Corbynomics: A Dystopia

setmefree2

Somerset wrote: »

I saw QT and heard his explanation. That he 'cozied up' to the IRA and that the language was inappropriate (now) but only because of the !!!!-licking necessary because he was desperate to save the peace process which was in danger of being de-railed.


This is a genuine question. Exactly what role did he (and Corbyn) have in the peace process ? Were they involved ? A conduit ? Negotiating behind the scenes ? With all the media spotlighting going on, I haven't read anywhere what these two actually did to keep the process going, which is surprising.


If as I suspect, the answer is nothing, then his 'explanation' is crap. So a serious question - were they involved in the peace process or not ?

He uttered the words complained of in 2003. The Good Friday agreement was signed in 1998. There was no reason in 2003 to think that if an obscure backbencher with no involvement in any peace process praised Republican murderers this would advance that Agreement one jot. Indeed I would like to know what exactly it was McDonnell thought was happening that meant that the peace process was likely to fall apart unless an obscure backbencher went out and praised IRA murderers. The claim is risible. He was praising the IRA because he had sympathy with them. It really is – as with Corbyn – as simple as that.
If you doubt that then consider Tony Blair or any of the other senior figures actually involved in negotiating the peace process and see if they ever ‘had’ to utter the sort of things McDonnell volunteered so effortlessly. Scour Tony Blair’s speeches back in 1998 when the peace process was actually happening and you will search vainly.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/09/why-are-people-falling-for-john-mcdonnells-question-time-apology/

setmefree2

In reality Jeremy and his people are clearly just trying to cover his tracks for decades of supporting terrible people with a propensity for extreme sectarian violence. But I would genuinely like to open out as a competition one question I keep asking.
Can anyone find any examples of Jeremy Corbyn doing something similar with ‘the other side’ of any of these peace processes or inter-faith meetings? For instance does anyone anywhere have any record of Jeremy Corbyn standing for a minute’s silence for some loyalist thugs killed while on ‘active service’? Or, more plausibly, are there any records of Jeremy Corbyn attending memorial events for the many members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary killed by while doing their duty as policemen? Or are there any records of him remembering members of the British armed forces and security services killed while performing their duties? It is only if we cannot find evidence of Jeremy attending such events that people might read reasons into why we only have records of him attending memorials for the IRA.

Likewise if the future Labour leader really has been involved in a peace process in the Middle East rather than shilling for Hamas and co, can anyone find any occasion when he has gone to pay homage to the heads of any settler movements in the West Bank? There must be some? Pictures of him shaking hands with them, invitations to them to speak in Parliament, videos of him describing them as ‘friends’ and so on? Surely at the very least he will have had meetings with political figures to the right of Netanyahu in the Israeli Knesset? There must be some record of these?

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/08/has-jeremy-corbyn-ever-bothered-to-speak-to-the-other-side/

setmefree2

To tell these people they were brave, that their armed struggle was producing results and therefore leave the impression that perhaps they should continue it was not working for peace.

Thankfully, and contrary to his own sense of self-importance, he had so little impact on the peace process that it carried on despite his stupidity.

1. The peace process did not need him, and he did not help it


2. He did not save a single life


3. It was not “worth doing because we did hold on to the peace process”. We held on to it despite, not because, of John McDonnell


4. He apologised, but only “if” he gave offence

5. He still believes the thing he apologised for


McDonnell has displayed such an ability to bend the truth to his own ends that, if he sincerely believes what he says, he must be a psychopath.
And if he knows what he’s doing, it makes Alistair Campbell’s dodgy dossier look like it was carved in stone on Mount Sinai.
The truth is probably that he’s had 30 years of being a prototype Katie Hopkins, speaking without a filter, and has been taken by surprise to find journalists actually write this stuff down.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/john-mcdonnell-ira-apology-how-6469056

setmefree2

Back to Question Time - couldn't believe Salmond was promoting People's QE - the man has a degree in Economics and Medieval History - must have been more Medevial History than Economics.

Good articles here

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c1060fb0-41b4-11e5-b98b-87c7270955cf.html#axzz3mGaaqfdQ

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/29/why-the-peoples-quantitative-easing-will-simply-never-work/

padington

gadgetmind wrote: »

So, come up with a better mind experiment than your previous one, because that one failed to prove your point. Big time.

Or stick to reality.

To win a debate you need to bring some facts or reason to the table. Give it a try sometime.

BobQ

robin61 wrote: »

BobQ wrote: »

Do you follow them around to check? Obviously you do since you seem so certain[/QUOT

No but I am not blind. I live and work in the town. It's obvious to anyone that there are some people living on various kinds of benefits who can still afford to smoke, drink, pay for mobile phones etc. yet cry poverty. An inconvenient truth for some no doubt.

Oh, so you do not know you just suspect and turn suspicion into fact.

I have invited unemployed friends for a drink at times, because they could not afford it. If you had seen us you would have assumed that I was unemployed too? And of course the unemployed carry stickers to enable you to identify them?

A PAYG mobile costs very little if you already have one. But I suppose you would make unemployed people hand over their mobiles when they lose their job?

I do agree that there are probably some people of the type you describe but the idea you can pick them out in the way you describe is fantasy.

robin61

BobQ wrote: »

robin61 wrote: »

Oh, so you do not know you just suspect and turn suspicion into fact.

I have invited unemployed friends for a drink at times, because they could not afford it. If you had seen us you would have assumed that I was unemployed too? And of course the unemployed carry stickers to enable you to identify them?

A PAYG mobile costs very little if you already have one. But I suppose you would make unemployed people hand over their mobiles when they lose their job?

I do agree that there are probably some people of the type you describe but the idea you can pick them out in the way you describe is fantasy.

Pure fantasy is assuming that all those on benefits are poverty stricken through no fault of their own. It's not hard working people who are buying extra strong lager from the corner shop at 7.30am and then complaining that they are skint.

It makes no difference to me whether you think I am making this up or not. It's plain to see that there are those who will always be 'poverty stricken' no matter how much help they get.

I am not saying everyone on benefits are !!!!less and undeserving but I am saying that those who make sensible choices and accept some personal responsibility should not be poverty stricken. I am not saying that things will be anything other than tough but there is a difference between struggling and being in poverty.

And no I would not confiscate mobile phones but if i was impoverished PAYG mobiiles would not be high up on my list of priorities.

gadgetmind

robin61 wrote: »

Pure fantasy is assuming that all those on benefits are poverty stricken through no fault of their own.

There is a branch of our family (marriage, not blood) where working is seen as some kind of last resort and girls start spitting out kids from their mid teens as they get money for each one.

Things have needed to change for a long time, and there are finally signs of progress.

robin61

gadgetmind wrote: »

There is a branch of our family (marriage, not blood) where working is seen as some kind of last resort and girls start spitting out kids from their mid teens as they get money for each one.

Things have needed to change for a long time, and there are finally signs of progress.

Yes. Fairness for taxpayers is just as important as helping those who need and deserve help. There needs to be the right balance.
Çomrade Corbyn would have us return to unlimited benefits so that people like you have mentioñed will be able to abuse the system and choose to live a parasytical life funded by hard working taxpayers.

Rinoa

Interesting Poll by ComRes today. Conservatives still enjoy substantial poll lead, Corbyn seen unfaourably by most. Boris only politician to have a + favourability factor.

http://comres.co.uk/polls/independent-on-sunday-sunday-mirror-september-2015-poll/