[jet]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I'm going to be honest from the off, I've reported the comment in bold TWICE as I don't appreciate with you suggesting I'm an IRA sympathiser simply because I disagree with your view on Corbyn. But seeing as it's still here I feel I have a right to reply.

I keep reiterating the Bloody Sunday murder of innocents, as that's what it was of course in the hope that you will see that whatever sins came before he is not party to them nor does he have blood on his hands....Unlike the govt of the day, now you can gaslight all you like but the fact remains that we were up to our neck in it well before any involvement from Corbyn, where's the 'sympathy for them?

Terrorism isn't something that just happens... there were years of murder, injustice, false imprisonment, marginalisation and misinformation which led to factions on both sides forming.

It's impossible to just jump to a point in history and start tub thumping... you have to look at the picture as a whole and assess accountability.
Please stop with your irrational accusations please and attempt to maintain a little objectivity here.

'In all 19 people were killed in 1969, 14 of them civilians. They included a nine-year-old schoolboy, struck by a police bullet as he lay in his bedroom. An Irish Republican Army (IRA) member died in a car crash and a teenage member of the Fianna, the IRA’s junior wing, was shot by loyalists. A member of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) was killed by his own bomb - just one of many paramilitaries to die accidental deaths. The first Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officer killed was shot on the Shankill Road by the UVF.

Each death was a terrible event for family, friends and neighbours. Within a short period, events would dictate a pattern of conflict spanning decades. There were phases to the bloodshed.

British Home Secretary Reginald Maudling declared that he would settle for an "acceptable level of violence" at the start of 1971, but within a year the introduction of internment (imprisonment without trial) and the events of Bloody Sunday served to recruit large numbers of young nationalists into republican paramilitary groups.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/topics/troubles_violence

Sadly, I see nothing here that tells me you condemn the IRA, as you have never done in any of your replies to me.

[Alf]

Socialism is cancer.

Be thankful you have food on the shelves in your shops. Socialism takes that away from you.

Be thankful that ambitious rich people feed us.

Corbyn wants to stop the ambitious rich people and give their wealth to the people that do nothing for society but take.

You're so lucky to be British, don't give it away.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jet

Sadly, I see nothing here that tells me you condemn the IRA, as you have never done in any of your replies to me.

I have, several times I'm no advocate of terrorism no matter what your implications previously.

Have you publicly condemned the loyalists, govt and security forces for their role in the troubles?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Alf

Socialism is cancer.

Be thankful you have food on the shelves in your shops. Socialism takes that away from you.

Be thankful that ambitious rich people feed us.

Corbyn wants to stop the ambitious rich people and give their wealth to the people that do nothing for society but take.

You're so lucky to be British, don't give it away.

MMMMM Soylent green....

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

To be fair jet, if it's any consolation, your posts (and looking into them) has been part of leading me to the conclusion that Corbyn is definitely not the answer. While I can't completely jump on board with the idea that he's a full-blooded terrorist sympathiser (I feel more likely he'll disingenuously support a lot of things to further various agendae), I do appreciate that he certainly isn't any BETTER than other mainstream UK politicians. He's developed a level of smugness that doesn't fit with the persona he's trying to project, at all, and therefore I can only imagine that most of what he says on any subject needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

...I have to say that I’ve never been hugely on board with Corbyn as a potential country leader but in recent times he’s felt quite ‘opportunist’ in ways that have been quite unpleasant...anyway not wanting to get too much into the political debates.....I’m certainly no fan of the present government or leader, but I think as Livia has always said..it’s about the quality of labour as a party as well and being a strong opposition and the right opposition..rather than just taking one extreme end of a spectrum and zipping it along to the opposite extreme....?...I’m never that comfortable anyway when the leader of the party becomes ‘bigger than the party itself and what it stands for’...I think we had that to a large extent with Blair, that kind of ‘celebrity’ status...and well, look at the consequences with that...and obviously similar with the USA now...(...sorry Maru...)...and where the anti vote against Hilary has led them now...and also having an ego as a leader, which I’m not convinced Jeremy isn’t a very self ego person as well...

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...I have to say that I’ve never been hugely on board with Corbyn as a potential country leader but in recent times he’s felt quite ‘opportunist’ in ways that have been quite unpleasant...anyway not wanting to get too much into the political debates.....I’m certainly no fan of the present government or leader, but I think as Livia has always said..it’s about the quality of labour as a party as well and being a strong opposition and the right opposition..rather than just taking one extreme end of a spectrum and zipping it along to the opposite extreme....?...I’m never that comfortable anyway when the leader of the party becomes ‘bigger than the party itself and what it stands for’...I think we had that to a large extent with Blair, that kind of ‘celebrity’ status...and well, look at the consequences with that...and obviously similar with the USA now...(...sorry Maru...)...and where the anti vote against Hilary has led them now...and also having an ego as a leader, which I’m not convinced Jeremy isn’t a very self ego person as well...

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. 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...

We reformed closed-door negotiations. As recently as the early 1970s, congressional committees could easily retreat behind closed doors and members could vote on many bills anonymously, with only the final tallies reported. Federal advisory committees, too, could meet off the record. Understandably, in the wake of Watergate, those practices came to be viewed as suspect. Today, federal law, congressional rules, and public expectations have placed almost all formal deliberations and many informal ones in full public view. One result is greater transparency, which is good. But another result is that finding space for delicate negotiations and candid deliberations can be difficult. Smoke-filled rooms, whatever their disadvantages, were good for brokering complex compromises in which nothing was settled until everything was settled; once gone, they turned out to be difficult to replace. In public, interest groups and grandstanding politicians can tear apart a compromise before it is halfway settled.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Maru

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. 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 bad media coverage and I wonder if our focus on having everything be transparent, chaos and all, if we don't 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 systemsand civil discourse.

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....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...

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

See,I've gone the other way.
A staunch Labour supporter because I want more and better social justice.
So my right wing days are gone,especially with this truly awful uncompromising lot in govt now.

However, I was not an advocate of Corbyn,I felt it a mistake electing hin leader and I feared for the party.
However over time I have come round to him more.
He has brought policies back to Labour which firstly no one thought any leader would dare.
However again,as I found canvassing in June,people like the policies,they want them too.

While still holding reservations on Corbyn myself and indeed as do the people I talked to in June.
One thing came across more,people who even have reservations on Corbyn,do believe he believes in the policies he advocates.

They,and indeed I do too,really believe he would deliver those policies.
It amazed me the large and it seems ever growing number if the younger new voters, who want his policies too.
So I think the wishful thinking Corbyn is going to go away is going to now lead to disappointment to said people.
With over half a million membership and Labour so strong on the ground now and the Cons estimated to be at least under 100,000 membership,possibly more like only 80,000.

Corbyn has in his way,helped polarise politics again between the 2 parties again.
The choice is vastly different,his is the vision it seems the newer generation of voters want and they are ever growing now too.
So it's sad for me to see you pull back TS,as your past arguments especially on the cruelty and wrongs of this govt,all unchanged and still there,we're in my view strong and valid ones.

However this is democracy,I turned my back on the Cons, due to the endless heartless policies.
Equally you have altered your position now.

For me however,it's about fair and just policies,social justice and reaching out.
None of which I see in this PM governnents policies.
Which seem created to bring down further, those already down anyway and to keep them there.
Under the daft electoral system we have,there can only be a CON led govt or a LAB led govt.
I know,regardless of leader,which one I prefer and think the Country needs too now.

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.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Alf

Socialism is cancer.

Be thankful you have food on the shelves in your shops. Socialism takes that away from you.

Be thankful that ambitious rich people feed us.

Corbyn wants to stop the ambitious rich people and give their wealth to the people that do nothing for society but take.

You're so lucky to be British, don't give it away.

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.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I'm going to be honest from the off, I've reported the comment in bold TWICE as I don't appreciate with you suggesting I'm an IRA sympathiser simply because I disagree with your view on Corbyn. But seeing as it's still here I feel I have a right to reply.

I keep reiterating the Bloody Sunday murder of innocents, as that's what it was of course in the hope that you will see that whatever sins came before he is not party to them nor does he have blood on his hands....Unlike the govt of the day, now you can gaslight all you like but the fact remains that we were up to our neck in it well before any involvement from Corbyn, where's the 'sympathy for them?

Terrorism isn't something that just happens... there were years of murder, injustice, false imprisonment, marginalisation and misinformation which led to factions on both sides forming.

It's impossible to just jump to a point in history and start tub thumping... you have to look at the picture as a whole and assess accountability.
Please stop with your irrational accusations please and attempt to maintain a little objectivity here.

'In all 19 people were killed in 1969, 14 of them civilians. They included a nine-year-old schoolboy, struck by a police bullet as he lay in his bedroom. An Irish Republican Army (IRA) member died in a car crash and a teenage member of the Fianna, the IRA’s junior wing, was shot by loyalists. A member of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) was killed by his own bomb - just one of many paramilitaries to die accidental deaths. The first Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officer killed was shot on the Shankill Road by the UVF.

Each death was a terrible event for family, friends and neighbours. Within a short period, events would dictate a pattern of conflict spanning decades. There were phases to the bloodshed.

British Home Secretary Reginald Maudling declared that he would settle for an "acceptable level of violence" at the start of 1971, but within a year the introduction of internment (imprisonment without trial) and the events of Bloody Sunday served to recruit large numbers of young nationalists into republican paramilitary groups.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/topics/troubles_violence

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.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Gosh, you really believe that.

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

See,I've gone the other way.
A staunch Labour supporter because I want more and better social justice.
So my right wing days are gone,especially with this truly awful uncompromising lot in govt now.

However, I was not an advocate of Corbyn,I felt it a mistake electing hin leader and I feared for the party.
However over time I have come round to him more.
He has brought policies back to Labour which firstly no one thought any leader would dare.
However again,as I found canvassing in June,people like the policies,they want them too.

While still holding reservations on Corbyn myself and indeed as do the people I talked to in June.
One thing came across more,people who even have reservations on Corbyn,do believe he believes in the policies he advocates.

They,and indeed I do too,really believe he would deliver those policies.
It amazed me the large and it seems ever growing number if the younger new voters, who want his policies too.
So I think the wishful thinking Corbyn is going to go away is going to now lead to disappointment to said people.
With over half a million membership and Labour so strong on the ground now and the Cons estimated to be at least under 100,000 membership,possibly more like only 80,000.

Corbyn has in his way,helped polarise politics again between the 2 parties again.
The choice is vastly different,his is the vision it seems the newer generation of voters want and they are ever growing now too.
So it's sad for me to see you pull back TS,as your past arguments especially on the cruelty and wrongs of this govt,all unchanged and still there,we're in my view strong and valid ones.

However this is democracy,I turned my back on the Cons, due to the endless heartless policies.
Equally you have altered your position now.

For me however,it's about fair and just policies,social justice and reaching out.
None of which I see in this PM governnents policies.
Which seem created to bring down further, those already down anyway and to keep them there.
Under the daft electoral system we have,there can only be a CON led govt or a LAB led govt.
I know,regardless of leader,which one I prefer and think the Country needs too now.

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.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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.

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.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I have, several times I'm no advocate of terrorism no matter what your implications previously.

Have you publicly condemned the loyalists, govt and security forces for their role in the troubles?

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.

[Underscore]

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.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

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.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

Really?!?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Really?!?

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

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Alf

Socialism is cancer.

Be thankful you have food on the shelves in your shops. Socialism takes that away from you.

Be thankful that ambitious rich people feed us.

Corbyn wants to stop the ambitious rich people and give their wealth to the people that do nothing for society but take.

You're so lucky to be British, don't give it away.

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.

[DemolitionRed]

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.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Livia

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

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.

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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