Join the Labour Party and save your country!

1…7778808283…514

Comments

  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    mamba80 wrote:
    i do not hold to the sacred principles of democracy as you do Bally, we should never have been given this vote, the Government has a duty to protect the nation - the National socialists got voted into power in the 1930's, was that a victory for Democracy?
    It's quite funny that you proclaim your disregard for democracy in the same sentence as you mention the old saw about Hitler getting voted into power - he never did by the way, the most he won in a free election was about 37%.

    But really, if you don't hold to democracy, what do you want? Some strong, wise person to take over maybe? That's certainly what the Germans opted for when they invited Hitler to take charge. Or perhaps we need a bunch of experts: they could form a Committee of Public Safety or some such.

    I don't disagree with you much in your overall assessment of our current situation. But democracy is worth fighting for, not because it's so wonderful - as the Brexit vote demonstrates - but because, as Churchill said (I think this one is genuinely his):
    "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried from time to time"
  • joelsim
    joelsim Posts: 7,552
    Join the Labour party and get a Shadow Cabinet job immediately!
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    PS: what's this 'spectre' of lower interest rates?

    Same as the 'spectre' of higher inflation (which gov't policy says has been too low for the last two years)

    ie two desirable economic outcomes that are being presented as some sort of apocalyptic disaster.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    bompington wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    i do not hold to the sacred principles of democracy as you do Bally, we should never have been given this vote, the Government has a duty to protect the nation - the National socialists got voted into power in the 1930's, was that a victory for Democracy?
    It's quite funny that you proclaim your disregard for democracy in the same sentence as you mention the old saw about Hitler getting voted into power - he never did by the way, the most he won in a free election was about 37%.

    But really, if you don't hold to democracy, what do you want? Some strong, wise person to take over maybe? That's certainly what the Germans opted for when they invited Hitler to take charge. Or perhaps we need a bunch of experts: they could form a Committee of Public Safety or some such.

    I don't disagree with you much in your overall assessment of our current situation. But democracy is worth fighting for, not because it's so wonderful - as the Brexit vote demonstrates - but because, as Churchill said (I think this one is genuinely his):
    "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried from time to time"

    what exactly is democratic about being lied too and basing ones vote on this tissue of lies? VW lied to their customers and in the US at least, will get their money back, same with PPI, various timeshare outfits, this is not what Churchill and millions of people have fought and died for.

    i hold to democracy (which is why this issue over EU should have been put fwd in a GE, the Tories say "vote for us and we ll take you out of europe and this is the how and why" but instead we get a bunch who aside from Farage had no intention of actually doing what they promised and have all run away and hide.

    we ve all been played so what has been done to the electorate is far from democratic and even if it were, it is looking increasingly likely that the UK government will wriggle out of this decision, so a lose lose.
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,445
    I wish people would stop rushing to compare things to Hitler and the Nazis - have you never heard of Godwin's Law?

    There are dozens of less tired analogies you could use.
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    I wish people would stop rushing to compare things to Hitler and the Nazis - have you never heard of Godwin's Law?

    There are dozens of less tired analogies you could use.

    I avoided quoting or referring to Churchill in my EU related posts for this reason - it's only one step away from Godwin's. Unfortunate as he is one of the most quotable politicians in history.
    There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself) than others. For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.

    If we applied Godwin's strictly then we would be locking threads the moment people compared anyone to Hitler or the Nazis, and most EU threads would be dead before the end of the first page.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,597
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    I wish people would stop rushing to compare things to Hitler and the Nazis - have you never heard of Godwin's Law?

    There are dozens of less tired analogies you could use.
    Are you some kind of internet SS?
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • joelsim
    joelsim Posts: 7,552
    PBlakeney wrote:
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    I wish people would stop rushing to compare things to Hitler and the Nazis - have you never heard of Godwin's Law?

    There are dozens of less tired analogies you could use.
    Are you some kind of internet SS?


    It's no coincidence that the President is called Junkers.*


    *Yes I'm aware of the spelling
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,960
    mamba80 wrote:
    but do you think the country is better off now than it was 6 months or 6 weeks ago? would you be so sanguine if Labour had presided over this completely self made disaster?

    i do not hold to the sacred principles of democracy as you do Bally, we should never have been given this vote, the Government has a duty to protect the nation - the National socialists got voted into power in the 1930's, was that a victory for Democracy?
    On your first point - no we are not better off - or more accurately are unlikely to be better off in the future when the real world impacts of this vote filter through into the economy. However it's nothing that a Labour govt - especially this one - would manage without a BREXIT vote. Look at what they did in the last two stretches that they were in power. That's worse than the current BREXIT forecasts.

    On your second point (and ignoring Godwins law) - the issues involved in general elections are more wide ranging and more complex than the single issue of BREXIT and yet we allow people to vote in GE's. That includes potentially including voting in Labour govts - see above about what they do to the country economically. If we follow your logic re: BREXIT votes then we shouldn't allow people to vote in GE's either - for their own protection of course...
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Joelsim wrote:
    PBlakeney wrote:
    bobmcstuff wrote:
    I wish people would stop rushing to compare things to Hitler and the Nazis - have you never heard of Godwin's Law?

    There are dozens of less tired analogies you could use.
    Are you some kind of internet SS?


    It's no coincidence that the President is called Junkers.*


    *Yes I'm aware of the spelling

    It is customary to add his apparent age. Junkers, 88
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    but do you think the country is better off now than it was 6 months or 6 weeks ago? would you be so sanguine if Labour had presided over this completely self made disaster?

    i do not hold to the sacred principles of democracy as you do Bally, we should never have been given this vote, the Government has a duty to protect the nation - the National socialists got voted into power in the 1930's, was that a victory for Democracy?
    On your first point - no we are not better off - or more accurately are unlikely to be better off in the future when the real world impacts of this vote filter through into the economy. However it's nothing that a Labour govt - especially this one - would manage without a BREXIT vote. Look at what they did in the last two stretches that they were in power. That's worse than the current BREXIT forecasts.

    On your second point (and ignoring Godwins law) - the issues involved in general elections are more wide ranging and more complex than the single issue of BREXIT and yet we allow people to vote in GE's. That includes potentially including voting in Labour govts - see above about what they do to the country economically. If we follow your logic re: BREXIT votes then we shouldn't allow people to vote in GE's either - for their own protection of course...

    Must have forgotten the part leading up to 2008 when Tony Blair and Gordon Brown where forcing the banks to make dodgy bets on sub prime debt...
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,960
    Jez mon wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    but do you think the country is better off now than it was 6 months or 6 weeks ago? would you be so sanguine if Labour had presided over this completely self made disaster?

    i do not hold to the sacred principles of democracy as you do Bally, we should never have been given this vote, the Government has a duty to protect the nation - the National socialists got voted into power in the 1930's, was that a victory for Democracy?
    On your first point - no we are not better off - or more accurately are unlikely to be better off in the future when the real world impacts of this vote filter through into the economy. However it's nothing that a Labour govt - especially this one - would manage without a BREXIT vote. Look at what they did in the last two stretches that they were in power. That's worse than the current BREXIT forecasts.

    On your second point (and ignoring Godwins law) - the issues involved in general elections are more wide ranging and more complex than the single issue of BREXIT and yet we allow people to vote in GE's. That includes potentially including voting in Labour govts - see above about what they do to the country economically. If we follow your logic re: BREXIT votes then we shouldn't allow people to vote in GE's either - for their own protection of course...

    Must have forgotten the part leading up to 2008 when Tony Blair and Gordon Brown where forcing the banks to make dodgy bets on sub prime debt...
    Labour's own apology for screwing things up:
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/13/andy-burnham-apologises-labour-overspending

    It's in the lefty bible so it must be true :wink:
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    John McDonnell has ruled himself out of ever standing for the Labour leadership.

    Watch your back Jeremy.
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,445
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Jez mon wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    but do you think the country is better off now than it was 6 months or 6 weeks ago? would you be so sanguine if Labour had presided over this completely self made disaster?

    i do not hold to the sacred principles of democracy as you do Bally, we should never have been given this vote, the Government has a duty to protect the nation - the National socialists got voted into power in the 1930's, was that a victory for Democracy?
    On your first point - no we are not better off - or more accurately are unlikely to be better off in the future when the real world impacts of this vote filter through into the economy. However it's nothing that a Labour govt - especially this one - would manage without a BREXIT vote. Look at what they did in the last two stretches that they were in power. That's worse than the current BREXIT forecasts.

    On your second point (and ignoring Godwins law) - the issues involved in general elections are more wide ranging and more complex than the single issue of BREXIT and yet we allow people to vote in GE's. That includes potentially including voting in Labour govts - see above about what they do to the country economically. If we follow your logic re: BREXIT votes then we shouldn't allow people to vote in GE's either - for their own protection of course...

    Must have forgotten the part leading up to 2008 when Tony Blair and Gordon Brown where forcing the banks to make dodgy bets on sub prime debt...
    Labour's own apology for screwing things up:
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/13/andy-burnham-apologises-labour-overspending

    It's in the lefty bible so it must be true :wink:

    More they had too big a deficit which left them massively exposed when someone else screwed it up - their mistake was to believe their own BS about growth continuing for all eternity, "no return to boom and bust" etc etc..

    Right now Brown's act of making the BoE independent in 1997 is looking like a good idea.
  • joelsim
    joelsim Posts: 7,552
    If you look at the figures, under Blair it was growth and prosperity. Brown then hugely increased spending and significant borrowing without improving GDP. Then the crash, for which we were totally unprepared.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    but do you think the country is better off now than it was 6 months or 6 weeks ago? would you be so sanguine if Labour had presided over this completely self made disaster?

    i do not hold to the sacred principles of democracy as you do Bally, we should never have been given this vote, the Government has a duty to protect the nation - the National socialists got voted into power in the 1930's, was that a victory for Democracy?
    On your first point - no we are not better off - or more accurately are unlikely to be better off in the future when the real world impacts of this vote filter through into the economy. However it's nothing that a Labour govt - especially this one - would manage without a BREXIT vote. Look at what they did in the last two stretches that they were in power. That's worse than the current BREXIT forecasts.

    On your second point (and ignoring Godwins law) - the issues involved in general elections are more wide ranging and more complex than the single issue of BREXIT and yet we allow people to vote in GE's. That includes potentially including voting in Labour govts - see above about what they do to the country economically. If we follow your logic re: BREXIT votes then we shouldn't allow people to vote in GE's either - for their own protection of course...

    i dont think you can be proud of what the Tories have gone and done, irrespective of it securing your employment lol!

    In GE's Labour and Tory gov's come and go, some like the oil crisis, the ERM or the 2008 sub prime are beyond our control, whoever is in power, this crisis is self inflicted and will hurt us for years to come (if we do indeed leave and if we dont what the heck was it all about????)

    We have GE's that should be the end of it, a party messes up, get rid, single issues like Death penalty, HS2, Trident, EU, NATO membership etc should be decided as part of the overall package of Government, civil servants advise, Governments act.
    Where would you draw the line on referendum ? bypasses, heathrow expansion, channel tunnels its never ending!

    A responsible government would have considered the risks of Brexit and like George Osbourn advised strongly against risking this, he knew full well that the biggest issue would be immigration - i m no fan of GO but he showed more judgement in his little finger than DC or Boris Jo

    its interesting to note that the UK has had 3 referendum, ALL under tory administrations, too weak to Govern?
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,960
    And which party is the strong government in waiting? As I've said before, New Old Labour were a complete liability even before they started their own civil war and are now in an existential crisis.

    No other party is anywhere near capable of governing.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,682
    Kinnock putting the boot in on Andrew Marr quoting the party constitution which apparently states that a candidate must have the support of 20% of the Labour MPs and MEPs and that therefore Corbyn no longer has a mandate.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Pross wrote:
    Kinnock putting the boot in on Andrew Marr quoting the party constitution which apparently states that a candidate must have the support of 20% of the Labour MPs and MEPs and that therefore Corbyn no longer has a mandate.

    I do hope Andrew Marr asked him what effect nepotism was having on the party. How in the 21st Century can a so called democracy end up with an MP who is the husband of, the then, Prime Minister of Denmark?

    Then tell him he is a disgrace and to never come back
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    And which party is the strong government in waiting? As I've said before, New Old Labour were a complete liability even before they started their own civil war and are now in an existential crisis.

    No other party is anywhere near capable of governing.

    Totally agree, i would nt vote Labour right now and on what the tories have gone and done in the last few months, i d say they are not fit to Govern either, no administration ever has behaved so recklessly with our country and May was part of the original decision too dont forget.

    this present catastrophe was totally and utterly avoidable, this countries economy, its future in the world and its cohesion as the UK, has been put at risk first by DC and his referendum and then by that complete idiot Johnson and all for what? so the tories can win a GE and BJ can became PM.

    As Heseltine said, Johnson has pushed us into the biggest constitutional crisis in modern times and wrecked the economy and investment decisions for years.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    They are all stark raving mad. Nadine Dorries used to be famous for whinging about the posh boys (Cameron/Osborne) not knowing the price of a pint of milk. Now she is famous for sobbing uncontrollably when Boris chickened out.

    How the fuck does Boris get away with not being considered posh?
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,335
    I see a lot of skeptcism towards Corbyn... I agree the British public will probably not vote him as PM, but that's to your loss, essentially because you are a bunch of shotheads... as he is the only Labour (or non labour) figure who stands for the poor people... who believes in better education for a better future... the other twits are just muppets only interested in their own political career. Give me a decent politician with a vision and I would ditch Corbyn, but at the moment I can't see any real contender
    left the forum March 2023
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    Corbyn's problems:

    1. The swing towards his type of politics hasn't been backed by a General Election - he has a PLP of Brown and Blair followers. Labour has made some gains under his leadership, though it's not clear if this is down to Corbyn or anti-Tory feeling.

    2. Corbyn and his allies have chosen to stand aside and vote against their party for years, they have no experience in the kind of horse trading/diplomacy required to keep a cabinet together and put through a program of legislation that the party as a whole would get behind. If they can't do it in opposition how will they manage as a government on the world stage.

    3. Corbyn wants to put forth reasonable arguments in campaigns such as the referendum - his "remain and reform" stance was pretty sensible. However the media wants a circus, and if you don't say something outrageous then you don't get the headlines - Cameron and Osborne knew this, hence the change from "Britain can thrive outside the EU" to Project Fear in the campaign. Looking at the media over the last week, it has returned to the "Westminister bubble" of political backstabbing while out in the real world people are more and more concerned about what Brexit means for them.
  • BelgianBeerGeek
    BelgianBeerGeek Posts: 5,226
    Ugo and mamba are essentially arguing the same thing. At this time when the Brits have self-inflicted a wound of enormous proportions, our politicians have gone AWOL. Why? Cos ultimately all they care about is their own little world of politics. These people are in politics for their own, generally rather pathetic, reasons. This back-stabbing, briefing against, and giving interviews is what they do. They are more encouraged than ever by the coverage they are getting. Tossers.
    Heaven help us if we get a conviction politician running ever again.
    Oh, and Corbyn, he's just as bad. In fact he has more experience of this general wankfest that is British politics than the rest.
    A plague on all their houses.
    Ecrasez l’infame
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,682
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    I see a lot of skeptcism towards Corbyn... I agree the British public will probably not vote him as PM, but that's to your loss, essentially because you are a bunch of shotheads... as he is the only Labour (or non labour) figure who stands for the poor people... who believes in better education for a better future... the other twits are just muppets only interested in their own political career. Give me a decent politician with a vision and I would ditch Corbyn, but at the moment I can't see any real contender

    In that case the 'poor people' need to get out and vote in greater numbers as the UK has refused to elect a socialist candidate since the 70s. It's great to have morals and principles but, like it or not, you need a strong economy to deliver that.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    I see a lot of skeptcism towards Corbyn... I agree the British public will probably not vote him as PM, but that's to your loss, essentially because you are a bunch of shotheads... as he is the only Labour (or non labour) figure who stands for the poor people... who believes in better education for a better future... the other twits are just muppets only interested in their own political career. Give me a decent politician with a vision and I would ditch Corbyn, but at the moment I can't see any real contender

    Under Corbyn it is OK for members of the Labour Party to hiss Jews. Do you know why ***** hiss jews? it is to replicate the noise of the gas chambers. Jeremy Corbyn obviously sees nothing wrong with this, maybe we are not such a bunch of shotheads.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,335
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    I see a lot of skeptcism towards Corbyn... I agree the British public will probably not vote him as PM, but that's to your loss, essentially because you are a bunch of shotheads... as he is the only Labour (or non labour) figure who stands for the poor people... who believes in better education for a better future... the other twits are just muppets only interested in their own political career. Give me a decent politician with a vision and I would ditch Corbyn, but at the moment I can't see any real contender

    Under Corbyn it is OK for members of the Labour Party to hiss Jews. Do you know why ***** hiss jews? it is to replicate the noise of the gas chambers. Jeremy Corbyn obviously sees nothing wrong with this, maybe we are not such a bunch of shotheads.

    Don't drag everything into the mud for the sake of it... maybe he is pro Palestine, so what? He's not the only one...

    Saying that, cheer up, you have been so freaking intense over the past week, maybe you need a break from politics... it is not the end of the world... it could be better, but common sense will prevail
    left the forum March 2023
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Corbyn doesn't stand for anyone other than himself, otherwise he'd have stepped aside by now.

    You can't properly represent working people in this system unless you have a reasonable chance of getting into power.

    Corbyn hanging makes Labour getting in less likely by the day.

    The fact he wants to "crucify" Blair post Chilcot just hammers that home. He has his own agenda that from time to time intersects with those who benefit from leftist policies but that's about it.

    The working man doesn't give a sh!t about nuclear proliferation nor the ins and outs of the Palestine conflict. He bangs on about that more than giving any credence to sorting out parts of the U.K. left behind by globalism.
    _
  • BelgianBeerGeek
    BelgianBeerGeek Posts: 5,226
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Corbyn doesn't stand for anyone other than himself, otherwise he'd have stepped aside by now.

    You can't properly represent working people in this system unless you have a reasonable chance of getting into power.

    Corbyn hanging makes Labour getting in less likely by the day.

    The fact he wants to "crucify" Blair post Chilcot just hammers that home. He has his own agenda that from time to time intersects with those who benefit from leftist policies but that's about it.

    The working man doesn't give a sh!t about nuclear proliferation nor the ins and outs of the Palestine conflict. He bangs on about that more than giving any credence to sorting out parts of the U.K. left behind by globalism.
    Best £3 Stevo ever spent, then. Is it too late to join, because this could be the gift that keeps on giving...
    Ecrasez l’infame
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Depends on your perspective. It's not good for the nation nor the health of its democracy.

    Arguably is the lack of threat from the left that has allowed the Tory party tear itself apart too.
    _

Categories