A Political Thread

[Which Tyler]

The racism was always there is was just repressed. The recent climate as brought it into the open but it was always there.

I think it's both - the racism hadn't gone away; but it had reduced significantly; now it's become socially acceptable again to be racist, not only have the old racists felt enabled; but they've also talked others into their racism - though they still prefer to pretend that it's not racism at all, but "they're diluting our cultural identity". Typically whilst unable to articulate what the cultural identity is, or how it's being diluted.

I feel that Ali and I have had more than our fair share of "it's not people like YOU we want to get rid of" - mind, I also feel we've had more than our fair share of "fuck off out of my country" (Our ERG MP was happy to condemn such attacks - in private, but absolutely refused to mention them at all in any public space)

 

[Amiga500]

Oh look - Pasty Cockwomble's still scared of accountability, and has refused to take part in the second leader's debate - or indeed, his local hustings.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-party-leaders-tv-cancel-corbyn-a9212926.html

No f**king surprise.

The journos need to rip into him and keep ripping into him - until he grows a set.

Would it be bias? Well if I were a journalist - I'd be biased against anyone who is not in favour of accountability and scrutiny.

 

[McTallshort]

I think it's both - the racism hadn't gone away; but it had reduced significantly; now it's become socially acceptable again to be racist, not only have the old racists felt enabled; but they've also talked others into their racism - though they still prefer to pretend that it's not racism at all, but "they're diluting our cultural identity". Typically whilst unable to articulate what the cultural identity is, or how it's being diluted.

I feel that Ali and I have had more than our fair share of "it's not people like YOU we want to get rid of" - mind, I also feel we've had more than our fair share of "fuck off out of my country" (Our ERG MP was happy to condemn such attacks - in private, but absolutely refused to mention them at all in any public space)

Much it of it also was the New Labour position on immigration. During the Blair years talking about immigration was very much off limits for the main political groups including the Trade Unions. The only political entities that did talk about immigration was UKIP and the BNP so the conversation was very one sided.

I also believe this contributed the leave vote in 2016. Large groups of people from abroad moving into areas if often a good thing, they work, pay taxes in the case of Eastern Europeans open shops and businesses in otherwise run down areas but people had concerns at the time that no one wanted to discuss apart from the far right groups and UKIP. I will never forget an episode of question time when Claire Short and Charles Kennedy both refused to answer questions on why the UK had not put in the same restrictions to free movement that the likes of Germany and Holland had saying they would not entertain racist questions. It was all very childish and has back fired badly in the long term.

 

[Reiser99]

Heard about this site on the radio and don't think I've seen it posted here.

https://calculate.forlabour.com/

This shows how much more tax you will pay under labour according to them (aka not conservatives or their media friends). Nobody under 80,000 will pay more tax as a percentage. If you earn 81,000 you'd only pay 91p more a week.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Heard about this site on the radio and don't think I've seen it posted here.

https://calculate.forlabour.com/

This shows how much more tax you will pay under labour according to them (aka not conservatives or their media friends). Nobody under 80,000 will pay more tax as a percentage. If you earn 81,000 you'd only pay 91p more a week.

My issue with this isn't the spin that is put on in by labour/Tory/anyone else who has an opinion, it's more the fact that labour literally can't seem to cost anything properly so this means very little.

There's no point saying to the public they won't have to pay much more if in reality you won't be able to pay for anything anyway

 

[Which Tyler]

I think it's both - the racism hadn't gone away; but it had reduced significantly; now it's become socially acceptable again to be racist, not only have the old racists felt enabled; but they've also talked others into their racism - though they still prefer to pretend that it's not racism at all, but "they're diluting our cultural identity". Typically whilst unable to articulate what the cultural identity is, or how it's being diluted.

I feel that Ali and I have had more than our fair share of "it's not people like YOU we want to get rid of" - mind, I also feel we've had more than our fair share of "fuck off out of my country" (Our ERG MP was happy to condemn such attacks - in private, but absolutely refused to mention them at all in any public space)

2 downvotes, no comments - anyone care to tell me what I said wrong?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Heard about this site on the radio and don't think I've seen it posted here.

https://calculate.forlabour.com/

This shows how much more tax you will pay under labour according to them (aka not conservatives or their media friends). Nobody under 80,000 will pay more tax as a percentage. If you earn 81,000 you'd only pay 91p more a week.

Would this not mean that cuts are being made somewhere as Labour claim that their manifesto is fully costed, unless the intention is for our deficit to start shooting up?

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Would this not mean that cuts are being made somewhere as Labour claim that their manifesto is fully costed, unless the intention is for our deficit to start shooting up?

I think there's something in it about rebalancing it at the end of the 5 year term. That sounds a lot to me like spend loads of money now that we don't have and then... Godforbid... AUSTERITY?!?!

Who would have thought that's what happens when you spend more then you can afford.


No doubt it will be the fault of the Tory's or it will be called "saving for our future" or something that's less scary that austerity

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

2 downvotes, no comments - anyone care to tell me what I said wrong?

Accidental. 3rd time today I've done that... I honestly don't know what's going on with me!

 

[Which Tyler]

Accidental. 3rd time today I've done that... I honestly don't know what's going on with me!

Fair enough - it's what I assume when I get 1 downvote without knowing why (I've done it before with fat thumb syndrome); but more than one, and I've either knowingly said something contraversial, or got my point across badly (in which case, I want to know, so that I can edit).
@noah_jo ?

 

[Reiser99]

My issue with this isn't the spin that is put on in by labour/Tory/anyone else who has an opinion, it's more the fact that labour literally can't seem to cost anything properly so this means very little.

There's no point saying to the public they won't have to pay much more if in reality you won't be able to pay for anything anyway

Would this not mean that cuts are being made somewhere as Labour claim that their manifesto is fully costed, unless the intention is for our deficit to start shooting up?

I think there's something in it about rebalancing it at the end of the 5 year term. That sounds a lot to me like spend loads of money now that we don't have and then... Godforbid... AUSTERITY?!?!

Who would have thought that's what happens when you spend more then you can afford.


No doubt it will be the fault of the Tory's or it will be called "saving for our future" or something that's less scary that austerity

This is where I would need to find some independent info on their costings however from what I gather it's a combination of taxing the wealthy and corporations more as well as increased borrowing (which the Tories have also said they will do). In terms of the borrowing Labour say that it's an investment and so the returns will happen later, but obviously that's not guaranteed. However apparently their spending as percentage of GDP is in line with the European average, though I can't find the clip of this anymore. However I did find this chart from the OECD in the Times.

 

[Reiser99]

Bah, I accidentally posted before I was finished. Anyway, my point is that while I don't trust any political party entirely, I'm certainly giving more weight to one that wants to invest in its people and doesn't want to make the country a tax haven for the rich. I honestly don't see what the Tories have achieved under austerity apart from the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. As for the financial crash, I admit I was one of those who blamed Labour and I don't think their hands are completely clean. However it was mainly caused by the banks, which as the same banks already making huge profits after the government helped bail them out and helped keep the economy going.

The Tories and the media have been hugely successful in portraying Labour as bad with the economy and that they are good with it when it simply isn't true. This article from London economic shows that since 1955 there have been 14 recessions and 10 have been under the Conservatives.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/b...dVDj6IN8fGPp-b1g5nVxNzUFDavi6QrlKOeFgakSsPEkY

 

[ncurd]

My only arguement to Labour costings is do they have one for both sides of their referendum? As there is barely a single model which doesn't say we'd be poorer and have less money post Brexit. You can lessen the impact but not remove it.

The Tories won't explain their costs at all which they have and absolutely should be called on.

 

[Reiser99]

My only arguement to Labour costings is do they have one for both sides of their referendum? As there is barely a single model which doesn't say we'd be poorer and have less money post Brexit. You can lessen the impact but not remove it.

The Tories won't explain their costs at all which they have and absolutely should be called on.

Good point. Obviously they don't know what Brexit deal they will get if they do manage to renegotiate with the EU. However they have said they want to keep strong economic ties so I assume financially it would be better than Theresa May's deal or Johnson's deal. Tbh from the sounds of it, we would have close trade deals and give up autonomy so if it's put to the people there is a strong case for remain as Labour's deal will probably be same trade benefits with less say over matters.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Fair enough - it's what I assume when I get 1 downvote without knowing why (I've done it before with fat thumb syndrome); but more than one, and I've either knowingly said something contraversial, or got my point across badly (in which case, I want to know, so that I can edit).
@noah_jo ?

Same, literally have no idea haha

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I disagree, she has been very vocal about the anti semitism in the labour party and the abuse and attacks that she has received from within it. She has also said in the past that she believes this comes from the top.

If a Muslim TV personality put something up wearing a t-shirt about how Boris was a racist, it would be applauded.. people wouldn't call for them to be sacked.

The fundamental difference is that nobody can provide a single, solitary piece of evidence in a 40+ year political career, that Corbyn has said or done anything that could be construed as racist. Against Jews, or any other group. Labour's opposition to enshrining anti-Jewish racism as separate and distinct from racism against other groups isn't racist. It is actually the opposite. The sympathy for Palestinian groups isn't racist, though it can be considered ill judged, particularly in the era of suicide vests.

On the other hand we have Boris, on record about "French turds" and making up crap about 80 million Turks soon being eligible to enter Britain (because the thought of white Eastern Europeans wasnt scary enough for the Leave focus groups).

So yes, someone who calls out Boris as a racist should be applauded (if on personal time, not in the workplace) whereas someone who calls out Corbyn for racism AND turns a blind eye to Boris is, in my opinion, brainless beyond belief.

The plan of the careerists in the Labour party, the Tories (both Jewish and otherwise) has worked beautifully based on the evidence of this sort of activity. The repetition of this arrant nonsense against Corbyn in the media has clearly hit home in the minds of some. Give something enough airtime and it'll seep into minds of the unthinking.

And I say all this who has never voted Labour and wont be starting next month.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

This interview is worth a watch to understand her viewpoint and where she is coming from...

 

[Which Tyler]

Can you precis it please? I'm not going to spend an hour of my life to find out why she thinks that being anti-apartheid in the 80s and still anti-apartheid in the 10s is inconsistent and/or racist. I don't really care enough about her or her opinions to invest that much of my Friday evening.

Meanwhile:

 

[Gavin]

Prior to the Question Time with the party leaders on BBC1 @7PM I'm casually watching a program on Yesterday about Hitler's propaganda machine.

The parallels to the Brexit discussion is incredible (not that Brexit people are Nazis), but the way that Hitler claimed through propaganda that he wanted to return the greatest of Germany, blamed neighbours, focused on Nationalism and said that everyone else in Europe was abusing the German people is incredible.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Can you precis it please? I'm not going to spend an hour of my life to find out why she thinks that being anti-apartheid in the 80s and still anti-apartheid in the 10s is inconsistent and/or racist. I don't really care enough about her or her opinions to invest that much of my Friday evening.

Meanwhile:

I mean generally it's important to understand the situation before you criticise her.

The t-shirt was a bad choice of picture, but doesn't mean that the cause itself is flawed.

Watch the whole thing, I promise it's worth it