What no jeremy cobyn thread?

[Phil V]

I always took it as a given that the number excluded EU migrants as that is beyond control....

There was no obvious caveats in the manifesto, and the many statements were followed with 'no if's no but's' I can't see how that's ambiguous. (though they did take down the promises website from the previous election before the last one.

 

[dejongj]

There was no obvious caveats in the manifesto, and the many statements were followed with 'no if's no but's' I can't see how that's ambiguous. (though they did take down the promises website from the previous election before the last one.

Don't disagree, but surely it is obvious that with open borders you can control the migration, thus you can reduce it. Does that need a caveat for something that obvious?

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Don't disagree, but surely it is obvious that with open borders you can control the migration, thus you can reduce it. Does that need a caveat for something that obvious?

Knowing that you have open borders means you cannot (or rather, 'should not') claim you can reduce immigration.

A promise in exchange for a persons vote needs to be unambiguously valid - this claim was not.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Just reading up on what the PM has said about Mr corbyn:


I think the Pm might need to check up on what Mr Corbyn said.... (Roughly pasted )

Not behaviour I wish to see from our PM. Descending into gutter politics and wanting to drive out any debate by attacking and deliberately misrepresenting the leader of the opposition in a reprehensible manner.

And didn't the Tories want him in the first place?


EDIT
Remove extraneous text ('the robin')

 

[dejongj]

Knowing that you have open borders means you cannot (or rather, 'should not') claim you can reduce immigration.

A promise in exchange for a persons vote needs to be unambiguously valid - this claim was not.

Border to Europe are open, however you can control, and we are, immigration from outside the EU...I also like some personal responsibility for checking the facts...

 

[Dave *]

Border to Europe are open, however you can control, and we are, immigration from outside the EU...I also like some personal responsibility for checking the facts...

Completely immaterial to what Cameron promised, you are trying to shift the goal posts from what was promised.

This is the original document showing the pledge:

Point 5, no caveats, a straightforward promise that even the Daily Mail has lambasted the Tories about.

The Conservative party's 'contract' promised to 'control immigration, reducing it to the levels of the 1990s – meaning tens of thousands a year, instead of the hundreds of thousands a year under Labour'.


But latest figures released last week show that a total of 298,000 more people arrived in Britain than left in the year to September, as the numbers arriving from the rest of the EU hit a record high.

A record 624,000 arrived in Britain in a year, up from 530,000 in the previous 12 months. At the same time, 327,000 left, a figure which has barely changed since 2010.

The contract was supposed to restore public trust in politics. Mr Cameron said at the time:

'So this is our contract with you. I want you to read it and – if we win the election – use it to hold us to account. If we don't deliver our side of the bargain, vote us out in five years' time.'



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rs-arriving-soared-300-000.html#ixzz3nvZAXUHu

 

[dejongj]

Not trying to shift the goal posts, explaining how I interpreted what was said.

 

[Phil V]

Don't disagree, but surely it is obvious that with open borders you can control the migration, thus you can reduce it. Does that need a caveat for something that obvious?

'Obvious' to you and I, but designed to convince the electorate who don't care to understand anything beyond 'the obvious'.

In the same way they convinced the electorate Labour spent all the money on benefits and 'big government', I know you're no fan of big government, but you're intelligent enough to know the money went into bailing out the reckless free market.

The truth is unimportant in modern politics, creating the lie that engages with the most people became the game.

Back to the point of the thread, JC is at least trying to put an end to that. Though I'm not convinced yet.

 

[dejongj]

'Obvious' to you and I, but designed to convince the electorate who don't care to understand anything beyond 'the obvious'.

In the same way they convinced the electorate Labour spent all the money on benefits and 'big government', I know you're no fan of big government, but you're intelligent enough to know the money went into bailing out the reckless free market.

The truth is unimportant in modern politics, creating the lie that engages with the most people became the game.

Back to the point of the thread, JC is at least trying to put an end to that. Though I'm not convinced yet.

Definitely not a big fan. But picking up the point, how much money has it actually cost to make the guarantees available? What is the current statement of accounts on what was spent on it, what we gotten back, and what was a pledge if required but never actually taken up? What is the forecast on payback of the remaining amounts?

I am no big fan of the bailouts as I belief in letting a market be free. But I am even less a fan of creating a state dependency amongst its citizens and residents. That in my opinion is far worse.

On Corbyn. It is being reported he is going to snub the queen for the privy council seat. However apparently he has found a loophole that he doesn't have to meet the queen, yet still will get access to the most sensitive material and intelligence the United Kingdom has. Whilst I respect him keeping to his principles, I can't help but feel it is too dangerous to share this with this man.

 

[rjbell]

I can't help but feel it is too dangerous to share this with this man.

Why? do you really thing he's some kind of communist and sell the info to N Korea or something?

 

[Phil V]

I've no idea what the books look like from that action, but I believe it was the right thing to do.

Where we differ (we all know) is that I believe that investment drives growth, and that doesn't stop being true when it's government investment.

Examining how money has been removed from the economy to try to balance the books, it's obvious the tactic has failed. The deficit is growing not shrinking. But it's easy to convince people they're doing the right thing, because it looks like the obvious choice.

You can only make a profit by dismantling something and selling it off once, to continue to make a profit requires investment and careful management.

The old adage 'the only easy way to make money with your camera is to sell it' is clearly true, but there are other ways too, and thousands of people who do it successfully, but look how many idiots there are telling us we're wrong and it'll never work.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

Definitely not a big fan. But picking up the point, how much money has it actually cost to make the guarantees available? What is the current statement of accounts on what was spent on it, what we gotten back, and what was a pledge if required but never actually taken up? What is the forecast on payback of the remaining amounts?

I am no big fan of the bailouts as I belief in letting a market be free. But I am even less a fan of creating a state dependency amongst its citizens and residents. That in my opinion is far worse.

On Corbyn. It is being reported he is going to snub the queen for the privy council seat. However apparently he has found a loophole that he doesn't have to meet the queen, yet still will get access to the most sensitive material and intelligence the United Kingdom has. Whilst I respect him keeping to his principles, I can't help but feel it is too dangerous to share this with this man.

I'm not sure having prior commitments, is the same as a "snub". It might be like the time he was criticised for missing the opening match of the Rugby World Cup, he might be busy doing something useful instead.

 

[dejongj]

I'm not sure having prior commitments, is the same as a "snub". It might be like the time he was criticised for missing the opening match of the Rugby World Cup, he might be busy doing something useful instead.

Oh come on, wake up. Won't sing the national anthem, will sing red flag, too busy to meet the queen and sworn in to the privy council? Is he taking the job seriously? Hence my comments on giving this man information is dangerous. Especially with his alleged friends and definition of tragedies.

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

Oh come on, wake up. Won't sing the national anthem, will sing red flag, too busy to meet the queen and sworn in to the privy council? Is he taking the job seriously? Hence my comments on giving this man information is dangerous. Especially with his alleged friends and definition of tragedies.

The national anthem which doesn't mention the nation, I honestly don't see the big deal.

Cameron sticks his nob in a pig, takes selfies at funerals, all just a bit of a laugh.

Corbyn doesn't sing a song and goes to an anti-austerity rally, OUTRAGE!

It's fine to disagree with someones politics, I certainly don't agree with all of Corbyn's views, but the things that Corbyn is being attacked for are just making me laugh

 

[MK1 Photography]

Baby boomer comment? Care to expand or just make facile comments like that?

I was born in 1961 and set out to get a job at a time when being able to do so was by no means easy and I've lived and worked through boom and bust. During my working years I worked hard when many were more than willing not to and I see plenty not willing to try harder to support themselves today.

When working 14 hours a day 7 days a week it's a bit of a killer when others don't try as hard as they could and when seeing people in real need it's a bit of a killer to see people who could be giving taking instead. As I said in an earlier post every penny that's given to someone who could be doing more to look after themselves is a penny less for those in genuine need.

Socialism and wider do gooding has to be done in the real world not in some fantasy land where vague groups such as big business and the rich can always be taxed more. GIve me a just and socialist society which is sustainable over some university student union short term immature wet dream any day.

Bang on

 

[onomatopoeia]

'Obvious' to you and I, but designed to convince the electorate who don't care to understand anything beyond 'the obvious'.

You do a large portion of the electorate a dis-service, there is more political awareness than some like to believe.

 

[dejongj]

The national anthem which doesn't mention the nation, I honestly don't see the big deal.

Cameron sticks his nob in a pig, takes selfies at funerals, all just a bit of a laugh.

Corbyn doesn't sing a song and goes to an anti-austerity rally, OUTRAGE!

It's fine to disagree with someones politics, I certainly don't agree with all of Corbyn's views, but the things that Corbyn is being attacked for are just making me laugh

Weird you find that funny. Some pretty serious matters for someone who aspires to be the prime minister and represent the UK on an international stage.

 

[Llamaman]

Especially with his alleged friends and definition of tragedies.

Not you as well.

If you read the whole comment he made (it was posted here a few posts back so you don't need to go Googling for it) you'll see that the "tragedy" he was referring to was that Bin Laden wasn't brought before a proper court rather than being executed extra-judicially. He was making the point that commitment to justice and not violence is what separates us from terrorists. and I'm inclined to agree.
The spin that Cameron put on that one word, taken out of context, is deceitful and dishonourable. I didn't expect much better from him, but I did from you.

 

[Llamaman]

Weird you find that funny. Some pretty serious matters for someone who aspires to be the prime minister and represent the UK on an international stage.

Are you seriously suggesting that republicans should be excluded from the democratic process?
That's how civil wars start.

 

[fracster]

Not you as well.

If you read the whole comment he made (it was posted here a few posts back so you don't need to go Googling for it) you'll see that the "tragedy" he was referring to was that Bin Laden wasn't brought before a proper court rather than being executed extra-judicially. He was making the point that commitment to justice and not violence is what separates us from terrorists. and I'm inclined to agree.
The spin that Cameron put on that one word, taken out of context, is deceitful and dishonourable. I didn't expect much better from him, but I did from you.

yep, because arresting and trying Saddam was an unmitigated success, not farcical in any way.

 

[dejongj]

Are you seriously suggesting that republicans should be excluded from the democratic process?
That's how civil wars start.

No I am not, but at this moment in time we have a monarchy. A monarchy that is beyond just the UK parliament. As such he should be part of it and via democratic process change it if he doesn't like it. The consequences are much wider.

The guy doesn't want to play by the rules, which is not on. I'm all up for changes the rules following existing process but not just kick against it. He should be wiser than that.

 

[dejongj]

Not you as well.

If you read the whole comment he made (it was posted here a few posts back so you don't need to go Googling for it) you'll see that the "tragedy" he was referring to was that Bin Laden wasn't brought before a proper court rather than being executed extra-judicially. He was making the point that commitment to justice and not violence is what separates us from terrorists. and I'm inclined to agree.
The spin that Cameron put on that one word, taken out of context, is deceitful and dishonourable. I didn't expect much better from him, but I did from you.

There is a subtle difference. It is nice to sit in the sideline and make such comments, it is much harder when you are actually in that situation and have to make the hard decisions.

I rather have someone who is willing to make those tough decisions. There are many of those to be made all the time. What he described is nice in theory, in practise it is naivity of the greatest order.

 

[Llamaman]

As such he should be part of it and via democratic process change it if he doesn't like it.

But that's the point. He can't change it if he is excluded from parliament because he is a republican, which is exactly what you are inferring.

Won't sing a song euologising the Monarch? Denied!
Won't kneel before the Queen? Denied!

The notion that deference to centuries-old tradition is more important than allowing the democratic will of the people to be exercised by their democratically-chosen representatives is profoundly absurd.

If a politician gets elected on a mandate of "rename the UK as The People's Furry Republic of Llamaland" then that should be allowed to happen. The will of the people has to rank as more important than symbolic cap-doffing to an hereditary heir. Otherwise we may as well drop any pretense of parliament being the primary power of the State.

To make subservience to the Monarch a prerequisite of serving in government, makes the Monarch a self-perpetuating entity beyond any reform other than through a coup d'etat. If the Monarch continues to enjoy her position, it should be because the people will it to be so, not because they are forced to accept it by an unwritten constitution formed by historic convention.

 

[Dave *]

Not trying to shift the goal posts, explaining how I interpreted what was said.

You aren't interpreting the words that were said (they are fairly easy and uncomplicated), you are trying to spin a totally different meaning to the statement and adding your own caveats and excuses that don't appear in the original promise.

 

[Phil V]

You do a large portion of the electorate a dis-service, there is more political awareness than some like to believe.

We'll agree to differ, whilst this Nations favourite newspaper is The Sun, favourite newspaper website the Mail, favourite TV show Coronation Street, where high street butchers and bakers have closed to make way for tanning salons and nail bars, I'm afraid I have very little faith in their sense of reason.

 

[Llamaman]

yep, because arresting and trying Saddam was an unmitigated success, not farcical in any way.

I said "proper trial", not kangaroo court held mostly in secret, with the express aim of dispatching him to the gallows ASAP before he 'did a Snowdon' and spilled the beans - revealing just how cosy his relationship with the West had been and their quiet acquiescence as he committed genocide against his own citizens (ironically the act they hanged him for).

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

So, it mentioned in passing in a news article, that Cameron also missed the first Privy Council meeting he was invited to as well. I'm sure there's a valid reason that that wasn't considered a "snub" though..

 

[Anthony.Ralph]

[..]

On Corbyn. It is being reported he is going to snub the queen for the privy council seat.

[..]

'Being reported' is not the same as 'actually doing' of course. And on the basis that Jeremy Corbyn is going to miss today's meeting is some sort of discourtesy, I guess you could say the same for David Cameron as he took three months to turn up to his first Privy Council meeting in (I think) 1996.

I wouldn't blame Jeremy Corbyn if he took a leaf out of Ken William's book and started running around crying - "infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me"

Anthony.

 

[cambsno]

We'll agree to differ, whilst this Nations favourite newspaper is The Sun, favourite newspaper website the Mail, favourite TV show Coronation Street, where high street butchers and bakers have closed to make way for tanning salons and nail bars, I'm afraid I have very little faith in their sense of reason.

I do find that slightly patronising. So what if the favourite paper is the Sun. Yes, it reports in its own way and slant but so does the Mirror the other way, or the Guardian. Just because you dont like it or agree does not make it wrong or mean that peoples ideas are wrong.

 

[dejongj]

You aren't interpreting the words that were said (they are fairly easy and uncomplicated), you are trying to spin a totally different meaning to the statement and adding your own caveats and excuses that don't appear in the original promise.

I just love it when other people know better than myself what is said and did. Well done Dave1.

 

[dejongj]

But that's the point. He can't change it if he is excluded from parliament because he is a republican, which is exactly what you are inferring.

Won't sing a song euologising the Monarch? Denied!
Won't kneel before the Queen? Denied!

The notion that deference to centuries-old tradition is more important than allowing the democratic will of the people to be exercised by their democratically-chosen representatives is profoundly absurd.

If a politician gets elected on a mandate of "rename the UK as The People's Furry Republic of Llamaland" then that should be allowed to happen. The will of the people has to rank as more important than symbolic cap-doffing to an hereditary heir. Otherwise we may as well drop any pretense of parliament being the primary power of the State.

To make subservience to the Monarch a prerequisite of serving in government, makes the Monarch a self-perpetuating entity beyond any reform other than through a coup d'etat. If the Monarch continues to enjoy her position, it should be because the people will it to be so, not because they are forced to accept it by an unwritten constitution formed by historic convention.

No I don't think it does at all, he is free to change it if he gets the following and supported mandate for it. However in the mean time play it by the rules. Facilitate the chance within, accept with clauses and clarity instead of this kind of outside ambiguous behaviour. It's not like anyone is asking him to burn his red flag or anything.

 

[Dave *]

I just love it when other people know better than myself what is said and did. Well done Dave1.

Let's remind you, the Conservatives said:

control immigration, reducing it to the levels of the 1990s – meaning tens of thousands a year, instead of the hundreds of thousands a year under Labour'.

You then decide to be the spin doctor and add the following to what was a straightforward statement of reducing immigration to tens of thousands.

I always took it as a given that the number excluded EU migrants as that is beyond control....

Maybe you have another source that shows David Camoron said:

control some immigration, not from the EU of course, so while we would like it to be tens of thousands it will probably be hundreds of thousands, just like it is was under Labour

Yes? No?

 

[dejongj]

As I said, I always took it as a given that the number excluded EU migrants as they can't control it. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that or why stating my opinion and what I took as a given turns me into a spin doctor. What I took as a given is a true reflection of what I took as a given.

But ofcourse you know differently and you know that I am only saying that for spin? Just junk about it, what's in it for me? What would I gain by doing such a thing? Absolutely nothing, it is a nonsensical statement. But hey if you possess some kind of special skill to know myself better me, then maybe you should try and monetise that instead of trolling on Internet forums.

 

[rjbell]

I do find that slightly patronising. So what if the favourite paper is the Sun. Yes, it reports in its own way and slant but so does the Mirror the other way, or the Guardian. Just because you dont like it or agree does not make it wrong or mean that peoples ideas are wrong.

They're hate mongers. Only today we see the the paper accusing the winner of bake off winning out of political correctness. What motive could this possible have other than getting people worked up over muslims.

 

[Phil V]

I do find that slightly patronising. So what if the favourite paper is the Sun. Yes, it reports in its own way and slant but so does the Mirror the other way, or the Guardian. Just because you dont like it or agree does not make it wrong or mean that peoples ideas are wrong.

Well it's perfectly legal to hold racist and mysogynistic views, I won't ask to be forgiven for looking down on people who do though. I do think it's 'wrong' the law (the arbiter of right and wrong) backs me up at the point those beliefs turn into actions.

 

[Dave *]

As I said, I always took it as a given that the number excluded EU migrants as they can't control it. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that or why stating my opinion and what I took as a given turns me into a spin doctor. What I took as a given is a true reflection of what I took as a given.

Except what you are now taking as a given had nothing to do with what was said or promised.

It's a bit pointless trying to defend the promise that was made by adding caveats that didn't exist at the time.

 

[cambsno]

They're hate mongers. Only today we see the the paper accusing the winner of bake off winning out of political correctness. What motive could this possible have other than getting people worked up over muslims.

Really? I know the sun has (or had) a regular slot with a Muslim lady putting her view over so that doesn't add up.

I do remember earlier in the year some pc questions around it as it seemed to tick every box bar someone in a wheelchair, could be linked with that. However, while editing can play a part, I don't see how they can be saying that about the final as she was easily the winner before the showstopper (well, unless she massively ballsed it up which she didn't), and although she didn't start great was the pick over the last 3-4 weeks.

 

[Jim_Tod]

It's not like anyone is asking him to burn his red flag or anything.

Having read your posts I think you might not be advocating that he burn his red flag but I believe you are advocating that he renounce his principles in order to be allowed to take a principled stand and effect change. Doing this simply leaves you without principles.

What we need are more principled politicians not less and Corbyn, well known as a republican, has been voted in both by his constituents and labour party members- why sshould he be required to give them up.

 

[cambsno]

Well it's perfectly legal to hold racist and mysogynistic views, I won't ask to be forgiven for looking down on people who do though. I do think it's 'wrong' the law (the arbiter of right and wrong) backs me up at the point those beliefs turn into actions.

But aren't you generalizing there? Ok, the sun may have a right wing view (although iirc they supported blairs labour) but Corrie, can't stand it myself but can't se how you can link that.

 

[Phil V]

But aren't you generalizing there? Ok, the sun may have a right wing view (although iirc they supported blairs labour) but Corrie, can't stand it myself but can't se how you can link that.

The Corrie, tanning salon and nailbar bit wasn't about 'politics' but about how the trivial is much more value to more people than important issues, I fear for our future when a persons behaviour and values is judged less than their nails and hairstyle by such a large portion of the population.