
| |
|
AndyK
|
Dec 1 2015, 11:27 PM
Post #174
|
- Posts:
- 2,474
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #69
- Joined:
- Aug 11, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Nov 30 2015, 07:33 PM
- AndyK
- Nov 30 2015, 01:44 PM
- ACH1967
- Nov 30 2015, 01:05 PM
I am not sure why Steve K has such a downer on Corbyn.
I saw some of the Andrew Marr interview. He didn't come across that badly at all. I can see what annoyed Steve but |I'm starting to get the impression you just don't like him. i am hoping he evolves into something a bit more statesmen like. I suspect I will be left with wishful thinking but think we should give him a chance. Not too much of a chance though.
I think what he said about cutting of revenue and weapons sounds like a much better idea than bombing a city full of civilians.
I didn't see the interview, I understand he spoke a lot about what he wouldn't do, did he explain in detail what he would do?
I have been known to defend him as well But he's no leader, he has a dishonest view on the economy, appoints inept cronies and has an irritating patronising tone But as you missed the interview please read the full transcript and see if you can spot any leadership in there. I have heard said it was so unfair that the BBC would only interview him on a day with a 'Y' in it. Having read the transcript.
I agree with Corbyns assessment.
That is not an endorsement of his leadership qualities however.
|
|
|
| |
|
Rich
|
Dec 2 2015, 12:26 AM
Post #175
|
- Posts:
- 14,458
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- Jun 28, 2014
|
"That is not an endorsement of his leadership qualities however."
when, exactly, do you think those qualities will become manifest?
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Dec 2 2015, 08:49 AM
Post #176
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Dec 1 2015, 04:02 PM
- RJD
- Nov 30 2015, 04:32 PM
- C-too
- Nov 30 2015, 03:54 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Feeds you dogma does it not with Labour always the great social architects and the Tories the great demolishers. You live in a fantasy World that you find even difficult to justify to yourself. Your stilted view of the carnage brought by 1960s and 70s Trade Unions belies reference to anyone's reality. They were a very destructive force whose main objective was political and they made no bones about it. They would be shocked by the way latter day apologised spin reality. Truth is that Labour and Trade Unions were culpable for the decline in UKs industrial capability and the rapid loss of our post war advantage and have been on the wrong side of every debate on strategy since 1945. I suspect you recognise the mayhem they wrought but do not have the mental strength to accept you and your ilk were wrong. Now we just have to watch you attempts to white-wash over the truth. I would laugh but there is nothing funny in your position, it is just sad.
Why do you attempt to circumvent points made more than once, with already discredited replies ? Take your answer to point, A.--"Compounded by", as you again ignore 13 years of Tory maladministration. An economic failure which damaged the UK economy and began to open the taps for worker discontent. You are prepared to disingenuously blame trade Union actions, or more accurately the actions of a discontent and disillusioned workforce that wanted better, expected better and deserved better, for the major damage done by weak Conservative policies 1951/1964. You choose to ignore the very obvious point that "politicised" worker actions that began to rise in the late 1960s were a product of the long term economic failure of investment, plus poor management, government failures and so on. The actions of the workforce were a product of so many failings, not the cause. Just tell it the way I saw it and is also recorded in the public domain. I have no need to dress up a lie that Trade Union chaos was not a big part of the reason for the decline in UK manufacturing. I know it, because I saw it and heard those IC of investments say "why invest in manufacturing as it has become far too risky when you can find less risk elsewhere". The Unions were warned over and over and over and over and the warnings came to pass. I saw major investment programmes in plant and machinery binned because of the very uncertainty of Trade Union acceptance. I saw projects mothballed because of a lack of worker cooperation and I saw the very same technologies being accepted with enthusiasm by German workers.
Ply your white-wash as you will you and your ilk only delude yourselves. Your mindset is the Millstone in the UK.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pro Veritas
|
Dec 2 2015, 09:20 AM
Post #177
|
- Posts:
- 7,014
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
Here's the thing I find funny about the MSM's reporting of Labour under Corbyn.
They are very quick to write as many column inches as possible about divisions within the Labour party, all - apparently - caused by Corbyn.
There are 600 MPs, and the Tories have 320 of them; yet Cameron is waiting until he has enough cross party support to get a majority vote to go to war and make a few munitions execs millionaires.
Well, Cameron already has a majority; in fact he has a permanent majority.
So the ONLY reason he needs cross-party support to get a "real majority" is because - wait for it - there are divisions within the Tory party over this issue.
How many column inches have been given over to the divisions within the Tory party? Bugger all.
Now, back to Corbyn as leader of the Labour party. He was elected to lead the Labour Party by the party membership. So any divisions within the Labour Party are NOT caused by him - it is his job to lead, and MPs' job to follow. Any divisions are caused by the MPs who hold positions contrary to the party leader.
But the press aren't reporting it in this way.
The MSM is doing a major hatchet job on Corbyn, and by and large (as in for those outside of the MSM and the Westminster Bubble) it is simply not working.
All The Best
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Dec 2 2015, 09:28 AM
Post #178
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Dec 2 2015, 08:49 AM
- C-too
- Dec 1 2015, 04:02 PM
- RJD
- Nov 30 2015, 04:32 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Why do you attempt to circumvent points made more than once, with already discredited replies ? Take your answer to point, A.--"Compounded by", as you again ignore 13 years of Tory maladministration. An economic failure which damaged the UK economy and began to open the taps for worker discontent. You are prepared to disingenuously blame trade Union actions, or more accurately the actions of a discontent and disillusioned workforce that wanted better, expected better and deserved better, for the major damage done by weak Conservative policies 1951/1964. You choose to ignore the very obvious point that "politicised" worker actions that began to rise in the late 1960s were a product of the long term economic failure of investment, plus poor management, government failures and so on. The actions of the workforce were a product of so many failings, not the cause.
Just tell it the way I saw it and is also recorded in the public domain. I have no need to dress up a lie that Trade Union chaos was not a big part of the reason for the decline in UK manufacturing. I know it, because I saw it and heard those IC of investments say "why invest in manufacturing as it has become far too risky when you can find less risk elsewhere". The Unions were warned over and over and over and over and the warnings came to pass. I saw major investment programmes in plant and machinery binned because of the very uncertainty of Trade Union acceptance. I saw projects mothballed because of a lack of worker cooperation and I saw the very same technologies being accepted with enthusiasm by German workers. Ply your white-wash as you will you and your ilk only delude yourselves. Your mindset is the Millstone in the UK. Perhaps you should address the "quote" in post 171 above. But put your black paint away first.
|
|
|
| |
|
skwirked
|
Dec 2 2015, 09:33 AM
Post #179
|
- Posts:
- 5,905
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #149
- Joined:
- Sep 6, 2015
|
Yes the Tories internal contradictions are only talked over when it's about an issue thatwin't make them look worse than Labour. It is disgusting, our media are beginning to copy the yanks.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Dec 2 2015, 09:48 AM
Post #180
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
Comparing the strife in Labour with the same in the Tories is always going to be subjective. Yes the Tories do have issues with a few MPs not supporting the leader but Labour has issues with many, probably most of its MPs wishing they had different.
And yes the Tory niches do get column inches - but if you don't want to look you will never see them.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Dec 2 2015, 10:08 AM
Post #181
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Dec 2 2015, 09:43 AM
- Pro Veritas
- Dec 2 2015, 09:20 AM
Here's the thing I find funny about the MSM's reporting of Labour under Corbyn.
They are very quick to write as many column inches as possible about divisions within the Labour party, all - apparently - caused by Corbyn.
There are 600 MPs, and the Tories have 320 of them; yet Cameron is waiting until he has enough cross party support to get a majority vote to go to war and make a few munitions execs millionaires.
Well, Cameron already has a majority; in fact he has a permanent majority.
So the ONLY reason he needs cross-party support to get a "real majority" is because - wait for it - there are divisions within the Tory party over this issue.
How many column inches have been given over to the divisions within the Tory party? Bugger all.
Now, back to Corbyn as leader of the Labour party. He was elected to lead the Labour Party by the party membership. So any divisions within the Labour Party are NOT caused by him - it is his job to lead, and MPs' job to follow. Any divisions are caused by the MPs who hold positions contrary to the party leader.
But the press aren't reporting it in this way.
The MSM is doing a major hatchet job on Corbyn, and by and large (as in for those outside of the MSM and the Westminster Bubble) it is simply not working.
All The Best
I would love to know how many members of the 'Stop the War Coalition' and the so called 'Respect' party have now brought their magic wand approach into the now so called Labour party. As far as bombing Isis goes, until Isis stop expanding, murdering and raping anyone they can get hold of that does not agree with them and will not join them, and they decide to negotiate, then there is little option other than to bomb and fight them in any way that sensible people can. No need C2 as there were no doubt many other strikes for multifarious reasons, it was the culture of the day promulgated by Trade Unions. My references are not to do with Public Sector workers but the demise of British manufacturing exacerbated by the bully boy Trade Unions. You see I saw what was taking place in Germany and the UK at the same time and UK workers were not underpaid in comparison, but they were highly motivated politically all drummed up by you know who. I guess it is difficult for you as you probably were one of those that bought into the hogwash of those causes, all you did, as warned, was shoot yourselves in the foot. Inefficient UK industries had no future chances in the global economy that was developing rapidly and either they got themselves fit for purpose or got out. Well the Tories helped many become fitter and saw off those that were not capable of such and then NL oversaw a very rapid reduction in our metal bashing industries. Historians will show that NL did more harm to British manufacturing than any Gov. since the stupid strategic mistakes of Attlee. We paid a very heavy price for sustaining inefficient nationalised industries for as long as we did and not giving Trade Union bully boy bosses a bloody nose. It took us until the early 1980s when not just decline was on the cards, but demise for a woman with gonads to step forward and do the job. But lets face it, ultimately the preserve of common sense and pragmatism only exists in the Tory ranks.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Dec 2 2015, 10:11 AM
Post #182
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Pro Veritas
- Dec 2 2015, 10:05 AM
- C-too
- Dec 2 2015, 09:43 AM
As far as bombing Isis goes, until Isis stop expanding, murdering and raping anyone they can get hold of that does not agree with them and will not join them, and they decide to negotiate, then there is little option other than to bomb and fight them in any way that sensible people can.
So Islamic Terrorists causing civilian casualties because we won't convert to Islam is bad. But us causing civilian casualties because ISIS won't convert to a West-friendly version of Islam is good? Really? BTW: How did bombing Islamic terrorist into the stone age work for us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria work out for us? Oh, hang on, it didn't. Insanity: repeating the same experiment and expecting different results. All The Best There is no way I could possibly pierce that sort of irrational and confused thinking. Are you a member of the 'Stop the War Coalition' by any chance ?
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Dec 2 2015, 10:13 AM
Post #183
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Dec 2 2015, 10:08 AM
- C-too
- Dec 2 2015, 09:43 AM
- Pro Veritas
- Dec 2 2015, 09:20 AM
Here's the thing I find funny about the MSM's reporting of Labour under Corbyn.
They are very quick to write as many column inches as possible about divisions within the Labour party, all - apparently - caused by Corbyn.
There are 600 MPs, and the Tories have 320 of them; yet Cameron is waiting until he has enough cross party support to get a majority vote to go to war and make a few munitions execs millionaires.
Well, Cameron already has a majority; in fact he has a permanent majority.
So the ONLY reason he needs cross-party support to get a "real majority" is because - wait for it - there are divisions within the Tory party over this issue.
How many column inches have been given over to the divisions within the Tory party? Bugger all.
Now, back to Corbyn as leader of the Labour party. He was elected to lead the Labour Party by the party membership. So any divisions within the Labour Party are NOT caused by him - it is his job to lead, and MPs' job to follow. Any divisions are caused by the MPs who hold positions contrary to the party leader.
But the press aren't reporting it in this way.
The MSM is doing a major hatchet job on Corbyn, and by and large (as in for those outside of the MSM and the Westminster Bubble) it is simply not working.
All The Best
I would love to know how many members of the 'Stop the War Coalition' and the so called 'Respect' party have now brought their magic wand approach into the now so called Labour party. As far as bombing Isis goes, until Isis stop expanding, murdering and raping anyone they can get hold of that does not agree with them and will not join them, and they decide to negotiate, then there is little option other than to bomb and fight them in any way that sensible people can.
No need C2 as there were no doubt many other strikes for multifarious reasons, it was the culture of the day promulgated by Trade Unions. My references are not to do with Public Sector workers but the demise of British manufacturing exacerbated by the bully boy Trade Unions. You see I saw what was taking place in Germany and the UK at the same time and UK workers were not underpaid in comparison, but they were highly motivated politically all drummed up by you know who. I guess it is difficult for you as you probably were one of those that bought into the hogwash of those causes, all you did, as warned, was shoot yourselves in the foot. Inefficient UK industries had no future chances in the global economy that was developing rapidly and either they got themselves fit for purpose or got out. Well the Tories helped many become fitter and saw off those that were not capable of such and then NL oversaw a very rapid reduction in our metal bashing industries. Historians will show that NL did more harm to British manufacturing than any Gov. since the stupid strategic mistakes of Attlee. We paid a very heavy price for sustaining inefficient nationalised industries for as long as we did and not giving Trade Union bully boy bosses a bloody nose. It took us until the early 1980s when not just decline was on the cards, but demise for a woman with gonads to step forward and do the job. But lets face it, ultimately the preserve of common sense and pragmatism only exists in the Tory ranks. See the "quote" in post 171.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Dec 2 2015, 10:17 AM
Post #184
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Dec 2 2015, 10:13 AM
- RJD
- Dec 2 2015, 10:08 AM
- C-too
- Dec 2 2015, 09:43 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
No need C2 as there were no doubt many other strikes for multifarious reasons, it was the culture of the day promulgated by Trade Unions. My references are not to do with Public Sector workers but the demise of British manufacturing exacerbated by the bully boy Trade Unions. You see I saw what was taking place in Germany and the UK at the same time and UK workers were not underpaid in comparison, but they were highly motivated politically all drummed up by you know who. I guess it is difficult for you as you probably were one of those that bought into the hogwash of those causes, all you did, as warned, was shoot yourselves in the foot. Inefficient UK industries had no future chances in the global economy that was developing rapidly and either they got themselves fit for purpose or got out. Well the Tories helped many become fitter and saw off those that were not capable of such and then NL oversaw a very rapid reduction in our metal bashing industries. Historians will show that NL did more harm to British manufacturing than any Gov. since the stupid strategic mistakes of Attlee. We paid a very heavy price for sustaining inefficient nationalised industries for as long as we did and not giving Trade Union bully boy bosses a bloody nose. It took us until the early 1980s when not just decline was on the cards, but demise for a woman with gonads to step forward and do the job. But lets face it, ultimately the preserve of common sense and pragmatism only exists in the Tory ranks.
See the "quote" in post 171. I did and answered accordingly. You are seeking to shift ground and to be clear we are debating the decline in UK manufacturing. But as we know that among others is one of the standard tricks of the Usuals.
|
|
|
| |
|
skwirked
|
Dec 2 2015, 10:17 AM
Post #185
|
- Posts:
- 5,905
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #149
- Joined:
- Sep 6, 2015
|
- C-too
- Dec 2 2015, 10:11 AM
- Pro Veritas
- Dec 2 2015, 10:05 AM
- C-too
- Dec 2 2015, 09:43 AM
As far as bombing Isis goes, until Isis stop expanding, murdering and raping anyone they can get hold of that does not agree with them and will not join them, and they decide to negotiate, then there is little option other than to bomb and fight them in any way that sensible people can.
So Islamic Terrorists causing civilian casualties because we won't convert to Islam is bad. But us causing civilian casualties because ISIS won't convert to a West-friendly version of Islam is good? Really? BTW: How did bombing Islamic terrorist into the stone age work for us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria work out for us? Oh, hang on, it didn't. Insanity: repeating the same experiment and expecting different results. All The Best
There is no way I could possibly pierce that sort of irrational and confused thinking. Are you a member of the 'Stop the War Coalition' by any chance ? Translation: exactly the opposite of what you wrote; you fully understand his logical post, you've seen his reasoned defence of the west and know that he can't possibly be a STWC member and so on..
You have no rebuttal because there isn't one.
|
|
|
| |
|
ACH1967
|
Dec 2 2015, 10:23 AM
Post #186
|
- Posts:
- 4,225
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #56
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2014
|
- C-too
- Dec 2 2015, 10:11 AM
- Pro Veritas
- Dec 2 2015, 10:05 AM
- C-too
- Dec 2 2015, 09:43 AM
As far as bombing Isis goes, until Isis stop expanding, murdering and raping anyone they can get hold of that does not agree with them and will not join them, and they decide to negotiate, then there is little option other than to bomb and fight them in any way that sensible people can.
So Islamic Terrorists causing civilian casualties because we won't convert to Islam is bad. But us causing civilian casualties because ISIS won't convert to a West-friendly version of Islam is good? Really? BTW: How did bombing Islamic terrorist into the stone age work for us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria work out for us? Oh, hang on, it didn't. Insanity: repeating the same experiment and expecting different results. All The Best
There is no way I could possibly pierce that sort of irrational and confused thinking. Are you a member of the 'Stop the War Coalition' by any chance ? What is it that you find irrational and confused about PV's position?
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Dec 2 2015, 10:28 AM
Post #187
|
- Posts:
- 33,941
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
More bomb posts moved to the bomb or not thread. Trying to keep the threads focussed but it's a bit like pushing water back up the river
|
|
|
| |
|
Pro Veritas
|
Dec 2 2015, 10:49 AM
Post #188
|
- Posts:
- 7,014
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Dec 2 2015, 10:11 AM
There is no way I could possibly pierce that sort of irrational and confused thinking. Are you a member of the 'Stop the War Coalition' by any chance ? Oh please you can do better than that.
There is nothing irrational or confused about what I wrote.
The government's current position in this is exactly this: ISIS killing civilians because we won't do what they want is bad; us killing civilians because ISIS won't do what we want is good.
That is most definitely confused and irrational.
On top of which we have done the "bomb civilians as well as terrorists until they stop being terrorists" thing already, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria - it didn't work in those places, so only a retard would think it would work this time.
Now if Cameron were to propose a policy that would work, even one that involved military intervention up to and including "boots on the ground" (which by the way is going to be a 100% necessity if anyone is actually serious about defeating ISIS) I would support it - but this isn't such a policy.
Its a policy that repeats what we already know doesn't work and that is why I oppose it.
All The Best
|
|
|
| |
|
AndyK
|
Dec 2 2015, 01:05 PM
Post #189
|
- Posts:
- 2,474
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #69
- Joined:
- Aug 11, 2014
|
- Rich
- Dec 2 2015, 12:26 AM
"That is not an endorsement of his leadership qualities however."
when, exactly, do you think those qualities will become manifest? I don't think they ever will, leadership skills have nothing to do with being right on a few subjects.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Dec 2 2015, 02:05 PM
Post #190
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Dec 2 2015, 10:17 AM
- C-too
- Dec 2 2015, 10:13 AM
- RJD
- Dec 2 2015, 10:08 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
See the "quote" in post 171.
I did and answered accordingly. You are seeking to shift ground and to be clear we are debating the decline in UK manufacturing. But as we know that among others is one of the standard tricks of the Usuals. You have shifted ground from the start and you still refuse to see the truth.
The foundations of the decline in UK manufacturing was clearly explained in my post on the Old Films in London. I also asked you to answer a question on that thread which the last time I looked you had ignored. To repeat the explanation is obviously a waste of time and effort because you have the ability to blank it out.
Edited by C-too, Dec 2 2015, 02:22 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Dec 2 2015, 02:18 PM
Post #191
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Pro Veritas
- Dec 2 2015, 10:49 AM
- C-too
- Dec 2 2015, 10:11 AM
There is no way I could possibly pierce that sort of irrational and confused thinking. Are you a member of the 'Stop the War Coalition' by any chance ?
Oh please you can do better than that. There is nothing irrational or confused about what I wrote. The government's current position in this is exactly this: ISIS killing civilians because we won't do what they want is bad; us killing civilians because ISIS won't do what we want is good. That is most definitely confused and irrational. On top of which we have done the "bomb civilians as well as terrorists until they stop being terrorists" thing already, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria - it didn't work in those places, so only a retard would think it would work this time. Now if Cameron were to propose a policy that would work, even one that involved military intervention up to and including "boots on the ground" (which by the way is going to be a 100% necessity if anyone is actually serious about defeating ISIS) I would support it - but this isn't such a policy. Its a policy that repeats what we already know doesn't work and that is why I oppose it. All The Best Try this for starters. Isis, killing or raping and killing, --- ALL --- who do not agree with them or are not prepared to join them, "us" killing some people unintentionally in an attempt to eradicate this growing cancer called Isis. See the difference ?
Hindsight comments on Iraq and Afghanistan are useless without pointing out and proving workable alternatives to the situations that existed before the invasions.
|
|
|
| |
|
ACH1967
|
Dec 2 2015, 03:48 PM
Post #192
|
- Posts:
- 4,225
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #56
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2014
|
- C-too
- Dec 2 2015, 02:18 PM
- Pro Veritas
- Dec 2 2015, 10:49 AM
- C-too
- Dec 2 2015, 10:11 AM
There is no way I could possibly pierce that sort of irrational and confused thinking. Are you a member of the 'Stop the War Coalition' by any chance ?
Oh please you can do better than that. There is nothing irrational or confused about what I wrote. The government's current position in this is exactly this: ISIS killing civilians because we won't do what they want is bad; us killing civilians because ISIS won't do what we want is good. That is most definitely confused and irrational. On top of which we have done the "bomb civilians as well as terrorists until they stop being terrorists" thing already, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria - it didn't work in those places, so only a retard would think it would work this time. Now if Cameron were to propose a policy that would work, even one that involved military intervention up to and including "boots on the ground" (which by the way is going to be a 100% necessity if anyone is actually serious about defeating ISIS) I would support it - but this isn't such a policy. Its a policy that repeats what we already know doesn't work and that is why I oppose it. All The Best
Try this for starters. Isis, killing or raping and killing, --- ALL --- who do not agree with them or are not prepared to join them, "us" killing some people unintentionally in an attempt to eradicate this growing cancer called Isis. See the difference ? Hindsight comments on Iraq and Afghanistan are useless without pointing out and proving workable alternatives to the situations that existed before the invasions. Ah so ISIS are killing people on purpose and we are killing people by accident so it's alright. Glad we got that sorted out. Plus ISIS is killing everyone and we are only killing those who don't run fast enough when they hear the bombs (that will be the weak and vulnerable who in this country one might suggest we do all we can to protect).
Oh and if you were thinking of having a go at me because I don't agree with you could you make it clear whther you are doing it on purpose or by accident so I can know if I should be offended or not
Edited by ACH1967, Dec 2 2015, 03:53 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Dec 2 2015, 04:00 PM
Post #193
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Dec 2 2015, 02:05 PM
- RJD
- Dec 2 2015, 10:17 AM
- C-too
- Dec 2 2015, 10:13 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I did and answered accordingly. You are seeking to shift ground and to be clear we are debating the decline in UK manufacturing. But as we know that among others is one of the standard tricks of the Usuals.
You have shifted ground from the start and you still refuse to see the truth. The foundations of the decline in UK manufacturing was clearly explained in my post on the Old Films in London. I also asked you to answer a question on that thread which the last time I looked you had ignored. To repeat the explanation is obviously a waste of time and effort because you have the ability to blank it out. I do not answer your questions if I believe you know the answer or are seeking to shift ground. If the former then why are you seeking to waste my precious time, if the latter then start another thread.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Dec 2 2015, 04:05 PM
Post #194
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- ACH1967
- Dec 2 2015, 03:48 PM
- C-too
- Dec 2 2015, 02:18 PM
- Pro Veritas
- Dec 2 2015, 10:49 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Try this for starters. Isis, killing or raping and killing, --- ALL --- who do not agree with them or are not prepared to join them, "us" killing some people unintentionally in an attempt to eradicate this growing cancer called Isis. See the difference ? Hindsight comments on Iraq and Afghanistan are useless without pointing out and proving workable alternatives to the situations that existed before the invasions.
Ah so ISIS are killing people on purpose and we are killing people by accident so it's alright. Glad we got that sorted out. Plus ISIS is killing everyone and we are only killing those who don't run fast enough when they hear the bombs (that will be the weak and vulnerable who in this country one might suggest we do all we can to protect). Oh and if you were thinking of having a go at me because I don't agree with you could you make it clear whther you are doing it on purpose or by accident so I can know if I should be offended or not  I think if you are against bombing ISIL on Syrian soil then you must also be against such over Iraqi soil. If so should we decline the Iraqi Governments request for such support?
Everyone regrets the killing of innocents, but one has to understand that such are often used as a shield. Now what does that say about an enemy, one that has declared and demonstrate that it wants to kill us, who hides behind the skirts of it's women folk?
|
|
|
| |
|
ACH1967
|
Dec 2 2015, 04:19 PM
Post #195
|
- Posts:
- 4,225
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #56
- Joined:
- Jul 24, 2014
|
- RJD
- Dec 2 2015, 04:05 PM
- ACH1967
- Dec 2 2015, 03:48 PM
- C-too
- Dec 2 2015, 02:18 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Ah so ISIS are killing people on purpose and we are killing people by accident so it's alright. Glad we got that sorted out. Plus ISIS is killing everyone and we are only killing those who don't run fast enough when they hear the bombs (that will be the weak and vulnerable who in this country one might suggest we do all we can to protect). Oh and if you were thinking of having a go at me because I don't agree with you could you make it clear whther you are doing it on purpose or by accident so I can know if I should be offended or not 
I think if you are against bombing ISIL on Syrian soil then you must also be against such over Iraqi soil. If so should we decline the Iraqi Governments request for such support? Everyone regrets the killing of innocents, but one has to understand that such are often used as a shield. Now what does that say about an enemy, one that has declared and demonstrate that it wants to kill us, who hides behind the skirts of it's women folk? True but is there a tipping point where the badness of the enemy justifies killing civilians?
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Dec 2 2015, 04:27 PM
Post #196
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- ACH1967
- Dec 2 2015, 04:19 PM
- RJD
- Dec 2 2015, 04:05 PM
- ACH1967
- Dec 2 2015, 03:48 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I think if you are against bombing ISIL on Syrian soil then you must also be against such over Iraqi soil. If so should we decline the Iraqi Governments request for such support? Everyone regrets the killing of innocents, but one has to understand that such are often used as a shield. Now what does that say about an enemy, one that has declared and demonstrate that it wants to kill us, who hides behind the skirts of it's women folk?
True but is there a tipping point where the badness of the enemy justifies killing civilians? Where is that and how do you arrive at the measure of that point? How many innocents has ISIL killed or injured or raped thus far? Is it more or less than the number of innocents killed or injured by from French and US bombs? Could you explain the morality of your tipping point?
|
|
|
| |
|
Pro Veritas
|
Dec 2 2015, 06:29 PM
Post #197
|
- Posts:
- 7,014
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Dec 2 2015, 02:18 PM
Isis, killing or raping and killing, --- ALL --- who do not agree with them or are not prepared to join them, "us" killing some people unintentionally in an attempt to eradicate this growing cancer called Isis. See the difference ? It isn't "unintentional" though is it.
We have decided that a) we want to bomb even though it hasn't worked so far and b) we don't care that we know innocent civilians will die.
Our intent is to bomb, no matter the consequences, no matter the efficacy of doing so, no matter how many non-combatants die.
That isn't "unintentional", it's unjustifiable.
The ONLY thing that may (note I said MAY) justify some small measure of "collateral" damage to non-combatants would be if the bombing were 100% guaranteed to stop ISIS in its tracks.
But it won't.
All The Best
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Dec 2 2015, 07:38 PM
Post #198
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- ACH1967
- Dec 2 2015, 03:48 PM
- C-too
- Dec 2 2015, 02:18 PM
- Pro Veritas
- Dec 2 2015, 10:49 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Try this for starters. Isis, killing or raping and killing, --- ALL --- who do not agree with them or are not prepared to join them, "us" killing some people unintentionally in an attempt to eradicate this growing cancer called Isis. See the difference ? Hindsight comments on Iraq and Afghanistan are useless without pointing out and proving workable alternatives to the situations that existed before the invasions.
Ah so ISIS are killing people on purpose and we are killing people by accident so it's alright. Glad we got that sorted out. Plus ISIS is killing everyone and we are only killing those who don't run fast enough when they hear the bombs (that will be the weak and vulnerable who in this country one might suggest we do all we can to protect). Oh and if you were thinking of having a go at me because I don't agree with you could you make it clear whther you are doing it on purpose or by accident so I can know if I should be offended or not  I never said it was alright. I pointed out the difference, and for those paying attention, indicated that there was no workable option at this present time.
Perhaps you should feel offended by misinterpreting my post.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Dec 2 2015, 07:52 PM
Post #199
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Pro Veritas
- Dec 2 2015, 06:29 PM
- C-too
- Dec 2 2015, 02:18 PM
Isis, killing or raping and killing, --- ALL --- who do not agree with them or are not prepared to join them, "us" killing some people unintentionally in an attempt to eradicate this growing cancer called Isis. See the difference ?
It isn't "unintentional" though is it. We have decided that a) we want to bomb even though it hasn't worked so far and b) we don't care that we know innocent civilians will die. Our intent is to bomb, no matter the consequences, no matter the efficacy of doing so, no matter how many non-combatants die. That isn't "unintentional", it's unjustifiable. The ONLY thing that may (note I said MAY) justify some small measure of "collateral" damage to non-combatants would be if the bombing were 100% guaranteed to stop ISIS in its tracks. But it won't. All The Best As I understand it much of the bombing is aimed at such areas as headquarters plus oil storage and oils sales, and equipment supplies.
Unintentional or unavoidable, either way it is very different from the very intentional seeking out and killing by Isis. Isn't it ? How do you stop that ?
I totally disagree with your mind set on this, so there is little point in repeating the points I have already made.
I suspect you are either a member of the Magic Wand Brigade (Stop the War Coalition) or at least are a supporter of their fairy tale approach.
Edited by C-too, Dec 2 2015, 07:53 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Dec 2 2015, 07:59 PM
Post #200
|
- Posts:
- 17,666
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Dec 2 2015, 04:00 PM
- C-too
- Dec 2 2015, 02:05 PM
- RJD
- Dec 2 2015, 10:17 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
You have shifted ground from the start and you still refuse to see the truth. The foundations of the decline in UK manufacturing was clearly explained in my post on the Old Films in London. I also asked you to answer a question on that thread which the last time I looked you had ignored. To repeat the explanation is obviously a waste of time and effort because you have the ability to blank it out.
I do not answer your questions if I believe you know the answer or are seeking to shift ground. If the former then why are you seeking to waste my precious time, if the latter then start another thread. The question I posed to you on the 'Nostalgic remorse' thread is very relevant to you claims on damage done by the unions.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|