I miss the ye old days when we would just vote for someone who sounded fit for the job (based on qualifications), rather than simply celebrity status. :laugh: That was a large defect of Hillary I think, was this sort of overexposure.

I wonder if like the's public apathy being one extreme of bad for political discourse, if there is maybe another extreme where the public have become too overly enmeshed (identity or whatever) with politics. So instead of scandals, issues or deals being hashed out in a more manageable way, we magnify the chaos and so those issues become too difficult to handle. It's easy to see why the smallest of issues can be hijacked by either side and make it very difficult to get things done. It used to be, you voted, but then you stood back and let the system do it's job (to the extent that is reasonable)... now everything is checked under a microscope. And people who have no idea the delicacy of such matters, or just simply opportunists who have an agenda, are injecting their projection of things in an effort to sabotage or manage the outcome. It makes it very difficult for a more moderate/less polarizing candidate to survive the way politics is being done today, much less to be electable...

There's this emphasis to make everything public, every public act of "treachery" punishable by way of polarizing media coverage and I wonder if our focus on being so incredibly honest and virtuous may having unintended side effects on our ability handle political discourse as a society. It seems like we sometimes shoot ourselves in the foot... because it does rob the moderates of a voice and it allows those who are truly problematic to get in-between those systems and civil discourse to push their most polarizing messages through.

I'll quote a good article that covers a lot of these complications fairly well...

..yeah it does feel a bit in western politics like...’who has the best celebrity type publicity campaign’ when obviously it’s always been a combination of both...party values/policies as well as the leader as a person...the last election campaign was a shambles with one saying..I’ll give you everything and the other saying, I’ll give you nothing..:laugh:..i mean it just all leave s us all in limbo and desperate for a more centre party...our present government is awful and has been for some time...but I would t cast my vote for another awful, the only difference being it may be at the opposite spectrum of awful.../..all very gloomy I’m afraid...

The country does not and never will need a Corbyn. He will cause far more problems than he solves. It is easy to promise this, that and the other but words come cheap. A party should never be more about the leader than the party and that is exactly what has happened with Corbyn.

Underneath though he is just a figurehead for Momentum. His popularity with the young who are naive and inexperienced enough to buy into his rhetoric gives the extreme left the foot in the door that they have so desperately been looking for and will have long term negative effects for our economy and democracy.

The country does not need to be so naive, the country needs to be strong and stand-up to this manipulative and publicity-seeking, cheap reality show brand of politics that misleads the inexperienced and conceals the controlling monster beneath.

Gosh,you really believe that.

What is a cancer is peopkeuwith it having benefits taken off them, they should have,then having the intense added unnecessary stress of having to go to court and prove they should still have them.

That's one of the most rotten things about this govt which in itself should see them turfed out of power for.
Just one of many things too.
Despicable.


It's also time as to the welfare costs,the truth was stated, it's time to remove pensions from welfare figures.
Pension is an automatic right,worked for,not a benefit.

It makes up well over half of the welfare figures.
Used as a further hammer to belittle and cause suspicion and division from workers to those unemployed,sick and disabled.

That's the society building under this form of capitalism from this govt.
Socialism couldn't possibly make that worse at all.

Good lord,let's bring back workhouses again too to please the hardliners.

All,in my.view,the hardliners really want when they say they want a strong Labour party as opposition,is just that.
A Labour opposition,never a govt.
They just want continuous Con govt,from the same people on here and off as to that.
I've never heard them say they like any Labour leader,from left,right or centre.

While supporting this truly uncompromising and heartless PM we have now.

Gosh, you really believe that.

Oh come of it Kizzy - that is just another shut-down tactic. Jet has just given an honest opinion on what he sees from your words, or lack of them. He has not stated anything as fact.

If people can blatantly and repeatedly throw racist and homophobic allegations about based purely on their own opinion and interpretation of another’s words, not facts, and get away with it - they are in no position to object to another’s interpretation of their words expressed in a far less offensive and insulting manner.

Oh grow up.
I'm not in the least bit interested in what you think of what I say or think.
Not a single jot which I'm sure is the case vice versa and always has been.

To be fair Joey I didn't say that I've gone towards supporting the conservatives; at the core I'll always be an advocate of independence (or full devolution) for Scotland under a socially responsible centre government.

For the UK, as I said in another thread just recently, the pendulum swinging is essential because a one-party state (either party) is literally THE worst possible situation for any country to be in. And I do feel that it's (now past) time for Labour to be in the driving seat... So I do support Labour for UK government and I do despise the Tories uncaring social policies.

However I now have some serious question marks surrounding Corbyn himself and his actual motivations. In his new found popularity and confidence, he has tipped his hand a few times and being honest, what I see is, as Ammi says above, an opportunist... and a popularist who will smugly back "whatever he thinks his supporters want to see him backing" in order to maintain and increase his popularity. And I generally hate the term - but he's hugely guilty of "virtue signalling", and it's to achieve an agenda that's not entirely clear to me. I don't feel like his end game is clear at all even though I get the strong impression that there is one... And that's troubling.

Basically I feel like what the Labour Party needs is realistic, sensible left-of-centre leadership with a strong focus on fair social policies; social mobility for those who want and need it (via actual funding, not the Tories "lol we'll take away ur money then u'll HAVE to work more!" policy). An end to unreasonable austerity measures and punitive tactics, and much greater support for the disabled and vulnerable. I think that's what people are LOOKING for in Corbyn but my gut instinct is that if / when he comes into power, his supporters are going to be disappointed.

So to reiterate... I haven't pulled back from my opinion that this government is wrong-headed, cruel, greedy and elitist. I'd also now happily add "disjointed and confused" and "utterly incompetent" to that list because they really are a shambles at the moment.

I do still fully support fairer social policies, I do still think that Labour is the better party to deliver them... I'm just skeptical of Corbyn himself at this point. He still sometimes says all the right things... I'm just not convinced of his sincerity.

That’s fine - but if you make comments I feel need challenging, I will do that - particularly in my thread. You know I also have strong opinions on this subject so I won’t just ignore posts just because you throw a wobbler if I comment. It isn’t me that needs to grow up here.

Challenge them with facts then.

Is repeating my words to All challenging anything.

Should people with cancer have to go to court to get back benefits wrongly taken off them.
In part due to this govts policies.

Something I see you totally ignore.

I am not intentionally ignoring them - they are just not specifically what I believe the bigger picture of left/right political views to be about. Of course no wants to see people with cancer have to go to court to get their entitlement. No one in their right mind would think that was right.

You have never condemned the IRA by name in any replies to me, and you still haven't, but yes, they use the govt and the security forces as well as an excuse for their 30 year slaughter of thousands of innocents. Just like Corbyn the little jumped up revolutionary did. It appears to me that you think the IRA's future actions were somehow justified because of Bloody Sunday. That is the impression you give me.
I have condemned both the IRA and Loyalists Paramilitaries in previous replies to you. Those posts are here on this forum in black and white if you wish to remind yourself. But Corbyn didn't support the Loyalists did he? If my knowledge of him and his actions had been of his involvement with them instead of the IRA, I would still feel the same about him. It doesn't matter to me which murderous side he cosied up to, but the fact that he did at all.

Also can I just say Corbyn trying to appease both Remainers and Leavers by not making his mind up on Brexit is not winning anyone over from either side???

Remainers that tactically voted Labour in the 2017 election are rapidly losing faith and Leavers who voted Labour thinking that they supported a hard brexit I should imagine are losing faith too.

Glad to hear that at least, re the cancer/benefits issue.

Sadly however it seems this govt and it's MPs don't mind it going on however.
I will however add that for me and many others,Corbyn would be better to announce that a govt led by him would scrap these foul ATOS style testing and assessments once and for all.

It was shocking that Labour actually started the ATOS contracting,I'd admire the contracts being terminated and save the costs to the taxpayer for them.

Furthermore,while it would surprise me if they did,I'd strongly applaud Conservative MPs forcing it's govt.to scrap the things too.
Knowing as I do that a good number of Conservative MPs are massively uneasy with these contracts and the criteria around their implementation.

Really?!?

Brillo started the thread. Many other people refer to threads they've started as "my thread". Just for clarify...

You need to stop working yourself up on this propaganda nonsense because it just makes you sound ill informed. You seem to be obsessing with the word 'socialism' without understanding the difference between sociolism and the representation of social need. This country still has a social system but its a social system that's presently broken or breaking.
Corbyn doesn't want socialism! he wants democratic capitalism and the only way we can have that is to reverse the power of wealth and undermine plutocracy. Capitalism is broken and needs repairing. From where I'm sitting, there's only one party that can repair the damage.

Corbyn-economics aren't perfect... far from it. I'm wholly against and baffled by this hypothecated tax for the NHS, but I'm not going to agree with everything they suggest or do. On the whole though, I believe their economic strategy is the soundest thing we've seen for nearly two decades.

Give over! She made it clear from her wording that its her thread. I'f I'd said that you would be the first to throwing stones.

Got to agree with Livia here DM. Lots of people in this section start threads and then class them as their own. Look back and you will see its the truth

Good luck to you - but many don’t.

So if you and many don't like Corbyn-economics, please can you explain why?

What is it specifically you don't like?
We know the Lib Dems and the Green Party are behind Labour's economic policies but those are two parties adamantly against how the Tories run the economy, so if you don't agree with this Labour's style of economics you can't be Lib Dem or Green either.

How do you propose we can fix what's broken or do you even believe its broken?

I'll test that out some time in the near future :hee:

I have.. I'll do it again I condemn the IRA, UVF, govt or military persons who carry out acts of terrorism.
I'm not trawling the forum to find anything you have the opportunity to clarify here don't you?
He has consistently rejected all acts, he has never been asked if he condemns loyalist violence which personally I find odd in of itself... The traffic of questioning on this issue only ever flows one way, have you never noticed that?

If you care not about sides then why are you not as vocal about other politicians who are intrinsically linked to decisions that specifically targeted civilians for harm?

I'll say it once again then....I condemn the IRA and Loyalist Paramilitary's. If the Govt and security forces deliberately set out to harm innocent people during the Troubles then I condemn that too. However, I doubt that happened on anything but an extremely small scale. You seem to think the Govt and military were somehow responsible for 'making' the IRA slaughter thousands of innocents...that they should just have stood by and let them get on with it and give in to their reign of terror.

As for your next paragraph, Corbyn was asked did he now condemn the IRA because he was a known IRA apologist and supporter. I would have thought that was obvious. And he refused to do so.
I'm not vocal about other politicians because they are not hoping to become the next PM - and I don't have personal information about 'others' whoever these others are supposed to be, that I do about Corbyn.
What other politicians are you talking about anyway, and what decisions are you claiming they made that targeted innocent civilians during the troubles? Name them and their perceived crimes.

All violence in Northern Ireland should be condemned, but just for record - and I know that jet will already know this - the IRA were responsible for the most deaths during The Troubles- 49%, with the UDF responsible for 11% and the British Army 9%, No one killed more Irish people - Catholics and Protestants - than the IRA. At the time of Corbyn's support the IRA were blowing up civilians on the mainland as well as in NI. He's also a big fan of Hamas and other terrorist groups. I don't want a terrorist sympathiser in No. 10, and I don't want the staggeringly inept Diane Abbott in charge of the army, the police and national security in general. I want a strong Labour party, an electable Labour party. Because right now the Tories - who seem to be the only other option - are lurching from one cluster-**** to the next.

You're making these bizarre accusatory comments again....Please don't put words in my mouth!
I'm not going into chapter and verse on the history of the troubles, I feel you have a have a rather blinkered perception is all.
There is a wealth of information that has come to light in recent years concerning injustices sanctioned by the govt at that time.
You will have to educate yourself and consider if you feel there is any wrongdoing by any other public figures.

Have you been googling again?... Is there a percentage that is ok, if they had all killed the same amount of people would they be any less condemned as a terrorist organisation? :/
We have armed more terrorists in modern times and been the catalyst for more civilian deaths, the last 'electable' Labour leader was Blair...
I agree entirely on your description of the current govt, clustr******* is apt, corrupt cluster*******s is also accurate.

Exactly, and isn't it amazing how people turn and look the other way and just go on happily supporting the terrorist sympathiser Corbyn and his like - minded cronies. It's frightening, and no good can come of it.

But UK governments (of both parties) have been arming terrorists for years? Multiple billions of pounds worth of weapons are sold to dictatorships and oppressive regimes every year... and this isn't throwback stuff: it has increased under the Tories since 2010, and has increased even faster specifically under Theresa May. So... we already have terror / violence supporters in Westminster and we've been looking the other way for decades. I'm not saying that makes it OK just... well... if you really don't want to look the other way, you need to open your eyes to the fact that Corbyn's support of questionable groups is far from isolated in UK politics. I guess maybe it seems different because it's so close to home (Ireland) rather than far overseas in the Middle East and Africa... but yeah. Theresa May's government sells weapons to despots and warlords. They specifically invite them along to big events, to show off all of the fun new death toys that those people might want to buy, and they do buy them, and they use them to suppress and murder untold numbers of innocent people.

Did the big bad government sometimes not play fair with the poor ickle terrorists? The heart bleeds.
Spare me your ignorance on the actions of the terrorists during the Troubles and, on the whole, the positive role of the Govt. Go and do some serious reading and educate yourself.

Some of us actually know stuff, Kizzy. My Dad served in Northern Ireland.

The rest of your post is a but hysterical and hard to comprehend.

We're talking about Northern Ireland TS. You may recall that there has been Labour governments during The Troubles. You're turning it into a debate about how the Tories arm terrorists.

I thought we were talking about why a Corbyn Labour government would be worse than a May Tory government. If we are going to talk about British leaders and terrorism, why just limit ourselves to Corbyn :conf:

Because of the thread title.

And we have someone on the forum who is actually from Northern Ireland and it's been a refreshing change to have someone speak from that perspective.

Yes, I know that, and obviously I don’t agree with it. The USA does the same. Their reasons for doing this seem to be many and varied, and mostly for gain I'm sure. As all govt's have done this it is a govt policy and we can't say is is because they are terrorist supporters or any particular person has been a terrorist supporter.

So, no past or present PM or person aiming to be PM, has, as an individual, been personally involved with any terrorist group as a supporter. I have never heard of May or Cameron or Blair attending terrorist rallies or attending the funerals of terrorists. I have never heard of them cosily hanging around with terrorists, having them as friends and championing their causes against democracy. I have no personal info on any other PM past or present.

Lets say that a person leading a main party and aiming to be the next PM had exactly the same involvement with ISIS that Corbyn had with the IRA and was a known terrorist sympathiser along with like minded people close by his side - would people still turn away?
Would they say "Oh well, what of it? sure look at who the Govt sell arms to".
I KNOW what Corbyn was (and a liar and fraud to boot) therefore I detest him and nothing is going to change that.

Did you actually check the thread title or the first post before saying this? Because the thread isn't specifically about N.I, the IRA or Terrorism at all.

It's about Corbyn and his clique, so it could be said it is.

Oh I get that entirely, but there's surely plenty of room in our hearts for detesting lots of people, especially the shower of vipers in politics. The horrible situation at the end of the day, is that in most cases anyone who rises through the ranks in politics is going to be a ruthless sh**.

But then what are voters to do? Surely all that can really be done is to try to vote for a party based on their policies and hope that they adhere to them (even though that's highly unlikely). In most of the UK for anyone who is wholeheartedly against current Tory policies and the things that are happening to certain demographics in the UK because of those policies, there is only ONE alternative to vote for... no matter who their leader is. I'm lucky enough not to have to make that call when I vote but if I was in England - although as I've said before I am now no Corbyn supporter at all - I would simply HAVE to support Labour because there is no viable alternative to the Tories... and the very real effects that Tory policies are having come before any personal dislike of a shady politician.

Only if you believe that Corbyn's N.I. activities are the full extent of a discussion about Corbyn in general (obviously this is not the case), and only if you believe that a discussion involves only mentioning one side of the coin and never including the other (in this case, the Tories) which obviously is also not the case because that is not a discussion; that is a blog.