Chuka Umunna has decided the leadership is not for him. Pity. Even allowing that he is an excellent media performer, he seems pretty straight.
None of the other contenders has much appeal for me, and most are a complete turn off. Maybe the Labour party needs to have a final clear out of the Blairites and start again.
|
>Chuka Umunna has decided the leadership is not for him. Pity
It is a pity. I wonder why.
I could only think that he has something in his life, past or family that he would rather not be splashed all over the newspapers.
I think he would have been good at the job.
|
It is a pity. He is a very good media performer its true, but also appears to be a man of honesty & integrity (as proven by his withdrawal). Think he would have been a good broad based potential labour leader.
I'd like to see him as Mayor, he was a good constituency MP.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 15 May 15 at 12:29
|
|
You would have thought he would have considered the pressures he now complains about before he announced his bid, when was it? Earlier this week?
|
|
He didn't have reporters harrying his wife earlier this week.
|
>>He didn't have reporters harrying his wife earlier this week.
What happened?
|
>> >>He didn't have reporters harrying his wife earlier this week.
>>
>> What happened?
>>
I think some reporters harried his wife.
;-)
|
|
Tonight's the night to try that one out. Chili AND garlic sauces tonight I think. Mixed chicken shish and lamb doner.
|
Chili AND garlic sauces tonight...
Tried that the other Friday on your recommendation. Pretty good, I thought, and a lovely, friendly place. Took an interest in Beestling Minor's judo kit because one of the Uzbeks at the grill is keen and looking for - well, looking for a fight, I suppose.
We'll be going again.
|
Excellent, glad you liked it.
Have you heard of the blog called EdibleReading? Covers Henley, Windsor, other remote outlying parishes like that. Puts up a weekly review, the latest one is in Henley funnily enough. Take a shufty if you haven't heard of it.
|
|
Ever since his announcement to stand he has had reporters camped outside his house, his Gfs house, she has been followed, (sorry said wife earlier up the thread) and relatives.
|
Read the Sunday papers: I await an expose..
That's one champagne socialist gone...a few more to go..
(we're all white "trash" according to his standards)
Apologies to any real white, black, brown or other trash reading this thread..:-)
|
>> That's one champagne socialist gone...
Referred to as a "Chardonnay socialist" in Australia and as "Caviar left" in France.
Clearly the bar is lower in Australia.
|
>> He didn't have reporters harrying his wife earlier this week.
>>
Because he hasn't got one.
|
>> You would have thought he would have considered the pressures he now complains about
>> before he announced his bid,
If it is just the press camping outside his and his family's houses, then yes indeed you would have thought so.
|
My immediate thought was someone has found a skeleton in his cupboard, wait for the Sundays. Or maybe someone has him by the short and curlies on something very private which will remain private - if so, who, I wonder?
Or maybe he simply didn't want to be in the spotlight after all.
|
>> Seems my suggestion of Keir Starker may have legs:
Starmer even. Was sent from my phone - bloomim auto correct.
|
|
PM were focusing on "something" making references to the Sundays...Labour party needs someone uncontaminated by Blair and not from the Metropolis...
|
>> PM were focusing on "something" making references to the Sundays...Labour party needs someone uncontaminated by
>> Blair and not from the Metropolis...
They need someone who is not a union donkey.
|
|
May be he is biding his time. He realises it's a bum job at present, best to let someone else get saddled with the blame. Then in ten years time he can appear as the great leader they thought they'd never find.
|
|
Maybe he didn't think he could win? Reading in other places where Labour fans are in the majority, the generally feeling is that he is a torylite and nowhere near 'left' enough.
|
Memberships of Unions is very low in comparison what it used to be.Is Unite the largest Union now?
|
>> They need someone who is not a union donkey.
That takes me back a bit. Remember Arthur Scargill? He was the real thing, a donkey, a goddam apparatchik totally unworthy of the salt-of-the-earth miners, somehow caught up in a sort of moronic timewarp.
Flavour of the year back in the day to numerous comrades who should have known better but couldn't bring themselves to admit it. The man who, with his followers, successfully deradicalized me. I suppose I should be grateful really but I can't manage it.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 15 May 15 at 19:22
|
|
Spot on. I had to laugh at his "manifesto" for the last election made the Greens look electable...
|
>> Spot on. I had to laugh at his "manifesto" for the last election made the
>> Greens look electable...
>>
Sounds like many of the smaller parties. I watched the small clips that someone put up from the BBC* some of them were funny. Each of the tiny parties got a few minutes. One party wouldn't produce a leader as they thought them undemocratic !
*presented by the big scottish chap used to be in the newspaper business can't remember his name.
|
I saw or heard some stats on Labour party membership somewhere, don't think it was here. Something like 0.5 million, whereas the National Trust has 4 million. I'm sure it will apply equally to the Tories.
Could be wrong, as they say... and it really has no meaning. Just interesting, that's all.
|
>> I saw or heard some stats on Labour party membership somewhere, don't think it was
>> here. Something like 0.5 million,
researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05125
Membership of parties is barely a quarter what is was 30 yrs ago. And it wasn't impressive then.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 15 May 15 at 20:22
|
What does it mean to be a member of a party?
I guess you have to pay a membership fee , and I assume you get to vote on stuff. Although I wonder what.
Is that it?
|
If you are a member of UKIP you get to vote in leadership elections.
Err perhaps not :-)
|
>> I guess you have to pay a membership fee , and I assume you get
>> to vote on stuff. Although I wonder what.
>>
>> Is that it?
More or less, yes.
Was a member of Labour from 1992 to around 2001. Could vote in various elections for officials etc. Locally, was invited to meetings which might influence policy and nominate candidates for Councils and possibly at constituency level. Was expeted to do leafleting etc during elections. Might have campaigned/canvassed etc but as I was in 'politically restricted' group in Civil Service I couldn't participate in those roles.
I left party in 01/02 realising that as a Croslandite I was now (a) rgarded as on outer left and (b) ignored.
All parties, but perhaps partic the Tories have a lot of 'social' members who only join for snooker or shagging opportunists .
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 15 May 15 at 20:52
|
>> All parties, but perhaps partic the Tories have a lot of 'social' members who only
>> join for snooker or shagging opportunists .
For Snooker I went to Balham, for Shagging I went to Busbys
|
>> All parties, but perhaps partic the Tories have a lot of 'social' members who only
>> join for snooker or shagging opportunists .
>>
Is there some sort of secret 'snooker and shagging' tory club?
Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 15 May 15 at 21:01
|
>> Is there some sort of secret 'snooker and shagging' tory club?
As John Cole would have said - Hondootedley
|
>> >> Is there some sort of secret 'snooker and shagging' tory club?
>>
>> As John Cole would have said - Hondootedley
Right I googled that and it came up with something to do with Honda Goldwings. I'm non the wiser, could you explain in more plain english?
|
>> Right I googled that and it came up with something to do with Honda Goldwings.
>> I'm non the wiser, could you explain in more plain english?
T'was merely a p*** take on Cole's pronunciation of the word 'undoubtedly'.
|
>> >> Right I googled that and it came up with something to do with Honda
>> Goldwings.
>> >> I'm non the wiser, could you explain in more plain english?
>>
>> T'was merely a p*** take on Cole's pronunciation of the word 'undoubtedly'.
>>
Well that's good, I'm half way there now, who is this Cole chap?
|
|
BBC Political Editor for centuries, up until the early 1990s.
|
>>Right I googled that and it came up with something to do with Honda Goldwings
Funny, I Googled it too, and the first 10 (which was as far as I read) were all John Cole.
|
>> >>Right I googled that and it came up with something to do with Honda Goldwings
>>
>> Funny, I Googled it too, and the first 10 (which was as far as I
>> read) were all John Cole.
>>
Should have wrote searched, looking at it, it was yahoo.
|
Got there in the end, something abit less obscure might help me understand next time :)
Anyway back to these clubs, you know much about them ;)
|
>> Got there in the end, something abit less obscure might help me understand next time
>> :)
It was a long-running Private Eye joke for years. They had a regular report from John Cole, usually beginning "Hondoodedly Mosses Thotcher ...... "
|
>>the Tories have a lot of 'social' members who only join for snooker or shagging opportunists .
So the Tories join for shagging and snooker and Labour join to wander the streets delivering leaflets?
That explains quite a lot.
|
>>So the Tories join for shagging and snooker and Labour join to wander the streets delivering leaflets?>>
My choice is by far the most pleasant and, hopefully, enjoyable one...:-)
|
|
I think Burnham will get it.
|
|
I am sure the Tories hope so too. :-)
|
>> I am sure the Tories hope so too. :-)
>>
Him or Balls' missus will do very nicely thank you. Either of them should help ensure that the poxy Labour party stay in the wilderness for a very long time !
|
|
who do the unions want? Thats who they will get. They have voting power.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 17 May 15 at 18:22
|
>> who do the unions want?
Burnham I think. Worthy, but boring in my opinion for what it's worth. I like Jim Murphy but don't blame him for waiting until next time.
I'd go for Chuka Umunna who's a real proper representative Londoner, good-looking, bright and very well connected all over the place. His first name (the Sunday comic specified) rhymes with 'snooker', which ought to placate or even excite the Tory shagger brigade.
I loved the comic's front-page lead. 'LABOUR RIPS ITSELF APART' it bawls hopefully. OFFS.
'Hollywood is still sexist', opines its arts correspondent from Cannes. 'Still' indeed! How on earth can it be anything else?
|
>>I like Jim Murphy
He's a slimy little sheet, always syrupy smooth when putting his point across, but ultimately a career politician whose gameplan is always the pragmatic 'what can I get out of this situation'.
Other than that he's great.
|
|
Odd - double post.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sun 17 May 15 at 20:07
|
>> Odd - double post.
Finger trembling with rage no doubt Lygonos. Easily done.
You're hard on Jim Murphy seems to me. After all he is a career politician. But there are many slimier. Perhaps it's just that I don't really understand the subtleties of Jockspeak.
|
>>Finger trembling with rage no doubt Lygonos.
Hardly! Ancient laptop probably had a seizure when I hit the button :-)
The guy spent years at Uni, never getting a degree, then voted for tuition fees (which I think are a disgrace when we are meant to be trying to compete with the rest of the world)... etc etc
Have a laugh at this VERY partisan view (pro-Indy group whose winged symbol looks kind of 30s Germany to me!)...
wingsoverscotland.com/the-jim-murphy-fan-club/
|
>> group whose winged symbol looks kind of 30s Germany to me.
Just a bit, yes.
I've seen a couple of other things like that online in recent days. Is Nazi aesthetic the coming thing, now that most people are too young to recognise it as such? Dear oh dear...
|
>>
>> I'd go for Chuka Umunna who's a real proper representative Londoner, good-looking, bright and very
>> well connected all over the place. His first name (the Sunday comic specified) rhymes with
>> 'snooker',
I thought it was a nickname - something to do with playing polo?
|
|
Nah, that's chukka which rhymes with something other than snooker...
|
That idiot from Unite, whose name escapes me for a moment, said that if they don't get what they want then they could withdraw their support from the Labour party.
And do what with it, I wonder?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 17 May 15 at 20:09
|
I think they're sniffing about the SNP up here.
Sturgeon's too canny to let them get their feet under the table though: SNP gets enough ££ from its membership to want/need Union subs too.
The far left socialist parties managed about 1700 votes in Scotland so I doubt they're too attractive to the Unions' bosses.
|
I wouldn't have thought that the SNP would, in their current position, be all that interested in all the strings that come with Unite's support.
And, in any case, that wouldn't help Unite in England.
|
>>And, in any case, that wouldn't help Unite in England.
I think the Labour party has discovered it can't sell itself to the Tories in England and the SNP in Scotland with the same story.
I see little option than to go for the English wet Tory vote, and hope the SNP make a hash of things.
|
>> I think the Labour party has discovered it can't sell itself to the Tories in
>> England and the SNP in Scotland with the same story.
>>
>> I see little option than to go for the English wet Tory vote, and hope
>> the SNP make a hash of things.
The tories didn't win because of any wet tory vote, there isn't enough of them to win, Labour didn't loose because they didn't get their core down trodden working class vote, their isn't enough of them to win either. What they both need is that middle ground, mr ordinary uk family who want to work hard, and better themselves.
As soon as the labour party start saying they need to return to their core values, and voters they have lost.
|
>> As soon as the labour party start saying they need to return to their core
>> values, and voters they have lost.
Or rather they need to make clear that 'core values' will help those in the middle ground too.
|
>>Or rather they need to make clear that 'core values' will help those in the middle ground too
That'd be a neat trick, since they wouldn't.
|
As Paul Kenny, the GMB's general secretary, is now saying that the Labour Party would be unable to fight another general election if affiliated unions withdrew their financial support, I would imagine the middle ground voters are not seeing the Labour Party as the one for them. It looks more like a party whose strings are pulled by the unions.
And they said Miliband was too close to the unions.
Are the unions too thick to realise that if Labour doesn't get re-elected any time soon they will not have much influence at all?
Last edited by: Observer on Mon 18 May 15 at 14:55
|
>> Are the unions too thick to realise that if Labour doesn't get re-elected any time
soon they will not have much influence at all?
I have re-arranged one word in your last sentence to make sense...
"The unions are too thick to realise that if Labour doesn't get re-elected any time
soon they will not have much influence at all."
|
>>"The unions are too thick to realise that if Labour doesn't get re-elected any time
soon they will not have much influence at all.">>
Their influence has generally been reduced to very little and rightly so. Holding the nation to ransom is not on; in fact the current planned RMT strike is, basically, blackmail as it's geared to being staged on Bank Holiday Monday and Tuesday to create the utmost disruption throughout the entire country.
So many, many millions will suffer out of all proportion to necessity because of such action if it goes ahead.
|
>> Their influence has generally been reduced to very little and rightly so. Holding the nation
>> to ransom is not on; i
'Holding the nation to ransom' is and always was the narrative of the bosses. Gives no clue whatsoever as to who is being reasonable.
|
Unite can always support the TUSC..www.tusc.org.uk/
A marriage made in heaven - two souls but with a single thought etc,,
|
>> That idiot from Unite, whose name escapes me for a moment, said that if they don't get what they want then they could withdraw their support from the Labour party.
Len McCluskey. Show a bit of respect for my old union which has quite rightly absorbed nearly all the others.
I imagine they are thinking of adhering to Respect or Isil. Quite right too.
:o}
|
|
[Edited out as I was wrong]
Last edited by: smokie on Sun 17 May 15 at 22:16
|
Unite general secretary Len McCluskey says his union is not considering ending its ties with the Labour Party.
5 mins ago
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32777771
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32838024
Seems an interesting viewpoint. Something not seen on the labour side. No idea is it will be popular with labour members, i doubt it though.
|
>> Seems an interesting viewpoint. Something not seen on the labour side. No idea is it
>> will be popular with labour members, i doubt it though.
Seems at a glance that she's saying Labour should adopt the Tories clothes.
I'm open minded on defence. There are a range of challenges ranging from Putin's perceived expansionism (though does it threaten NATO states?) through turmoil in the Levant and beyond to piracy on the high seas. We MAY need to rise to those challenges taking spending to or even beyond 2%.
But that Labour should embrace the government's education reforms in England is, to pinch a phrase from BoJo nonsense on stilts. Labour needs to devise its own policy, recognising the role of local democracy (ie Councils) in education provision and ensuring that parents etc have a proper say in the set up and running of Academies.
She's wasting her time and will come bottom of the poll. Were she then to cross the floor I'd not be surprised.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 22 May 15 at 22:15
|
Putin's Russia is easiest destroyed by outspending him on defence.
Russia's GDP is less than that of the UK, NATO's GDP dwarfs the Russian Federation massively.
The Cold War ended because Russia was economically ruined.
A very open and significant expansion of NATO's conventional capability in Europe should be happening right now.
|
Seems at a glance that she's saying Labour should adopt the Tories clothes.I'm open minded on defence. There are a range of challenges ranging from Putin's perceived expansionism (though does it threaten NATO states?) through turmoil in the Levant and beyond to piracy on the high seas. We MAY need to rise to those challenges taking spending to or even beyond 2%.
Not sure that is just a tory thing, especially on defence. Labour brought in the nuclear bomb and other spending. As to does it threaten NATO states seeing the baltic states very much yes. They are increasingly asking for more troops from NATO beyond the baltic air policing op. We've sent then surplus equipment recently. Many NATO countries in Europe are increasing defence spending including conscription.
|
Seems an interesting viewpoint. Something not seen on the She's wasting her time and will come bottom of the poll. Were she then to cross the floor I'd not be surprised.
Interesting why would she come last?
|
|
I doubt she will come last. Currently 5/2 second favourite at Ladbrokes and odds shortening. Worth punt if you are a gambling man. Favourites don't have a good track record in political party elections.
|
Nice to see Lygonos back.
Why is it that no one apart from me seems to recognise the recent western aggression in Ukraine for what it was? Putin remember is an old KGB man and reacts like the Stalinist he is, but not all that threateningly. Seems to understand the world is changing a lot, and to behave accordingly.
Ukrainians of middle age and older must be horrified and bewildered... they certainly look it when we see them. I too am nostalgic for the old box-and-cox setup. You knew where you were with it.
|
Why is it that no one apart from me seems to recognise the recent western
>> aggression in Ukraine for what it was? Putin remember is an old KGB man and
>> reacts like the Stalinist he is, but not all that threateningly. Seems to understand the
>> world is changing a lot, and to behave accordingly.
not all that threatening? As above many nearby counties disagree they feel threatened and are acting accordingly. They are all increasing their defence spending. None want to be the next country saved by putin's little green men from Moscow.
|
The Finns are concerned.
They are often overlooked in this but they have a long land border with Russia and there is plenty of history there.
|
|
When the Baltic and Balkan areas left the Soviet Union along with the other iron curtain countries the West was seen as an expansionist threat on Russia's doorstep, with no buffer zone. People tend to respond when you stand on their toes.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 23 May 15 at 08:06
|
>> The Finns are concerned.
>> They are often overlooked in this but they have a long land border with Russia
>> and there is plenty of history there.
The Russians are worried about the Finns. Every time they have messed with them they have invariably come away with a b***** nose.
|
>> The Finns are concerned.
>>
indeed they've just reviewed plans for their callout system for the reserves
|
>> Why is it that no one apart from me seems to recognise the recent western
>> aggression in Ukraine for what it was?
>>
I've been saying that right from the start.
|
The situation in Ukraine is dire and has led to consequences probably unforeseen by the West.
At the heart of the problem is the fact that there isn't a lot, historically, holding the country together - it was in effect a patchwork quilt stitched together after WW2 out of various bits of land. The eastern part looks east, the western part, with historical links with Poland, looks west.
Looked at from Russia's point of view, assurances were said to have been given in the 1990s that NATO would not expand - a big issue at the time, as German re-unification was in progress and the old buffer between the West and Russia (represented by the Warsaw Pact) was being eroded.
Then Poland joined NATO in 1999. Western Europe gets closer to Russia.
In Ukraine, the struggle between the two halves of the country eventually leads to the expulsion of the eastern-looking Yanukovych and the establishment of Poroshenko, who signed an agreement with the EU and lined the country up for membership of NATO.
Apart from what you might call a buffer zone of pro-Russian rebels in the east, the West/EU/NATO is now virtually on the borders of Russia. You can call Russia a paranoid state if you will, but to them it seems that the West has ruthlessly exploited the instability of Ukraine to expand its influence. Russia had long been used to "them and us". It has withstood the efforts of westerners like Napoleon and Hitler to conquer it. It has a besieged mentality.
I'm not defending it - especially the naked bit of land-grabbing over Crimea; but even that was driven by the fear of the potential presence of NATO - look at the geographical position of Crimea in relation to Russia.
Last edited by: Observer on Sat 23 May 15 at 11:56
|
>> Why is it that no one apart from me seems to recognise the recent western
>> aggression in Ukraine for what it was? Putin remember is an old KGB man and
>> reacts like the Stalinist he is, but not all that threateningly.
Because.... a democracy (sort of anyway).... wished to have closer ties with the West and the large country next door that used to rule it, thought otherwise and sent in military trained people, which stirred up a bun fight.
Should the West have walked away?...No.
|
"Should the West have walked away?...No."
That's the wrong question to ask.
Why was the West involved anyway? Whose business was it? Does anyone seriously believe the West did not offer enticements (e.g. EU money)?
|
>> Because.... a democracy (sort of anyway).... wished to have closer ties with the West
Except of course a large proportion didn't - enough to vote in a pro Russian Government.
The Ukraine is not our business. Never has been.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 23 May 15 at 13:14
|
>> The Ukraine is not our business. Never has been.
>>
Since when has that been a problem for our illustrious leaders ?
Last time it was called the Crimean war.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 23 May 15 at 13:48
|
There's always an implied belief when one side is seen as 'right' that the other is 'wrong' and knows it.
That must be so rarely the case that it must be regarded as a flawed model. The Russians undoubtedly believe right is on their side. International law is one thing, but when somebody with enough leverage believes that it cuts across justice, something is going to happen sooner or later even if a pretext has to be conjured up.
Not our our business...but what would we say if it was Finland, an EU member state?
The eventual EU superstate scenario is an interesting one here. Another case for which to consider the relative merits of self-determination vs. the (European) union. A USE would presumably at some point become the funder, proprietor and controller (within NATO) of the nuclear deterrent formerly owned by its member states (currently Britain and France).
|
|
I can't see our power seeking politicians handing the control of our nuclear weapons over to anyone, even if the Americans would allow it.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 23 May 15 at 13:52
|
>> Not our our business...but what would we say if it was Finland, an EU member
>> state?
The Ukraine is not an EU member and its not a NATO member, and that is why its none of our business
|
>>
>>
>> The Ukraine is not our business. Never has been.
>>
When you say 'our' who do you refer to ?
|
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The Ukraine is not our business. Never has been.
>> >>
>>
>> When you say 'our' who do you refer to ?
In this case the "OUR" would be NATO
|
To swerve back towards the thread subject, I noticed a long piece in today's comic that seemed to be suggesting the Labour Party was finished and should admit it by shutting up shop and abolishing itself.
It could be said that in a mutating world all the old parties need to adapt, but that piece, which was of course completely unreadable, seemed to me to be going a bit far even for the comic's mainstream readership. I can't be bothered to look up the author's name but he should be ashamed of himself. Silly little man.
|
|
I think it's more the case that Socialism is dead, rather than the Labour party. Although without the former, then the latter is redundant. Labour only became electable because they moved to the centre of politics. If you have to ditch your policies and steal other's clothing to become electable, then what use is that party to politics. Socialism is great for spending money but less good at explaining how it is generated. One can't keep borrowing, surely even Grauniad readers must accept that.
|
>> I think it's more the case that Socialism is dead, rather than the Labour party.
Me don't tink so comrade.
|
>> Me don't tink so comrade.
Me neither.
|
>> >> I think it's more the case that Socialism is dead, rather than the Labour
>> party.
>>
>> Me don't tink so comrade.
>>
Lots still around...fluffy thoughts and idealism.. The idealism is fine. The fluffy thoughts are on Comment is Free in the Guardian - and the nutters.
|
>> Socialism is
>> great for spending money but less good at explaining how it is generated.
True.
And capitalism alone is very effective at generating wealth and totally* ineffective at sharing it among the people contributing to that generation.
*and I mean totally. The mechanism at its core only works by bearing down continually on costs, including labour, for producers to remain competitive. Trickle down is not a necessary part of the model
|
>> *and I mean totally. The mechanism at its core only works by bearing down continually
>> on costs, including labour, for producers to remain competitive. Trickle down is not a necessary
>> part of the model
Not so. It depends on mass consumerism to buy the product and consumers need money.
|
>>
>> >> *and I mean totally. The mechanism at its core only works by bearing down
>> continually
>> >> on costs, including labour, for producers to remain competitive. Trickle down is not a
>> necessary
>> >> part of the model
>>
>> Not so. It depends on mass consumerism to buy the product and consumers need money.
I knew somebody would say that.
Paying people enough to live on and the spending they do to survive is not trickle down.
It’s only relatively recently that there hasn’t been a majority living at a very basic level. The why, and the possibility that it might return, is probably another discussion.
|
>> Paying people enough to live on and the spending they do to survive is not
>> trickle down.
Nor is it profitable,
|
>>
>> >> Paying people enough to live on and the spending they do to survive is
>> not
>> >> trickle down.
>>
>> Nor is it profitable,
or a growth market.....or command a price premium, in fact you really wouldn't have them as a target market or a business plan.
|
>> >> Paying people enough to live on and the spending they do to survive is
>> not
>> >> trickle down.
>>
>> Nor is it profitable,
>> or a growth market.....or command a price premium, in fact you really wouldn't have them as a target market or a business plan.
I don't understand what you're saying Zero. You may or may not remember the forties and fifties, when life was a hell of a lot thinner than it is now. But thin though it was, there was some surplus and growth was happening. Naturally the proles, of whom I was one in my working life, were kept in the dark as far as possible. They still are of course although they think they know everything these days because they get it off the telly.
|
>> >> >> The Ukraine is not our business. Never has been.
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> When you say 'our' who do you refer to ?
>>
>> In this case the "OUR" would be NATO
>>
The situation is more of a concern for Russia and it's policies (and potenial ones) to it's near neighbours. Many of them are in NATO and collective defence being a cornerstone of NATO itself it is NATO's business as to what Russia does in Ukraine. For example the Baltic states look to the Ukraine and have no wish to be the next country 'saved' by Putin's little green men from Moscow. Poland is of a similar mind, both are increasing defence spending both are in NATO.
|
>> Many of them are in NATO and collective defence being a
>> cornerstone of NATO itself it is NATO's business as to what Russia does in Ukraine.
The Ukraine is not in Nato, so collective defence does not come in to it. As I said, none of our business.
>>For example the Baltic states look to the Ukraine and have no wish to be the next country >>'saved' by Putin's little green men from Moscow. Poland is of a similar mind, both are increasing >>defence spending both are in NATO.
If one of the NATO countries becomes the next to be saved, THEN it becomes our business. Till then we just observe and learn. Nothing to learn tho, Ukraine is typical soviet "salami" tactics and one of the known and practised scenarios. Your typical Sov military thinker and leader is nothing if not predictable.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 23 May 15 at 19:39
|
Like i said these things aren't considered in isolation. The effects of russia's action are NATO's concern by the simple matter of their future action. Watching and learning is still making it our concern. Nor does lack of direct action mean we have no interest in russia's action,in perticular what it might do in the future.
|
It's quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.
|
>> It's quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.
Neville Chamberlain, c. 1938 IIRC.
|
>> >> It's quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.
>>
>> Neville Chamberlain, c. 1938 IIRC.
Ah right! those of who are saying "its nothing to do with us" are whining white feathered defeatist pacifists are we?
Ok, let us assume for one moment, we decide that the Russians have started to invade Ukraine.
You are the PM. What are *you* going to do about it.
|
Why do you assume I do not agree with Mr Chamberlain's sentiments?
"We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analysing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will."
|
The Russians have handled the Crimea business badly, since the Wall came down. It's no doubt perceived as a vital part of Russia's security cordon, and Kruschev's ceding Crimea to the (Soviet Socialist) Republic of Ukraine in the 1950s is presumably seen as symbolic by Russia today - it didn't reduce their security then in any way, and Russia has maintained a fleet at Sevastopol throughout.
Fast forward to 1994 and Russia painted itself into a corner with the Budapest memorandum in which Britain, US and Russia agreed not to attempt to control a now independent Ukraine by military or economic coercion. A weak Russia probably saw that as the best deal it could do.
But a potential enemy backed into a corner isn't particularly good for anybody. Russia in a way has given us all a way out by finding an excuse to assert its authority in Crimea - or would have had we kept our powder dryer.
I would have been looking for a graceful way to let them get on with it - with a focus on face-saving all round. Issuing an ultimatum followed by sanctions to Russia was never going to end gracefully.
Since then it has got further out of hand with political instability and conflict in eastern Ukraine, where there are many more ethnic Russians.
Yet again we might end up having picked sides too early. The mistake was to pick sides at all.
I dare say it's more complicated than that. I'm not an expert.
|
Pretty much spot-on, Manatee.
As a student of history, I thought it was odd that Crimea ended up as part of Ukraine anyway.
There are not only ethnic Russians in Ukraine - I've no doubt there are Russian troops as well. And there's talk of the USA sending people to "train" the Ukraine military.
It's not good. No-one should underestimate Putin, and I have a feeling many politicians in the West are doing just that. The USA has never been good at grasping either what makes "those crazy foreigners" tick, nor the subtleties of foreign policy.
|
Churchill said something like;
"You can depend on the Americans to do the right thing - once they have exhausted all the other options."
|
>> Churchill said something like;
>> "You can depend on the Americans to do the right thing - once they have
>> exhausted all the other options."
>>
Like invading Gallipoli ?
|
I hope this isn't the prelude to an attempted comeback.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32905468
|
|
I can't see it, the Iraq war did not do his reputation any good.
|
He'd make an outstanding brain behind someone else face.
By which i mean is there one candidate who would do and say what Blair pushed?
|
>>the Iraq war did not do his reputation any good.
True, but it did his bank balance a heap of good.
|
Mash: Bacon sandwich eating contest.
goo.gl/cCAvrc
|
>>RACIST!
Because she said she wanted to help white children, or because she said white children needed help?
Or do you really not understand very well?
|
Roger doesn't really understand FMR. He's happy to be thought a genial English reactionary bigot, sort of sending the whole thing up but sort of going along with it too. A jokey heartless approach, not always hilarious of course and sometimes quite genuinely heartless behind the leering and jeering.
Something very English that I've been familiar with all my life. People quail from appearing earnest and this is a lazy way of dealing with it. I certainly do it, so there's no way the rest of you don't.
Not everyone is like me or even you FMR. I doubt that Roger's a bad or distasteful guy in person. Seems to cope here all right and maintain equanimity.
Apologies Rastaman for what is no doubt a caricature.
:o}
|
>> Seems to cope here all right and maintain equanimity.
As an ex-Royal Marine, I should imagine Roger's coped with a lot worse than us lot :)
|
>> By 'eck just imagine the furore and out of context quotes if a UKIP politician
>> had said this.
It's about context Roger.
|
>> >> By 'eck just imagine the furore and out of context quotes if a UKIP
>> politician
>> >> had said this.
>>
>> It's about context Roger.
>>
He is right though, if a UKIP politician stated exactly the same... there'd be a hoo-hah.
|
|
Fair comment, I think the media would be all over it like a tramp on cold chips. Different parties though have a different narritive for the media and from them.
|
>> He is right though, if a UKIP politician stated exactly the same... there'd be a
>> hoo-hah.
A UKIP politician* wouldn't have said exactly the same thing. There would have been an overt statement, or a least a dog whistle, to effect that migrants were to blame.
What she's said mirrors concerns expressed over many years about Afro-Caribbean boys under acheiving. The real issue is socio-economic and has diddly to do with race.
*Carswell might have managed it, the snarling thin skinned & aggressive one probably not. The rest of UKIP's muppet show of spokespeople...........
|
|
I thought you'd disagree, but such is life.
|
"A UKIP politician* wouldn't have said exactly the same thing."
Hello, the senior sniffer is back from his holidays, batteries charged, he's a rarin' to go!
|
>> What she's said mirrors concerns expressed over many years about Afro-Caribbean boys under acheiving. The
>> real issue is socio-economic and has diddly to do with race.
I agree 100%.
But I also think that some people are 'allowed' to state things.. and some are not.
|
>> The
>> real issue is socio-economic and has diddly to do with race.
There is an indirect connection, given the established correlations between 'race' and socio-economic status.
Westpig is right though: some people are possessive about the 'right' to comment on race. The whole question in our country is a mishmash of hints, suggestions, accusations, sidelong glares, etc., and many are keen to gain a specious moral advantage by citing their special experience as underdogs. Some people are perfectly honest about it and some are deplorable humbugs.
|
In our little village where I was born anybody from Holland was classed as a foreigner.We spoke and still do our own dialect.
One thing about UKIP agree or disagree they ruffled plenty of feathers.Geert Wilders is similar in style.The so called freedom party originated from his doctrine.The problem with my countrymen is that they want to complain about everything.They never had much to complain about after the war.
I do think there is a white underclass if I am allowed to say this in the U.K.If this has to do with education or upbringing or morals I don't know.Maybe all of these things.
|
>> I do think there is a white underclass if I am allowed to say this in the U.K.If this has to do with education or upbringing or morals I don't know.Maybe all of these things.
Yes Dutchman.
By far the worst of 'these things' was the destruction of the forward-looking, progressive education system the country had in the forties and fifties under the assault of dumbed-down comprehensivization favoured by educational ideologues in the sixties.
A couple of flagship comprehensives in big towns, and half the rest might as well have been secondary moderns from the bad old days. As a result a whole generation of teachers is or was pompous, ignorant, smug and mischievous, the bad work being maintained in universities too.
|
>> But I also think that some people are 'allowed' to state things.. and some are
>> not.
I don't know about "allowed", but it is certainly easier to suspect some people of something more than it is others. e.g. if Bromp and Roger both made an identical racist statement, I'd be slower to think that Bromp had meant it that way and would be looking to understand.
I wish I could find a video of her speech, but all I can find is quotations, and that makes it more difficult to understand. The lack of outrage suggests that there is more to her statement, although I cannot imagine what.
However, “be doing the best for kids, particularly in white-working class communitiesâ€, seems to be a basically wrong and unacceptable statement.
Why is there a need or the word "white"? Does that mean she won't be helping "black" working class communities? Does it mean she will help them less or second?
Neither does it matter, for the purposes of this discussion, what the true cause is or is not. The issue is what she said.
As far as I can see she shouldn't have said it, and I'd have to think and agree that UKIP would have been jumped on if Farage had said it.
I do wonder why there is not more media outrage.
|
"I do wonder why there is not more media outrage."
It's because a) It ain't UKIP and b) The media are currently preoccupied with Blattergate.
|
>> "be doing the best for kids, particularly in white-working class communities", seems to be a basically wrong and unacceptable statement.
Why? Probably the lady was hoping to redress the balance between black working class communities, which have received special attention and funding over recent years to unghettoize them, and white ones which used to consist of very well-paid industrial and other workers but have suffered during recent economic changes and think they have fallen behind.
It's a difficult point for a politician to address in times like these. 'Race' and 'class' are wriggling cans of worms and dangerous minefields at the same time. Those who do dare to comment need to be articulate, smart and quick on their feet. Flak will come thick and fast from all sides.
|
>> However, “be doing the best for kids, particularly in white-working class communitiesâ€, seems to be
>> a basically wrong and unacceptable statement.
Why?
|
>>Why?
Because...
>> ........particularly in white...
Why prioritise by colour?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 31 May 15 at 19:19
|
>> Why prioritise by colour?
AC at 16:54 helpfully describes the community for whom 'white working class' is shorthand.
At least at this stage in the electoral post mortem the seers are telling us those communities feel Labour has abandoned them. She's trying to show that she's reaching out....
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 31 May 15 at 19:31
|
>> Why prioritise by colour?
>>
Surely the modern way is to deal with people according to their needs... and to work out what those needs are you have to look at people in whatever group is relevant.
|
Labour leadership - Umunna out - No FM2R
