Corbynomics: A Dystopia

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Ha! You probably aren't very keen on renationalising companies, because your boomer generation has done very nicely thank you - from all the windfalls you got from the British state run companies being sold off to the private sector.

Absurdly, some of these companies are now all or partly owned by foreign state owned corporation.

A large and growing number of people reject the greedy money obsessed neoliberal doctrine. Especially, oddly enough, the ones who havent benefited from it,

Oh dear, still haven't been reconciled with your loving parents and grandparents?
I'm sure they would respond if you made even the most modest of overtures.

Try it out and let us know how you get on.

setmefree2

setmefree2 wrote: »

I'm guessing everyone has read this.
Legal Challenge to Corbyn
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36886159



http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/26/high-court-to-hear-legal-case-against-labour-leadership-ballot-decision-jeremy-corbyn

Decision due tomorrow.

gadgetmind

Bet they still trouser all the £25s.

Arklight

If the PLP think life is hard for them now they have not even begun to contemplate what will happen if Corbyn is ousted and replaced with a warmongering neoliberal corporate shill that 75℅ of members do not want.

ruggedtoast

CLAPTON wrote: »

Oh dear, still haven't been reconciled with your loving parents and grandparents?
I'm sure they would respond if you made even the most modest of overtures.

Try it out and let us know how you get on.

Yes, you would think that. Sitting on piles like a giant parasitical toad.

A few grand from BT another windfall from the banks, bit more from the power company, a handout from gas and a fat state pension paid for by people who will never get any of these things, to subsidise your buy to lets.

I'm surprised you don't choke taking the money from all these lefty IRA supporters. But then your personal financial priorities do seem to nicely take precedence over your (phony) principles, most days.

CLAPTON

TheNickster wrote: »

It is probably an unanswerable question but he might ask the if 'Bloody Sunday' had never happened would the IRA have escalated their 'terrorism' to England?

In the end the peace process would never have happened if the UK government had not eventually engaged in a dialogue with the IRA.

As Ronald Reagon once said:

"one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter".

As I said - time to move on.

I consider that both the current and previous views of our politicians are valid issues both to discuss and to judge them on.
If e.g. a senior tory had been a holocaust denier and refused to say whether he still was a denier, I would criticise that stand.

If the leader of the labour party and close clique believe that the IRA were freedom fighters then that seems very relevant information that voters ought to be aware of.

The belief that their bombing and murder campaign was justified, is quite distinct from believing in having peace talks

Given the current situation with terrorist bombers (or freedom fighters if you wish) the subject seems topical.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Yes, you would think that. Sitting on piles like a giant parasitical toad.

A few grand from BT another windfall from the banks, bit more from the power company, a handout from gas and a fat state pension paid for by people who will never get any of these things, to subsidise your buy to lets.

I'm surprised you don't choke taking the money from all these lefty IRA supporters. But then your personal financial priorities do seem to nicely take precedence over your (phony) principles, most days.

rarely does one see a post with quite so many incorrect assumptions but then you're who you are so no real surprise.

better to forget all this hate for most of your fellow citizens and try to reconcile yourself with the old folks at home.

ruggedtoast

The IRA used a strategy of attacking an unarmed civilian population in order to frighten them into adopting a course of action favourable to the IRA. In this case pressuring the British government into withdrawing from NI.

So they were terrorists, no doubt about that.

Unfortunately they could, fairly legitimately, claim that the British government had been targeting the RC civilian population in Ireland for quite a long time before this for the same reason.

The only thing the whole sorry episode teaches us is that awful behaviour leads to more awful behaviour.

If you think the entire Troubles in Northern Ireland began on January 31st 1972, and nothing came before that, as Clapton does, you will be getting a very narrow view of history.

Someone on the British side had to acknowledge that the IRA may have had a grievance, even if their methods were wrong. The fact that Thatcher /Blair et al outsourced this to other people to do, didn't make their involvement any less significant, though it does point to their hypocrisy.

I am relatively ambivalent about McDonnell. He is on record saying that he regrets the "bombs and bullets" speech, but he would have said anything at all to keep the IRA in talks at a point when they were about to walk away, and if that speech saved one life he would say it again.

Perhaps if Thatcher had begun her tenure by explaining that Britain had no business ever being in Ireland, and that a lot of UK involvement there amounted to war crimes against an occupied nation who would be receiving reparations in short order, then the whole thing may have been resolved much sooner.

But that wouldn't have gone down very well in The Sun, The Telegraph and Daily Mail.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The IRA used a strategy of attacking an unarmed civilian population in order to frighten them into adopting a course of action favourable to the IRA. In this case pressuring the British government into withdrawing from NI.

So they were terrorists, no doubt about that.

Unfortunately they could, fairly legitimately, claim that the British government had been targeting the RC civilian population in Ireland for quite a long time before this for the same reason.

The only thing the whole sorry episode teaches us is that awful behaviour leads to more awful behaviour.

If you think the entire Troubles in Northern Ireland began on January 31st 1972, and nothing came before that, as Clapton does, you will be getting a very narrow view of history.

Someone on the British side had to acknowledge that the IRA may have had a grievance, even if their methods were wrong. The fact that Thatcher /Blair et al outsourced this to other people to do, didn't make their involvement any less significant, though it does point to their hypocrisy.

I am relatively ambivalent about McDonnell. He is on record saying that he regrets the "bombs and bullets" speech, but he would have said anything at all to keep the IRA in talks at a point when they were about to walk away, and if that speech saved one life he would say it again.

Perhaps if Thatcher had begun her tenure by explaining that Britain had no business ever being in Ireland, and that a lot of UK involvement there amounted to war crimes against an occupied nation who would be receiving reparations in short order, then the whole thing may have been resolved much sooner.

But that wouldn't have gone down very well in The Sun, The Telegraph and Daily Mail.

which doesn't address the actual issue of whether the Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott clique consider the IRA as freedom fighters and/or whether they see the murders as 'justified' by the circumstances.

amasing that some-one can try to summarise the NI situation without once mentioning the existance of the protestants.

and the IRA didn't 'attack' an unarmed population : they murdered them deliberately.

mayonnaise

Welcome back, toastie.