Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest Foxin_mad]

38 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

He’s clearly done none of those things. His words are a matter of public record. Quote him if you want to take issue with what he’s saying.

 

Honestly. I don’t know why clearly intelligent people like yourself come onto a Politics forum simply to repeat the spin of their favourite media moguls, and to toe the party political line of their favourite party.

 

Let me point out the obvious. No-one in the Government or at the Daily Mail Board of Directors actually believes that Corby is “clearly refuses to believe” our intelligence services. No-one believes this. No-one of any intelligence or understanding of parliamentary democracy actually believes this to be true. Not even you.  They manipulate his words to try and undermine his political standing in the country.

 

Why though, anybody who likes to think of themselves as informed about politics feels the need to just repeat this obvious spin is really beyond me.

 

What we should be discussing is the extent to which parliamentary democracy is being undermined by the Media. Why do they so regularly do this? What do they gain by it?

I cant understand why clearly intelligent people are defending Corbyn whichever way you look at it. He should have handled the situation so much better. He has basically been critical in a situation where he did not need to be critical, he brought up the subject of cuts, went off on one about Tory funding, all of which are completely irrelevant when someone has been murdered on British soil. It was all about despicable political point scoring for Corbyn (and his advisors). He could have said he will support the government and would like to see all of the evidence on the table before condemning Russian actions but he went about it the wrong way.

 

Of course to many of his worshippers the man is untouchable. 

 

Its actually frightening that so many can be taken in by one man, and be so loyal to him and not see him as having any faults at all. 

Edited 15 March 2018 by Foxin_mad

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said:

I cant understand why clearly intelligent people are defending Corbyn. He should have handled the situation so much better.

 

Of course to many of his worshippers the man is untouchable. 

 

Its actually frightening that so many can be taken in by one man, and be so loyal to him and not see him as having any faults at all. 

If this matter of chemical weapons is so important to everyone, why are we all banging on about Corbyn?

 

He is just not that important regarding this matter

[Guest Foxin_mad]

5 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

If this matter of chemical weapons is so important to everyone, why are we all banging on about Corbyn?

 

He is just not that important regarding this matter

He should not be talking about cuts in parliament during this time. He should not be bringing up funding during this time but he does because he is a class war warrior. 

 

He should be supporting the government and the house. Of course he wont because he has always been and will always be a left wing militant, who likes to have a different view to everyone else just to justify his existence. 

 

The man has a worrying ego.  He really is despot third world dictator material, if he ever comes to power we may well find out. 

Edited 15 March 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Strokes]

24 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

If this matter of chemical weapons is so important to everyone, why are we all banging on about Corbyn?

 

He is just not that important regarding this matter

When grenfell tower went up, May was getting hammered while the building was still on fire. I don’t think that meant her critics didn’t think it was important.

[Fox Ulike]

39 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

No I'm sticking by my assertion that they don't believe the intelligence services given Seumas Milne's words that they are not currently blaming Russia and that the history of the intelligence services is problematic. Further, given his line of questioning was uncannily the same as Russia's to which an expert in international law says (and the government seems also confident of) comes from a Russian misunderstanding of the law (or likely deliberate misunderstanding). 

 

Even The Guardian today has said "Corbyn's reluctance to share Mrs May's basic analysis of Salisbury made him look eager to exonerate a hostile power", and the New Statesman has hardly been complimentary. It's not just some right-wing media witch hunt of spin again. Almost all of his own MPs stood up and took a dig at him (the traitor Blairites that should be deselected according to Twitter). 

 

At least his shadow defence and shadow foreign secretary are stepping up as you would expect. 

Well, again, you're not quoting anything that Corbyn has actually said in support of your assertions. You're just using the spin as your primary source.

[David Guiza]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

 

On the other hand its ok for the left to call Thatcher a witch, and the numerous derogatory names that are Theresa May or other 'Tory Scum' are called frequently on here. 

 

But Comrade Corbyn can never ever be called out.

 

Personally I think they make the decisions to act the way they do they take the flack for it. I see from this tweet that Corbyn is once again back tracking, has he now seen the evidence he doubted so much?

 

At the end of the day, you don't mess with Russia unless you have very good reason too. 

There is a huge difference between calling Thatcher a turd on a football forum (read by the few posters on the forum whom can stomach the politics thread) and printing out and out lies/curving the truth in a national newspaper (read by millions). One may gain a few rep points and cause an argument between a handful of people, the other has the potential sway thousands of opinions on a subject/person.

 

Of course he can, even in the bit of my post that you quoted I said the word 'some' of the abuse and, as I said in the post, there are plenty of things that he has done/said that should be ridiculed and rightly are. However, the articles that I posted range from embarrassing fabrication to almost libel. I'm all for criticising politicians on their actions, or even pieces about somebody eating a bacon sandwich like a toddler provided the event actually happened. It's the misreporting and lies that are printed that bother me. 

 

The power that both sides, but in particular (in my opinion) the Tories, have over the national media is worrying. You can seemingly only receive two bias sides of a story now and that is not healthy for anyone. It only causes divide, tension and tribalism. You could read articles in Guardian and Telegraph on the same subject and assume that they were reporting on different events. 

 

 

[Fox Ulike]

33 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I cant understand why clearly intelligent people are defending Corbyn whichever way you look at it. He should have handled the situation so much better. He has basically been critical in a situation where he did not need to be critical, he brought up the subject of cuts, went off on one about Tory funding, all of which are completely irrelevant when someone has been murdered on British soil. It was all about despicable political point scoring for Corbyn (and his advisors). He could have said he will support the government and would like to see all of the evidence on the table before condemning Russian actions but he went about it the wrong way.

 

Of course to many of his worshippers the man is untouchable. 

 

Its actually frightening that so many can be taken in by one man, and be so loyal to him and not see him as having any faults at all. 

If you read my posts I think you'll see that i'm not really defending Corbyn. I'm really just asking (as are several others) what the accusation against him actually is.

 

As I said previously, if all you ever read is the spin then you’re just repeating somebody else’s opinion. Go to the Primary Source. What has he actually said that you have taken issue with?

 

As for “being taken in by the man”.  You know, if you’d just  said that “he could have handled it better” I would probably agree. And my opinion of him would be lowered. But what happens is that he’s subjected to these vague and over-the-top bullying and personal attacks by the press and posters on here; and people’s opinion of him actually goes up!

 

 

 

[Guest Kopfkino]

2 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Well, again, you're not quoting anything that Corbyn has actually said in support of your assertions. You're just using the spin as your primary source.

They are the words of his official spokesperson. Forgive me but a spokesperson is "someone engaged or elected to speak on behalf of others". 

[Fox Ulike]

1 minute ago, Kopfkino said:

They are the words of his official spokesperson. Forgive me but a spokesperson is "someone engaged or elected to speak on behalf of others". 

And what are those words?

[Guest Kopfkino]

5 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

And what are those words?

 

The history of the intelligence services is problematic and he refused to accept the Russian state was at fault.

[Beechey]

Gavin Williamson pushing hard for extra defence spending in his speech right now.

 

 

 

Edited 15 March 2018 by Beechey

[Strokes]

8 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Gavin Williamson pushing hard for extra defence spending in his speech right now.

 

 

 

We could commit £350 million a week soon couldn’t we? 

[Beechey]

Just now, Strokes said:

We could commit £350 million a week soon couldn’t we? 

Would just about reverse the defence cuts since 2010

[Fox Ulike]

15 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

The history of the intelligence services is problematic and he refused to accept the Russian state was at fault.

Sigh. I'll do it for you.

 

Speaking to reporters after the statement, Milne said: “There is a history in relation to weapons of mass destruction and intelligence which is problematic, to put it mildly.

“So, I think the right approach is to seek the evidence to follow international treaties, particularly in relation to prohibitive chemical weapons.”

 

Pressed on whether Moscow was being framed, he said the “overwhelming” evidence pointed to either the Russian state being responsible or losing control of the agent. He added: “If the material is from the Soviet period, the break up of the Soviet state led to all sorts of military material ending up in random hands.”

 

The spokesman said that during the “WMD saga” there was “both what was actually produced by the intelligence services, which in the end we had access to, and then there was how that was used in the public domain in politics.

 

“So, there is a history of problems in relation to interpreting that evidence but, in this case, the Government may well have other evidence that we are not aware of.

 

**

 

It's just a reasoned response. Maybe we need a bit of gung-ho posturing that we're got from May. Fair doos. But we also need a bit of reason and judgement too.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

He should not be talking about cuts in parliament during this time. He should not be bringing up funding during this time but he does because he is a class war warrior. 

 

He should be supporting the government and the house. Of course he wont because he has always been and will always be a left wing militant, who likes to have a different view to everyone else just to justify his existence. 

 

The man has a worrying ego.  He really is despot third world dictator material, if he ever comes to power we may well find out. 

During this time? During what time? The Russians have seemingly tried to kill a turned spy and, sickeningly, his whole family. Whilst the use of a nerve agent on British soil is abhorrent and a risk to the public, and should absolutely be dealt with robustly, let's not pretend that it's an act against Britain. It's an act against what Putin sees as a traitor. 

 

That said, I don't think it was wise, necessary or anything else for Corbyn to bang on about the tory links to Russian money straight off the bat. That couldn't been dealt with in a couple of weeks.

 

He doesn't do himself any favours.

[Strokes]

12 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Sigh. I'll do it for you.

 

Speaking to reporters after the statement, Milne said: “There is a history in relation to weapons of mass destruction and intelligence which is problematic, to put it mildly.

“So, I think the right approach is to seek the evidence to follow international treaties, particularly in relation to prohibitive chemical weapons.”

 

Pressed on whether Moscow was being framed, he said the “overwhelming” evidence pointed to either the Russian state being responsible or losing control of the agent. He added: “If the material is from the Soviet period, the break up of the Soviet state led to all sorts of military material ending up in random hands.”

 

The spokesman said that during the “WMD saga” there was “both what was actually produced by the intelligence services, which in the end we had access to, and then there was how that was used in the public domain in politics.

 

“So, there is a history of problems in relation to interpreting that evidence but, in this case, the Government may well have other evidence that we are not aware of.

 

**

 

It's just a reasoned response. Maybe we need a bit of gung-ho posturing that we're got from May. Fair doos. But we also need a bit of reason and judgement too.

I thought you were implicitly against mistrusting experts?

[Guest Kopfkino]

13 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Sigh. I'll do it for you.

 

Speaking to reporters after the statement, Milne said: “There is a history in relation to weapons of mass destruction and intelligence which is problematic, to put it mildly.

“So, I think the right approach is to seek the evidence to follow international treaties, particularly in relation to prohibitive chemical weapons.”

 

Pressed on whether Moscow was being framed, he said the “overwhelming” evidence pointed to either the Russian state being responsible or losing control of the agent. He added: “If the material is from the Soviet period, the break up of the Soviet state led to all sorts of military material ending up in random hands.”

 

The spokesman said that during the “WMD saga” there was “both what was actually produced by the intelligence services, which in the end we had access to, and then there was how that was used in the public domain in politics.

 

“So, there is a history of problems in relation to interpreting that evidence but, in this case, the Government may well have other evidence that we are not aware of.

 

**

 

It's just a reasoned response. Maybe we need a bit of gung-ho posturing that we're got from May. Fair doos. But we also need a bit of reason and judgement too.

 

That's reasoned? Doubting Porton Down because Iraq is reasoned?

And so he doesn't condemn Russia, it was either Russia or it wasn't Russia?

 

 

[Fox Ulike]

9 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

That's reasoned? Doubting Porton Down because Iraq is reasoned?

And so he doesn't condemn Russia, it was either Russia or it wasn't Russia?

 

 

Well now you’re just shifting the ground. Again. Who mentioned Iraq?

 

What Milne said was:

 

There is a history in relation to weapons of mass destruction and intelligence which is problematic, to put it mildly.

 

But you interpreted this as:

 

“The history of the intelligence services is problematic”

 

You’ve just re-arranged his words into a new sentence, so that they mean something that you want them to mean. And you ignore everything that doesn’t fit your own prejudice, eg when he says that the evidence of Russian state involvement is “over-whelming”.

 

Look at how long we’ve taken to discuss this. It’s such a waste of time to discuss things that haven’t actually been said.

[Guest Kopfkino]

Just now, Fox Ulike said:

Well now you’re just shifting the ground. Again. Who mentioned Iraq?

 

What Milne said was:

 

There is a history in relation to weapons of mass destruction and intelligence which is problematic, to put it mildly.

 

But you interpreted this as:

 

“The history of the intelligence services is problematic”

 

You’ve just re-arranged his words into a new sentence, so that they mean something that you want them to mean. And you ignore everything that doesn’t fit your own prejudice, eg when he says that the evidence of Russian state involvement is “over-whelming”.

 

Look at how long we’ve taken to discuss this. It’s such a waste of time to discuss things that haven’t actually been said.

 

Well what else is he referring to?  what other problematic relationship has there been between the intelligence services and WMD? Please tell me how that does not relate to Iraq? "both what was actually produced by the intelligence services, which in the end we had access to, and then there was how that was used in the public domain in politics." That's not Iraq?

 

No he doesn't say the evidence for state involvement is "over-whelming", he says the evidence for either state involvement or loss of control is "over-whelming". So the evidence is that something happened, no shit Sherlock.

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Well now you’re just shifting the ground. Again. Who mentioned Iraq?

 

What Milne said was:

 

There is a history in relation to weapons of mass destruction and intelligence which is problematic, to put it mildly.

 

But you interpreted this as:

 

“The history of the intelligence services is problematic”

 

You’ve just re-arranged his words into a new sentence, so that they mean something that you want them to mean. And you ignore everything that doesn’t fit your own prejudice, eg when he says that the evidence of Russian state involvement is “over-whelming”.

 

Look at how long we’ve taken to discuss this. It’s such a waste of time to discuss things that haven’t actually been said.

Now you are re arranging things

 

[Vardinio'sCat]

3 hours ago, Strokes said:

Really? Its a bit out of character of the French to be backing away from things

 

 

Don't you think it is a bit sad that you are dropping WW2 references.

[Carl the Llama]

Theresa May says it's either an act by the Russian state or a result of their incompetence = good, strong leadership at a time we need it I love you Theresa please have my babies.

 

A Labour spokesman agrees that there's overwhelming proof that it's either an act by the Russian state or a result of their incompetence = he's clearly in bed with Russia and a traitor to our nation it makes me so angry that he could say that.

[Guest Kopfkino]

4 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Theresa May says it's either an act by the Russian state or a result of their incompetence = good, strong leadership at a time we need it I love you Theresa please have my babies.

 

A Labour spokesman agrees that there's overwhelming proof that it's either an act by the Russian state or a result of their incompetence = he's clearly in bed with Russia and a traitor to our nation it makes me so angry that he could say that.

Must try harder, Carl. 2/10.

 

"It was right to offer Russia the opportunity to provide an explanation, but its response has demonstrated complete disdain for the gravity of these events. The Russian Government have provided no credible explanation that could suggest that they lost control of their nerve agent, no explanation as to how this agent came to be used in the United Kingdom, and no explanation as to why Russia has an undeclared chemical weapons programme in contravention of international law. Instead it has treated the use of a military-grade nerve agent in Europe with sarcasm, contempt and defiance.

 

There is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian state was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr Skripal and his daughter, and for threatening the lives of other British citizens in Salisbury, including Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey. This represents an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom."

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

Don't you think it is a bit sad that you are dropping WW2 references.

Not really, I work on Thursdays and Fridays with a native Frenchman and never fail to remind him to bring his white handkerchief just in case and he always asks me if I had beans on toast for tea. I don’t think a bit light humour hurts anyone, if you don’t like it, I’m not sure that matters.

[Vardinio'sCat]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

 

No I'm sticking by my assertion that they don't believe the intelligence services given Seumas Milne's words that they are not currently blaming Russia and that the history of the intelligence services is problematic. Further, given his line of questioning was uncannily the same as Russia's to which an expert in international law says (and the government seems also confident of) comes from a Russian misunderstanding of the law (or likely deliberate misunderstanding). 

 

Even The Guardian today has said "Corbyn's reluctance to share Mrs May's basic analysis of Salisbury made him look eager to exonerate a hostile power", and the New Statesman has hardly been complimentary. It's not just some right-wing media witch hunt of spin again. Almost all of his own MPs stood up and took a dig at him (the traitor Blairites that should be deselected according to Twitter). 

 

At least his shadow defence and shadow foreign secretary are stepping up as you would expect. 

 

Just watched a Prof of European and international relations on Sky News questioning why we have not sent a sample to the Russians, and saying we should act within established political protocols. Our actual initial response felt a bit weak to me, so it is handy for TM to have a bit of storm over what Corbyn said, rather than scrutiny of govt measures. We are in danger of acting alone on this.

 

I'm not Corbyn's biggest fan, and he could have chose a better form of words, but this rush to give him a good kicking when he raised some important points, smacks of a certain political opportunism, from both TM, and  some of his enemies within his party and the media.

 

Now I appreciate you could say the same about his points about the cuts to spending on the diplomats, but that is a relatively small dig compared to implying Corbyn is a traitor to this country, yet again.