Prime minister Boris

[Damo]

It seems Boris is getting the blame for the latest terrorist incident by quite a few moon bats on twitter

[Imploding Turtle]

It seems Boris is getting the blame for the latest terrorist incident by quite a few moon bats on twitter

I blame Obama.

[Greenmile]

It seems Boris is getting the blame for the latest terrorist incident by quite a few moon bats on twitter

Because of his recent comments about the burqa? That’s insane (as well as a bit premature, as far as I’m aware).

If it was ClaretMoffit who wrote your post, I’m sure he’d have said “the left” instead of “quite a few moon bats”. I commend you for not doing the same.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Because of his recent comments about the burqa? That’s insane (as well as a bit premature, as far as I’m aware).

If it was ClaretMoffit who wrote your post, I’m sure he’d have said “the left” instead of “quite a few moon bats”. I commend you for not doing the same.

Haven't seen any right wing tweeters blaming Boris.

[Greenmile]

Haven't seen any right wing tweeters blaming Boris.

Well done.

I don’t see any left wingers burning crosses in black people’s yards, or sieg heiling, but that doesn’t make the folk who do those things “the right”.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Well done.

I don’t see any left wingers burning crosses in black people’s yards, or sieg heiling, but that doesn’t make the folk who do those things “the right”.

I dont see any right wingers doing it either. Neither do you unless you specifically search for it and even then you'll only find it in small, backwards, rural parts of America in such volume as to be considered numerically insignificant.

[Greenmile]

I dont see any right wingers doing it either. Neither do you unless you specifically search for it and even then you'll only find it in small, backwards, rural parts of America in such volume as to be considered numerically insignificant.

Are the moonbats on Twitter numerically significant, then?

[ClaretMoffitt]

Are the moonbats on Twitter numerically significant, then?

No because when I see them tweet crazy, I sometimes see 50-100k retweets.

[Imploding Turtle]

I dont see any right wingers doing it either. Neither do you unless you specifically search for it and even then you'll only find it in small, backwards, rural parts of America in such volume as to be considered numerically insignificant.

Charlottesville was a city in Virginia. It's not a small, backwards or rural part of America. And no one needed to google anything to watch Neo-Nazis chanting sieg heil, or to watch as one of them drove a car through peaceful anti-fascist protesters. All you needed to do to see this was turn on the news. And the president referred to some of these Neo-Nazis as "very fine people".

Further to that, there are actual Nazis and white supremacists winning primary elections this summer in America and will be on the ballot for election as Republican candidates in November.

So talk all you like how they're numerically insignificant, i'm sure plenty of people believed that 5 years before President Hindenburg made Hitler Chancellor and i'm equally as sure there'll have been people like you telling the rest of us not to worry, this is fine™. I believe one of them was our Prime Minister.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Charlottesville was a city in Virginia. It's not a small, backwards or rural part of America. And no one needed to google anything to watch Neo-Nazis chanting sieg heil, or to watch as one of them drove a car through peaceful anti-fascist protesters. All you needed to do to see this was turn on the news. And the president referred to some of these Neo-Nazis as "very fine people".

Further to that, there are actual Nazis and white supremacists winning primary elections this summer in America and will be on the ballot for election as Republican candidates in November.

So talk all you like how they're numerically insignificant, i'm sure plenty of people believed that 5 years before President Hindenburg made Hitler Chancellor and i'm equally as sure there'll have been people like you telling the rest of us not to worry, this is fine™. I believe one of them was our Prime Minister.

I don't doubt that Americans "right" are a basket case full of crazies. They are paranoid, over-religious zealots, they also circle jerk around fake and exaggerated news like confetti at a kids birthday party. I have always been keen to maintain a small distance between myself and the American conservatives because they are definitely further right that we/I are comfortable with as a nation; that also means there extreme is more extreme than ours, naturally. That said, I do not buy for one minute that they have actual Nazis and White Supremacists in any kind of large, or organised fashion.

I don't really care all that much for American politics, the vast majority of the time when I speak about myself, or the attitudes on the right, I refer specifically to this country.

[tiger76]

I don't doubt that Americans "right" are a basket case full of crazies. They are paranoid, over-religious zealots, they also circle jerk around fake and exaggerated news like confetti at a kids birthday party. I have always been keen to maintain a small distance between myself and the American conservatives because they are definitely further right that we/I are comfortable with as a nation; that also means there extreme is more extreme than ours, naturally. That said, I do not buy for one minute that they have actual Nazis and White Supremacists in any kind of large, or organised fashion.

I don't really care all that much for American politics, the vast majority of the time when I speak about myself, or the attitudes on the right, I refer specifically to this country.

What turns me off American politics is to much flag-waving,singing the anthem,and god bothering and that's the Dems and the Reps.

Also money talks in American election campaigning,people think lobbying is rife in the UK,it''s ten times worse in the States.

[Imploding Turtle]

I don't doubt that Americans "right" are a basket case full of crazies. They are paranoid, over-religious zealots, they also circle jerk around fake and exaggerated news like confetti at a kids birthday party. I have always been keen to maintain a small distance between myself and the American conservatives because they are definitely further right that we/I are comfortable with as a nation; that also means there extreme is more extreme than ours, naturally. That said, I do not buy for one minute that they have actual Nazis and White Supremacists in any kind of large, or organised fashion.

I don't really care all that much for American politics, the vast majority of the time when I speak about myself, or the attitudes on the right, I refer specifically to this country.

They elected one.

Not only that but there has been for years now a massive anti-democratic Republican campaign to disenfranchise minority voters and to rig congress in their favour. I've proven this previously by showing how Republicans are a minority yet consistently over the last 30 years have been in control of congress despite getting a minority of the votes. This is a party-wide national campaign, it's not just a few people like Kris Kobach.

Sure, actual Nazis and White supremacists might be a small minority, but it's a growing minority, and it's growing because of the anti-democratic actions of the Republican party. And they're doing absolutely nothing about it.

Not only are they doing nothing about that, but they're also doing nothing about Russia hacking their elections. Not just through social engineering, but actually hacking voting machines.

By all means claim to not care about American politics (we both know that won't be true when it's convenient to you to care again) but the white supremacist who advised Trump is now advising Boris. We're more than capable of following in America's footsteps as they head towards tyranny.

[KateR]

the ultimate bigot and racicist pontificating again from his pulpit of little knowledge.

[Damo]

They elected one.

Not only that but there has been for years now a massive anti-democratic Republican campaign to disenfranchise minority voters and to rig congress in their favour. I've proven this previously by showing how Republicans are a minority yet consistently over the last 30 years have been in control of congress despite getting a minority of the votes. This is a party-wide national campaign, it's not just a few people like Kris Kobach.

Sure, actual Nazis and White supremacists might be a small minority, but it's a growing minority, and it's growing because of the anti-democratic actions of the Republican party. And they're doing absolutely nothing about it.

Not only are they doing nothing about that, but they're also doing nothing about Russia hacking their elections. Not just through social engineering, but actually hacking voting machines.

By all means claim to not care about American politics (we both know that won't be true when it's convenient to you to care again) but the white supremacist who advised Trump is now advising Boris. We're more than capable of following in America's footsteps as they head towards tyranny.

Moon bat

[nil_desperandum]

the ultimate bigot and racicist pontificating again from his pulpit of little knowledge.

What's Boris said now, or are you talking about Trump?

[KateR]

What's Boris said now, or are you talking about Trump?

lol neither

[Imploding Turtle]

Moon bat

Well argued. If you want me to defend any of my points then ask me which one you don't believe.

But then i guess that would undercut your "argument".

[Imploding Turtle]

lol neither

Then who?

[If it be your will]

.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Well argued. If you want me to defend any of my points then ask me which one you don't believe.

But then i guess that would undercut your "argument".

The very first line.

[Imploding Turtle]

The very first line.

So you think that Trump isn't a white supremacist? He's employed Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller and Seb Gorka while he's been president. He reserves the vast majority of his insults about other people's intelligence for black people. He refers to some Nazis as "very fine people". I could go on but i think i've made my point.

So explain to me, if a white president employs white supremacists to advise him, believes that black people are more deserving of having their intelligence questioned than white people, and praises Nazis and white supremacists after they marched through the street changing 'blood and soil' and 'jews will not replace us', how is it unreasonable to believe that the man himself is a white supremacist?

[Top Claret]

BJ for PM...

[dsr]

Well argued. If you want me to defend any of my points then ask me which one you don't believe.

But then i guess that would undercut your "argument".

Let's start with point one. You say that Donald Trump is an actual Nazi. Proof? Not trawdengirl-style proof, but actual proof?

[ClaretMoffitt]

So you think that Trump isn't a white supremacist? He's employed Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller and Seb Gorka while he's been president. He reserves the vast majority of his insults about other people's intelligence for black people. He refers to some Nazis as "very fine people". I could go on but i think i've made my point.

So explain to me, if a white president employs white supremacists to advise him, believes that black people are more deserving of having their intelligence questioned than white people, and praises Nazis and white supremacists after they marched through the street changing 'blood and soil' and 'jews will not replace us', how is it unreasonable to believe that the man himself is a white supremacist?

You can't just go around calling people Nazi's and White Supremacists just because they lean right, it's akin to going round calling school teachers paedophiles because they like working with kids. This is what the left just do not seem to understand.

[Greenmile]

You can't just go around calling people Nazi's and White Supremacists just because they lean right, it's akin to going round calling school teachers paedophiles because they like working with kids. This is what the left just do not seem to understand.

Do you think the “very fine people” who chanted “Jews will not replace us” on the streets of Charlottesville just “lean right”? It’s an honest question - I’m just trying to work out where your definitions lie.

Fwiw I don’t think Trump is a Nazi or a white supremacist. I do think he’s happy to court their votes though, and he’s definitely at least a little bit racist.

[Imploding Turtle]

You can't just go around calling people Nazi's and White Supremacists just because they lean right, it's akin to going round calling school teachers paedophiles because they like working with kids. This is what the left just do not seem to understand.

This is what i don't understand. I'm clearly not calling this guy a white supremacist because he leans right. I've quite clearly explained some of why i'm calling him a white supremacist, and yet you've still completely fabricated a reason and then criticise me for it. I honestly don't know how you can think this is a mature way to argue. Why do you do it? Whats-his-fare just did it too by saying I call everyone who disagrees with me a racist.

Why do you lie to yourselves, and about others, like this? Do you honestly think you're winning the argument when you just make up a reason to criticise someone?

[Imploding Turtle]

Let's start with point one. You say that Donald Trump is an actual Nazi. Proof? Not trawdengirl-style proof, but actual proof?

I'm saying he's a white supremacist. And as evidence i'll refer you to my earlier post about how he likes to have white supremacists advise him, defends white supremacists by calling them very fine people and thinks that his race is superior to other races as demonstrated by how often he calls people of other races unintelligent.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I've just got round to looking this up. It was such an extraordinary thing to say, it seemed even beyond Abbott to say it! It's here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuAMTXFwyIE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It was a carelessly handled, of course, but it's nothing like what you said! What she actually said was "Some people would judge, on balance...." and definitely not "I would judge..." which is what you said. She was then asked, as an intellectual exercise, to put forward the defence of Mao, so she did.

Surely Abbott is easy enough to ridicule without having to make stuff up.

Evening. There is a big difference between making stuff up and trying to remember a show from years ago. But you clarifying my recollection doesn’t really change my instinct about Abbott being worthy of a great office of state, just like her loony boss.

Of course, my post was about empathising why people feel like voting for them, assuming less than 5% of the country are Marxists like them. It says to me that too big a gap between rich and poor creates so much distrust and sense of unfairness that a populist far left or far right leader can emerge. The trick (for other parties) has to be to close that gap.

[tiger76]

Timing is purely co-incidental i'm sure https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45201306 nothing to do with this peer being a major critic of Boris Johnson's burka comments.

If neither major party can present a united approach to tackling antisemitism in Labour's case,and Islamophobia in the Conservative's case,how can either stand up and claim to be a credible Government.

[If it be your will]

.

[Imploding Turtle]

Okay, that's fine. I'm no Abbott fan either.

So we are in total agreement that the rich are too rich and the poor are too poor. So what's to be done? What policies do we need? Who should I vote for if I want it to narrow? Who do I vote for if I want it to stay the same, even? Of the well-known parties it's basically a choice between Greens and Labour, with Labour the much more likely to win.

I would honestly bet a significant sum that if Corbyn's Labour were to be elected tomorrow, the wealthiest 5% of UK citizens would be even wealthier in 5 years than they are now. (And the bottom 80% even more so.)

I've no doubt that Corbyn would be a rubbish PM, but he would still be better for me than any Tory government because while he might be rubbish he'll at least be trying to implement policies that are good for me whereas May is already rubbish and her party aren't even a little bit interested in helping me.

And because we have FPTP i have no choice beyond these two.

[RingoMcCartney]

I've just got round to looking this up. It was such an extraordinary thing to say, it seemed even beyond Abbott to say it! It's here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuAMTXFwyIE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It was a carelessly handled, of course, but it's nothing like what you said! What she actually said was "Some people would judge, on balance...." and definitely not "I would judge..." which is what you said. She was then asked, as an intellectual exercise, to put forward the defence of Mao, so she did.

Surely Abbott is easy enough to ridicule without having to make stuff up.

"On balance , some people would judge that Mao did more good than harm"

After being asked what made up for the 60,000,000 people he murdered. She proves herself to be one of the "some people"!!!!!!

What an utter clown.

And "some people" appear to want to defend the quarter wit, by pedantically zooming in on the "some people". Making them even more ridiculous!

Pathetic.

[If it be your will]

.

[Imploding Turtle]

Out of interest, if it was AV, who would you put first choice? Or if it was PR, who would you go for? (I'm a fan of AV, by the way; PR I'm somewhat more hesitant about; FPTP has very little to commend it.)

I don't know, but I expect there would be much more choice than there is now. Probably the Green Party.

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[tiger76]

The problem for 'minor' parties,i include the LibDems in those,is their most popular policies will be implemented by whoever the Government happens to be,the LibDems found this out to their cost,as the increasing of the starting threshold for paying Income Tax,which they advocated was claimed by George Osbourne as the Conservatives were the senior party in the Coalition,but the LibDems key manifesto pledge of not raising tuition fees had to be abandoned.

[AndrewJB]

Evening. There is a big difference between making stuff up and trying to remember a show from years ago. But you clarifying my recollection doesn’t really change my instinct about Abbott being worthy of a great office of state, just like her loony boss.

Of course, my post was about empathising why people feel like voting for them, assuming less than 5% of the country are Marxists like them. It says to me that too big a gap between rich and poor creates so much distrust and sense of unfairness that a populist far left or far right leader can emerge. The trick (for other parties) has to be to close that gap.

All over this thread and others like it you'll find people who see politics as a game of self interest, and politicians as just out for themselves. I think for many people who like Corbyn, he represents a step back from that kind of politics. His expenses are never unreasonable, he hasn't had a career of climbing the greasy pole, you won't find him feasting on corporate hospitality, and his principles come before personal advancement (and those principles are about putting people before money, devolving power to people by giving them greater democratic rights, and building a society in which everyone has a stake, and everyone's potential can be better fulfilled). There are downsides to this of course - the lack of polish / professionalism, etc - but after Blair, and all the focus groups and triangulation, this is refreshing for people.

His support has strengthened due to the constant attacks he suffers in the media. The concerted efforts made to get rid of and to discredit him have failed with people who like Corbyn because more than attacks on the man himself they're perceived as attacks on what he stands for. The attacks are also transparently poor (delving back into the past, attacks that are contrary to each other, and generally being held to a detail of standard we don't hold to any other politician in the country), and often ridiculous (a tireless campaigner against racism tarred with...racism).

The most effective rallying cry against Corbyn - the one in my opinion that resonates so strongly as a reason not to vote for him - is that he's 'far left' This blanket term touches on the fears of many people, invoking a Britain turning into North Korea, or just industrial strife Britain of the 70s - and in doing so Corbyn's principles have been cleverly repainted as 'ideological purity' - so that a Corbyn government once in power would turn immediately to Das Kapital, or The Communist Manifesto - ruling according to 'the manual' and not with pragmatism. Whereas this has been effective in keeping his popularity in check, it failed during the election, when voters were given the opportunity to look at Labour's manifesto and saw there was nothing about re-education camps, but a lot of good things people are behind (nationalising railways and utilities, scrapping tuition fees, investing in good jobs in innovative industries, etc), and rather than borrowing money to pay for this they were going to tax rich people, and get large corporations to stump up for it (not only this but corporation tax would go no higher than it was in 2010). In this way casting Corbyn as 'far left' failed to resonate sufficiently to get May her big majority, and more so when enough people contrasted Corbyn as painted 'far left' with the reality of the manifesto, you suddenly had people not only willing to vote Labour, but argue for him on social media

You've said yourself there are huge issues around inequality facing this country. The division of the pie is getting less fair with each passing day. The core of the issue is that money has for too long been considered more important than people. Corbyn's response wasn't to turn to page eighty-five of 'the manual' but to describe the situation in plain language, and set out a means of redressing things in an easily understood way. The accusations of him being 'far left' or 'ideologically pure' simply aren't true, and when the next election comes around yet more people will see the difference between the accusations and the reality. The challenge for the Tories has now moved beyond 'what can we next say to discredit Corbyn in the eyes of voters?' - although they'll continue to do that to shore up their base support (just as the negative campaigning has firmed up Corbyn's support, it has also firmed up that of those who strongly dislike him), and it has moved onto 'what can we do to address the issues of today?'

[dsr]

Corbyn's principles include a hatred and/or contempt for Parliament. Why did he have tea with the IRA the week after they had attempted to murder the Prime Minister and had succeeded in murdering several other people?

And the issue I have with Corbyn's way of reducing inequality, like all the others on the far left, is to make the pie smaller and reduce everyone's portion size. This is OK for the people who don't mind having less as long as the rich bloke has a lot less; it is not good for the people who measure wealth by what they have, not what the other man has; and it's even worse for the people, both rich and poor, who want bigger bits of pie in future.

[burnleymik]

Corbyn's principles include a hatred and/or contempt for Parliament. Why did he have tea with the IRA the week after they had attempted to murder the Prime Minister and had succeeded in murdering several other people?

I think Corbyn's problem is that for years he has been able to rail against the system, vote against everything and support the extremes because as a back bencher he had very little accountability. Unfortunately now, that is all coming back to bite him.

[JohnMcGreal]

I find it really difficult to read the posts of ardent Brexiteers such as CrosspoolClarets and dsr when it comes to Corbyn or the left.

We've had Crosspool fretting about Britain's international reputation becoming a laughing stock should Jeremy Corbyn become PM (a comment that I still haven't been able to stop laughing at), completely unaware that this country's international reputation is in tatters because of the lunacy of Brexit, which he fully supports.

We have dsr claiming that Jeremy Corbyn holds parliament in contempt, while this Brexit government has tried to trample all over parliament since triggering A50. They've tried to bypass parliament and reduce it's say at every opportunity, to the point where they've had to be dragged through the courts and be forced to adhere to parliamentry democracy. But this is all ok, because it's in the name of Brexit.

dsr is also worried about the UK's 'pie' getting smaller if Jeremy Corbyn were to gain power, seemingly oblivious to the massive elephant in the room: that the Brexit he craves will inflict serious economic damage on this country and will make the 'pie' smaller for everyone.

The level of cognitive dissonence on display here is abousutely astounding.

[AndrewJB]

Corbyn's principles include a hatred and/or contempt for Parliament. Why did he have tea with the IRA the week after they had attempted to murder the Prime Minister and had succeeded in murdering several other people?

And the issue I have with Corbyn's way of reducing inequality, like all the others on the far left, is to make the pie smaller and reduce everyone's portion size. This is OK for the people who don't mind having less as long as the rich bloke has a lot less; it is not good for the people who measure wealth by what they have, not what the other man has; and it's even worse for the people, both rich and poor, who want bigger bits of pie in future.

His principles do not include a hatred or contempt for parliament, as he's never stated this (only the opposite), and your example doesn't go anywhere near proving it.

He's said he held talks with Sinn Fein in order to foster peace in Northern Ireland. There is no example of him personally benefiting from this with a nice holiday home near Dublin, or Irish money funneled into an offshore bank account. Taken alongside his interest in promoting peace in other parts of the world, why not just take him at his word on this?

Your second point comes unstuck when we contrast it to history. When Britain created the welfare state after WW2 it involved the biggest redistribution of wealth top down that we have ever had. It occurred at a time that Britain was beset with economic problems, and within a decade we had a much bigger pie than we started out with, and a Tory PM telling everyone "you've never had it so good"

Unlike after WW2 Corbyn isn't talking about hitting with rich with 90% taxes, and he'll be inheriting a situation in which wealth has been trickling up, and the pie has stagnated for over ten years. The Tories have been making most people poorer, and Corbyn's ambitions for reversing this are hardly major tweaks to the system.

[dsr]

We have dsr claiming that Jeremy Corbyn holds parliament in contempt, while this Brexit government has tried to trample all over parliament since triggering A50. They've tried to bypass parliament and reduce it's say at every opportunity, to the point where they've had to be dragged through the courts and be forced to adhere to parliamentry democracy. But this is all ok, because it's in the name of Brexit.

dsr is also worried about the UK's 'pie' getting smaller if Jeremy Corbyn were to gain power, seemingly oblivious to the massive elephant in the room: that the Brexit he craves will inflict serious economic damage on this country and will make the 'pie' smaller for everyone.

The government being dragged through the courts was a red herring. All the government was forced to do in those cases was exactly what Parliament could have made it do all along; but Parliament didn't want to. Maybe Parliament was being held in contempt, and maybe it was right to be - why didn't Parliament stand up for its rights in the first place? Why did they hide behind these court cases?

As for your second paragraph, that's just the arrogance of a certain type of remainer coming through. You assume that because you believe brexit will cause massive damage, then it is fact that Brexit will cause massive damage, and anyone who votes Brexit wants to cause massive damage. This is not true. People who vote Brexit, almost unanimously, believe that Brexit will not cause massive damage; but it is beyond the wit of many Remainers to even recognise that point of view, let alone understand it.

[dsr]

He's said he held talks with Sinn Fein in order to foster peace in Northern Ireland.

When someone murders a member of your family, you don't invite them into your home to talk it over - even if you don't like the person they tried to kill. There is no way it was appropriate fora backbench MP to invite into Parliament the people who organised the Brighton bomb. It absolutely cannot be justified.

[burnleymik]

I'm saying he's a white supremacist. And as evidence i'll refer you to my earlier post about how he likes to have white supremacists advise him, defends white supremacists by calling them very fine people and thinks that his race is superior to other races as demonstrated by how often he calls people of other races unintelligent.

Using that logic... Corbyn is a terrorist.

[nil_desperandum]

When someone murders a member of your family, you don't invite them into your home to talk it over - even if you don't like the person they tried to kill. .

So you don't agree with Colin Parry (father of Tim), building bridges and meeting several times with Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness then?

[Imploding Turtle]

Using that logic... Corbyn is a terrorist.

This should be interesting. Go on. Which terrorists are Corbyn paying to advise him?

[burnleymik]

This should be interesting. Go on. Which terrorists are Corbyn paying to advise him?

You are saying Trump is guilty by association. If that is the case, then surely the same logic applies to Corbyn?

[Imploding Turtle]

You are saying Trump is guilty by association. If that is the case, then surely the same logic applies to Corbyn?

I have much more than just his decision to employ so many white supremacists to draw the conclusion that he believes his race to be superior to others.
Have you ever heard the phrase "body of evidence"? And if you have do you understand it?

[dsr]

So you don't agree with Colin Parry (father of Tim), building bridges and meeting several times with Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness then?

Not the following week, and not immediately after the event. I bet no relative of Colin Parry was meeting Adams before they'd even held the funeral of Tim, and I bet Colin's tolerance and forgiveness wouldn't have stretched that far if they'd tried to.