Jump to content

UK Politics: The Johnson Decades


BlufPurdi
 Share

Recommended Posts

The only thing that made them centrist was the Lib Dems.  The electorate then resoundingly rejected centrism once again and drifted to the right for the Tories on their own. 

 

Lib Dems primarily suffered not for their policies but for their decision to enter into coalition with the Tories. They don't have many safe seats and it didn't take much of a swing away to decimate their numbers in the Commons.

 

I do think David Miliband would have boosted Labour's numbers FWIW. Yes he's cardboard but he doesn't have Ed's general awkwardness which was pounced upon in the campaigns. Brown had no chance in 2010 but I do think 2015 could have been different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that made them centrist was the Lib Dems.  The electorate then resoundingly rejected centrism once again and drifted to the right for the Tories on their own. 

 

Lib Dems primarily suffered not for their policies but for their decision to enter into coalition with the Tories. They don't have many safe seats and it didn't take much of a swing away to decimate their numbers in the Commons.

 

I do think David Miliband would have boosted Labour's numbers FWIW. Yes he's cardboard but he doesn't have Ed's general awkwardness which was pounced upon in the campaigns. Brown had no chance in 2010 but I do think 2015 could have been different.

 

I agree, as far as his electoral charm goes, but he would be a bit of 'Business as usual' at a time when we definitely don't need any more of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can’t be arsed it’s all of the quoting, but the majority of anti-semitism is a red herring and KI is spot on - criticising Israel is not anti-Semitic, just as criticising Saudi Arabia policies isn’t anti-Islamic.

 

I’m not saying its not a problem, there’s always a few dickheads everywhere but it’s massively overblown.

 

You can go on as much as you want about conspiracy theories, but Israel have been caught out before funding campaigns against people who criticise them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can’t be arsed it’s all of the quoting, but the majority of anti-semitism is a red herring and KI is spot on - criticising Israel is not anti-Semitic, just as criticising Saudi Arabia policies isn’t anti-Islamic.

 

I’m not saying its not a problem, there’s always a few dickheads everywhere but it’s massively overblown.

 

You can go on as much as you want about conspiracy theories, but Israel have been caught out before funding campaigns against people who criticise them.

 

Completely agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/truth-about-seumas-milne-jeremy-corbyn-and-new-mccarthyism

 

A good article on the latest 'scandals' surrounding Labour.

 

It's worth saying, what Berger was put through was out of order, getting called an 'israeli attack dog', or zionist something or other, that's bang out of order.  Deal with the issues, her attachment to LFI is actually irrelevant.  There also seems to be an unaware antisemitism within Labour, particularly in Liverpool going by an article I read.  What I mean is, blatant antisemitic comments but complete denial from them, do these people need zero tolerance, or do they need education? 

 

I dare say there's a few hot spots elsewhere, Barnet sounds like one, but it's not widespread.  Anyone that says it is, I always ask, away from Twitter, what abuse and antisemitism have you seen.  They've seen nowt.

 

Sooner Twitter dies the better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can’t be arsed it’s all of the quoting, but the majority of anti-semitism is a red herring and KI is spot on - criticising Israel is not anti-Semitic, just as criticising Saudi Arabia policies isn’t anti-Islamic.

 

I’m not saying its not a problem, there’s always a few dickheads everywhere but it’s massively overblown.

 

You can go on as much as you want about conspiracy theories, but Israel have been caught out before funding campaigns against people who criticise them.

 

Completely agree.

 

i like to think of it in these terms - labour have a massive membership, is it something like 500,000 and another 300,000 affiliated...whatever

 

nobody even knows the tory membership number but it's believed to be lower than 100,000 i think i read

 

can you imagine the cesspit of racism and hate 800,000 tory members would be on social media? :lol:  as it is they have voters too ashamed (presumably) to join the party who can run about all over the place spouting whatever they like but it's not the "members" of course, because they don't fucking have any

 

none of that is to say that labour has no problems nor that they've dealt with them at all well, but people are generally arseholes so the more arseholes you have the bigger the problems

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can’t be arsed it’s all of the quoting, but the majority of anti-semitism is a red herring and KI is spot on - criticising Israel is not anti-Semitic, just as criticising Saudi Arabia policies isn’t anti-Islamic.

 

I’m not saying its not a problem, there’s always a few dickheads everywhere but it’s massively overblown.

 

You can go on as much as you want about conspiracy theories, but Israel have been caught out before funding campaigns against people who criticise them.

 

People always bring this up when discussing anti-Semitism.  No-one credible has ever said that criticising Israel is anti-Semitic and, as far as I am aware, the adoption of IHRA definition wouldn't prevent it either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose ‘credible’ is the key word. Shame the same word doesn’t mean anything when the accusation is levelled to such a magnitude at Corbyn and Labour.

 

Completely agree mojo

 

Quite astonishing that TIG are so against anti semitism yet are happy to support a knowingly racist Tory party.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose ‘credible’ is the key word. Shame the same word doesn’t mean anything when the accusation is levelled to such a magnitude at Corbyn and Labour.

 

Completely agree mojo

 

Quite astonishing that TIG are so against anti semitism yet are happy to support a knowingly racist Tory party.

How are they supporting the Tories ?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose ‘credible’ is the key word. Shame the same word doesn’t mean anything when the accusation is levelled to such a magnitude at Corbyn and Labour.

 

Completely agree mojo

 

Quite astonishing that TIG are so against anti semitism yet are happy to support a knowingly racist Tory party.

How are they supporting the Tories ?

 

They’ve said that they will go with confidence and supply??? No?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They did, yes.  That was in relation to now, though, not necessarily after an election.  But they're going to be king makers, and they've made it clear they're never going to put Corbyn in office.  So it would either be backing the Tories and hoping to moderate them Lib Dem style, or say they'll back Labour if Corbyn resigns, similar to Brown being forced out to accommodate the LDs in 2010 (that they then turned their back on).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose ‘credible’ is the key word. Shame the same word doesn’t mean anything when the accusation is levelled to such a magnitude at Corbyn and Labour.

 

Completely agree mojo

 

Quite astonishing that TIG are so against anti semitism yet are happy to support a knowingly racist Tory party.

How are they supporting the Tories ?

 

They’ve said that they will go with confidence and supply??? No?

Conbitionally on the offer of a second referendum ? Doing so could well have a good few Tories vote against so it's not too bad a position. Not quite how you appear to make out.
Link to post
Share on other sites

They did, yes.  That was in relation to now, though, not necessarily after an election.  But they're going to be king makers, and they've made it clear they're never going to put Corbyn in office.  So it would either be backing the Tories and hoping to moderate them Lib Dem style, or say they'll back Labour if Corbyn resigns, similar to Brown being forced out to accommodate the LDs in 2010 (that they then turned their back on).

 

Have they absolutely ruled out working with Labour? In the event of an election where Labour get more votes than the Tories but not a majority I cannot imagine they would coalition up with the Tories. I would imagine they would supply and confidence with the biggest party to ensure their policies are put front and centre.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I agree in general, I couldn't imagine it but I think the way they've spoken about Corbyn, and to a lesser degree McDonnell, the likes of Leslie, Gapes, Smith, they appear pretty convincing in their belief they see them as a security risk. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I agree in general, I couldn't imagine it but I think the way they've spoken about Corbyn, and to a lesser degree McDonnell, the likes of Leslie, Gapes, Smith, they appear pretty convincing in their belief they see them as a security risk. 

 

Fucking security risk man, it’s pathetic :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all tied into being pro-NATO, unquestioning alliances with the House of Saud and Israel that won't jeopardize arms sales.  Most of it actually seems directed at Milne's viewpoints.  No one in Labour has said anything about NATO in years, but that was something those three continuously brought up last week. 

 

It's no coincidence to me to me at all that the head, or possibly the former head, of MI5 or 6 was writing an article in the Mail on Sunday just there, highlighting the same points they were talking about during their launch. :hmm:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree like.  He gave far too much benefit of the doubt to Russia over the Salisbury incident.  He was technically right, it was just against the grain of the established British response and looked awful no matter what your politics are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree like.  He gave far too much benefit of the doubt to Russia over the Salisbury incident.  He was technically right, it was just against the grain of the established British response and looked awful no matter what your politics are.

 

I don't think he did. And given your second sentence I struggle to accept that you believe that. He simply didn't give the benefit of the doubt to British intelligence, and that is an affront to the British people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...