ot jeremy corbyn

[rolymiller]

Your argument is that the capitalists in this world should be free to make a big pie so that it can all be shared out. The problem is that they keep having a nibble of that pie until there's none left to share and that is being kind to them because most will just eat the pie and say Sid the rest. Are you a pie eater Mr kerrkemps?

[ragingpup]

@ragingpup

The fact is that the Mail ploughs its own furrow and will use 'sickening spin' (i.e. the capitalisation of words in headlines) against anyone who gets in front of the tractor. And what is the end it wants to achieve? Assuming that the paper is being run to make money for its owner, then they do it because they are seeking to appeal to people with a particular mind-set – people who share its particular flavour of political basis – in order to sell copy.

Just one other thing before I go about my day.

You think the Mail is only targeting immigration to sell papers to the bigots? If we sidestep the debate about whether we're happy if, as you say, one of our largest news sources is simply pandering to the tastes of a "particular mind set" (just say bigots Kerr, for the love of God!), I disagree that this is their motive. I think that the owner shares the political motives of Mogg and friends in the ERG who are currently using their private capital and privilege in parliament, to campaign for a hard Brexit. I don't think it is about trying to stop immigration affecting native workers, it is simply about removing us from EU legislation so that we can redefine our own position on rights, environmental and safety standards so that we can further maximise business profits. This is really what the owner wants. The stance on immigration, increasing pressure on May from the public, is just a means to that end I'm afraid.

[great_fire]

Got to laugh at "principled" Corbyn selling out his working class voters and betraying Brexit in favour of students and middle-class Guardianistas.

[animallittle3]

With all due respect, I have always been clear that the country has changed since the 70s - that's exactly why I will not vote for a Labour Party that seeks to return us to those days.

The Thatcher government ended the closed shop protection racket, imposed democracy on the unions and curbed the intimidation of working people by mass and secondary picketing. Just as importantly, she had the will to face the unions down as you will recall from 1984/5. To be fair to Labour, their 2017 manifesto only promised to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, but would it stop there? Why should anyone believe that to be so given The Great Leader’s politics, the source of his funding and that he and Len McCluskey appear to be joined at the hip?

If your argument is that people’s attitudes have changed. Take a look at this post of yours from 14 months ago: http://boards.footymad.net/showthread.php?t=38178604

So there you are, a member of the Labour Party and of what you imply is a ‘moderate’ Momentum unit, endorsing an article from The Guardian that calls for increased militancy and relishes industrial action.

The enemy within hasn’t disappeared, it’s just waiting for a government that is willing to slip the leash on it.

You mention a number of things that you think people want. You’re probably right, but are they willing to pay for it? The Lib Dems stood on a 1% increase in income tax to increase funding for the NHS and got nowhere in 2017. And when the Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner secured a referendum for an increase in council tax funding for the police, this is what happened:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32694166.

At the time of that referendum, I saw a number of ‘vox pop’ interviews with members of the Bedfordshire public, who pretty much universally said ‘No – we pay enough already’. I suppose that’s why Labour did better than expected in 2017 with their ‘you can have all that you want and more and someone else will pay’ message. The sad thing is that in most other areas of their life, they would recognise that to be a ‘too good to be true’ proposition

People might not want the 70s, but that’s what they risk getting if they return The Great Leader to power. The Great Leader wants to be PM. Whilst it may be inconvenient for him to have some his past words reported, it’s unrealistic of you to expect it not to happen.

So going on strike despite it's legality is militant and harmful to the health of the country ?

Militant university lecturers perhaps !!!

Simple solution of course is to pay people a reasonable wage and keep pay at the rate of inflation .

Stop expecting the NHS staff to work every hour in a day under extreme pressure and stress whilst not offering them anything in return .

Why not work to achieving a culture of respect , dignity and fairness in the workplace ? , one of May's aims before doing the u turn .

If you keep poking people with a stick then they will react .

Almost every industrial action in this day and age is simply reactionary .

Never see you post anything towards achieving better working relations , you simply condemn people for reacting .

Always the way , never the fault of people higher up the chain with you .

Thatcher government provokes miners strike , our fault , naturally !!! .

Perhaps we should have all just shrugged our shoulders , mutted " oh well " and got into line outside the dole office along with the other millions in 1980's Britain looking at years on benefits because there was **** all else round here .

Your Thatcher wet dream is drawing to a close , instigated by the man you have wrote off more times than Thatcher put folk on the dole .

Largest vote for the Tories since Thatcher and still couldn't get a majority , you believe they are going to vote for them again ?

1970's man just had this morning an endorsement from business , directors and the TUC .

[KerrAvon]

In haste. You're right, I don't have enough time for this! Interesting though.

The whole point of what I was arguing is that, as the Chomsky quote was dealing with, we are NOT "living in a free and democratic country with a free press" - that, in my opinion, is an illusion. The 'democracy' in our country is limited by the less than dozen mass media owners and their links with major corporation owners. They effectively limit the scope of argument that is able to be accessed to the masses of people. You are free to continue believing that it is a free democracy and a free press but I completely disagree, simple as that. And therefore I propose that we should move in the direction of rethinking that system, simply because the press is not free.

That might be fraught with difficulty, and I'm well aware that you might say that I only want a media that agrees with me. But that's not true, I just think that there should be a greater balance of political perspectives and arguments reaching the mass media market and that in 200-300 years time, our future inheritors (planet permitting!) will look back on this age and see it as very primitive in it's thinking regarding political/economic structures. Unlike you, I do not think that the current 'free market' neo liberal democracy is the best way of organising society and that it's straining at the seams. A reasoned, intelligent challenge that looks at trying to make a fairer society to the one that you support I think is a healthy thing. I welcome it.

I rather hoped that we could leave Chomsky out of it. You misunderstand him and misuse his words.

Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist, who disagrees with the notion of government as we know it. If you believe that he would support The Great Leader, you are mistaken; he would see little if any difference between Labour and the Tories and between The Great Leader and May. He would argue that they both represent a political elite who hoard economic power and withhold it from the masses. When he talked within your quote about other devices [being] required to prevent the ignorant masses from interfering with public affairs he wasn’t taking a shot at the Tories or the political right. He was taking a shot at politics and the notion of government generally.

If you believe that Chomsky would support your desire for an element of political control of the press then you really need to look more closely at his writings. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If you don’t believe me ask IBS, who is a massive Chomsky fan.

Meanwhile, in the real world, or at least in liberal democracies like the UK, there are a wide range of political views freely available within the media for those who want it. animal can continue to read The Guardian and gf can continue to read The Daily Mail. Long may that remain, even if Chomsky would find little difference between them.

[KerrAvon]

You don' t do yourself a very good job of selling yourself to represent workers in dispute with management on here Mr Kerr kempo because you obviously are not interested in workers rights one bit. So I have to conclude all you miller's madders if you are in dispute with management use someone else who might defend you who actually cares. Makes me wonder who you do defend unless you are just motivated by money rather than what you believe in. Hmm? A man of no substance. Pathetic. Sad.

I’ll make sure to let my clients know about your views. Some of them might respond by saying that I actually do something about fairness, equality and protecting people from the state as opposed to running around on message boards calling people names. Who knows?

[KerrAvon]

By the way greed is killing this planet but you obviously don't care just blame it on the weak and poor eh? Never do you address poverty except to glibly say the wealth will trickle down well there is no evidence to say it does and you know it never will. Stick to your selfish ways it suits you but it makes you a very poor specimen of a human being.

We’ve moved onto environmental issues, I see. What is The Great Leader planning to do about such things? Within post 26 you seem to be arguing that everyone is entitled to a ‘decent holiday’. If that isn’t a ‘first world problem’ I really don’t know what is, but how do you think all that travel fits with your environmental concerns?

If you can find a post in which I have said that say ‘the wealth will trickle down’, either glibly or otherwise, let me know and I will stop posting on this site for good. I’ve never said it.

[KerrAvon]

Your argument is that the capitalists in this world should be free to make a big pie so that it can all be shared out. The problem is that they keep having a nibble of that pie until there's none left to share and that is being kind to them because most will just eat the pie and say Sid the rest. Are you a pie eater Mr kerrkemps?

I’m fond of a pie, but try not to eat too many, Gisjbert.

[KerrAvon]

Just one other thing before I go about my day.

You think the Mail is only targeting immigration to sell papers to the bigots? If we sidestep the debate about whether we're happy if, as you say, one of our largest news sources is simply pandering to the tastes of a "particular mind set" (just say bigots Kerr, for the love of God!), I disagree that this is their motive. I think that the owner shares the political motives of Mogg and friends in the ERG who are currently using their private capital and privilege in parliament, to campaign for a hard Brexit. I don't think it is about trying to stop immigration affecting native workers, it is simply about removing us from EU legislation so that we can redefine our own position on rights, environmental and safety standards so that we can further maximise business profits. This is really what the owner wants. The stance on immigration, increasing pressure on May from the public, is just a means to that end I'm afraid.

A bigot is a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions to theirs. Given your willingness to brand all Mail readers as being bigots simply because many of them will hold different views on immigration to you, I think you may see one in the mirror.

I see that you have a least tried to square the circle that I gave you, but the fact remains that you are trying to argue in one breath that the Tories and ‘big business’ favour immigration as a source of cheap labour, whilst being forced in the next breath to acknowledge that the supposedly pro Tory ‘big business’ that runs the Mail is vehemently anti-immigration. That you are reduced to a somewhat fanciful impenetrable conspiracy theory to explain that away smacks of desperation.

[KerrAvon]

So going on strike despite it's legality is militant and harmful to the health of the country ?

Militant university lecturers perhaps !!!

Simple solution of course is to pay people a reasonable wage and keep pay at the rate of inflation .

Stop expecting the NHS staff to work every hour in a day under extreme pressure and stress whilst not offering them anything in return .

Why not work to achieving a culture of respect , dignity and fairness in the workplace ? , one of May's aims before doing the u turn .

If you keep poking people with a stick then they will react .

Almost every industrial action in this day and age is simply reactionary .

Never see you post anything towards achieving better working relations , you simply condemn people for reacting .

Always the way , never the fault of people higher up the chain with you .

Thatcher government provokes miners strike , our fault , naturally !!! .

Perhaps we should have all just shrugged our shoulders , mutted " oh well " and got into line outside the dole office along with the other millions in 1980's Britain looking at years on benefits because there was **** all else round here .

Your Thatcher wet dream is drawing to a close , instigated by the man you have wrote off more times than Thatcher put folk on the dole .

Largest vote for the Tories since Thatcher and still couldn't get a majority , you believe they are going to vote for them again ?

1970's man just had this morning an endorsement from business , directors and the TUC .

I think going on strike is a fairly militant act. Don’t you? It’s a pretty confrontational act. Militancy doesn't necessarily involve throwing bricks at the police and people who want to work.. I also think strikes are generally harmful to the economic health of a country. How could they not be?

When you were whooping it up in December 2016 about the Southern Rail strike, and people getting on their bikes, did you spare a thought for the many people who would be left struggling to get to work, some of them low paid and lacking the means to use more expensive forms of transport? Apparently not given your glee at that dispute.

Thatcher prepared for the miners’ strike with the single intention of taking on and defeating a major union, but the NUM were hardly shrinking violets in the affair. What should you have done? It’s more about what the union should have done, which would to have been to respect the rights of its members by seeking a mandate for official strike action in a national and secret ballot rather than trying to intimidate those members who wouldn’t follow their diktat. As I’ve said before, perhaps the industry would have received a softer landing but for the failure to do that.

The CBI and IOD made encouraging noise about Labours announcement today because they are generally pro EU membership and are, therefore, enthusiastic about proposed policies that tend towards ‘Brexit’ meaning leaving the EU in name only. Whether the Labour voters who gave the party the benefit of the doubt and returned to them from UKIP last year will be equally as keen remains to be seen.