Given that you don't even know the name of the shadow chancellor, I suspect your definition of "well researched" differs from most other people's.
Probably a simple typo, but I think we can now safely call Jam's judgement into question and draw our own conclusions now, can't we? His credibility is shot to ribbons.
Makes you think eh?
dragon - Member
If it was known that a specific person, group, regiment etc. committed an appalling act then I would condemn them.
Just a pity that's not a commonly held view amoung our establishment.
One thing I can never understand is the fascination of Labour lefties die hard support for certain middle east conflict with Israel.
I don't even know where to begin but something is certainly wrong with this group of Labour lefties especially their heads.
Q. What is it exactly? I am thinking along these lines:
1. Is it the religious belief that you have succumbed to?
2. Is it a platform to point score against others political ideology?
3. Is it a conflict that can never ends hence a good platform for own political advancement?
4. Is it because they fight against oppressor(s) in a "revolutionary" ways? i.e. we are brothers/sisters whatever because we fight like the "Che Guevara".
5. Is it Stockholm syndrome or something similar? Other syndromes? Someone needs to come up with a label for this ...
6. Is it the hatred of Israel? Keep using Zionist etc but I think there are more than that ...
7. Is it the hatred of your own political class? Or so they said because most lefties have very good middle class upbringing but just pretended otherwise. Even Lenin and his wife comes from upper middle class.
8. Is it "cool" to be supporting certain conflict to pull birds? Or look to be ... see JC managed to pull several birds and now on his 3rd wives.
9. Do you get free money if you act the way you act?
10. Vanity?
11. Self doubts/guilt so need to be seen to be doing something to boost own esteem?
12. Loosing control either ethically or morally? Or bankrupt of both?
13. A combination of all the above?
Can someone enlightened me with something please as something is not right about this group of people when they try to focus beyond the UK by making international politics domestic.
Hhhhmmm ... something is wrong somewhere so not sure where to pinpoint coz they are very evasive and sneaky.
Someone with normal unbiased views enlighten me please. 😯
One thing I can never understand is the fascination of Labour lefties die hard support for certain middle east conflict with Israel.
Feeling sorry for and wanting to help people who get a shitty deal is what makes you a leftie, so that's why they want to end oppression wherever they see it.
molgrips - Member
One thing I can never understand is the fascination of Labour lefties die hard support for certain middle east conflict with Israel.Feeling sorry for and wanting to help people who get a shitty deal is what makes you a leftie, so that's why they want to end oppression wherever they see it.
Everyone gets shitty deal in life so I think there is more to that ...
Everyone gets shitty deal in life
No they don't.
chewkw - apartheid doesn't sit well with me.
mind you I'm not a labour lefty either, I'm some distance away from voting for them, last time I did was in 97.(I'm probly way to the left of corbyn! 😆 )
I don't.chewkw - Member
Everyone gets shitty deal in life...
@bigbutt It's close enough,
For you, of course it is. After, it's not like facts seem to be a big part of your life, is it?
This relates to grammar, but "is close enough"
[img]
[/img]
molgrips - Member
Everyone gets shitty deal in life
No they don't.
seosamh77 - Member
chewkw - apartheid doesn't sit well with me.
seosamh77 - Member
I don't.
Ok, let's hear more ... from others as well.
I didn't. I the grand scheme of things I'm one of the most fortunate people ever to have lived. Which is nice.
Born white, safe, secure, just about middle class, British. Also born with a strong aptitude in a lucrative in-demand skill, whose industry takes people based on aptitude and experience rather than qualifications. During that career I've had a series of major lucky breaks (that more than compensated for the unlucky stuff). So I've got a secure well paying job with the right amount of responsibility, despite not working hard now or in the past.
Can't get much more jammy than that really. I'm the antithesis of the Tory ideal because I'm successful without having worked hard. There are people who work far far harder than I do just to stay alive and put food on the table, and the system needs to function to help them. This is the core belief of the leftie I believe.
Surely there are much more to that Molgrips, lemonysam, seosamh77 et al?
Seriously I am trying to understand ... 🙂
My understanding of British politics is simply the right vs the left.
Where I came from it is always religious vs more tolerant religious common sense or so they said.
The former is always politics associated with religious values with nationalism in a twisted ways involving race etc, while the latter is always politics of tolerance but so far they have no luck.
Being against apartheid isn't enough?
seosamh77 - Member
Being against apartheid isn't enough?
Isn't that over in S.Africa?
Being against apartheid isn't enough?
Well, Thatcher was very clearly against apartheid, but apparently that "wasn't enough"
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4433/thatcher_and_apartheid_a_study_in_diplomacy
That's not at all a complete "greenwashing" of events, no definitely a balanced interpretation of what she meant instead of what she actually wrote 😆
Chewk - in response to your earlier post. Why a leftie. If you were to label me, I'd be one. Why? The inequality in this world is horrible, born out of power and privilege. Success is always on the back of other people's misfortune or money or provided opportunity. I aspire to the values of social equality, social justice and anti-discrimination. The world would be a great place if that was achieved. Sadly, current neo-liberal politics is going further and further away from that ideology...
balanced interpretation of what she meant instead of what she actually wrote
Go on then - what she actually wrote:
I aspire to the values of social equality, social justice and anti-discrimination. The world would be a great place if that was achieved. Sadly, current neo-liberal politics is going further and further away from that ideology...
Honestly I think it is little to do with politics and more to do with technology. There just aren't the amount of jobs for unskilled people anymore (especially in the West). People hark on about bringing manufacturing back, and sure it brings some jobs but most of it is done by robots now and not people like 100 years ago. Also look at how the tech people at the top can become billionares over night. Facebook employs around 10,000 people but is used by 1 billion people. Even if all those people who used Facebook gave Mark Zuckerberg 1 dollar each he'd be very rich. The world has never known anything like it and ideas based on the 1800's, 1970's or even 1990's no longer cut it. New ideas are needed and I don't see any political party anywhere offering a valid analysis and answer.
Check out the BBC Panaroma programme on could a robot do your job for some more insight, not that it has really answers either.
"I aspire to the values of social equality, social justice and anti-discrimination. The world would be a great place if that was achieved. Sadly, current neo-liberal politics is going further and further away from that ideology..."Honestly I think it is little to do with politics and more to do with technology.
"New technology" has been around in the UK for over 250 years, it's not a new problem.
It has nothing at all to do with technology - it's to do with economic power.
There is absolutely no reason why new technology cannot benefit the common good.
The actual problem is the accumulation of capital - the enrichment of some is at the expense of the immiseration of others. It can become particularly nasty and have serious consequences under the neoliberal model.
EDIT : It of course serves the neoconservatives/neoliberals purpose to blame new technology - [i]"Hey don't blame us, it's because of technological advances, you can't stop progress, etc, etc, etc."[/i]
Go on then - what she actually wrote:
You may think that supports your case when you read it through rose tinted spectacles, but it doesn't. It clearly shows that she placed trade and opposition to socialism above the freedom of black south africans.
Lets also not forget who she was adressing in that letter PW Botha, who throughout his life opossed the emancipation of black south africans, who campaigned against FW de Clerk's referendum, campaigned for a no vote in the referendum, and campaigned against majority rule to his death.
Of course he was an outspoken critic of socialism which is why, like Pinochet, he was such good friends with Thatcher and Reagen, no matter what brutality he oversaw and how many deaths his regime commited.
clearly shows that she placed trade and opposition to socialism above the freedom of black south africans.
No, it just shows that she didn't think that sanctions were the way to achieve it, that they would entrench the current administration, hurt the poor, and reduce the chance of anyone moving forwards.
or are all you Lefties convinced that theres only one way to skin a cat?
As Pik Botha said:
[i]There are two leaders who played a significant role in getting apartheid removed peacefully: Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. The others made it more difficult for us. Every time I was trying to further the repeal of some act embodying apartheid, the opposition I had to deal with within the National Party reproachfully reacted as a result of the negative [attention] internationally, saying, “Pik Botha, despite repealing the legislation, the UNO [has] passed a worse condemnatory Resolution.”
These were the two leaders who were nonetheless impressed by what the rest of the world considered face-saving minor changes. And they made it clear that they were opposed to violence as the force of change in South Africa. It should be free and fair democratic elections. I was pointing out to our caucus that we cannot insult these two. We cannot insult Margaret Thatcher. She is opposed to severe economic sanctions. I used this as a bargaining chip, a crowbar, in order to move faster towards dismantling apartheid.
History owes them a debt, and recognition. It was Thatcher’s views – she strongly rejected apartheid and urged us to release Mandela. But she also told the ANC, “I am not going to support negotiation if you continue to resort to violence as a means of achieving your objective.”[/i]
What ernie says
technology could have been used to give us moire time to read books and ride bike sbut surprisingly it was used to make the rich richer and the poor poorer
who could have foreseen that ?
See also globalisation which we also cannot stop
You may think that supports your case when you read it through rose tinted spectacles, but it doesn't.
I don't understand why people don't treat ninfan-Z-11's posts in the same way as Chewwy's posts should be treated - mostly ignored.
Well history showed that he (Botha) was the stumbling block, once he was replaced things did move forward and he still campaigned for a return to the dark old days, as the whole country advanced past him. Could and probably would have happened a lot quicker if he hadn't continued to receive such support from Thatcher and Regan.
De Klerk:
Full Pik (Pik not P.W, very different people) Botha interview:
http://www.commonwealthoralhistories.org/2015/interview-with-rf-pik-botha/
There you are, two of the people who were [b]really[/b] in a position to know what impact Thatcher had on ending apartheid both very clearly discussing her pivotal role in doing so
I've yet to see either of them tell us how important Jeremy Corbyn was to the process 😉
Interesting we are to praise Thatcher for talking to the baddies of apartheid keeping channels open and all but condemn JC for talking to the baddies of the ira .
ernie_lynch - MemberYou may think that supports your case when you read it through rose tinted spectacles, but it doesn't.
I don't understand why people don't treat ninfan-Z-11's posts in the same way as Chewwy's posts should be treated - mostly ignored.
Can't have anyone derailing the stw "Margaret Thatcher = antichrist" narrative eh? In her defence, she did give the Armed Forces a 40% pay rise 😉 Although we're apparently just state sponsored terrorists, according to some, whatever a terrorist is!
Like most history, I guess your reading of it depends on your bias....
Can't have anyone derailing the stw "Margaret Thatcher = antichrist" narrative eh? In her defence, she did give the Armed Forces a 40% pay rise Although we're apparently just state sponsored terrorists, according to some, whatever a terrorist is!
You do realise she was willing to sell the Navy to Australia until a few admirals convinced her to retake the falklands.
Yes. But the 40% pay rise though!
If you're looking for things to credit Thatcher for I would go for the Lancaster House Agreement which she concluded within just a few months of becoming PM. There's probably few other things although I can't think of any, windfall tax on the obscene and quite frankly embarrassing profits made by the banks? She also expressed her strong belief that Royal Mail should never be privatized, although not doing something shouldn't really count.
You do realise she was willing to sell the Navy to Australia until a few admirals convinced her to retake the falklands.
The sale of Invincible was proposed for 1985, When Ark Royal came into service, there was discussion on bringing this forward to 1983, when Illustrious entered service, along with an extension of two years on Hermes
Therefore the net result on the size of the fleet would have been nil, and even then not till well [i]after[/i] the Falklands happened.
You might wish to place this in context against the retirement of the earlier Ark Royal under Labour, which left us without airborne early warning from Gannet, or the ability to deploy Phantom or Buccaneer, which had a far more significant effect on the Falklands war.
aye i'm oot for a bit! no apartheid in palestinan and thatcher supported an end to apartheid in SA, ffs! 😆ernie_lynch - Member
You may think that supports your case when you read it through rose tinted spectacles, but it doesn't.
I don't understand why people don't treat ninfan-Z-11's posts in the same way as Chewwy's posts should be treated - mostly ignored.
She also loved miners , Liverpool fans and ravers too
Is it true Corbyn had the other end of the pig?
The sale of Invincible was proposed for 1985, When Ark Royal came into service, there was discussion on bringing this forward to 1983, when Illustrious entered service, along with an extension of two years on HermesTherefore the net result on the size of the fleet would have been nil, and even then not till well after the Falklands happened.
You might wish to place this in context against the retirement of the earlier Ark Royal under Labour, which left us without airborne early warning from Gannet, or the ability to deploy Phantom or Buccaneer, which had a far more significant effect on the Falklands war.
The point I was trying to make was that Magaret Bloody Thatcher was more than willing to sell out the Armed Forces, it was only the South Atlantic conflict that changed that.
ps the Harrier won the Falklands 😉
Is it true Corbyn had the other end of the pig?
I haven't checked the Daily Heil yet, I'll get back to you on that.
EDIT - Nope, still on about CMD and his mates' antics.
Article from Paul Mason
"? For the first time in 80 years, the establishment does not control the Labour Party.
http://www.thenation.com/article/this-is-what-jeremy-corbyns-new-labour-coalition-looks-like/
The Harrier only helped win the Falklands war because Chile provided long range radar surveillance giving early warning when Argentine bombers took off. Which is why Thatcher defended General Pinochet later on, as she owed him one
she owed him one
It's probably worth pointing out that Chile has a long history of territorial disputes with Argentina and the Chilean government was almost certainly aware that the Argentine Junta (armed and trained by the UK) was preparing to seize the disputed Beagle Channel islands after successfully securing the Falklands. Any Chilean support for the UK during the FW was motivated primarily for selfish reasons and was not an act of selfless solidarity.
Having said that, since right-wing governments with strong ambitions for military adventures have been abandoned to history (in Chile and Argentina, not the UK) relations between the countries has improved enormously, and today democratic Chile supports Argentina's territorial claim on the Falkland Islands.
ernie_lynch - Member
I don't understand why people don't treat ninfan-Z-11's posts in the same way as Chewwy's posts should be treated - mostly ignored.
Like you we/I offer different perspectives so are you trying to educate/tell/dictate to others that you are right?
Surely others can make up their minds if they agree or disagree with our/my perspectives.
The best thing for you is not to response to our/my response but I can response to yours ... Mmmwwwhhhhaaaa! It's all mine! Mine! I have the final say! Mmwwhhhaaaa! 😆
ernie you are funny with interesting perspectives great fun that. 😛
dragon - Member
The Harrier only helped win the Falklands war because Chile provided long range radar surveillance giving early warning when Argentine bombers took off. Which is why Thatcher defended General Pinochet later on, as she owed him one
Actually Britain could easily lost Falkland war if not for the behind the door cunning negotiation skill that delayed more Exocet AM39s being fired/supplied.
Any Chilean support for the UK during the FW was motivated primarily for selfish reasons
You mean because the Argentinians had clearly stated that next in line after the Falklands was an invasion to seize Chilean islands in the Beagle channel that they also laid claim to?
True that about the Exocet Thatcher had a lot of negotiation with Mitterand to stop the sake of more missiles and also getting the design plans. In return the French got to build the channel tunnel. The world of international politics.