1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

UK General Election 2017

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Risky, 8 Jun 2017.

  1. Anfield

    Anfield Multimodder

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    7,059
    Likes Received:
    970
    Exactly, but some people like Disequilibria seem to actually believe that he fully intends to tear down-and-build-anew.
     
  2. Disequilibria

    Disequilibria Minimodder

    Joined:
    30 Sep 2015
    Posts:
    855
    Likes Received:
    16
    Source? I'm pretty sure MPs have been wiretapped and all sorts.
    Rather than calling it biased as a convenient dismissal how about saying what he was/actually doing in all the many events he has attended and his actions such as commemorating dead IRA men and saying "I'm happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland."
    You are just saying they are wrong you're not providing evidence counter to the claims levelled against him. Attacking the source is convenient but actually say providing the wider context or facts to the situation. In most these cases the fact is that he attended with a convicted terrorist, an islamic extremist or commorating and taking up the cause of some dissident anti british/ western group. You're just shouting bias and expecting it to solve everything. Even when I've been quoted Huffpost articles, I might laugh at how biased it is but I will address the claimed facts within.
    He was campaigning for an IRA victory that isn't misleading. He is not a diplomat or a representative of the British government trying to create peace, he was a back bencher consistently taking up the cause of abhorrent people of his own volition.
    You don't believe in facts, please, you are just about the most biased person who thinks they're unbiased I've come across. Second the claims go unaddressed and get dismissed as bias while you construct some apologetics for JC. Third I am keeping the number of claims small to leave some addressable, if you want them one at a time the OK. Start with that one. Also when dealing with politicians it isn't inexcusable to build up a pattern of behavior, one meeting with rabid antisemites can be put down to misfortune but...

    Being hard left usually means economic devastation, political repression and gulags depending on the level of power given to them.

    Being hard left usually means economic devastation, political repression and gulags depending on the level of power given to them. Being under a Marxist government means devastation and totalitarianism, it's a doctrine that has killed over 100mn people in repression and various other internal evils.
     
  3. wolfticket

    wolfticket Downwind from the bloodhounds

    Joined:
    19 Apr 2008
    Posts:
    3,556
    Likes Received:
    646
    If you're going to deliberately leak something using the "point it at a long lens" method you should at least be a little bit subtle. Maybe have it poking out of a folder or something.
     
  4. Disequilibria

    Disequilibria Minimodder

    Joined:
    30 Sep 2015
    Posts:
    855
    Likes Received:
    16
    His past policies, his current policies only seem tempered by the PLP moderates.
    That made no sense to me. Oh wait yeah see below:
    Marx and engels never worked a day in their lives born into wealth (and spent it), lenin had never set foot inside a factory, the antifa types and momentum types are full of champagne socialists.
    Hypocrisy never stopped an (inter)nationalist socialist.
    I take his policy prescriptions seriously, I take his stated beliefs seriously and I take their logical and historical outcomes seriously. He believes what he says pre leadership, he has never changed an opinion in 40 years and he had no reason to lie and nearly always voted with his conscience. It's not the establishment I'm worried about it's the state of the nation after him or if he provides a vehicle for McDonnell to take over.

    People are being incredibly naive here. He is ideological, I could take the argument of just words with say trump because he isn't particularly ideological but corbyn and co are.
    No I wasn't taking it specifically against you, I think I framed it in general terms. This discussion just seems to be ad hominems of shouts of conspiracy theory and dismissals of actions of the man with alternative narratives that are threadbare. MI5 concluded he was no longer a person of interest after the GFA as with nearly all IRA and fellow travellers.
    No unfortunately we seem to be creating the tools for a totalitarian already. DRIPA is in place along with other extensive powers (that have already been misused). I think it will be the implementation of one bad policy after another and the result will either be he gets to an election and a thatcher X10 gets elected or momentum deselect all the labour moderates before the next election, he gets all the hard left candidates through the election into an elective dictatorship where McDonnell will take over if corbyn isn't doing what they want and then we might be in a very dangerous situation.
    And what do you actually think he will fix and how?
     
    Last edited: 6 Jul 2017
  5. Disequilibria

    Disequilibria Minimodder

    Joined:
    30 Sep 2015
    Posts:
    855
    Likes Received:
    16
    You'll call anything a whim or wishlist. At least we're talking about policy somewhat here, although over multiple very wide areas that will lead to unavoidable misunderstanding. ( I only talk about the corbyn stuff because of the level of the denial makes a double standard compared to the same people's opinions of trump and others on less.)

    Germany runs it while paying off the french with the CAP. and no the UK might have a similar size but germany has leverage over all the eurozone. Also germany has benefited from a beggar thy neighbour currency union (they ran trade deficits between the ERM and the Euro). Without bogging down into detail the major are control of migration, trade, fishing in EEZ (ideally), various regulation, external tarriffs that have zero possible benefit (note I don't believe tariffs are beneficial anyway) to the UK (plus we can get out of the EU's way because we'll never be committed to integration they want(and in some cases need if it is not to collapse)). I've gone over this before. ( I forget things like VAT control as well(i'd like to see a universal VAT on all goods/services of 10% with removal of exemptions and 5/0 rates(it can be lower than this with financial service VAT))
    I remember a certain nation who's principles and values led to risking more than just economic uncertainty for self determination who celebrated such a thing a couple of days ago. I think there are plenty of things economic benefits wouldn't justify based on your principles.
    Well we can't resolve a situation that has yet to be negotiated.
    No that is a plan for what we want in relation to the EU, both sides can only work towards something. What we do after has to be determined by the government of the day.
    No that is putting words in my mouth, I'm not making claims one way or the other there. I am simply saying that economic models can't predict such a thing, they never can, so a forecast is largely pointless.
    1) I've read on it and we can (I'm not talking copy and pase here). We only have to change the quotas and because it is similar to our current arrangements then it shouldn't cause too much issue with countries in the WTO and wont require so much editing of current arrangements. It's when we want to create a new schedule that differs from our current external tariffs that it will be harder in the WTO. but even then we can still trade on our schedules:
    https://www.instituteforgovernment....hings-know-about-world-trade-organization-wto
    http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2017/02/28/brexit-and-the-issue-of-the-wto-schedules/?mhq5j=e3
    and the plan of the government on this is here:
    https://blogs.fco.gov.uk/julianbrai...oth-transition-in-the-wto-as-we-leave-the-eu/
    https://www.parliament.uk/business/...written-statement/Commons/2016-12-05/HCWS316/

    2) I don't think tariffs are helpful, I can give more detail on this. Many of these tariffs are skewed towards french produce or things like sugar beet and they protect inefficiencies in the sector and concentrate benefits on the few (farmers) and create significant costs on the many in food prices, in the long run this entrenches competitive issues in the agricultural sector that harm farmers also (much like low cost labour for picking reduces incentive to invest long term in capital equipment). The agricultural tariffs are the highest. None of the EU tariffs really benefit our industries, many are there to "protect" small, say, Italian industry like shoe makers and most are very low outside of a few examples that only "help" noncompetitive industries in other countries. Protectionism helps no one not even the sectors it is supposed to protect in the long run.
    3)No the EU offloads the cost to the UK by creating legislation that the UK has to enforce and have an NCA to enforce, the EU agency largely oversees. For practical purposes of exporting our goods have to comply with the EU nothing more. (except on financial equivalence but that is already run by the BoE)
    4)Our customs are scanned in often as it leaves the boat and we still have to check EU stuff for suspicious things anyway.
    5) Not the only point but it can be done and I'd start with ending the importation of poverty that's just me though, I'm not the government or the electorate at large.
    6)Countries much smaller do just fine. Oh and currently we have to compromise with 27 other nations on what they want to protect in the FTA, what they want to exclude/include, what they prioritise for liberalisation. Then I don't see much point in other countries excluding themselves from trade liberalisation with a market of 64mn people when it is no skin off their nose and I don't see why other countries wouldn't want to renegotiate a deal that tailored both parties more closely than a 29 way compromise. Free trade isn't a zero sum game here. Most of our fastest growing trade over the last 10 years was on WTO(blue) BTW and is non EU:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: 6 Jul 2017
  6. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    What policy? Seriously?

    There is a reason why Theresa May tanked in the GE and Corbyn did so well. The moment Theresa May lost it was when she stood at that podium and said: "Nothing has changed!". And that was the problem. Nothing had changed. The Tory manifesto was: more cuts, more austerity, and BTW if the UK doesn't get the EU negotiations right it will be an economic disaster for the country. That is not what people voted Leave for; they voted Leave for change. For a vision of Britain that was going to be better. Leaving was going to be an easy, upbeat act of economic promise and possibilities, so they'd been told, not a complicated and fraught process of negotiation full of economic uncertainty and potential disaster and price rises, only to have more austerity cuts to look forward to.

    The Tories failed to give to them the vision of change that had been promised in the EU referendum. Most likely because that vision and those promises were pure unicorn ****.

    But Corbyn did. Whether you agree with him or not, or think it's feasible or not, the Labour manifesto painted a vision of how he would make Britain better for all those poor people who voted Leave in the hope of change for the better. He offered change, not more of the same grinding austerity. He offered hope. He has proved himself to be a more savvy politician than Theresa May. You can bet that he has a plan.

    So perhaps instead of ragging on the BBC yet again for 'bias' in painting a negative picture of Brexit, or trying to accuse genuinely worried people of being unpatriotic traitors, the Brexiteers could work a bit harder at painting a positive argument for Brexit. You know, build a vision of post-Brexit Britain supported by policy and strategy rather than jingoist empty platitudes thinly covering more austerity cuts. Something that gives us an impression that they know what they're doing. Anything at all. They had a whole year and a general election to do so. But they haven't. Instead they've been engaged in desperate displacement activities. Challenging the supreme court rather than just put an Article 50 bill through parliament, protesting to the BBC about 'bias' (twice), calling a totally unnecessary GE which they then spectacularly mess up. To the extent that the EU has had to practically force them to the negotiation table.

    The Brexiteers haven't got a vision, hence no policy nor a plan. They can't think of one. Because Brexit was basically won on unicorn **** and we all know it.

    So the UK, as second largest economy in the EU can't even leverage its political power in this small club, but thinks it can be a player on the world stage? :hehe: Sure.

    But at least now you can raise more VAT, because I'm sure that is what the 'just about managing' voted Leave for.

    There is no economic uncertainty in stealing another people's rich natural resources (as colonial Britain knew). I'm sorry, but that comparison is so pathetic that I have difficulty accepting that you seriously think that.

    But I'm sure that the 'just about managing' voted for fine principles and values and don't care as much about whether they can afford food and rent.

    So Brexit means... whatever the UK manages to negotiate? That certainly seems to be the current government approach. Great plan.

    That is not a plan. Those are objectives. The UK doesn't have a plan, except: "We leave... and then it's whatever we can negotiate... and then we'll carry on with austerity. And perhaps we'll dream a bit more about our future later".

    No, it is inference. You are basically saying that it is impossible to forecast economics, so it is impossible to predict the economic consequences of Brexit. So the UK is leaving on a whim.

    I think you'll find that it's a bit more complicated than that. Always is.

    They sure could have protected the local steelworks against cheap Chinese steel dumping. The EU wanted to stop that. The UK blocked it from doing so. I look forward to British agriculture (without EU subsidies) and industry competing with Third World nations, China and India.

    Again, I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

    Expect to do it a lot more. And that will disrupt 'just in time' supply chains.

    Perhaps the UK could have started with reducing non-EU immigration from mainly poor Commonwealth countries, then, rather than EU immigrants from relatively affluent ones. But I suspect it found those immigrants useful commodities for its fast-growing economy (got to offset the UK's lousy productivity somehow). But hey, now you can choose exactly how you fail to control your immigration, and grow your own poverty at home. :p

    Yes, as member of the EU, under those much-maligned EU FTA. Germany exports even more to China, India and the Commonwealth than the UK does. As a member of the EU, under those much-maligned EU FTA (to which Japan has just been added today, as it happens). But on its own the UK may find that it's a lot harder to negotiate advantageous trade deals with countries of which 95 of the 168 are clustered in nine trading blocs.
     
    Last edited: 6 Jul 2017
  7. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    388
    Like i said you really need to read the article properly, their claim that MI5 opened a file comes from an apparently unnamed source, based on the rest of the articles propensity for playing fast a loose with the facts it calls into question if their unnamed source even exists or if they took what Peter Francis said 2 years ago about him not knowing if SDS passed the details onto MI5 and embellished the facts to suit their narrative.

    Let me quote the relevant section in full so we don't have to rely on your contextomy.

    To me that reads as if their source is Peter Francis, yes, no? Because if so Peter Francis stated 2 years ago that he didn't know if SDS passed on the files to MI5.

    I'm not dismissing them, I'm attempting to get to the facts of the matter and with that in mind I'd like to ask you what's wrong with commemorating everyone who dies unnecessarily? Is it that you disagree with what Corbyn said about commemorating all those who died? Are you trying to suggest that we should only remember and show respect for certain people or groups and not others?

    Firstly I'm not saying they're wrong, secondly the only particular claim you've made so far is that Corbyn has/had links to the IRA, everything else has been you posting links to sites in an attempt to use a fallacious debating tactic.

    You see I'm perfectly happy to debate the details of your claimed "convicted terrorist, an islamic extremist or commorating and taking up the cause of some dissident anti british/ western group" if only you were a little more specific, what convicted terrorist, when, were, you know the sort of things that are important when debating a topic, and please no more of this proof by verbosity, lets get specific shall we.

    Also I'm not shouting bias and expecting it so solve everything, I'm saying the source of the original claim is biased and as such shouldn't be taken on face value, that it need further investigation, something I'm perfectly happy to do as can be seen by my initial reply to you in this very post.

    You see there you go again with your gish gallop, how was he campaigning for an IRA victory, when, where, what was said, you make it very difficult to debate a subject when you make such sweeping generalisations.

    Also by implying he had no responsibility or right to represent people living in the UK and his own continuance shows not only a staggering amount of naivety with reguard to what MPs do but also an utter lack of understand of the troubles in NI, or are you seriously suggesting that Sinn Féin, let alone the IRA, would be willing to sit down at the negotiating table with a government who treated their politicians as criminals, if you don't know the level of animosity between the two sides all but prevented serious talks then i can only assume you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

    What facts? You've provided none, all you've been doing is making claims without any specificity, however now you agreed to narrow things down a little lets address the first claim shall we, that "in 1987 Corbyn paid tribute to eight IRA gunmen who were shot dead in an SAS ambush"

    So what exactly is you're issue with that? Is it safe to assume you don't think he should have paid tribute to people who lost their lives, is it that he shouldn't have paid tribute to them because they were IRA members?

    Because if so does that also include the other 199 people who also paid tribute in the same meeting held by Sinn Fein in London's Conway hall.

    Are you saying that it was wrong to pay tribute because he should not have been trying to reconcile and heal the divide between the two sides?
     
    Last edited: 6 Jul 2017
  8. Byron C

    Byron C Multimodder

    Joined:
    12 Apr 2002
    Posts:
    9,880
    Likes Received:
    4,493
    Here's where we get into problems with the "terrorism = evil" mentality. The IRA were fighting for what they believed in, using whatever means they thought were necessary. From their point of view they were freedom fighters waging a campaign against an oppressor. Sounds very much like some policies the West has supported in the past, such as training and arming the Taliban so that they could fight off communism (EDIT: communism, not terrorism).

    It doesn't excuse people being killed - on either side - but you can't simply say that they were "evil" or "abhorrent" and leave it at that. That's not a productive way to establish a dialogue.

    Wow, OK, your credibility went right out the window there.

    So many logical fallacies in your posts, I don't have time to dig through your gish gallops (thank you for reminding me of the term, @Corky42!) to find and debate anything of substance.
     
  9. Ramble

    Ramble Ginger Nut

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    5,596
    Likes Received:
    43
    Huh, I guess that's why the economy and personal privacy have flourished under the conservative government we've had for the past 7 years. I'm looking forward to all of the new economic growth that leaving the biggest trading bloc in the world will bring, all thanks to the nationalist right wing.
     
  10. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    Apparently Theresa May is going to reboot her vision for Brexit Britain. Must have missed the first one. :p

    Problem is, when the general election made clear that the Empress had no clothes, it also demonstrated the vacuousness underlying the Brexit promises in the EU referendum.

    Farage has abandoned UKIP and politics. Boris Johnson backed out. The only Brexiteers left are career opportunists too dumb to understand the magnitude of the *********** they're facing, and a bunch of delusional loons shouting from the side lines to go faster pussycat, kill, kill!

    There is no vision. There is no plan. The more Theresa May hits the CTRL-ALT+DEL on her political career, the more it becomes obvious that the UK is a country stuck in POST mode.
     
  11. Disequilibria

    Disequilibria Minimodder

    Joined:
    30 Sep 2015
    Posts:
    855
    Likes Received:
    16
    1. Brexit whatever the outcome wont be as economically damaging as you assume it will be, especially in the long run. 2. The problem was more to do with lack of coherent messaging, a campaign with a single point of failure in a leader with hillary PR skills and running on a manifesto of fox hunting, killing elephants, internet control and stealing inheritance vs free stuff and corbyn making the right noises on brexit taking that off the table (while not saying too much about their internet control). 3. Now as the Ashcroft analysis estimated that the labour vote was around 64% remain I don't think it tallies with the rest of your narrative.
    Influence within the club is different from world influnce and world influence is largely irrelevent to economic outcomes outside. Our influence within the club is diminished by the fact that the larger members power is relative to their power within the currency union and size. So for example germany is the largest creditor nation with large current account surpluses and most of the eurozone relies on them. Other large members are incredibly hamstrung by the Euro, especially Italy and spain, it results in germany being the effective hegamon of the EU along with their willingness to expand the EU budget for future euro members in the east of the bloc. We leveraged our influence to get extensive opt outs that will never be enough and get in the way of integrationist members.
    Raising more VAT by reducing the rate and destroying distortions that make everyone poorer unnecessarily, among other things.
    There was economic uncertainty and massive risk in rebelling against the UK for the people who did it. I think you over estimate some of the poverty in Britain and under estimate the desire for full home rule as a matter of principle. If leaving the Eu were thought to be economically neutral I would bet a fair amount that the result would be 70/30. And as I said last time there are plenty of things you (or anyone of any income level) would not countenance on principle despite the overall economic benefits.
    No it means what I previously said it means. Leaving the SM, CU, ending FM, ECJ jurisdiction, soft border in NI etc. As for the precise outcome of certain things like our trading relation with the EU it is not resolvable until the negotiations move along.
    That's better than wishlist, getting soft our we? :p I don't know what you want here, those are their objectives and they'll negotiate towards them I doubt DexEu is exactly shouting the minutia of their plans before they put their offer to the other side. More than half the things we want the Eu wants.
    No it was putting words in my mouth, I never made a claim there to the success of failure economically of the outcome. It IS basically impossible to forecast the result of brexit economically for multiple reasons, it's also impossible to accurately forecast the impact of the minimum wage when it were introduced. Economic theory can inform but not predict accurately, give me a one handed economist said a certain president.
    We were talking about WTO schedules not mutual recognition agreements.
    No dumping is a different issue, what is needed there is very temporary controls in a bona fide case of dumping, even then it can be questionable. Tariffs and subsidies don't protect they just stifle competition, distort markets, create deadweight losses, concentrate benefits for the few at the cost of the many :hehe: , entrench inefficiencies and in the case of subsidies can end up in a situation like the 1970s where our tax payers were effectively paying people abroad to buy our stuff. Moreover our industry isn't mostly in direct competition with china and India we usually have a comparative advantage in the industries we have.
    (also just as a little genuine advisory note: if anyone lives in a one horse town whose income relies solely on that one horse MOVE as soon as you can history shows time and time again that such a situation is very risky and once that risk is realised you're f***** no matter what the government does it, even assistance and protection only last a short time and can never be counted on whichever tie they wear.)
     
    Last edited: 8 Jul 2017
  12. Disequilibria

    Disequilibria Minimodder

    Joined:
    30 Sep 2015
    Posts:
    855
    Likes Received:
    16
    No it's not that's pretty much how it is, aside from a few functions in a few agencies, but all enforcement is in the hands of a national complaint agency such as the HSE. Most of those agencies have their own regulatory power and statuatory power to make regulation it sometimes isn't as apocalyptic as you want it to be.
    Just think from a different angle:
    EMA budget: 301mn (16.5mn(EU) 285mn (in bribes sorry I mean fees from industry))
    EEA (environment): 57.5mn
    EU-OSHA: 15.2mn
    EFSA: 71mn
    ECDC: 58mn
    ECHA: 109mn
    UK:
    MHRA: £153mn (14mn surplus) (28mn DH, rest in bribes (sorry fees from industry))
    EA (environment): £1,166mn (744mn DEFRA 422mn (fees/licences etc))
    NRW (environment Wales): £162mn
    NIEA (NI environment): £30mn
    SEPA (scottish environment): £78mn
    HSE: 219.6mn (net of £110k from eu)
    FSA (food): 133mn
    How do you think the EU runs with tiny puny budgets if they're doing oh so much. It's because they are not. In some cases it is doing double work like the EMA certifying medicine across europe above the head of those who don't want them or after a state has already allowed it. The rest is just overseeing regulation. We bear all the enforcement costs.
    1.Outside of EEA is 93% of the world's population and is 50% of immigration.2. The composition of migration is totally different between the EEA and non EEA (remember we discussed all this, it is in a fullfact source) the majority of non EEA migration is social and education with less than 30% for work. The reason why non EEA migration is high is because people want to marry abroad (very common in British descendants of say Pakistani migrants) and bring immediate relatives. The EEA migration is 70%+ work migration with a large section of low income workers post 2004 from 7% of world population making up around 50% of UK migration. Controlling that under the same rules as everyone else will reduce importation of low income people. UK productivity is harmed by the low income cohort and reduces the net benefits of migration overall. Firstly because the productivity is low in low income people (who knew) and secondly because companies substitute capital equipment for labour hence the continuation of manual picking even though there is machinery that does that or the return of the degrading human advert (spiderman dominos guys comes to mind). Moreover what incentive does the government or especially business have to invest in education and training of human capital properly while they can get the ready made model from abroad with no barriers; saves a lot of money, no?
    Bilateral trade deals between individual countries are possible with all but the EU where the bloc has to be negotiated, even ASEAN who have a customs agreement. Secondly japan hasn't been added today or yesterday it is just a general political agreement and will take several years to formalise if talks don't break down. Again germany benefits from being in a currency union that makes it hyper competitive as the Euro is much, much, weaker than what they'd have with an independent currency, this is part of the problem in the Eurozone it's not a good thing for the EU or the world. And yes we are trading at our fastest growing rates with countries without a FTA with EU as illustrated by the graph, the only one since joined is canada, the point being is favourable commercial conditions can mean a lot more than those things in a trade agreement.
    The trade deals we negotiate independently will suit the best interests of ourselves and the third country specifically rather than risk protectionism of 27 other countries, it isn't some power play it is mutually advantageous to allow the goods of country A that country A has the most comparative advantage to be freely traded with country B's goods that they have the most comparative advantage. This reduces prices for both country's consumers, increases jobs, income and helps increase specialisation, efficiency and competition for everyone. It is not a zero sum game of mutual attempts at shafting one and other and is more effective when done Bilaterally and not compromising with protectionist partners who want to protect their inefficient farmers and cobblers
     
    Last edited: 8 Jul 2017
  13. Disequilibria

    Disequilibria Minimodder

    Joined:
    30 Sep 2015
    Posts:
    855
    Likes Received:
    16
    Commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland. That means people fighting the British army, police officers and civilians. It would be most naive to infer he was doing this because he is a respectful person but because his intention is seditious and in solidarity with pretty reprehensible people because it suits his ideology and in taken in the context of the time that would be a highly inflammatory statement.
    It doesn't have to be take on face value and it isn't a matter of fallacious debating in terms of multiple "weak" peices of evidence but:
    1)these events are often compounding i.e. sharing a platform with a terrorist/anti Semite once, okay twice, attending their rallies, supporting their cause, supporting that cause regardless of the consent of the governed, opposing the peace process until the group were basically defeated, surrounding himself with people like mcdonnell. Those are additive...
    2) This being a politician aiming for high office it is a matter of caution rather than a criminal measure and burden of proof
    3) It takes hours and hours to get through everything he has done (and I have looked) and it takes hours more and would render my posts far longer than any post should be (they are already too long).
    4) There are multiple claims to facts of activity in that article regardless of bias, corroborated in others about his various activities that by now you will have read to some degree and others not mentioned that have great implications for his attitude to British interests and the interests of british citizens and they are either true or they aren't
    There you go again diving in front of the referee crying foul, it's a most irritating situation to immediately see a resort to shouting fallacy as soon as you sniff maybe a little bit of one.
    No I am not. It is a statement of fact. What were the IRA victory terms: unification of ireland regardless of the consent of the NI people (for context the Unionist terrorists was the opposite and the british was NI remains or leaves by consent). IN 1984 and 1994 he was a signatory to a bill for the termination of the jurisdiction of the UK in northern ireland, he opposed the anglo- irish treaty the first important step in the peace process etc.
    He took up the cause of sinn fein, it was not a peace talk, it was that their objectives suited his ideology. Oh and they did start talking to the government because they were becoming more and more compromised by the intelligence services, not because Jeremy opened a dialogue. It is just totally politically convenient naivete and distortion of history for that matter, that he had any role in the peace process except as a sinn fein proxy.
    I don't think it is a good idea to have a prime minister that pays tribute to dead terrorists, I think it is quite revealing of where his loyalties lie in relation to the citizens he has to govern.
    There is next to no evidence he was doing this at all. It's a narrative and the least believable interpretation of his actions.
    I've already dealt with this before in qualifying that he was engaging with said people, I say giving aid and comfort, because it suited his ideology not as a matter of realpolitik for national security reasons. (Also the example is off the west armed and trained the muhajadeen not the taliban, still jihadists but it's a bit more complicated than that)
    Oh yeah logical fallacies okay… I remember last time you said I lost all credibility when I said there are opportunity costs to public spending and you replied with an appeal to emotion… But it is convenient to avoid engaging and not actually address the point. You’ve got the fallacy fallacy going on there… ;)
    So saying "being hard left," as in being under the rule of marxist hard left governments, has historically always led to bad outcomes such as totalitarianism and economic devastation is incorrect?
    It was in response to this:
    which was in reponse to this specific quote from me:
    It is a fact that marxism always leads to the outcomes described, it is a fact the marxists managed a death toll 10 times that of the nationalist socialists inside their territory in the 20th century (to call someone a nazi or a fascist is a slur(rightly so)). It is valid to point out the historic (and inevitable) results of an ideology that people may be voting for, there is no fallacy in that. if people are voting for him for that (which they aren’t for the most part) then that is very worrying.
    Do you think a hard left labour party has any interest in preserving privacy, do you think they’ll do better? Do you not realise that every social democratic/ socialist/ conservative party are all doing the same things throughout europe? Do you not realise if he had a full contingent of hard left MPs that it’d be far more than 12 month retentions of data?
     
    Last edited: 8 Jul 2017
  14. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    1. Because? How do you know? You said it was impossible to make economic forecasts.
    2. No, the fundamental problem was that there is a glaring vacuum of post-Brexit vision or policy. If Brexit is going to be so good, let's hear how. Let's hear the plan. But there isn't any. So May rambles on a bit about fox hunting (appeal to nationalist identy --check) and internet control (appeal to Middle England moral values --check) and tries to slip past some more austerity cuts (because actually, Brexit is expected to economically hurt).
    3. Since the GE Brexiteers frequently point out that Labour also supports Brexit, and thus that 80+% of the electorate supports it. Can't have it both ways. But Labour promised to make good on the EU unicorns that were promised in the EU referendum. Corbyn presented a positive post-Brexit vision. The Tories presented none at all.

    So the country that practically introduced the Single Market and has a bunch of opt-outs that no other EU nation enjoys has no power in the EU?

    The American colonies sat on a continent of natural resources and was in all meaningful ways fully self-sufficient. They rebelled because they saw no reason for a colony as rich and powerful as them to still be dictated to by Britain.

    As a mental health worker who started his career in community mental health on the sink estates of Hull, and now works in a hospital Trust covering some of the poorest areas in the UK, I think that I understand poverty and what concerns poor people better than you assume I do. ;)

    What I want is a realistic, clear post-Brexit vision and strategy, not a bunch of jingoistic platitudes and some unrealistic promises of unicorn ****. I want Remainers to be reassured, not shouted down as unpatriotic traitors for daring to express their doubt and worry, because that smacks of panic to me, not confidence. I want the government to show me a rational strategy and policy, not frantic displacement activities in unnecessary elections and empty two-minute-hate speeches and the current political farce that it calls 'making a success of Brexit', because that just tells me that they don't know what they're doing and they don't know what to do. If Brexit is going to be so good, let's hear how exactly.

    Because otherwise I have to reasonably conclude that the last 20 years of campaigning for Brexit was as considered as a dog chasing a car. And now it has unexpectedly caught up with it, it doesn't know what to do.

    Because against expectation the people voted Leave. Why, if David Cameron, PM of the Austerity Party, puts a ball marked 'Brexit' in front of a bunch of pissed off poor people and says: "Please don't kick the ball. If you kick the ball I will really do it!", who would have thought that they would actually kick the ball?! Especially if a bunch of charming sociopaths rile them up with: "Go on! Kick the ball! Show him who's boss! And besides, there will be unicorns and rainbows and we'll get rid of all those foreigners (who are somehow more successful than you)!"? I mean, duh!

    So they promised, and now they have to follow through, and they are too scared to admit they have no idea how, that in hindsight it was all just a bluff. Because that would destroy the Tory reputation of being the party of economic and fiscal responsibility for decades to come and Labour would have a free run at government. So they have to see it through to the bitter end. And they're freaking out, because that is basically a choice between a quick death and a slow one.

    Exactly. Brexit was done on a whim (I knew you'd get there, eventually).

    So here's the options:
    - Carry on with Brexit --> economic disaster --> Labour is voted in.
    - Cancel Brexit --> Tory party tears itself apart --> Labour is voted in.

    And the thought of Cobyn as PM, Disequilibria, is making you crap yourself. That is why you are desperately trying to convince yourself that Brexit will work out. Except it won't. You know that, I know that.
     
    Last edited: 8 Jul 2017
  15. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    388
    Are saying that people dying for an independent Ireland was a good thing?

    Are you saying that creating a situation where some people felt the only choice they had was direct, often violent, action was a good thing? It seems you've not thought about the NI situation in the slightest or more generally why some people resort to direct, often violent actions in the fist place.

    It also appears you've failed to answer my question about why you find it reprehensible so show respect and solidarity for people who lost their lives fighting for an independent country.

    No, drowning people in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument is very much a fallacious debating tactic, that's why i keep trying to get you to answer specific points, something you're consistently refusing to do.

    1) Yes event are often compounding but as you've yet to debate a single one of those events there's no substance to any of them.

    2) Yes it's a matter of caution rather than a criminal measure and burden of proof but like i said you appear to be shying away from debating a single of the issues you've raised.

    3) Yes it would take hours but making claims such as the ones you've made are worth further examination, that's the whole point of debating a subject, to gain a greater understanding and explore each individual point.

    4) And that's all they are, claims without any evidence, that's like me claiming you can fly so should jump off the roof, something that would be very unwise without me providing evidence of my claim and you examining in greater detail all of my evidence, you'd want to know after all how how valid my claims are before jumping off a roof.

    I'm not crying foul, I'm pointing out how you're using fallacious debating tactics to avoid the debate, if you think it's a most irritating situation to immediately see a resort to shouting fallacy you should try being on the receiving end of someone using them in order to avoid discussing the subject at hand.

    And i hate to tell you that's exactly what you're doing, you've claimed on many occasions that he campaigning for an IRA victory but the moment i ask for some evidence of this you refuse to provide any and instead attempt to deflect my question by answering something i never asked, i didn't ask what the IRA's terms were, i asked how was he campaigning for an IRA victory, when, where, what was said.

    Signing a bill to terminate the jurisdiction of the UK in northern Ireland and opposing the Anglo- Irish treaty is not campaigning for an IRA victory, much in the same way as signing a bill to terminate the jurisdiction of the EU in the UK and opposing a EU-UK treaty is not showing support for Thomas Mair's murder of Jo Cox.

    And if opposing the Anglo- Irish treaty was such a heinous act then how do you square the fact that Thatcher later admitted that supporting it had been a mistake, as it entrenched division for many years following its implementation?

    Sorry but that's utter tosh, just because you share the same opinion as someone else doesn't mean you've taken up their cause, if we did we'd be saying everyone who wanted out of the EU took up the cause of Britain First because they share the same opinion.

    And yes you're correct to say that Sinn Féin, the IRA, and Corbyn all wanted an independent Irish republic but you seem to be, deliberately i suspect, avoiding saying why that's a bad thing to want, why wanting a form of government where the people living in that country can exercise self determination is a bad thing.

    Also as you've made the claim multiple time now what evidence do you have that they started talking because they were becoming more and more compromised by the intelligence services.

    And if as you say Corbyn didn't have any role in the peace process then perhaps you need to have a word with the Gandhi foundation as they awarded him their international peace award for consistent efforts over a 30 year Parliamentary career to uphold the Gandhian values of social justice and non‐violence, particularly his work in the NI peace process.

    While you're at it maybe you should have a word with some of the politicians from both the republican and unionist sides who have gone on record as saying that Corbyn played a vital role in the peace process.

    I didn't ask you if you thought it was a good idea to have a prime minister that pays tribute to dead terrorists. At least do everyone the curtsey of answering the questions put to you.

    What exactly is you're issue with Corbyn paying tribute to eight IRA gunmen who were shot dead in an SAS ambush? Is it that you think he shouldn't have paid tribute to people who lost their lives, is it that he shouldn't have paid tribute to them because they were IRA members?

    Is it that you think he shouldn't have stood up for a minuets silence along with the other 199 people who were attending a Sinn Fein meeting in London?

    There's plenty of evidence its just you're refusing to explore that evidence in further details to discover what really lies behind it, take this early day motion for example if Corbyn is such a terrorist sympathiser as you claim why did he sign a motion that says, and i quote...

    That seem an awfully strange thing for someone to sign when their apparently showing solidarity with pretty reprehensible people and who supports the cause of terrorists.
     
    Last edited: 8 Jul 2017
  16. Anfield

    Anfield Multimodder

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    7,059
    Likes Received:
    970
    And it is 100% irrelevant to the topic at hand.

    The chances of Corbyn actually implementing marxism are no greater than Mexico volunteering to pay for the wall.
     
  17. Byron C

    Byron C Multimodder

    Joined:
    12 Apr 2002
    Posts:
    9,880
    Likes Received:
    4,493
    No, it means I have a life. It means exactly what I said: I don't have time to sit there and pull apart every single point you've made because your posts (and others here to be fair) are very long and rambling. Whether it's intentional or not it's a Gish Gallop:

    In any case, this ceased being a debate a long time ago. This is now just several different sides reciting the same points from their checklists over and over again.

    [​IMG]
     
  18. Disequilibria

    Disequilibria Minimodder

    Joined:
    30 Sep 2015
    Posts:
    855
    Likes Received:
    16
    The chances depend on the composition and strength of the party he brought to power. I am not confident that people have been sufficiently educated in marxism as compared to nazism to understand what it is. Moreover there are many policies today in governments of the west that are quasi marxian. Besides understanding someone's core ideology gives a good idea where their policy will go. If it were someone with nationalist socialist Ideology (maybe LePen) we might be sceptical of them implementing it in office but it kind of tells us we shouldn't put them there.
     
    Last edited: 8 Jul 2017
  19. Ramble

    Ramble Ginger Nut

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    5,596
    Likes Received:
    43
    You can read his policy, it's in the manifesto. I don't see Marxism there.
     
  20. Disequilibria

    Disequilibria Minimodder

    Joined:
    30 Sep 2015
    Posts:
    855
    Likes Received:
    16
    It's not. That can be the response to any point evidence example explain argument across multiple different topics simulataneously. To gish gallop I would have to make several points in quick succession to avoid any being defeated. For example the conversation with nexxo is across at least 10 different topics on brexit, whilst also understanding that I better give examples and explain.
    First that's because he is a marxist but he didn't have the power within the party to get those policies through, that's changing, it'll be interesting to see deselection or like the recent liverpool MP forced to give an apology.
    Second the british public wouldn't vote for that directly.
    If you elect a contingent of john mcdonnells next time, that is what they'll try to get.
     

Share This Page