O/T Jeremy corbyn

[BigLadonOS]

No doubt that the tories are all about making money but I think making the poor poorer is a bit of a myth.

Corbyn is a dinosaur and a bit of a gift to the tories. A better leader would have decimated the tories and would have delivered a Labour victory at the last general election. The conservatives are probably more than happy keeping Corbyn where he is.

You may well be right in historical terms but over the last decade I think you will find that I am correct.

[animallittle3]

No doubt that the tories are all about making money but I think making the poor poorer is a bit of a myth.

Corbyn is a dinosaur and a bit of a gift to the tories. A better leader would have decimated the tories and would have delivered a Labour victory at the last general election. The conservatives are probably more than happy keeping Corbyn where he is.

You could argue with some merit that the new PM is also a dinosaur Grist .

Same old rhetoric , tax cuts for the top end , Eton and Oxford University and more than a hint of the good old Tory Imperialist about him .

[BigLadonOS]

1, Does this country need big business? Of course we need big business.

2, Do we need low taxes for big businesses? Of course we do.

Without businesses there is no future for this country.

3, Do we need tax cuts for the rich? No we do not need tax cuts for the rich.

4, Do we need tax cuts for the working class? No we do not need tax cuts for the working class, what we need is more jobs and better wages that will eliminate the need for tax cuts.

How do we get more jobs and better wages? We get more jobs and better wages by making it a no brainer for big businesses to invest in this country by making it the place where big businesses can thrive and make the biggest profits.

All the above is common sense but we need a government that will deliver this and I have to say that in my lifetime only one government has managed to do this and that was the labour party who ran the country from 1964 to 1970. However. Before 1964 the then Conservative government had been in power for 13 years and had done a brilliant job to make Briton a thriving place to live for both the working class and the rich people of this country. The Labour party continued to build on this great work from 1964 onward until it lost power in 1970.

What this country needs right now is a return to where big businesses can thrive and in doing so can take the rest of the country with it.

[animallittle3]

1, Does this country need big business? Of course we need big business.

2, Do we need low taxes for big businesses? Of course we do.

Without businesses there is no future for this country.

3, Do we need tax cuts for the rich? No we do not need tax cuts for the rich.

4, Do we need tax cuts for the working class? No we do not need tax cuts for the working class, what we need is more jobs and better wages that will eliminate the need for tax cuts.

How do we get more jobs and better wages? We get more jobs and better wages by making it a no brainer for big businesses to invest in this country by making it the place where big businesses can thrive and make the biggest profits.

All the above is common sense but we need a government that will deliver this and I have to say that in my lifetime only one government has managed to do this and that was the labour party who ran the country from 1964 to 1970. However. Before 1964 the then Conservative government had been in power for 13 years and had done a brilliant job to make Briton a thriving place to live for both the working class and the rich people of this country. The Labour party continued to build on this great work from 1964 onward until it lost power in 1970.

What this country needs right now is a return to where big businesses can thrive and in doing so can take the rest of the country with it.

But those were the days when workers had bargaining power biglad .

ASOS in Grimethorpe is a thriving business today , go ask the workers how much their profitable success affects their lives ?

[BigLadonOS]

But those were the days when workers had bargaining power biglad .

ASOS in Grimethorpe is a thriving business today , go ask the workers how much their profitable success affects their lives ?

This is why I said "All the above is common sense but we need a government that will deliver this".

What we need is a return to a government that has the countries best interests at heart not one for the rich and one for poor.

Right now we have 2 big political parties that are intent on making the gap between rich and poor even wider.

[animallittle3]

This is why I said "All the above is common sense but we need a government that will deliver this".

What we need is a return to a government that has the countries best interests at heart not one for the rich and one for poor.

Right now we have 2 big political parties that are intent on making the gap between rich and poor even wider.

Wasn't that Blair's vision biglad , remind me how that worked out .

The only thing business understands is when they are robustly challenged with bargaining power and if they don't play ball their businesses suffer .

Champagne and salmon with Blair and Brown cruising the thames and their w@nkers in the city has proved to be a disaster .

I think you will find that history favours my position when it comes to improving the lifes of the working class , everything had to be fought for in the strongest terms favourable at the time .

Just how successful would the rolling out of ZHC s have proved inside the N.C.B and British Steel , it wouldn't have happened because no fecker would dare even try .

And that is all you need Biglad , effective power , you don't have to even walk out on strike to be effective all you need is some teeth and solidarity .

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

But those were the days when workers had bargaining power biglad .

ASOS in Grimethorpe is a thriving business today , go ask the workers how much their profitable success affects their lives ?

Ah but there's the point. Those europeans that Jeremy Corbyn wants to come here to work, don't join unions.

Further undermining the "old" working class terms and conditions at work.

[BigLadonOS]

Wasn't that Blair's vision biglad , remind me how that worked out .

The only thing business understands is when they are robustly challenged with bargaining power and if they don't play ball their businesses suffer .

Champagne and salmon with Blair and Brown cruising the thames and their w@nkers in the city has proved to be a disaster .

I think you will find that history favours my position when it comes to improving the lifes of the working class , everything had to be fought for in the strongest terms favourable at the time .

Just how successful would the rolling out of ZHC s have proved inside the N.C.B and British Steel , it wouldn't have happened because no fecker would dare even try .

And that is all you need Biglad , effective power , you don't have to even walk out on strike to be effective all you need is some teeth and solidarity .

Are you for real?

Blair had no such vision, in fact he had the exact opposite vision and was more in line with Conservative views than traditional Labour views. Clement Attlee was the first person to use the phrase (New Labour) and I think you will find that Attlee and Blair had a different meaning when they used it.

[animallittle3]

Are you for real?

Blair had no such vision, in fact he had the exact opposite vision and was more in line with Conservative views than traditional Labour views. Clement Attlee was the first person to use the phrase (New Labour) and I think you will find that Attlee and Blair had a different meaning when they used it.

The minimum wage , working tax credits and investment in to schools and the NHS clearly past you by biglad .

I'm no Blair lover by any means but it would be unfair to place him as a true blue tory , tory light most definitely .

Blair's problem was that you can't be a gamekeeper and a poacher and he got hoodwinked by the w@nkers in the city and big business whilst presenting an image of taking the working class vote for granted .

A man should always know his limitations .

There isn't a Labour government worth it's salt who should have championed and trusted those feckers in the city and the electorate punished them for it .

I never thought Blair was totally against me but I can't say he was whole heartedly with me either .

It's us versus them , always was and always will be , it's very naive in my opinion to think some new party will come across and bridge the divides .

Nobody but nobody compromises on the distribution of wealth and they aren't about to start today .

You want to get your slice of the pie then you have to fight for it and win , no fecker is giving you anything .

History is my reference .

[ragingpup]

That’s all good stuff, raging, but it doesn’t help you. It simply catches you in the same moral morass that your top table has found itself – trying to excuse terrorism.

You haven’t bothered to try to determine my position on Ireland before criticising it and it may be that I agree that the actions of successive British regimes and governments and discrimination by Loyalists resulted in the PIRA and INLA campaigns, but unlike you, I’m not willing to justify killings or to slip them under the carpet with a casual ‘Every death a human tragedy of course’, which could have come straight from the Corbyn playbook. Perhaps I’m more of a pacifist than you.

I love the way that you excuse the Abbott comment. Apparently it was said in anger and had its genesis in her family history… Why then when she was asked about it did she not mention any of that and simply refer to the history of her hairstyles instead? You talk about wanting evidence and then simply make it up when it suits you.

I love the way too that you try to shift the argument to the UK’s colonial past, doubtless seeing that as a happier hunting ground than actually addressing the actions of your top table. As I say, you’ve got all the moves.

You haven’t answered how Corbyn’s pacifism driven desire for peace only seems to involve talking to one side of the conflict.

On the issue of Palestine, I see that you are marking your own homework again. If we are getting into the characterisation of each other’s positions, I could be unkind and say that yours carries all the balance and factual basis of a Dave Spart inspired leaflet handed out on the steps of a Student Union, but that would be unkind and so I won’t.

Do pacifists refer to active terrorist groups as ‘friends’ and attend wreath layings for fallen terrorists (present, but not participating of course - as per the Labour spin machine doctors)? Doesn’t that smack of tacit support and make it highly unlikely that the pacifist in question could then be taken seriously in any supposed attempt to secure peace?

They say that you can judge a man by the company he keeps – in Corbyn’s case that appears to be anti-Semites, PIRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranian state (although he was paid handsomely to do that) and, it seems genocide deniers:

https://blog.politicsmeanspolitics.c...s-8ebee1ed9572

And yes, I know that Rob Francis doesn’t like the current Labour Party.

You’re sounding desperate now Kerr. All of a sudden, you may disagree with actions of the British State but you’re not willing to justify killings against it.

You completely miss the point: the British state were the first with the killings that led to the formation of the PIRA. We started it with the killing of civilians (yes including children if you’re going to use child deaths to try and emote your case) and then after the escalation (after 1968) we continued to work with the police forces in Ulster to organise and carry out the deaths of catholic civilians in Northern Ireland. This started and fuelled the retaliation from unionist forces throughout the troubles. But you are condemning the actions of only the unionist side, but not the exact equivalent barbarism of the British State organised and funded loyalists. We were just as much the terrorists as they were.

As I said, MacDonnell and the Labour Party do take sides on this against the British State as they were part of the NI Labour Party that in 1968 tried to organise protest actions to support the NI Catholics that were effectively living in apartheid conditions since the NI land carve up and found that these actions were met with violence and terrorist action (if we’re going down that road of language) that culminated in Bogside, machine guns and unionist deaths, including the child. But if you want the clearest evidence of British state sponsored terrorism against innocent civilians, you might just want to look at the 120 deaths in Glennane in many separate incidents. So yes, the left at the time took up strong solidarity with Catholics, they were there at the time in the NI Labour Party and they felt the British State brutality that then launched ‘the troubles’ into armed combat, with terrorism from both sides.

So, to be clear, and in sequence to help you understand:
1. British state form Northern Ireland as predominantly protestant state and create conditions for resident Catholics that resemble apartheid
2. NI Labour Party organise protests for Catholic civil rights
3. British State use violence and ultimately murder of Catholic civilians
4. The PIRA is formed as counter resistance to the British State
5. Both PIRA and the British State continue terrorist tit for tat atrocities for the next 20 years until the peace process evolved and political solution found

That leads to the question of ‘terrorism’ in the name of a cause with which you identify. You appear to be suggesting that the use of terrorism in the name of a cause invalidates that cause, or at least that people who act in non-violent terms for that cause must somehow withdraw their support? Is that what you’re saying? Are you one of those thick headed ****s that say “Mandela was a terrorist and therefore should have died in jail”? Should the AFC have downed their anti-apartheid protest just because ‘terrorists’ like Mandela worked for their cause? The British State actions in Ireland is just another damning part of British history going all the way back to the formation of the Empire, that is rightfully opposed, and that is what Abbot was referring to 30 years ago. Further to this, and for the very same reasons Corbyn tends to side with the Palestinian cause but has been clear in condemning all murders in that cause. There are many people fighting the Palestinian cause, most are committed to peaceful means but some are committed to violence and extremities. Just like Ireland. Just like South Africa. The fact that some people use violence in the name of a cause does not mean that the cause is wrong. And just because a country’s state is dominant as it defines it’s treatment of people who live within it, it does not excuse their own appalling actions from being labelled acts of terrorism. Even if we happen to now live in that state.

(I wish Abbot had talked more in that interview about her old feelings of the British State and it’s own terrorist actions. For intelligent self critical people, who can detatch themselves from nationalistic jingoism, she would have made a very strong case. But you know as well as I do that any such comments would have been immediately jumped on as blatant anti-British, terrorist supporting and plastered all over the tabloids. That’s how we roll).

And further desperation: Let’s just clear it up. Corbyn has not condoned Iranian actions in any way. He has not denied the dreadful actions in Sarajevo in any way. He did not oppose intervention in Sierra Leonne. Your pulling up of a blog from an anti-Corbynist that simply shows Corbyn on holiday having a photo taken with an idiot does not suggest anything. You should go with stated words, wise or questionable) and policies that come direct from Corbyn, now just imply and infer just because it suits your colonialist blinkered world view.

(And in relation to Exile’s post on Slavery. The very fact that you can interject into a discussion onto the British Empire and it’s involvement with slavery by a “whataboutery” ‘but it happens in all nations’ as your first thought says everything about your thinking. I would suggest that you first of all brush up on all that knowledge of Irish History that you have clearly “forgotten” and then look up some history of the British Empire, the slave trade and its repercussions that affect us now. I would recommend Akala’s “Natives race and class in the ruins of empire” to see how it impacts on Black communities still in the UK and beyond. You might actually learn something.)